id
stringlengths 9
25
| qid
stringlengths 4
8
| question
stringlengths 13
17.7k
| answer
stringlengths 1
4.28k
| score
int64 0
30.8k
| token_len
int64 1
800
| mlt
stringclasses 10
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AskReddit/c7gau3k
|
14tfhm
|
What hobbies do you have that make you feel like you should have been born in a different time?
|
Cooking. Keeping a clean/tidy house. Nice smelling laundry. I swear I was born in the wrong era.
| 2
| 24
|
[MLT:30]
|
herems_235043
|
q_758275
|
What is the name of the sea that separates Australia and New Zealand, named after a Dutch explorer?
|
Tasman Sea
| 0
| 4
|
[MLT:5]
|
herems_275897
|
q_116970
|
Please answer the following question: Information: - Closure in Moscow is an Australian progressive rock band that formed in Melbourne, Victoria in 2006. The group is composed of guitarist-singer Mansur Zennelli, guitarist Michael Barrett, drummer Salvatore Aidone, bassist Duncan Millar and lead singer Christopher de Cinque. To date they have released one extended-play and two full-length studio albums: "The Penance and the Patience" (2008), "First Temple" (2009) and "Pink Lemonade" (2014) respectively. The band has reached notable success throughout the international rock circuit for their stellar live performances and avant garde sound. - Progressive rock (shortened as "prog"; sometimes "art rock", "classical rock" or "symphonic rock") is a broad subgenre of rock music that developed in the United Kingdom and United States throughout the mid to late 1960s. Initially termed "progressive pop", the style was an outgrowth of psychedelic bands who abandoned standard pop traditions in favour of instrumentation and compositional techniques more frequently associated with jazz, folk or classical music. Additional elements contributed to its "progressive" label: lyrics were more poetic, technology was harnessed for new sounds, music approached the condition of "art", and the studio, rather than the stage, became the focus of musical activity, which often involved creating music for listening, not dancing. - The Penance and the Patience is the debut EP by Australian rock band Closure in Moscow , released on 18 April 2008 through Taperjean Records . The band advertised the EP as an ' albumette ' . The EP was originally only released in Australia , New Zealand and Japan through Taperjean Records . It was also available for import to overseas countries through Fist2Face , and through the iTunes Store as a worldwide digital download . The albumette debuted at # 13 on the Australian Independent Record ( AIR ) album charts . It has received over one million MySpace plays and earned the band a mention in Alternative Press , as one of the `` 100 Bands You Need to Know in 2009 '' . After reading the paragraphs above, we are interested in knowing the entity with which 'the penance and the patience' exhibits the relationship of 'followed by'. Find the answer from the choices below. Choices: - 1960s - april - art - as - avant - date - elements - ep - first - first temple - focus - is - jazz - live - music - often - on - one - or - patience - progressive - released - sometimes - sound - style - symphonic - the band - they - two - united - united kingdom - victoria
A:
|
first temple
| 0
| 2
|
[MLT:5]
|
AskHistorians/caze74r
|
1hy265
|
When and how did the British surpass the Spanish and colonize India?
|
Having two parts to a question is fine. I'll go ahead and do my best to answer the second part of your question. One of the major factors that contributed to this was the revolt in the Low Countries in the middle of the sixteenth century, which posed a serious problem to Philip II. The port of Antwerp in particular was a major source of the crown's revenues, and rebellion could simply not be ignored. The intervention in the conflict essentially turned into a quagmire, tying up a significant part of the Spanish army. The cost of this, the burden of piracy in the Americas, and the cost of victory at Lepanto created a serious drag on the crown—enough to force bankruptcy. Second, in the 1580s the death of Cardinal Henry of Portugal left Portugal without an heir, and King Philip acted on this, installing the Duke of Alba as ruler under him, and temporarily moved the court to Lisboa. The ending of this sojourn and the necessity of maintaining control in Portugal created a further financial drag on the bankrupt Spanish crown. This was further exacerbated by the Spanish Armada, which was meant to stop England's financial support of the continued revolt in the Low Countries. The English had little difficulty because Spanish plans had been notified to them by spies in the Netherlands and they had more agile ships. In spite of a recovery in the early seventeenth century, economic collapse in Spain (in part due to debasement of currency to pay for military expenses during the Thirty Years War and a subsequent rise in prices) meant problems extracting taxes from its people, particularly the peasantry. England on the other hand was recovering from a long period wherein a population boom caused high rents and low real wages ca. 1550-1630ish. The decline of the Merchant Adventurers (which weren't all that adventurous, insisting on continuing trade with a market saturated with wool instead of finding new markets) indirectly encouraged the development of early joint-stock companies that shared profits through dividends, which in turn assisted the growth of a strong merchant class by reducing individual risk of overseas travel. This allowed these companies to more effectively trade with British ports. (I know I'm very much simplifying this aspect of the British commercial revolution, but it brings me to my next point.) The rise of a strong merchant class enabled the next major economic factor in Britain's prominence: the financial revolution. Essentially, the crown, in order to finance the wars that it was involved in (again, weakening their rivals to some extent), benefited by bringing in revenues by means other than taxation: allowing spending beyond the scope of taxation by creating debt, or borrowing money from the growing merchant class. This gave Britain a distinct advantage over any rival whose government was limited by taxation, as I noted above with Spain. (P.G.M. Dickson's study or Wennerlind's Casualties of Credit expound this assertion that I knowingly simplify greatly.) This and Britain's victory in the War of the Spanish Succession, which ended with Britain gaining control of the Spanish asiento (slave trade) led to the rise of the British as the preeminent force in the Atlantic. Edit: I sort of downplayed the role of the Parliament; note that it would have been in charge of the key aspects of policy behind the financial revolution, i.e. borrowing money to fund military campaigns. Following the Revolution of 1688, the balance of power between Parliament and the crown greatly shifted in favor of the Parliament. Also, I incautiously use Britain and England; note that this all refers to the English crown, and Britain refers to England + Scotland following the Act of Union (1706).
| 2
| 755
|
[MLT:800]
|
AskReddit/ee63ivs
|
aggnqa
|
What lyric from a song did you always mishear?
|
That one Sean Mendes song from like 2016 radio “You watch me beat it till I can’t breathe” I don’t know what the original lyrics are but surely I am mishearing them.
| 3
| 44
|
[MLT:50]
|
AskReddit/di1mf03
|
6dcopo
|
What are the benefits of living in the USA?
|
Low taxation in comparison to the majority of first world nations. This means you earn your keep and you can build a life for yourself with regards to your own resources. Our rights tend to be rights rather than "rights.but". An example of this would be how we have freedom of speech in the United States. This includes negative speech. You can be a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a xenophobe, etc. The only real restrictions we have on speech are calling for acts of violence and threats of violence. Those are really the only restrictions we have. Our political philosophy is different from most European nations. European nations, for the most part, have a philosophy of your rights being created by the state. The state gives us our rights and we live our rights from within the standards of the state. The United States doesn't follow that system. The system is a government built around our already existent rights. The rights are inalienable regardless of the state. The state simply recognizes them after the populace has declared something to be a right. (example being the female vote or the end to slavery). Those things were always wrong and the rights of those people always existed. The philosophy of the citizen is that our rights exist whether the state recognizes them at the moment or not. They are inalienable and without creation by any institution of mankind. We are a nation of nations. What that means is you can find a situation which suits your specific political and cultural needs by just traveling to the various states. If you like a more "European" or "Multicultural" status of life, you might enjoy Manhattan. If you enjoy a rural and country form of living, you might like a variety of states within the middle of the United States. Some can be extremely rural and private and peaceful. There is no single way to be a true American and this is evident in the variety our country offers. We aren't an ethnic nation. Europe as a whole tends to be a series of ethnic states. No matter how much you might love Germany and feel at home in Germany, not being ethnically German can make you feel like an outsider. The same goes for France or Poland or Sweden or so on. The United States is a nation of immigrants. Everyone who is here has come from somewhere else (not counting the Native Americans of course) so that makes us even. We obviously have our racists and bigots who believe America is a white Christian nation.but on paper, we are all argued as being equal. We all came here from someone else and we are all equally able to become free citizens of the country. There isn't an underlying cultural endorsement by the state (No national language, no ethnic identity, no cultural history which is specific to a single ethnic group)
| 13
| 559
|
[MLT:700]
|
explainlikeimfive/cfcqweq
|
1xml7m
|
Why isn't Puerto Rico the Hawaii of the East?
|
The islands in the Caribbean are much more populated than Hawaii was when it became the focus of intense development. The ancient Polynesian settlers on the Hawaiian islands probably never numbered more than a few tens of thousands of people. There were hundreds of thousands of people living on Puerto Rico when it was taken by the US as a spoil of the Spanish American war and the population grew steadily on the island after it became a US possession. The native Polynesians in Hawaii were violently displaced when American interests wanted the land they occupied, and they were effectively powerless to resist. The people in Puerto Rico who held title to the land most desirable for tourism were not as easy to displace. Hawaii has a very limited economic system. The military uses it as a base, but it is not a node in the international system of trade and commerce. Without intensive development as a tourist destination very few people would ever go there. Puerto Rico was colonized by Europeans at a time when all the caribbean islands were economically valuable. Some were vast sugar plantations. Some were used to produce salt, or to refuel ships with coal, or as a part of a complex web of transshipment points from South, Central and North America back to controlling European states like Britain, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Portugal. This is one of the biggest challenges for Puerto Rico today. It plays no economically vital role any more, but it has a population and a culture that developed over the centuries when it did. The changes that happened when ships ceased needing coal replenishment and when goods could be sent directly from the country of origin to the destination port bypassing the intermediary transshipment points, and the collapse of the caribbean sugar plantations made Puerto Rico's infrastructure and population illogical. Hawaii was developed directly into a tourism destination made possible by the ability to fly people from the mainland US to the islands at reasonable rates. While that development can be seen as a tragedy for the native Hawaiians, it was mostly a "build from the ground up" development effort that didn't need to accommodate pre-existing economic or population issues. Puerto Rico already has a large population, and it already had industries and development on the island. It wasn't the blank slate that Hawaii was. Changing from the legacy economic footprint to tourism is much harder than building from the ground up. The disruption of Puerto Rico's old economic role resulted in a lot of poverty on the island. There's not a lot of poverty on Hawaii because there wasn't a very large population to start with. Poverty and the problems that are associated with it are not great for tourism. Hawaii is the only real option for a US-based Pacific tourism business. So all the meaningful development money available concentrated on Hawaii. There are lots and lots of caribbean development opportunities. Money has been spent trying to build (and building) tourism and tourist infrastructure on most of the islands in the caribbean which dilutes the impact of that investment on a per-island basis, including Puerto Rico. Finally, Puerto Rico isn't the best option for tourism in the caribbean from a US perspective. The best option is Cuba. Cuba has more of what tourists want from a vacation - better beaches, more scenic vistas, etc. In the 1950s and early 1960s there was a lot of money spent developing Cuban infrastructure for the US tourism trade and a pretty good argument can be made that it was beginning to pay off - Cuba was not only going to be the Hawaii of the caribbean, it was going to be the Las Vegas of the East Coast of the US too. The Cuban Revolution ended that development, and afterwards, it seemed like all the momentum went out of large scale caribbean development efforts - if The Revolution could happen in Cuba, it could happen on any of those islands, so the risk became too great to justify the necessary capital investment.
| 5
| 781
|
[MLT:800]
|
AskReddit/dec40tn
|
5wpvum
|
What is a lie that you have told to someone which you have had to maintain for a long time?
|
In grade school, I told my friend's older brother that I was born in Wales. not realizing that he would spend the next decade asking me random questions about my 'homeland.' It got to a point where I would prepare a few Welsh trivia tidbits before I would go to their house, just to sell it.
| 2
| 65
|
[MLT:80]
|
AskReddit/cvcabz0
|
3m5xyv
|
What are you jealous about?
|
I'm jealous of people who have machine like ability to sit for hours at a time and memorize copious amounts of information, and then regurgitate it on an exam. So basically doctors, specifically MD's.
| 2
| 44
|
[MLT:50]
|
AskReddit/ck3lt4e
|
2ewi0p
|
When is a fat kid NOT the parents fault?
|
Unless there is some rare medical condition that simply makes you fat it always is the parents fault. Exercise and good eating habbits give every normal person the chance to be of normal weight.
| 2
| 37
|
[MLT:50]
|
AskReddit/cqmsu3n
|
33o3m1
|
If you had to cut ties with everyone you knew, how would you do it and what would you do before you left?
|
I am actually going to be doing this in 3 weeks. I am leaving for a job on the other side of the country, the closest people to me know what state and what job but thats it. Being a temporary position everyone thinks Im going to be coming back when its over. My plan is to not return, and Ive told nobody about that. The nature of the job will also have me completely off the grid for its duration. so this is what im doing for those 3 weeks. First two, I am living life normal besides packing a pod and getting rid of stuff I dont want. Going to work, my hobbies on my off time, traveling on weekends. The third week, right before I leave, Ill have quit my job (just turned my resignation in) and Ill spend every waking moment doing something or other with my family and friends. As far as cutting ties goes its essentially what I will be doing since I will be off the grid for some time. And even when I am back on the grid, like now, I dont actually talk and text my friends and family, except to make plans. When we meet up its like the relationship starts right where it was left off when we last met. so far its been pretty easy for me
| 2
| 255
|
[MLT:300]
|
askscience/c1xjms0
|
hqjmj
|
What exactly is non-unifiable about Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory?
|
This is a technical question that really requires a technical answer, and I'm not good enough with renormalization and things like that to give that answer. The simple answer is that general relativity is a classical (i.e., non-quantum) theory and in order to describe how it works on very small scales, we need a way of talking about it in quantum terms. The problem is that we don't quite know how to do that yet. How do Einstein's equations, which determine the structure of spacetime given a matter distribution, work on scales where the uncertainty principle becomes important? Does spacetime itself become quantized too? Because we don't understand these sorts of things, we don't know, for example, what happens when matter reaches the singularity of a black hole. Classical GR tells us that it will keep collapsing to this infinite point, but once things are dense enough, quantum effects will become important and we simply don't have a very good idea how to account for those yet. The specific technical answer is that the Einstein-Hilbert action is non-renormalizable, but I don't think that helps much.
| 7
| 230
|
[MLT:300]
|
herems_674426
|
q_534934
|
You need to answer the question 'Are these steps in order?', given a set of steps describing a process. Your answer must be either Yes or No. If the answer is No, that means the steps are out of order and do not make sense in the order they are in. If the answer is Yes, that means the steps are in order and make sense in the order that they are in. A set of steps are not in order if there could be two different ways to complete them based on how you read them.
Steps: ['The sun sets', 'The sky becomes dark'].
|
Yes.
| 0
| 2
|
[MLT:5]
|
explainlikeimfive/dqzrcib
|
7im9dr
|
Why are the rules for elections for federal offices allowed to vary between different US states?
|
The country was formed from 13 States (hence the name of the country), and the Constitution preserves a lot of autonomy on their part. For most purposes, the federal government is very loose. States establish and conduct the elections that send representatives to the federal House and Senate, and also that apportion electors to Presidential races. This was a huge problem in the century after the Civil War because the Southern states rigged their systems so that black people had no possibility of voting, and under the laws at the time, they were allowed to do so. That changed in a big way only with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed the federal government to stop race-based state discrimination in election procedures. But the same forces are at it again, it seems, finding ways around those federal laws.
| 7
| 164
|
[MLT:300]
|
explainlikeimfive/cev5a5e
|
1vro5w
|
Why is Canada's leader, Stephen Harper, supporting Israel so enthusiastically lately?
|
Israel doesn't really need Canadian support. It's good for Harper politically. To the best of my knowledge, the Conservatives & religious people in Canada are pretty pro-Israel, just like in America. Reddit is pretty anti-Israel. A lot of people aren't. I think that always seems to escape the minds of Redditors, who think that support of Israel is because of AIPAC or something. It's entirely possible that Harper is just very pro-Israel. That's well within his right. The entire West is pretty pro-Israel. Canada appears to be closer to the United States than Western Europe. Harper himself appears to be more enthusiastically pro-Israel than President Obama.
| 3
| 134
|
[MLT:150]
|
explainlikeimfive/cf2ftig
|
1wj2oh
|
How to marine parks prevent sharks from eating other fish in the tanks?
|
The sharks will end up eating quite a fair number of the fish (which is why aquariums do not put valuable fish into the general tank). All the aquarium can do is to keep and sharks well fed so that it does not feel the need to go chase its own meals.
| 7
| 56
|
[MLT:80]
|
herems_819256
|
q_226445
|
Please answer the following question: Is there a negative or positive tone to this product review? === Title: doesn't do this great band justice Review: The problem with box sets is that they cover the entire spectrum of an artist including their worst material,not to mention a bunch of hit or miss bsides. that is the problem with this box set. disc 4(or is it 5?)consist of all of their mid to late eighties over produced adult top 40 edgeless safe radio friendly stuff.not to mention whoever made the song list forgot "downed","he's a whore""stiff competition""california man" "look out" and many more.there were so many songs left off that they could have included instead of that wimpy disc 4!i suggest make your own box set that includes self title,in color,heaven tonight,at budakon and dream police,that is all you need! Answer:
A:
|
The tone of this product review is negative.
| 0
| 9
|
[MLT:10]
|
AskReddit/cwhg47r
|
3qqgjk
|
How to get smarter?
|
Learn how your particular brain works. What kind of learning gets thing to stick in your head? Reading, doing, watching videos etc. Improve your work habits. Learn the most efficient way to do things. This won't make you smarter but it will make you more productive, which is what really matters. Besides that, find something that really interests you. Other posters are right, it takes a lot of studying to get smarter.
| 3
| 86
|
[MLT:150]
|
explainlikeimfive/e3d74qa
|
93gefh
|
Why do some things burn while other things melt?
|
Melting is a state change in the absence of chemical reaction. In brief, heat up a solid enough and it will become a liquid, and heat it up more and it will become a gas. However, this means that the material isn't exposed to anything else that can cause a chemical reaction. That "anything else" is, most of the time, oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen is very volatile and molecules of it can be broken down for more energy. You know how you'll often see oxygen written as O2? That's because the oxygen in the air is made of two oxygen atoms bonded together, and it's because of this bond that it can break apart, release energy, and then the atoms combine with other nearby materials to make new materials. That's the chemical reaction. So, if you heat up the material, and it's the sort of thing that oxygen can bind to, then you get a chain reaction where the oxygen molecule breaks apart, binds to the heated material, releases that energy in the form of more heat, so more oxygen breaks apart and binds, and so on, which is how things burn. When you're heating ice, it's never hot enough to get the oxygen to do its thing and the ice just melts. When you're heating iron, the oxygen can't really bind all that well to the iron in that case, and the iron melts. You might see some burning of material on or around the iron as it melts, but not the iron itself. When you're heating wood, the oxygen can bind to the wood, breaking down the cellulose and other components of wood and make ash, releasing its extra energy in the process, and the wood burns. This is also why things don't normally burn underwater, too; there isn't enough free oxygen to keep a chain reaction going. However, as you can tell by boiling food, those chemical reactions can still occur with its own materials, transforming raw food into cooked food. Incidentally, this property of oxygen is why breathing is important, too. We use this break-apart-for-energy technique to stay alive, in a whole bunch of other, different chemical reactions.
| 20
| 434
|
[MLT:500]
|
AskReddit/e8pbhuc
|
9sj5xf
|
What’s super messed up but completely legal?
|
80 year old dating 18 year old is messed up Also fun fact: there is no law that says you can't own a tank in America. Not messed up. Just wanted to let you know that if you're in America you can legally posses a tank.
| 2
| 56
|
[MLT:80]
|
AskReddit/cym23x2
|
3zgyep
|
What was the most unsettling thing about your neighborhood?
|
The peeping tom that I've caught once, and a roommate caught tonight. It's a quiet neighborhood so.these sort of things stand out. Especially in this city and this country.
| 2
| 38
|
[MLT:50]
|
AskReddit/cktxkau
|
2hm8ei
|
Is it a good idea to tell a life long friend that you're in love with them?
|
Unless you have a good reason to believe that the feelings are returned, I would say no, probably not. We have this idea in our culture that there's something to be gained from exposing our deepest feelings rather than "bottling them up", and sometimes that's true. But getting it off your chest won't magically make the feelings go away. You just might have to add on top of the stress of having a secret love the stress of feeling ashamed and akward and disappointed in the fallout of sharing that secret, and the sadness at perhaps losing a close friendship. Besides, if that person doesn't return your feelings, they will have an unfair burden placed on them - the burden of having to weigh their attachment to your friendship against consideration for your feelings. They may not feel able to rely on you like they used to because they don't want to hurt you. It's something that will never go away once the cat's out of the bag. But then again, let me play devil's advocate here and contradict myself: if the reason you want to tell her is not just to "get it off your chest", but because you really want to know if she loves you too - then there's only one way to find out. If holding out hope is keeping you from moving on with your life and you just can't wait anymore, then maybe it is best to get it out there, so at least you'll know what to do and be able to move on from this eternal waiting room. So I guess, to summarize: Confession for confession's sake? Don't do it. Confession to get answers? Do it now.
| 3
| 331
|
[MLT:500]
|
explainlikeimfive/cztiaa7
|
44x4vm
|
Why are there tax brackets and not straight percents?
|
Flat taxes, like you're alluding to, are regressive in nature. For someone making $20k a year, a set % of their income is more important to surviving than that same % for someone making $100k a year. To put it another way. flat taxes work perfectly fine in a world where milk costs five times more for the person making five times as much. Since that's not the case, they unduly burden the people who can't pay them. Instituting a 17% (what it typically seen as around what would be required to sustain federal budget needs) tax across the board would basically institute a 17% tax for the poorest among our country as they typically pay close to nothing in taxes currently. This would lead to widespread collapse of the lower class since they would lose any discretionary income and see the income they simply need to survive disappear. In this scenario, I invest in my Pitchfork and Torch company because business will be booming. As an aside, since this is so often overlooked. when you make enough money to "reach" a tax bracket, not all of your income is taxed at that bracket. We still tax the first X amount at a low % and then all income between X and Y is taxed at a slightly higher amount and the same between Y and Z. Someone making $100k a year lays the same taxes on the first 20k that someone making $20k does. We simply charge them more as they continue to rise in income. In this matter, taxes are--by definition--equal across all citizens.
| 9
| 327
|
[MLT:500]
|
AskReddit/eh9u4u2
|
aupcmp
|
What is best, Disney or Disney Pixar?
|
Disney, just because it’s got a way better track record. They’ve been running for so long that no animation company could ever hope to surpass them. Not to mention that Pixar hasn’t been amazing since Toy Story 3. Yeah, they’ve had hits like Inside Out,Coco, and Incredibles 2, but they’ve also had Brave,Good Dinosaur, and Cars 2/3. Whereas Disney has had Tangled, Frozen, and Moana which all knocked it out of the park. Not to mention Wreck-it Ralph 2 and Big Hero 6
| 2
| 118
|
[MLT:150]
|
explainlikeimfive/cyi6ik5
|
3z0636
|
If fire needs Oxygen to burn, how does the sun burn?
|
The sun isn't a fire. The sun produces energy through nuclear fusion - atoms joining together to make other larger atoms, releasing energy in the process.
| 5
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
AskHistorians/d3cnwdz
|
4k5kfb
|
What was it about America that made it "fertile soil" for landmark historical events (revolutionary/civil wars, drastic social change etc) to happen in such a short time frame (1492-Present: 500+ years) compared to Britain whereby similar events took longer to occur?
|
This question relies on a lot of bizarre assumptions: That there is a "beginning" to British and American histories so that we can compare the length of time of events from these "starts." That the histories of the United Kingdom and the United States are not a shared history, i.e., that they existed "in a vacuum," as they say. The histories of the English and American people were always intertwined, and indeed many of the ideas and values that made up American identity derived directly from the English. Moreover, both the English and the Americans existed within the context of Western Civilization as a whole. England and the United States have their individual histories to be sure, but they undoubtedly share a history as well. The Magna Carta, for example, was written well before the discovery of the Americas and yet played a role in the development of the Constitution of the United States. This English development contributed to American culture; American culture did not appear out of nowhere but, at least initially, derived from the various cultures that contributed to it. That events in separate nations' histories can be made entirely analogies, i.e., that we can ask "when did the English have their civil war?" or "When did the Americans have their third assassination of a head of government?" as if these were inevitable events that will occur in each society, with the only question being how long it takes until it happens. That points 1-3 can culminate in a question such as "the UK abolished slavery in its empire in 1833, the Americans in their nation in 1865--what took the English so long?" This is beyond absurd. The United States did not exist in a vacuum, and its belated condemnation of slavery must be understood within the context of both global and national trends and the interrelation between the two. In a sense, the English condemnation anticipated ours, and it indeed played a direct role in the evolution of slavery in our country (by ending the slave trade and forcing slavery to go entirely domestic). That something called "societal change," in addition to being analogous, can have a known start. Again, I point back to the Magna Carta -- was this not the manifestation of societal changes? How do you decide when a nation has had a "societal change"? All nations everywhere are always experiencing societal change. Some of these changes happen internationally, as the result of larger social or technological changes. Going back to points I made above, women in the UK and the US gained the right to vote at almost exactly the same time. This was part of our larger shared history. That we can compare the state of English society in the year 1500 to the state of American society in the year 2000 to reach meaningful conclusions. With your math, this is basically what you are doing, saying that if the United States accomplished something less than five hundred years after the English that it means they accomplished it "first." Dude, come on, the English outlawed slavery thirty years earlier and embraced universal suffrage at the same time, but we can claim to have done it "faster" because we are saying they had a 500-year head start? That's just silly. The United States has England to thank for many of the values and principles we still hold dear today. We share a history. We did not come up with the concept of universal suffrage out of thin air, for example, and therefore cannot say "we did it faster!" Nevertheless, we do have our own national history that has taken us down paths that the English--or any other nation--ever followed. And there is the more interesting (or at least sensible) question, I think: what did we do different from the rest of the world? There's a lot more there than "how did we do it all faster?"
| 8
| 786
|
[MLT:800]
|
AskReddit/e0j66gg
|
8qh6qt
|
What are some advice and tips you can give a person who never drank alcohol before?
|
Take it slow. Don't drink a bottle of vodka, a couple beers is enough, even less. How much you need depends on your weight. You will feel like your brain has slowed down (that's what alcohol does), you'll feel very good, or then very bad. There is different phases of getting drunk. If you drink a little you get tipsy. If you drink more you get drunk. If you drink even more you get blackout drunk. Take it slow, when you begin feeling little different than normal take a pause and determine how you feel. Maybe try a drink or two alone, and then after you know what it does drink with trusted buddies. That's what I did when I first got drunk when 15. Don't mix weed and alcohol. Not if it's your first time at least. A sure way get the spins and make a huge mess. And as you know too much alcohol makes you do stupid or 'funny' things. Like you feel like stealing traffic signs, saying things you'd never say sober etc.
| 4
| 214
|
[MLT:300]
|
AskReddit/ek34mx5
|
b99k7y
|
Why does the USA have so many dangerous cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Maryland, Chicago, Washington DC, etc?
|
It's a long story but it has to do with various migrations, racially based lending rules (called red lining), "white flight", drug laws, corruption, globalization, insufficient infrastructure and inequitable education spending. Lots and lots of reasons, some based on race, others on power, and others on economics, but it isn't as simple as race by any means. And yes, these cities were good when their economies were good, at least they were good by the measures of the time. Also though, you probably hear about them disproportionately for at least 2 reasons: American media are among the dominant media, so American news gets distributed disproportionately and discussion of those cities is central to some political narratives (for example, the pro-gun people love to discuss Chicago crime to advance the idea that gun laws aren't helping; Detroit comes up in free trade narratives, Baltimore in drug narratives, DC in various governance narratives, etc).
| 3
| 186
|
[MLT:300]
|
askscience/c4at6r2
|
s3lqb
|
Can a Faraday cage actually prevent an EMP from a nuke from destroying electronics?
|
It basically depends on how good the cage is. In theory, if you had a cage made out of a perfect conductor, then yes, it could survive any EMP no matter how strong. Real metals, however, are not perfect conductors, so if the EMP is too strong, the electrons in the metal basically won't be able to move fast enough to completely cancel out the EMP. The answer to your question will basically depend on how sensitive the electronics are, how strong the EMP is, and how thick the Faraday cage is.
| 2
| 108
|
[MLT:150]
|
explainlikeimfive/dgj0okv
|
66ix9c
|
Why is there such a prevalent belief that inflation will always trend upwards?
|
A common misconception is that policymakers set inflation to be positive because it encourages investment. This is false: inflation itself has little bearing on the level of investment; instead, the real interest rate controls investment. To understand why people think that inflation will always be positive, it is helpful to consider the role of a central bank in the economy. In the US, the central bank is the Federal Reserve, or the Fed for short. The way the Fed boosts economic output is by pursuing expansionary monetary policy, which you can think of as the Fed increasing the amount of money in circulation. This has the short-term effect of lowering real interest rates. They can also increase real interest rates by similar means. Lower real interest rates results in businesses and households buying more because they have an easier time borrowing money when real interest rates are lower. Because people buy more, economic output grows. Higher economic output boosts inflation. This is because when economic output grows, demand for labor grows leading to workers demanding higher wages. People want wages that are high relative to what they expect prices to be when they receive their wages. As people demand higher wages they expect higher wages leading to a higher demand in prices and so on. This process can get out of control leading to hyperinflation unless people are led to think that prices will not be so high in the future. This is what the Fed does by saying it wants to bring the inflation level to a constant level of 2%. When people expect prices to rise at a constant rate, they don't demand high wages which leads to price stability in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. The Fed, over the course of the past few decades, has demonstrated to people that it will do what it needs to do to keep inflation at a steady positive rate, which is why there is a prevalent belief that inflation will always trend upward. In fact, the actual level of inflation is not that relevant: it could be 5% instead of 2% and things in the real economy would not change by much. The only important thing here is that people expect inflation to be some steady rate.
| 4
| 425
|
[MLT:500]
|
AskReddit/exe8hs8
|
cse6cx
|
What are some crazy experiences with sleep paralysis you’ve had?
|
When I get sleep paralysis, I tend to dream that I'm in the spirit realm, specifically in a burnt up house. I have to carry this charred baby doll with me, or it'll do a demonic wail for the rest of my dream and I'll sense something coming after me. I'll start suffocating too. If it's not that dream, it's me as a baby, being carried around a museum/mansion by my parents. I'm looking over their shoulder because of the way I'm being carried, and I peek into a room which has a baby doll in it. It's representative of a baby that died in a fire. The doll sits up and snaps its head to look at me, then I hear a crying/screaming baby, and am dropped by my parents, as they vanish into nowhere. The same presence then chases me, except I'm a baby and can barely crawl. Again, I'll start suffocated. In both cases I wake up when the presence reaches inside my body (which I can feel through an intense tingle/tension which carries over when I wake up). Except I'm not awake. I dream I'm on my back on my bed, and I feel like I'm in danger so I move. But it's like moving through tar and I very, very slowly roll over and fall off my bed. Everything is black, I can hear myself whispering for help. I usually wake up when I panic and thrash around in my head enough to do so. When I do wake up, I'm paralysed. My room is dark, and occasionally I'll see a shadow in the room. I keep trying to force myself to move, and it is hard to stay awake. If I fall asleep, I get locked in the nightmares again. If I wake up properly, I'll stay up for maybe an hour or so, and am lucky if I don't get it again that night. The worst one was when even after the paralysis was gone the shadow kept drifting around. My dad woke up at the same time because he felt like a woman was walking around upstairs trying to possess one of his kids. It was creepy. TL;DR: Demon baby doll, burnt house, demon chasing me, wake up, not awake, panic, force myself awake, sleep paralysis, demon lady.
| 4
| 481
|
[MLT:500]
|
askscience/c6ad8hw
|
104o83
|
Can stomach contents ferment after death to produce alcohol?
|
No, the acidity of stomach acid would likely prevent fermentation. The optimum pH for fermenting alcohol is 4.8 to 5.0, while the pH of stomach acid varies between 1.5 and 3.5
| 2
| 47
|
[MLT:50]
|
askscience/c99os0g
|
1bsl22
|
Why can 1 ton of Thorium produce as much energy as 200 tons of Uranium?
|
Natural uranium is 0.7% U235, most of the rest being U238. In a thermal-spectrum light water reactor, the fuel must be enriched to 3-5% U235, with the remaining depleted uranium being unused. To get 1 ton of 3.5% enriched uranium, you'd need 5 tons of natural uranium. Once in the reactor, generally about 5% of the initial atoms fission. Most of the energy is from U235 absorbing thermal (slow) neutrons and splitting, some is from fast neutrons fissioning U238, some of it is from U238 absorbing neutrons and decaying to Pu239, which can also be fissioned by thermal neutrons. Overall, about 1% of the initial uranium is ultimately fissioned: 80% becomes depleted 'enrichment tails', and 95% of the enriched uranium is not used. In a normal reactor, fuel burnup is ultimately limited by three things: Build-up of fission products, which absorb neutrons. A reduction in the amount of fissile material remaining. Damage to the fuel (which is formed of ceramic pellets inside a metal tube - the ceramic swells and cracks as fission products build up, and the metal becomes weakened by irradiation, internal pressure and external abrasion). The second one, a loss of fissile material, can be solved by using a breeder reactor. With uranium, you need to design a reactor in which the lost U235 is replaced by new Pu239. In practice, this generally needs fast neutrons and higher fuel enrichment, but with appropriate reprocessing it is in principle possible to use almost all of the uranium. You'd start off with enriched uranium, but in time you'd have built up enough plutonium that you could go back to the depleted uranium and extract most of the energy from that too by breeding more plutonium. Using thorium, there are two main differences: thorium does not naturally contain any fissile material, and it can be used to breed (fissile) U233 in a thermal spectrum reactor. So, like the uranium-plutonium breeder, you'd need to start off with some enriched uranium (or plutonium) but in time could transition to a closed fuel cycle based on just thorium and U233, but there is more flexibility in the kind of reactor that can be used to do this. Where the molten salt reactor comes in is the first and the last problems. With liquid fuel, it could be possible to tap off some of the fuel, extract the fission products and send the newly bred uranium back into the reactor (the breeding and fission are separated in some designs, but both happen in molten salts in any case). Being liquid and not having any cladding, you avoid the issues of fuel damage too, although you would get structural damage to the reactor. MSRs can have thermal or fast spectrums and can use thorium or uranium, so the comparison of thorium in a closed-cycle MSR to uranium in a once-through LWR is a bit disingenuous but the numbers for MSR breeder vs LWR are approximately right (a factor of 100, or probably a bit less, would be more realistic).
| 15
| 692
|
[MLT:700]
|
herems_538203
|
q_728991
|
Choose your answer from: (i). After elementary school (ii). Before Christmas (iii). Before 7th birthday (iv). not enough information
Given those answer options, answer the question: My love affair with technology began at an early age. On my seventh birthday, my parents bought me a second-hand ZX Spectrum and, in a foretaste of my life to come, I immediately set about learning how to use it to get attention. It's a sign of how rapidly technology develops that my crappy Spectrum, with its 48k of memory, already had 12k more storage power than the computer that had guided the Apollo 11 moon landing eighteen years earlier* With power like that, there seemed to be no limit to what I could do. While my other computer-owning peers would sit for hours while their tape drives squawked away loading 'Manic Miner' or 'Bubble Buster' I was more fascinated by learning to write my own programs. The first of these consisted of just two lines of code* that made the word 'shit' appear again and again on my screen, to the huge amusement of my friends and the irritation of my parents, who obviously had more educational motives for bringing a computer into the house. From that day on, the possibilities offered by technology to both subvert the norm and get attention had me hooked. Years later, at secondary school, I convinced my English teacher, Mr Coen, to teach me desktop publishing, ostensibly to work on the official school magazine, but in reality to produce an alternative underground version - complete with less than flattering articles about teachers and fellow pupils and distributed via the publicly accessible shared hard drive that was supposed to be used for collaborative coursework. That particular stunt got me banned from the school computer room for half a term. And then, in 1997, I discovered the Internet. Throughout history, every fame-hungry media dickhead has found his preferred medium for pursuing fame and wealth (in that order). For Tony Parsons - and Hitler, for that matter - it was books. William Randolph Hearst chose newspapers. Don Imus and Howard Stern preferred radio. For Nick Griffin it's inflammatory leaflets. For Tracy Emin it's art. Or at least an approximation of it. With the... Question: When the narrator first learned desktop publishing? === The answer to the above question is
A:
|
(iv). not enough information
| 0
| 5
|
[MLT:5]
|
explainlikeimfive/cljswbv
|
2kbypj
|
Why do my farts smell good but other people's farts smell bad?
|
You’re used to the smell of your own brew. Both consciously and subconsciously, you smell yourself more than pretty much anything else in the world. A proportion of the gases made by your intestines dissolve into your blood and get breathed out; it’s not a large or concentrated amount, but it means your sense of smell will be more used to what ‘flavours’ your body has made than other people’s. This also serves to explain why people rated the smell of their ‘chosen person’ as less disgusting than a stranger in the study! When you deal it out, you’re prepared. Being ready for a sensation can make it easier to cope with. For example, we find it almost impossible to tickle ourselves. This might apply to flatulence as well. However, it doesn’t explain the situation when you hear a stranger let one rip. You know something bad is on its way, but that does nothing to lessen the noxiousness when it arrives. It’s more dangerous coming from someone else. This is the currently favoured evolutionary explanation. It’s grosser to smell, see or otherwise experience the bodily functions of other people, because they pose more of a disease risk. Over thousands of years, our ancestors who steered clear of such things were likely to stay healthier, and passed on that innate, psychological ‘yuck’ reflex to us. Think about an example: if you sneeze into your hands, it’s a bit icky, but OK. If a complete stranger on the train leaned over and sneezed onto your hand, that would be WRONG. It’s socially conditioned. There’s a social convention at work here, too. Flatulence is an intrusion. If a stranger intrudes on your experience of the world in an unpleasant way, of course we’re going to react badly! Confirmation bias. We will only really notice a bad-smelling fart. Most people fart multiple times per day, but not all will smell bad (diet etc come into play here). Se we figure, on average, we aren’t too bad. In public, we only smell the bad ones – confirming our suspicion that everyone else smells worse then we do! It’s clear, though: a proper, definitive, double-blinded study is needed. The difficulty is being able to ensure a blind test when the subject has to provide part of the experimental ‘material’. A quick brainstorm produced ideas ranging from a complex system of tubes connecting multiple subjects randomly, to bags of gas and other such trickery. The mind boggles. Conclusion: Why Dutch Ovens Work and Your Brew Smells Better The effect is real, though not everyone will experience it all the time. It’s most likely a combination of real and psychological effects. Your sense of smell ‘gets used’ to your own chemical mixtures (olfactory fatigue). You’re also more prepared for your own bombs, and feel less affronted by their mere presence. Plus, you’re innately less suspicious of your own gases, because they pose less of a disease risk.
| 13
| 615
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskReddit/dwmdsvg
|
88ptdm
|
What are the similarities and differences between men's and women's personalities ?
|
Similarities: they have all the basic components of a personality Differences: the studies I've seen shown that women are in average both higher in Neuroticism and Agreeability (as per the Big 5).
| 2
| 42
|
[MLT:50]
|
askscience/dkhnd4i
|
6ogk3q
|
If opposite charges attract, why do electrons orbit the atomic nucleus instead of collapsing in on it?
|
It's nothing like an orbit. That metaphor is useful if you don't really care to know anything beyond the fact that atoms consist of a central nucleus surrounded by electrons. (Even so, they really needed to get that little diagram out of school textbooks decades ago.) So it turns out that an electron around an atom is required to have certain specific energy levels. We're still good. The reasons for this are complex but partly have to do with things I'll discuss in just a second. It also tuns out that certain other measurable properties are required or forced by various reasons, to take on a limited set of discreet values. Such as, angular momentum, magnetization, etc, etc. This was all discovered experimentally by observing the energies of photons given off by various excited atoms. I also think I need to go over the idea of momentum as a vector, that Is, a quantity that has both absolute magnitude, and direction. Still with me on all this? Now to the meat of the issue. It turns out there's no force or effect in the subatomic world that forces an electron to have any particular direction of momentum, or any particular location. To an electron one position can be valid as another. Or at least a certain range of positions. And a certain range of directions of momentum are equally valid. There is nothing stopping this. In fact this must be the case. A consequence of the mathematical relationship between position and momentum, is that the range of possible values of directional momentum is inversely proportional to the range of possible locations. That is, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At best you can say that it's less likely for this odd creature we call an electron to be in some areas, and more likely for others. This is what prevents the electron from colliding with the nucleus. That would mean it's range of possible locations was extremely, unbelievably small. In turn, that would force it's momentum to be impossibly large. With some uncertainty, you can actually measure the momentum of electrons ejected from hydrogen atoms, for example. It turns out to be no where near the figure you'd need if you supposed the electron was confined to a space as small as the nucleus. This means that the idea of an orbit which has one specific position and direction at one specific time, is illogical. Experimentally, it was found that if a beam of electrons was bent by an electric or magnetic field, they would lose energy by emitting photons and slow relative to the source of the field. So a pure particle electron orbiting in a classical sense would quickly lose kinetic energy and collide with the nucleus. In a certain sense the electrons around an atom might be said to not accelerate at all. But if they have a net kinetic energy, how do they avoid escaping the atom without accelerating? Who knows? This is probably more a result of the inability of the particle model to sufficiently describe electrons.
| 13
| 588
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskReddit/cnf3juk
|
2regti
|
What are some conspiracy theories that you personally believe in and why?
|
My personal conspiracy theory: I believe speed limit traps (with radar and all those types of devices that take pics of your car) imposed by the police are just ways to make a ton of money and has nothing to do with safety. If the government really wanted you to be safe because of the speed limits, then certainly we would have cars that would change their speed automatically depending on the area you are driving or at least cars that wouldn't go faster than the speed limit. It's not that hard to do something like this if we really wanted and if safety was a priority. Instead, you pay speeding tickets and the police earns their money.
| 6
| 129
|
[MLT:150]
|
AskReddit/e521cu9
|
9bcl1c
|
What is the funniest snippet of conversation you have heard from a passer-by?
|
This was from the other day. A little kid shouted at his dad: "But Dad! I can't hear fornite!" At the top of his lungs. I found it really funny because the kid was about six at least. And he said it in a really whiny voice too.
| 2
| 59
|
[MLT:80]
|
AskReddit/cb3frfk
|
1idn26
|
What was your childhood dream job?
|
I had a few. I wanted to be a fighter pilot, since i was 5. All the way up to i was 15. Then i was told i would never be able to fly because i had meningitis so i was getting migraines. Air Force kind of frowns upon a pilot crashing a 100 million dollar plane because of a migraine. Then i had planned on being a vet, but one of my younger cousins said she wanted to be a vet, and i didnt want to have the same job as her, so i changed my dream job (seriously, i didnt do what i wanted because i didnt want to be a copy cat), she is now doing another major so neither of us will be a vet. I then wanted to make video games, or be a chef. At the time there was only one culinary school in my city, and it was 80k a year. So that was in no way possible. So my plan was to be a graphic designer until 40 and then learn cooking as i go and start my own restaurant. About a year ago, i realized how terrible and impatient i was at learning graphic design. And how terrible i was with photoshop. I have never had anyone teach me, so i guess i truly didnt know if i was good or not, but it was very scary to do something in college not knowing if youll enjoy it. Then about a year ago, one of hte cheap colleges added a culinary school, and its only 3k a year, which i can do. I am cooking for a restaurant, and trying to move up the ladder. So i am actually doing one of my dream jobs, and loving it.
| 2
| 350
|
[MLT:500]
|
AskReddit/c37phzy
|
nb7ux
|
Do you worry about finding a life sport?
|
I don't think it's important to necessarily find a 'life sport'. But rather to find something you enjoy doing, and you are good at, then sticking with that for life. As long as you remain healthy, do what makes you happy.
| 2
| 50
|
[MLT:50]
|
herems_179773
|
q_176589
|
Process: - Items are collected - The items are sorted - Trash is removed from everything else - Goes to a landfill - The items go into a baler machine for each kind of material - They come out as bales - The bales are shipped to manufacturers to use to make products. suppose less waste is generated happens, how will it affect more trash will reach landfill. Which of the following is the supposed perturbation? - directly impacting a step of the process - indirectly impacting a step of the process - not impacting any step of the process
Answer:
|
Indirectly impacting a step of the process
| 0
| 9
|
[MLT:10]
|
AskReddit/cq49pge
|
31r8xi
|
What is your biggest "goofing off" story that you did at work that probably should have or could have gotten you fired?
|
This was about 3 years ago. When I worked at Publix one day I was looking behind pallets of water for a specific brand for a customer I had the bright idea to jokingly write a "journal entry" of a homeless man who "snuck into" our stock room. Day 4: I've gone unnoticed by the stock clerks. I've survived by only sneaking out at night and foraging for foods. I had to use the restroom and almost got caught leaving the stock room. Told them I got lost. I giggled to myself and went about my work. Two hours later I found myself bored and mostly done with my work so thought what the hay I'll go do another, but here is where the fun started. Day 7: I've been able to avoid being caught by only coming out during shift changes and during truck deliveries. I don't think they suspect anything. I began to tell a story for this man. Day 13: I was asleep when this pallet got set on my foot. I wanted to scream but refrained in fear of being found. It seems I'm going to have cheez-its for dinner because I can't reach anything else besides dog biscuits. God help me. Then I climbed up to a higher tier and wrote my final entry Day 17: It was getting lonely at night but I found a pet mouse and I've taught him to scurry about and distract the workers as I would sneak away if they were close to discovering me. It's getting risky, I fear what I would do if I were to be ousted. A few days go by and I forgot about my little fiasco. Then on a Monday afternoon I came in and EVERYBODY was franticly looking around moving pallets and rotating boxes. I walk to the punch in clock and one of my friends is laughing as he approaches me. Nonchalantly I ask him what is up, he says "there is a homeless man living in our stockroom. Someone found a box with his notes on them." So I ask how was it they knew? They had found the fourth and seventeenth "journal entry" and everyone was ordered to find all the other entries. I punch in and my manager beckons me to an office with two others that were clocking in as well. Cue the fear. They tell us to be careful when moving pallets in fear of what the homeless man might do. We found another entry and after a few hours of searching they called it off and put us back to work. To this day no one found that "homeless man and all of his journal entries." And unlike that woman who got away with murder only to go to Canada to brag about it only to get turned in, I kept my mouth shut and was never found out. It feels good to tell someone this. Obligatory "I'm on mobile, be gentle post".
| 54
| 593
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskReddit/c0c4qs6
|
9bfh7
|
Have you ever had a dream in which you greatly enjoyed something that your waking self finds morally repugnant or simply disgusting?
|
It's not really morally repugnant or disgusting, but last night I had a really, really strange dream. I dreamt that something happened while I was at the airport, and for some reason this girl like took me in and brought me to stay with her at what was basically a lesbian commune. Over the course of things I started to realize that she was into me, and she and all her friends kept dropping hints about "straight" girls whose boyfriends had been terrible to them, and how they discovered that they were really lesbians, and it became apparent that they wanted me to become a lesbian as well and be with this chick. It was kind of awkward when I had to explain to her both that I'm not attracted to girls and I'm a boy. (By the way, I don't look like a girl at all)
| 5
| 170
|
[MLT:300]
|
AskReddit/eblcpba
|
a5b6za
|
What is the worst thing that you have seen or experienced at McDonald's?
|
This comes up from time to time. Re-posting an old comment of mine. This is not MacDonald's and it is not the worst thing I ever saw, it is the best, but I am posting it anyway because I care nothing for your bourgeouis conventions! -- I will now tell the story of the best thing I ever saw in playland. This was at Burger King, not Macdonald's. In the South these things are all simply called "playland". A few years ago me and my kids were eating at Burger King and of course we had to eat in playland because kids. Burger King had at this time installed talking garbage cans in there. It was probably intended as a way to get kids to throw their own trash away so employees wouldn't have to do it so much. Whoever designed those things knew nothing about children. When you put trash into the talking trash can, pushing your garbage in past that plastic spring-loaded flap which says THANK YOU on it, the trash can would say "Thanks for the garbage!" or something like that. You know, things a talking trash can would say. ANY PARENT could tell you what would happen next. Children know that trash cans can not actually speak. So each successive child, having been congratulated by the trash can, would do the obvious thing, and put his head inside the trash can to see who is in there. Then the spring-loaded THANK YOU flap would swing shut and grab the children by the neck in the manner of a squirrel trap, and they could not get their heads back out, and there would be flailing and muffled screaming, and they would have to be rescued by their Mom. This happened over and over and OVER. Kids of a certain age will put their heads in a talking trash can even if they just saw the last kid get garroted by it. It kind of makes them even more curious. Just one kid after another getting choked by this evil instrument of torture. "THANKS FOR THE TRASH!" It was the best thing I have ever seen. Kids leave, new kids take their place, new victims for the magic trash can. I never got tired of it. Next time we went to Burger King they weren't there any more but I hope someday they will come back for another try.
| 363
| 468
|
[MLT:500]
|
AskReddit/d9pc372
|
5big6j
|
What is one of the best insult you've ever heard?
|
One of my co-workers is the nicest old lady I've ever met. Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth. She doesn't even do pretend swears, is patient, kind, etc (you get the picture). Another of my co-workers is a rather dim, overweight lady who's surname is Pepper. She makes a lot of mistakes that create work for the rest of us. After a big error that meant co-worker 1 would have to come in on the weekend just to clean up co-worker 2's mess, co-worker 1 turned to me and said "The spiciest peppers are the small ones so she's obviously very mild". This is literally the only time I've ever heard her say anything even vaguely negative and it just floored me and how diplomatic she was about calling ol' pepper a fat idiot.
| 28
| 169
|
[MLT:300]
|
AskHistorians/co453lr
|
2u0wxv
|
How or when would you learn languages during/after a history degree?
|
Well, learning a language is kind of a separate animal from regular college education and/or post grad work. And generally, learning any modern, in use language, like French, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. is always a plus and has tons of utility in just about everything. There's no greater time to start than today, besides yesterday! Becoming fluent is a difficult and long road but if you enjoy learning, studying a language has immediate benefits and progress is usually very apparent, which is encouraging. I would recommend getting a teacher/native speaker. You could go it alone but building a strong foundation that understands the basic building blocks of a language is SO important. This is how you should start if you don't want to just rote memorize things. Having a language partner who you can ask questions directly, give examples, check your syntax, pronunciation, etc. is incredibly valuable! The best part is that with the advent of the internet, you don't necessarily need to hire a teacher! There's tons of language partner websites, groups, meetups, etc. If you prefer a more structured teacher, then of course tutors and schools are not out of the question either. Having friends who can speak the language is a great motivator and I'd personally say it's pretty much a requirement if you want to get fluent. With constant, practical use of the language, it's easier to realize your own gaps in knowledge, what grammar/vocab you want to learn how to say, and of course, tons of practice. Once you have a solid grasp on the basics, which is usually attainable anywhere from 6 ~18 months, you can continue confidently on your own, if you wish to do so. Fluency itself is almost like a mirage because it's a constantly moving target. Think about all the new phrases that get invented in English, all the internet slang, unique cultural references, idioms, etc. And of course, there's always specialized jargon and fields filled with words that the average laymen don't really understand, never mind a foreigner trying to learn the language. But it's certainly doable! Far too many people start and peter out very quickly before they even master the basics. Learning a new language is great! Now the tricky business is learning historical languages, like Old Norse, Classical Chinese, ancient precursors to Japanese, etc. You almost certainly require a teacher, if for no other reason than the number of text based resources available to learn, say, Classical Chinese, are much, much fewer than Modern Mandarin. These teachers are probably found in academic settings in very specialized courses. What becomes immediately apparent is that learning a historical language is sometimes incredibly different from learning a modern language but for the most part, it's the same process. For some languages, a lack of complete understanding of the language is an obstacle since it works a lot of ambiguity in the process of learning the language. Sometimes reading old texts feels more like decoding or trying to solve a puzzle than simply reading, and that's before even getting to the actual content itself! But either way, you want as much time as possible to learn a language because it isn't something you can get good at with just a couple semesters of courses that meet twice a week. I might be blowing this out of proportion, but I believe that if one wants to attain fluency, a life style change is necessary. The language needs to become something you own, the way you own English. It has to be something you can play with, think about things in, and something you can consume and digest without needing to constantly consult a reference book, looking up this word or that grammar. Anyways, I wish you luck! Learning any language is great fun and its useful too! Cheers!
| 3
| 766
|
[MLT:800]
|
AskHistorians/daawrtg
|
5e9f2h
|
Did early 16th century French armies feature mounted "archers" who fought with lances?
|
Knecht is right, but I understand your confusion. Would it have killed him to add one or two sentences of explanation to that section? Your source is referring to the archers in the lances fournies in the compagnies d'ordonnance that became the mainstay of the French army at the end of the middle ages. This "lance" is not a weapon, but a unit organisation: a squad, if you will, consisting of a mounted man-at-arms, ("knight" in the popular imagination, a heavily armoured horseman) two or three mounted archers and a number of lighter auxiliaries. Such 'lances,' or their equivalent, feature in all kinds of places in European warfare in this period, though their actual composition changes from time to time, and from place to place. Now, the confusing bits: Originally, these units had worked like you'd imagine; one horseman with a lance supported by some more lightly equipped horsemen with bows or crossbows. However, over time these "mounted archers" started evolving into lancers themselves, but the original name stuck. In later eras, "archer" simply meant a slightly lower class of armoured lancer than the man-at-arms. Even the "lance" itself wasn't really used as a battlefield organisation any longer by the time of Francis I, and units operated in companies instead. The term persisted as an administrative feature, though. So the answer is that you're dealing with legacy terms. Though, to add even more confusion, the Italian Wars themselves consist of something of a transition period in this development, and sources from 1490 still state that archers should be able to shoot, and there are still decrees demanding bows be made for the archers in 1515 and 1526, though it's very likely that the "archers" were already mostly slightly-less-heavy-cavalry by this stage. In the ordinance of 1549, the archers are to have almost the same amount of armour as the man-at-arms, with the addition of a 'pistolet.' There are no more mentions of actual bows or crossbows after that. Source: Potter, David. Renaissance France at War : Armies, Culture and Society, C.1480-1560. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2008, (pp. 78-80).
| 7
| 508
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskReddit/edpr0tl
|
aejtu1
|
What is something that happened to you as a child that you never told anyone?
|
One time, when I was 11 years old, I was leaving my parents house and skinned my knee on the cement steps after losing my footing. I never told a soul til now.
| 4
| 40
|
[MLT:50]
|
herems_516345
|
q_362956
|
You are given a sentence and a question, construct 2 answer options in a specific format i.e. ['option1','option2']. The answer options have to be text spans from the given sentence. Only one among the options should be the correct answer to the given question. Note that, the correct answer to the given question will require understanding of coreference resolution. Coreference resolution is the task of clustering mentions in text that refer to the same underlying real world entities.
Q: Sentence: The doctor informed Kate that she had cancer and presented several options for future treatment. Question: Who had cancer?
A:
|
A: ['Kate', 'The doctor']
| 0
| 9
|
[MLT:10]
|
AskReddit/cebd7g6
|
1tturm
|
What is it that you love about the thing you love?
|
I love to build stuff. Bike racks, furniture and things for your house or room. I can spend hours measuring, cutting, adjusting blah blah and not think of anything else. It really is blissful to me.
| 2
| 44
|
[MLT:50]
|
explainlikeimfive/cw37c3t
|
3p4z5l
|
How did the 2nd Amendment end up giving folks the right to own a gun for reasons other than defending yourself against a corrupt government?
|
>So how did the Supreme Court (over the years) determine the 2nd Amendment The Supreme Court HASN'T. Yet. They have made a couple of very preliminary rulings that indicate which way the political wind is shifting. Mainly, the shift in the mainstream interpretation of the 2nd has been due to lobbying efforts by the NRA and the shift to the far-right, the loon right in the Republican party since about the 1980s. Let's start with the NRA, because it's important to understand what happened to them. Originally, the NRA was a group for gun owners, mostly hunters. Go back to the 1960s, and you'll see an entirely different organization than the one that exists today. Diehard liberal John Kennedy was a lifetime NRA member, and when he DID die hard of gun violence, the NRA led the push to pass stronger gun control laws, specifically, banning the sale of guns through the mail, which is how Lee Oswald got the rifle he used to kill Kennedy. In those days, if you stood up in a NRA meeting and said the group should push for private ownership of automatic M-16s, you'd be laughed out of the hall. "Hey, wassa matter, Frank? Those elk getting too tough for your 30-06?" Then, sometime around the 1980s or thereabouts, the group was quietly co-opted by gun manufacturers, whose only agenda is to sell more and more guns. Many members didn't even realize the group had been hijacked. Today, the NRA works almost solely as an industry organization to get more and more guns into the hands of consumers, at any price to society. They are well-funded by the gun manufacturers, and they are currently fighting to abolish some of the same laws the old group fought to have enacted in the first place. Concurrently with this, the classical understanding of the Second Amendment was retconned. Prior to this, all mainstream Constitutional scholars agreed that the purpose of the 2nd was to guarantee the right of the states to form well-regulated militias, just like it says, and NOT to guarantee the unfettered private ownership of weapons. The latter viewpoint was always considered a far-right loon notion, but since the 80s, the far-right loons have been moving squarely to the center of power in the Republican party, and they are currently running the asylum. So today, it's simply become commonly accepted that the 2nd amendment is about gun ownership and not militias. Anyone who points out the historical and legal facts is simply shouted down. It is likely that the NRA will succeed in getting a SCOTUS ruling making this the official interpretation in the next decade or so, but for right now, laws like the National Firearms Act of 1934, which severely restricts the private ownership of certain weapons, like full-auto weapons, are still constitutional and in force. Here's a relevant quote from former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Warren Burger, who wrote in 1990: "The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
| 2
| 733
|
[MLT:800]
|
AskReddit/d7adsbw
|
51a0re
|
What TV series actually had a good ending?
|
Fringe. A lot of people didn't like the last season because it was so different, but it wrapped everything up perfectly. All the characters got their spotlights and, emotionally, it tied up all the stories. It wasn't perfect, they got a shortened season to wrap everything up so some of it was a little rushed. But, they at least knew it was the last season and were able to provide an actual ending. Just finished a re-watch of it last night and I was still brought to tears in the final episode by the line "You are my very favorite thing, Peter." Puts a lump in my throat just to type that out.
| 2
| 133
|
[MLT:150]
|
AskReddit/ec7qkat
|
a83w04
|
What is your worst doctor’s mistake story?
|
Many years ago. Watched a surgeon drop a fresh liver on the floor of an operating room. We were well underway with removing the patients bad liver. Picked it up. Washed it off with some saline and stuck that sucker in. Patient recovered just fine. Not the worst mistake. Most memorable for sure. it seemed like it happened in slow motion as everyone scrambled to catch it and it did a slow squishy plop and short slide across the floor.
| 4
| 95
|
[MLT:150]
|
AskHistorians/cmo0wwr
|
2ok7a1
|
When did the British-French relationship changed from hated rivals to friendly allies ?
|
Well, the change was not night-and-day. The French stopped being hated enemies after the Napoleonic wars and over the course of the Pax Britannica. After 1815, the British became the biggest power in Europe, and European policy in general started focusing away from the continent and more overseas. It was the age of empires, and a period known to many as the Pax Britannica. The English established their 'Second Empire', mostly concentrated around Canada, Australia, India, and laterally eastern Africa. The French concentrated on Indochina and northwestern Africa. Both sides were expansionist, but found that cooperation was more helpful than confrontation. For example, when Napoleon III became Emperor of France in 1848, the British were worried because he had the intention of expanding the French Empire. Lord Palmerston was the foreign minister at the time, and he had close relationships with many leading Frenchmen, including Napoleon III. His goal was to make sure that relations were friendly in order to focus Britain's efforts on other more important parts of the world. Napoleon III, by his turn, was quite pro-British, partly because he did not want to upset the Imperial powerhouse, but partly because an allegiance between France and Britain was a very powerful force of cooperation. The benefits of this allegiance showed themselves during the Crimean War and the Second Opium War. In the Crimean War, the Brits and the French chose to fight the Russians in order to check their power. Napoleon III tried to organize an alliance with Russia in order to dominate Europe, but the Brits found out and it was abandoned. In the Second Opium War, the French and British co-operated in order to force the Chinese to sign a beneficial treaty. The late 19th century was a little less friendly. Tensions in Africa very nearly led to war, but at the same time Germany was becoming more and more powerful, so British and French policy aligned once more. This is the period if the Entente Cordiale, and eventually led to the First World War. It's worth noting that, even though this period saw France and Britain as allies, they still weren't on super-friendly terms. It was mostly a political allegiance, based on the fact that they had similar goals in the world. They understood that they were both the biggest imperial powers in the 19th century and that stepping on each other's toes would be less productive than if they banded together. In Britain, France was a key part of the 'balance of power' in Europe. And in France, Britain was too powerful to be enemies with, so the most productive strategy was co-operation.
| 36
| 543
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskReddit/d6i16bj
|
4xs8ss
|
What's a common product that people tend to spend a lot of money on that they probably don't need to or is avoidable/cheaper option?
|
My friend spend some stupid high amount of money on a pregnancy test. Dollar store tests work just as well as one that costs $200.
| 3
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
AskReddit/dvlu35v
|
83yrp9
|
What stupid stuff did you used to do as a kid?
|
My older brother always convinced me to do stupid stuff. Once when our parents weren't home he handed me a hairspray bottle and asked me to come outside. We went to our front yard and he took matches out of his pocket. His plan was that I press the hairspray bottle and he then sets the spray on fire. I wasn't sure if that was a good idea but after my brother kept insisting that it's gonna be fine, I gave in. I have only later realised how dangerous the situation actually was. It took many years before we told our parents about it. The fire cloud was pretty neat tho. EDIT; dot
| 2
| 128
|
[MLT:150]
|
herems_526816
|
q_868783
|
In this task, you are given a text of news article and corresponding headline of an article. Your task is to give label "match" if headline is correct for article, otherwise give label "no".
Article: Actress NAOMI WATTS walked out of a radio interview as she was promoting her new movie DIANA. Headline: Facebook buys WhatsApp for $19 billion
|
Label: no
| 0
| 3
|
[MLT:5]
|
AskReddit/cfceh9u
|
1xl30y
|
If you were given a nickel every time you did a certain thing, what certain thing would make you a millionaire?
|
If I received a nickel everytime my heart beat I would make $4320 a day (assuming a constant bpm of 60). That means about every 7 months I would have accumulated $1M
| 2
| 43
|
[MLT:50]
|
explainlikeimfive/cmj7uj0
|
2o2ycw
|
What is the difference between hard and soft water and why do different areas have different hardness?
|
hard water has a higher mineral content than soft water. different sources of water have different levels of minerals and different purification processes remove or control different minerals.
| 7
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
herems_220383
|
q_516980
|
Edit this sentence to make it more concise: "That is the most bizarre thing that I have ever seen".
That is the most bizarre thing I have ever seen
|
That's the weirdest thing I've seen.
| 0
| 10
|
[MLT:10]
|
AskReddit/ckx010r
|
2hxv5e
|
What things are people often overcharged for?
|
Any and every Fair or Fest related things. Every single food stall or simple enjoyment things like rides or those toss the ball/shoot balloons gimmicks.
| 2
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
herems_833872
|
q_52551
|
In this task, you're given the title of a five-sentence story, the first four sentences, and two options for the fifth sentence as a and b. Your job is to pick the sentence option that does not connect with the rest of the story, indicating your choice as 'a' or 'b'. If both sentences are plausible, pick the one that makes less sense.
Q: Title: Game Winner. Sentence 1: Adam lined up to attempt a field goal on the last play of the game. Sentence 2: If he makes the attempt, his team will win the game. Sentence 3: The ball is snapped and Adam kicks it towards the uprights. Sentence 4: The ball sails through the goal posts and Adam's team wins the game. Choices: a. His teammates carry Adam off the field as the hero. b. She posted how much she loved the dish.
A:
|
b
| 0
| 1
|
[MLT:5]
|
explainlikeimfive/ceahcc1
|
1tqllk
|
How to become well spoken?
|
Being well-spoken takes two essentials: a tool and a skill. The tool is a vocabulary. The larger your toolbelt, the more handy your skill becomes. The skill is LISTENING. To speak is like silver, to listen is like gold. Truly well-spoken individuals always seem to "say the right thing," and in reality its true. They answer the question directly, succinctly, with supporting information, usually in an analogy or some form of wit. But the quality of response is correlated to the respondent's skill of listening, matching the right tool and getting to work, quickly. Well spoken people are NOT long-winded. @RocStarArt IG
| 2
| 136
|
[MLT:150]
|
AskReddit/errm0ce
|
c3kpyj
|
What is something that smells terrible to you but smells good to other people?
|
Yogurt. On the flip side I love the smell of rubber tires, gasoline and hot asphalt which a lot of people I talk to dislike
| 3
| 29
|
[MLT:30]
|
AskReddit/edp5rce
|
aeh2p9
|
What was the worst punishment you ever had growing up?
|
I didn’t have a whole lot of friends growing up. I was awkward and just socially off. Halloween of third grade I got invited to go trick or treating with some kids in my grade who I always wanted to be friends with. They were genuine so I really wanted to go. I had to have a permission slip to go home with their family at the end of the day. My sister was given one for her friends as well. Our mom worked super early mornings and would drop her off at grandmas super early before we caught the bus. To get upstairs we’d have to run up the stair well which could be super noisy. After several complaints about other kids in the building we knew we had to be very quiet. Well everyone except my sister. She got upset with something I said and stormed off up the stairs banging on the wall and railing making a ton of noise. Mom who couldn’t see who it was blamed me thinking that in my excitement about having permission to go, I had ripped off up the stairs. My punishment was that I couldn’t go out with my friends. Because I (rightfully) accused my sister she was allowed to. As further punishment, I had to tell my friends that I couldn’t go and watch my sister open her candy. I was so angry and embarrassed at being in trouble that I just told them that I didn’t want to go anymore. That made them think I didn’t like them for some reason and I lost what I felt like was my last chance at that school to make a real friend.
| 3
| 312
|
[MLT:500]
|
AskReddit/em7ang7
|
bjcawj
|
Why are tattoo shops in movies often portrayed as dirty and only visited at night?
|
I would think that these are scenes where they're trying to show the character in a shady after-hours kind of location. A tattoo parlor is one option for such a place. If the scene was just "our hero gets a tattoo", the shop could be whatever kind of tattoo shop the character would be lilely to go to.
| 3
| 68
|
[MLT:80]
|
herems_859160
|
q_75868
|
An anagram of "post", this word means to bring something to a halt.
|
stop
| 0
| 1
|
[MLT:5]
|
herems_906071
|
q_808090
|
Q: Is this product review positive? Title: TomTom ONE XL Review: Product works well. We like the fact that updated map data can be downloaded from the TomTom site. We did that on the first day and although it took 1.5 hours to download and install (5mb link), it all worked well. We are having some trouble with the mounting arm. It seems not to stick to the glass for very long. We are also a bit disappointed with the display brightness although the size is perfect. During the day, it is sometime hard to see the map depending on the angle of the sun. The verbal directions are wonderful and one almost need not look at the display at all. Overall, we are pleased with this product. It would be nice to have the battery last more than 2 hours however, we have not yet put that to the test. One other important note... it locks on GPS signal very fast, it is almost amazing that it can do that. Answer:
pick from the following.
A). No;
B). Yes;
The answer is:
|
B). Yes;
| 0
| 4
|
[MLT:5]
|
AskReddit/ctzexyj
|
3gmd4m
|
What is the most absurd thing someone you know has has actually believed?
|
Knew someone who believed drinking Mountain Dew and smoking marijuana made you sterile. Pretty sure in the same year he uttered that statement his girlfriend got pregnant.
| 2
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
AskReddit/cztql7p
|
44y1se
|
What was the last movie/tv show that made you emotional?
|
Star Wars, emotional in the sense of pure joy. Click, Adam Sandler made me feel sad by seeing him die. Who would've thought?
| 4
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
AskReddit/e76z45z
|
9lie4e
|
What’s a movie that’s considered a classic now but was critically panned when it was released?
|
rocky horror picture show completely bombed when it was first released. it now holds the record for longest running theatrical release at 40+ years.
| 2
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
explainlikeimfive/ck38o5j
|
2ev6ge
|
What exactly was the "Watergate" scandal?
|
People on President Richard Nixon's White House staff and people involved with the Nixon re-election campaign embarked on various "dirty tricks" to get information about or discredit people they didn't like, some of them involving crimes, some just creepy. In the process of one of these, a group of people ("the plumbers") were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee's offices in the Watergate building in Washington DC (Nixon was a Republican). It was then discovered that they were hired by people in or associated with the Nixon administration and his re-election committee. Liddy, Hunt and Colson were the main money men, IIRC. Nixon's top aides, Haldeman and Erlichman were both eventually indicted and convicted for their roles in the break-in and cover-up, as were the Attorney General and the former White House Counsel, John Dean. There was a key guy called "Deep Throat" (FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, it was revealed years later) who fed confidential information to Woodward and Bernstein from the Washington Post, and they helped to break the story open. There were Congressional hearings, and some key people (including Nixon's then-former counsel, John Dean) testified. Congress ended up subpoenaing a lot of information from the White House, and the Supreme Court had to rule on some of that, since Nixon didn't want to give them any information, and used "national security" and "executive privilege" as justifications. One of the interesting thing that was revealed during the whole debacle was that Nixon had the Oval Office bugged, so that he could record all of the conversations there. Of course, many of those tapes became evidence in the case. One of those tapes had a very suspicious 18 & 1/2 minute gap of silence on it; Nixon's secretary Rose Mary Woods claimed to have erased it accidentally. To do so, however, would have been almost impossible. A Special Prosecutor was assigned to pursue the case, then Nixon fired him. Then another. Nixon resigned before he could fire the 3rd one. As in a lot of situations like this, the original crimes became overshadowed by the attempts to cover up the administration's involvement by doing things like lying to Congress (a crime). Some top people from Nixon's White House staff and re-election committee were found guilty and went to jail, including Attorney General John Mitchell (the nation's top law enforcement officer, sorta). When it got to the point where it was likely that President Nixon was going to be shown to be involved in the cover-up and he would likely be impeached by Congress, he resigned. Ever since the Watergate scandal, the USA press has loved to add "-gate" to major scandals. Originally, "-gate" referred to not a scandal, but the cover-up of a scandal. But that has mostly fallen by the wayside now, and it just refers to any major political scandal, like "Weinergate". The revelations of Watergate accelerated the degradation of the American public's trust in their government that had been gaining momentum since the 1960s. There was a backlash against the government being too intrusive and powerful, particularly the executive branch, and Congress passed various legislation as a result. Anti-wiretapping legislation was one example. Watergate arguably also led to the election of Jimmy Carter as President. He was from the other main political party (the Democratic Party), and was widely viewed as a man with good, strong principles.
| 8
| 708
|
[MLT:800]
|
askscience/cc6t9ml
|
1m8fp7
|
Was the first egg a mutation?
|
I may be a little late to this post, but the short answer is actually just a simple yes. Every change that has ever happened is caused by mutation-natural selection cannot introduce new changes into a population, it can only select for a given mutation (aka make that mutation more/less frequent in the population). So if a new trait exists, it originated as a random mutation, and then natural selection acted upon that trait to make it more frequent. Also, eggs were not the first example of sexual reproduction happening. Sexual reproduction is simply the act of 2 cells from separate organisms fusing, and then dividing to form new organisms. Amoebas, yeast (single-cell fungus), and many other unicellular organisms can do sexual reproduction but do not lay eggs (clearly), since they are unicellular. They simply fuse and then divide to make new cells, and that counts as sexual reproduction (even though they aren't actually boning in the conventional sense). So sexual reproduction in us is similar to what the unicellular organisms do, in a sense: single cells fuse and then divide to make offspring (but for us the single cells are sperm and egg cells, and of course there are lots of other differences, but sexual reproduction refers to this fusion of cells from different organisms, and not bumping uglies). Anyway, eggs that get lain, like you are thinking (the type you buy at the store) evolved as an adaptation for animals to start living on land instead of the water. They needed a way to produce offspring, but not carry them around all the time (too big of an energy input from the parent). So eggs evolved-shells to protect the offspring, nutrients to feed the developing embryo, etc. But each of these changes arose via mutation, and then became prevalent because of natural selection. And happened during a slow process of millions of years as the species' slowly evolved to move from water to land. I hope this helps! I just woke up and haven't had coffee yet, so it might not be as clear as it could be, but I tried. Source: am a scientist (just a grad student, but yeah)
| 3
| 435
|
[MLT:500]
|
AskReddit/egrkuvw
|
as3jm7
|
What’s the weirdest thing you’ve done while sleepwalking or being not-so-awake?
|
I sleepwalk frequently, but it’s usually non-eventful. There was a period about 15 years ago, when I was living alone, where several times I woke up in the morning to find a bite taken out of my deodorant. One morning, I found my stick of deodorant on the dining table, on a plate, with a fork and knife next to it.
| 2
| 80
|
[MLT:80]
|
AskReddit/cy8tvmj
|
3xy5jn
|
Which country has the richest history that I should visit?
|
The UK's history is rich not in the sense of opulence, but in the sense that it is everywhere and somewhat haphazard. Our history is everywhere, both physically and otherwise, and no matter where you go you'll find some, whether it's a crumbling castle or just some half-hidden monument from the Middle Ages that nobody knows the meaning of. Our history is so diverse and random that it caters to everyone, whilst still surprising those who think they know a lot about it. Perhaps ours is a brutal history, full of wars and invasions and unfortunate political situations, and so can't be classed as rich so much as the opulence of certain other histories. But it's unique, and a lot has happened in a relatively short time (we were living in caves when the Egyptians were building pyramids). And because ours is a small country, the remnants of history are remarkably densely placed.
| 6
| 183
|
[MLT:300]
|
explainlikeimfive/ckf06z1
|
2g2f77
|
How does YouTube (or Sony or UMG or whomever makes the decision) benefit from blocking playback on certain devices?
|
There's a choice when you post a video (after you get approved to make money from your videos) for either the video to be played everywhere, or only on monetized platforms. If it plays on a non-monetized platform, the creator doesn't get an ad view, and they don't get paid. In other words, it's not that they benefit from blocking; it's that they don't benefit from allowing.
| 4
| 87
|
[MLT:150]
|
AskReddit/cpo25d7
|
300xff
|
Do you carry a talisman/good luck charm, and if so, what is it?
|
I was given the end of a deer antler (about 3 inches long) from a friend as a good luck charm, and I keep it on my key chain. I've had it 6 years now and I must admit my life became a lot better after I started carrying it around in my purse. Sadly, that friend and I have since broken up, but I keep the antler on my keychain because I don't want to take my lucky charm away.
| 3
| 96
|
[MLT:150]
|
herems_14164
|
q_504936
|
Suggest a game name based on the following description: a multiplayer game where players can create and battle with their own custom robots.
|
"RoboRumble: Custom Combat Arena"
| 0
| 10
|
[MLT:10]
|
AskReddit/ddck00j
|
5s5mdk
|
What is with people leaving 2 car lengths of space between them and the next car at stop lights?
|
So you don't hit the car in front of you when some idiot hits you. The real question is what is with people leaving 2 inches of space between them and my car in front of them at stop lights?
| 5
| 44
|
[MLT:50]
|
AskReddit/dcyw1rp
|
5qfq3d
|
What's something people just don't understand about you?
|
They don't understand how I'm such a picky eater. I have to have my burgers and sandwiches plain, and I only eat cheese pizza. People make comments about this, which I've always been self conscious about. I just have an aversion to a lot of foods and can't try them.
| 11
| 62
|
[MLT:80]
|
AskHistorians/cglplsh
|
22bzex
|
Why didn't Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey become English counties, with territories fully integrated with England?
|
The reasons why they didn't become fully integrated with England were different between the Isle of Man and the channel Islands. The Isle of Man had never been part of England before the Norman conquest, and it was not part of England after the Norman conquest. It had been ruled by Norsemen or Vikings since about 850 AD. From about 1079, Man was part of the Kingdom of Man and the Isles. This Kingdom was split in two in 1164. Both these Kingdoms were nominally subject to the Kings of Norway. In 1266, there was fighting between the Norwegians and the Scots and the Norwegians ceded the islands to Scotland in return for some money. The Manx did not really recognize this shift in overlords until 1275 when they were defeated by the Scots in the Battle of Ronaldsway. In 1290, King Edward I of England seized Man, and it remained English until Robert the Bruce of Scotland took it back in 1313. Man was kicked back and forth between England and Scotland. In 1405, King Henry IV granted the island to the Stanley family as a feudal fief (the feudal fee was to render homage and give two falcons to the Kings of England when they were crowned - which was not a very burdensome relationship.) The Stanley family governed the island until the English civil war, when they were briefly ousted by the Parliamentary side, but the Stanleys recovered control with the restoration. By the 1700s, Man had become a smuggling base. In 1765, the British Parliament, to suppress the smuggling purchased the Stanley family rights (but not the 'National rights') pertaining to the Isle of Man. This allowed Parliament to control foreign policy, customs duties and trade laws. The laws and customs internal to Man remained largely unchanged. In short, the Isle of Man, though owing fealty to the Monarchs of England since 1405 (and in various earlier periods), was never part of England (or Scotland, though it owed fealty to the Scottish Monarchs at various times). When the British Parliament gained some control over the external and trade affairs of the Island, they never incorporated it into Britain, and its internal laws and governance structures remain distinct. The Channel Islands are two separate 'bailiwicks' or administrations (The Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey), each with separate laws and legislatures. The Islands were annexed to the Duchy of Normandy in 933 AD. In 1259, King Henry III surrendered his claim and title to the Duchy of Normandy, but retained the Channel Islands, which, since then have been possessions of the Crown, but not part of England. (The Queen is often referred to as the Duke of Normandy in her role as sovereign of the Channel Islands, but this has not been formally true since the Treaty of Paris of 1259.) The Channel islands have been invaded, and briefly occupied by the French and the Germans on several occasions, but have always reverted to the English Crown. The Channel Islands have been possessions of the Crown of England since 1066, but have never been part of England.
| 33
| 679
|
[MLT:700]
|
askscience/ci5bgie
|
27xdu4
|
Why aren't our bodies able to recognize when we've put on/stored too much fat?
|
Over the past few thousand years humans have evolved to become as energy efficient as possible. In the past many people struggled to eat enough fats, proteins and sugars to sustain themselves and as a result we as a species have evolved to crave the nutrients constantly. For the longest time fat buildup was an advantage that allowed us to store a slight amount of energy in the event that we went longer than normal without food. Our bodies are designed to store as much energy as possible, assuming it will be used later on. In the last 100 years or so things have changed drastically. We (the majority of people, not all) no longer struggle to keep enough food in our bodies and in fact are now able to have as much as we desire with little to no work involved. Our bodies, however, are not used to this relatively new luxury. We are still hard wired from birth to hoard as much energy as possible in the form of fat because our bodies are still prepared to go a day or two without food if need be. As a result we have never had a compulsory food limit and have always had the urge to eat whenever we can. In theory, if food supply was to remain as accessible as it is today, we would eventually evolve to consume massive amounts of food every day and would be able to take advantage of that much energy. Until that day our bodies simply aren't able to comprehend the fact that there is more food than we need available and will always try to gain more energy.
| 4
| 302
|
[MLT:500]
|
herems_654798
|
q_477850
|
In music, what Italian term means to gradually increase the volume or intensity of a piece?
|
Crescendo
| 0
| 4
|
[MLT:5]
|
AskHistorians/cdu9gje
|
1s62cd
|
Why is the battle of Adrianople considered a turning point for the Roman Empire?
|
For military reasons, the battle of Adrianople was bad enough. That was the bulk of the eastern Army, and the officers of that Army were not just military men, but senior administrators and officials. So the loss of that army in battle would be the equivalent of if you had wiped out a massive percentage of the bureaucracy of a government. Now, Rome had been defeated by barbarian in battle before. But in those previous cases, the barbarians were primarily on raiding missions, to sack undefended Roman cities and carry off loot back to their homeland. So if those barbarians defeated an imperial army, they merely continued on their way back home. Adrianople was different because the barbarians the Roman Empire were fighting, were in fact FLEEING their homeland, due to the pressures of Hunnic invasion on their territory. The backstory to Adrianople was in fact, that the Gothic barbarians were trying to request asylum inside the empire, but were taken advantage of by unscrupulous administrators, so they rose up in revolt from their refugee camps. This is key because that means should the Goths defeat the imperial Army, they had nowhere to go. They certainly weren't going home, the Huns were still there (and would be coming into the empire shortly anyway). So much of the subsequent history of the Gothic migrations after Adrianople was about their quest to seek permanent settlement somewhere, preferably in the empire. The settlement problem is in fact the key aspect to the importance of the battle. The Romans had settled barbarians on their territory before, but on THEIR terms, usually split up, usually separated from their former leadership structure. The victory of the Goths allowed them to maintain themselves as a cohesive nation migrating within the Roman state. They had to be dealt with en masse, and once they were finally settled in Aquitaine, because they had an intact leadership system, they were not sitting on their behinds doing nothing. They began actively antagonizing and attacking nearby cities in order to seize territory. And with this Gothic example, other barbarian tribes followed suit, migrating/raiding/invading their way into Roman territory. Given the continued structural weakness of the Roman Army, you see the same whack-a-mole barbarian problem as you did in the 3rd century crisis, except that if a barbarian army was defeated, it would be settled whole as a nation, rather than being split up (which the Romans were no longer capable of doing because of the multiple invasion threats as well as their simultaneous manpower shortages). Thus, Adrianople made possible the precedent for future barbarian national settlement inside the Roman Empire, providing political alternatives to the empire itself in the regions where those barbarians were powerful, which would be one of the reasons for the collapse of the empire as a solitary political state. That and well. the victory of the Goths at Adrianople allowed them to wander, and eventually go on to sack Rome. Which was also a bit of a big deal. Now if you're wondering why the Goths went west instead of east, the answer is simply: Constantinople. Though the Theodosian walls were not up at the time, the Goths did not have the equipment to siege cities. Which is why the "Gothic War" of 376-382 was really more of a Gothic ravaging of the countryside, with the rest of the Roman citizens holed up in their fortified cities. There were simply more opportunities in the villas and fields of the western empire than there were in the hilly Balkan peninsula with its fortified cities.
| 29
| 726
|
[MLT:800]
|
AskReddit/de7jfu6
|
5w54nj
|
Which photo of you do you actually like the way you look?
|
The picture I took of myself in my old backyard, by the fort. I seldom smile or appear happy, but in that photo, I look like I'm embracing life. The sun shining down on me helps, too. It's one of the extremely rare pictures of myself I can go, 'Yup, that's me'.
| 2
| 67
|
[MLT:80]
|
herems_238390
|
q_135483
|
Please answer the following question: Pick the option in line with common sense to answer the question. Question: Where would a special ficus be found? Options: A. botanical garden B. doctor's office C. in a sea D. public place E. arboretum
A:
|
botanical garden
| 0
| 3
|
[MLT:5]
|
AskReddit/cf3bylj
|
1wm9uu
|
What are your favorite cities in America?
|
Being a native Virginian, DC and Baltimore are always a good time, the harbor especially. New York is entertaining, but much like a trip to Walmart is convenient because you can get anything and everything, it becomes a bit too much and over commercialized at times. New Orleans is a really fun place with great food and a must see live music scene that beats the band so to speak. Austin is similar with great live shows if local concerts that really rock in small settings are your thing, which is definitely mine. Atlanta can be fun as ice_hawk mentioned but traffic is miserable and I think it's a bit expensive to not have the uniqueness of a place like New Orleans. Vegas was fun, but once you do it once I think you're good for life, unless your a real avid gambler, but I suppose that could get dangerous. Salt Lake City is gorgeous if you can stand the Mormons and don't mind stricter drinking laws haha. Plus, I enjoy skiing and the mountains so I had fun there. Cleveland rocks, but my uncle lives there so visiting family always means I'm gonna have more fun than most, however the rock and roll hall of fame is a must see for music lovers. Plus, the Great Lakes are neat and Cleveland really is a friendly city if you stay out of the bad neighborhoods (I guess the same could be said for most places though). Of all the places I've been though, Oregon is really picturesque. The large green forrest coupled with hills, cliffs, and the Pacific Ocean is just breathtaking. Portland is neat, but I wouldn't want to live there, because hipsters. I know you said American, but I have to throw Ottawa in the mix. Our northern neighbors are very hospitable and there's a lot to see and do up there, check it out if you have the means. Before anyone asks, most of my perusing around is do to military service. Join the army they said, see the world they said. Well I guess it worked out for me, although everything comes with a price I suppose. In any event, go out and travel, make it a priority because the knowledge you'll obtain, relationships you may form, albeit short in most cases, and the exploration and discovery are priceless. One of my favorite quotes sums it up pretty well: "The very basic core of a man’s living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun."
| 2
| 523
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskReddit/cm48prh
|
2mhe9q
|
What job sounds awesome but in reality kind of sucks?
|
Tourist guide. Horrible job, it just sounds great: you see new countries and you get paid for going to museums, and being on vacation all year round, you get to meet a lot of new people etc. However, you go to the same places every time: so monotonic, you don't go to places that interest you personally, but where you're told to, you have to deal with a lot of people who often will blame you for everything you're not responsible for (no, it's not tourist guide's fault that the Eiffel tower costs 5 bucks more than you've expected), you don't see your family, you live out of suitcases, you spend more time in all kinds of means of transport than you'd like to.
| 3
| 156
|
[MLT:300]
|
AskHistorians/d9xnd98
|
5ckseg
|
Did the treatment of Jews living in the Roman Empire worsen as Christianity became the dominant religion?
|
It is hard to define "worsen" but things were not good for Jews during the late Empire, when it Christianized. As an interesting side note first, Julian the Apostate, the last non-Christian emperor, attempted to promote the "traditional" religions of the Empire. This included supporting mystery religions like Mithraism, putting Roman paganism on a sounder footing (he promoted the adoption of Neoplatonism as an example), and allowing the Jews to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (even though Jews were less than enthusiastic to do so) which was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE. With Julian's death in 363, many of his religious programs were abandoned or suppressed by his successors who were all Christian. On to the treatment of Jews in Christian Rome. To start, there was a number of Christian councils and synods that worked to separate Christianity from Judaism in a religious sense that went on to other Jews and restrict their rights. The Synod of Elvira in 305 disallowed intermarriage between Christians and Jews. In 341, the Council of Antioch forbade Christians from celebrating Passover with Jews. In 363, the Council of Laodicea forbade Christians from keeping the Jewish Sabbath. These are some examples. While they did not yet persecute Jews, they led to the clear differentiation between Jews and Christians that would help act as an othering mechanism. There were also policies implemented by the Empire that were discriminatory. Constantine forbade Jews from owning Christian slaves or from circumcising their slaves. He also forbade the conversion of Christians to Judaism and sought to regulate and restrict Jewish congregations and religious services. Similar edicts and laws would be passed by succeeding emperors with more extreme ones occurring under the Theodosian Dynasty which made Christianity the official state religion of the Empire. For example, the Codex Theodosianus of 438 forbade Jews from joining the civil service, army, and law. Jewish religious institutions were suppressed or eliminated and Jewish courts had their scope of legal autonomy restricted. Synagogues were often seized by the state or allowed to fall into disrepair without the opportunity to repair them. Many more synagogues were converted to churches. Finally, the accusation of deicide emerged in the later stages of the Empire, which would become one of the most inflammatory canards espoused against Jews in order to justify antisemitism during the Middle Ages but especially following the First Crusade.
| 7
| 514
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskHistorians/d3ijvyj
|
4kwlcq
|
Why is there such a lack of writing about the role of woman in Ancient Greek societies?
|
Are you referring to discussions about women in primary sources written by men, primary sources written by women, secondary scholarship, or questions on AskHistorians?
| 2
| 30
|
[MLT:30]
|
AskHistorians/ctfuoc6
|
3ehkwx
|
If I were a peasant farmer in the Middle Ages and the estate changed hands, would this impact me in a noticeable way?
|
It depends. Manorial methods and customs varied a great deal from region to region and even manor to manor, and they also varied across time, especially from the 14th century on. Your social status as free peasant or serf might also affect a change of lords. (Around half of English peasants were serfs until the 1400s, though by the 1300s there wasn’t a whole lot a distinction between serf and free; how much land you possessed was the main distinction. There was also a distinction between personal servility and holding land by villein tenure.) There was a good chance you would never have met your lord. He (or she) might reside far away on another manor; your manor would be under the supervision of one of his estate agents (in some cases called a “reeve”). All this aside, the main thing maintaining peasant stability in the face of change was the custom of the manor, which peasants jealously guarded. If their lord or his supervisor tried to introduce new customs—like new labor obligations or new fees—peasants would complain about and resist these innovations in their regular manorial courts (which were more about the day-to-day administration of the manor and its tenants than about weighty legal issues). If you lived on a manor that was part of the “ancient desmesne”—manors once held directly by William the Conqueror—you were a “privileged villein of the ancient desmesne” and thereby free of certain tolls and obligations and enjoyed legal privileges not available to other peasants. You might even live on a manor where you and your fellow peasants has bought your freedom from meddling in the life of the manor by agreeing to pay him an annual collective fee. If your lord was a member of the gentry (say an ordinary knight with just one manor) and lived on your manor, when he died you would be expected to renew your personal oath to his heir or whoever next received the manor. Likewise, if you died, your heirs would be expected to pledge their loyalty to the lord. But the custom of manor would prevent dramatic swings in how a change of lords affected your life. As personal servility and villain tenure began to collapse in the face of the peasant labor shortage caused by the Black Death (arriving in England in 1348), peasants got a lot more freedom and control over their lives. In the face of a labor shortage caused by the mortality, they could sell their labor to the highest bidder. The Statute of Labourers of 1351 was an unsuccessful attempt to reign in rising peasant wages and the movement of peasants from one manor to a higher paying other. The old school analysis argued that when lords tried to re-impose elements of serfdom to keep peasants working on their land, this helped spark the Peasants’ Revolt of 1380. In other words, an attempt to dramatically shift peasant custom led to social unrest. More recently, Mark Bailey (The Decline of Serfdom in Late Medieval England: From Bondage to Freedom) has argued that there is little evidence that lords in large numbers were doing this. In any case, by the time of the War of the Roses, serfdom had almost died out; peasants held land through leasehold. As long as you paid your annual rent to the lord, a change of owners would have minimal effect on you. Sorry, I can’t answer for land conditions in early medieval France (BTW, it was still called “Gaul” in official records, for instance church stuff, throughout the MA.) I seem to recall that some French peasants were expected to renew their oaths to their lords annually.
| 5
| 772
|
[MLT:800]
|
AskHistorians/e4gp3a2
|
98iepd
|
Why does England have so many churches that were built around 7-800 years ago?
|
This phenomenon is largely due to the advent of Gothic architecture in England and its development into what would become known as the English Perpendicular style. This style is defined by high, graceful curves and allowed for taller, more stable walls than the heavy, domed construction of Romanesque architecture which had defined Anglo-Saxon and immediate post-conquest stone construction. This coincides with periods of relative prosperity in England meaning that communities have both the desire and means to improve their civic amenities such as churches. From the latter half of the twelfth century, the Northern city of Carlisle is a boomtown for European silver production while the South grows wealthy on the wool trade with the Low Countries. Many churches in Dorset and Hampshire are known as 'Wool Churches' - large and ornate Gothic churches built for relatively small rural populations using surplus profit from the burgeoning wool trade. During the same period, diplomatic and military expansion of English holdings in France drives economic expansion, especially with the vast amounts of plunder looted during the Hundred Years War.
| 2
| 207
|
[MLT:300]
|
herems_631617
|
q_768826
|
Answer the following question: Based on this review, would the user recommend this product? === Review: This DVD is web-enabled, meaning you have to hook up your HDDVD player to the web in order to download content. I'm sure my Toshiba player is compatible, but I don't have a DSL line anywhere near my home theater unit. Unless you are willing and able to logon to the web with your HDDVD player, I'd pass on this movie. It should come with a warning to alert the buyer of the need to logon. All I get is an error message indicating that the DVD is web enabled and will not load. Answer:
Options are:
(a). No
(b). Yes
Answer:
|
(a). No
| 0
| 3
|
[MLT:5]
|
AskReddit/c0i5o5b
|
al5ep
|
What to do on the plane?
|
Sleep. Plane flights are brilliant for getting a bit of extra sleep. I fall asleep before the plane even takes off usually. Otherwise, tv shows on your laptop would be a good way to go.
| 2
| 40
|
[MLT:50]
|
AskReddit/ciyxa6i
|
2auoq2
|
How can we get Weird Al to play the Super Bowl half time show in Feb 2015?
|
Maybe contact the management organ which organizes the half time show and/or make the reddit community spam them with Weird Al requests.
| 4
| 25
|
[MLT:30]
|
AskReddit/ety7w0w
|
ce3psp
|
Why does water feel colder with the taste of mint?
|
It's a trick, mint and the chemical called menthol play on your brain that convinces your taste receptors they are exposed to cold.
| 7
| 28
|
[MLT:30]
|
herems_326628
|
q_275933
|
Q: You are given a sentence from a conversation between a human and a virtual assistant. Your task is to classify the sentence into one of the following five action categories - INFORM, INFORM_INTENT, OFFER, REQUEST, REQUEST_ALTS. If the sentence is about informing something, generate 'INFORM'. If it is about requesting something, generate 'REQUEST'. If the sentence mentions requesting an alternative option than the one provided, generate 'REQUEST_ALTS'. Similarly, generate 'OFFER' if the sentence is offering some information. If the sentence is about showing intent to do something, generate 'INFORM_INTENT'.
Great. So, what time does the concert start?
A:
|
REQUEST
| 0
| 1
|
[MLT:5]
|
AskHistorians/cukd9iw
|
3itnv0
|
What is the contribution of the Transatlantic slave trade to the current economic weight of Western countries?
|
It's been debated for decades, remains a political hot potato and may be beyond the capacity of economic accounting. In favour of a significant contribution we have Britain, the leading 18th-century slave trader whose economy took off just as shipments were peaking: against it we have Portugal, the top trader overall, by the 19th century lagging despite the windfall of Brazilian gold, or Germany, which later surpassed Britain without having played a significant part in the trade. For Britain, some estimates can be hazarded (note the choice of word). At its peak the trade seems to have involved under 5% of British shipping tonnage. Landings averaged about 28,000 slaves annually in the last decades before abolition: at £40 per head that represents a gross value of £1.1m a year, nearly a tenth of the official value of exports but under 1% of GDP. An alternative approach involves profits, which at £5 per slave would have totalled £11m over the whole of the 18th century, against a national wealth estimated at £1.4bn at its end. But the trade in people is only a part of the story: plantation output in the British Caribbean is estimated at around £2m annually by the 1770s. In addition there is the stimulus to shipping, trade and production of goods to trade for slaves or to supply the colonies, plus the contribution of trade with other American territories to which Britain had supplied slaves, notably the US after independence. The last may be the most significant, for US cotton produced with slave labour proved a key element in Britain's industrialisation. The slave trade's indirect impact is likely to have far surpassed its immediate returns. Much the same can be said of France, with still more lucrative Caribbean possessions until the loss of Haiti, but with a larger national economy into the 19th century and less than half of Britain's slave shipments. Nantes and Bordeaux prospered along with Bristol and later Liverpool, but the overall contribution of slaving and sugar was still less. Cotton never held the dominant position in French industry that it did for a time in Britain, but its role was again significant. For the United States and the thirteen colonies that preceded it, direct participation in the slave trade was on a far smaller scale than the subsequent role of slave production: over the whole period of the trade North American traders shipped only a tenth as many slaves as their British counterparts, but cotton exports alone by 1860 approached $200m. But cotton production more than doubled in the next half-century despite Emancipation, indicating that not even slavery's pre-eminent product relied on the denial of all rights to millions. The direct contribution of the trade to western European development has probably been widely overstated. Its legacy was greater but may be incalculable because of the difficulty of estimating indirect impacts and of determining how much of slave output might have occurred under a less abusive regime.
| 2
| 613
|
[MLT:700]
|
AskHistorians/dl97g2s
|
6rynyk
|
Did the UK ever come close to any serious food shortages in WWII?
|
Not really. The Germans had a target of sinking ~300,000 tons of shipping each month in order to starve Britain, and overwhelm British/Allied ship production. In the first 27 months of the war, Germany only hit that target 4 times. After that, when America joined the war and added their own production to the mix, they had to try and sink 700,000 tons, which they only did once for the rest of the war. Only ~10% of convoys were ever attacked, so most got through without incident. Rationing was definitely needed however, as whilst Britain could maintain enough food coming in to match rationing figures, it couldnt support the amount that had been coming in pre-war (especially given that trade from France and the European continent wasn't exactly booming). Pre-war was around 55 million tons of food, during the war was around 12 million. More focus was put on growing within the UK, so don't take those figures as the only food the UK had. After 1943, the war started turning against the Germans, and with the breaking of Enigma, the Germans were often only able to sink a tenth of their shipping target. Despite this, the horifically poor state of the economy after the war as well as the costs of rebuiling, meant that rationing continued into the 1950's for some items. We didn't have much foreign currency left to but foreign food with, and years of shifting our economy to war production left a period of time when all that had to be shifted back to making things that the post-war era needed, before we could get the economy going properly again.
| 4
| 357
|
[MLT:500]
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 3