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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3ccw9y
|
why would anyone give out a predatory loan? if they know it cannot be paid back why would the loaner be interested in the arrangement?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ccw9y/eli5why_would_anyone_give_out_a_predatory_loan_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csuch1z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are two kinds of predatory loans out there. You're probably talking about the payday type. The loaner is interested because, even if the loan is never paid out, something is going to be paid out. I can offer you $1000 now, with 25% interest due in a week, and I think that you won't be able to pay it back. If you're dumb enough to take that deal, next week you owe me $1250. You only pay back 750. You say \"I'll have the rest next week I promise\". So, you owe $500, add 25% and that's 625. Maybe you manage to pay off the whole thing (this would put you in a minority of people who take these loans). You have now in two weeks paid $1875 for a temporary $1000, and I was out $1000 for a week for a $875 profit. That's not a bad deal for me. \n\nThe other type is characterized by subprime mortgages. It's basically, you give someone a loan that you know you can't afford, and then you go someplace else and you bet a whole bunch of money on your victim defaulting on their mortgage. This double-dealing is what caused the 2007 economic crisis. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2bsyd2
|
Why were Union causalities so large relative to Confederate casualties in the Civil War?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2bsyd2/why_were_union_causalities_so_large_relative_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj8oudn"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"First of all a lot of times, CSA casualties were under reported. One example is from the battle of Cedar Mountain in Aug 1862, and I think Jackson reported 3 missing. this after an all day battle where several brigades were routed. I think a similar example is at South Mountain, Sept '62. CSA casaulties usually listed at about 1600 but they had units like Ripley's brigade that seems to have been driven down the other side of the mountain and lots of troops must have gone missing. Because Ripley's troops really dont show up at the battle of Antietam 2 days later. In the 7 Days campaign, CSA numbers seem to be under reported; there is a fellow name of Dave Powell who has done a lot of research on that campaign and I think this is published somewhere. \n\nNumbers for the 1864 battles of Spotsylvania and Wilderness seem awfully suspicious to me. At Wilderness both sides were fighting in close, the tactics were similar, both sides dug in, both had similar weapons, and similar quality of soldiers. There was no great flanking maneuvers or some some such and yet some reports give the south as losing merely 9,000 vs about double for the north. It is suspicious and there is now way to figure it out systematically, the under reporting is probably there and hard to really say how much. \n\nCSA wounded lists were also done in a different way; I think they only listed those disabled by wounds. In any event there seems to be a different reporting system. As an example you can look at the numbers Douglas S Freeman (Lee's Lieutenants) gives for Gettysburg losses and I think it amounts to 15,000 wounded and 20,500 total. You can look at other sources you will see higher numbers, usually 28,000+. I myself have seen union reports indicate they captured 7,000 wounded and 6,000 unwounded soldiers, which if they had 4000 KIA, and say 20,000 wounded, the actual number of casaulties at Gettysburg might reach 30,000. Chickamauga is another battle where this time the south was mainly on the offensive and report about 20,000 vs 18,500 union, the numbers could be higher. Island Number 10; March '62 CSA captured differ significantly from union reports, probably owing to last minute reinforcement of the garrison. These are just some examples. \n\nOftentimes there is a 5:1 ratio of wounded to killed in action in these battles and sometimes you can see the numbers do not match up. Other times, you have to account for circumstances, if one side had to leave a battlefield quickly perhaps more numbers will be reported missing. So its' not a firm rule, just a guide. \n\nBUt not to overemphasize, yes the union did lose more troops. Primarily in my opinion because the union was generally on the offensive, and they were generally in enemy land; where the south could defend their position and often have advance word of when/where the union troops were approaching. The south had several advantages in most battles because of this. Just look at how inept the south looks when they go on the offensive, Gettysburg is Army of No Virginia's first large scale defeat in about year. Antietam, while tactically a draw could have turned into a disaster if MacClellan had acted quickly as Lee's troops were dispersed and ripe for picking. Southern armies operated no better than northern when they went on the offensive in enemy territory. \n\nFinally, the issue of disease in camps always comes up; and in fact the union had many more troops in the ranks than the south. Numbers are hard to estimate, I would estimate about 850,000 southern troops served for significant amount of time. Maybe 2 million northern troops. So death by illness would have to be larger on the northern side. That is about the best ideas I can give you. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1rkkss
|
Can anyone explain to me why the average US citizen views the French Military as weak and insignificant?
|
After listening to Dan Carlin's latest Hardcore History podcast (Blueprint to Armageddon) I came away with a new respect for the French Military. My question may seem silly from the outset however I am sincerely looking for intelligent responses. Listening to the podcast I learned that during WWI the French military is considered to be the second best on the entire planet. How does such a significant Military might get the reputation it has today of being considered weak. Either our education system is skewed (which I'm sure plays a significant role) or there is some other reason that occurs after WWI leading into current day that I'm just not aware of yet. I am dying to know what people think about this subject.
EDIT: Thanks for all the good info so far. Very interesting stuff.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rkkss/can_anyone_explain_to_me_why_the_average_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdo5wc9"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"The biggest thing that feeds this is everything that has happened to the French since WW1. They got hammered by Germany in WW2. They got booted out of Algeria and Indochina after long, bloody fights against insurgents in the 50's and 60's. Like other European nations they have shrunk their military since the end of the cold war, shifting tax revenues away from the military and towards paying for their social welfare state to the point they can't really project force any more. This was made apparent during the 2011 intervention in Libya, when a NATO coalition led by France and Italy could not sustain operations in Libya without US assistance despite their close proximity to Libya. You also have France's history with NATO to consider. The French were not really known for playing ball with other NATO members, so to speak. From the French perspective this was an assertion of their independence, and national prerogative to make decisions on their own behalf and not be bound to group decisions made by other nations, but many leaders in other NATO countries considered this an excuse to shirk from the shared task of defending themselves from the threat of Soviet aggression.\n\n Any military historian is familiar with France's long and proud military tradition, but they have gotten a very bad rap in the last 75 years, partly because of bad luck, and partly because of lack of performance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8a25kz
|
when riding a bike, why does turning your ear towards the wind make it more quiet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8a25kz/eli5_when_riding_a_bike_why_does_turning_your_ear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwv8xep",
"dwznxn5"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"It forms a pocket of pressurized air that other air flows around, stopping turbulent air from making your eardrum vibrate.",
"Here. Get a (empty preferred, but a bit of water at the bottom is fine) water bottle with a small opening. Now blow across it. You will likely hear a loud whooshing sound. Now blow directly into it from the top. Nothing, right? That's pretty much what's happening when you turn your ear toward the wind, except sideways. Blowing across the bottle hole (ear canal) causes the now trapped air to vibrate instead of move, which produces sound. Blowing into it pushes the air out/forms a slight pressurized area inside the bottle/ear canal rather than vibrating."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3scipe
|
why is 1/sin(x) called cosecant and not secant?
|
To me it would make for sense for sin and secant to match up instead of sin and cosecant.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3scipe/eli5_why_is_1sinx_called_cosecant_and_not_secant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwvzljf"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"A right triangle has one 90 degree angle and two other angles. These angles are *complements* of one another (i.e., they add up to 90 degrees). The *co-* in *cosine* means that the function is the *sine of the complementary angle*. The *secant* gets its name from the fact that the line you draw to calculate this value geometrically *cuts across* the circle... like in the words section, dissect, vivisection, etc. Basically, there were separate sine, secant, and tangent functions before people thought of the convention of adding co- to denote the complementary function."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2v4kek
|
Is there a temperature that is too cold for a computer to run?
|
I was just pondering this subject and I couldn't figure out if a computer would shut down, like when it overheats, but due to it being too cold.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2v4kek/is_there_a_temperature_that_is_too_cold_for_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coefgec",
"coeshue",
"coevqth"
],
"score": [
20,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"The chips will have a minimum temperature rating, typically either -25C (248K) or -40C (233K). (As an example, the Intel Atom E3805 is -40C). \n\nBut there is an actual threshold below which SiGe (Silicon Germanium) transistors are not viable, which is between 40K and 100K depending on the exact transistor type.\n\nThe main reason the generic chips from Intel and most other semiconductor vendors is rated only to -40C (233K) is the rated tolerance on various parameters. For example, the Atom E3805 is rated for 1.33GHz at room temperature (298K, 25C), but would probably be derated to maybe 1.1 GHz at -55C. (The exact number is speculation)\n\nAlso, chips like the Atom E3805 have ceramic capacitors mounted to the die. These caps also have a temperature limit due to their chemical construction and fall off sharply when you get too hot or too cold. This affects the stability of various subsystems in the chip.\n\nInteresting link: _URL_0_",
"I haven't checked numbers, but the thermal expansion coefficients for the materials in a chip/device vary. If the temperature change is large enough significant internal stresses could develop. Those stresses could physically separate portions of the chip from each other.\n\nHere's an example paper that talks about the issue:\n_URL_0_\n",
"Yes there is, and people trying to overclock on liquid nitrogen can hit this limit. It varies by individual processor. Silicon ceases to be semiconducting at -230C, and most processors (Intel 22nm at least) will boot at -140C. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.extremetemperatureelectronics.com/"
],
[
"http://www.innovationsinoptics.com/downloadable/IOI_WhitePaper_Thermal_Stress_LED_Mounts.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
enl2yv
|
How does the diameter of a particle accelerator influence its function? Is bigger always better, and if so, why?
|
Looking over the history of particle accelerators, as they advanced, they seem to get bigger and bigger. What precisely does the extra size afford the accelerator? Aren't the particles being accelerated incredibly tiny sub-atomic particles? Beyond a certain sufficient size to support the needed equipment, why would it be necessary to make them ever larger? Why isn't it sufficient to just increase the power of existing accelerators?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/enl2yv/how_does_the_diameter_of_a_particle_accelerator/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fe2elcn",
"fe2gjo8"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The momentum per unit charge of the beam particles on the central orbit is equal to the product of the bending magnetic field and the radius of curvature of the accelerator.\n\nUsually the magnetic field strengths are limited by what magnets can be built. So for a given field strength, if you want a higher-energy beam, you need a larger radius.",
"A larger system can accelerate particles with higher and higher energy, so the collision occurs far more dramatically and the results of ever more exotic and energetic collisions that happen off-earth can be studied.\n\nAs the energy requirements for the particles go up, so does the size of the detectors, as they have to be physically bigger in order to detect higher-energy (and faster moving) resultant particles being given off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
74modf
|
how does the police choose what cars to use as patrol cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/74modf/eli5_how_does_the_police_choose_what_cars_to_use/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnzjb45",
"dnzjn9s",
"dnzmum5",
"dnznmpi",
"dnzupo1",
"do02dtz",
"do04gqa"
],
"score": [
3,
21,
263,
55,
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Usually the same as how any other large business makes expensive purchases. \n\nThe determine what they need, they put it out for tender. Companies reply with offers, they accept the most appealing offer. The company delivers the product. ",
"It's a bit interesting for the police because they want both:\nCheap cars to drive around in neighborhoods without looking like they're trying to intimidate anyone, and\npowerful cars that can get places quickly and chase criminals.\nThey usually pick rather \"generic\" looking cars and just fit bigger, more powerful engines for the latter role.",
"I asked my father in law who was a retired lieutenant in a good sized department.\n\n1. Safety. Car accidents are the #1 cause of death for officers\n\n2. Space, they have a lot of gear and need seats big enough to get in and out with their vest and belt on, also a rear seat big enough to carry anybody that needs a ride.\n\n3. Speed/handling popular police cars (almost all American) have \"police packages\" from the factory. They may have more horsepower, stiffer suspension, a pushbar front bumper. The only time I remember departments going with foreign made vehicles was BMW motorcycles and that was because BMW covered maintenance. ",
"At least in Spain, usually the city council launches like a public contest (just really don't know the exact word) where they announce the requirements all the contestants need to meet, how much money will they spend, number of cars needed, in how much time will they need them, etc. They launch this for like 2 months for example.\n\nIn those 2 months different car makers appeal with their different models in which they can meet all the requirements.\n\nWhen it finishes, the city council decides and chooses the one that meets all the requirements and is cheaper. ",
"First off, there are only a handful of models that car makers have created specific police versions for... currently, Ford makes versions of the Taurus and Explorer for police use. Chevy has a fleet-only Caprice model and also a version of the Tahoe. Dodge offer a Charger.\n\nThese models are all able to offer what police are looking for -- they generally want a larger sedan or SUV with upgraded engines, suspensions, space for gear, wiring for the additional electronics/communications, room to install a safety barrier between front and back seats, easy and cheap to repair. \n\nTypically, the forces would put out requests for bids, specifying what they are looking for a getting bid to provide that... ie. they want 10 cars a year for next 5 years, with X, Y, Z features.\n\nIn the case of Chicago, our city specifically went with the Ford models during the last contract because those models are made here in Chicago so it's supporting local jobs/workers.",
"Depends on department and needs. Reliability and maintance play a big roll. Crown vics were loved because parts were cheap, car was big and very reliable. Hp isnt really a thing with police cars. Its more can they stop and can they stop really hard over and over again without wearing brakes quickly. These cars take a ton of abuse. Climbing curbs being pushed to limits. Not only that they need to be able to idle long periods of time and run all day. Crown vics were great at this. When power was out hear in Florida for a week due to hurricane Irma. They used crown vic police cars to power major intersection stop lights. When ford announced they were ending production they had to keep the factory open longer than intended to accomodate all the orders that flooded in from police departments. Tahoe has become popular in my area because of its durability and it's size. ",
"We’re not lucky enough this side of the pond to have Police spec cars for our normal run of the mill cars. We’ll normally have something like a Ford Focus, Vauxhall Astra, or a generic family size hatchback with an engine less than 2.0. We are now going over to BMW 2 series however. \n\nA lot of the time it is due to cost. However, sometimes it is due to the public perceptions and having existing contracts. For instance, we were offered a BMW fleet for a very good price. However, we would have had to change our maintenance contract as BMW would have wanted the servicing, and because they were concerned what he public would think if we were all driving around in BMWs. Hence we ended up with Hyundai i30s for a while, which are dreadful cars and completely unsuited. \n\nSpecialised units will have more specialised cars, with traffic having big Volvos or BMW estates because of the kit they carry, with armed Response having BMW X5s, again because of the weight of kit. \n\nAlso, we have completely different roads over here. As much as I’d want one, a Crown Vic isn’t suitable for a lot of our towns and cities. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6krsgm
|
why was las vegas built in such miserable heat?
|
I just find it strange to built such a large and well known city in the desert where it can be as hot at 120°.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6krsgm/eli5_why_was_las_vegas_built_in_such_miserable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djobb5s",
"djobxcj",
"djocvew"
],
"score": [
20,
4,
36
],
"text": [
"The location was chosen for several reasons:\n\n- It's a bit of a grassy oasis compared to the surrounding land. \"Las vegas\" actually means the fertile grassy valleys.\n- It's on a major road from Los Angeles.\n- It's near a major hydroelectric dam, so plenty of electricity.\n- It's far enough away from the next city so there was very little enforcement of minor laws or moral traditions, so they were able to set up gambling and other naughty stuff without being stopped.",
"Back in the early 20th century there was a huge governmental push for the settling of the west. This included California, Arizona, Nevada, etc. They basically paid and subsidized for the enormously expensive water infrastructure that was needed due to the prohibitive climate. Then investors and groups of people came in because land was so cheap it was basically free and water was provided for. We built a ton of dams in those days and it's the reason we still farm in areas where we lose a ton of water to evaporation.",
"Las Vegas was a water stop on the Old Spanish Trail. The springs (which fed the meadows) created a rare oasis, and a pleasant one. For much of the year, Las Vegas has beautiful weather: mild sunny days, cool nights. That was traveling time.\n\nThe Old Spanish Trail connected the Pacific Coast ports with Santa Fe, the inland-northern top of Spain/Mexico's North American empire. It was a treacherous road west over the Mojave Desert, and Las Vegas was a full-service wagon-road stop. When railroads connected Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, Las Vegas was a natural place for a railway town with all the services rail travelers needed.\n\nBecause Arizona choose poorly in the Civil War, the area that is now Las Vegas in Clark County, NV, was taken from the northwest tip of Arizona. And that proximity to Los Angeles during the economic boom of the post-WWII era made it acceptably close to Los Angeles for a weekend of Sinatra and Ann Margaret and gambling over martinis.\n\n—Former Nevadan here. (And one who greatly enjoyed the state's history!) "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cd8ps7
|
why is mercury poisonous? what exactly is it doing to the body, and why can it not be resisted?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cd8ps7/eli5_why_is_mercury_poisonous_what_exactly_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etsbwlb",
"etteskx",
"etti5i9",
"ettipio",
"ettj5h5"
],
"score": [
333,
8,
12,
4,
31
],
"text": [
"TLDR: It prevents your cells from repairing themselves from everyday damage, and it's very hard to flush out of your system.\n\nMercury like many other toxic heavy metals accumulates in your body over time. Your body has a difficult time flushing it out so even if the source of Mercury poisoning is small, if it persists then it will accumulate over time, possibly reaching poisonous levels.\n\nNo amount of Mercury is considered safe (The background level in humans is zero, so ideally you should avoid exposure) but you can have a certain amount of Mercury in your system without any ill effects. Which is why you are able to safely consume certain fish like Tuna that naturally have tiny amounts of Mercury in the meat.\n\nMercury is not a disease and therefore your immune system doesn't fight against it. Your body has to rely on organs like the liver and kidneys to flush the toxin out, but it happens that our bodies aren't really good at that so it takes a long time to flush mercury out.\n\nMercury poisoning can cause a variety of problems including muscle weakness, hair and nail loss, kidney dysfunction, etc but is most well known for causing neurological problems including memory loss, difficulty sleeping, and in bad cases insanity.\n\nMercury causes damage in various ways, but one of the most significant is it prevents your cells from repairing themselves from oxidization damage which constantly occurs by our bodies nature. Since the brain uses more oxygen by mass than any other part of your body, the damage to the brain is most severe.",
"I can’t answer your question, but “The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements” is a fascinating book on how the elements were discovered and worth a read if the topic interests you.",
"Elements come in different oxidation states (Number of protons - Number of electrons). When Mercury lacks two electrons (Hg^(2+)), it gets confused with other metals like Magnesium (Mg^(2+)) by certain proteins that usually contain Magnesium. These proteins incorporate Hg instead, which renders them useless. Since Hg stays in your body this process continues even after the useless protein got destroyed by the cell. Hg just slips into another comfy pocket of a protein. \n\n\nThat's why Hg^(2+) is poisonous.",
"Elemental mercury is actually fairly nonreactive and does not cause much damage if ingested (orally) it's been used in fillings like gold. Other metals can also be fairly toxic in different oxidative states, even gold for example. It is mercury cations and mercury containing compound like dimethyl mercury as well as mercury vapour that cause major damage and accumulate in parts of the body where other elements would naturally be, messing up the chemistry of the body causing proteins to function incorrectly, resulting in brain damage among other problems that will eventually result in death if they are left untreated and continue to accumulate in the body, since we have a hard time excreting certain heavy metals once they form compounds within the body. Chelation therapy is the main treatment for heavy metal poisoning.",
"Our bodies have lots of tiny, tiny machines inside our cells. These machines often have a bit of metal in them, which they use to do their jobs. \n\nFor example, there's something called Haemoglobin in your blood. This has a tiny piece of iron at its centre. It uses this iron to latch on to oxygen and carry it around.\n\nOther machines use different metals, and do different things. The metal Selenium is used in a machine (an 'enzyme') that helps us use vitamins C and E, for example.\n\nThe metals that these machines use have specific properties. Generally, they're able to latch onto things in one environment, and let go of them in others. Iron can latch on to oxygen in your lungs, where there's lots of it, and let go of it in your muscles, where there's very little. This is why each machine needs very specific metals to do specific jobs. \n\nHeavy metals like Mercury and Arsenic are dangerous because they can replace useful metals like Iron and Selenium in these machines. This is irreversible - once Mercury manages to replace Selenium in a machine, there's no removing it. The whole machine has to be scrapped. And since our bodies aren't very good at getting rid of Mercury, scrapping the machine will often just free up the mercury to go ruin another machine. The result is that if you have too much mercury in your body, a bunch of the machines that keep you healthy will just stop working.\n\nWe treat this with something called 'chelation'. This involves a medicine that is really good at trapping mercury and holding onto it. This means that instead of lodging into our machines, the Mercury lodges into the medicine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3e3lp3
|
scientifically speaking, what is the most widely believed theory of who the very first humans were and how they came to be?
|
This issue has always confused me because there are of course so many different theories. I attended a Church of England school, which is Christian, for anyone who isn't familiar. We're not a religious family, it was just a good school. They taught creationism, unsurprisingly. I am completely agnostic. But I definitely believe in science. But I've never really understood where science is at with this topic and have heard so many different things. I'd appreciate any insight! Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e3lp3/eli5_scientifically_speaking_what_is_the_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctb5j8r",
"ctb5lmc",
"ctb5x0j",
"ctb6bzf"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"My non-scientist understanding:\n\nLike all life on earth, humans evolved from earlier species through natural selection as well as random genetic mutation. The first anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged in Africa about 200,000 years ago, although other hominid species had been around for millions of years. \n\nMost scientists believe that humans migrated out of Africa and across the Eurasian (and eventually North/South American) continent in several waves, and that each migrant population interbred with other hominid species (e.g., the Neanderthals) to varying degrees.",
"Not answering your question, but I am surprised they taught creationism as fact. I went to private catholic schools (in Honolulu where like 50% of everybody does as the public schools are shit) from grades K-9^th, and was never taught creationism as fact (just as what the Bible says), we were taught evolution in science class. I am Catholic (far from a die-hard though) and even my pastor (when I go, which is rarely) says that the Bible is not a history book, the Pope even allows Catholics to believe in evolution and the Big Bang, just so long as believing that God is still responsible. ",
"The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and no theory in the last 200 years comes close to answering our origins. The evidence for being magically created out of thin air and talking snakes is pretty thin on the ground.",
"The first Humans began in Africa ~2.5 Million years back when most of Africa was mostly lush Jungle, but around that time, Africa's Jungles began to shrink and dwindle into grassland as a sudden worldwide climate change began. \n\nWith less trees for Monkey's to swing to and from, some began to trek amongst the ground to get to the next available outcrop of trees. Usually for food. It is here were Humans got their start in evolution to Modern Man. Over the next few hundred Thousand years, the Jungles shrunk further till only grassland was left, and the lack of food and suitable habitation forced early Prehistoric man to trek northward and colonize Europe, Asia, the Polynesian Islands, Australia, and over the frozen Bearing Straight (during the Ice Age) into the Americas. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
80rgx0
|
Illnesses like cancer and Alzheimer's are surrounded by a stigma of being incurable/immune, and have been for a long time; have any historical diseases (e.g. Polio, Measles) been considered in a similar way? When the cures were developed, was it sudden/unexpected?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/80rgx0/illnesses_like_cancer_and_alzheimers_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duyxeu4",
"duz8115",
"duzl14c",
"duzv1qb",
"dv1glua"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you don't get an answer here, you can try /r/askhistorians, /r/historyofscience, /r/historyofideas, or /r/historyofmedicine",
"It's tricky to quantify a stigma like that, since people are still working on cures for both, but I think HIV/AIDS might fit here.\n\nFor a while, people really thought that the disease was a death sentence, and likely to remain that way, and we've made remarkable progress in the past 20 years. \n\nSome of that was probably undue pessimism, from people unaware of promising efforts which had not yet borne fruit.",
"Bacterial infections were a huge cause of deaths in wars and, we all know the penicillin story, antibiotics were a sudden discovery. They were kind of giving up by the time they actually discovered penicillin. A lot of diseases that we cannot figure out how to cure today have pretty intricate mechanisms relative to polio/measles. HIV is super interesting in how it works so I encourage you to research it a bit and Alzheimer's is extremely complex and hard to research. I don't think there is a stigma that any disease or illness is incurable, probably the number one issue today with cures is being able to efficiently reach only the target we want with the \"medication\". It would be infinitely easier if we could program extremely small robots to go where we want and apply whatever treatment.",
"Those diseases are very rampant/common, but there are examples of what you are talking about in more rare genetic disorders and things. It's also kind of complicated, but in some cases (like HIV mentioned below) we can't actually cure the disease but it's no longer considered a death sentence. A great example of this is actually diabetes. Today, it's still a major killer and we can't cure it. But nowadays you can take an insulin shot to treat it. 100 years ago (insulin was discovered as a treatment in 1922), you would probably drop dead within a couple years. Now people can live for decades after diagnosis.\n\nThere are definitely plenty of less stigmatized diseases that are far rarer but they often don't have a huge society wide impact. One example that did is phenylketonuria, a disorder in which your body is unable to breakdown the amino acid, phenylalanine, effectively. Before the disease was understood nearly everyone that inherited it would be severely disabled. There's still no cure, but it has an almost unbelievably obvious treatment - eat less food with phenylalanine in it. It was the first disease to become routinely screened for in newborns, as immediately monitoring diet (for life, which admittedly sucks) can have profound impacts, so I would say that discovering the treatment drastically changed the world.\n\nEDIT: Edited to add, the diseases you're talking about are a little different because they're caused by pathogens - this means our immune system can fight them off, so they're never really a \"death sentence\" in the same way diseases like Alzheimer's or MS are. Some have historically been terrible - eg, before the smallpox vaccine it was one of the biggest killers in the world; as many as 300 million died to it in the 20th century. It's been eradicated since the last known case in 1977 so that's a huge change. Something like polio wasn't really on the same level - in the very severe cases it caused childhood paralysis or left people in the iron lung, but most people just got flu-like symptoms and then recovered perfectly fine.",
"It is much easier to cure, or at least understand, a disease when it is because of a relatively consistent agent outside the body. Individual vaccines need to be made for different diseases, but the principle of a vaccine applies to many viruses. The diseases you listed are different in that they are caused by the host themselves due to protein misfolding or individual genetic mutations. The disease cause then is highly individualized and/or difficult to combat without adversely affecting the host. So are countless types of cancer that all respond to different variables and that originate in specific tissues. Aids is different because it perpetuates using the cells that are typically used to fight it.\n\nTldr: most people can fit the average shoe for their size. Others need special orthopedics, dimensions, or may not have feet at all. The same principle applies to disease. It's about finding a treatment (shoe) that fits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
kcffh
|
why the japanese confuse "l" and "r."
|
It's been a joke for a long time, but all the articles I found were hardcore linguistics.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kcffh/eli5_why_the_japanese_confuse_l_and_r/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2j54m0",
"c2j561t",
"c2j5bv3",
"c2j5hd2",
"c2j54m0",
"c2j561t",
"c2j5bv3",
"c2j5hd2"
],
"score": [
19,
6,
7,
2,
19,
6,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"A human vocal system can make a huge variety of sounds. Each language only uses certain number of those sounds. Once a person is past a certain age, it is hard for them to learn sounds that aren't a part of the language that they grew up speaking. \n\nJapanese doesn't have separate sounds for the letters L and R. The sound for R is the closest one they have to the sound for L. When they try to say an English word with an L sounds, they closest one they can think of is R. ",
"The difference between an \"l\" and an \"r\" is in where you put the tip of your tongue while vibrating your vocal cords. In Japan they don't use this distinction. They'll make one sound (phoneme) with the same vocal cord vibration, but the tongue tip just moves up and down, not forward+up vs. backward+up. Since they don't have to learn this distinction as kids, there is some possibility that they may not even hear the distinction. I'm not sure about that part though.\n\nI note that last part about not hearing it because, in a close analogy, Mandarin Chinese has (I believe) at least one \"s\" sound that English does not. (Imagine trying to make a SH sound but with your tongue pulled back. I think that's it.) I tried to learn basic Chinese phonetics once and had a hard time even hearing the differences that seemed obvious to native Chinese speakers.",
"Simply put, there is no l in Japanese, and the sound they use for r is somewhere in between l and r.\n\nAs an analogy, English doesn't care about aspiration (e.g. the difference between khan and kan), so English speakers learning a language that observes this difference (Chinese or Hindi) sometimes confuse them.",
"They don't confuse it. The L is not really part of the language and so it gets mispronounced. It is not as common as it once was. I know a ton of Japanese people all under the age 35 and none of them mispronounce L. ",
"A human vocal system can make a huge variety of sounds. Each language only uses certain number of those sounds. Once a person is past a certain age, it is hard for them to learn sounds that aren't a part of the language that they grew up speaking. \n\nJapanese doesn't have separate sounds for the letters L and R. The sound for R is the closest one they have to the sound for L. When they try to say an English word with an L sounds, they closest one they can think of is R. ",
"The difference between an \"l\" and an \"r\" is in where you put the tip of your tongue while vibrating your vocal cords. In Japan they don't use this distinction. They'll make one sound (phoneme) with the same vocal cord vibration, but the tongue tip just moves up and down, not forward+up vs. backward+up. Since they don't have to learn this distinction as kids, there is some possibility that they may not even hear the distinction. I'm not sure about that part though.\n\nI note that last part about not hearing it because, in a close analogy, Mandarin Chinese has (I believe) at least one \"s\" sound that English does not. (Imagine trying to make a SH sound but with your tongue pulled back. I think that's it.) I tried to learn basic Chinese phonetics once and had a hard time even hearing the differences that seemed obvious to native Chinese speakers.",
"Simply put, there is no l in Japanese, and the sound they use for r is somewhere in between l and r.\n\nAs an analogy, English doesn't care about aspiration (e.g. the difference between khan and kan), so English speakers learning a language that observes this difference (Chinese or Hindi) sometimes confuse them.",
"They don't confuse it. The L is not really part of the language and so it gets mispronounced. It is not as common as it once was. I know a ton of Japanese people all under the age 35 and none of them mispronounce L. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2m6tcq
|
how do off brands like great value make money?
|
I'm sitting here eating Great Value Apple Jacks, which are clearly just renamed to Apple Crisps, as with other brands that are just renamed to something similar from Great Value. How do off brand companies make money off of renaming groceries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m6tcq/eli5_how_do_off_brands_like_great_value_make_money/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm1f7v1",
"cm1fb41",
"cm1fqaj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They're still charging more than the cost of making the product. By doing their packaging and branding \"in house,\" they save a lot of money in manufacturing, allowing them to lower the price",
"Typically off brands use less expensive ingredients than name brands, or in different ratios to reduce cost. For example, Dannon yogurt and Great Value yogurt are almost identical, even made in the same place, but Dannon uses a higher quality milk.",
"There's also the cost of advertising. Store brands spend no money on advertising and since their product shares shelf space with name brand items they get visibility just by being in proximity with the name brand items."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
26t82q
|
Why didn't the Soviets keep Germany for themselves?
|
Right after World War II, after the Russians had rolled over the Germans, why didn't they give Germany back to the Germans? Didn't they want to have as much land and power as possible?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26t82q/why_didnt_the_soviets_keep_germany_for_themselves/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chu9kbx",
"chubi74"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"During the war, Russia was aligned with Britain, France, and the United States (Allies). You're right to say that the Russians rolled over the Germans, but they actually did get to occupy a big piece of Germany. At the [Yalta Conference](_URL_0_), the Allies had to agree on several post-war conflicts of interest. Russia was communist and the other three allies weren't, but they tried to divide up Germany equally. [Here is a map](_URL_1_) of the division of Germany. Berlin was also divided, which is where the Berlin Wall was built by Soviets. (Austria and Vienna were divided for occupation as well.) \nDeutsche Wiedervereinigung (German Reunification) happened in 1990 when West Germany and East Germany became united. ",
"A distinction needs to be made in this case between outright annexation and control or \"keeping\" East Germany to themselves. To a great extent, the Soviets did keep Germany for themselves but they did so without annexation. The Western Allies took the lion's share of German territory while the Soviets took all of Eastern Germany, both parties occupied for years. The difference is that the Soviets put a puppet regime in place while the Western Allies did not. \n\nLand does not necessarily equate to power in geopolitics. The power politics of the Cold War emphasized influence. The Soviets liked to install puppet regimes who were nominally Socialist while the Allies had different ways of going about acquiring influence. The Soviets did something very different than the Allies (here on out please see \"Allies\" as \"western Allies\"), they did try to make East Germany into a far weaker state than it had been in the past. The Soviets packed up all the industry they could get their hands on and every bit that was useful to the U.S.S.R. and shipped it East. The Allies on the other hand realized rather quickly that they needed a buffer against the Soviet's and started helping West Germany get back on its feet with measures such as Marshall Plan. \n\nThe Soviets wanted buffer states against the West too, both side knew that direct confrontation between American and Soviet soldiers would be hard to back down from so they tried to minimize contact by creating buffer states or satellite states. Before reaching the U.S.S.R. the Allies would have to cross East Germany and Poland which meant contact between armed forces was nearly impossible unless that was the express goal.\n\nThe Soviets, after the war, left with East Germany's industry and still had the largest and most powerful army in the world and that is how power was quantified at the end of the war. It did not need to \"own\" Germany outright, it needed Germany cowed. Which is exactly what they got. \n\nThey could point at East Germany and say they had another ally, a far more important thing for the Soviets than extra land. It's also important to note that the post-war status of Europe had largely been decided at Yalta, including what would happen to German industry, the Allies simply realized that what they had agreed to do with Germany was not in their best interest so they backpedaled. Not that it really mattered because the Soviets did have troops stationed in East Germany. They had control over what they had taken during the war entirely, they did not need to annexe East Germany to make that clear. \n\nPrimary sources used were *Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1945-1956* by Anne Applebaum and some information from *The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the K.G.B.* by Andrews and Mitrokhin. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference",
"http://www.theworldorbust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Map-of-East-and-West-Germany-with-a-seprate-map-for-Berlin.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
22so75
|
What would I see if I managed to cross the event horizon of black hole? Is there an area between the singularity in the center and the event horizon where objects can still exist?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22so75/what_would_i_see_if_i_managed_to_cross_the_event/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgqlwxe",
"cgqmopa"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on the mass of the black hole. Supermassive black holes, like the one at the centre of our galaxy, 'stretch' objects less after passing the Schwarzschild radius, and so one could potentially survive passing the event horizon. As the Schwarzschild radius gets closer to the centre of the black hole, as in less massive black holes, the tidal forces become stronger at the event horizon, really small black holes would rip you apart before you even reached the event horizon. ",
"Unfortunately where there are mathematical models that can predict what might occur, all we can do is guess as to \"what\" is in there, anything from absolutely, to absolutely not, to it's a self contained universe with time flowing towards the singularity. There is no one answer to this question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2n2sv9
|
if nothing existed before the big bang, how was the subatomic particle able to create the universe?
|
How did it even get there?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n2sv9/eli5_if_nothing_existed_before_the_big_bang_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm9sjsn",
"cm9svoe",
"cma1k49"
],
"score": [
7,
15,
3
],
"text": [
"This is a very common misconception as we don't say that nothing existed prior to the big bang, no scientist at least says that. We say we don't know what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang and for all we know is that unknown thing it is still there. \n\nThere are a plethora of theories as to what the pre universe was. \n\nMy personal favorite theory is that this universe was caused by the heat death and collapse of an older universe in an endless stream of recycling of subatomic particles. The validity is up for debate but this theory appeals to me. This previous universe would represent the possibilities that present themselves within the laws of physics. Comically this theory is oft represented in futurama.\n\nMy favorite is also a strain of multiverse theory that all things within the laws of physics do happen but not all at once. This theory states the universe is a never ending stream of cause and effect which shapes the next universe. My personal preferences really doesn't amount to a hill of beans in reality beyond of course what I chose to use as an example when talking about the multitude of theories out there.\n\nEdit: I called the big bang the big bag lol\n",
"The usage of \"before\" in your question suggests our understanding of time extends to the moment of the big bang.\nOur understanding of how time works breaks down at the moment of the big bang. It is analogous to how our understanding of north breaks down at the north pole. \n\n- What is north of the north pole? Nothing.\n- What is before the creation of time as we know it? Nothing.\n\nIt doesn't necessarily suggest something comes out of nothing, its simply means we will require a new definition to describe what is actually happening at that exact moment. \n\n\n",
"Contrary to popular misconception the big bang is the best working theory we have for the **evolution** of the universe, not the **origin**. As others have said already, what existed before the big bang is speculation. The singularity everything came from is called so because we can't model, predict or understand the physics at that point. But even if it were nothing. [Nothing isn't nothing anymore.](_URL_0_) You might as well ask \"If no life existed before evolution...\" but Darwinian evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis, it explains what happened after.\n\n\n\nSomeone else said it best on wikipedia:\n > The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.\n\n\n\nHere is the colliding membrane theory explaining how the big bang might have started. I don't know how much weight it holds. _URL_1_\n\n\n\nThe question I would like answered is this. Did the big bang start off really slow or has it ever slowed down and sped up? Because right now expansion is accelerating right? Or has it been constantly and consistently been accelerating for 13.8 billion years?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0#t=1190",
"http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover"
]
] |
|
1exhza
|
What societies in history were built on ideals of universal equality, particularly gender equality?
|
How did these ideals translate into practice? Are there societies that had equal or close to equal rights for women under the law and within society?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1exhza/what_societies_in_history_were_built_on_ideals_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca4y00p",
"ca4zf3s"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"[The Oneida Community?](_URL_0_) This might be similar to what you had in mind...",
"The [Taiping Heavenly Kingdom](_URL_0_) was a propertyless, classless society where genders were declared equal. It was based in Southern China and was led by a Hakka scholar, [Hong Xiuquan](_URL_1_) who believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ . \n\nIt was crushed by the Qing Dynasty with the help of French and British forces alongside American Mercenaries in 1864 and > 20 Million people died."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community#Community_structure"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Heavenly_Kingdom",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Xiuquan"
]
] |
|
c1fvlw
|
Considering that srand() function doesn't give a true random number, what can be used to generate truly random numbers that are impossible to predict ?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/c1fvlw/considering_that_srand_function_doesnt_give_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erdqrnz"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The reason why pseudo-random numbers are called \"pseudo-random\" is that in general, if you know what the seed input(s) to the function are, you should be able to predict the value being calculated. We generally presume that for most uses the fact that the seed input values are stored in RAM are sufficient (which is why pseudo-random numbers are still useful), but if you know the seed input and the algorithm used to generate the random numbers, you can predict what numbers will be generated next.\n\nTo generate a number truly randomly, you need a truly random source of input. Whereas pseudo-random number generators (PRNG) use algorithms to generate random numbers, a true random number generator (TRNG) will measure physical phenomena in the environment, and will use that data to generate truly random numbers that cannot be predicted.\n\nThere are a variety of methods for a TRGN to generate truly random numbers. One easy to understand method to generate a hardware random number (which isn't used in practice, but I'll get why in a minute) would be to create a machine that simply flips a coin, and which can optically determine whether it is heads or tails^0. It can then assign each possibility to a binary digit (i.e.: heads is 1, tails is 0), and then simply repeatedly flip the coin as many times as needed to get a random number of however many bits are desired (i.e.: if you want an 8-bit number, flip the coin 8 times). You now have a very simple to understand and use, TRNG.\n\nThe problem with this specific TRNG (and one that impacts all TRNGs to differing extents) is that flipping coins is slow, and generating enough \"bits\", especially for algorithms that may be requiring a lot of random numbers (such as in Monte Carlo simulations) is going to slow down computation. In the real world, other easier to measure and faster systems are in place, such as those that use quantum properties (such as measuring radioactive decay), thermal properties, atmospheric noise, radio noise, etc.\n\nAs an aside, while coin flipping is considered to be unbiased (i.e.: it generated heads and tails at equal rates), this may not be true of other methods, such as measuring radioactive decay. In the case of radioactive decay, you might find that the decay events happen infrequently compared to no-decay events. To combat this, physical properties that have a bias towards one result over another go through what is known as a \"whitening\". John von Neumann proposed one of the first whitening algorithms, which is rather easy to visualize: you read in a pair of biased random bits. If both bits are the same, you discard them (and return nothing). If the two bits are [0,1], you return 0. If the two bits are [1,0], you return 1. Such an algorithm will rid you of whatever bias may be present in your physical measurement system.\n\nAs somewhat indicated above, the big problem with TRNGs is that they tend to be somewhat slow, and it can take some time to build up a sufficient number of bits for certain types of tasks. For algorithms and tasks that require a lot of processing speed _and_ good random numbers, it's often best to combine a TRNG with a PRNG, such that the TRNG produces bits to act as the seed into the PRNG at regular intervals. Thus for example, if you have a TRNG that can generate 100 random bits per second, but you have a process that requires 10 000 random bits per second, you could use the TRNG to provide the seed for the PRNG, use the output from the PRNG in your algorithm, and then every few seconds as you re-generate a sufficient pool of bits from the TRNG, re-seed the PRNG with bits from the TRNG (if the PRNG takes exactly 100 bits as a seed, you could re-seed the PRNG once every second).\n\nI hope this helps!\n\n-----\n^0 -- realistically, if you were to make such a machine you'd probably make the coin white on one side and black on the other to make it easier for the computer to determine which side is up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8yu4gf
|
Why did the public view on nuclear energy change so drastically?
|
I know it might be the obvious melt downs, but those were due to poor practice. Especially with today's technology, nuclear plants are a viable source of green energy, yet plants are neglected and shut down due to how society views them.
What I am trying to say (I guess) is that I feel like melt downs would make society want to improve upon the nuclear tech, not demonize it.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8yu4gf/why_did_the_public_view_on_nuclear_energy_change/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2dvcbo",
"e2ei13w"
],
"score": [
20,
2
],
"text": [
"You're going into this with a lot of presuppositions and assumptions, and that makes for a poor understanding of history. \n\nThere had been growing concerns about nuclear energy prior to meltdowns. The idea that reactors could be catastrophically risky (in that the consequences of even a low-probability event were going to be very large) was understood by the late 1960s, and various groups, notably the Union of Concerned Scientists (who were not cranks), pointed out that many of the designs in operation could have things go wrong very easily, and that the regulatory infrastructure in the United States in particular was \"captured\" by the industrial interests. \n\nWhen the Three Mile Island accident occurred, it appeared to vindicate these fears. Three Mile Island was not an issue of \"poor practice,\" it was of a small technical mishap (the stuck PORV valve) that was one small part of an enormously complex system. It made it very hard to diagnose in real-time, and there were other aspects to the design of those reactors and their control rooms which made it very difficult to get a handle on the issue in a crisis. This, combined with the fact that there were untested and chaotic aspects to the crisis response (e.g., it wasn't clear who was in charge of the reactor during a crisis — the company that operated and owned it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the state of Pennsylvania, the federal government, etc.) made it clear to many that these were not run-of-the-mill technologies. Even if you were inclined to blame it on human error, you still have to reconcile that with the fact that humans are always going to be involved with such operations, and thus human error becomes, over the long term, inevitable. \n\nOne might suggest there was a \"crisis of confidence\" with regard to reactors: many people did not believe that the companies which constructed and operated them, or the agencies that regulated them for safety, were actually willing and capable to do the job right. So to address your contention directly: who, exactly, would be improving on the nuclear technology? If the answer is, \"the same people who made the faulty versions, and were willing to cut corners to make more money,\" then that is not going to be reassuring to people whose fundamental suspicion is with the whole \"system,\" not just the reactor as a piece of technology. \n\nIt should be also noted that the fortunes of the nuclear industry in the USA were not merely affected by public opinion. They were already in a slump for financial reasons: nuclear reactors are extremely capital intensive, and require decades to make good on their investment. Even prior to Three Mile Island the orders for new nuclear plants had flat-lined; the added public perception and lawsuits were the nail in a coffin. The result is that most of the nuclear plants in the USA today are _very_ old, which is the main reason they are being shut down: not because society has turned against them in a new way, but because they are reaching the end of their operating life anyway. The issue is that new ones have largely not been built in the intervening time, which is why the total number is declining. \n\nChernobyl of course resurrected the issue, even though in many ways the Chernobyl accident is specific to the Soviet context (both in terms of reactor design/operation and crisis response). But it reinforced the idea that nuclear reactors are high-risk technologies: low probability of failure, to be sure, but very high consequences possible as a result. \n\nDoes this stance have unintended consequences? Indeed. Removing nuclear power from the \"mix\" has tended to mean an increased reliance on fossil fuels, many of which have no chance of catastrophic accident but whose burning creates definite long-term health and environmental hazards. But many studies have shown that when it comes to weighing risk, people are more willing to accept small-but-sure risks that happen every day (\"mundane\" risks, like driving a car) than they are unlikely-but-catastrophic risks that involve the unfamiliar (and nuclear technology counts as that for most people, a \"dread\" risk). This is a psychological element, and no amount of concluding that it _ought not_ be the case that people think that way about risk will change the fact that people _do_ think that way about risk. \n\nFor an excellent history of Three Mile Island and its affect on te nuclear industry and public opinion, see J. Samuel Walker, _Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective_ (University of California Press, 2004). Walker is exceedingly balanced; he was the official historian for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On the development of attitudes towards nuclear power and technology in general, I do love to recommend Spencer Weart, _The Rise of Nuclear Fear_ (Harvard University Press, 2012). Weart's is a cultural/scientific history that shows how these attitudes evolved over a long period of time — Three Mile Island played upon existing issues that had been germinating around nuclear matters since the early 20th century. And lastly, if you are interested in how people judge various types of risk, the work of Paul Slovic is very useful, esp. Paul Slovic, \"The Perception of Risk,\" _Science_ 236 (17 April 1987), 280-285. And in thinking about risk and complex systems, the classic sociological book is Charles Perrow, _Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies_ (Basic Books, 1984). ",
"The only thing I would add to restricteddata’s answer is that it’s very debatable whether nuclear power can be considered “green energy”. \n\nIn some ways it is. It’s relatively low in greenhouse gas emissions, with most of them coming in the initial construction. (The curing of concrete produces a lot of carbon dioxide.) It’s also relatively sustainable in the sense that nuclear fuel produces far more energy per ton than any fossil fuel, so there isn’t much danger of running out of it anytime soon. \n\nBut the enormous cost of cleaning up and storing the spent nuclear fuel - and the radioactive pollution that can’t be eradicated fully for thousands of years - keeps it from being as environmentally friendly as solar, wind, or geothermal power. Much of the cost-effectiveness of nuclear power was based on an underestimation of how expensive this cleanup would be. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
14k1sx
|
[META] TrueBestOf2012 awards. r/AskHistorians has been nominated for Best Big Community of the Year, and the mod team for Mod Team of the Year. Show your support and upvote ! (links inside)
|
Here are the links.
Best Big Community of the Year :
_URL_1_
Mod Team of the Year :
_URL_0_
The mod team has really helped improve the quality of this subreddit. Lately, they had to face a whole lot of critics and nonetheless, they are constant in their vision and continually defend their choices. I think they deserve recognition for it, and that this subreddit should be considered as a model for the entire reddit community. Show your support and your gratefulness, and upvote !
**Edit** : This is great. Nearly 24 hours later, /rAskHistorians is currently first for Best Big Community of the Year, and the mod team is second ! But your upvote is still needed ! Thanks, you are the best !
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14k1sx/meta_truebestof2012_awards_raskhistorians_has/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7dro85",
"c7druxz",
"c7duad4",
"c7dv5kp",
"c7dvirw",
"c7dxyxr",
"c7dzu5j",
"c7e1oa3",
"c7e302q",
"c7e5q3y",
"c7e9r3c"
],
"score": [
34,
160,
2,
2,
21,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's nice and all (and the mods here are certainly the best I've seen on the whole of reddit), but kind of a meaningless award, no? Do we (or the mods) really need/want that? (especially from a voting in a subreddit that *just started* and has less than 400 subscribers)",
"Awards that are distributed by popular vote are pretty much meaningless, since it favors quantity so much over quality.\n\nHowever, our mods are awesome.",
"Definitely one of my favourite big communities and no question the mods are great and contribute but I don't think they can compete with the askscience mods. ",
"With pleasure :)",
"This has without a doubt been my favorite subreddit since I found it sometime between 6 months and a year ago, but attention in the meta subs is what has made me like it less and less as time goes on. Every time I see a BestOf post from here on my front page I sigh, as I know it will bring thousands of new members overnight with no regard to the rules/ standards that make this sub one of the best, decreasing the overall quality and tone of the discussion, increasing the number of \"Who's the best/ worst person in history\" type of submissions, subtle Holocaust deniers in the comments of anything WWII-related, etc. So while I absolutely think AskHistorians deserves the (somewhat meaningless) award, I'm gonna stick it to the man and deny them my single vote for you guys. That'll show em, right?",
"I would like to say that as an aspiring Historian, this subreddit is very informative and pleasant. ",
"I love this sub. That is all.",
"Been browsing reddit for about 4 years, never been in a better community ",
"Honestly I don't think r/askhistorians should be getting too much publicity. This sub should try to fly under the radar. I'm not against newcomers at all (beig relatively new myself), but the more we publicize this sub the more we risk an influx of \"shitlords\", to borrow a term from circlebroke. We should try and slowly build a solid and intellectual subscriber base. ",
"Maybe after that /r/bestof invasion debacle we can show that mods that actually give a shit about quality content are worth it.",
"Sorry, but /r/NFL is sweeping it for me this year. You guys are great, though!"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/truebestof2012/comments/14e85n/nomination_modteam_of_the_year/c7ca3g3",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/truebestof2012/comments/14e8cc/nomination_best_big_community/c7cdm24"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jfnhr
|
Why/How were U.S. Marines in WWII so effective against the Japanese?
|
I am watching [The Pacific](_URL_0_) now. In one episode they mention that Iwo Jima was the only battle that had more U.S. casualties than Japanese.
The marines were attacking heavily fortified islands, against a very determined enemy. What gave the marines such a big advantage that they were able to overcome this. Was it training, equipment, something else?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jfnhr/whyhow_were_us_marines_in_wwii_so_effective/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbe71er",
"cbeccpm",
"cbee9fo",
"cbelwro"
],
"score": [
40,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually it was the strategic situation. In the situations you are describing, the Japanese were typically in a hopeless situation, cut off from supply, reinforcement, air or naval support, and up against a better equipped enemy with vastly superior numbers. Another less important contributing factor was the far too slow adjustment to the increased firepower American units carried in late 42 onward when compared to the American units they fought in 41-early 42, leading to tactically erroneous assaults being made. I also think the statement, \"Iwo Jima was the only battle that had more U.S. casualties than Japanese\" must have some missing qualifier, as in that form it is untrue, but certainly representative of the island invasions in the later stages of the war.",
"how about the use of semi automatic rifle? the increase of fire rate is higher compared to japan bolt action rifle",
"9/10ths of it was logistics. After the battle of midway the Japanese advantages started to evaporate. \n\n\nIt rapidly became the case that US equipment, often benefiting from a budget and resources that enabled them to design and build superior technology, backed with reliable supply lines and support often won the day. \n\n\nThe Japanese had no proper equal to the M1 garand. They had no proper answer to the M4 Sherman. The advantages of the Zero rapidly became flaws when US aircraft designed to fight German aircraft were turned loose. Japanese industry was grossly ill equipped to handle war time losses, and logistically many critical war time supplies became harder and harder to come by. Apparently something like 10% of the US's production capabilities were used in the Pacific, which should illustrate the issue Japan had with trying to fight them. Couldn't match production, had no effective means of projecting power. At *best* they could have tried to engage in an early war offensive so damaging that the US would sue for peace, but obviously that never happened. ",
"Hey hey hey, let's give the U.S. Army some credit too, particularly in the Philippines.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374463/?ref_=sr_2"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Campaign_(1944–1945)#U.S._Army_and_Army_Air_Forces"
]
] |
|
2pco3s
|
In WWII, was there a service milestone in a soldiers career that made them likely to survive?
|
To elaborate further on my question, for each of the players in WWII (looking at the British, American, Russian, and German armies.) Was there a particular point where if a fighting soldier had survived in the war, there was a high probability the experience they had gained would see them through to the end?
e.g. If an American G.I. lived for 16 months, they had a ~80-90% chance of survival.
I know that such accurate and precise data may not be available but I wanted to know if such a thing was calculated.
Thanks
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pco3s/in_wwii_was_there_a_service_milestone_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmvgoz8"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"For Germans and Russians there was no such point excluding such exceptions. If you belonged to the airforce or navy you were likely to survive if you achieved a certain rank since you stopped combat missions all together. If you were a special propaganda figure you maybe were forbidden to take part in further combat operations but this was rare, some German Aces come to mind. For the army this was comparable but you still had a good chance of dying even if you had a higher rank. Iam not 100% certain for the Red Army but the Wehrmacht did not phase out soldiers if they served long enough. For the general soldier you fought until you surrendered or you were incapable of fighting. The closest to such milestone was being crippled or preferably being wounded so hard that the convalescence was very long and you didn't get send back to front.\n\nFrom the German POV.\n\nExperience was pretty meaningless for army soldiers, your destiny was mostly decided by beeing part of a unit which stood its ground and was grinded up or if you belonged to a unit which was bypassed in the major fighting and surrendered at bulk. Experience does not help a lot against artillery, and even if you survive due to your experience somehow that doesn't help since you are on the losing side and keep fighting. The only thing that matters is if you are lucky enough to be in a group which surrenders or in a group which takes the brunt of some attack. To make myself clear your chance of survival depended more on where you fought than how you fought. Even if you were \"experienced\" you just kept fighting if you survived anyways. It should be noted that experience obviously had some impact on survival but was a rather small factor. In Normandy units reported that green troops had higher casualty rates just by making mistakes in regards to enemy arttilery and mines ( The guns at last light: rick atkinson ). But overall it was more about luck.\n\nThe only exception to this are pilots. If you were experienced your chance of survival increased significantly. Some time ago i researched into this found that successful eastern front pilots were far more likely to score further victories on the western front and survive until the war than green pilots. This seems obvious but a lot of the high scoring people survived the war or had accidents and were not killed in combat. For the 200 highest scoring aces there was a clear correlation between survival and skill/experience. So at least for pilots there is a certain point were your experience allows you to have a significantly higher chance of survival than your green fellow pilots."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7ok9x4
|
Why can you not have an elliptical orbit pass through the event horizon of a black hole?
|
I'm having a problem conceptually arriving at the answer to the title question.
Gravity is a conservative force, so as the object nears the black hole its potential energy is converted into kinetic, increasing the speed, and vice versa when leaving. Why is it that this breaks down once inside the event horizon? You'd assume that it would work like other orbits where it would then leave the event horizon with the same kinetic energy (and thus velocity) as it did when it entered. I assume that the energy gets so high it reaches relativistic speeds, but that doesn't stop the kinetic energy to continue increasing until it reaches periapsis where it begins to convert back into altitude above the hole.
Is it that energy is lost somehow into say heat after entering the horizon, such that it can't regain enough kinetic to leave? Does the time scale reach infinity due to relativity such that it takes an infinite time to leave?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7ok9x4/why_can_you_not_have_an_elliptical_orbit_pass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsanls8",
"dsb04jk"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Anything that crosses the event horizon can't come back. That's it.\n\nIf you want to analyze the motion in terms of equivalent potential, then the potential is very unlike the Newtonian effective potential which goes like\n\n > U*_Newtonian_* = A/r^(2) - B/r\n\nwhere A and B are positive constants. So the potential goes to +∞ as r -- > 0^(+). Hence any particle approaching r = 0 will always be reflected back out, i.e., the particle will have a turning point. If the particle's total energy is lower than the potential at r = ∞, then the particle is in a bound orbit. [Here is a typical plot of the effective potential in Newtonian gravity.](_URL_0_)\n\nBut the effective potential in general relativity for the same two-body problem goes like\n\n > U*_relativity_* = A/r^(2) - B/r - C/r^(3)\n\nagain where A, B, and C are positive constants (not necessarily the same constants as in the Newtonian potential). The constant C is very small in the Newtonian limit, hence why that term does not appear in the Newtonian potential. Now note that this potential goes to -∞ as r -- > 0^(+). Hence any particle approaching r = 0 will not be reflected back out, but rather just fall deeper into a potential well. There is no turning point. (Actually, there is a turning point at some positive value of *r* > 3GM/c^(2), but if the particle has a higher energy than the potential at that turning point, the particle will just barrel right through and never come back. [Here is a typical plot of the effective potential in relativity.](_URL_1_)\n\n(The inverse-cube term in the potential is also what causes elliptical orbits to precess. So if that term is non-negligible, so is the precession. The fact that GR correctly predicts the precession of Mercury not accounted for by Newtonian perturbations was the first great success of the theory.)\n\n**edit:** This is all for a massive particle. For a massless particle, there is another term in the potential, an inverse-quartic term. The effect of this term is that all massless particles have 1 of 3 fates: (1) they escape to infinity, (2) they get captured and fall behind the event horizon, or (3) they come in with just the right impact parameter and asymptote to a (unstable) circular orbit on the photon sphere.",
"Inside the event horizon, all space directions are towards the singularity.\n\nEven outside: The closest point where an orbit is stable is at 3 times the Schwarzschild radius, and the closest point where an orbit without constant thrust is possible at all is at 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius - well away from the singularity. Inside, you get the counterintuitive effect that the centrifugal force reverses. You need constant thrust in radial direction to keep your distance, and going horizontal (in an attempt to orbit) means you will need *more* thrust because the centrifugal force now points inwards.\n\ntl;dr: Newtonian physics just doesn't work close to a black hole.\n\nEdit: These numbers are for non-rotating black holes, it gets more complex for rotating black holes but the basic idea is the same."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://tinyurl.com/yauezed4",
"https://tinyurl.com/ybmymjdf"
],
[]
] |
|
6v2ox8
|
If Mars at some point had oceans that were filled with life similar to our own, would there still be oil there despite the harsh Marian conditions and what we know about the planet?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6v2ox8/if_mars_at_some_point_had_oceans_that_were_filled/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlx7fk6",
"dlxk8mz"
],
"score": [
2584,
178
],
"text": [
"It is very unlikely. Oil forms when organic matter of the right composition (with as high a H:C ratio as possible so with as little cellulose as possible) is buried rapidly at a depth where the geothermal gradient will allow the chemical transformation to oil & gas. \n\nThere are thus 2 problems with Mars: 1 - While there is still some (but less and less) controversy over whether martian oceans existed, whether they were intermittent and how long they lasted, there is little controversy over the fact that they must have been quite shallow. This is a terrible constraint on the preservation of organic matter, in that storms may agitate bottom sediments and expose them to scavengers, bacteria and oxygen. Sucks for preservation. 2 - No plate tectonics means that basin development was slow, if indeed it was a thing. This makes it hard for whatever organic matter there may have been there to get buried deep enough to reach critical temperatures for the right chemistry to occur.",
"If Mars ever had life it was in the shadows and partially under ground. No magnetic field means no protection from cosmic radiation. The Martian Radiation Experiment, or MARIE was designed to measure the radiation environment of Mars using an energetic particle spectrometer as part of the science mission of the 2001 Mars Odyssey spacecraft (launched on April 7, 2001). It was killed by cosmic radiation from a solar flare. Outside of the Earth's magnetosphere is a dangerous place for a living organism to be."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2bhi2f
|
why do my glasses still correct my vision if i turn them backwards?
|
If the convex shape of the lens is supposed to be the thing refocusing my vision, why can I see perfectly through my glasses when I turn them around with the temples facing away from me?
EDIT: I'm seeing a couple of good explanation but I do think they fully answer the question. If it helps I have convex lenses and not biconvex. Either way I'm learning a lot about lenses so thank you.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bhi2f/eli5why_do_my_glasses_still_correct_my_vision_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj5d4eo",
"cj5e06z",
"cj5hmzw",
"cj5i4cv",
"cj60uoj"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
7,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Your glasses might be fitted with double-concave/convex lenses.",
"Weird, mine don't correct them when flipped around. At least not as well. They still improve my woeful vision, but its a much lesser effect.",
"So far as I know, a single lens will refract light in the same way regardless of the direction of light through the lens. The shape of the lens on each side only effects the way light refracts at that interface, and the combination of both results in the same overall refraction independant of direction.",
"The most basic shape of lenses (convex vs. concave, disregarding other aspects like astigmatism) is symmetrical, as in [these](_URL_0_) pictures.\n\nConvex lenses \"pull\" light rays closer together as they pass through, while concave lenses \"push\" them further apart. This happens to light passing through the lens in either direction, so you're still getting the same basic corrective effect. (This is also why magnifying glasses magnify both ways, but don't ask me why telescopes don't. It has to do with multiple lenses, I think.)\n\nHow good it works depends on stuff like whether your glasses also correct astigmatism, and (if your eyes aren't identical) whether you've turned them in such a way that the glasses are switched or not.",
"Glasses lenses have 2 different curves to them, a convex front curve and a concave back curve (since those terms are in your question I'm going to assume you don't need them explained). Depending on the type of correction you need, one is steeper than the other, and the steeper the curve, the stronger the power of that surface.\n\nFor example, say you are a nearsighted person who needs -3.00 of correction to see clearly. The front curve could have a power of +2.00 and the back curve -5.00. Those powers added together equal the power you need in your glasses. This does ignore the thickness of the glasses lens, which isn't exactly correct to do, but the end result will be roughly the same no matter which way the powers are added. Thus the lenses roughly work the same whichever way you look in them.\n\nNote: as someone else said, this doesn't work quite so well if you have astigmatism correction in your lenses."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29#Types_of_simple_lenses"
],
[]
] |
|
2jzuzq
|
cross/crucifix as a symbol of christianity?
|
How did the cross come to be a symbol of christianity. I mean, I get the Jesus was killed on one, but so were many other people of that era..
Did the cross have some other spiritual significance before the crucifixion, or wasn't it just an instrument of execution?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jzuzq/eli5crosscrucifix_as_a_symbol_of_christianity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clgknmn",
"clgn4e1"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Christianity is primarily about the idea \"jesus died for your sins\". That's why he's considered so important. The cross is a symbol of the most important thing done by the primary figure of the religion.\n\nIt didn't really have spiritual significance beforehand, although the romans would normally reserve crucifiction for rebellion against the state, and they would do crucifictions, which took some time to finish on the roads leading into cities, to remind people about what happens to those who oppose the roman government.",
"My churches sunday school explanations.\n\nWe wear the cross to bear the burden that Jesus bore for us.\nAnd, As a reminder as his sacrifice."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bq3ft2
|
how do cuts become new skin?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bq3ft2/eli5_how_do_cuts_become_new_skin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eo0un9u"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Most of your skin is dead/dying cells. They are just there to act as a physical barrier. The living cells which divide and produce these dead cells are way below deep under the skin.\n\nSo when you get a shallow cut, the layer of dead skin cells is destroyed but the living cells underneath survive and continue what they’re doing. Eventually the skin returns to normal.\n\nWhen you get a deep cut the living cells can be destroyed. Sometimes they can recover, but other times they can’t so a scar is formed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
18r9cp
|
If polar bears and penguins were to switch poles, what would happen? Would their species survive?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18r9cp/if_polar_bears_and_penguins_were_to_switch_poles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8hbx98",
"c8hcw31"
],
"score": [
6,
8
],
"text": [
"They would have to find a new food source, as polar bears mostly eat seals native to the Arctic, and penguins eat fish native to Antarctic, and also krill which does not live in the Arctic.",
"Switching polar bears with leopard seals would be a better exercise, as they fill the same ecological role whereas penguins do not.\n\n\nedit: If we did this, curiously, each might be a more effective predator. Polar bears could chase penguins on land/ice, where they're slow and vulnerable, and leopard seals are better swimmers which could be quite useful to hunt smaller seals. I know that that's not quite what you're asking, though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
av9dzs
|
how does a tire stay seated on a wheel even if all the pressure has been lost?
|
I understand that there's something called a tire bead, but what exactly is happening when a tire being mounted is inflated with enough pressure that it generates a loud bang, and then sticks to the wheel forever more until forcibly removed (even if it loses all of its air at some point)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/av9dzs/eli5_how_does_a_tire_stay_seated_on_a_wheel_even/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehdjrv9",
"ehdjt1w",
"ehe0sr7"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The reason that you need force to remove it is because you need force to get it there in the first place. The inner diameter of the tire is lower the the outer diameter of the wheel so need to stretch/deform it to get it to fit and for large tires you need a lot of force to get it there. \n\nThe edge of the tire is the tire bead and it is in most case high tensile strength steel wire encased in rubber so it is inflexible and strong so it will stay on the wheel regardless of the pressure and is har to remove.\n\nIf you ever tried to change tie you notice that even remove a bicycle tire can be hand and they the are design so you can do it by hand with small tool but larger tier are designed for machines assistance when you out them on and remove them.",
"It stay mainly because it isnt taken off often or at all in its life span, trust me if you drive on a deflated tire it will come off the rim at some point",
"It's just a really tight fit. That bang you hear is the bead of the tire snapping into place on the rim. There is a lip on the rim that the bead hits when it snaps into place. If your tire is flat and you turn sharply with some speed you can cause the bead to unseat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
hum5e
|
Are there any evolutionary reasons for photic sneezing? (sneezing when exposed to light)
|
[Photic Sneezing](_URL_0_)
I've thought about this for some time.
One reason that I came up with is the following: When we lived in caves or other dark places we would come outside to hunt, fetch water and other outside activities. This is perhaps a good opportunity to get rid of bacteria and other foreign elements by sneezing, as you have a smaller chance of infecting others, and you are outside the area where you eat and sleep.
It also makes sure you sneeze at regular intervals.
Thoughts?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hum5e/are_there_any_evolutionary_reasons_for_photic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1yhypl",
"c1yiaxe",
"c1yijbt",
"c1yjnct"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Just going to piggyback on your question if you don't mind. \n\nI don't necessarily sneeze when I encounter light, but it does help sometimes. I'll be at that point where I have to sneeze and I can feel it slipping away, but if I look into a bright light, it can push me back into sneeze territory, usually making it happen instantly. However, just going from a dark to light place never has any effect on me.\n\nWould this be considered a more mild form of photic sneezing?",
"I believe it's because your optic nerve and your nasal nerve come into contact with each other. When a strong signal is sent through your optic nerve (e.g. looking into a bright light) it can stimulate your nasal nerve allowing you to sneeze.",
"OMG, first comment on reddit. Eep!\n\nSo, sneezing is actually a function of the spinal trigeminal nucleus, which is connected to your trigeminal nerve (cranial nerve 5). When this is stimulated by...stuff, like pollen or feathers or stuff, the spinal trigeminal which receives the sensory information triggers a motor reflex, and you sneeze.\n\nHow this is related to photic sneezing (which is sneezing in response to light) is still unknown, but they think it might be related to the higher sensory activation in the cortex that people who have this get. They appear to be more sensitive to bright light in the occipital lobe (where visual information goes), as well as strong activation in the sensory cortex, and that might be related. But we don't know HOW.\n\nArticle on it: _URL_0_",
"Others here have given good physiological explanations, but I don't think anyone's tackled the evolutionary \nquestion.\n\nI would hesitate to call it an adaptive trait (which is what your explanation implies), and while your explanation is a bit inventive (I tend to be skeptical of inventive evolutionary reasoning), I guess it does seem at the very least plausible. That is, of course, only if your assumption that your nose *needs* clearing of \"bacteria and other foreign elements\" is true. Also, I'm not so sure that early humans actually spent that much time in caves (I genuinely don't know, but I *thought* that was a misconception).\n\nSo my **guess** would be that the trait is non-adaptive. However, because we know the trait is heritable, it did evolve somehow. It could be, however, that it is a neutral trait, not imparting any advantage or disadvantage, selectively speaking, and simply rose to prominence in the population via [genetic drift](_URL_1_). Alternatively, the mutation(s) responsible for the trait may be physically located next to something else that has been selected for, and thus is [hitchhikes](_URL_0_) along to high prevalence in the population.\n\nAlso, I just wanted to point out that photic sneezing is also known as Autosomal Dominant Compelling Helioophthalmic Outburst Syndrome, or **ACHOO Syndrome**. Someone had a sense of humor..."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACHOO_syndrome#Photic_Sneezing"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169159"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_hitchhiking",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift"
]
] |
|
2b7tjq
|
does genetics determine your bust size?
|
My mother has a B cup currently however I am C cup. Does the parents genes play a part in the childs genes when it comes to bust size? Or does the body decides how big they get based on chance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b7tjq/eli5_does_genetics_determine_your_bust_size/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj2m12x",
"cj2mump"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They'll always be a reflection of your size, I.e. as you grow so may they. As far as genetics go though they are a factor of your genes to start. This is both from your father and mother, I.e. genes passed from your grandparents. \n\nI don't believe that it's controlled by any one gene though and really I'd be shocked if geneticists were actively searching for the breast size genes\n\nEdit: Fuck me, _URL_0_",
"It is largely genetic.\n\nBear in mind you other get genes from your father, which will equally contribute to your breast size."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://jezebel.com/5923807/scientists-find-the-genes-that-determine-breast-size"
],
[]
] |
|
s5j2h
|
Why do we look tired?
|
Why do we look tired when we haven't slept properly or enough? The pouches below the eyes, why do we get them and what in the sleep keeps them from coming?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s5j2h/why_do_we_look_tired/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4bb7g4",
"c4bdr6z"
],
"score": [
45,
3
],
"text": [
"\"The physiopathology of periorbital hyperchromia (which is the word for dark circles under the eyes) is not\nclearly defined; however, blood flow stagnation seems to\nbe a determinant factor involved in the development of\nthis process. This concept is supported by the fact that\nin the last years, cosmetic companies have been\npresenting preparations for ‘‘dark circles’’ containing\nmainly ingredients for stimulating local blood flow.\" ([Source](_URL_0_), p.129)\n\nWhy do we get dark circles under our eyes? *Perhaps* it's a way to inform our social environment about the state of our health (immune system, energy, etc.), but this is mere speculation. Hopefully someone in askscience can answer that question.\n\n",
"Part of it is due to aging. \"There is a certain amount of fat naturally in the under-eye area. It's held in place by ligaments. As you age, the ligaments get weaker, allowing the fat to push forward, forming that little puffy pillow under your eye.\" ([Source](_URL_0_)\n\nWhen the ligaments weaken, the skin begins to collapse causing a \"gutter\" effect. Lack of sleep tends to cause the blood vessels under the skin to dilate, creating the dark circles. Fluids can also leak out of your skin causing the puffiness.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.chemyunion.com.br/upload/arquivos/JCD%202009%20Eberlin%20et%20al%20.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.webmd.com/healthy-beauty/features/banish-the-bags-under-your-eyes"
]
] |
|
2mkbk9
|
/u/unidan
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mkbk9/eli5_uunidan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm50q1d",
"cm50rqq",
"cm522of"
],
"score": [
34,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Simply put;\n\nHe was a biologist who appeared everywhere, randomly in threads, typically when people weren't sure what something was, and he clarified. With extreme, intelligent, accurate detail.\n\nReddit liked him because he was basically a reddit super hero, appearing when people needed info. \n\nThis accrued him a following where people would upvote ANYTHING he said, just so it could be seen. Typically, this was helpful, but sometimes it was a random \"lol\" comment. \n\n\n\nNow, the incident with him being banned. He had this following, with people upvoting him for no reason, yet still felt the need to have (at least) 5 alt accounts, that he used to upvote his own posts, and downvote others. Why he would do this, when he had a plethora of people willing and ready to do (and that regularly did) this for him, is beyond everyone except /u/Unidan.\n\n\n\nTL;DR: Super informative, fun person, who let his following get to his head, even though he didn't need to. ",
"Unidan was a pretty cool reddit guy who talked about biology. He was pretty popular for providing a voice of reason in arguments.\n\nCirclejerk obsesses about him because he got banned. \n\nUnidan had several accounts that he would log onto and upvote his own comments with. To make it appear like the community would always agree with him. So the echo chamber of reddit, then kept upvoting him. Since when you see a comment at +12 it must be decent and agreed with.\n\nHe was caught, and banned.\n\nBut he did it for the karma, so circlejerk loves him, because they do it for the upboats.",
"Circlejerk is obsessed with him because Reddit is obsessed with him. Circlejerk parodies Reddit. Check it out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
33g686
|
the possibility of a bigfoot-like creature actually existing based on scientific and historic evidence.
|
I'd just like to see some actual facts instead of ratings based TV crap.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33g686/eli5_the_possibility_of_a_bigfootlike_creature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqklcxx",
"cqkm9um"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"If bigfoot really existed, you wouldn't have to ask in eli5. \n\nAll of the new species we're discovering now, are either clarifications of what was previously thought to be a subspecies, or some small critter in some remote part of the world or deep sea. A human sized creature wandering around the forests of the pacific north west and somehow remaining undiscovered isn't going to happen.\n\nHikers, farmers, and logging companies are pretty much in every section of the Oregon and Washington forests. Plus all kinds of low altitude flights from police helicopters, private aircraft, forestry service etc. And of course satellites.",
"The possibility is little to none. I did a bit of research into it for a grad project, but the low down of it is that its largely just a hoax.\n\nBigfoot sightings are called in nearly everyday, across North America ([Handy Infographic](_URL_0_)). There have been so many sightings in the last 90+ years that the question must be asked, if a creature such as Bigfoot exists then where is it hiding? North America is a giant web of roads and highways, cities and towns, and for a Bigfoot to have been seen in so many different places across the continent then there should have been many more sightings of the creature(s) coming across civilization. Not to mention that for there to be so many sightings then there would have to be a sizable population base for a Bigfoot community. It would be impossible for the estimated population (10'000-20'000) of the Bigfoot species to be able to breed and go unnoticed for so long, especially when we have cameras EVERYWHERE, and the need for genetic diversity would keep them moving to different groups to breed. North America is a lot of land mass for thousands of large, 8 ft tall, incredibly extraordinary creatures to constantly be moving across. The fact of the matter is that its nigh impossible for North America to have a native species of primate, especially one so large.\n\nThis is only a tidbit of info though, and if you're interested in looking into more Bigfoot fact or lore I'd be happy to help answer anymore questions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://doubtfulnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SasquatchSightings_Small.png"
]
] |
|
4qlh1k
|
How do root vegetables reproduce?
|
This may be a dumb question, but here goes!
How does something like a ginger root produce more ginger? (Being vaguely familiar with the plant reproductive cycle from high school biology) I thought plants used pollen in the air to fertilize other plants, but how does this work if the plants are underground? At what point is there a ginger "seed" that starts to develop?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4qlh1k/how_do_root_vegetables_reproduce/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4uvg0z",
"d4uxmrz"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Most of your root vegetables are among the species that can grow new shoots from broken segments of previously successful generations.\n\nA deer comes along and digs up some ginger and every few days shits out another piece of undigested root segment. Now you have 10 segments sitting in beautifully nutrient dense manure spread out hundreds of meters apart.",
"It depends on the plant, but a root vegetable like ginger is not a root at all. It is a rhizome, which is a stem that is located underground. It gives rise to other stems or roots. Like the other poster said, it can be broken off in deer, transported yonder, then give rise to a new plant.\n\nTo more specifically answer your question, Ginger is a perennial plant and makes flowers, which will be pollinated this creating seeds and fruits. A potato vegetable is a stem, the eyes are axillarybuds which will grow out to make an axillarybuds stem, flowers, then finally a fruit. Referenced below is a picture of potato flowers. \n\nBasically, edible ginger is a modified stem that can produce stems making flowers making seeds to sexually reproduce. But parts of the finer can break off and crate a new plant Clive through asexual reproduction.\n\nSources: PhD Plant Biology\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/SUjJE52",
"https://www.britannica.com/science/rhizome"
]
] |
|
14wpms
|
How many GPS satellites could we lose and still have a working GPS system?
|
It seems that we've become dangerously dependent on GPS satellites. While [the European Union is launching an alternative](_URL_0_), if we lose GPS, many businesses (and presumably people) would be screwed.
So just how robust is that GPS system?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14wpms/how_many_gps_satellites_could_we_lose_and_still/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7h4sai",
"c7h4vek",
"c7h4z7q",
"c7h5uq0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
20,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually GPS is even more important than you might think. Since it is dependent on extremely precise time keeping, the GPS system is used by many organizations including the stock exchange solely for time sensitive transactions etc.\n\nThe main reason that Europe is launching their own alternative is that GPS is owned and operated by the US military. For the time being they have allowed its use for non military things but there is absolutely nothing stopping them from flipping the switch at any time or even beginning to charge for its use.",
"When you say working, do you mean all over the Earth at once?",
"Wow, some bad answers here.\n\nThe short answer is that you need 4 satellites in view of your receiver. Many people will incorrectly tell you you need 3, but that is wrong.\n\nGPS works by [Trilateration](_URL_0_). In a 2D universe, you'd need the common intersection of 3 circles to uniquely identify a point. In a 3D universe, you need the common intersection of 4 spheres to uniquely identify a point.\n\nNow you may say: “*But you're wrong because you can use the Earth's surface as the 4th sphere*”. Well that's geometrically true, but only if your receiver knows what time it's clock should say. So if you had an atomic clock on the ground next to you, you can get away with that. But GPS receivers rely on cheap quartz clocks that need to be synchronized to GPS time, and that calculation requires a 4th satellite to be able to calculate what time their receiver should be synced to. If you don't have correctly sync'd clocks, you can't calculate the pseudo-range, and thus can't do trilateration. (edit: not to mention, using the Earth surface as the 4th sphere makes it totally impossible to measure altitude, forcing the assumption that you're on the ground)\n\nNow if you mean to ask how many satellites we need for uninterrupted global coverage of every point on the Earth, I don't know that answer.",
"I was thinking this question was posed in the context of the coming \"12-21-12\" solar flares that I keep hearing people speculate about. Half the GPS satellites should be shielded by the Earth itself in this situation, but I don't know about the varying degrees of shielding that they have installed in them."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-10/european-gps-satellite-lifts-tonight-south-america-using-imported-russian-rocket"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration"
],
[]
] |
|
120aw8
|
In the sense that the blood in your brain will naturally favor the pull of gravity, what are the potential effects of falling asleep on your side? Is there anything out there showing a difference in how the left or right hemispheres may respond to this?
|
Edit: To clarify what I was asking: I am asking what could be the differences when blood is pooling on the left, as opposed to the right; top as opposed to the bottom.
Edit 2: There seems to be a resounding notion that "Circle of Willis" will keep the pressure moderately equal within your brain over a negligible amount of time. However, the pressure differences that may accumulate from side-to-side are not near as powerful as those going from laying-to-standing.
So let me add another question: Consider you are a vampire sleeping upside down; is some sort of bodily system going to make it so you acclimate to the difference in blood falling through your body down to your head? I know that when I do inversion in yoga, I get light headed quickly, but is this just because not enough time has passed for me to feel 'normal' once the inversion has started?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/120aw8/in_the_sense_that_the_blood_in_your_brain_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6r3973",
"c6r3j5a",
"c6r3kn5",
"c6r3mra",
"c6r4d7e",
"c6r4w6h",
"c6r5jky",
"c6ra8m9",
"c6rdmzx",
"c6rf916"
],
"score": [
307,
44,
9,
6,
245,
17,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Circle of Willis prevents this from happening.\n\nEdit: it is both the structure (split hemisphere blood flow), pressure, and flow that prevents this. As an aphasiologist, if I could make blood flow one way, I definitely would! Sorry for the brevity.",
"Sleeping on one side or another does effect blood pressure by a small amount to the bottom hemisphere. An interesting side effect of this is that it can apparently effect the types of dreams you have, but its not something that has any health side effects as the difference is rather minor.",
"To clarify what I was asking: I am asking what could be the differences when blood is pooling on the left, as opposed to the right; top as opposed to the bottom.",
"On a 'side' note, will standing upside-down (how some gymnasts/yoga practitioners do) be beneficial to the brain since blood can flow easily down to the brain?",
"The brain has pretty efficient auto-regulatory mechanisms to control blood flow. Basically the blood vessels will alter their diameter in response to a variety of stimuli in order to get blood and oxygen to where it's needed. So say you lay down on your left, the blood pressure on the left would be slightly higher than the right, and blood would preferentially flow to the left. The right side's blood vessels would suddenly not be receiving quite enough blood to supply those bits of the brain and the auto-regulation methods would kick in. Stretch receptors will react to the drop in pressure and chemical receptors will sense the increase in acidity caused by poor oxygen supply and the start of anaerobic metabolism as well as other chemicals such as adenosine and nitric oxide and will cause the blood vessels to dilate. On the left, in response to the exact opposite occurring, the vessels will constrict. This ocurrs in a few seconds. Blood flow is thus equalised. \n\nNearly all of your organs use this method - if they didn't changes in blood pressure would result in vastly differing flow rates and your body would do annoying things like faint every time you stood up or go into liver failure if lay on your right for a while. ",
"Well for top/bottom pooling physiological homeostasis tends to be able to counteract these effects. For example if you lie down for a while and suddenly stand up you may feel a little light headed. This is because as you are lying down the force of gravity acts perpendicular to the flow of blood, and therefore to maintain circulation the heart doesn't need to work as hard. But when you stand up suddenly it takes time for the body to adjust to the increased pressure requirements hence for a short time there is somewhat inadequate circulation. However soon enough this is corrected through the baroreceptor reflex (these pressure sensors in your blood vessels realise a reduction in pressure causing constriction of the arteries in order to increase total peripheral resistance, thereby elevating the arterial pressure and restoring the blood pressure to what it was before).\n\nPeople have mentioned the circle of willis and that tends to ensure redundancy of blood flow to both sides of the brain However lying on either side isn't necessarily going to cause as much of an effect as standing up vs. lying down. The reason for this is because clearly when you stand up that distance from the top of the head to the feet is large in an adult, and the corresponding drop in pressure is much larger than would be from side to side. Hence physiologically speaking, the compensation for this increased requirement in pressure won't be as large for side to side vs top to bottom. Put it another way, with your heart (almost) in the centre of your body and you lying on your left side the heart pumps 'up' (that is to the right side) and 'down' (to the left side). In terms of the brain the carotid artery which supplies it divides from the aortic arch (this is simplified since there are unnecessary complications like the right side not splitting directly but coming from a braciocephalic trunk) and in reality this really isn't that much of a distance between the two (think about the diameter of your neck). Your body will much more likely find it easier lying on either side (similar to lying down) than standing up because the effect of gravity is much larger in the standing position.\n\nAll that is trying to say that due to this pressure requirement difference the blood is less likely to pool on your side rather than standing up (or being upside down). But as mentioned previously, your body has physiological compensatory mechanisms to counteract changes in pressure due to your position, such as constriction of blood vessels. Not to mention the fact that even if you fall asleep on your side you're going to move during sleep involuntarily anyway.",
"We're built to handle this from hundreds of millions of years of evolution.\n\nHowever, I don't think our bodies will be able to handle standing on \"superearths\" (2x-10x the size and many times the gravity) for more than a few hours. We'll black out and, not too long, later, die from the gravitational force causing blood to pool at the bottom of our organs, including our brain.",
"OK, so I am not seeing anything in the responses on this, there is a significant caveat or two in other people's answers. They are correct in that arterial pressures are so high relative to the orthostatic pressure difference that delivery of oxygen and nutrients will, for all purposes, be equivalent. \n\nHowever, if the head is below the heart by a greater vertical distance than the return venous pressure, then blood WILL pool in the head, and it will pool in the head differentially. You can feel this prominently if you do a headstand for more than a few seconds. And, this blood pooling WILL be different between the higher and lower sides of the head. And, some people have hypothesized that multiple sclerosis, a brain based autoimmune disorder, is based on venous problems in the large veins of the cranium (so IF those hypotheses are correct then someone with MS would have a big problem with sleeping with their head below their right atria return). \n\n",
"I understood the blood-brain barrier to be what kept blood out of the brain. I was of the understanding that instead the brain and CNS contained brain extracellular fluid (BECF). Am I wrong or mistaken? As interesting as OP's question is, the [BBB](_URL_0_) is super fascinating to me. ",
"I was also curious about blood flow, but of a different part of the body. \n\nI sleep on my stomach, with my hands/arms underneath my body. several times a week I wake up with no feeling in my hands, none. Not even the tingling sensation of numbness. After a minute passes the tingle comes and I can start to use my hands again. Sometimes it is so severe I can not lift an entire arm.\n\nCan this cause damage to my body?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood%E2%80%93brain_barrier"
],
[]
] |
|
21b4zp
|
why does the legal system allow for evidence to be disregarded simply because a form wasn't completed properly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21b4zp/eli5_why_does_the_legal_system_allow_for_evidence/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgbcd7w",
"cgbd51d"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"The idea is to make sure everything is done by the books so nothing is coerced or planted. The only way to do this fairly is to do it indiscriminately.",
"Well. . . it's not quite that simple. For starters, I'm a lawyer, so I do have some passing familiarity with the Rules of Evidence.\n\nBut I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. I've never heard of evidence being excluded on the basis of an incorrect form. Indeed, attorneys don't usually rely on forms when trying to get something into evidence.\n\nAs to your question elsewhere: \n\n > why is it so black and white rather than considering the cause of evidence becoming inadmissible?\n\nIt isn't really black-and-white, and the court does consider the nature of any objection to admissibility. Say there is some problem with a document. The court isn't going to exclude it *simply because there was a problem*. The court is going to consider the nature of the problem, the rule of evidence being violated, the severity of the conflict, the degree to which the party offering the evidence would be prejudiced if it were excluded, and the degree to which the party objecting would be prejudiced if it were admitted. \n\nThere are some pretty clear-cut examples--hearsay is a good one--but even there, there are so many exceptions that it's rarely as simple as it seems."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3qswqm
|
how do we determine the directional source of a sound?
|
I was thinking about how sound sources are identifiable as coming from different directions. I realized that a noise source of a given volume is identifiably from the left or right depending upon which ear hears the noise at a higher volume or amplitude, and this volume differential allows us to identify left source from right source, if our head is upright. Then I realized that a noise source could be heard at the same volume differential from a range of places. For example, let's say a noise of a single frequency is produced in front and to the left of you. Your left ear would hear the noise at a higher volume than your right ear, but if the same noise is produced at the same frequency at the same distance to the left and behind you, despite the fact that the noise would be sensed at roughly the same volume differential between the left ear and right ear as when it was produced in the front/left source, the noise is identifiable as coming from in front or behind you. And there is a range of equidistant directional sources above and below you that would be heard at the same volume differential. Yet, we still can clearly identify the directional source of these noises in everyday life.
So, how do our ears and brains interpret sound to determine the direction of origin?
edit: Seems to be a big combination of effects. So far we've got, volume differential, timelapse between frequencies hitting different ears at different times after a source, shifting the head to triangulate, and if I'm reading this correctly, the ear shapes contribute changes to the noise being sensed depending upon position. Pretty cool!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qswqm/eli5_how_do_we_determine_the_directional_source/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwi2kbp",
"cwi2q0j",
"cwi2shp"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Due to the shape of our heads and ears, a sound from in front of and to the left vs behind and to the left would be heard differently in our right ear. The main portion of our ears is open towards our front, focusing on sounds coming from in front of us, the little flap thing also helps in this regard.",
"I think it has to do with the time difference between one ear hearing the sound first, then the other. ",
"Audio engineers began working on this problem when they began generating stereo music. They learned to produce a pleasing stereo effect using two sound tracks going to separate speakers. They did not work on vertical discrimination because they did not put in vertical speakers.\n\nAs you say, our brains use two ear inputs to determine sound source. Part of this is audio memory. We turn our heads slightly and our brains compare the difference in sound. This is part of our brains anatomy. We are the descendents of ancestors who analyzed their audio input well.\n\nWe can still be fooled as with stereo.\n\nWhen digital sound was introduced and the CD fromat was designed there were provisions for four separate audio tracks. But the existing recordings were stereo so two tracks were not used. Converting to recording four tracks and playing four tracks never really caught on.\n\nNow we have completely digital recordings in MP3 format. many people accept lower quality music than in the past.\n\nSpecial recordings can be made and played for situations such as amusement parks seeking a 3D effect on a ride.\n\nYou can still listen to very good recordings in different formats if you sought them out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4arhov
|
The credibility of Yi Sun-sin
|
I have recently been researching on Korean history (I'm Korean American) and one person that really stuck out to me was Yi Sun-sin. From the amount of sources that back it up, there is no doubt that he was an amazing naval commander. However I have a few questions about the credibility of these numbers.
I saw in one of his major comebacks, he was able to defeat a Japanese Navy fleet of about 200 ships (or more) with just 13 ships. No matter how great of a commander one may be, I feel like this really pushes the limits and just may have been written to make him look bigger. Did this really happen or more likely exaggerated?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4arhov/the_credibility_of_yi_sunsin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d12ylkr"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Note that these were *ships* and not *warships*. More than half of the Japanese fleet at Myeongnyang were logistical ships - transports and supply ships. Yi estimated in his diary that at least 133 were warships. These numbers certainly weren't exaggerated, the reason why Yi was able to defeat so many Japanese ships was because he used the currents to his advantage. The Japanese ships, closely packed together, ending up crashing into one another when the current changed.\n\nThe *Joseon Sillok* also records that a captured Japanese commander said there were 120 ships on the Japanese side. The numbers don't seem to conflict with one another."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1tr4td
|
How did the Mexican/Spanish elite in places like California and Texas fair under U.S. rule?
|
Did wealthy land-owning Mexicans and Spaniards remain in territories like California, Florida, and Texas?
If so, how did this elite fair under U.S. rule? Did they take part in political life, or did they just focus on maintaining their economic status? Were their lands and businesses ever confiscated? Did they ever fight or rebel against settlers from the Eastern US?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tr4td/how_did_the_mexicanspanish_elite_in_places_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceayom1",
"ceboqhd"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a really interesting topic and you can find a great discussion of the fate of the Californios in Anne Hyde's book \"Empires, Nations & Families.\" Hyde won the Pulitzer for that book, but I'll just have to do the best I can!\n\n\"Californio\" is the term most commonly used to describe the Spanish-speaking but native-born people living in the territory that (in less than fifty years) went from being Spanish colonies to part of an independent Mexico (1810) to possessions of the United States (1848). That is, the land that now makes up parts of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. With land changing hands relatively rapidly in the 19th century, these elites were indeed concerned with keeping control of their property and maintaining their social and political power under the United States regime.\n\nThe Californios' decline in influence was gradual and actually had a lot to do with changing ideas about race and social hierarchies from the middle to the end of the 19th century. By definition, \"Californios\" were hard to classify racially and ethnically for many of their contemporaries. Most of them had both Spanish and Indian ancestry because ties of marriage across cultural and ethnic lines were particularly important and advantageous in the early-19th century West.\n\nWhen Americans think of settling the West, we often envision (white) pioneers migrating across the country to farm. Basing wealth and status in land ownership and agriculture, however, was in large part an Anglo-American introduction to the region. Before the huge land rush of the 1850s and onward (sparked by the Gold Rush in California, the gold and silver rushes in Colorado, and the acquisition of so much formerly Mexican territory after 1848), the West was a trade economy. Wealth and power depended on forging kinship ties across cultural divides. It would be very advantageous, for example, for a French or Spanish fur trader to marry into an Indian family, in order to get better access to trade goods. Mixed-race children were the products of these marriages as well as valuable cross-cultural intermediaries.\n\nWhen Anglo-American settlement expanded, however, land ownership rather than trade networks became the foundation of the economic and political systems. Americans also brought different ideas about race. Lest we forget what's going on in other parts of the country during this time... during the 1850s (as we headed into the Civil War) black-white relations in the South were shaping how the nation as a whole thought about race. After mid-century, modern \"racism\" as we understand it today (basing race in biological differences) was being created. \n\nThe mixed-race Californios and other trade marriages were less and less welcome in a country that increasingly defined individuals as either white or non-white. Being in the middle was now a liability, though it had previously been an asset. In order to survive, many of these families used the same strategy they had for generations: marrying their sons and daughters to high status Anglo-American newcomers.\n\nUltimately, this is a cultural and economic description of what happened to the Californios: they were marginalized because of their confusing racial status and the land ownership obsession that undermined trade as the foundation of the economy.\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"Alot of the Californios lost their ranches to squatting Americans. The Mexican government gave the Californios vast areas of land that were the size of cities like Los Angeles and San Diego. Americans would come into their lands and set up settlements. Because of the change from a Spanish based law system to an American Californios were either lost in translation or \"legally\" cheated out of their land by homesteaders. Yet with these actions Californios did enter State Politics. José Antonio Romualdo Pacheco, Jr was the first, and to date, the only Latino governor of California under American control. Though he was de facto an acting governor until elections were held to replace Newton Booth, who went on to be a US Senator for the State. After he left the governorship went on to represent the State in the House of Reps and was the first Latino congressman. He retired for a few years before becoming US Minister to the Republic of Central America."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
afkt3g
|
How many circles can fit in a larger one?
|
How many circles with r=x can fit in a larger one with r=y?
And is there a single math function to find the answer?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/afkt3g/how_many_circles_can_fit_in_a_larger_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edzfp84"
],
"score": [
23
],
"text": [
"There is a [Wikipedia page](_URL_1_) devoted to this exact problem. In general this falls under \"packing problems,\" which can be really hard. It took like 350 years to prove that the most efficient way to pack spheres is the way that oranges are stacked in a grocery display.\n\n[This website](_URL_0_) has the densest known packings of circles in a circle, but many of these are not mathematically proven to be the absolute densest.\n\nIt's actually a slightly different question than you're asking, which is the smallest circle that can hold N unit circles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://hydra.nat.uni-magdeburg.de/packing/cci/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_circle"
]
] |
|
3a22si
|
What does AskHistorians think of history.stackexchange ?
|
_URL_0_
What is your opinion on this site?
it seems to attract some qualified discussion, and does so seemingly with less arbitrary moderation policies than this group.
How is that possible?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3a22si/what_does_askhistorians_think_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs8lwzu"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"It is good that it exists. But I think it also proves why we do a lot of what we do here.\n\nMuch of our \"arbitrary moderation practices\" are a necessity based on our scale. Both pages have been around since Fall 2011. AH has *accepted* 25 questions in the past three hours. SE received just as many total over the past four days. A few of those questions were voted to be closed since they're not history related. If you spend any amount of time on the \"New\" tab here, you will see just how many questions are asked that blatantly break our rules. We have 100 times more subscribers than the StackExchange has questions ever asked, and we are hosted on a site that allows simply curious people to end up here. You generally don't \"end up\" at StackExchange- you have a question in mind so you're looking for some place to as it. Reddit is for pictures of cats and video game review and local news and meeting people and laughing at stupid arguments- but also for ask pages like this. Our audience is not only much bigger, but much more diverse.\n\nWe also represent a different service than that of StackExchange, seeking to maintain a much more academic atmosphere. This is not /r/AskHistory, this is /r/Ask**Historians**. People don't just come here for answers on history, but for answers from historians. In this subreddit, we judge quality by authority and experience, not by democracy. It makes some people uncomfortable, but my comment verifying a response on archaeology is worth more than 50 upvotes from people who saw *Time Team* once. StackExchange, does attract \"some\" qualified discussion, but so many of the threads are messes and difficult to find the best answer. There's many copy and pastes from Wikipedia, unnecessary \"This is an interesting question!\" comments, and \"answers\" that begin with \"I'd imagine...\" One intersting answer just directs the asker to this [book](_URL_0_) whose author also rights about \"How the Fall of Atlantis Changed Our Reality\" and \"the 55-foot-diameter energy field of the human lightbody.\" When people complain about the grave fields of deleted comments, these are the things they aren't seeing. Sure, upvotes can sort some of that junk out, but [not always](_URL_1_). "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://history.stackexchange.com/"
] |
[
[
"http://www.amazon.com/dp/1891824171/?tag=stackoverfl08-20",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2jhhje/a_psa_do_not_trust_heavily_upvoted_responses_in/"
]
] |
|
4b7cje
|
if you have a two way mirror with a one way mirror right behind it to produce an infinite tunnel, why would angling it up or down make the tunnel appear to curve instead of just as a straight tunnel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b7cje/eli5_if_you_have_a_two_way_mirror_with_a_one_way/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d16pqdr"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"If you angled one of the mirrors by, say, 2 degrees, each reflection would be \"off\" by two degrees more than the reflection before it. You would, in this case, see a reflection at 2 degrees then at 4 degrees. I'm not sure of the exact equation, but it's not 2, 4, 6, 8 degrees, but rather a progression like 2, 4, 8, 16, et cetera. The logarithmic curve of this progression would cause the 'curve' in the 'tunnel'."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3wjt9o
|
why is poland poor, while its next door neighbor germany is one of the richest in the world?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wjt9o/eli5_why_is_poland_poor_while_its_next_door/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxwp81l",
"cxwpbol"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"For the last hundred plus years poland has been passed around like a whore between every european empire during every european conquest. It's sad but they can't get free. \n\nEast Germany was poor as shit when they were under the red flag. They are still worse off. ",
"They have histories. Poland had a democracy where each member of the legislature could veto any law. Poland got conquered a lot. They could not even build a large defensive army without a veto.\n\nMore recently Poland was conquered by Nazi Germany, then by the Soviet Union defeating Nazi Germany. Communists ruled it for years following dictates from Moscow. This was not good for Poland."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3gb3s0
|
sovereign citizens
|
What are sovereign citizens? How do sovereign citizens justify certain laws not applying to them? What exactly is traveling and why do they mention it so much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gb3s0/eli5_sovereign_citizens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctwjao5",
"ctwjj0a",
"ctwka4g",
"ctwr13h"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Sovereigns [(they wouldn't ever consider themselves citizens) i will explain] ascribe to a certain Ideology that is built around Common Law. they call themselves Sovereigns because they see themselves as kings unto themselves. A citizen is under the rule of a government, so that is why they wouldn't call themselves a \"sovereign citizen.\" I don't ascribe to it personally but i did go down the rabbit hole to step into the mind of these people because like most I found their videos pretty weird. Common Law essentially is built around leaving people alone. If you have not personally harmed another human bodily or otherwise you are within you rights. They stipulate that all statutes have to be consented to to be valid. Getting a drivers licence is consenting so they don't get one or let the one they have expire. they will try to say everything in legaleze. example. they will not say \"I understand\" because saying \"I understand means to them \"I stand under and uphold\" what you just said. saying \"i understand but disagree\" would be an oxymoron. They see a court room like a ship at sea. As soon as one crosses the bar one is no longer in the republic but on a foreign ship thus giving up their rights. they believe this because courtrooms of today follow the admiralty law (or maritime law) Standing when the bailiff says \"all arise\" would be obeying the orders of another thus showing that one is not a sovereign (because a king does not follow the orders of a layman.) This would then make them subject (note that it is the same as a subject to a king) to the court. There are many other things that these people believe and really looking into what they believe was an interesting sociological research for me. i hope this explains it a little bit. ",
"Sovereign citizens is a term used to refer to individuals who subscribe to one of many pseudolegal theories. These theories usual revolve around claims that by saying certain terms, issuing certain proclamations, etc. you can not be subjected to the laws of the state. The exact nature of these theories and claims vary widely, but all of them are either laughed out of court by lawyers and judges, or actively ruled against. \n\nThe travelling thing resolves around a specific theory that asserts that the term driving refers only to operators of commercial vehicles, and the Deoartment of Motor Vehicles in the U.S. regulates 'driving'. Thus, the claim goes that 'travelling'--usually defined as operating a personal vehicle--is not subject to the DMV and thus you can drive without a drivers license. For more detail please see this r/legal advice thread: _URL_0_",
"They use a variety of bizarre and complex legal bullshit to claim they are exempt from the law.\n\nA common technique is claiming their legal identity is separate from their actual identity. John Smith takes out a loan, but when they come to collect, they claim it is the some other entity, JOHN SMITH, who actually owes them the money. That is where the whole \"sovereign\" thing comes form, someone who has severed themselves from there legal identity can exercise sovereignty over the law.\n\nThe also are fond of non-existent legal loopholes, intellectually equivalent to claiming you didn't get cooties because your fingers were crossed. For example, if a courtroom flies a US flag with fringe on it, that is an admiralty flag, and anything they say is only valid at sea. \n\nThey have had some success, because their often impenetrable volumes of legal gibberish can overwhelm smaller courts, who will sometimes drop cases rather than deal with them. But every time a court has dealt with them, they have lost, badly. Many them are server long jail terms for stupid reason. ",
"One thing nobody mentioned is that sovereign citizens believe it is wrong to be inducted into the law of a country just because you were born there, because... who gave you the choice?\n\nThey tend to see the US government as illegitimate, phony. In their ideology, it's wrong for someone else to rule over you without reason. Just being born is insufficient reason.\n\nThey question the law because they are critical of it and where it is headed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://m.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3fmoyr/driving_and_traveling_what_are_the_legal/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
152kwr
|
Can you help me identify the coat of arms on this antique?
|
_URL_0_
Hi AskHistorians, my girlfriend's father was hoping I could help him identify the coat of arms on a bronze metal pail antique they have. They've had the pail since the 90s or so, when a wealthy southern California family they were working for decided to throw it out with a lot of other nice things. I'm guessing something French because of that lower right bit, but I know very little about coats of arms. Can anyone help me figure out what it is, or maybe direct me toward a way I can determine what it is?
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/152kwr/can_you_help_me_identify_the_coat_of_arms_on_this/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7iq12o",
"c7itj8h"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The [fleur-de-lis](_URL_0_) is widespread in heraldry, not only in France.\n\nWhat are the symbols on the left? Rosebuds? Hearts? \n\nIt might also help to check out some crowns - if you find a similar one to the one depicted.",
"I can't narrow down to whose Coat of Arms that actually belongs to, but I can point out a few things.\n\n1. I sort of question the authenticity of the Coat of Arms, as when comparing the crown to the coronets of European monarchies, it does exactly match any of them. Specifically, the placement of the circles (I'll assume their jewels) on the crown do not match any coronet I can find. However, it does look very similar to the coronets used by barons and counts in several countries, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, as well as the former monarchies of Russia and the Holy Roman Empire (whether it was a baron or a count depends on the country itself).\n\n2. This is just a swing in the dark, but if the Coat of Arms is authentic, I would guess that the Arm's origins comes from the Holy Roman Empire. This is just based off the fact that the coronet is placed within the coat of arms as opposed to on top of it. But keep in mind, this isn't an exclusive Holy Roman thing, just something more prevalent over there.\n\n3. You should probably go find someone in heraldry or vexillology. Their field of work specifically deals with questions like these. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/Tb7D1"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis"
],
[]
] |
|
21rggl
|
how did the nsa tap the german chancellors phone?
|
I read on the front page that the NSA tapped the German Chancellors phone. How would they go about that? Wouldn't they need to have access to her phone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21rggl/eli5_how_did_the_nsa_tap_the_german_chancellors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgfttfi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They intercepted the signal from her mobile phone and simply decrypted it. Since she often would use a normal 2G/3G cellphone the decryption is basic. Also she likes to use messaging a lot and I believe that is even easier to decrypt. \nThe US embassy in Berlin is within line of sight of the Reichstag building and seems to have advanced listening equipment on its roof. \n \nMerkel also has a specially designed phone that encrypts calls to military level but this phone only works with a few hundred other politicans or high level government employees who have exactly the same model. \nThe official version is that she would use the government issue encryption phone for government business while using her normal phone for everyday business with her political party. But if you think about it for a second, you'll see that both can hardly be kept separate. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1huz16
|
Biology: Speciation
|
Hi, I have a question about species and evolution, which I don't exactly know how to ask. So please bear with me.
Let's say that there are four groups of animals: A, B, C, and D. Biologists are certain that they fall along the same evolutionary line. As can consistently produce viable offspring with other As, Bs with other Bs, and so on.
Moreover, Bs can sometimes produce viable offspring with either As or Cs. And Cs can sometimes produce viable offspring with Bs and Ds. However, As can't seem to ever produce viable offspring with Cs or Ds, nor can Ds reproduce with As or Bs. Are there examples of this in biology?
I've been thinking about it from an angle of mutual intelligibility in language. My understanding (which may be based on apocryphal stories) is that there are tribes of people in the world that speak languages F, G, H, and J. and that fluent G-speakers can understand F and H without specific study, but that H-speakers can't understand F unless they learn F *or G*.
I think I'm trying to determine whether 'species' works more in analogue or digital confines.
Just Monday morning thoughts. Thanks for any discussion. Sorry if it's a lame idea.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1huz16/biology_speciation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cay66p2",
"cay8m4m",
"cay8mha",
"cay8r8a",
"cay8y3k",
"caz4go9"
],
"score": [
23,
13,
8,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
" > Moreover, Bs can sometimes produce viable offspring with either As or Cs. And Cs can sometimes produce viable offspring with Bs and Ds. However, As can't seem to ever produce viable offspring with Cs or Ds, nor can Ds reproduce with As or Bs. Are there examples of this in biology?\n\nRead about the Ensatina salamander over at [_URL_0_](_URL_1_) as an example of ring species.",
"Evolutionary biologist here.\n\nSpecies is a fuzzy concept. There's no golden rule that delineates what is a species and what isn't.\n\nThe most modern and probably most widely recognised species concept is the ecological species concept, which states that a species is a group of organisms exploiting an ecological niche.\n\nAn ecological niche can be represented by an n-dimensional plot. You can think of it as being like [this](_URL_0_) but with an axis for every single variable that affects the species. A species, under this model, is just a cluster of individuals that is distinguishable from any other cluster. This is a wonderful starting point from which to think about the concept of 'species', but the truth is that it's really just arbitrary. 'Species' is a human concept that we apply to the natural world. There's no fundamental law of nature or the universe that says \"Organisms shalt be segregated into species!\"\n\nIn your post, you talk about interbreeding. This was indeed one of the first concepts through which species were defined, and it is a great rule of thumb, but it certainly isn't considered by evolutionary or ecological scientists to define what a species is any more.\n\n\nAnother person answered your question by talking about ring species. This is definitely worth reading up on, but it's one specific example of the muddiness of species concepts and doesn't directly answer your question.\n\n\nScientists have torn through dozens of ways to define species. You can read an interesting summary of these different definitions [here](_URL_1_).",
"The kind of species you've described is called a \"Ring Species.\" They often develop when a population exists in a large ring with an inhospitable area in the center, such as a large desert, mountain range, etc. It occurs around the arctic with some birds, such as [*Larus* gulls](_URL_0_). \n",
" > I've been thinking about it from an angle of mutual intelligibility in language. My understanding (which may be based on apocryphal stories) is that there are tribes of people in the world that speak languages F, G, H, and J. and that fluent G-speakers can understand F and H without specific study, but that H-speakers can't understand F unless they learn F or G.\n\nThis is often reported to be true by speakers of Norwegian, who can understand Danish and Swedish (but Danes and Swedes often have great trouble understanding each other). This isn't a foolproof example, though (for example, Norwegians typically find it easier to understand Danes than vice versa, presumably because they are more used to dealing with unusual accents and dialects, Norway having more of them than Denmark).\n\n > I think I'm trying to determine whether 'species' works more in analogue or digital confines.\n\n\"Species\" is just a term humans apply to describe certain groups of animals. It is not a hard-and-fast category \"recognized\" by nature.\n\nThere are many different ways to use the word. The one you've just outlined (reproductive isolation) is the biological species concept. Think of all the different ways two organisms might fail to be part of the same biological species––say, because their gametes are incompatible, or because their genitals are the wrong shape (this actually leads to frightfully fast rates of speciation in some lineages, like beetles, where complex lock-and-key mechanisms can arise quickly), or because hybrids aren't as fit as their parents. This should make it clear that \"species\" is just a human concept, not a hard-coded nature in limit. In your terms, it is more like analog than digital.\n\nDarwin realized this. From page 485 of *Origin*: \n*In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species.*\n\nIn fact, the \"species concept\" most commonly used by biologists is not the biological species concept but the morphospecies concept (which basically means \"look at them\"); testing similar looking individuals to see if they are reproductively incompatible, or testing dissimilar individuals to see if they are compatible, is time consuming. If you've ever heard estimates of (say) the number of beetle species in a rainforest based on canopy fogging experiments (basically, fog the whole canopy in an area with gas and count how many distinct beetles fall down), this is done using morphospecies. For organisms that aren't even sexual (like many bacteria) or aren't around anymore (fossils), checking for sexual compatibility is downright impossible, so the morphospecies concept or an altogether different one has to be applied (for example, bacterial \"species\" are defined according to a DNA or ribosomal RNA similarity cutoff, if memory serves correctly).\n\nAnyway, as u/Kokorhekkus pointed out above, what you are describing is a \"ring species\". Another example of this is gulls of the genus *Larus*. Gulls in Great Britain can breed with their cousins in Canada, who in turn can breed with their cousins in Alaska, and on through Siberia and Scandinavia. However, British gulls cannot mate with their Scandinavian cousins.\n\nYou might also think of domesticated dogs as an example. I have a hard time imagining a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard mating successfully, but there is definitely a continuum between them along which mating is possible.\n\nedit: in a daughter comment, u/Moustachiod_T-Rex corrects me on my claim that the morphospecies concept is the most commonly used one: \n > Yes, perhaps if you're living in the 1970s. The ecological species concept has well surpassed the morphospecies concept.\n\n(According to the ecological species concept, a \"species\" is a group of organisms adapted to a particular niche in the environment.)",
"There's actually another great example of a ring species in the Greenish Warbler. I think it's a great example for your case because the reason there is reproductive isolation in secondary contact (where the ring closes again up north) is that the birds' songs have diverged such that they no longer recognize one another as potential mates. Here is a link to the [paper](_URL_0_), and to the lead author's [website](_URL_1_).\n\nAs to whether 'species' are discrete or represent a continuum, I think that's a pretty contentious argument in biology right now. When people ask me what I think a species is, I usually respond \"a good way to have an argument\". There is evidence from DNA now (e.g., much of Loren Rieseberg's [work](_URL_2_) that even \"good\" species can continue to exchange genes for a considerable period of time after they diverge. But there is probably also a point at which gene flow drops off. Some researchers, like Kevin De Quieroz, have proposed the more nuanced [General Lineage Concept](_URL_3_), which acknowledges that many of the criteria in other concepts (e.g., no viable offspring, reciprocal monophyly) diagnose stages in the process of speciation, and so using just one of them to delimit species might be inappropriate.\n\ntl;dr: Speciation is a process.",
"Remember that this is biology - where the words are made up and the definitions don't matter. So you're asking how \"species\" works. \"Species\" isn't something that exists as an exact phenomenon in the real world. It's and idea/concept/model that humans created to help us organize and understand things. Whatever rules and definitions we come up with will always have exceptions and gray areas. So \"species\" works however we define it, but it will never perfectly represent or encompass reality."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"berkley.edu",
"http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_01"
],
[
"http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/niche.gif",
"http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380species.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species#Larus_gulls"
],
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6818/full/409333a0.html",
"http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/greenishwarblers.html",
"http://www3.botany.ubc.ca/rieseberglab/people/pubs.html",
"http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/879.full"
],
[]
] |
|
9n12zd
|
what happens if there’s a natural disaster during an election?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9n12zd/eli5_what_happens_if_theres_a_natural_disaster/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7isgpa",
"e7ixiu6"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's up to the state/local election board. ",
"I've been looking to see what the procedure would be in the UK, where fortunately natural disasters are rare.\n\nReturning Officers - the people in charge of the election in each area - have the power to adjourn the poll and continue the next day.\n\nI'm not sure what happens in more serious situations. I've looked at the 1983 *Representation of the People* Act and it doesn't appear to have any provisions for postponing elections. I don't believe it's ever happened so it could be a situation without any clear rules. It might be governed by some obscure legislation from the 19th century, or perhaps based on the monarch's powers to appoint Prime Ministers and dissolve Parliament."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5umyv5
|
can an electric car be charged wirelessly like the samsung galaxy's?
|
Imagine being able to park your car in a parking lot, and it's charging. No need to fumble around with connectors and not knowing if you have the right dongle to match the pump. Even just a mat that you would lay on your garage floor would be cool.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5umyv5/eli5_can_an_electric_car_be_charged_wirelessly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddv85t0",
"ddv8lj6"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It is coming:\n\n* September 2015 AUDI Wireless Charging(AWC) presented a 3.6 kW inductive charger during the 66th International Motor Show (IAA) 2015.\n\n* September 17, 2015 Bombardier-Transportation PRIMOVE presented a 3.6 kW Charger for cars, which was developed at Site in Mannheim Germany.\n\n* Transport for London has introduced inductive charging in a trial for double-decker buses in London.\n\nEDIT: inductive charging is still pretty expensive and slow.",
"Assuming that we could come up with a common standard for automobile wireless charging (we still have 2 competing major standards for wirelessly charging phones), it is theoretically possible. I would personally bet that automobile wireless charging will see multiple standards pop up and compete, causing adoption to crawl and fizzle out.\n\nThere may still be a few problems, such as efficiency (a significant portion of the energy pulled from the wall is lost as heat), and a slower-than-wired charging time (which would make charging in public places a problem)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4v5f78
|
why are "-ese" used to describe only asian people?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4v5f78/eli5why_are_ese_used_to_describe_only_asian_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5vmc8h",
"d5vmdfz",
"d5vme6r",
"d5vmeqy"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because those countries were first explored [with respect to Europe] by the Portuguese, whose language uses that ending. And it's not *only* Asian demonyms; consider the Portuguese themselves, or, in Africa, the adjectives Congolese or Togolese.",
" > But i can't think of a western country that uses that ending for its people. \n\nPortuguese, Maltese, Faroese.",
"Your assertion is incorrect. \n\nThere are more -ese outside of Asia than in it. Examples include \nMaltese, Sudanese, Congolese, Portuguese and Guyanese. \n\nMost Asian countries are not -ese. Examples include Korean, Indian, Indonesian, Tibetian and Sri-Lankan. ",
"The suffix actually come from [Italian](_URL_0_) and they're used outside Asia too, such as [South America, Africa and Portugal](_URL_1_). Marco Polo, Columbus and other Italian explorers are some of the first Europeans to reach Far East and South America. So in general this reflect the colonial histories, which European countries first introduce the new area to the general Europe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.linglish.net/2008/10/22/so-many-nationality-suffixes/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym#-ese.2C_-lese.2C_-vese.2C_or_-nese"
]
] |
||
5x3lxq
|
why are some people more likely to have sleep paralysis, while others never have it or have only experienced it once?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x3lxq/eli5_why_are_some_people_more_likely_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"def0cfm"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Everyone or, at least, most people are capable of having sleep paralysis. Its nothing special as far as chemical imbalance go or something in genes or dealing with immune (it's been noted to be a common occurrence in narcoleptic people). But experiencing that transition from physically awake to mentally awake can vary from person to person and age. Most children will experience it more commonly than adults due growing and experiencing the world, in general, while sleeping. That's how you get a laundry list of childhood fears relating the darkness, nighttime and sleep."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2azb5w
|
How are RSA keys converted to numbers?
|
Let's say you have an RSA public key that looks like this:
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCqGKukO1De7zhZj6+H0qtjTkVxwTCpvKe4eCZ0
FPqri0cb2JZfXJ/DgYSF6vUpwmJG8wVQZKjeGcjDOL5UlsuusFncCzWBQ7RKNUSesmQRMSGkVb1/
3j+skZ6UtW+5u09lHNsj6tQ51s1SPrCBkedbNf0Tp0GbMJDyR4e9T04ZZwIDAQAB
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
My understanding is that this represents the product of two large prime numbers multiplied together. However, it is full of letters. I know binary is 1's and 0's, so I'm sure that this doesn't stop the computer from performing mathematical operations on it.
But, how does it convert this string of alphanumeric characters to a number? What would the number represented by these characters actually be if you wrote it out using only numbers (e.g. 1,055,945...)?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2azb5w/how_are_rsa_keys_converted_to_numbers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj0hz3b",
"cj0o0mm",
"cj0pqp0",
"cj0rcx8"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It actually is just a number already. Displaying it as letters takes up less space.\n\nAs you mentioned you're aware that it's really just 1s and 0s in the computer, but displaying it that way would take a very long time because of the limited amount of differentiation per digit. To describe 24 unique numbers using binary, you need 5 digits (2^5). But if you use a letter you can describe 24 different unique \"things\" (numbers) in one digit, because you have 24 letters to work with. If you allow letters AND numbers then you have 24+10=34 states per digit...then you add capitalization and another (say) 10 symbols and you double that again, suddenly every digit represents 68 possible permutations instead of just two. (or 10 if you used just numbers). I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually 64 per digit because computers and programmers love powers of two.\n\nHere is the wikipedia entry for base 64 encoding, which is what I'm describing here. Writing down information using 64 states per digit, instead of the base2 that is binary, base10 that is numbers, and base24 that is the alphabet.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere's no pattern or logic to the letter combinations because they are being used as stand-ins for numbers. If you took every number in your birth date and replaced it with the letter representing that number in the alphabet (A=1, B=2, C=3, etc...) the result would be gibberish too from a letter standpoint until you realize it's a number just being written as letters. Of course this way you're using less than half of the alphabet.\n\nBasically displaying it this way takes a lot less space, but it's still a number to the computer.\n",
"This public key is formatted in the ASN.1 standard, which is an encoding standard used to represent lots of things in cryptography. Your particular message corresponds to:\n\n SEQUENCE(2 elem)\n SEQUENCE(2 elem)\n OBJECT IDENTIFIER 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1\n NULL\n BIT STRING(1 elem)\n SEQUENCE(2 elem)\n INTEGER(1024 bit) \n 1194457323795445980561452000539327328778638467\n 9965238498958830373752732874397055988321114648\n 7286317168142202446955508902936035124709397221\n 1786644957214280299847268683753591682032834426\n 1713419770651542536618839651368444649407022307\n 9865755643116690165578452542158755074958452695\n 530623055205290232290667934914919\n INTEGER 65537\n\nThat INTEGER(1024 bit) is the actual public modulus in your key as a base 10 number (I added line breaks). The INTEGER 65537 is the public exponent used in your key. The 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1 is the Object identifier assigned to RSA.",
"I assume you are aware of other bases. (We typically count in decimal - 10 different symbols. Computers count in binary, 2 different symbols. The base can go over 10, such as base 16. In base 16, the letters A-F are used as additional symbols. So 10 is A, 11 is B, .. 16 is 10, etc.)\n\nThe string you provided represents a number in base 64. That is, there are 64 different symbols, and '10' represents 64. The symbols are 0-9, a-z, A-Z, + and /. (10 symbols, plus 26, plus 26, plus 1 plus 1 is 64 symbols.)\n\nSince 64 is a power of 2, converting from base 64 to base 2 (binary), or vice versa, is trivial. Each base 64 digit can be mapped exactly to 6 bits. The string that you provide, therefore, is nothing more than a compact representation of a binary string. The binary string would be exactly 6 times longer.",
"## What are you seeing\n\nWhat you are reading is a public key exported in a base64-encoded format. They usually have the extensions `.cer` or `.crt`. Base64 is nothing complex - it is just encoding a number in a different base (humans count in base 10, binary is base 2, you get the picture).\n\nYou are correct that the key is just a number (_actually_ two, the _modulus_ `n` and the _public exponent_ `e`).\n\n## Base64 looks wasteful\n\nBase64 encoded strings take up _more_ space than the respective ASCII string they encode. Why? Let's see:\n\nA base64 encoded character represents 6 characters in base2 (bits). So, one ASCII character (assume 8 bits) will need at least two base64 characters to be represented. For instance, `base64('A')` = `QQ==`. Therefore any base64 encoded string is 8/6 = 1.33 times larger than the corresponding bit string.\n\nOr, to put it simply: a string of length `n`, when base64-encoded will have a length of `ceil(n / 3) * 4`\n\n## Why use base64 then?\n\nWe have various choices of encoding public keys, or _numbers_. Base64 is a semi-portable format which is used everywhere for purposes of this sort (encoding in alphanumeric quantities which otherwise would produce unwanted artifacts). Other choices for public keys are DER (Distinguished Encoding Rules) which is a more convoluted ASN.1 format, or PKCS#7 which are supposed to be protected with a password-derived key, and so forth.\n\n## But how is this converted to a number?\n\nOK, like we said, a base64 encoded character represents 6 bits of information. Wonderful. By decoding the public key character by character, we will get a bitstream. All we have to do is convert that bitstream to a number!\n\nYou will notice, however, that the base64 string is _too long_. Surely, one CPU register can't fit all the bits of that number! It can't. Which is why we are using what are called \"bignum\" libraries - which are allowing us to express arbitrarily big numbers and perform operations on them. The details of how they convert bits to a bignum are quite technical, but I will go into them if you want.\n\nHope this helps."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1nnnpp
|
Why is it that if you multiply any number by nine and add up the digits of the product, they also equal nine? For example 9x12=108. 1+0+8=9
|
Is there some intrinsic property of the number nine that makes this happen? Is it just a fluke of mathematics? Are there real world examples of this? Is this even a meaningful question?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1nnnpp/why_is_it_that_if_you_multiply_any_number_by_nine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cckaa4l",
"cckad3w",
"cckailb",
"cckb2bh",
"cckey13"
],
"score": [
7,
100,
9,
14,
4
],
"text": [
"It is actually a multiple of 9. not just 9\n\n",
"It's got to do with the relationship between 9 and 10, the base of our numeral system:\n\nWhen we write the number \"324,\" what we really mean is \nthree hundreds, plus two tens, plus four ones, or \n3 times 10^2 + 2 times 10^1 + 4 times 10^0 \n\nNow consider: what is the remainder when I divide ten by nine? What about when I divide one hundred by nine? One thousand?\n\nIn all cases, there is a remainder of one! The nice thing about remainders is that they behave nicely under addition and multiplication, so you can ask:\n\nWhat is the remainder when I divide 324 by nine?\n\nWell, since we have \n324 = 3 times 100 + 2 times 10 + 4 times 1, \nthe remainder when dividing (324/9) is equal to\n3 times (remainder of 100/9) + 2 times (remainder of 10/9) + 4 times (remainder of 1/9) \n=3 times 1 + 2 times 1 + 4 times 1 \n=9 \n\nNote that a remainder of (9+x) should be interpreted as a remainder of (x), since the remainder when dividing by nine can't be nine or larger. Since we found a remainder of 9, we interpret that as a remainder of zero, meaning 324 is divisible by 9.\n\nSecond example: \nremainder of 39542/9 = \n3(Rem of 10000/9) + 9(Rem of 1000/9) + 5(rem of 100/9) + 4(rem of 10/9) + 2(rem of 1/9)= \n3 + 9 + 5 + 4 + 2= \n23\n\nA remainder of 23=18+5 is really a remainder of five (since we were dividing by nine), so this number *is not* divisible by nine.\n\nSince the remainder when you divide 1, 10, 100, 1000, etc by *three* is always one, this trick works for divisibility by three also!",
"It's because 9 is one less than the base of the number system we use. The same property holds for 6 in base 7 arithmetic for example. Allow me to attempt to demonstrate an inductive argument.\n\nThe base case is 9, whose digits add up to 9, a multiple of 9. Now suppose x is a multiple of 9 whose digits also add up to a multiple of 9, and consider x+9. If the last digit of x is 0, it becomes 9 and the digit sum increases by 9 (and remains a multiple of 9). Otherwise, we decrease the last digit by 1 and add 1 to the second last digit, not changing the overall digit sum. The only case not yet accounted for is if the second last digit is 9, we reset it to 0 (changing the digit sum by a factor of 9) and carry the 1 to the next digit, continuing this process until we reach a non-nine digit. Either way, the 1 subtracted from the last digit ends up being added somewhere, and all digit resets in between change the sum by 9.\n\nHopefully that wasn't too contrived for you to follow.",
"First, I should point out that the sum of the digits won't necessarily be 9, but it will be *divisible* by 9. (for instance 11*9 = 99, 9 + 9 = 18).\n\nSpetzo gives a good answer, here's something I think is an interesting aside; if you switch to another base, say base n, then this will be true of multiples of n-1. \n\nFor example, let's work in base 8. Take a number in base 8, say (13)_8, and multiply by 7. I can't do base-8 math in my head, so let's convert to base 10:\n\n (13)_8 = 1*8 + 3*1 = (11)_10\n\nand of course, (11*7)_10 = (77)_10 which in base-8 is\n\n (77)_10 = 1*64 + 1*8 + 5*1 = (115)_8\n\nnow, add up the digits, and you get 7.\n\nIn general, if you start with your number in base-n (let's imagine it's only 3 digits long):\n\n (abc)_n = a*n^2 + b*n + c*1\n\nmultiply by (n-1)\n\n a*n^2*(n-1) + b*n*(n-1) + c*1*(n-1)\n = a*n^3 - a*n^2 + b*n^2 - b*n + c*n - c*1\n = a*n^3 + (b-a)n^2 + (c-b)*n - c*1\n\nThis gives us the right number, but we can't just read off the digits any more, the last digit would be negative! But we can fix this by \"borrowing\" from the next digit\n\n a*n^3 + (b - a)n^2 + (c - b)*n - c*1\n = a*n^3 + (b - a)n^2 + (c - b - 1)*n + (n - c)*1\n\nall I did here was add and subtract n to change the final two terms. Now, if (b-a) and (c-b-1) are non-negative, I have the right representation for the digits of my result; they're a, b-a, c-b-1, n-c, and if I add them up, I'll get n-1.\n\nIf c-b-1 is negative I can use the same trick, and borrow an n^2\n\n a*n^3 + (b - a)n^2 + (c - b - 1)*n + (n - c)*1\n = a*n^3 + (b - a - 1)n^2 + (n + c - b - 1)*n + (n - c)*1\n\nif all the digits are non-negative, we can add them up at this point, and you'll get 2(n-1). Otherwise, you just keep \"borrowing\" n, and at each step you are introducing another n, and another -1 to the digits, so the result will always be divisible by n-1.",
"I am assuming you mean that the digits will add up to a multiple of 9 and not 9 specifically as is easily proven by multiplying by 11 to achieve 99 which adds up to 18 and not 9. This same test holds true for 3.\n\nThe simple answer is that it is an intrinsic property. It basically comes down to pattern recognition. Pattern recognition is recognised as one of the basic principles of mathematics. This pattern is intrinsic to multiples of nine (and 3). There are many patterns. Some would say that all math is patterns. For myself, my strength is pattern recognition.\n\nDivisibilty by nine is one of the first things they teach us in grade school. If you were to ask 10 people for a simple test for divisibility by nine you would likely get 8 or more answers that are the same. Likewise for 2,3,5 and 10. It starts to get more difficult with 4,6,and 8. 7 is very difficult and I've yet to find a pattern that \"Simplifies\" the solution. \n\nA very interesting one is divisibility by 11. I doubt too many people would know this one without looking it up. The trick is to add up alternating digits into 2 separate sums, subtract one (smaller if applicable) from the other and test divisibilty of 11 on the result.\n\ne.g. 4532164487 X 11 = 49853809357\n\n4+8+3+0+3+7 = 25\n\n9+5+8+9+5 = 36\n\n36 - 25 = 11 and 11 is divisible by 11\n\nNote: A result in zero also confirms divisibilty by 11\n\nother interesting patterns:\n\n1,3,5,7,9,11... \n\nodd numbers you say? well, yes, but how about the difference of sequential squares?\n\n1 4 9 16 25 36 49 ...\n\nAlso how about how that 2 sequential squares add up to the next interval. \n\n- 1 Squared + 1 + 2 = 2 Squared\n- 2 Squared + 2 + 3 = 3 Squared \n- 3 Squared + 3 + 4 = 4 Squared\n\nor how about\n \n- 1 Squared + (1 + 3)X(3 - 1) = 1 + 8 = 9 = 3 Squared\n- 2 Squared + (2 + 5)X(5 - 2) = 4 + 21 = 25 = 5 Squared\n- 3 Squared + (3 + 10)X(10 - 3) = 9 + 91 = 10 Squared\n\nWant to Know 17 squared but closest one you know is 20 Squared (400)\n\n- 17 Squared = 20 Squared - (20 - 17)X(20 + 17) = 400 - 111 = 289\n\n**Needless-To-Say** that patterns are everywhere and if you can recognise them, you're well ahead. If you can explain them you're also a head.\n\nEdits - Sooo many typos"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9gvgar
|
We are usually taught that the American civil war was simply the North against the South, but were there different factions besides the Union and Confederate armies who fought in the American civil war?
|
I’ve been learning a lot about the Syrian civil war lately, specifically how it’s difficult to unilaterally categorize the resistance against Assad as simply “folks who are against Assad” i.e. there are a lot of different factions interested in removing Assad from power for a lot of different reasons. Similarly, were there groups in the American civil war who were interested in fighting the war aside from succeeding from the Union/preserving slavery? Or maybe they had the same goals as the Union/Confederacy, but fought as a distinct entity from either army (I read previously that some Native American tribes fought on either side of the war, but my impression was that they were largely absorbed by either army, and didn’t really act as a separate faction). It seems to me that the North/South dichotomy that is often taught is far too simple for such a conflict. Thank you for being knowledgeable!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9gvgar/we_are_usually_taught_that_the_american_civil_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e67spvt"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The closest thing to this would be the involvement of various American Indian nations, who both participated in the conflict on both sides, as well as engaged in conflict against the Union seperate from the Civil War itself. I talk at good length on this [here](_URL_0_) but am happy to answer any follow-ups you might have best I can."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8lxnfm/how_did_native_americans_view_the_american_civil/dzjw9nt/"
]
] |
|
2kj3ua
|
Is a tectonic collision significant enough to form a new mountain range still possible?
|
What would cause the event?
What would the global ramifications be?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2kj3ua/is_a_tectonic_collision_significant_enough_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clm3z4k"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I get the sense that you are envisioning that the collisions between continental plates that form mountains are A) catastrophic and B) occur quickly, but neither of these things are true. The rates of convergence between plates that drive the building of mountain ranges are, in extremely fast scenarios, on the order of a few centimeters per year and in most cases less than a centimeter per year. Growth of a mountain range takes millions of years, and while their development can have significant impacts on climate and the geography of a region, these changes occur on the time scales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years as well.\n\nThere have been no change in conditions that would preclude a new mountain range from forming. There are many actively growing mountain ranges as we speak. Some of the youngest are the Greater Caucasus, where the Arabia and Eurasian plates are colliding, Taiwan, where the Philippine Sea plate and Eurasian plates are colliding, and Papua New Guinea where the Pacific and Australian (along with a bunch of small micro-plates) plates are colliding. Additionally, lots of older mountain ranges are still active, such as the Andes and Himalaya. Sites of new mountain ranges in the future (again, millions of years in the future) will likely be new mountain ranges between the African and Eurasian plates as the Mediterranean closes (with all of the pre-existing mountain ranges and strange little structures throughout the region, this will a be particularly interesting area, too bad none of us will be around to see what happens!). Even farther in the future, eventually the Atlantic ocean will likely close via subduction and the Americas, Africa and Europe will collide in some manner, building a new, large mountain range at the site of the former Atlantic ocean. There will also likely be smaller collisions occurring in the south Pacific as small island arcs and continental fragments collide and are accreted onto larger continental blocks (personally don't know the tectonics of that region as well as the Eurasian examples). Could go on, but I think you get the idea.\n\nTL;DR - Yes, collisions are still possible, some are happening now, more will happen in the future, but they happen at rates of mm/year to cm/year and take 10s to 100s of millions of years to complete and the changes to climate and associated things that they influence happen on similarly long time scales."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
bhocn2
|
Willingly transmitting HIV is a criminal offense in many countries, were the transmitters of syphilis also subject to persecution when it was more prevalent?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bhocn2/willingly_transmitting_hiv_is_a_criminal_offense/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elvmmas"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not aware of laws that punish the syphilitic in particular; it would seem unlikely, since from roughly the early 19th century to 1905, it was understood that while syphilis was most infectious when patients can the primary lesion of the chancre, people could still be infectious years later, and it was not always clear when or if they were cured. [This is an article in JAMA in 1887 trying to use what counted as the best medical information of the day to come up with an educated decision on when syphilitics could marry.](_URL_1_) \n\n & #x200B;\n\nBut in 1905, something quite interesting happened -- the Wassermann reaction, essentially a complement-fixation test, was invented, a serum test for syphilis. Rapidly, states passed \"marriage laws\" -- you would need to get a blood test (the Wassermann initially, replaced by the VDRL in the late 30s), and you would not be allowed to marry if positive until you were treated AND converted to negative. These were VERY common ( [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) for a map of states). Unfortunately, by the 1910s, it had become quite clear that there was a high false positive rate on the test (that is, while it was sensitive, it wasn't particularly specific) -- but the test kept getting used."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://vdarchive.newmedialab.cuny.edu/files/original/08f46e2d5811f6852695f72a4c9eb9da.jpg",
"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/433166"
]
] |
||
3rkh7w
|
explain the drunken spins. what is that feeling where your mind is telling yourself not to get too nauseous. what is taking place where a body's alcohol content can fight with a mind's grasping for preventing sickness.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rkh7w/eli5_explain_the_drunken_spins_what_is_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwow7zr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you drink, alcohol gets absorbed into your bloodstream. Its main effects occur when it gets transported by your blood to your brain, but as you can imagine, once something is in your blood, it goes pretty much everywhere in your body.\n\nOne place it goes is your inner ear, which is involved in helping you maintain your sense of balance. Inside your inner ear are little hair-like cells (called hair cells) that can detect the movement of a fluid (called endolymph) that flows over them when you move, as well as a small gelatinous structure called the cupola, which also moves when you do. The combination of the fluid and cupola movement over the hair cells helps your brain determine if your head is rotating or staying still. However, when alcohol is brought to your inner ear, it is absorbed by the cupola, making it lighter than the endolymph. This means it floats a little bit, allowing it to respond to gravity as well as head rotation. (It's important to note here that motion sickness is often caused by the input of mixed signals, that is, your body feeling motion by your eyes telling you you're still or vice versa.)\n\nSo there you are, drunk as a skunk, lying on your bed, and your lighter-than-usual cupola is responding to the pull of gravity, triggering the hair cells in your inner ear to send signals to your brain that your head is rotating, but your eyes are telling you that you're *not* rotating, in fact, you're perfectly still. This mixing of sensory inputs confuses your brain and causes you to feel sick. (Why that is the case, someone with more knowledge than I of the subject will have to inform us).\n\nEdit: grammar"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1iqf36
|
How did the Japaneses manage to defeat the Mongols during their invasion of Japan?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iqf36/how_did_the_japaneses_manage_to_defeat_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb726cg"
],
"score": [
61
],
"text": [
"**Disclaimer**: English isn't my first language so there might be a few passages in this post which may sound a bit strange. Please forgive me if you come across any!\n\n---\n\n**First Mongol Invasion of Japan (1274)**\n\nDuring the First Mongol Invasion of Japan, the Japanese were greatly outnumbered but fought courageously against the invaders. When night fell the battered Japanese forces withdrew a few miles inland and [took cover behind some defensive walls](_URL_0_). Here they decided they would wait for reinforcements from Honshu. The invaders also had decided to retreat and recuperate.\n\nDuring the night a large storm set in and the Korean boat pilots were worried that the winds would push and destroy their ships against the rocks, which would effectively maroon them on Japan. They managed to talk the Mongol generals into reembarking on the ships to avoid this disaster. But instead they sailed right into the heart of the storm. [By dawn, nearly a third of the whole Mongol fleet was lost and an estimated 200 ships 13,500 soldiers and sailors had been lost to the sea](_URL_3_). Those that survived were [chased down by the much smaller and more maneuverable Japanese boats](_URL_2_). When the Japanese boarded the ship the Mongol forces were at an extreme disadvantage because many of them were cavalrymen or horse-archers who could not use their weapons effectively in this small space.\n\n---\n\n**Second Mongol Invasion of Japan (1281)**\n\nBy 1280, Kublai Khan had conquered most, if not all, of Southern China and then the Japanese learnt that he would once again turn his attention towards them. He even established a new governmental department known as the 'Ministry for Conquering Japan'. First off, an army of 40,000 Korean, Chinese and Mongolian soldiers set off to Hakata Bay in 900 ships. While a second invasion force departed from South-Eastern China with 100,000 soldiers in 3,500 ships.\n\nThe force of 40,000 men landed in Hakata Bay on June 23, 1281. They, yet again, encountered fierce opposition from the Japanese. Though outnumbered, the Japanese kept up a brave struggle for around 50 days. They were particularly effective against the Chinese and [Korean soldiers](_URL_4_) as they did not wish to fight and die for their Mongol overlords.\n\nFinally, the second invasion force of 100,000 soldiers landed further West from Hakata Bay. However, on August 15, when the outlook was looking grim for the Japanese soldiers, the winds appeared yet again, just as they had in 1274. The winds were so strong that they uprooted trees along the shoreline and raised waves that swamped all but a few hundred of the enemy ships. [The Mongol losses were catastrophic, and the ones that didn't drown were stranded on Kyushu with nowhere to run and were eventually chased down by the samurai.](_URL_1_)\n\nDespite the fact that typhoons were common at this time of year, many Japanese attributed these winds as a miracle. They believed that the gods had intervened on their behalf and therefore the winds were referred to as the *\"Kamikaze\"*, which means \"Divine Wind\".\n\n---\n\n**Source:** *\"What Life was Like Among Samurai and Shoguns\"* by Time-Life Books, pg 49-59. \n**Source:** *\"Samurai: The Code of the Warrior\"* by Thomas Louis and Tommy Ito, pg 26-27."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Takezaki_suenaga_ekotoba_bourui.jpg",
"http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/361/d/f/mongol_invasion_to_island_country_by_happymorningstar-d4kgf32.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Takezaki_suenaga_ekotoba3.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/MokoShurai.jpg",
"http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8008/kamakuraperiod1185ad133.jpg"
]
] |
||
37jqry
|
why do reporters still use overly large hand-held microphones instead of headsets or a boom mic off screen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37jqry/eli5_why_do_reporters_still_use_overly_large/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crn9zzo"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Hard to interview people with a headset mic and news crews usually consist only of the camera person and the reporter, which leaves no one to hold a boom mic overhead. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
uq0xk
|
Is it possible to use the Sun, Moon and Earth's gravitational influence to find your location on Earth?
|
As In, you use their gravitational effects simular to using an X, Y and Z coordinate system. My father seems hung up on the idea that it can be done.
While it does seem reasonable from a layman, I'd like to know whether this idea is completely absurd.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uq0xk/is_it_possible_to_use_the_sun_moon_and_earths/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4xie3x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The problem is that Earth's gravitational field varies from place to place to a much greater level of magnitude than any of those other effects. You could possibly do it by measuring the long term cyclicity, but not by one-off measurement. The other problem is that even if you have equipment sensitive enough to pick up the cycles, you would not be picking up enough information to work out your latitude accurately."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
11n0fz
|
Why didn't European disease wipe out African slaves in the new world like it did ti Native Americans?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11n0fz/why_didnt_european_disease_wipe_out_african/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6nv6ms",
"c6nvbdf"
],
"score": [
14,
39
],
"text": [
"Asians, Africans and Europeans have been in contact with eachother since who knows when and thus shared a similar immune system. However, native Americans did not come in contact with the \"old world\" until the 15th-16th century and thus their immune system could not defend itself against the diseases that Asians, Africans and Europeans were exposed to for generations.",
"African slaves, and their ancestors, had already been exposed to many of those diseases in the Old World. The diseases that wiped out the Native Americans weren't European, they were Afro-Asiatic-European diseases shared among all 3 continents. There were incidents where Euro-Asian diseases hit African populations, smallpox was brought by the Dutch to South Africa in 1713. There had always been some trade between North Africa/Asia/Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa to carry diseases back and forth so Africa wasnt isolated like the Americas."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2pugbi
|
how a person who commits horrendous acts against humanity, such as albert speer get 20 year sentence while illegally downloading documents, such as done by aaron swartz, holds a potential for 35 years ?
|
I saw two documentaries back to back. One on Aaron Swartz and then the Nuremberg trials. This confused me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pugbi/eli5how_a_person_who_commits_horrendous_acts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn0501b",
"cn083zk",
"cn0845i",
"cn08obq",
"cn0aloi",
"cn0d746",
"cn0dgtr",
"cn0fy1e",
"cn0g41p",
"cn0h8lb",
"cn0hpo7",
"cn0huik",
"cn0i52o",
"cn0i96n",
"cn0ijq5",
"cn0jsu6",
"cn0l3vr",
"cn0ln02"
],
"score": [
129,
79,
11,
19,
2,
8,
12,
3,
2,
2,
6,
3,
6,
8,
2,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"In most jurisdictions, the maximum penalty that can be issued by a court is much more severe than the typical penalty. The maximum penalty is usually reserved for only the most heinous of crimes or repeat offenders of serious crimes. \n\nAlso, sometimes the maximum penalty is exaggerated because it reflects the maximum penalty of each charge put back-to-back consecutively (e.g. serving 5 years on one charge, then 3 years on another etc.). In reality, many jurisdictions allow for multiple sentences to be served concurrently so that someone like Aaron probably wouldn't have had to serve consecutive sentences for each individual violation.\n\nIn sum, it's highly unlikely that Aaron Swartz would have actually served (or even have been sentenced to) anywhere close to 35 years - if any prison time at all.\n\nThe other issue at play is that the maximum possible sentence for a given crime varies widely by jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions in the US, people can be sentenced to death for murder. In many other countries, however, the maximum penalty for a murder charge may be considerably less severe (e.g. 20 years).",
"Never mix different justice systems. You can expect to have different punishments and different ways multiple law infringements interact with each other when you go into another country. E.g. in the US you can stack up prison time infinitive while in most of Europe getting more than 15 years is a hard thing to achieve . And the Nürnberger Prozesse were something completely different compared to any normal trial.",
"Aaron Swartz would likely not have served the maximum sentence.\n\nSpeer, meanwhile, was known to have defied Hitler's orders to save many lives and was the only top-level Nazi who acknowledged moral responsibility after the War. He provided the Allies with lots of information on the Nazi regime, and insisted that he was not aware of the large-scale extermination plans (though in 2007 this was disclosed to have been a lie). So Speer got off easy for cooperating and a little truth-stretching.",
"You are comparing apples and oranges. Speer was actually sentenced to 20 years (and not for committing crimes, but for abetting them).\n\nSwartz was facing an actual sentence of six months.\n\nWere Speer's acts only 40x worst than Swartz's? No, but what are you gonna do?",
"Well, not to be a Nazi Apologist but there's a reason he was called the Good Nazi. 20 years is a lot better than death, so I think he got off pretty easy.",
"Overreaching Legislators create sentencing guidelines (20 years for this, 10 years for that, etc.). Overreaching Prosecutors use these to threaten and bully the accused into taking a plea bargain. Often the weaker the case the more threatening the prosecutors become. ",
"Albert Speer was always known to have a 'silver tongue'. Lots of high ranking Nazis would joke he could talk his way out of anything. He knew the allies wanted confirmation for the legality of Nuremberg. He gave it to them by basically saying 'sorry we were in the wrong, you are the good guys'. The sentencing reflected this. He might have been an immoral arsehole but he was no idiot.",
"With electronic crimes, in particular, charges add up quickly. Illegally downloading just one document might be a felony with x-number of years in prison. Now, let's say you downloaded 5 of the same thing...The charges add up. Further, in the current system, there are mandatory sentences, so if a person is found guilty, the judge is required to sentence them to the minimum required (which is often substantial). Lastly, these things all combine to force the person to take a plea deal and avoid trial. The legal system stacks so many charges ( via charging you for each item instead of one crime as a whole) that you could end up facing decades. To avoid it, people take a plea which often results in minimal penalties (ex-a person may be facing 35 years, but take a plea for probation). It's all super fucked up",
"The solution to overly harsh prison terms isnt to make all sentences harsh. I honestly believe that 20 years is about as long as a sentence we would ever require for almost all crimes. Once you get past a 4 year sentence, youve nearly destroyed a person's chance at returning to the life they knew already.",
"\"The pen is mightier than the sword\"\n\nIf you kill someone your only a threat to them for a short time, but if you can change minds and shift the way average people see governments and corporations. Your a threat to powerful people, so you do hard time with no chance of early release.",
"The private profit of the uber rich is the most sacred thing in the eyes of the law. Life does not hold a candle to it. Second to it is defense of the state, the system of armed bodies of men and women who protect those profits.\n\nThere's a quote I've always loved, I'm paraphrasing here: \"the law is like a spider's web, the rich and strong tear right through it, while the poor and weak get caught and entangled.\"\n\nAnother one which is relevant here is \"I can't breathe\". The officer was caught using an illegal maneuver, which was banned because it causes death, the coroner ruled that the cause of death. He was caught on video, and the victim repeatedly stated that he could not breathe until he died. He wasn't even charged.\n\nBut the witness who caught him and recorded the incident on the other hand, has been charged and faces trial.",
"Murder, rape, assault, and other horrible crimes have existed for centuries. Hacking is relatively new. The public doesn't fully understand it. Are these hackers aiming nukes at us or just downloading movies that haven't been released. We don't know, so we must assume the worst.\n\nThere is also the thought that hackers who release government information are committing treason. You start throwing the word treason around, and you can punish people however you want.",
"Long story short, the more you piss off the powers that be, the more trouble you are in. They care more about their secrets staying secret then human life.",
"Because power and money.\n\nAmerican justice system is often used as a cudgel by powerful interest to intimidate and punish those that threaten profits and power structures. \n\nThe state doesn't really care about public safety. The prosecutors and judges usually live privileged lives in gated communities. Safety is not their concern. Just look at the amount of backed up rape kits and Unsolved murders in major cities while all the funding goes to drug busts and ticketing. $$. The prosecutor wants to send a political message and Aaron happened to be the sacrificial lamb they chose. \n\nJustice doesn't enter into it. We live a country where cops can murder and bomb children without even needing so much as a trial while downloading copywrit material can get you decades. ",
"Here's a handy illustrated guide explaining overcriminalization, which sounds like what you're complaining about.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Because we have a legal system and **NOT** a justice system. The whole system can easily be summed up in the words of Obama (who was speaking about some diabolical act the US committed) *\"it may not be moral or ethical but it is legal\"*.",
"Aaron Swartz's crimes might have cost a certain company a lot of money. Torturing and killing a few people doesn't really hurt anyone's bottom line.",
"This kinda is shit/subject drives me completely insane. To the point where I can't logically think about it. It is a travesty that people get less time/punishment for assault and murder than drug dealers. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2wvgkn
|
why does the drug trade particularly thrive in latin america?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wvgkn/eli5_why_does_the_drug_trade_particularly_thrive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cougbik",
"cougcd0",
"couq9wu"
],
"score": [
11,
25,
3
],
"text": [
"Good climate for growing drug crops.\n\nLow labor costs for harvesting crops.\n\nWeak/corrupt governments allow the trade to go on.",
"There's a few reasons:\n\n1) Drugs grow there easily. The climate and soil makes it incredibly easy to grow illicit drugs like marijuana and cocaine.\n\n2) Legal system. It sucks. They don't have the manpower to regulate the underground drug industry, to find all of the grow operations, or to stop the refining/trafficking. Further, corruption is rampant in many of these countries (low wages means that bribes are even more enticing) so many times the law looks the other way.\n\n3) Desperate workers. People don't resort to growing drugs unless they have to. Due to the economic climate, there are more than enough farmers and laborers willing to accept higher-than-average wages for working in illicit drug operations (while more than average, they still live in poverty).\n\n4) Distribution. Main buyer is the US, and Latin America has easy access to get drugs to the US. Production almost exclusively goes north to the US, a very small amount goes overseas to Europe or Asia.\n\nTL;DR: Many reasons come together to make it particularly enticing to produce and distribute drugs from Latin America.",
"Because the Draconian and idiotic laws that we have in place cause a very unnatural imbalance in supply and demand in the nations surrounding us. Just look at Mexico and the cartel wars. Realize that this evil is not caused by \"evil people\" but evil laws.\n\nTo answer your question. The main reason is poverty and corruption. Our laws create a demand. Their lack of institutional regulation makes it possible to fill that demand. \n\nUntil either:\n\n1) all drug laws are completely reworked.\n\n2) poverty is a thing of the past (good luck with that one)\n\nThis will continue to be a problem. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5orv3u
|
how do certain parts of the world have so many undetonated landmines?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5orv3u/eli5_how_do_certain_parts_of_the_world_have_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dclkj6s",
"dclkm5b",
"dclkorz"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"It depends on who, where, and what type of mine. But the ELI5 version is that people just don't give a shit. \n\nImagine you are a soldier. You get handed a box of mines and told to scatter them around a certain road. So you do it. Then a month later you move somewhere else. Maybe your boss wrote down where the minefield is. Maybe your boss got shot and nobody knows where he left his notes. Or maybe you were driven out of the area and you're thankful just to have survived. Going back to find the mines you left behind and recover them is probably not high on your list of priorities.\n\nThere are also some mines that get used on an ad-hoc basis and just scattered wherever there is the need. For example, the US has something called FASCAM which is when an artillery shell scatters mines from the air. There is a pretty good chance that nobody knows exactly where those things are found.",
"you fight a war against an enemy. in order to prevent them from going into an area, you use landmine tanks to lay down thousands of mines.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nwell...you lost the war. enemy didn't go there and still managed to defeat you. \n\nnow....who's going to go dig up each of those thousand mines? nobody wants to.\n",
" > More specifically, how is it possible to place so many mines in certain locations and areas?\n\nIt isn't necessarily someone going out and carefully digging a pit and setting trip wires for every mine. Instead if you wanted to mine an area you could add a trigger delay of a few minutes and just throw buckets of mines out the back of an airplane flying over the targeted zone. The mines scatter and come to rest before their trigger becomes active, and now it is extremely hazardous to travel in that area.\n\n > and do they just assume they'll never use that land for anything other than deterrence?\n\nYeah, you don't generally mine areas that you plan to mess around in. That would just be silly.\n\n > Who is making all of these mines?\n\nThe military industrial complex! Factories can make mines just as easily as bombs and bullets.\n\n > Has their usage been effective in terms of warfare and zone control?\n\nCertainly they are effective. The main problem is that they remain effective even if you don't want them to be. Suppose the two sides fighting come to a truce, then a peace agreement. The mines don't know that! And due to the number and method of delivery it is likely that nobody really knows exactly where the mines are or even if they are still functional."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAYSJ2SV0gs"
],
[]
] |
|
13jvgm
|
How does digital media degrade over time (specifically hard drives)? I know film (if stored properly) will still last longer than digital storage.
|
I do know that modern film if properly stored can last over 100 years before loosing noticeable quality. This is why Hollywood still archives EVERYTHING on 3 strip technicolor.
I know CDs and DVDs and tape media only last about 15-20 years before they can stop working. But what about hard drives? The way i've heard it explained is that over time electromagnetic forces realign the magnetism on the storage devices, eventually rendering them unreadable. People have told me I'm mis-understanding this. What am I missing, because I do know that Film last longer than digital storage.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13jvgm/how_does_digital_media_degrade_over_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c74nr4f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Basically... that IS the long and the short of it...\n\n\nA CD is like a \"digital record\" in that a laser burns pits and grooves of information in a dye layer on the CD. The dyes used in this process are highly susceptible to UV light and the biggest killer..oxidation. Film also produces a better quality picture than digital media (gasp!), and I don't say that like its an art major Hipster thing. I used to work in a photo lab and I believe the quality of film is \"equivalent\" to about a 25MP camera due to the detail in the frame..depending on the quality you use. The thing that influences your picture is the scanner in which you print off of. I thought this was BS too when someone said this to me, but the tech man who came out to do maintenance on our machines proved it to me by producing an AMAZING reprint of an old slide from 1940.. I digress.. the point is, there is such a thing as an archival CD, but they do not retain the amount of quality for the *money* It is far less expensive to save in film than dump money into better dye on a disc that doesn't save nearly as much and is larger prey to atmospheric gases. The magnetic thing is true too.. but if its just sitting around it will fade to this far sooner than the magnets will do while playing the media. \n\n\nHope this helps a bit. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ramiw
|
How much is true about the female pope Joan?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ramiw/how_much_is_true_about_the_female_pope_joan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cne1w9c"
],
"score": [
61
],
"text": [
"The story of Pope Joan is an interesting one. \n\n > [A] learned woman in male disguise managed to get herself elected pope. She reigned for two years. During a procession on its way to the Lateran Joan gave birth to a child, which in the most dramatic fashion imaginable unmasked the deception. She died immediately afterward. (*A History of the Popes*, John W. O’Malley, S.J., pg 131-2)\n\n[The event was immortalized in several paintings](_URL_0_).\n\nBut it never happened.\n\nBasically, the stories were believed—even in Catholic circles—for years. \n\n > Versions differed of course in detail, including the years when Joan reigned, though it was never set in the present or near-present. What the legend indicated was how ready the faithful were to believe the worst. (O’Malley, 132)\n\nThere were a number of versions of the story, which originated in the 11th century and continued through the 17th. Some claim she died of natural causes. Other versions depict an angry mob that killed her after her deception was revealed. Few are specific with dates or years—her reign is usually described as just long ago to not be common knowledge. The biggest evidence against her existence is that there are no substantial gaps in the succession of popes to match the stories. \n\nAs to why the story persists, there are a number of reasons. The first is that the papacy has a less than unblemished history. Corruption and even depravity were all too common. Dissatisfaction with the popes’ rule over the Papal States was commonplace. Calls for reform were just as common, which obviously included the Reformation at later points in the story. \n\n > By the end of the [13th] century [which marks the high point of the legend] the prestige of the papacy had declined from the high level achieved by Innocent III. The popes’ constant involvement in political and military conflicts took its toll on their reputations, even though they often, given the assumptions of the age, could hardly have stayed aloof from them. They faced growing criticism because of levies they imposed for financing crusades and for other causes and faced it as well for what sometimes seemed the ostentatious wealth of churchmen, especially the cardinals and the pope himself. A radical branch of the Franciscan order, the “Spirituals,” preached a poverty for the church and the papacy that sounded suspiciously like destitution and especially on this issue they became dangerous antipapal propagandists. Even outside Franciscan circles expectations that God was about to send an “angel pope” to rescue the church from worldliness circulated fairly widely.\n\n > This was the sour context in which the legend of Pope Joan emerged. (Again, O’Malley)\n\nThe story of Pope Joan serves all of these ideas. It is excellent anti-papal satire. It can be used to point out the flaws in the papacy or Catholicism. It is a fantastic account of just how hypocritical the papacy has been at points in its history. It can be used as an example as to why we should destroy the Catholic Church, or why it needs to be reformed. So, while Pope Joan never existed, the legend of her existence points to real problems that faced the papacy and real efforts to reform the Church."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Boccacio_De_Ioanne_Anglica_Papa.png"
]
] |
||
3rvn8c
|
When two identical waves of 180 degrees phase difference meet they cancel out.Where does their energy go?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3rvn8c/when_two_identical_waves_of_180_degrees_phase/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwru06t",
"cwruoru"
],
"score": [
5,
11
],
"text": [
"The waves must be going in the same direction to cancel at all times. So the wave from the first source is passing through the second source. So the second source is actually absorbing the waves and energy from the first.",
"As /u/rantonels pointed out, for the waves to cancel out at all times they must be traveling in the same direction. If two identical waves 180º out of phase traveling in opposite directions meet, they produce a standing wave whose amplitude is zero at two instants of time per period. At those moments, the energy is stored in the kinetic energy of the medium. If you think about a standing wave on a string, the individual points on the string are moving fastest when their displacement from equilibrium is zero, and they are instantaneously at rest at their maximum displacement (where all the energy is instead in some form of potential energy, depending on the kind of wave)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2pvtfy
|
They called it a gold rush back in the day. How many people rushed for gold?
|
This is probably too vague of a question, but what i am trying to ask is how many people's moves west were all about the gold? And how did these gold diggers survive with no one around? Were there trading posts all along the country or was it a wide open landscape?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pvtfy/they_called_it_a_gold_rush_back_in_the_day_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn0goif"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Your question seeks answers that involve an enormous region and a historical process that spanned a great deal of time, so answers could be very different for specific locations.\n\nThe classic Gold Rush was the one that occurred in 1849, bringing one hundred thousand, more or less, to California. The classic source on this was written by the very kind and generous [J.S. Holliday (1924-2006)](_URL_0_), author of The World Rushed In: The California Gold Rush Experience in 1981. I answer this question with the experience of editing a collection of 82 letters by two brothers from Pennsylvania who came to California in early 1849 and both died in 1857 after making an incursion into the western Great Basin, where they discovered silver amongst the gold of what would become the Comstock Mining District. See my [The Gold Rush Letters of E. Allen Grosh and Hosea B. Grosh](_URL_2_) (2012).\n\nBut this was not the only gold rush. I have specialized in the Comstock Mining District, which was made known with important strikes in 1859 and thrived until 1880, although mining has continued there to the present. Tens of thousands of people rushed into the western Great Basin (present-day Nevada) for this and subsequent rushes to other finds throughout the territory. See my [The Roar and the Silence: The History of Virginia City and the Comstock Lode](_URL_1_) (1998).\n\nFrom the Fraser River Rush to the Pike's Peak Rush in Colorado, there have been many rushes. The last in the continental US is often regarded as the turn-of-the-century rush to Goldfield and Tonopah in Nevada. Again, tens of thousands rushed in. Then there was the Yukon, which followed and brought people to the Alaskan/Canadian frontier.\n\nIn each of these, exact numbers are difficult to come by, and local participants often exaggerated numbers. I estimate that in the case of the Comstock, perhaps as many as 300,000 arrived and stayed for 6 months or more during its 20-year period of bonanza, but the population was so transient that it is impossible to arrive at an exact count. We estimate that the Virginia City/Gold Hill population maxed out at 25,000, but it turned over by the day. The attraction of precious metal districts lured people from throughout the world, making the West internationally diverse in a way that at times exceeded the diversity of communities noted for just this sort of thing (New York, for example). But, again, arriving at accurate numbers for how many people came West because of the mining excitement would be difficult. We can say that it was in the hundreds of thousands.\n\nThen your question is about infrastructure; this was, indeed, a problem. For the California Gold Country, there were quickly well established trade routes from the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento to bring supplies to the placer miners working the streams in the Sierra Range. My Grosh brothers describe how they acquired supplies: usually one of the members of their group hunted while the others washed dirt for gold. Eventually, they grew vegetables to augment their diet, but there were always opportunities to purchase food.\n\nThe Rush to Washoe - as the 1859 rush to the Comstock Mining District is called - presented a different sort of logistical challenge. It was far enough away from supply centers, that acquiring needed supplies was very much a problem. Early entrepreneurs built toll roads across the Sierra and a great deal of money could be made in simply bringing and selling all sorts of supplies to the early miners. It is one of the reasons why the Comstock miners earned a minimum of $4 per 8 hour day for underground work: inflated prices meant that they were paying more for essentials. (Compare the \"highly-paid\" workers of the Colt Factory in Hartford CN who were receiving $1.25 for a much longer day). \n\nThe mining West was by nature highly urbanized with scattered islands of population. While the transcontinental railroad, completed in 1869, linked the region to the rest of the world, it was a narrow line of communication. Other railroads linked to this artery and roads lead to wherever they were needed. It was a tough part of the settlement of the mining West, and this logistical challenge is often overlooked by historians who focus on the excitement of gold and the technological challenges of mining. That said, the logistical challenges were addressed because they needed to be."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._S._Holliday",
"http://www.unpress.nevada.edu/Browse/Titles/The%20Roar%20and%20the%20Silence;1791;1256",
"http://www.unpress.nevada.edu/Browse/Titles/The%20Gold%20Rush%20Letters%20of%20E.%20Allen%20Grosh%20and%20Hosea%20B.%20Grosh;2251"
]
] |
|
135jt3
|
Does an atom bomb really work by splitting the atom? And if so why doesn't that explosion split other atoms around it and create a gigantic chain reaction?
|
And how the hell do they split the atom in the first place?!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/135jt3/does_an_atom_bomb_really_work_by_splitting_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c70zneg",
"c70zp5a",
"c7101v1",
"c710m21",
"c710sqk",
"c710zwv"
],
"score": [
88,
6,
2,
11,
3,
3
],
"text": [
" > Does an atom bomb really work by splitting the atom?\n\nSure does. Specifically Uranium or Plutonium atoms, though in principle others could be used.\n\n > And if so why doesn't that explosion split other atoms around it and create a gigantic chain reaction?\n\nThey work based on a chain reaction with the other Pu atoms around: each fission emits some neutrons which can go on to split a nearby Pu nucleus. Only rather heavy nuclei release energy when split and only the very heaviest are at all feasible to split, which is why the chain reaction is limited to the fuel the bomb is built with.\n\n > And how the hell do they split the atom in the first place?!\n\nAt the center of a bomb will be a neutron-emitting radioactive source. The bomb is triggered by imploding the Pu around the source, and when the Pu core is small enough to reach [critical mass](_URL_0_) the chain reaction will run away and the bomb explodes.\n\nEdit: Holy proofreading batman.",
"Yes, the atom bomb works by splitting the atom. It's important to note, though, that bigger atoms with big nuclei are much more unstable and thus easier to split than smaller ones.\n\nThe reason that splitting the atom doesn't cause a chain reaction that consumes everything is that the material that undergoes fission in a nuclear bomb has big, heavy nuclei that are really easy to split. Everything outside the bomb - buildings, air, you and me - is made of mostly much smaller atoms that would require a lot more energy to split.",
"Going from large nuclei (heavier than iron) to smaller nuclei releases energy.\n\nFor small nuclei like helium splitting requires energy.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nFission happens when a neutron is absorbed making the nucleaus unstable and then it splits releasing radiation and neutrons. If the geometry is right a runaway chain reaction can be sustained. ",
"When the first atomic bomb was tested there were some who feared that something like that might happen, but it didn't.\n\nEven among elements that can produce energy through fission, only certain isotopes produce neutrons with enough energy to sustain the chain reaction. In order to sustain a chain reaction there must be an adequate amount of 'fuel' that is both fissionable AND fissile. An example is U238. It can be 'split' to release energy, it can be component in reactors and it used to surround fusion bombs to form thermonuclear bombs, but it does not produce high energy neutrons and thus cannot sustain a chain reaction. It is fissionable but not fissile. U235 however when split not only releases energy, but also high energy neutrons which in turn can split other fissionable atoms and thus create a chain reaction. ",
"Followup question: If we were to split a Hydrogen atom, would it release an insane amount of energy compared to the regular Plutonium ? This is of course assuming that we could/can split it in the first place (I'm not sure on that as well).",
"In a word, yes.\n\nMost \"atom bombs\" are fission (splitting) types. They use big atoms, like plutonium (the ones near the bottom of the periodic table). There are other types, but let's assume we're talking about something like the Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki.\n\nWhen a neutron with enough energy hits the nucleus of a big atom like uranium or plutonium, that atom splits, producing heat, two new smaller nuclei, some pare neutrons and a few other bits.\n\nA bomb is setup so that when one atom splits, the spare neutrons shoot out and cause other nearby heavy atoms to split.\n\nFor reference, the Fat Man (the bomb dropped on Nagasaki) contained 13.6 lb (6.2 kg, about 12 fluid ounces or 350 ml in volume) of plutonium-239. It's estimated only about 20% of that actually reacted, the rest was simply scattered. Doesn't take much material for a pretty big bang.\n\nThe reaction takes some very specific conditions to occur. Believe it or not, there's not enough energy in the neutrons in that explosion to split smaller atoms. This is why it doesn't blow up the world. It only works when you've got just the right heavy elements in very close proximity (i.e. compressed by a high-explosive).\n\nThe reaction is started in the first place by having a natural neutron emitter sitting near the plutonium core (for a fission-type weapon). A regular high-explosive charge then compresses the heavy elements down very close to the neutron emitter, and the reaction begins.\n\nIt takes micro-or-milli seconds for the whole thing chain reaction to complete.\n\nNote that current nuclear reactors work the same way. The reaction is much slower because the elements aren't compressed like they are in an atom bomb. Reactors use \"neutron absorbers\" to soak up some of the neutrons which slows the reaction down.\n\nA nuclear meltdown is usually the failure of the neutron absorbers for some reason. In this case, you get a bunch of heavy elements splitting each other at a pretty steady rate and releasing lots of heat. It doesn't explode, but it sure does get hot for a while."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
546hoi
|
why do big ship pull water from shore?
|
When I was growing up near the mouth of the Detroit River, we always could tell when a large ship was approaching. The water level in the canal behind our house would lower significantly, then rise again as the ship passed.
Today I saw a video where a cruise ship sucked the water away from Ft. Lauderdale beach.
Why does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/546hoi/eli5_why_do_big_ship_pull_water_from_shore/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7zbqp6"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"These things are moving so much weight that when they're moving they push tons and tons of water behind them. That creates a bit of an up-lift behind, and a depression in front. The water around the depression moves to fill in the depression which pulls it away from the shoreline.\n\nI passed an oil tanker in a channel near the Gulf of Mexico that was going in toward a port and it evacuated an area of water probably 300 yards across as it went by. We had to park the boat near the shoreline and as the tanker passed our boat was left 100 yards from any water for probably 10 minutes before the water finally returned to normal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
th32d
|
How responsible is IBM for the holocaust?
|
I heard this claim earlier that IBM (the company) played a large roll in the logistics of the holocaust. How big a part did they play? Can one even argue that its immoral to use an ibm product? Or is it just trivial hear say?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/th32d/how_responsible_is_ibm_for_the_holocaust/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4mjyd9"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"IBM punch cards were used by the Nazis to track Jews, but I doubt the modern company bears any culpability. Imagine you're an SS guard at Auschwitz... You drive to work in your VW, put on your Hugo Boss uniform, kill Jews tracked by IBM tech with Zyklon B gas manufactured by IG Farben, owners of Bayer, and at the end of a long day maybe wash down one of their aspirins with an ice cold Fanta. If you decide to boycott every company that was used by the Nazis, and every company that bought and sold those companies over the last 70 years, you'll probably wind up living in a cave and wearing animal skins. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
j6t4a
|
why does china replicate everything?
|
Well Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j6t4a/eli5_why_does_china_replicate_everything/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c29m7d9",
"c29mw76",
"c2b5hau",
"c29m7d9",
"c29mw76",
"c2b5hau"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it is cheaper than innovation, and the government has not been very strict about it.",
"Because the way they grow is by exporting a lot of things. Has they need to export more than others they must have this made cheaply, so they replicate with less quality and pay less to workers, that aren't very specialized, so they can only replicate anyway. ",
"Innovation requires investment. With low capital, strategically it is wiser to sell a product or service with a proven model to build capital before investing in any innovation. This is the same path that America took when industrializing.",
"Because it is cheaper than innovation, and the government has not been very strict about it.",
"Because the way they grow is by exporting a lot of things. Has they need to export more than others they must have this made cheaply, so they replicate with less quality and pay less to workers, that aren't very specialized, so they can only replicate anyway. ",
"Innovation requires investment. With low capital, strategically it is wiser to sell a product or service with a proven model to build capital before investing in any innovation. This is the same path that America took when industrializing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
e7c9y3
|
what happens when the liver fails and why is it fatal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e7c9y3/eli5_what_happens_when_the_liver_fails_and_why_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9xg1kr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The livers job is to filter blood for toxins (or in otherwords foreign bodies not necessarily biological in nature). The liver is also responsible for processing and metabolizing key vitamins and other nutrients. Thus, liver failure greatly impacts tuebtodisfffffrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr\n\nLiver important for making blood clean. No liver = dirty blood."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1gq6b5
|
Why are batteries measured in Volts and not Watts?
|
If the volt is a measure of electric potential, and watt a measure of joules/time wouldn't it make sense that we rate batteries on power delivered? Or perhaps amperage, charge/second?
Or have I been thinking about batteries all wrong?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gq6b5/why_are_batteries_measured_in_volts_and_not_watts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cams7wr",
"camszd1",
"camuwyc"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"You are thinking about batteries correctly. \n\nBatteries are not just measured in volts, although that is sometimes used as a shorthand. Batteries are more properly measured in volts and amp hours.\n\nHere's some examples:\n\n*car battery 12 V 40 Ahr\n* D (alkaline) 1.2 V 17 Ahr\n* AAA(alkaline) 1.2 V 1.1 Ahr\n*AAA(NiMh) 1.2 V 0.8 Ahr\n\n\n ",
"Batteries have two main electrical attributes, and they aren't really related. \n \nYou need to know the voltage of a battery to know how a circuit hooked up to that battery will behave. In the simplest example, if you know the voltage of a battery hooked up to a resistor, then you also know how much current will flow through the resistor as a result. What you won't know is how *long* it will flow. \n \nTo know that, you also need to know the Ampere-hour rating of the battery. For example, if a battery can provide 4 A for 2 hours it is an 8 Ampere-hour battery. The same battery could provide about 1 A for 8 hours instead. Or 8 A for 1 hour. ",
"Imagine you have a 100 ft water tower with a 1 cm pipe leading to the bottom. It has a ton of pressure at the bottom (Voltage in volts), huge capacity since its a giant tank (total energy in watt-hours), but very little water can flow out at once since the pipe is small (peak current in amps). You can extend the analogy for any type of water container. Each of the characteristics is different, and they are only indirectly related. A battery can have a range of voltage, capacity, and maximum power delivery.\n\nDifferent systems have different requirements, including others not mentioned like weight, volume, etc. For example a watch battery needs to be light and small and peak current and voltage aren't as important. An RC car needs a high peak current, voltage between 6-18 volts, and as much capacity as possible. A car battery needs to be around 12-16 volts, needs a really high peak current, and capacity isn't as important. For phones, capacity to size/eight (or energy density) is probably most important.\n\nAnother note is that if a battery's \"energy rating\" is given in Amp-hours, you can multiply by the voltage to get the actual energy stored. For Li-ion batteries in cell phones, this is usually around 3.7 V. If you comparing Li-ion to other Li-ion batteries, then you can compare in amp hours because the voltage is the same for all of them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3bpj8k
|
how do magic tricks work?
|
How do magicians make these tricks seem so real? I'm specifically referring to this video: _URL_0_
My question is, how do they do it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bpj8k/eli5_how_do_magic_tricks_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csoahx4",
"csoav6k",
"csoay9x"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There's no real way to answer this one in ELI5, unfortunately, because every trick has a completely different explanation, and also because I'm not really one to reveal methods like that. One good way to look at it though, is this (paraphrasing Penn Jillette): You're willing to spend half an hour trying to figure out how it's done, but the guy doing the trick probably spent months coming up with the effect, working out how to do it, and then refining that technique so that people like you wouldn't easily figure it out. So it's no surprise at all that you can't figure it out.\n\nYou'd be amazed how many tricks have ridiculously simple explanations though. There's one well known levitation, for example, that almost invariably causes people to get really annoyed when you show them how it was actually done, and this is true even though the setup makes it kind of obvious if you really think about it for a while. But it's a lot of fun to completely freak out kids with, lol.",
"As has been mentioned, every trick is different. For example, the one where the salt \"disappears\" and appears in his other hand is performed by way of a [false thumb](_URL_0_) that he pours the salt into, and then briefly \"hides\" by sticking his real thumb into it. He makes sure to either keep the hand with the false thumb on it angled so that the thumb is mostly hidden from the judges, or keeps his hands in motion so that it's hard to see.",
"Most tricks of the type this guy is doing are accomplished through two main methods. Misdirection (move your right hand in large, exaggerated movements while your left slowly pulls something from your pocket) and simple sleight of hand. Misdirection distracts the audience, pulling their attention away from where the trick is being set up, and sleight of hand is simply dexterity, quickly swapping things between your hands in such a way that the audience won't notice.\n\nAs for these specific tricks:\n\nCoughing up cards - Watch his left hand. He's got them there, and he swaps them when he brings his hand up.\n\nCards appearing and dropping into his hand - Unsure, the cameraman let his hand go out of frame when he took his hat off. \n\nTwo red balls - Left hand again gets them out of his pocket, and \"pulls\" them out of the salt shaker. When he motions putting one of them into his left hand and closing it, he actually just keeps it in his right hand. He then squishes the two balls together in his right hand (they're foam) and puts them into the judge's hand. When she opens her hands, the balls pop back to full size, appearing to have doubled.\n\nSalt/juice - Unsure. Watch his right hand with the salt though, specifically when it's at his side. He sure is holding it in an odd position. Possibly a prosthetic attached to his hand with some kind of storage in it?\n\nPen up his nose - This one's a classic. He just drops the pen down into his palm, but the way he moves his hand makes it look like it's going up his nose. Then he does the reverse in front of his mouth. Do it quick enough (like he does) and it's quite convincing."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://youtu.be/ZTy3qG_qInU"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/EO9Qdoz.png"
],
[]
] |
|
16wyl5
|
Why is the animals brain usually located in the head of animal?
|
Thanks for the answers in advance.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16wyl5/why_is_the_animals_brain_usually_located_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c804gr2",
"c804n2h",
"c805kmy",
"c8073dz",
"c80cmsl"
],
"score": [
17,
135,
21,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"It's closer to the majority of sensory structures there i.e. eyes, nose, ears. ",
"Studying for my high-school biology midterm right now, here's what my textbook has to say about the subject (known as [(Cephalization, here's the wiki in case you want to hear it from the horses mouth)](_URL_0_)\n\nAnyways: \n\n*\"Cephalization, a trait exhibited in bilaterally symmetrical organisms is the evolutionary process through which organisms concentrate their sensory and brain structures in the anterior end of the organism. As the cephalized animal moves through its environment, the anterior end precedes the rest of the body, sensing the environment.\" (Modern Biology, 655)* \n\nThink of a computer and the internet, about lag time and latency. The further the distance the information has to travel, the longer your computer goes without that information. Same concept with animals, if their sensory organs are a long distance away, the more overall time it will take to process that information and react accordingly. Furthermore by concentrating most of the sensory organs all in one strategic place it will do the most good efficiency-wise. \n\nI hope this helped, at the very least it helped me study!\n\n**edit:* Spelling ",
"The other responses so far are good, but in addition to latency, neurons are expensive! There is a lot of evidence suggesting that many aspects of the structure of nervous systems are organized in a way to reduce wiring. So if you have many critical sensory structures in the head (which is probably since it's at the end that is closest to new environments when moving forward), all the interneuronal processing machinery is 'pulled up' towards it! You even see the beginnings of a brain in both C. elegans and Amphioxus: \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"It would be nice to hear a comparison against an animal that doesn't have a brain in its head.",
"The same reason that a giraffe's vocal nerve makes a detour of *several meters* up and down its neck, when a straight path would be only a few centimeters:\n\n Because our ancestors were that shape, and it's hard to change."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalization"
],
[
"http://www.sfu.ca/biology/faculty/hutter/hutterlab/research/pictures/Ce_ns_label.gif",
"http://instruct.uwo.ca/anatomy/530/worms.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
b73yrw
|
The ocean is full of plastics: What are the primary sources of these plastics?
|
Context: Lots of places are banning plastic bags and plastic straws and rarely also microbead soaps.
That's well and good, but I don't know the source of the plastics in the ocean... as per that study that suggested that 60% of ocean life had plastic in their guts. (I can't find the original article).
And then there's [the DEEP ocean](_URL_0_) ... what is the nature of the plastic that's getting there?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b73yrw/the_ocean_is_full_of_plastics_what_are_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejp62yj",
"ejpvyu2",
"ejpw0ca",
"ejq120l",
"ejq2osz",
"ejq30dn",
"ejq58rg",
"ejqj77g",
"ejqn3fu",
"ejqwf42"
],
"score": [
1366,
650,
52,
19,
111,
36,
2,
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The \"Pacific Garbage Patch\" gets a lot of press, and [its single largest component, at 46% by weight, is fishing ~~gear~~ nets](_URL_1_), but it makes up only a small fraction of the oceanic plastics.\n\n[This report](_URL_0_) indicates coastal detritus makes up about 74% of the total, and that most of that total (94%) ends up on the seafloor.\n",
"10 specific rivers have been identified as probably responsible for a quarter of all ocean plastics.\nAll we need to do** is filter at the river mouths of these and 25% of the flow can be stopped. But do we ? No. \n\n_URL_2_\n\nFor those who don't understand what riverine filtering projects look like, it's not sticking a giant net-like filter across the entire river.\nTypically barges are used, like they have on the Thames in London.\n\nOther projects, \n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_ \n\n** this has caused some confusion. I'm not suggesting this would be easy. But at least it means we've narrowed down the target of our efforts from tens of thousands of possible emission points to 10 main ones. Low hanging fruit and all that. ",
"I can't say if synthetic textiles (e.g. clothes, etc.) are a *primary* source, but I think it warrants some serious consideration. Here's an article on VOX that has a bit to say about it: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_). They breakdown in the wash and end up in everything. It just floors me how much plastic we have used since mass production began in the 1950s. I'm not perfect, but I'm trying to cut back on the synthetic clothing or other textiles I buy. I stick to wool and cotton mostly. Feels better on the skin anyway.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nedit: I don't think we understand the full scope of synthetic fibers as a pollutant yet, but I'd wager that it is pretty serious. ",
"As one other comment said\n[~~pollution mainly comes from rivers in Asia~~](_URL_0_)(Apparently not). Although banning straws and plastic bags in Europe (I don't know if America also does it) is a step in the right direction, realistically it will not change the situation at all. \n\nKeep in mind that in Europe and America they take care of collecting and safely disposing or recycling trash. Unfortunately this is not the case at the countries at which the rivers from the study flow through. \n\nUnless our world leaders somehow make those contries to be less reckless with their plastic disposal(Unlikely) the platics problem will continue.\n\nEdit: Clam in the article is missleading, however I still think that little is going to change from banning straws and plastic bags in Europe. ",
"A major contributor to the ocean's microplastics is fabric. Most modern fabrics whether clothes or linen, etc. are made with a poly-blend in some form or manner. While widespread ocean plastic dumping is prevalent, a certain ignored percentage comes from laundry itself. There are filters that can be installed to washing machine and dryer outlets, but these are super expensive and often not easily available over the counter. This type of pollution predominantly affects plankton across the world, which pass it on to smaller fish and so on.",
"Difficult to ascertain what the primary sources are because this field is just so data deficient. The data we do have on Marine litter is largely informed by beach litter surveys and the odd seabed trawl. There may be some pelagic/sea surface surveys, but I am not aware of a large scale data set of this kind. \n\nSo that's our first obstacle in identifying the major sources of litter; we can't be hugely confident of the makeup of ocean litter. \n\nSome studies estimate that 80% of waste comes from activities on land, with the remaining 20% coming from maritime activities. Pathways from land are varied, but mostly come down to littering and spillage in rivers and on beaches. \n\nIn response to people posting about 25% of Marine litter coming from major rivers in Asia, we should mention that for a long time, Western countries would export a large amount of their waste to be disposed of and recycled in these countries. Many of these such as Indonesia do not have sufficient waste management frameworks to deal with their own waste, let alone others. So we should be careful when pointing the finger. \n\nAnother important mechanism to point out is that when exposed to sunlight and seawater, larger plastics fragment into smaller pieces. The weathering of these pieces mean that the origin of much of plastic litter surveyed cannot be accurately determined; the number one item in the Marine Conservation Society's UK beach clean is \"plastic pieces\", the origin of which cannot be determined. \n\nTldr; We can point to what might be the most problematic industries for Marine litter, but we need to consider where we are getting our data from, where we are sending out waste, and what happens to waste in the Marine environment. \n\n\n",
"Well that depends... There are a multitude of plastics that are discarded into the ocean. There are fishing lines, fishing nets, plastic bottles, plastic bags, and etc. Whatever you can imagine, people have probably dumped it into a body of water somewhere. Due to the fact that these items are not biodegradable, the plastics break down into smaller pieces which are distributed throughout the water column. They are present in each trophic level. All we really see is the surface garbage patches in their respective gyres. In the benthic level, there are micro plastics present also. Bioaccumulation occurs from the bottom of the food chain and when humans ingest these organisms the amount is multiplied.",
"From what I’ve read on the internet; Aside from the obvious ‘single use plastics’ like plastic bags and straws, there is also synthetic clothing like polyester that releases micro plastics from friction whilst worn and when washed. Many washing machines do not have adequate filters to catch these plastics after washing and simply dump them straight into the environment. There is also car tyres, whilst not quite as huge a contributor as clothing, those black donuts start off quite a bit thicker than they end up and all of that synthetic material is generally of ‘micro plastic’ quality. ",
"I sailed through the Pacific Garbage Patch in a storm on an oil tanker from Washington State to Hawaii. After the storm the ship was covered by styrofoam cups, toothbrushes, plastic grocery bags, fishing nets and a bunch of random stuff like straws, lids, lighters, toy parts and plastic bottles. ",
"Shipping containers contribute significantly to the deep ocean plastic waste! \n\n\"Between 2008 and 2016, shipping companies lost over 1,500 containers on average each year, most during accidents such as capsizing, running aground or when sailing in heavy seas, according to a survey by the World Shipping Council, a trade association.\"\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/20/plastic-pollution-mariana-trench-deepest-point-ocean"
] |
[
[
"https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/plastics-in-the-marine-environment/",
"https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/great-pacific-garbage-patch-plastics-environment/"
],
[
"https://m.dw.com/en/eu-eyes-high-tech-cleanup-for-plastic-pollution-in-rivers/a-41653886",
"https://www.seabinproject.com/the-product/",
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/"
],
[
"https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/9/19/17800654/clothes-plastic-pollution-polyester-washing-machine"
],
[
"https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/26/asia-africa-cause-90-plastic-pollution-worlds-oceans-13233"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/world/europe/garfield-phones-france.html"
]
] |
|
6q4hrn
|
Can plasma electrocute you?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6q4hrn/can_plasma_electrocute_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkvu9fi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Plasma is a gas composed of positive ions and electrons in roughly equal amounts. By itself it can't electrocute you, but the process which created it could. Man made plasmas often use high voltage. A small neon bulb needs around 90 volts. A neon sign uses several thousand. A static electric shock creates a tiny, brief plasma. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9tqhr1
|
How is Georgy Zhukov viewed by Russians?
|
I've been reading up on Georgy Zhukov and man....that was one ruthless sociopathic human being. I'm sorry If I phrased it that way but the guy just had such a horrible human rights record it's hard to see him as anything other than a monster. With him sending millions and millions of people to their deaths, often times needlessly, surely lots of Russian people even today are affected by him directly (fathers, mothers and siblings being killed). He certainly seems like someone who caused a lot of Russians a lot of suffering. What I am curious about though is with how ruthless Zhukov was to his own people how is the man seen by Russians today?
Here in the US we think of our commanders for the most part as good and just and just did what they needed to do to get the job done; Whether or not that's true I'm not here to say. We don't hear stories of Eisenhower or McAurthor shooting people in the head for cowardice (or ordering it), and I'm sure if we did hear stories of that we would denounce them. That clearly seems to be the kind of thing Zhokov did regularly so I am curious how modern Russia thinks of him.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9tqhr1/how_is_georgy_zhukov_viewed_by_russians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8yvfyc"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"I'm curious, what have you been reading up on Zhukov? I read a biography of him by a French author ([\"Zhukov, the man who beat Hitler\"](_URL_0_)) and well, as you can guess from the title, it doesn't paint him as a \"ruthless sociopathic human being\" but rather as one of best officers in the Red Army at that time. Not perfect by any means (the author does mention he had a tendency to exaggerate some of his achievements) but not a \"monster\" considering the context he was acting in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://livre.fnac.com/a5929890/Jean-Lopez-Joukov-l-homme-qui-a-vaincu-Hitler"
]
] |
|
38vsgp
|
what is so great about cuban cigars? will the quality of the cuban cigar go down if the u.s. embargo is lifted?
|
Do they grow there tobacco a special way?
Will the increase of demand lower the quality?
Had this happened before with another country/their "special" product?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38vsgp/eli5_what_is_so_great_about_cuban_cigars_will_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cry8ity",
"cry8w7e",
"cry9dgs",
"cryb05h",
"cryb40b"
],
"score": [
7,
41,
4,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"The tobacco is high quality (pure Cuban tobacco, no blend), and the method of creating a single cigar is high quality, usually resulting in a perfect cigar.\n\nThat's about it.\n\nThe demand increase won't change quality, as the Cuban government takes their major export very seriously.",
"Cuban cigars might have been the best in 1962, but the rest of the world has caught up, while Cuba stood pat.\n\nThere are Dominican and and Nicaraguan cigars every bit as good as Cubans, which have been getting by on the mystique generated by the embargo.",
"There is a mystique about them due to import controls from, largely, the USA.\n\nHaving had them overseas, I find they're not particularly special, perhaps for two reasons.\n\nFirst, tobacco seeds were sent from Cuba to Central American countries ages ago, like Honduras and Panama, where the cigars were replicated and exported to big-market USA.\n\nFrankly, Florida, USA, is not without expertise in rolling and marketing cigars.\n\nSecond, CENTAM countries have long had their own tobacco industries, just like Cuba, so there's nothing particularly exclusive about the taste or quality of Cuban cigars.",
"I spent some time in Cuba back in March, even spoke in-person with a tobacco farmer in the Viñales Valley, one of the 5 best spots to grow tobacco in Cuba, who showed and explained his tobacco-growing techniques. That being said, I'm not an expert in the fields relevant to your questions or anything like that, but as a student who's been there and learned about it in person, here goes:\n\n > Do they grow their tobacco in a special way?\n\nAs far as I know/remember no. Keep in mind that tobacco grew naturally in Cuba before its worldwide exportation, so it grows optimally there, not accounting for genetic engineering, or a different climate growing it better (especially since preference for cigars is largely subjective), or other anthropogenic factors.\n\nWhat may account for Cuban tobacco to be better than other countries' tobacco is the large level of human (and draft animal) inputs that goes into producing cigars. Cuba can't afford industrial fertilization of its crops, or other kinds of industrial manufacturing that can grow larger quantities of tobacco at the expense of quality. Hand planting, hand harvesting, hand drying/curing of tobacco, hand-rolling in the manufacturing of cigars, no heavy use of pesticides, fertilizers, or farming equipment ... All of it can add up to a higher quality product. That isn't to say the fairly organic, GMO-free production of cigars in Cuba isn't correct, optimal or ideal; it's just the way it is, with the results that come.\n\n > Will the increase of demand lower the quality?\n\nThis implies a lot of stuff economically that I don't fully know or can fully answer. tl;dr is possibly, but I don't know for sure.\n\nSo, let's look at some possibilities. Taking your question in a fairly literal way, no, an increase in demand will not change the quality of the supply. Supply and demand are two separate but related objects, and a change in the latter may not affect the former's curve.\n\nBut that's theory; what about reality? With the removal of the U.S. embargo, why wouldn't Cuba begin growing more tobacco or shittier tobacco to its new, huge and rich market?\n\nThe answer is Cuba itself. While some privatization and capitalistic reforms have been introduced, tobacco production is still highly controlled by the government (the farmer I talked with mentioned his friend was removed from growing, despite being really good at it, by the government), who do not think in terms of American/Western economic theory of maximizing money, the scourge of socialism. What's more likely to happen is that the Cuban government will keep production/supply at its current levels, and let the foreign markets and their demand push up the prices for cigars, with the Cuban government pocketing more money and using it to continue on with its goals.\n\nSpeaking of goals, there is a big reason why I think the above will occur. One of the big drivers of the Cuban Revolution and the changes that followed, was due to health problems among the people of Cuba and Latin America more generally. This is what motivated Che Guevara to join with Fidel and co. in the first place, and remains a reason why one of Cuba big contributions to the world and its economy are biotechnology and its doctors (see: the number of Cuban doctors ~~coerced by the government into~~ valiantly working to fight Ebola and more generally treating patients in other countries with insufficient healthcare systems, the fact that they have a lung cancer vaccine and America doesn't, etc.). Healthcare is one of the pillars of La Revolución. Now, farming, especially industrial agricultural practices, are damaging to the environment and, consequently, human and public health. Already, striking an accord with capitalist America and the changes that everyone is anticipating will come to Cuba as a result of normalizing relations is already a huge compromise to the core tenants of La Revolución; I doubt that an additional compromise in more tobacco or lower tobacco quality will come as well at the cost of public health.\n\n > ~~Had~~ Has this happened before with another country/their \"special\" product?\n\nSorry, couldn't resist correcting the typo. I'm not a historian or anyone else who could answer this fully, but I doubt there's a similar case of one country's inherently valued product becoming fully reintroduced into a new, huge market. Maybe the rise of silk cultivation in the Byzantine empire or introduction of capitalism into postwar or post-communist countries has some clues to this, but neither of those are precise fits, nor may there be an example fitting the current situation of Cuban tobacco.\n\nThat's all I got. Feel free to ask any questions you may have, but keep in mind it's like 9:45 PM here in New Zealand now and I can't Reddit from my internship tomorrow, so it may be a while before I get back to you.",
"I'll tell you my experience. . Keep in mind I smoked cigs occasionally during this.\n\nWhen I was 17 I went to England to study at Oxford for summerschool, while I was there me and about 8 other guys from the states decided to go to the cigar shop and get some fancy Cubans. We all went to the park and started smoking.\n\nEveryone except me and my buddy Patrick got so sick so fast they just gave me all their cigars and ran back to campus. Patrick and I kept smoking, talk in to some random girls for awhile and this super rasta guy who no joke, rolled a joint and smoked it with one hand while riding a fucking bike around the paths and singing reggae (I was thoroughly impressed). When we decided it was time to head back to campus, as we had a ball to attend and dance rehearsal in about half an hour, I discovered the true potency of cubans.\n\nI was straight throwed. I would have been able to walk a straighter line if I had just chugged a 5th of Jack and challenged a group of rambunctious children to a game of spin til you fall down. It was pretty fun. \n\nWhat wasn't fun was learning how to ballroom dance with this fine little hottie ( created an important formula for the EPA used to calculate the methane production of various organisms when she was like 16, which to me was attractive as fuck) when my body was currently trying to sweat out the tremendous amount of tobacco toxins it had just received. by the end of the night (went to a Vivaldi concert after the ball) I had sweated through an undershirt, a dress shirt and my sport jacket.\n\n10/10 would do again"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4jwb5a
|
On changes in the scope of Classics/Classical history
|
I have two related questions for the historiographically inclined classicists and ancient historians amongst you:
1. It is my impression, from studying ancient history at BA level and my own reading, that the scope of the classics/classical history has significantly increased geographically and temporally since it began as a modern discipline. For instance, one of the PhD students at my college was studying the construction of royal authority in the Achaemenid empire; one of the reasons it was interesting, he said, is because classicists have largely ignored the Achaemenids except for their relationships with the Greeks. Is this impression accurate? Have historiographers discussed why this change has happened.
2. Whether or not this impression is accurate, have there been any classicists/ancient historians who argued that the scope of the discipline *should* be expanded? Is there an equivalent of something like J.W. Scott's "Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis"? How radical have these proposals been? (e.g. have people confined themselves to saying "it doesn't make much sense to ignore the Sassanids except when they were fighting the Romans", or have they said "You know, Sanskrit is an ancient language with a body of classic literature in many ways similar to Greek or Latin; why is that not part of classics?")
Edit: [this question](_URL_0_) is somewhat related, and some of the answers are interesting.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4jwb5a/on_changes_in_the_scope_of_classicsclassical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3a6i11",
"d3ar8oh"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"This sounds like a question that could benefit from multiple perspectives, since its partially a question of institutional tradition. There is generally a sense in which Near Eastern history is more prevalent in ancient (western) history than in years past. This is particularly true at an undergraduate level. So a course on Ancient Greece might now spend some time discussing the internal mechanics of the Persian Empire, while a Late Antique course might devote a significant amount of time to the Sasanians. But this will vary a bit based on the institution. In a big university where Near Eastern history courses are taught, spending too much time on the Persians would mean stepping on a colleague's toes. It might well be that people studying Near Eastern empires aren't housed in Classics not because classicists don't appreciate their work, but because they've traditionally been in Archaeology, History, or Near Eastern Studies departments.\n\nBut on a broad level, there has a been trend towards expanding the horizons of classics. The principle movement here has been towards an appreciation of that the period from Constantine to the Islamic conquests is not one of simple decay and decline, but rather a continuation of classical antiquity with its own vibrant culture. This period is known as late antiquity, and it the man who largely invented it as field of study is Peter Brown. His 1981 Cult of the Saints is good, short, and gives a nice representation of his basic thought on late antiquity. If you're super interested, the first edition of the Journal of Late Antiquity has some good articles about the state of the field that are significantly more recent (late 2000's).\n\nA second point of expansion has been the consideration of sources not in Greek or Latin. The use of demotic sources (demotic was was a language used in Egypt) by classicists to study Ptolemaic and Roman Egpyt has been underway for awhile now. A good recent example of such work is Joseph Manning's The Last Pharaohs (2009). \n\nThere is also an increased interest in using classical Arabic translations of works where the original Greek or Latin has been lost. Here the go-to book of the moment is probably Simon Swain's Economy, Family, and Society from Rome to Islam (2015), which is a discussion of Bryson's Management of the Estate, a tenth century Arabic source which is a translation of a Roman era guide to household management. ",
"In addition to what has been said in this threat already, on my personal definition what is and what isn't Classics:\n\n > For instance, one of the PhD students at my college was studying the construction of royal authority in the Achaemenid empire; one of the reasons it was interesting, he said, is because classicists have largely ignored the Achaemenids except for their relationships with the Greeks. \n\n > \"You know, Sanskrit is an ancient language with a body of classic literature in many ways similar to Greek or Latin; why is that not part of classics?\"\n\nThese two questions are sort of related. I would say that the very rough traditional definition of *Classics* or *History of Classical Antiquity* is the *study of the Greek and Latin speaking world* and study of history from Latin and Greek sources. Of course this line is blurry. For example, I wouldn't consider a historian working solely on the Minoan civilization a *classicist*, perhaps a Mediterranean archeologist or something, but I could definitely imagine a classicist studying the *development and influence* of Minoan art on *archaic Greek art*. So, a classicist always studies things that are in relation to the Greek and Roman civilization. We could of course speculate, why does the study of very, *very* early Greek art, the Geometric period, make it so significantly more *Greek* than the Minoan culture? I guess it is easier to conceptualize an undisturbed line of development from the Geometric Athens to the Classical Athens, whereas Minoan culture sort of went dim around 1400BC and is not as obviously linked. \n\nI'm a bit surprised that your friend is doing a PhD in *Classics* on the Achaemenid Empire. In my neatly compartmentalized world, I would classify that as Persian Studies or Iranian studies - Greek was never used by the Persians apart from as a language of diplomacy before Alexander the Great. Same goes for other ancient Mediterraenan/Middle Eastern cultures that were not Greek-speaking, people working on those are called egyptologists, assyriologists etc. etc. On the other hand, there's huge amount of ancient literature written in Latin and Greek about these cultures, so historians working on Achaemenid Empire will have to know Greek and Latin. But, you'll only get the Greek and Roman perspective, which is often orientalising and inaccurate, so what you're studying there is often really a history of the ideological relationship between the Greco-Romen world and the Achaemenid Empire. Which is the very reason why I find it weird that your friend is studying the Empire *without* any connection to Greece. \n\nI recently did talk to someone who was puzzling over to what extent the classical languages should define what we study as classicists. He is working on the Hellenistic [Susa](_URL_0_), i.e. the era when it was under the Seleucid and Parthian empires, both of which had Greek as one of their official languages and they were politically structured along the Greek *polis*-model. It was, however, in many aspects a very Persian city as well: Persian and Aramaic were used for official purposes as well and 'indigenious' gods were worshipped alongside the 'Greek' pantheon. Around the end of the Hellenistic period, the city starts to slip further away from the Graeco-Roman world, and eventually they completely stop using Greek. This is also when Hellenistic historians, or classicists, traditionally stop working on Susa because the loss of the language is seen as the end of the Hellenistic era. But, my friend has been wondering, whether the language issue is too arbitrary a boundary. Susa still maintains its Greek political models and worships Zeus and other Greek gods long after it stops using Greek. So, is this justified?\n\nOf course, [Classical reception studies](_URL_1_) is a huge field of its own where people can study stuff like, the influence of Cicero on Donald Trump's rhetoric. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e340e/the_concept_of_classics_the_health_of_the/"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_reception_studies"
]
] |
|
f280x2
|
why aren't republicans pro choice and democrats pro life? (u.s.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f280x2/eli5_why_arent_republicans_pro_choice_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhatp0n",
"fhatqaf",
"fhatuij",
"fhau3yj",
"fhauxki",
"fhav2mq",
"fhavkgn",
"fhavxm4",
"fhavzl7",
"fhawibu",
"fhawsk4"
],
"score": [
165,
24,
2,
19,
17,
8,
26,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the 70s, 80s and 90s, the republicans found that Christians shared many conservative values. The party made a conscious effort to embrace the conservative Christian Right and made opposition to abortion part of the party platform to gain the large religious base. \n\nThe Democratic Party responded as the party of human rights and solidified around defending the rights of women.",
"I think it's better to label the two parties as liberals and conservatives in this case.\n\nConservatives - respect for American traditions, republicanism, **support for Christian values**, among others.\n\nLiberals - **civil liberty** and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nConservatives follow \"thou shalt not kill,\" while liberals believe in \"the freedom to decide.\" That's also why the two camps are called pro-*life* and pro-*choice*.",
"There isn't really a good way to answer this without annoying both sides. All i could really say about this is people all have their own opinions, and every situation is different. You don't have to agree whole heartedly with the views of the republican or conservative party blindly, you should decide what you believe in and adopt those beliefs. In my opinion, party speaking points nowadays are just pushing an agenda for own interest, but again there's not really much to say as you can't really say someone's viewpoint is wrong unless we're talking mathematics",
"Republicans are anti abortion not pro life, it is down to interpretation of the bible and where the life begins the issue is that they think that terminating a fetus is \"killing a baby\"",
"It is only the hard liners on both sides who are ultra strict to this. \n\nIn my view the average person on both the Republican and Democrat side is a combination of pro choice and pro life. Perfectly fine with pro choice for months 1 to 4, and very troubled with late term abortion in the last 3 months.",
"Because none of the American political parties have a cogent political philosophy. They are not interested in advancing a moral agenda they're interested in winning elections. They pick issues that divide the population and see if they can position themselves advantageously on them. \n\nOne example of this is how the Republicans came to dominate most southern states through, \"the southern strategy\" which was at odds with the Republican parties history on civil rights.\n\nAnother question where is the political home of the \" life is precious\" people who oppose gun ownership and abortion rights because \"life is precious\". This is a simple and understandable position that is largely absent from our public discourse. \n\nWe don't have political parties we have, to quote Eisenhower: \"conspiracies to seize power.\"\n\nIf we want to fix this we have to get rid of first-past-the-post voting which is the only effective way we can change the American two party system.\n\nTLDR: no-one believes anything. Everything's a lie. They put mind control drugs in the water supply.",
"Political organizing around abortion was 100% a response to the civil rights movement, specifically, the integration of schools.\n\nIn the 1960s and 1970s, even post-Roe, the evangelical community was actually fairly open on abortion when compared to today. You can look up quotes from leaders of southern baptist churches explaining how important it is to have available abortion for rape, incest, danger to mother, fetal abnormality, etc. You can even find a quote about how until the baby is born, it shouldn’t be considered a separate life.\n\nThe issue became a rallying point for evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell who wanted to open whites-only schools in the face of federal efforts to integrate education. Jimmy Carter was actually a southern evangelical, but he did not help stem the tide of integration, he actually was in favor of it.\n\nThey turned to the *other* party, and Ronald Reagan, who was, let’s say, ambivalent about civil rights and racial integration. Reagan won in such overwhelming landslides that the religious right was able to consolidate its political power.",
"I just don’t understand why we don’t come to a compromise about when an abortion can happen. Not if, but when. Because I’m pro abortion but having an abortion at 9 months pregnant is kinda fucked.",
"The party stances on abortion and the death penalty seem contradictory as well. Republicans believe in the \"sanctity of life\" about abortions but let's whack the prisoners. Democrats want to save people that have been found guilty of horrible, violent crimes but killing unborn children is OK. A callous pragmatist would favor both, while a devout Christian would favor neither. Yet here we are.",
"Social Policitcal ideas are not the ones that made the party divisions in the first place. These are simply ad hoc political ideas that have a a large base in either-or. To say \"Why aren't Republicans pro choice and Democrats pro life\" is wrong. They are not mutually exclusive.",
"The right, is much more pro-individual rights. And usually see unborn humans as humans, and therefore they deserve the same negative right to life as anyone else. \n\nThey don't see it as being anti-woman. That is just rhetoric. They are pro-life, regardless of gender or race. \n\nI think your question is fundamentally flawed, by trying to reduce the whole spectrum of beliefs, into 2 categories."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
787vid
|
what is the difference between all those different types of toothpaste?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/787vid/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_all_those/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dorox9h",
"doryo2z",
"dos338o",
"dos3l16",
"dos6pe4",
"dos71sa",
"dos73ds",
"dos8kkc",
"dos9kb6",
"dosbkqd",
"dosfwd3",
"dosksgz",
"dosn3d0",
"dosv31k",
"dot1l81",
"dot1o88",
"dot4mv7",
"dotb9ss"
],
"score": [
12230,
17,
21,
91,
702,
86,
7,
9,
19,
42,
3,
3,
3,
5,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's not a lot of difference. Some manufacturers will add materials that have certain properties, but in real-life use, those properties will be minimal.\n\nExamples:\n\nWhitening toothpaste contains a higher level of ~~surfactants~~ abrasives, essentially \"scrubbing\" the surface of the tooth clean. This can damage enamel over time. They may also contain bleaching agents.\n\n\"Enamel repair\" toothpaste contains calcium-based substances that are reputed to replace the surface layer of enamel. They are essentially a stopgap, and the material that's deposited will be removed pretty swiftly. We cannot replace enamel manually, and the body doesn't produce any more over time.\n\nCavity protection will be through addition of sodium fluoride, which is proven to help with strengthening of the enamel. So that actually does work, but the vast majority of toothpastes have sodium fluoride in them anyway, so claiming \"cavity protection\" is redundant.\n\nPut simply, just buy a cheap, fluoride-containing toothpaste, and use it. The physical action of brushing is far, far more important than the type of paste you use.\n\n.\n\n*edit*\n\n**Holy crap**, inbox asplode. Thank you for gold, kind mystery redditor.\n\nAll of the above still applies, but I thought it might be useful to add in some information that others have stated below, or that I left out.\n\nSo, first off, things that *do* affect dental hygiene and effectiveness. First and foremost, since it's the single most important thing - brushing technique. The vast majority of people don't have great brushing technique with manual toothbrushes, so it's commonly recommended that everyone uses electric toothbrushes, which do the \"hard bit\" for you and provide the most comprehensive brushing possible. This technology is gradually evolving over time, but the rule of thumb is to go for one that has three key movements - rotation, in-out vibration, and oscillation. These three things have been proven to effectively clean the tooth surface, and stimulate the gum line, resulting in improved overall oral health.\n\n/u/tcmaresh and /u/unsanitary_napkin made an excellent point - toothpastes that say \"9 out of 10 dentists recommend\" only say that because dentists recommend that people use toothpaste. That's it. They're not recommending a brand, they're recommending toothpaste in general. Additionally, in order to be approved by the dental association, they have to work, and not do any harm. Those are the only two requirements.\n\nNext - flossing, and interdental brushes. The general consensus is that brushing *and* flossing is better than either one or the other, but there is a growing body of research that suggests flossing is not as effective as interdental brushes (again, when used in combination with normal brushing). Do some reading up on ID brushes, and give them a try if you want to. But if you're flossing regularly (or not) and your dentist has told you your teeth are in good shape, just stick with what you know.\n\nNow, on to other toothpaste ingredients. As some have stated, brushing *without* toothpaste actually removes just as much bacteria, food particles and tartar from the surface of the tooth as brushing *with* toothpaste. However there are some ingredients that prolong the effectiveness of brushing, give fresher breath, assist with gum health, etc etc. So, some examples below.\n\n\"Sensitive\" toothpastes. This includes Sensodyne. There are some ingredients, particularly Novamin, which do appear to significantly help with tooth sensitivity. These do not aid with overall oral health, but they *do* help with your teeth not feeling like they're being ripped in twain on a daily basis. Worth using if you suffer from this affliction.\n\nFluorides. Whilst sodium fluoride is the \"standard\" substance for fluoride delivery to the enamel, as various people have stated, there are others. These include stannous fluoride, one that's still used in certain brands. All of them have the same mode of action, which is to deliver fluoride to the surface of the tooth. Some make it more \"available\" than others, but the difference appears to be fairly minimal. Stannous fluoride can give some people problems, including tissue sloughing (bits of skin coming off the inside of your mouth), gum whitening, and tooth staining. Ultimately though it doesn't really matter what type you use, as long as you use it. Note that all OTC main brand toothpastes will typically contain the same amount of fluoride. Prescription toothpastes are different, and contain more.\n\nAntiseptic agents - this includes Chlorhexidine and Triclosan. These remove bacteria from the mouth, and can assist with gum health and cavity prevention; they also hang around in the area, preventing bacteria from returning. Antiseptic agents can be beneficial, but some studies have suggested that we need to maintain the \"good\" bacteria in our mouths, which assist with prevention of halitosis and tartar buildup. So approach with caution, but they are generally good to use (this includes mouthwash).\n\nEnamel repair. This has come up a lot. There are some substances which appear to promote remineralisation of enamel. However, having done some reading up of my own, this effect is minimal, and occurs over a long, long period of time. It may still be beneficial for some, but consuming acidic foods or drink will quickly reverse the process, so diet control is needed alongside use of these substances. As per my original response, just brush your teeth. If you want to include enamel repair toothpaste (at a significant price), feel free. But it's not essential.\n\nXylitol. This is a sugar substitute that is included in a lot of chewing gum, and some toothpastes. Its key benefit is that it cannot be digested by bacteria, so it offers an excellent sweetening alternative. Some studies have shown that xylitol can remineralise enamel; but these studies have been done using 20% xylitol solutions at 37^o C, over two weeks (with constant application), which isn't really relative to the real world. But yes, it has its benefits. It's in a decent number of toothpastes already, so feel free to use if you want.\n\nFoaming agents. The most common foaming agent in toothpaste is Sodium Laureth/Lauryl Sulphate, the same stuff that is used to make liquid soap foam up. It's an irritant, and can cause problems in people with sensitivity to it, including ulcers (canker sores), lesions and general irritation. If you are susceptible, find a toothpaste that doesn't contain it. The amount of foam a toothpaste produces does not relate to its cleaning ability.\n\nBaking soda! This stuff is present in Arm and Hammer and some off-brand products - it's basically an abrasive, and aids with whitening of teeth. The same caution applies as with all other whitening agents - it damages enamel. So approach with caution. Baking soda also neutralises acid in the mouth, but that effect will be negated as soon as you consume anything acidic. So very much a temporary solution.\n\n/u/FranDankly very kindly [provided a link](_URL_0_) which covers the abrasiveness of various well known brands - it may prove useful for some. Note that abrasion is still beneficial in most cases, but excessive abrasion ain't good. Worth noting that most whitening toothpastes are on the higher end of the scale!\n\nI think that's about it for now... but regardless of all the added info above, the action of brushing is *still* far more important than anything else (whether or not you combine with flossing). Brush dem teefs!",
"My dental tech told me to buy the cheapest tube that said anti-tartar on it. I have extra special hard buildup and need the cheap sand (diatomaceous earth) to get it off. \n\nEverything else is just marketing, though the toothpastes like Sensodine do help some people, depending on the reason your teeth are sensitive. ",
"My dentist told me bog standard Colgate is the best, and definitely not to use whitening toothpaste. In that vein she said that OralB ProExpert is way too abrasive and had caused a number of ‘wear’ fillings in her patients. Forget the technical term...",
"I guess it's not very popular outside of scandinavia but here in Finland many toothpastes also contain xylitol on top of fluoride and these both have similar effect. Asian tourists seems to be stocking up on this stuff since you can't get it in most places. Most chewing gums here also contain xylitol. ",
"My daughter JUST did a report on toothpaste for school so this info is fresh in my head. :-)\n\n**TL;DR:** Generally speaking there are no differences that make any one toothpaste better than any other toothpaste *at the job of being toothpaste*. All of them (or, funnily enough, none of them) will get your teeth equally clean, and any ancillary benefits that a toothpaste may claim have no effect on their ability to be toothpaste.\n\nFull explanation: Toothpaste is considered a **parity product**. A parity product is any product that's functionally equivalent to any other competing product that may be offered by a competitor. Products like nails, peanut butter, gasoline, and soap are parity products because they are all functionally identical to products offered by competing companies.\n\nAny differences in parity products are largely superficial, perceived, or add no *measurable* or *functional* benefit to the product. For example, some oil companies will tout how their pumps are equipped with special filters to make sure the gasoline coming out is more pure, or how they've got special additives to help engines run cleaner and more efficiently. The veracity of these claims are supported by the use of wiggle words like \"more\" or \"help\", but fundamentally the gasoline from any given oil company is 100% identical to gasoline from any other oil company. Any difference in price between two competing gas stations has to do mainly with the effectiveness of their advertising. Lots of people would consider paying a bit more for gasoline from Dinoco than they would from MomsNPopsGas if they *thought* that Dinoco gas was better.\n\nIn specific regards to toothpaste, there are generally four ingredients in virtually all toothpastes: water, abrasives, sulfactants, and fluoride. Individual products are differentiated by colors, flavors, task-specific additives that aren't strictly necessary for the task of *toothpaste* (e.g., hydrogen peroxide as a whitening agent, or potassium nitrate as a desensitizer), and of course packaging (striped toothpastes are popular). It's these non-purposed variations that give rise to the ten thousand different tubes of toothpaste in your supermarket.\n\nFun Fact: In the world of parity products, any competing product can legally call itself \"the best\" in its genre for the purposed task. Toothpaste's job is to help keep teeth clean (Another Fun Fact: brushing with or without toothpaste has no bearing on the amount of plaque removed from teeth) so if they all have the same *functional* ingredients then there can't be any one product that's better than any other; ergo, all products are \"the best\" at being toothpaste.",
"Dad is a dentist... Toothpaste basically all the same ( unless you have sensitive teeth, then yes sensodine makes a difference). He said buy the flavor you like, he always got AIM or close up, which ever was cheaper. For him the type of toothbrush you use is more important. He is a big electric toothbrush advocate. He has used both oral B and so I are, he was usually trying out the newest model. \n\nFlossing is also huge! ",
"I was taught 30 years ago to only go with toothpastes that carry the [American Dental Association seal of acceptance](_URL_0_). There are fewer and fewer toothpastes these days that have earned it. You'll notice that almost none of the \"whitening\" toothpastes carry it. Ironically, Aim, one of the cheapest brands, does. So that's what I buy. (I'll wait now for someone to tell me why this doesn't matter at all.)",
"One of the biggest differences in toothpaste is the presence of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS). SLS is used to make toothpaste super foamy, but it can dry out your mouth, make the insides of your mouth hurt, and possibly even make your allergies worse! I used to get really bad canker sores on my gums but I switched to a toothpaste without SLS and it totally worked! I prefer the Sensodyne Pronamel toothpaste myself. \n\na source:\n[Most toothpastes contain Sodium Lauryl Sulfate which is a chemical used in toothpaste to create the foaming action. SLS can cause or irritate existing allergies, canker sores and bad breath, which is why an SLS Free alternative is worth considering.](_URL_0_sls-free-toothpaste/)\n\na second source: \n[The ingredients in your toothpaste are as important as the ingredients in your food, but -- like many cosmetic products -- toothpastes contain chemicals that would never appear on your dinner table. One example is sodium laurel sulfate, present in over 100 dental care products rated by the Environmental Working Group, a consumer health organization. Finding a toothpaste without SLS can be accomplished by learning a few brand names or by making your own toothpaste at home.] (_URL_2_)\n\nMore on SLS itself: _URL_0_",
"Life Pro Tip when it comes to toothpaste. The ADA seal is only applied if the ADA determines a toothpaste is \"Safe and Effective\". That means the have tested it and it (a) won't harm you when used as directed, and (b) it does what it says it does. That's it. No other requirements.\n\nMost of the toothpastes on the shelf have NOT earned that seal. Not because they are safe, but usually they because they don't live up to the claims (e.g. whiten teeth). Don't buy a toothpaste without that seal of approval. Because, without it, how do you know it's safe? It probably is, and the toothpaste probably failed to earn it because of the other claims, but do you want to reward the company for lying?",
"So all the top level answers are awesome and perfect but I do want to add an explanation about monofluorophosphate, sodium fluoride, and stannous fluoride.\n\nThe three substances listed are all fluoride ions but they are different. Stannous fluoride in particular is famous for its odd BUT benign side effect of staining the gums white temporarily. In some clinical studies, stannous fluoride was show to be slightly more effective than monofluorophosphate or sodium fluoride. However, the difference is largely negligible.\n\nBasically as others have pointed out, as long as fluoride is present, toothpastes are more or less the same. Sulfate ingredients will make toothpaste extra foamy and baking soda or hydrogen peroxide will aid in removing surface stains. And of course sensodyne is perfect for those with sensitivity issues. \n\nTl;dr there are slight negligible differences between stannous fluoride, monofluorophosphate, and sodium fluoride. ",
"The chemical makeup differences are minimal. The advertisement, packaging and implied or stated effects (that exist in other pastes) are what is used to say X is better than A,B,C,D just ask out 9 out of 10 dentists. Colgate blasted radio and TV in the 20's up till today. Colgate, through sales and adverts, put Gleem, Stripe, Ultra Bright, and Pearl Drops in the ground. the differences between Colgate and other brands, as with theirs to Colgate, is usually an increase or decrease of specific chemicals.\n\nSome taste better, others scour the mouth free of germs. The worst idea, though, has to be antibacterial toothpaste...",
"The differences in major brands are mostly flavoring or cosmetic. However specialty toothpastes like sensodyne have an extra ingredient that helps reduce sensitivity. There are also different mixes of whitening ingredients as well.",
"This is a very minor, not-very-relevant difference, but I know that most \"sensitive\" toothpastes lack the chemical sodium laural sulfate. I don't know *why* they don't have it, but I do know that it's a foaming agent and that causes super annoying acne in some individuals. So, useful to know that difference if you're in the small group of people with stupidly sensitive skin. ",
"I'm no expert but i took exceptional care of my teeth and was still managing to get cavities. Doc gave me a perscription level toothpaste with 150x the fluoride and now i have no problems",
"Toothpaste industry is an oligopoly market. The main characteristics of such a market is that there are limited number of players and they do not go in a price war - otherwise all of them would be dead in a days time.\n\nWhat they instead do is to bring out new and innovative ways to sell their toothpaste - this includes that, ours is better, try this, etc etc.. Most of 5his innovation is artificial.. does not help anyone using it.\n",
"So reading through the comments there appears to be no significant difference in toothpastes, so I was wondering if there's also no differences between mouth washes?",
"One answer covered the practical aspect of it. I'll deal with the Economics of it. \n\nThe reason why there are so many toothpaste is that people like different things! \n\nSome like blue boxes, other are concerned about how white their teeth are and other like their toothpaste to be striped like the one they saw used by that beautiful man on TV! \n\nSo now imagine you are a toothpaste company making one white toothpaste. If you started making two toothpaste, a white and a striped one, you'll be attracting (a little) more customers and make more money! \nBut of course you could do this again, you could offer a simple box version of each and foiled version. \n\nSo basically, a company will expand his variety as long as it can profit from it! All markets where the basic content of the product is fairly cheap to make will see a lot of \"varieties\" being sold (think breakfast cereals, toothpaste, detergents).\n\nThere is also one more important reason why expanding varieties is good for companies : if you are selling many different types of the same item you are effectively creating a market for each one (one for all the consumers who like stripey ones, one for those who like foil boxes etc..). Each market might be tiny, but they add up to a lot. This in turn makes it harder to compete against your company.\n\n If you are a new company you will have to come on the market with many varieties matching the older firms. If you just competed for stripey toothpaste you'd get very few customers, because you'd be splitting customers who like stripey tooth paste who are just a small subset. To understand why this is the case think of the fact that if instead the older company was selling only one variety most customer would be buying that(since they don't have an alternative) . In turn, a new firm entering by making one product could potentially get half your business! \n\nIndustrial economics, over and out! ",
"No one has mentioned arginine or toothpastes containing it and their effectiveness in treating sensitivity. Arginine is a naturally occurring amino acid found in our saliva that, when combined with calcium, has been proven to significantly reduce sensitivity by \"plugging and sealing dentinal tubules\" and aiding in the remineralization of enamel. It also prevents cavities and disrupts plaque, apparently. \n\nArginine is an active ingredient in Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief (in Canada), and a handful of other products in Canada and the US.\n\nI find it more effective (and better tasting) than Sensodyne. Try it if you have cold-sensitive teeth. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.lincolndentalcenter.com/relative-dentin-abrasivity-rda"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ada.org/content/MouthHealthy/images/ada_seal/ADA_seal_rdax_215x215.jpg"
],
[
"http://slsfree.net/",
"http://slsfree.net/sls-free-toothpaste/",
"https://www.livestrong.com/article/1005590-toothpaste-sodium-lauryl-sulfate/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fjtxj
|
How dangerous are toy laser pointers really when shined in someones eye?
|
xpost from r/softscience
When I was younger, I used to blow off the warning stickers on laser pointers (toy store bought) and look inside them when the laser was shining right in my eye. If you asked me today why I did it I couldn't tell you, suffice to say it was an extremely stupid thing to do. Now years later I am wondering just how much damage they actually did to my eyes. As I went through my teenage years my eyesight declined to about 20/60 today (I'm 21) and I never thought about it till recently. Did I actually ruin my own eyesight?
Some additional info: none of the laser pointers were anything stronger than what you can purchase at any toy store, I was about 7-10 when I did this, and I did do it on numerous occasions (stupidstupidstupid)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjtxj/how_dangerous_are_toy_laser_pointers_really_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1ggoqo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Milliwatt laser pointers shouldn't do much, because your blink reflex prevents your eyes from staring into the beam. However, invisible IR lasers can do serious damage to your retina because you don't know when you are staring into the beam. The main hazard is that cheap high power lasers often use an IR diode and a frequency doubler to create visible light. Often the IR component is left unfiltered, which means they can easily damage your eyes. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5mf13f
|
The word lord comes from "loaf warden" and formed well after the rise of Christianity, so how did they retroactively apply that to the Bible? What word would a Roman in, say, the 4th century have used in its place?
|
And what word is used in the Greek manuscripts or by the apostles of Jesus? Isn't its usage rather anachronistic?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5mf13f/the_word_lord_comes_from_loaf_warden_and_formed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc35q3w"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The Latin word used in the Vulgate (ca. 4th Century) was \"Domini\". For example, [Matthew 1:20 in the NIV](_URL_0_) reads,\n\n > But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.\n\nHere's the same passage from the [Vulgate](_URL_2_):\n\n > Hæc autem eo cogitante, ecce angelus Domini apparuit in somnis ei, dicens: Joseph, fili David, noli timere accipere Mariam conjugem tuam: quod enim in ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est.\n\nThe same word is preserved in our use of the term \"AD\" to designate years: it stands for \"anno domini\" which is generally translated \"year of our lord\". For example the US Constitition ends with a note that it was \"done in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven\".\n\nIn ancient Greek, the passage (Mt 1:20) was ([one version](_URL_3_), anyway):\n\n > ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς\nΔαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριὰμ τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν\nἁγίου· \n\nIt's less apparent than in Latin, but the word used is \"[κυρίου](_URL_1_)\".\n\n > Isn't its usage rather anachronistic?\n\nThe words used in Latin and Greek that have been translated as \"Lord\" were not titles reserved for God, but they were general words which had roughly the same meaning as the English word \"lord\". I think the use of \"Lord\" in English is an appropriate translation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/1.html",
"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82#Noun",
"http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/mat001.htm#001",
"http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/mattwgrk.pdf"
]
] |
|
a2tkf8
|
How did you know which branch you were drafted into? (WWII)
|
Hi everyone. I couldn’t find an answer on the internet to this, but does anyone know what determined which branch of the military you were drafted into during WWII?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a2tkf8/how_did_you_know_which_branch_you_were_drafted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eb124c2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I answered a question similar to this [here](_URL_0_), but I'll repost it below."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9w3j5o/during_the_draft_in_america_how_did_they_choose/"
]
] |
|
24f5tt
|
What year is my globe from?
|
I got this globe from a garage sale because I thought it was neat but there doesn't seem to be any markings as to what year is from. [Here's an album of the regions](_URL_0_)
If there are any others I haven't included that you think would help I can add them
EDIT: The globe was made in the USA by the George F Cram company
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24f5tt/what_year_is_my_globe_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch6jcdl",
"ch6jgkf"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Certainly post-WWII (e.g. Yugoslavia possesses Istria). It looks like it comes from 1948-1949. The termini seem to be (a) the existence of Israel, founded in May 1948, and (b) a single Germany, divided in May 1949. A bit later than that is also possible, since the makers of the globe may have taken a while to catch up with changing borders.\n\nIf the makers didn't want to acknowledge a divided Germany at all, then the next termini I can see are the existence of Indochina and North Rhodesia, both of which would put it no later than 1953.",
"Post WWII but before the fall of the SU. Kaliningrad (not Königsberg) is shown as part of the SU, and the Baltic states are missing. Poland is also where it is now. Saarland seems to be part of Germany so it's probaby after '56 Then again, Germany is depicted as unified, so that's a bit odd. \n\nEDIT: hah, didn't notice the other pictures. Given the state of Asia it's definitely before the Vietnam war. Can't make out whether Malasia is still part of the British empire though"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/cObw3"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
dh57ix
|
What does the bacteriophage do once it injects it’s DNA into the host cell?
|
For example, the bacteriophage T4 inserts it’s DNA into the E. coli and the virion stays outside of the cell. Are there DNA cells left within or does the cell just die?
I’m thinking if it does die it’s a small sacrifice since many more virions will replicate within the host and eventually burst.
Thank you!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dh57ix/what_does_the_bacteriophage_do_once_it_injects/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3im1f9",
"f3ip2dp",
"f3kumlv",
"f3lpwnd"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Viruses aren’t exactly alive. They don’t consume energy and grow and replicate themselves. The protein envelope basically attaches itself injects the DNA, the cell does all the work. The original envelope dissolves I guess. \n\nBut it isn’t a sacrifice really, it is not a parent child relationship, rather closer to how single cell organism splits into two.",
"you’re personifying the virus a little too much. the virus and the cell don’t ‘do’ anything, they’re controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry. \n\nthink of the virus as a piece of rogue dna. it starts by borrowing the cells machinery to make viral proteins that self assemble into capsids and such which then get out and go hijack other machinery.\n\nnormally viruses have a way to lyse the cell wall and get out, it doesn’t seem likely to me that they can burst a cell just because of how much smaller they really are but id change my mind if somebody has a reputable source",
"You can think of the part of the virion left behind as an empty single-use syringe. Once the nucleic acid content is injected, the rest of the protein machinery has no more role to play (that I know of, exceptions can exist). There is no \"death\" to speak of other than the parts being broken down, e.g. by macrophages.",
"There are 2 main life cycles: lytic and lysogenic.\nIn the lytic cycle, occasionally referred to as “virulent infection”, the infecting phage ultimately kills the host cell to produce many of their own progeny. Immediately following the injection into their host cell, the phage genome synthesizes proteins that break down the host DNA, allowing the phage to take control of the cellular machinery. The phage then uses the host cell to synthesize the remaining proteins necessary to construct new phage particles. The heads and sheaths are manufactured separately, the new genetic material packed into the head and new daughter phage particles are constructed. During this process, the host cells gradually become weakened by phage enzymes and finally burst, releasing on average 100-200 new phage progeny into the surrounding environment.\n\nThe lysogenic cycle occasionally referred to as temperate or “non-virulent” infection. This doesn't kill the host cell, instead using it as a refuge where it exists in a dormant state. Following the injection of the phage DNA into the host cell, it integrates itself into the host genome, with the help of phage-encoded integrases where it is then termed a “prophage”. The prophage genome is then replicated passively along with the host genome, as the host cell divides for as long as it remains there and does not form the proteins needed to make progeny. As the phage genome is generally comparatively small, the bacterial hosts are generally relatively unharmed by this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
pgfo8
|
What happens to energy when it enters a Black hole?
|
Say hypothetically the Earth was being sucked into a black hole. The Earth would have Kinetic Energy. The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only change form. So what happens to the energy of something being sucked into a black hole? Is Kinetic energy of an object transferred to the black hole?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pgfo8/what_happens_to_energy_when_it_enters_a_black_hole/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3p5n1p",
"c3p7xc7"
],
"score": [
15,
2
],
"text": [
"The black hole gains mass.",
"This thread has become somewhat uninformative, but here is the answer: the earth doesn't get sucked into a black-hole, the earth and the black-hole get mutually attracted.\n\nThe difference is that at the end, momentum should be conserved. Picture yourself at a reference frame lying in the center of mass of the black-hole + earth system. So if your initial configuration has the earth very quickly moving into the black-hole, at the end, you'll have the black-hole slightly heavier and moving in the same direction. If the initial configuration has the earth still and the black-hole also still, they will both start moving towards the center of mass, and once the earth is swallowed, the black-hole has to sit still, which means that from the POV of the black-hole, it just got de-accelerated. \n\nThis will be (in general) a dissipative collision, which means that the kinetic energy at the beginning and at the end won't match up. But as you well said, there must be some sort of conservation, and this excess energy gets converted into the mass of the black-hole."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
denbpg
|
when a star dies, is it possible to see this occurrence with the naked human eye? say you're looking up at a star at night, and you see a slight flash and then it's gone. is that possible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/denbpg/eli5_when_a_star_dies_is_it_possible_to_see_this/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f2x0br6",
"f2x0uhj",
"f2x1bri"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, but the flash might last days or even weeks, and is only visible with the naked eye if it's really close or an extra-large explosion.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Supernovae have been seen repeatedly throughout human existence. There are reports of a supernova visible during the day in 1054, which lasted for 2 years. Unfortunately, they don't happen all that often right around us, so it's not often that you can see them without telescopes.",
"The process of stars dying actually takes millions and millions of years - they aren't like a light bulb where you might suddenly see one wink out.\n\nStars around the size of our sun and smaller go through a process of becoming a red giant - expanding as they cool, and eventually ejecting the outer layers until they condense into a tiny, dim, white dwarf star. That process takes hundreds of millions of years, so everything changes *very* gradually. \n\nStars that are significantly more massive than our sun have a more exciting finish called a supernova, where the star itself actually condenses tightly, heats up by a few billion degrees, and then explodes. This is something that's actually visible, and because of how much matter is involved and the enormous amount of energy involved, that bright explosion lingers for a large amount of time and can be visible from Earth for a long period as it slowly cools and dissipates. There was a famous supernova in the late 80's which was close enough that it's still being observed and studied today and has really expanded astronomers' understanding of the process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2gp59w
|
Directly after Japan was nuked, what was the worlds reactions after learning about nuclear weapons?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gp59w/directly_after_japan_was_nuked_what_was_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckll9za",
"cklo932"
],
"score": [
38,
71
],
"text": [
"I'm specifically interested in the Soviet reaction. Did they condemn or support the decision?",
"The scientists who developed the atomic bombs felt tremendous remorse after the bombing. Many actually signed a petition that was given to Truman asking to not drop the bomb. Leo Szilard, the man who petitioned Roosevelt to start the atomic bomb project, was the man spearheading the campaign to not use it. \n\nThe atomic bombs were developed to stop Hitler, not the Japanese. It was believed that the Germans were developing their own nuclear devices (German scientists discovered fission) and we needed to build ours first. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
sackc
|
A question all men secretly want the answer to. Is there really any point at all to washing your hands after you take a piss? Is there really bacteria on your dick that needs to be washed off?
|
Obviously if you piss on your hands or something like that you need to wash your hands. But if it's a "clean transaction" is it really necessary to wash your hands afterwards?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sackc/a_question_all_men_secretly_want_the_answer_to_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4cg76g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Think of all the things you touched in order to take that piss. In your own bathroom, you touched the doorhandle, the toilet flush lever, and your junk. Now, take that to a public bathroom - you touched a public door handle (or push area), you touched a public toilet flush lever, and in the process just shared urine with everyone else who didn't wash their hands. \n\nIt's recommended that you wash your hands in order to prevent the person-to-person transmission of infection, not because you may or may not have peed on yourself. Urine is (generally speaking) a rather sterile thing, that due to starting temperature and the area it tends to be sprayed in to, becomes a nice little breeding ground for things like bacteria. If someone had a cold or the flu and coughed, then touched the door, there is a pile of viruses waiting for you. Things like that.\n\nUltimately, there is no such thing as a clean transaction, unless you wear a complete body suit with an airlock to dispense of your urine - that then shuts and places the urine outside of the suit, and self-sanitizes. If you don't want to spend part of the year with a fever or cough, just wash your hands. It really does help."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1m03oo
|
If someone is in a completely black room, and somebody fires a single photon into one of their eyes, what would they see? Would they see anything?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1m03oo/if_someone_is_in_a_completely_black_room_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc4kg8v",
"cc4m2i1"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm going to self plagiarize here but...\n\nI am not aware of any psychophysics study that suggests a human can *reliably* detect a single photon. \n\nThe usual threshold for detection I've seen in the literature is around 100 photons ([source](_URL_0_)). If you think about it, you wouldn't want the perceptual threshold much lower than this because if you could see individual photons then in a dark room you would constantly be seeing flashes as a result of dark events.\n\nWhat I have seen on the 1-photon side of things is a claim where they play a click, either deliver a single photon or not, and ask the subject if he/she saw a flash. Over thousands of trials they get it right *slightly* more than wrong. So in this sense, yes you can detect a single photon (on average over thousands of trials). That claim is entirely different from saying that if you're ~~way out in space~~ in a dark room and a single photon hits your eye you would notice. You wouldn't.",
"This is a common topic, the best way I heard it described is that a rod technically **can** fire on a single photon.\n\nHowever, there is a good chance that a photon can enter the eye and not hit a rod, then there is a chance that the rod simply doesn't fire after getting hit, then there is a very good chance that the system doesn't even trigger the optical nerve because there is a threshold that has to be reached, and THEN there is a really good chance that the brain doesn't turn the optical nerve firing into any actual input to the visual system because it is indistinguishable from noise. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/PHY562/1.pdf"
],
[]
] |
||
2xo3u0
|
if nature is so jagged, colorful, and seemingly random (yes, i know all about the golden ratio), why do us humans find straight lines, clean edges, and muted colors so aesthetically pleasing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xo3u0/eli5_if_nature_is_so_jagged_colorful_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp1tgea",
"cp1tkvr",
"cp1tnra",
"cp2181f",
"cp24bl7"
],
"score": [
44,
3,
18,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"2 things most likely.\n\n1) We like these things because they are different from nature. We can get all the other stuff from nature easy enough, but we have to work at making a straight line.\n\n2) Nature is dangerous. Disease, predators, poisons, and natural disasters are all natural, so why should we necessarily desire natural? Appeal to Nature is a fallacy.",
"Humans find nature aesthetically pleasing too. Nature isn't built, on the whole, around it's aesthetics. It all serves a functional purpose. \n\nAesthetics are a higher order brain function, and we don't really understand it. Why do most people have a \"favorite\" color? It surely has nothing to do with any sort of evolutionary argument. \n\nProbably, as our brains became more complex, certain attributes and behaviors emerged on their own as a consequence of so many new neural connections. One possible explaination for the appreciation for sharp edges and muted colors is the contrast it creates is easy for us to see and distinguish and therefore easier for our brain to process. \n\nBut, in the end, we don't really know. ",
"One of the most important things for an animal to be able to do is pick a good place to live. When they can do that, they find more food, more shelter, more mates, things like that. When they *can't* do that, you get beached whales.\n\nHuman beings started out in Africa, and we adapted very well to life there. Did you know that we're very good long-distance hunters? We can run farther, faster, than any other animal in the world, and the best place to have that kind of special ability is in the African savannah.\n\n[Look at these pictures.](_URL_0_) what do most of them have in common? A clear distant horizon and lots of grass, without much or even any bright vegetation. *Straight lines, clean edges, and muted colors.*\n\nThis isn't just a guess. In 1992, Orians and Heerwagen showed a lot of standardized pictures of every kind of landscape to a lot of people of every age and nationality, and asked them to pick the ones they liked. Most people didn't pick the desert landscapes, but picked the others about equally.\n\nGuess what *little kids* picked the most, though? African savannahs. Many thousands of years after leaving the lands and hunter-gatherer lifestyles of their ancestors, they still instinctively know that, all else being equal, that's a good place for them to be.",
"Humans look for meaning and order. As a result, when we create something, we often take an organized, straightforward approach, seeking first to understand the essence of the thing and then to draw out that essence in its design.\n\nThe chaos of nature simply isn't what we're trying to capture or convey in many of the things we create.\n\nThere's also economy of resources to consider; it's easier to make a simple, orderly object rather than an intricate, complex one. These factors likely play a role in shaping what we expect and therefore appreciate when it comes to design.\n\nAlso, simplicity and clarity promote efficiency. We create things to suit various practical purposes, and something that is needlessly complex will likely do a poorer job of serving its purpose than a comparatively simple thing.\n\nFor example, a drinking glass that's all wavy and branch-like with a weird shape and no evident handle to grasp will likely do a much poorer job transferring liquid to our mouths than a simple glass with straight edges. Functional considerations can absolutely influence aesthetics.",
"I challenge your presumption that \"humans find straight lines, clean edges, and muted colors so aesthetically pleasing\". I suppose you could generalize this from a very high level conceptual perspective, but it's not absolute. In fact, recent trends in product design and architecture have been focused on \"organic\" and \"prominent\"; terms like \"boxy\" and \"muted\" are generally considered negative."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=african+savanna&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3sx0q3
|
how do american soldiers, who serve their country in wars around the world, result in americans getting freedom?
|
I often hear and read sentences like "our veterans fought for our way of life" or "our soldiers fight for us to keep our freedom and way of life" and so on. What is the reasoning behind this? Does it specifically refer to Second World War and the US preventing occupation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sx0q3/eli5_how_do_american_soldiers_who_serve_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx13esk",
"cx15emx",
"cx16a9z"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Well think about today. We have had several terrorist attacks in the U.S. and our veterans are fighting in the middle east where the majority of them are ",
"We fought for it in the revolutionary war, the war of 1812... WWII. We haven't really fought for it since, but we like to say it because it makes us feel good. Now, it's possible that we have prevented a war from coming to America, but we haven't faced an existential threat.",
"Reading some obviously misguided answers and tinfoils are going to come out soon no doubt. But I'll put it simply as it can be put. There are economic reasons, nationalism, media and tons more but the main factor is always the same. It's one thing only military can achieve while other avenues can accomplish the above list. \n\nDeterrence. Prevention of bigger conflicts by fighting smaller ones. Overseas instead of at home. Do bullies pick on those who fight or those who run? \n\nSince beginning of humanity, war has always been a constant. In history, those who choose not to fight has been bullied. I'd rather someone there die than someone here. That's the simple truth because in armed conflict, someone will die. \n\nThose who think we haven't fought wars since WWII are very ill-informed. Yes, you're technically right that we haven't fought a declared war. But that's because we have been fighting preventive wars under proxy and conflict. It's like taking care of an infection before it has chance to grow. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
41bi5r
|
how do fresh water springs emerge and how does the water keep coming?
|
I honestly find fascinating those natural sources of water! I was wondering how they come to an existence and why they "never" cease
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41bi5r/eli5_how_do_fresh_water_springs_emerge_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz15msm"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"springs show up where the water table (a layer of always-wet porous rock with a clay or otherwise non-porous bottom) reaches the surface. they continue to emit water due to the pressure of the dry layers above pressing the water out. same thing with the artesian wells. very similar to squeezing a toothpaste tube. \n\n(_URL_0_)\n\nfollow some of the See Also links as well.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table"
]
] |
|
5rnf8k
|
Is Kurt Gödel's claim about the US Constitution true?
|
Sorry for the vague title, not sure everything would fit. Anyway, there's a (possibly apocryphal) story that when the mathematician/logician Kurt Gödel was applying for US citizenship, he read the entire constitution and claimed to discover a loophole that could allow a dictator to rise to power. Did anyone ever find out what the loophole he found was?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5rnf8k/is_kurt_gödels_claim_about_the_us_constitution/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd8lycj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Hi there, a [fairly similar question](_URL_0_) got asked here about a month or so ago. You may be interested in u/restricteddata's answer from that thread. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5jju9z/what_was_the_inconsistency_that_mathematition/"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.