q_id stringlengths 5 6 | title stringlengths 3 301 | selftext stringlengths 0 39.2k | document stringclasses 1 value | subreddit stringclasses 3 values | url stringlengths 4 132 | answers dict | title_urls list | selftext_urls list | answers_urls list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1p71ij | Various questions about slavery in America | Few questions about slave supply and prevalence:
* After the [Slave Trade Act of 1794](_URL_1_), was there like a massive "black market" for slaves, smuggling slaves in from other areas? Or was the slave supply in the USA rather self-sustaining by that point?
* That leads to my next question - was there something like "forced breeding" of slaves (and I don't mean instances of a master raping a slave necessarily) so that a slaveholder can have more? Would the extra slaves born this way be used primarily as labor or commodity to be sold?
* After the [Fugitive Slave Act of 1850](_URL_0_), how common was it for slaveholders or aspiring slaveholders to falsely accuse blacks of being fugitives so as to basically get slaves "for free"?
* Just how expensive were slaves anyway?
* I think the impression is that slaves were mostly owned by the wealthy in the South. Are there notable exceptions to this? Or, more to the point, were there instances of slaves being held in states where slavery was technically illegal, just not enforced? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1p71ij/various_questions_about_slavery_in_america/ | {
"a_id": [
"cczgq4w",
"cczjwdc"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Some of these questions have been answered in the past. Here are some links after a quick Reddit search:\n\n* [Slavery black market after 1807](_URL_2_)\n* [On the existance of slave-breeding \"farms\" or individualized breeding](_URL_1_)\n* [Price of slaves in 1840](_URL_0_)\n\nI cannot comment on the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and slave owners falsely accusing free blacks of being fugitives. Nor can I comment on any slave holdings outside of the wealthy in the southern United States. Someone who has a greater understanding of these topics may be able to comment.",
"I can answer your last question. Slavery was prevalent throughout all of the 13 original colonies prior to the American Revolution. You wouldn't think Slavery was all too important to northerner's as your only knowledge of Slavery in the North probably comes from a map that was in your high school American history text book showing what year each state emancipated their Slaves. However, Rhode Island had one of the highest per capita Slave populations among the colonies.\n\nThat said, Revolutionary fervor really caught on in these former colonies, and the result were emancipation bills. However, these bills were often times highly favorable to the Slave owners, and were often so gradual, that in the case of New Jersey, Slavery existed until around 1860. In New York, all Slaves were to remain Slaves until age 25, and the owners were compensated by the state. So effectively, the owners were paid to no longer have to burden themselves with a Slave that was about to be past prime."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_of_1794"
] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tvjzj/what_was_the_average_price_for_a_slave_in_1840s/c4q3dgn",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1738vq/did_slave_breeding_farms_exist_and_if_they_didnt/c81uhd3",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fz432/was_there_a_black_mar... | |
92i0id | During World War 2 the Germans had a series of plans for the displacing and resettling of Eastern Europe by ethnic Germans. Did this include their axis allies? Such as Hungary, Romania and eventually Croatia? | My wife is Hungarian and she told me that she had an argument with a guy who suggested that if Hitler had won, Hungary would have been in a great position. But considering what I have been able to find about the general plan east it seems that the Nazi’s didn’t care much for Eastern ethnicities. That being said I haven’t found any evidence that Hungary would eventually end up with the same fate as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Did such plans exist? And if so how commonplace was the knowledge of them? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/92i0id/during_world_war_2_the_germans_had_a_series_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"e36l8oz"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There isn't any evidence that Hitler had plans to resettle Soviet territory(as i am guessing, that is what you are referring to) with any other axis member population, nor did Romania, Hungary or Croatia wished this. \n\nHowever, at the Second Vienna Award, Germany accepted Hungary's request to be given at least part of the territory lost after WW1 in the Trianon Treaty which included most of Transylvania (then part of Romania) , part of Slovakia and Yugoslavia, while Bulgaria was given southern Dobrudja, conquered by Romania after the Second Balkan War. In exchange Romania was promised the recovery of Bassarabia, annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940 as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact as well as Odessa and the surrounding territory, part of the Ukranian S.S.R. \n\nFinland was only interested in getting back it's territory lost in the Soviet-Finnish war that ended in 1940 and ,even the start of the war, was reluctant to push further than it's old borders, even after many german requests.\n\nNow that I read your question again, i realize that you meant to ask if the Nazi party had any plans to resettle it's own allies. While Hitler did kept it's allies on a short leash, especially towards the end of the war and would have likely kept doing so after the war ended, there where no plans to resettle satellite countries with ethnic germans. Keep in mind that, while Slavs were regarded as \"sub-human\" by nazi doctrine, Hungary and Romanian are different ethnicities and, while being considered inferior to the aryan race, where somewhat higher on the Nazi racial hierarchy, Romanians being on about the same level as Italians, given their common Latin roots.\n\nAs for Hungarians, they were tolerated but due to their non indo-european language were scientifically not aryans. in 1935 Germany changed the term \"aryan\" in official state documents and used \"person with german or similar blood\" instead, partly to suck in its finno-ungric speaking allies (Finland, Estonia, Hungary). \n\nSo in short : Hungary and Romania would have wound up as puppets or vassals of Nazi Germany, similar to the satelite states of the USSR, but there were no plans for them to be integrated into Germany or be resettled by ethnic Germans.\n\nAs for the question if Hungary would have been better if Germany won : it depends on whether you want to live under a fascist dictatorship or a communist one, either way i would say it's a lose/lose situation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1aq3tc | [meta] two suggestion for eli5 | Hello, all. I'm a big fan of this sub and I think we could improve it in two simple ways.
1) **Use CSS to give more visibility and prominence to the box that suggests searching your eustion before submitting**: I see the same questions getting asked almost every other day. One way to respond would be to post "USE THE SEARCH BAR" in every repeat thread. I think using CSS to make a very big, white on red sign that informs submitters that we've answered a BUTTLOAD of questions is a more elegant solution
2) We should make a compilation megathread. It'll just be a series of already answered questions categorized broadly by subjects and will simply include LINKS to those posts that have the most, highest rated answers in the case of multiple threads that ask the same question. We could put these threads into the sidebar as a big "compilation of knowledge". We can all pitch in threads and the original psoter can keep editing in links. This should also help with repeat questions that get asked every day.
3) Flairs. This one isn't so important, but we should be able to list our specialty in our flairs, like in Askscience and Askhistory. This is purely a secondary suggestion. EDIT: This is really not that important, that's why it wasn't counted in the title | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aq3tc/meta_two_suggestion_for_eli5/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8zp6pl"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I'm not a moderator, but I've heard #3 a bunch of times, and when it comes up, the founders of the subreddit are generally pretty opposed to it. They don't want contributors to feel as if they must be a certified expert in a field, having a better-than-average knowledge or even just the ability to digest complicated information and write a good layman-friendly explanation is sufficient.\n\nI personally think there's a risk of having flaired users drown out regular users because people will see flair and think \"that means he is definitely correct\" and not take contradictory answers seriously. I've run across a few posts where someone had a nicely written, moderately upvoted post that was completely incorrect. I think ELI5 would need a wider base of expert contributors and a stronger culture of \"downvote incorrect posts\" as well as stronger moderation, at which point it's just become a more general askscience or askhistorians. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
6p42hr | The power of the long bow. | For a while now after reading the Bernard Cornwell books, i have wondered how it came to be that the english long bow became so prevalent and powerful.
Within the era of the nornmal bow and the crossbow how did it rise to fame and how did it stay at the top of its game for so long?? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6p42hr/the_power_of_the_long_bow/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkmkzja"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Not to discourage new answers, but you may be interested in the lowbow question of [our FAQ](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/militaryhistory/medievalwar#wiki_the_longbow_and_short_of_it"
]
] | |
9vkdcr | Is there any evidence that points to writing notes Paper & Pen helps you remember what you wrote more than another form of note taking like typing or Vice Versa? | I was wondering what the best way to take notes is and I wanted to know if there was any scientific backing in the most optimal form of note taking. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9vkdcr/is_there_any_evidence_that_points_to_writing/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9d5lqn",
"e9d5n2c",
"e9fswf5",
"e9hmgh6"
],
"score": [
15,
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes – a bit. [One study here](_URL_1_) and [another here](_URL_0_), for example. The gist is that electronics/laptops \"impairing\" learning because their use results in shallower processing compared to handwriting. That is, more different parts of your brain are used when handwriting vs. just typing, so you're able to store it more accurately.",
"Yes, there is significant evidence that paper & pen note-takers have higher info retention rates. It's a recent study done at 19 U.S. campuses. Go with paper & pen(cil)!\n\nLink: _URL_0_",
"Notwithstanding the cited evidence showing that the non-digital method is preferable, it would be fair to investigate if such difference in the retention is big enough to compensate the natural retention skills variation that humans exhibit.\n\nIf you are a poor skilled person in terms of content retention would you gain anything effective if forcing yourself into note taking in comparison to a skilled retention person using the digital approach?\n\nI guess it would not be advantageous to take notes...\n",
"There have been a number of studies that students (on average) learn better by taking notes by hand, however a few caveats...\n* Students in these studies came from backgrounds where they’d been trained through primary and secondary school to take notes by hand, then some were split to take notes by computer. We don’t know what would happen if they were trained starting as small children to take notes by computer. \n* Most instructors in these studies provided no systematic instruction on how to take notes of either form, but it is a safe assumption to say they personally had only been trained in hand note taking. We don’t know what would happen if the instructors were more familiar with computer based note taking.\n* Even if students in average learn something better one way, individual students can still be outliers. For example, some physical or learning disabilities may make note taking by hand impossible, so these students should of course be allowed to use assistive equipment such as computers. \n* Students are (on average) not good judges of their own learning or learning styles. They can judge what they *enjoy*, but not what is *effective*. If you think you are one of the students who learns better by computer note taking, you may or may not be right. So maybe just make your decisions based on which way you enjoy more, or which makes studying later easier. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797614524581",
"https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/154193120905302218"
],
[
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret-don-t-take-notes-with-a-laptop/"
],
[],
[]
] | |
8rkjbl | Why is lava able to flow so quickly? | EDIT: Here's a video showing the staggering speed of a recent lava flow on Hawaii that sparked the question _URL_0_ | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8rkjbl/why_is_lava_able_to_flow_so_quickly/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0s2wbf",
"e0s6w0m"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"I don't understand the question. In general, as viscosity decreases, and flow cross section increases, the speed of a gravity-driven flow will increase.\n\nIt's a cool video, but lava flows follow the same flow dynamics as other liquids.",
"It's hot, dense, on a decent slope, and there is a lot of it.\n\nOne thing about viscous flow is the resistance to flow is due to shear. Which is the difference in speed between the edge of the flow and the center. In this case the flow is large and so the distance is large. Which means the shear is small. So the resistance to flow is small even though the lava is fairly viscous. That allows the lava to pick up a lot of speed going down hill.\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"https://gfycat.com/spanishbelatedchevrotain"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
40zzpt | What makes us see "white"? | White is obviously not a color on the spectrum of light, but rather it's what we get when you combine a few different wavelengths of light together. If you do the simple prism experiment you can see how white light is made up of the full rainbow... But then I also understand that we don't necessarily need EVERY color to make white light. We have red/green/blue pixels in a screen to produce white light, for example.
I know we have cones that are sensitive to three different points along the spectrum. Do I have to excite each of those cones equally to make my eye see white?
What happens to make me see pure white light? If I have white light from rgb pixels and then I add in some yellow light, why wouldn't the yellow just blend in to the light? Would some other combination of absent colors balance that tint out?
Bonus question: Same thing, but for a dog. Is our white their white? I recall that they have cones centered on blue and yellow. Would a tv for dogs use yellow and blue pixels?
[I'm marking this "Human Body"- let me know if "Biology" or "Physics" would be better.] | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/40zzpt/what_makes_us_see_white/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyyq4bh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When all three colors of cones are excited equally, you see that as white. If you added some extra red light, you would see it as light red. If you then added extra green and blue to balance it out, it would excite all the cones equally again, and it would look like brighter white. If you added more light at the right point between green and blue instead, the red would still be balanced out. There's no difference to our eyes between green light and blue light separately and brighter light at the right point between them. I'm not sure I completely understood all of your questions, so let me know if I missed something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
f3tjou | Is there a yellow - green colour blindness ? | I often can't tell the difference between a yellow and green. Not similar lime green i mean like the grass and a road sign...
Is there a colour blindness / brain association that can confuse 2 colours like this ?
I can visibly see a difference between the two colours, but can necessarily tell which is which. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f3tjou/is_there_a_yellow_green_colour_blindness/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhox3ty",
"fhpqkxj"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yellow and green doesn't really make sense. We got cone cells in our eyes and they come assigned to three colors... Some cones are responsible for seeing green (M-cones)...some are responsible for seeing red (L-cones)....some are responsible for seeing blue (S-cones). And then there are cells that connect some of these cones.\nTo get “brightness,” your brain combines the excitement of your red and green cones. This creates the luminance, or black-white, channel. To see yellow or blue, your brain then finds the difference between this luminance signal and the excitement of your blue cones. This is the yellow-blue channel.\nSo to me it doesn't make sense to have a deficiency in yellow and green without having any other defiency as well.\n\n----\n\nDid you take the ishara test before?\n\nThis is the link to one _URL_0_\n\nit is in german...but if you want you can write down what numbers you got for the plates and i will tell you if it is right",
"You might find it helpful to look at [this chart](_URL_1_) from Wikipedia showing an approximation of the way the spectrum appears for different types of color blindness. You can see that for protanopia and deuteranopia, the range from yellow to green looks roughly a constant yellowish hue, with only the brightness and saturation varying. Those are two types of red-green color blindness. Yellow, being the mid-point of the red-green range, is harder to distinguish from red and green whenever there is a red-green deficiency, and in those types, that difficulty is particularly strong.\n\nHere's a [simpler chart](_URL_0_) that makes it easier to see that green looks like a shade of yellow for those types of color blindness."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.elsinghorst.org/downloads/ishiharafarbtafelnsehtestaugenheilkunderotgrnb.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.eyestudioinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/color-blindness-1.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#/media/File:Color_blindness.png"
]
] | |
4phvam | how does mold grow on packaged foods? is there just mold on everything everywhere all the time | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4phvam/eli5_how_does_mold_grow_on_packaged_foods_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4l1mb2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. There are mold spores in essentially every bit of air there i (outside of like a microchip or NASA processing room). When those mold spores land on an organic surface, and they have water, they will grow. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1q8sat | how in the hell does evolution produce 'pictures' of ants on a fruit flies' wings? | This absolutely boggles my mind. [This unique species of Fruit Fly comes equipped with fully detailed images of 'ants' on it's wings to scare off predators.](_URL_0_) For the life of me I cannot wrap my head around how this could have evolved. Please help. Brain Hurts. It feels like aliens did this to mess with our heads :(
Thanks to u/**zqyogl** who summed my question up far more easily than I did. It appears this is still an open question and it may have no answer, yet! Onward Science :)
> ** I think the entire problem is that if the image evolved to only be perfect to the species' predators, then it would not be recognizable to humans. The OP is pointing out that if the images were created through selection pressure from predators, then either fruit flies process qualia like humans or there is some metaphysical pattern.
-from the OP**
EDIT: PIC [Here](_URL_1_)
EDIT: I understand selection and mutation. Of course I thought of something similar - but consider this little problem. This would mean that a 'blotch' which is probably all that local predators would need to confuse as 'ants' in the first place, evolves over time into a picture perfect image of an actual ant in a manner of how it looks to humans. Same with selection. The images are not consistent, not all fruit flies have it, some just have pretty blotches and those are all that are necessary for selection.
~~Remember, all nervous systems do not 'see' things the same way.~~ Higher order mammals do not all process qualia the same. The fact that fruit flies and higher order mammals would process the same qualia in the nervous system/brain is what I am stumped on. This would suggest that genes can just 'pop out' an picture perfect image randomly in a way that is identical to both insects and big brain folks like ourselves. Makes my head hurt please make it stop.
EDIT: Qualia as a color is not the same thing as qualia as a pattern and shape. Consider, fruit flies and humans process the same information in unique ways. But if it's selected because of it's visual consistency in terms of looking like an ant, it could only mean that there exists one set of information that looks like x to fruit flies and y to humans. You do not see how this suggests some sort of metaphysical pattern? It can only be one of two things, either fruit flies process qualia like humans or there is some metaphysical pattern. Please poke holes in what I am suggesting! I don't like it either but the more I think about it it appears all I am left with.
EDIT: I am copying my response here because there is still confusion as to my question and i apologize if I'm the problem there.
yeah, I get that that fruit flies don't see ants or know they are ants. I get how a blotch can evolve in a short amount of time over hundreds of generations into a perfect image of an ant. That's Bio 101 and I am also not questioning it. That's what I thought too, but now think that through one more layer in evolution. A fruit flies wings evolve from blotches into perfect ant images. We agree that fruit flies don't see 'ants' the way we do. But they do see/process something that to us looks like a perfect ant and they react to it as if it were an ant. But it doesn't need to look like a perfect ant to us for it to be selected, so how it appears to us is irrelevant. Fruit flies also do not see blotches. They either process information that their nervous system screams 'ant' and it's just fight or flight or they don't, right? You're not considering that predators react as if there are ants. The ants on the wings suggest there are ants to predators. Nature can only evolve a message if that message is selected for by a predator (like stripes on a zebra for example)
So whatever form of information regarding the 'ant' or images of the ant generates in the nervous system of the fruitfly or predator (I assume we can probably never have a clear answer here) it means that what we call evolving blotches to the fruit fly generates the same image as a perfect ant to humans. Remember, selection does not need to generate a perfect image of an ant to higher order mammals for selection to occur. Wings are one dimensional, like a piece of paper. There are no smells, no three dimensional shapes, no pitter patter of little ant feet or antennae.
All there is is the equivalent of a jpeg on the fruit flies wing. Which suggest that it's visually appearing to fruitflies or predators as an ant however that gets processed by their tiny little minds. But we know that fruitflies cannot generate qualia like higher order humans, it would fly in the face of everything we know about the brain and nervous system. It doesn't matter if it's just instinct - it's still visual that is triggering the reaction in predators and that visual looks identical to an ant in higher order mammals.
What some are suggesting is that selection produced a perfect image of an ant to higher order mammals over time, but there is nothing selecting for the perfect image of the ant, just selecting for whatever the 'blotches' show to whatever predators encounter them.
It's hard problem to wrap the head around because we assume that how we process information is complete, but it's not. We just know how ants appear to our nervous system. Fruitflies just know how ants appear to their nervous system. The 'ding an sich' is the metaphysical entity - the 'ant in and of itself' independent of whatever nervous system is processing the signal. If you're thinking that's getting unnecessarily philosophical, I agree - that's why I am questioning this, I am not sure if redditors here realize the metaphysical issue they are invoking when they try and explain selection and mutation here. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q8sat/eli5_how_in_the_hell_does_evolution_produce/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdabw74",
"cdabz7s",
"cdac4mp",
"cdad5gu",
"cdagy28",
"cdammu9"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
6,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Baby steps.\n\nA formless blob on the wings could be a neutral mutation, it could even be positive in some way. And then it's just a matter of the more it looks like another thing the more likely it is to survive with its camouflage pattern because predators will mistake it.\n\nOf course predators adapt to the camouflage as well so it's a constant arm's race.",
"Its a beneficial mutation. A fruit fly is born with this strange mutation, but this mutation helps it survive. It's able to reproduce more because of this. It's kids have the same mutation because of heredity, and they are also able to survive better and reproduce more often than other fruit flies. Eventually there are so many that it's now a sub-species. \n\nThere were probably flies with other mutations, like neon pink flies and flies with pictures of delicious steak on their wings, but these traits do not really help them survive better or reproduce more so they died out. This is how evolution works kinda.",
"Here's how I think it happens. \n\nA fruit fly with a dark spot on its wings in the vague shape of an ant survives longer than one without - maybe the dark spot fools predators or maybe it fools prey, or both, it doesn't matter. What matters is that this fruit fly succeeds where a plain fruit fly doesn't. \n\n\nThis fruit fly breeds and passes along this successful trait. The plain fruit fly starved or was eaten (again, doesn't matter - it's dead regardless of exact cause). The result is that over time you get more fruit flies with splotches on their wings and fewer plain fruit flies. The splotches change with each generation and the ones that support survival the best are the ones that look the most like ants, so the fruit flies most likely to survive are the ones with the most ant-looking wing splotches.\n\n\nEach generation of flies refines the wing splotches until you get something that looks totally Photoshopped. \n\n\nDo they all have wings that look this precisely ant-like or is this the best one ever, like when someone finds a potato chip that is an exact silhouette of Winston Churchill? Even with evolution I agree with OP, those pictures, if real, are incredibly mind-boggling.",
"It's hardly the first time something like this has happened. You have bugs that blend in seamlessly with leaves or sticks, butterflies that appear to be a face when extending their wings, and of course as featured in *Cosmos* the heikegani crab, who thanks to superstitious fisherman have been artificially selected into having samurai faces on their shells. ",
"What I don't understand is how ants could be more threatening than a fly. Unless the way it flutters its wings makes it looks like there are tons of ants.",
"I'm going to take a crack at this and suggest that there is/was an arms race of sorts occuring between the fruit fly and its predator.\n\n1)After a while some of the predators had better pattern recognition and could see through the fruit fly's disguise. \n2)As a result of this selection pressure the blotches on the fruit flys which were a little bit more realistic survived to reproduce\n3) The realistic patterns were possibly selected for by the sexual selection mentioned in the article.\n4) Rinse and repeat.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/fruit-fly-with-the-wings-of-beauty#ixzz2jhxlLGaH",
"http://i.imgur.com/Cjz4Tui.png"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
325hu5 | what are rare blood types and how do they differ from the normal ones | I don't remember where but i read somewhere about rare bloodtypes that only a small amount of humans have. But how do they differ from the normal ones ( AB,A,B,O) and why are they so rare ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/325hu5/eli5what_are_rare_blood_types_and_how_do_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq83lhc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I can explain blood types a little bit. Its a little bit of a puzzle. AB blood type is the universal receiver. A person with AB blood can **recieve** type AB, A, B, and O blood. You're lucky if you have AB blood, because that means you can receive any type of blood. However, your blood is in less demand at blood donations because type AB blood can only be given to other people with type AB blood.\n\nNow, O blood type is the universal donor. Meaning a person with type O blood **give** to people with type AB, A, B, and O. You're unlucky if you have type O blood because that means if you need blood, you can only get it from other people with type O blood. However, you'll be very popular at blood donations because your type O blood can be given to everyone.\n\nAnd for the last two, types A and B, they're in the middle. Type A blood can give to A and AB, and can receive from A and O. Type B can give to B and AB, and can receive from B and O.\n\nNow, I could also delve into positive and negative blood types. Because technically O- is the universal donor and AB+ is the universal receiver. But then we'd be leaving the realm of ELI5. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2w8ecb | How do prions cause illness in cannibalistic humans? | If humans consume other humans' brains, they can get a disease called kuru which leads to death. Prions cause this disease. So please, what are prions, how do they work, and how do they cause this illness?
Does the human brain already have prions in it that are not active unless ingested? If you eat a human brain, is it 100% you'll get kuru?
Ok, last question and it may seem outlandish: could you get kuru from eating a piece of your own brain? Ex1) In one of the Hannibal movies, he heavily sedates a guy, opens his skull, and feeds him a tiny piece of his own brain. Ex2) I undergo surgery on my brain, surgeons cut a little piece off for me and save it. After recovery, I eat that piece of my brain. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2w8ecb/how_do_prions_cause_illness_in_cannibalistic/ | {
"a_id": [
"cook60c",
"coozdgk"
],
"score": [
28,
4
],
"text": [
"Prions are basically proteins that are in a weird conformation. Weird meaning different than their usual/physiological conformation, while the normal protein mostly has α-helices (a usual secondary structure element) the pathological form consists of lots of β-sheets (also a regular secondary structure element). This structure is way more stable against lots of things that could easily destroy the physiological form like low pH, radiation (UV) and proteases (which is also an issue because regular sterilisation techniques are insufficient agains prions). As of such, they have no problem passing through the acidic environment of the stomach. What's important, is that we already have the prion protein - it's just folded regularly and is doing it's job (it's not exactly understood what it's normal role is). If it encounters a pathologically folded prion protein however, it is transformed to this form as well and causes other prion proteins to refold as well - the pathological conformation is infectious (the mechanism by which this happens is also not really understood). \n\nSo yes, we have the prion protein, but it's in it's physiological conformation and causes no harm. And no, you only get Kuru (or CJD or another prion disease) if you ingest the pathological form (not sure how high the possibility is then, but I suspect pretty high). Also, eating your own brain wouldn't have any effect regarding prions (because you don't have the pathological form). Eating brain in general isn't the issue, it's eating brains that contain the pathological form of the prion protein. \n\nIt's not really understood what causes this refolding, but there are genetic predispositions for it ([CJD](_URL_1_) can be genetic but doesn't have to be, [GSS] (_URL_0_ ) always is). But they always cause neurodegenerative issues like spongiform encephalitis and amyloid plaques. ",
"Related question about prions. Is there a difference between genetic and transmissible vCJD or are they interchangeable? For example could I contract vCJD due to family inheritance and then pass it along to someone else say by blood transfusion? I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of an inheritable infectious disease."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerstmann%E2%80%93Str%C3%A4ussler%E2%80%93Scheinker_syndrome",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease"
],
[]
] | |
e0eyzk | how can some things be sold so cheap? | Specifically I just picked up a pack of cookies, 6.17 oz's caramel chocolate and from the Netherlands, so can you dumb down how they can manufacture, then ship from over seas and still make it worth selling for one dollar? It was at one of them el cheapo dollar places... well they sold other stuff too that wasn't just a dollar but, I just can't comprehend. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e0eyzk/eli5_how_can_some_things_be_sold_so_cheap/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8dldd4",
"f8dosaq",
"f8douh3",
"f8f9wmx"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You will notice most of the ingredients would be sugar, something that is extremely cheap.\n\nCost of manufacturing for most things is really miniscule nowadays as we are talking about a handful to a dozen workers overseeing a set of machinery that can produce thousands of these sweets a minute.\n\nAs for shipping, if you are shipping in bulk via cargo ships, it is also extremely cheap. A single cargo ship can ferry thousands of containers per trip. Each container can hold tens of thousands of boxes of these sweets.\n\nPer box, these costs are really small.",
"Some companies also makes up for the money on some of these things by selling other products that they make more profit on.",
"Other reasons in addition to the good “sugar is cheap, shipping is cheap” response. \n\nSometimes these packs in dollar stores are a loss leader: selling small volumes cheaply in the hope that when you shop in more expensive shops, you buy the more expensive packs of the same brand. That’s why they can be odd sizes, as they’re specifically made to sell at that single price point.\n\nIf the demand planner has ordered too much stock for their big customers, I’m sure they they will happily divert some to dollar stores to get some revenue from it rather than scrap it.\n\nI know some big customers are very picky about how long the shelf-life is on products they buy. Dollar stores may also be a way of shifting stock that is coming close to its expiry date.",
"Something that nobody seems to mention is the idea of “markets of sale” sure shipping 1 cookie oversees is like thousands of dollars - but know what the same cost of shipping 1 cookie is the same as shipping 1000000 cookies as they are small and easily packed - so even though 1 cookie would need to cost $1001 to make a profit 1000000 cookies spread it out to the point of which the shipping cost is less than 1 cent per cookie..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3n94h1 | why do ceos still manage to get paid millions for failing at their job? | I understand they probably managed to put in a clause when they got hired so they'd be guaranteed tens or hundreds of millions whether or not they succeeded. But why would any company agree to that?
Surely there are plenty of people wanting to become CEOs that there would be a wide pool of suitable candidates to choose from. they aren't desperate enough to give such huge compensation packages. But even CEOs with a track record of failure would get scooped up and guaranteed tons of money. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n94h1/eli5_why_do_ceos_still_manage_to_get_paid/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvlxyof"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You are part owner a large corporation. Your CEO sucked and the board has pulled him from power. \n\nYou need a CEO to head the company in the right direction.\n\nYou list out all the people you think would do a good job based on how they've done in other companies. These are people that are actively running other companies similar to yours. (or are in high up positions)\n\nYou hire them away from their already successful companies with tons of money. They might agree to incentives, but none of them are going to give up their highly successful gigs for turning around your company without some guarantees. \n\nThe come in and maybe:\n\n1. they suck at CEOing\n2. the board refuses to let them CEO properly\n3. the company and or their product is inadequate\n\nThey fail, but still get to keep the money promised. \n\nNow, they need to find another job, who wants the CEO that failed to turn your company around?\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
bv62ss | why are rainforests always so wet? | I understand they’re wet because there is a lot of precipitation, but what is it about the weather pattern that creates all that wetness? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bv62ss/eli5_why_are_rainforests_always_so_wet/ | {
"a_id": [
"epm5ifp",
"epnowyk"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it's due to terrain. The Hawaiian islands have dry and wet sides, the moisture laden water from the ocean hits the mountains, rises, cools, and falls as rain. By the time the wind gets to the other side of the island the moisture is gone.\n\nThe rainforests remain humid from the rain, which decreases evaporation rates.",
"When water evaporates in the ocean and forms clouds, wind pushes them around the globe. Sometimes they get pushed into mountains. Mountains cause the air to rise (imagine blowing air at a slope, it has to go up), and mountains usually have colder air masses over them any way. As the clouds cool, due to rising or entering a colder air mass, they can't hold as much water vapor before it condenses into droplets. Those droplets turn into rain. Mountains cause clouds to rain. You see rain forests in areas where prevailing wind patterns push air into large mountain ranges. In the northern hemisphere, air currents (generally) rotate clockwise, and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. In the northwest of North America, air currents off of the Pacific Ocean (which are coming from the east, or north east) push clouds into the Coast and Cascade Ranges. These are high enough that they cause the clouds to cool down and release their water as rain, causing rain forests in Washington and British Columbia. In South America, it's from the opposite direction. Air from the southern Atlantic blows in towards the Andes Mountains, which have the same effect, causing the clouds to rain over the Amazonian rain forest."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4fnn02 | If eveyone in the world got into one place, would the mass at that point affect the earths rotation or orbit? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4fnn02/if_eveyone_in_the_world_got_into_one_place_would/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2aczjb",
"d2ad85q",
"d2adqgj"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
4
],
"text": [
"This would perhaps alter Earth's moment of inertia by 0.1 parts per trillion, potentially making the day longer by 15 nanoseconds.",
"Even if the entire crust of the Earth: all the rock, water, animals, plants and everything else on the surface were at one point, then it would still be next to nothing compared to the mantle and core of the Earth.\n\n[The Earth is built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily.](_URL_0_)",
"7 billion people... let's say an average of 150 lb.. that's 2.3e12 but the earth is 6e24... so if all people are placed in one spot, they essentially concentrate approx 0.04 nanopercent of the earth's mass... so essentially changes the world less than a fly landing on you would"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://qntm.org/destroy"
],
[]
] | ||
1vzzea | how do i play pachinko and why is it so popular in places like japan? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vzzea/eli5_how_do_i_play_pachinko_and_why_is_it_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cexec8h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Pachinko is not a game in the sense that most westerners mean that term. There are in most pachinko games no choices. It's like a roulette wheel where you don't even get to decide on which numbers to bet.\n\nThe mechanics of a Pachinko machine are simple. Small steel balls are fed into the top of the machine, they fall through the machine following random paths based on ballistics and physics, and some number of those balls exit the bottom of the machine ready to be scooped up and fed back into the top to continue the cycle. Paying money gets more balls. Depending on how the balls fall they may trigger various effects inside the machine - spinning wheels, ringing bells, triggering lights and sounds, etc. Sometimes the balls fall through holes which remove them from the cycle of play, after a time if you don't keep buying more balls, all the balls will exit and you'll have to stop playing. Sometimes the ways the balls exit produce points or prize tokens or tickets.\n\nAsian cultures often teach people how to engage in meditation and many Asian people find it comforting and pleasurable to enter a light (or deep) meditative state. Pachinko can facilitate that experience. Listening to the balls fall through the machine, watching the wheels turn and the lights flash the \"player\" can enter a state of reverie and mindfulness. People playing long sessions of pachinko are usually in an induced meditative state.\n\nAt the end of the session, in some places, the pachinko machine disburses some tokens or paper receipts which can be converted to cash or prizes. The machine behaves like a very slow slot machine where you don't really know what you've won until after you stop playing. This connects to other Asian cultural practices involving luck, fate, the intersection of ancestors and spirits with the power to intervene in people's lives, etc. And of course it's an economic benefit if you win more than you paid to play; and in some places with some games you can win a lot of money if you're very lucky."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
schuq | Why don't marathon runners need to pee during the run, even with large quantities of water being ingested? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/schuq/why_dont_marathon_runners_need_to_pee_during_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4cwwvv",
"c4cxg7n",
"c4cxrg6",
"c4d0k3k"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They sweat and breathe a good bit of it out, but most of them are only on the course for 2-4 hours. Runners make a point to visit the portajohn before a race, too.",
"Some of them do pee. Right into their pants. ",
"It's a balancing act. You've got to drink enough water that you don't become too dehydrated to finish, but stopping to pee will ruin your time. To some extent, the faster you run, the less of a problem this is, because you finish faster and don't have to drink as much water. \n\nIt's really common for slower amateur runners to have to stop and relieve themselves multiple times in a marathon. ",
"They are sweating and breathing a lot of it out. Also, urges like that are usually suppressed by the body in intense situations in order allocate resources to more important systems. The body is going to need that water to \"survive\", so it isn't going to expel it with waste when it can just do that later.\n\nAnd then, like some people have said, sometimes they do pee, sometimes without even stopping."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2cfwoe | This is really hard for me to word right. We only know the "observable universe" because light passed the 13.8 billion LY mark hasn't reached us yet. Is there new light showing up all the time? | I hope that makes sense. If I were to look into a live image of the farthest known universe, would I see new light popping up? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2cfwoe/this_is_really_hard_for_me_to_word_right_we_only/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjf2rg0",
"cjfe2y2"
],
"score": [
122,
4
],
"text": [
"The Universe is either infinite or so damn big that it might as well be infinite as far as we're concerned. So over time we keep receiving light from new parts of the Universe, places which are so far away that their earliest light is just barely reaching us.\n\nBy the way, this will not go on ad infinitum. Because of the fact that the expansion of the Universe is *accelerating*, there are certain parts of the Universe so distant that their light will *never* reach us. This is true of anything farther away from us today than about 63.4 billion light years. As time goes on and on, we'll see the earliest light from objects which are closer and closer to that distance, called the *horizon*. But we can never see beyond it.\n\nWhy is this? It has to do with the fact that the expansion started off decelerating and is now accelerating. Roughly speaking, we'll see a galaxy (or some point in space) if it is receding from us at a speed below the speed of light. (This is a rough heuristic, so it's not exact, but it's close.) In a decelerating phase, a galaxy's velocity away from us slows down over time. That's what it means for the expansion of the Universe to be decelerating - things like galaxies are expanding away from us, but they do so at a smaller and smaller rate. So over time, galaxies above that speed-of-light threshold came below it, and as a result they came within our view - we could start to see their history.\n\nBut a few billion years ago, the expansion stopped decelerating and started to accelerate. This means that galaxies now move faster and faster away from us over time. So galaxies which we can see, which are receding from us more slowly than light, will eventually be moving away from us faster than light, and after that time (roughly) we won't be able to see them, because they'll be moving away from us more quickly than the light they emit can reach us. This means that past a certain distance, the horizon, we will never be able to see anything.",
"Yes. \n\nHere's the harder question: if at some point the expansion of space counteracts the growing of the observable universe, will we reach a critical point that is the maximum theoretical size of any given \"known\" universe?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
2464u0 | how oregon's death with dignity act works and how it is a humane way to die. | Hello I'm currently doing research on Physician Assisted Suicide in the United States and quite confuse on Oregon's model regarding PAS. I understand some part but in most it is really confusing, especially the process with the pills. What exactly is the pill that they give the patient and how does the pill kills the patient. Does the pill numb the patient? Also how is it exactly an humane way to die? Is it because they're abel to choose when they want to die or what? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2464u0/eli5how_oregons_death_with_dignity_act_works_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch40292"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's a great documentary on Netflix called, Death With Dignity. It explains it really well. They interview some people who have chosen to use the death with dignity act and a lot of them say they like being able to chose when they go. They all have their own reasons for choosing to use that act, but many of them say they don't want wait until they can't take care of themselves. Another common theme is they want people's last memories of them to be of when they are still themselves and not completely dependent. \n\nThe people they profiled in the film have two steps. The first is a couple of pills that they take a number of hours before the second step. The second step is having the person drink water that has a bunch of pills dissolved in it. They film a couple of people to the very end, and those people say they feel very calm at the end. I would definitely watching that documentary if you can. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7tbkee | when windows first loads and everything is going extremely slowly for several minutes but task manager doesn't show anything taking up much cpu or ram, what the hell is it doing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7tbkee/eli5_when_windows_first_loads_and_everything_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtbcz9g",
"dtbl01v"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Look at your I/O (Disk usage), most of the time, that is what is slowing down your windows startup the most. \n\nThat's why so many people buy SSDs, they are much faster than regular hard drives (but obviously more expensive).",
"The problem is that it doesn't show anything taking up much RAM\n\nUnused RAM is wasted RAM!\n\nWindows aggressively precaches what it thinks you're going to need so that things can load quickly and seem super responsive, but when it first starts up the RAM is empty, it has nothing in the RAM so when you try to open something it has to pull it from disk, but the disk is also busy filling up the cache so what you just asked for has to wait in line.\n\nThe initial slowness is Windows ensuring that it will be quick for the rest of its ontime"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1q7tyn | Is it possible to create a permanent orbit around the Earth AND The Moon? | If we ever had cities on the back side of the moon, they might come in useful. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1q7tyn/is_it_possible_to_create_a_permanent_orbit_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"cda6ckt"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"...in general, three body orbits are chaotic. But I can propose two path to a solution to your problem. \n\nThe first one is [Lagrangian points](_URL_0_). Those are well established/studied. It works for a small object that does not perturb the large objects. (certainly true of any human satellite wrt the moon and the earth). Those are stable solutions in realtively low orbit. \n\nBut I would guess also that if you are far away from the moon and the earth, then you could find some stable orbit. From a distance, it would look like you are orbiting around the center of mass of the earth+moon, and only feel the moon+earth motion as a perturbation.\n\nI found this little online calculator, if you configure it as < body1 > mass 100; x 0; y 0 ; v_x 0 ; v_y 0 < /body1 > , < body2 > mass 12; x 30; y 0 ; v_x 0 ; v_y 200 < /body2 > , < body3 > mass 0.001; x 200; y 0 ; v_x 0 ; v_y 100 < /body2 > , then let it run...you can see how the small light object really only oscillates around the center of mass of the other pair...my guess is that you can setup this system ot be stable as well. Might be less useful to your scenario since it sort of imposes having the smaller pretty far away from the main binary system. \n\nAnyhoo, have fun. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point"
]
] | |
1jv5b1 | why can't we make alcohol pills to get drunk? | Basically the title. Everyone seems to hate drinking so much... why can't we just pack a load of alcohol into some (albeit horse pill sized) pills and take a few to get hammered? Are there some sort of limitations to this? Dangers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jv5b1/eli5_why_cant_we_make_alcohol_pills_to_get_drunk/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbilemn"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I feel like it would be dangerous because everyone needs a different amount of alcohol to get drunk. A 120 lb girl won't need nearly as much as a 200 lb guy. I foresee it being incredibly easy to accidentally overdose if these ever existed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3ai2ou | how did pigeons come to inhabitate almost every region of the world? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ai2ou/eli5_how_did_pigeons_come_to_inhabitate_almost/ | {
"a_id": [
"csctpan",
"csctvet",
"csctxik"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Trade.\n\nPeople from one part of the world travelled all over, and pidgeons are one of those species that went with them, either by staying up in the sails of ships, or hiding away inside train cars, or wherever they could rest.",
"Pigeons were domesticated thousands of years ago from the rock dove, a wild species that made its home in seaside cliffs, mainly for their homing abilities, and used to carry long-distance messages. So before radio, everywhere humans went, so did pigeons. ",
"A number of things. They have a large natural range, from Ireland, across Europe and northern Africa, all the way across to China and Mongolia, so when they arrived new places, they were able to live there without trouble, because they were able to handle lots of different environments. \n\nThey build crappy nests, so they don't need a lot of elaborate construction materials to make babies. \n\nThey were popular (and useful) pets when the white folk were exploring the world, and they fly so escape easily.\n\nThey're happy in cities, which most birds aren't, so can occupy a place that was otherwise large and empty. \n\nSo basically they were well suited to live just about anywhere people took them. They escaped easily and just took over in the cities where no other birds were wanting to hang out. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
9ahdub | why do self-checkout machines sometimes need “assistance?” | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ahdub/eli5_why_do_selfcheckout_machines_sometimes_need/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4vfvhn",
"e4vh3el",
"e4vhqqu"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sometimes the customer operating the self-checkout don't follow prescribed steps, so the machine calls for assistance. For example, not placing a scanned object in the bagging area without indicating that you are going to skip bagging will call for assistance. Or because a customer scans a restricted item, like alcohol, that requires an ID check. Or scanning an object and want it removed will call for assistance to ensure that the item isn't being removed from the purchase, but stolen along with the paid items.",
"A lot of people don't think about the fact that the bagging area is a scale that weighs the items you put into it. The computer is expecting everything you scan to have a set weight, so it knows the rough total of what should be in the bagging area. If you do something that screws with the total weight, the computer goes \"well now I have no idea if this person is trying to steal something or not, let's get a human over here to investigate\". \n\nI worked the self checkout when I was in high school a decade ago, and it was mostly ladies setting their purses down on the scale, children leaning on it, sitting on it, grabbing items from it, or people coming with so many items that they have to shuffle items around on the scale to make room for the next things they will scan.\n\nThe key to making your self checkout experience a breeze is to scan one item at a time, place it into the bagging area in one motion, and move on to the next item. Dont touch any of the items in the bagging area until you have finished paying.\n\n",
"Because the machines are not designed to anticipate untrained human actions, i.e., customers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
7439kz | As settlers moved West across the United States, was there a significant amount of people who decided it wasn't for them, and moved back East? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7439kz/as_settlers_moved_west_across_the_united_states/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnvnxf2",
"dnwd2ka"
],
"score": [
12,
8
],
"text": [
"What time period and location are you asking for? If you want prior to the Louisiana purchase, I'd be happy to share some insight.",
"So some background. Since the earliest days of the founding of North American Colonies, many immigrants to the \"New World\" wanted to keep expanding west. This became incredibly ramped up in the prelude to the French and Indian War. By the 1750s, settlers and also American gentry were heading west for several reasons. Settlers, especially poorer settlers, were expanding along the back countries of places like Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to search for land that they could settle without having to pay rent to a land lord -- something that was affecting many poorer farmers and indentured servants closer to the coasts. More affluent Americans, folks like George Washington, headed west into the Ohio River back countries and claimed large plots of land that they intended to sell at a higher price in the distant future (this is known as land speculation). After the French and Indian War was ended, the British (after treaties they had signed with American Indians) had to enforce a new western boundary known [as the Proclamation Line](_URL_2_). \n\nThis line, given its name by the British Proclamation of 1763, banned westward expansion for all colonists. To enforce this line, the British set up a series of forts from the south all the way up north near Canada with a goal of stopping colonial expansion. **British troops forced many North American colonists to travel back east across the line in order that they be in good standing with this order.** There are several accounts of British troops burning American cabins and farm houses of folks who refused to leave. However, this did not stop everyone and many colonists went back across the line shortly there after-- a tug of war that would last until the American Revolution where the majority of colonists would eventually win.. As the digital encyclopedia of Mount Vernon points out: \"While Britain intended for the boundary line to alleviate tensions between Anglo settlers and indigenous peoples, eager colonists largely ignored the proclamation and settled beyond the boundary with few consequences from the government.\" Once the American Revolution was won, and the British pulled all their troops out of North America, there was nothing hindering expansion any further.\n\nBetween 1783 and 1815, America's population skyrocketed from about 2.5 million to over 8 million people. [This large influx caused many Americans to try their luck westward, again mostly as farmers and landowners rather than the gold seekers America would see in later decades.](_URL_1_) The federal government also had to contend with land claims being issues by individual states that were all claiming that lands in the west belonged to them. This led to the [Land Ordinance of 1785](_URL_3_), which sought (and eventually succeeded) and fixing land boundary issues for the states, deal with the pressing issue of displacing Native Americans from the land, but also created a system for the US to systematically sell the land at auction to anyone who wanted to move west. But America and Americans were so deeply in debt, that few had the funds to purchase this land that was usually about a dollar an acre and usually about 640 acres (1 square mile) per plot. However, this set up a system moving forward for Americans to expand and legally own the land that they would eventually settle. \n\nBy the time the 1790s rolled around, westward expansion of the United States was really starting to take off, especially in locations of present day Kentucky and West Virginia. About 5% of America's 3.9 million people lived west of the Appalachian Mountains, and the number would only grow. By 1820, [25% of Americans would live beyond those mountains](_URL_0_). This of course was due to the Louisiana Purchase and other factors that really supported westward expansion. But the overall point is clear, that as America grew in age and population, more and more people moved west to seek better opportunities than they could find closer to the coasts. \n\nTl;Dr: The only time any significant amount of people relocated east was after the Proclamation Act of 1763. After that, expansions greatly increased with America's rising population.\n\nAn interesting supporting book that covers this, along with much other helpful information is Alan Taylors. *American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804*. W.W. Norton & Company. 2016. \n\nPlease let me know if you have any follow-ups."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.ushistory.org/us/21a.asp",
"http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/westward-expansion-0",
"http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/proclamation-line-of-1763/",
"https://www.in.gov/history/2478.htm"
]
] | ||
376j28 | why the act of war is an option to solve disputes between countries | It's 2015 and people still have to die because of political disagreements, etc. Isn't negotioations the best solution? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/376j28/eli5_why_the_act_of_war_is_an_option_to_solve/ | {
"a_id": [
"crk3zbd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Why would it not be one of the options? There are times when force is needed to ensure the safety of your people or their access to resources or other interests their government may have. These are not always just political disagreements and negotiation does not always work. It is the same reason police are armed. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4feqdk | why is judaism one of the major world religions now that there are only 15 million of them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4feqdk/eli5why_is_judaism_one_of_the_major_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2871gl",
"d2871h3"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"There's nothing that makes one religion \"major\" at the exclusion of another. It's not like there's an official list.\n\nJudaism is historically important as the precursor to Christianity and Islam. It is also a culturally and politically important group in much of the Western world.",
"I can't really explain the logic behind any particular list without seeing it first but, in general:\n\nA) Judaism is one of the top-10 religions by count of worshipers.\n\nB) Judaism is the foundation on which Christianity and, to a lesser degree, Islam is built upon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
84s6w1 | Does the depth of a body of water affect its surface tension? Why or why not? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/84s6w1/does_the_depth_of_a_body_of_water_affect_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvsvrx5",
"dvsywyb"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Follow on question if it’s allowed: does temperature affect the surface tension of a body of water? Does total thermal energy have any contributing factor? E.g a cold swimming pool has more thermal energy than a hot cup of coffee",
"Surface tension is simply the energetic cost of producing additional surface area, since atomic bonds are generally unsatisfied to some degree at a surface. As long as the system is more than a few molecules deep, the surface tension is independent of the depth or the total thermal energy. However, it is strongly dependent on the temperature."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2054fq | what makes tires blow out? | I was struck by how many blown-out tires I see on US freeways. that's something I very rarely used to see in germany, where the cops check your threads at pretty much every traffic stop and where fines for tires with low profiles are quite steep. do tires blow out because people run them into the ground in the US or are there other reasons? what can I do to prevent this from happening to me? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2054fq/eli5_what_makes_tires_blow_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfzwoso"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"yep. regular replacements and using tires suitable for the road surface you're on simply retains the integrity better. if they're regularly checked, they're less likely to cause problems. arguably german road surfaces and the climate are generally less harsh on tires compared to the US, tho of course that depends on where you go in the US."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
35ssr5 | why is it when i get strep throat it hurts to swallow my own saliva, but not food/drink? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35ssr5/eli5why_is_it_when_i_get_strep_throat_it_hurts_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr7lreo"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"First thought would be that with saliva you are swallowing a very small thing forcing your throat to contract more than it would with a pile of food or a mouthful of fluid.\n\nEdit for analogy: A toothpaste tube is your throat. Squeezing out the toothpaste is swallowing. Much easier to push out the toothpaste when there is a decent amount still in the tube. Swallowing a bit of spit is like trying to squeeze out that last little bit. Now imagine the tube is sore. Poor tube :("
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
d882ti | How do we know when quantum computers are correct? | How do we know that the Google Sycamore processor actually achieved quantum supremacy if we have no way of checking the results to see if they are correct, given that the same calculation it solved would take 10,000 years to run on the most powerful commercially available supercomputers we have now? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/d882ti/how_do_we_know_when_quantum_computers_are_correct/ | {
"a_id": [
"f18xv72"
],
"score": [
50
],
"text": [
"Finding an answer to a problem and verifying that the answer is correct can often have two different levels of algorithmic runtime complexity. For certain classes of problems, it can be much more difficult to find a solution than it is to test to see if the solution works. Solving the problem may require an exhaustive scan of the full search space, but verifying the solution may just require testing it against the problem constraints to ensure it's a valid solution.\n\nFor example, take a look at the [Battleship Puzzle](_URL_2_). This is a single player puzzle version of the classic two-player game, wherein you are presented with an empty game grid along with a series of values along each grid axis indicating how many \"ship\" cells can be seen along its associated row or column ([here is an online version you can play to see what I'm talking about](_URL_0_)). Solving this puzzle via a full and exhaustive search would be (relatively) hard: given an _n_ by _m_ sized grid, the computer would need to generate 2^n*m board configurations^0. However, to validate the solution to this problem only requires that you check that the number of marked squares in the solution matches the numbers in the axes, which would only require _n + m_ tests. So if we have a 100 by 100 game board, the full search space is going to be an astronomical 2 * 10^3010, whereas testing that a given solution is correct is only going to require 200 row/column comparisons.\n\nThe Battleship Puzzle is an example of a problem called _NP-Complete_ ^1. NP (and NP-Complete) problems all exhibit the traits that they are very difficult to solve, but the solutions are easy to validate.\n\nThe paper on Google Sycamore has been taken offline^2, however from a [summary I found](_URL_4_) it appears that the test being conducted was a random sampling problem. Without further details from the paper itself it's difficult to comment on the testing or validation^3, as the type of random sampling problem mentioned in the linked summary has a variety of different solution aspects, and I have no idea which ones were being run. As it was just a test, it may be that formal validation hasn't been undertaken in this case. More will be known once the paper has been made public.\n\nHTH!\n\n-----\n^0 -- of course, we typically don't solve problems by doing a full and exhaustive search; we usually stop when we find a valid solution. If we assume that the solution is equally likely anywhere in the search space, then the _average_ number of board configurations we'd need to test for any arbitrary _n_ by _m_ board would be ( 2^n*m )/2. \n^1 -- NP stands for _Non-deterministic Polynomial time_; you can read my platinum award winning post on NP problems [here](_URL_3_). NP-Complete is a special subset of NP problems, that would require another lengthy post to describe, so for now I'll point you to the [Wikipedia Page](_URL_1_). \n^2 -- I imagine if I did my own exhaustive search I could find a copy, but I don't currently have time for that :P. \n^3 -- I'll also note here that my experience and education is in _classical computing_; my knowledge of quantum computing is elementary at best."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://lukerissacher.com/battleships",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_\\(puzzle\\)",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/clsjm0/are_there_any_currently_unsolved_equations_that/evxq3nx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x",
"h... | |
3810so | Stalin-Tito Feud | Could close did Yugoslavia and The Pro Soviet Comintern come to all out war ?
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3810so/stalintito_feud/ | {
"a_id": [
"crsrh3y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Fear of Soviet invasion was real enough in Yugoslavia in 1949, even somewhat in 1950 but later it became more of a propaganda theme. However, I'd say that open conflict was not very likely at the time.\n\nOne of the reasons behind the split were Stalins' attempts to achieve a stable relations with West and problems Yugoslav policies regarding Trieste and aid to Greek communists were causing. Invasion of Yugoslavia, even though communist, would raise those tensions much more than Yugoslav intransigent foreign policy could. \n\nBeside, Stalin was sure that his call for \"healthy\" communist powers within Yugoslavia to topple Tito will be enough to sort that particular problem. In time it became obvious that no such thing will happen, most of Communist party and populace supported Tito over Stalin, and crucially he antagonised Yugoslav war veterans by downplaying their role in Yugoslav liberation. With that, Stalin might have considered an invasion but by 1950 Yugoslavia already got some military aid from USA, Korean war was starting and any open move against Yugoslavia had too much potential for Cold war escalation in Europe. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3hhkde | where/when did the nun dress code originate? does it share a history with other abrahamic dress codes like the hijab? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hhkde/eli5_wherewhen_did_the_nun_dress_code_originate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu7pj4u",
"cu7r9yd"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"You're probably thinking of sisters, not nuns. It's a common mistake, sisters are allowed to live public lives, they typically work at a church and they go to stores, they can go to movies, etc. Nuns are cloistered and they typically live secluded in a monastery from the time they join until they die. The typical black and white dress that you're probably used to seeing depicted isn't as common as you'd think, they're only worn by those in the order of St. Francis because those colors and typically associated with him. \n\nOther groups wear browns, white and blue, other stuff like that. The garment is really just simple robes, my guess would be that it's mostly just tradition, the wear dates back to a time when similar clothing would have been common for women of high status. Most orders advocate poverty, which is why the clothing is very simply compared to something you'd see a noble or queen of those times wearing. You can see similarities in depictions of [Queen Isabella of Castille](_URL_0_).\n\nSource: 4 years at a catholic school, and we actually had a day where the sisters specifically told us about this kinda stuff. \n\n\nBonus: I don't know about all nuns, but the only nuns I ever met wore only extremely simple brown tunics. \n",
"At the simplest level, Catholic religious clothing including nuns' habits descends from ancient Roman dress, filtered through 2000 years of interpretation, aesthetics, historical accident, etc. It's really meant more to separate out members of religious orders as having a specific role within the community, and less about being super modest because you are religious. I mean, surely the women's clothes are going to be modest, because, well, you've read the bible. But it's not like a chador or niqab or something where the nuns are doing it because they believe it's the most spiritually proper way to dress. It's also not really about averting the male gaze or anything.\n\nTL;DR: nun's habits are more like a uniform, at the end of the day, and less like a burqa.\n\nAlso, YSK that a hijab isn't a particular type of garment. Hijab just refers to any head covering used for modesty."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/217/461723781_d6414f99fe_b.jpg"
],
[]
] | ||
1xgaz2 | If ice expands when it freezes, what would happen if you pressurized water until it became solid? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1xgaz2/if_ice_expands_when_it_freezes_what_would_happen/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfb7f9f"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"You would get Ice VII.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII"
]
] | ||
6f6lbl | At what rate does a wake move in relation to the boat creating it? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6f6lbl/at_what_rate_does_a_wake_move_in_relation_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dig3bm4"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"A wake moves at the speed of waves.\n\nLet me clarify: waves or ripples on the surface of the water move because the water that's higher up gets pulled downward by gravity and surface tension. And this creates a pressure that pushes the water nearby upward and outward. You may recognize that these two forces do not depend at all on the boat. The speed of the wave is determined by nature only.\n\nWhat does determine the wave speed is the wavelength of the wave. A wake is going to be made of many individual waves of different wavelengths, and each one will be traveling at a slightly different speed. (Or phase velocity.) The result is that the wake as a whole will travel at some average of the phase velocities (that's called the group velocity) and also spread out as it's individual components move away from each other. (That's called dispersion).\n\nWhat wavelengths are in the wake does depend somewhat on the boat. I don't know how though. Probably the shape of the hull and the speed of the boat matter. But I don't think they matter significantly. (I could be wrong about this part.)\n\n**Disclaimer:** I am talking about gravity waves here, which are what make up a wake. There are other types of waves. But the principal should be much the same. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5qyvjr | why doesnt the earth move from under me while im in the air. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qyvjr/eli5_why_doesnt_the_earth_move_from_under_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd36ays",
"dd36bsx",
"dd36e0o"
],
"score": [
7,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"It's because you're moving at the same speed. This is the same reason, if you were to flip a coin in an airplane, it wouldn't go flying to the back of the plane. It's moving at the same speed as the plane so, relative to the plane, it's stationary. Likewise, relative to the surface of the Earth, you're stationary. ",
"Because of Newton's First Law of Motion: \"In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.\"\n\nYou were moving along with the surface when you jumped or whatever and being in the air doesn't change that.",
"I had a friend who thought this would apply if he jumped in the air while we were on his boat, moving at a high rate of speed.... It does not!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1szqf6 | Why was the Swedish and Russian invasion of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth so devastating? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1szqf6/why_was_the_swedish_and_russian_invasion_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce31s89"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The Swedish invasion of the Commonwealth is commonly known as the Deluge, and it was devastating for the same reasons that the Thirty Years War was devastating: because that was how military occupation and logistics worked back then. Your typical army did not rely on supply trains and wagons to deliver supplies to your army, aside from troops and guns. Soldiers were expected to forage for food, with an informal understanding that any loot that could be taken would be kept by the soldiers (so long as the nobility got their share as well). In the Thirty Years War, there was so much looting, slaughter, and starvation caused by soldiers stealing and burning crops, that it is though as many as one-third of the German population died. This was continued in Poland-Lithuania, as many of the richest Polish territories (including most of what we consider as Poland today) were looted, destroyed and in general denied to the Polish. Although the Swedes were finally kicked out, Poland was estimated to lose as many as 40% of its population, most of which were in its formerly wealthiest and most developed territories. With the loss of their power base, it made controlling the Ukrainian regions as well as Royal Prussia even more difficult than it was with the rise of the Cossack Hetmanate (which eventually joined the Russians) and as the Poles had made bargains with Austria and Russia to kick out the Swedes, they had strong influence in the Commonwealth afterwards as well. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth had the legal principle of liberum veto, which allowed any noble to veto a proposal. Austria and Russia had influence over the nobility, so they practically could shut down any proposal in the Commonwealth that didn't suit their interests."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2368iq | Why didn't Greenlanders die of disease? | To my knowledge it's been established that the natives of the Americas and Oceania died off in such massive numbers primarily due to diseases that Europeans and Asians had developed immunity too, but had not been present in these places (due to lack of towns and cities, domesticated animals etc) but what about Greenland?
To my knowledge it was colonised by the Norse and later the Danish in the modern era, who would have carried those diseases, and the original inhabitants were Inuits; so why did they not suffer the same fate as the American natives? Or perhaps they did and it was just never settled to the same extent?
Thanks | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2368iq/why_didnt_greenlanders_die_of_disease/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgttxtu",
"cgtwqnr",
"cgu1yxg",
"cgu6f7d"
],
"score": [
34,
34,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't have the backing to answer the entire question, but I can correct a point regarding\n\n > To my knowledge it was colonised by the Norse and later the Danish in the modern era... and the original inhabitants were Inuits...\n\nThe Vikings actually arrived centuries *before* the Inuit. The part of Greenland the Norse settled was unoccupied when they arrived. [Wikipedia has a handy chart showing this (the Thule people in blue, who supplanted the Dorset, were the ancestors of the modern Inuit).](_URL_0_) There was a period where they coexisted though, albeit with fairly limited interaction.",
"Greenland (and even Iceland) were isolated and small enough that they simply couldn't support epidemic diseases. It's not like the colonization of the Americas, where ships were setting sail from big cities in Europe and going directly across the Atlantic. Greenland was colonized by Norse, and even in the larger, closer Iceland smallpox wasn't introduced until 1241 (and killed 20,000 of 70,000 inhabitants there before dying out completely). Now, smallpox wasn't the only disease that the old-world gave to the new world, but other epidemic diseases follow the same pattern: they don't do well in small, isolated populations. Greenland was a tiny population colonized by a small population on the fringe of Europe, and was mostly outside the range of epidemic diseases.\n\n[Smallpox in Iceland](_URL_1_) see pg 299\n\n[Iceland's population too small to maintain measles permanently](_URL_2_)\n\n[Iceland a historically Cholera-free country](_URL_0_)",
"I think this may be a bit beyond the scope of historians' expertise, and more in the field of biology and medicine. I don't think the premise of question itself is entirely correct.\n\n[Small pox wiped out up to two thirds of the Inuit population](_URL_0_). It was also [pretty devastating for Siberian peoples with whom the Inuit share genetic and linguistic ties](_URL_0_), though I'm not 100% sure this was due to any sort of genetic factors. Health outcomes [remain poor for many Inuit](_URL_1_) though that's beyond the scope of the subreddit (and due to a variety of factors).\n\n > but had not been present in these places (due to lack of towns and cities, domesticated animals etc)\n\nThere were some pretty large cities and towns in the Americas pre-contact actually, though someone else would be better qualified to comment on that.",
"hi! you'll find additional information in the FAQ. The first handful of posts ask whether the Norse introduced infectious diseases to the North Americans; the same factors can apply to early settlement in Greenland \n\n[Native Americans and (European) Diseases](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Arctic_cultures_900-1500.png"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23185212",
"http://whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106_chp5.pdf",
"http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/1/87.full"
],
[
"http://books.google.ca/books?id=jyAq... | |
7qybxl | Why did the Germans declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor? Did anyone in the military question the wisdom of taking on yet another major power, when they were already engaged on both fronts with major powers? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7qybxl/why_did_the_germans_declare_war_on_the_united/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsttdx7"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Mentioning previous answers is not intended to shut down more questions and discussion. Most posts on this subject have been archived, so you can't ask followups there. So please feel free to post more discussion or questions here.\n\nIn a quick search of this subreddit, it looks like a major answer is from /u/kieslowskifan, who adapts and updates his answer from time to time. The most recent version I can find is [Why did Germany declare war on US on Dec. 11th, 1941](_URL_1_). In another comment, /u/bareback_cowboy cites and discusses Hitler's speech to the Reichstag, so their comment covers the official reasons.\n\nOne possibility not mentioned there is that the US war plans were leaked a few days before Pearl Harbor. That was mentioned by /u/dhpye in [Would it have made a difference if Germany and Italy didn't declare war on the USA in WWII?](_URL_0_). He suggests that Germany considered that the leaked plan had the US sending in troops only in 18-30 months, during which time Germany might well win the war anyway. A reply from him elsewhere summarizes it as \"By declaring war himself, he accomplished two goals: unrestricted warfare against US shipping within US coastal waters, and some level of personal satisfaction (I'm paraphrasing here, but he said something along the lines of 'Great Nations declare war upon others. They do not wait to have war declared upon them)'.\"\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kzd1o/would_it_have_made_a_difference_if_germany_and/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/606mz8/why_did_germany_declare_war_on_us_on_dec_11th_1941/df4vk4p/"
]
] | ||
2zq48w | When did black and white become a style in photography rather than a limitation by camera? | Style isn't really the right word but you know what I mean. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zq48w/when_did_black_and_white_become_a_style_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cplujuj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Not a historian, but a former photographer.\n\nThere was never a time for professional photographers when B & W wasn't used. As far as fine art photography goes, whether for gallery work or magazine shoots, there's never really been a time without black and white. It's always been part of the toolkit, for a few reasons.\n\nThe first is that a B & W lab was really easy and cheap to set up for someone who wanted to fool around. You could turn a windowless bathroom into a quick lab for pretty cheap. One of the nice things about B & W film and paper was that they made it so that it wasn't sensitive to red light, so you could work under red light and still see what you were doing. That's not the case with color media. It has to be able to pick up all the colors in a scene, so it's got to be sensitive to the whole spectrum and it has to be handled in pitch black, which makes it quite a bit harder to work with. The chemistry and paper for color were more finicky, complex and much more expensive too. I think it's safe to say that because of this, every film photographer ever learned the ropes in B & W before moving on to color. So it was a skill that all photographers would have had starting out.\n\nMore importantly though, B & W film allowed you to take a much sharper image. Color film requires 3 layers, a separate one for each of the primary colors, so it was 3 times as thick. With every layer that light has to pass through, the sharpness of the light gets fuzzed out and makes for a grainy looking image. And since you needed to expose 3 layers, you needed more actual light to hit the film too. \n\nBlack and white was only a single layer, so it could give you razor sharp images with less light entering the camera. This is no longer the case with digital photographs, where the same sensor is used whether you're shooting in color or B & W, but with old school film, you could really see a difference. A lot of fine art photographers would only ever shoot in B & W.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
19wyaj | What are the advantages and requirements engineers consider when choosing weather to make a vehicle front or rear wheel drive? [engineering] | From what I've been told, rear wheel drive provides better torque and front wheel is better for handling, but it was never explained to me why. Is this accurate?
As a follow-up, why do all (that I'm aware of) selectable 4wd vehicles operate in rear wheel drive when not in 4wd mode? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/19wyaj/what_are_the_advantages_and_requirements/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8s34od",
"c8s5vx3",
"c8s8ffa"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
" > From what I've been told, rear wheel drive provides better torque and front wheel is better for handling, but it was never explained to me why. Is this accurate?\n\nNot necessarily. FWD cars are affected by torque steer (although newer systems sometimes emply torque vectoring to counteract this). \"Better torque\" is ambiguous - both FWD and RWD transfer torque to the ground to provide motion. There are different types of losses through different drivetrains, but I'm not really sure what you're implying here.\n\nFWD is more stable in slick conditions than RWD, because RWD cars have an inherent tendency to spin, but a well-trained driver can easily control spin on slick roads. Furthermore, there aren't many FWD race cars, and some oversteer is generally preferred in performance and competitive driving.\n\nThere's really much, much more to it than that, and you can read more [here](_URL_0_).\n\nAs to your title question: Engineers and designers developing new platforms consider performance as well as what the market \"wants,\" as well as what technology is available and already proven. There are times where design engineers might want a specific feature, but it's not a developed technology by that company at that time.\n\nEdit: and as to your follow-up, I don't have a definitive answer, but I would postulate that it's a combination of factors: FWD-only cars usually have transverse-mounted engines (sideways, so the output shaft comes out towards one wheel, rather than towards the rear of the car), and fitting a transfer case requires a longitudinal mount. Also, the market sector buying part-time 4WD cars probably has little interest in a car that utilizes FWD in 2WD mode.",
"In addition to what has been posted, rear wheel, front engine cars also need to run a driveshaft down the middle of the car. This is the cause of that [raised section](_URL_0_) of flooring in the middle of RWD car, and can make for a cramped back seat. ",
"One thing that no one has mentioned is cost. It's cheaper to produce a FWD car compared to a RWD car. That's why most small, cheaper, economy cars are FWD instead of RWD."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_layout"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/4euvX1z.jpg"
],
[]
] | |
cf23sv | What events caused the United States from the 1950s to 2000s to decline in the rankings for education and GDP per capita? | Sorry if this question is stupid or has been asked, but I've been wondering what specifically happened in the United States (or the world in a larger scope) to cause the United States to fall behind towards the latter end of the 20th century, and other countries to catch up or surpass the United States? I've had a pretty hard time finding specific rankings of education by country, but in a documentary I watched it said the United States had the best public school education in anywhere in the world in the first half of the 20th century; and by the end of the 20th century it seemed like it was in crisis; as it was underfunded, overcrowded, and many kids were not passing the state requirements of school.
Is the answer as simple as other countries simply improved, or is there something to pinpoint the decline in the United States in terms of GDP per capita and education? The United States still has a relatively high GDP per capita that's been steady, but the growth compared to other countries has been pretty slow during this time period and many European countries have surpassed the United States in terms of educational requirements. For example, the United States was higher than Switzerland and Norway from the 1960s, but then it seemed Switzerland and Norway had both gotten ahead, and by 1995 both were higher than the United States in terms of GDP per capita. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cf23sv/what_events_caused_the_united_states_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"eu7dbl2"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I can speak to the GDP per capita issue.\n\nSwitzerland and Norway are (and were) small European countries relative to the USA. Small countries' economies are much more affected by fairly localised issues, like geographical chance.\nFor example, Norway has oil fields, Texas and Alaskans have oil fields, both things are fairly independent of any virtue or vice of Norwegians or Americans. But the contribution of Texan/Alaskan oil sales (and that of other American oil producing areas, such as US territorial waters in the Mexican Gulf) are spread over a lot more people in the US GDP per capita than that of Norwegian oil. North Sea oil production really got started in the 1970s, after the OPEC oil shocks, so Norwegian GDP per capita surged from then.\n\nNorway and Switzerland are both mountainous countries with lots of potential for hydro capacity. Hydro power stations are expensive to build but very cheap to run, so make large contributions to GDP (either by being able to sell the electricity at a high mark up, perhaps across the border, or by selling electricity cheaply thus encouraging electricity-intensive industries like aluminium smelters to set up locally). The US has lots of mountainous areas, and a higher installed hydro base than Norway or Switzerland, but it also has a lot of flatter areas. So again, the US average is lower. Turning to history, European integration of the electricity networks, at least of central Western Europe, started pre-WWII but took off post WWII, rising from 1% of total production in 1955 to over 4% in 1965 (4% may still sound small, but the impact of transmission capacity is the highest when things are tight). The Scandinavian electricity integration unit, Nordel, was set up in 1963, again post WWII. And the major western European economies of France, Italy and West Germany were enjoying rapid growth in the 1950s and '60s, which meant more demand for Swiss power exports, and, a bit more indirectly, Norwegian exports. \n\nWhat's more, GDP measures what is produced within a country, regardless of whether it is produced by residents or non-residents. Switzerland has long had a significant banking sector which handles considerable money owned by people in other countries, and while the ownership of assets isn't part of GDP they do tend to come with higher contribution of financial services. The USA of course has Wall Street but, like Texan & Alaskan oil, when we calculate US GDP per capita Wall Street is spread across *a lot* of people. And Wall Street was further, geographically and culturally, from the post-WWII economic growth of the big Western Europe countries. \n\nWith Switzerland, albeit mainly in the last 20 years there's also been growing cross-border commuting: people who live outside Switzerland but commute in regularly to work there, therefore contributing to the GDP numerator but not the \"per capita\" denominator, as that's based on residents. \n\nIt's not all about geographical and historical chance of course. Norway and Switzerland are stable, high-trust democracies which is generally associated with prosperity. And there's always the chance of bad decision-making in a country's governance. But in general, the smaller a country, the bigger the role for luck. \n\n**tl;dr** When it comes to GDP per capita, it's probably more informative to compare Norway and Switzerland to individual US states, not the US as a whole, due to the law of large numbers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4kkmbz | why is it easier to do pull-ups with our hands facing towards us as opposed to outward s? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kkmbz/eli5why_is_it_easier_to_do_pullups_with_our_hands/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3fm2po",
"d3fm4dq",
"d3fnpyj",
"d3fs6yr"
],
"score": [
8,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Different muscles in use, see for example this picture;\n_URL_0_",
"That is way too general of a statement/question. It's only easier facing us if you have stronger biceps. It's easier forwards if you have stronger shoulders/triceps and back. ",
"Both movements recruit similar muscles. However the chin up activates the biceps and the pectorals more than the pull up. So it's easier because more muscles are used to assist ",
"A pull up, hand facing out, uses your back and mostly your lats. A chin up, or hand facing towards, uses your lats but also your biceps or more specifically your brachialis"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/03/b6/7c/03b67c1825bc06371f4f3b266e9aa06a.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2d4k48 | i've often heard people say that america is lawsuit-happy, but how exactly is that different from europe? do other countries not have so many lawyers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d4k48/eli5_ive_often_heard_people_say_that_america_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjm1e1z",
"cjm1iy2",
"cjm1yei",
"cjm2m2v"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We have a different regulatory framework than Europeans in a very fundamental way. Neither is better or worse. The US basically allows products to launch when industry says they are safe, we don't register new products/technologies with a regulatory body (with the exception of the FDA) before sale into the market. We allow economic forces like consumer repurchase or govern what products stick around. The EU is governed almost exactly oppositely... industry had a different burden of proof, they prove safety first, so lawsuits after the fact are much more rare. The user is seen as misusing the product if they are harmed by it, because the culture is more reserved in product introductions. \n\nI read once that the US has something like 100 product launches, for every launch in the EU, but don't quote me on the number. We are more wild-west-ish....",
"There's no universal healthcare in America, so often when people get hurt, the only way they're going to be able to pay for it is to sue and try and get a settlement for their medical expenses. ",
"Such silly lawsuits are often seen as childish and they are thrown out of court. Often such trolls will get fines from the court for wasting the court's time too. ",
"IMO, it's the amount of damages rewarded. In Europe, you might get a couple of hundred euros if a waiter spills hot coffee over you: compensation for the clothes, medical costs, time lost. That's it. If there is further medical costs, the insurance companies settle it amongst themselves. Result? It's not worth suing. These things often get settled without lawyers involved. Compare that to [this infamous case](_URL_0_), and add the fact that lawyers are allowed to work under a no cure no pay regime, and you've got all the incentives needed to file law suits."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants"
]
] | ||
1wwpzj | Giant public calendar in 'Rome'? | Hello, I hope this is the right place to ask this. I have a quite specific question; I was watching the TV series 'Rome' a while ago, and in the opening sequence, there's shots of what looks like a huge, open-air public calendar, with alcoves, some holding small statues. Was this a real thing? What was it called? Was it used for religious purposes, i.e. so people knew when particular festivals would start? Google just throws up results for modern calendars with pictures of Rome, etc. Thank you! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wwpzj/giant_public_calendar_in_rome/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf67mx6"
],
"score": [
30
],
"text": [
"Yes, these public calendars certainly were a thing. [Here's an example](_URL_0_) found in the old Roman town of Antium (modern-day Anzio).\n\nThe idea of these lists was to show people which days were good for conducting legal business according to the auspices (signs from the gods) and which days were bad for legal business, as well as market days (every eighth day) and public holidays.\n\nThey appear to have a couple of names for these lists.\n\nA good day for business was a \"fastus\" (a bad day was a \"nefastus\"). A list of days was therefore a \"fasti diurni\".\n\nThe days for the coming month were publicly announced on the first day of that month, because most Romans outside of the ruling classes couldn't read. The verb \"calling out\" was \"calendae\" in Latin. The lists themselves became known as \"calendaria\". And, that first day became known as the Kalends because it was the day on which the \"calendae\" occurred.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/antiates.html"
]
] | |
2guann | Has the British Monarch ever denied a Prime Minister's Government? | I know the Monarch is the one who asks the Minister to form a government, but 1, do they have the power to disband a government, and 2, do they have the ability to deny the elected leader the chance to form one? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2guann/has_the_british_monarch_ever_denied_a_prime/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckmljim"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"This is more of a question for /r/asksocialscience but I'll tackle it from a historian's perspective.\n\nYour answer to both questions is, yes. The Queen holds what are called *reserve powers* which give her the leeway to do a great many things. The last time a monarch used her reserve powers to affect Parliament in a way similar to what you are referring to is the bedchamber crisis of 1839, where Queen Victoria's support of Lord Melbourne was seen as rather uncouth by the rapidly democratizing Brits. Only a few years earlier, Victoria's uncle, King William IV, had dismissed a sitting Prime Minister on his own accord and appointed another of an opposing party. The resultant election was largely seen as a negative reaction to this, and William's appointment lost, forcing him to reinstate the man he had sacked. \n\nA more recent example comes from the two big Commonwealth realms. In Canada and Australia, the Governor Generals serves as the Queen's representative. In theory, she continues to hold most of the same reserve powers in these two realms as she does in the United Kingdom, however the GGs are basically there to take up the ceremonial role that she now serves in the UK. You know, signing laws, throne speeches, etc. However, theoretically, through their embodiment as representatives of the monarch, they **do** have some powers should they choose to use them. In the case of Canada, this came about in the 1926 'King-Byng Affair' whereby the sitting Prime Minister, King, asked the GG, Byng, to dissolve Parliament and hold an election. Byng refused. You see, at this time, the Canadian Parliament was split between King's Liberals and the Conservative Party, but neither held an absolute majority. A third party, the Progressives (who would eventually go on to merge with the Conservatives) held sway. In fact, King's Liberals had fewer seats than the Conservatives did, but with Progressive support could maintain the confidence of the House. This had all come about in a mid-1925 election, and some in Canada were a bit miffed that despite having fewer seats than the Conservatives, King refused to resign as Prime Minister. Well, fast-forward a few months and he is asking for a new election based on a bribery scandal of one of his ministers that robbed him of his Progressive support and thus control of the House. Byng refused, as was his right, and offered the job to Arthur Meighen, the Conservative leader. Well, King's Liberals went from battling a scandal to being the suffers of perceived absolutist principles from the King's representative, and Meighen himself subsequently lost support of the house, thus forcing an election. Low and behold, the Liberals won big; Meighen even lost his own seat for even being associated as benefiting from Byng's choice.\n\nFast-forward to Australia, 1975. In this case, things were a little more complicated because Australia has an elected upper house. In 1975, the lower and upper house were controlled by opposing parties, and government was coming to a standstill. In Australia, the sitting government still has to control the lower house though, and Australian Labor Party lleader Gough Whitlam was the current PM. However, he controlled a razor thin majority in that lower House over the Liberal Party led by Malcolm Fraser. However, the Liberal Party had control over the Senate, and thus, could block legislation. Long story short, the sitting Governor General, John Kerr, saw that the impasse was negatively affecting the country, and through a few backdoor deals basically sacked the sitting PM and appointed Fraser as PM, who then quickly passed the blocked legislation in the upper house. An election was called shortly after, with funding for government secured. However, unlike in Canada, the scandals and poor governance of the sacked PM wasn't overcome by the actions of the Governor General, and Fraser was elected PM.\n\nIn both these cases, the GG utilized powers that theoretically remain to the Queen in the UK (as well as in her other realms, as the GGs in this case were simply acting in the Queen's stead; she could theoretically replace any one of them at any time and take the literal throne in any of these realms). Also, in both these cases, nothing was really done to resolve the issue. In both cases, a constitutional crisis emerged, particularly for Australia, however, in both cases, the actual issue wasn't really addressed. You see, the Queen's powers that are currently enacted by the government in Westminster are essentially at her pleasure. She continues to sign legislation, the act of which is required for any bill to become law. She continues to be the official leader of the military. Indeed, here is the current Oath new members of the military of the UK must swear: \"I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.\" So the loyalty is to the Queen, not the state. At least theoretically.\n\nHere's the rub. Despite having all these powers, if the Queen were to ever attempt to actually use them, it is very unlikely that it would have a favourable outcome for her (or the country). Speculation is discouraged on this forum for good reason, but I can't personally imagine how the Queen would be able to rule if she tried. The Brits have been more than willing to remove sitting monarchs in the past for disagreeable politics, lest we forget their invitation of Dutch invaders two centuries ago."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1drjcc | the relationship between game theory and mathematics. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1drjcc/eli5_the_relationship_between_game_theory_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9t6bce"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Game theory is a type of mathematics, like number theory or geometry."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1hoqz5 | Do we absorb less calories from food if we defecate more frequently? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1hoqz5/do_we_absorb_less_calories_from_food_if_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"cawhixr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Frequency does not imply volume or speed of transit through the system, so I think it wouldn't by itself indicate anything about caloric value absorbed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2t9xvu | Where does the term "lesbian" come from?Is is associated with the greek island of Lesbos? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2t9xvu/where_does_the_term_lesbian_come_fromis_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnx2ntb"
],
"score": [
59
],
"text": [
"Linguist here, and incidentally my specialty!\n\n**Tl;dr: Yes.**\n\nAnyone from Lesbos is technically a Lesbian. The association with female same sex attraction comes from Sappho. She is held in high esteem in the ancient world, and we still find new fragments [in private collections](_URL_0_) or [on burial linens](_URL_1_). Her most famous poem is \"He appears to me, that one, equal to the gods,\" Sappho 31. It is incomplete, but it is told with the speaker at a wedding. She is looking at the groom with envy because she would rather be marrying the bride. \n\n > He appears to me, that one, equal to the gods,\n\n > the man who, facing you,\n\n > is seated and, up close, that sweet voice of yours\n\n > he listens to\n\n > \n\n > And how you laugh your charming laugh. Why it\n\n > makes my heart flutter within my breast,\n\n > because the moment I look at you, right then, for me,\n\n > to make any sound at all won’t work any more.\n\n > \n\n > My tongue has a breakdown and a delicate\n\n > — all of a sudden — fire rushes under my skin.\n\n > With my eyes I see not a thing, and there is a roar\n\n > that my ears make.\n\n > \n\n > Sweat pours down me and a trembling\n\n > seizes all of me; paler than grass\n\n > am I, and a little short of death\n\n > do I appear to me.\n\n > \n\n > But all may be ventured, since even [the poor]...\n\nThe term \"lesbian\" originally was used in 1890 by John Shaw Billings in *The national medical dictionary*, which [the OED](_URL_2_) defines as \" [After the alleged practice of Sappho, the poetess of Lesbos; compare Sapphic adj. and n., Sapphism n.] Of a woman: homosexual, characterized by being sexually attracted to women. Also: of or relating to sexual relations between women.\" However, in 1870, \"lesbianism\" is used by \n\n > A. J. Munby Diary 2 May in D. Hudson Munby (1972) 283\n\n > Swinburne..expressed a horror of sodomy..and an actual admiration of Lesbianism, being unable..to see that that is equally loathsome.\n\nAs for \"A woman who is sexually attracted to women,\" according to the OED, that definition first occurs in 1925 by Audrey Huxley. \n\n > After a third-rate provincial town, colonized by English sodomites and middle-aged Lesbians, which is, after all, what Florence is, a genuine metropolis will be lively."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/10607569/A-new-Sappho-poem-is-more-exciting-than-a-new-David-Bowie-album.html",
"http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/24/gender.books",
"http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/107453?redirectedFrom=Lesbian#eid"
]
] | ||
26dvk5 | the last days of WWII where were the Germans getting supplies from? | If the factories are bombed to pieces and everything is gone, where were the units who tried to defend the centre of Berlin getting ammunition, oil, food, etc from?
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26dvk5/the_last_days_of_wwii_where_were_the_germans/ | {
"a_id": [
"chqbdgs"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The German mines, industry and railroads continued to work, albeit at a reduced pace right up to March 1945. As the Soviets devastated Silesia and the Western Allies captured the Rhur, the Germans had only central Austria and Bohemia left, and they could not provide enough to support what little rag tag of an army they had left. However, stockpiles and depots were enough to fuel the German armies for another month.\n\nGasoline was at a critical low already in Februaryt 1945, but the Luftwaffe had practically ceasxed to exist and did not need any supplies, and there were no long-range fuel intensive manouvres."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1ex3ys | Do taller people use less energy going up hill than shorter people? | So if two people are going up a hill that have the same weight but are of different heights (ie. one has longer legs) does the taller person use less energy? This is assuming same fitness level. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ex3ys/do_taller_people_use_less_energy_going_up_hill/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca4qz0v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[This article](_URL_0_) doesn't answer your question concerning incline, but summarizes a study stating that shorter people burn more calories per lb. of bodyweight when running than taller people. \n\nThe study concludes that the increased caloric expenditure is due to the increased number of strides a shorter person must make over an equivalent distance. \nI assume Each additional impact with the pavement = more lost energy; the taller person is more efficient."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.treadmill-world.com/do-short-people-burn-more-calories.html"
]
] | |
30tks8 | When an inanimate object (like a doorknob or shopping cart) is contaminated with a virus or bacteria from a sick person, how long will that object remain potentially infectious? | Along the same lines, how long after coming into contact with the virus or bacteria will your hand/body part still be infectious? IOW, how long after touching an infected object can you still transfer the virus/bacteria to others or into your own body? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/30tks8/when_an_inanimate_object_like_a_doorknob_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpw5txm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That depends. Some bacteria are more resilient than others. Most gram-positive bacteria can survive for months on inanimate surfaces. \n\nSpore forming bacteria also can survive for long periods of dryness and extreme cold or heat, surviving for centuries in some conditions.\n\nEdit\n\nMost common human-infecting viruses cannot survive for longer than 48 hours,~~with a notable exception for C. Difficile, which survives for a week in some cases.~~ "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
11s4or | how is reddit able to handle so much content, why is reddit so fast? | I have almost a hundred reddits. I post comments all day, everyday. There is always a new link or new reddit that I seem to find. I am always upvoting and downvoting.
Despite all of that, I am amazed at how much reddit can handle all of the data. How does it handle keeping track of upvotes? What about all of the comments? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11s4or/eli5_how_is_reddit_able_to_handle_so_much_content/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6p8y31"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Reddit was originally written in Common Lisp but was rewritten in Python in December 2005.[42] The reasons given for the switch were wider access to code libraries and greater development flexibility. The Python web framework that former Reddit employee Aaron Swartz developed to run the site, _URL_1_, is now available as an open-source project.[43]\nReddit currently uses Pylons as its web framework.[44] As of November 2009, Reddit has decommissioned their physical servers and migrated to Amazon Web Services.[45]\nReddit uses PostgreSQL as primary datastore and slowly moving to Apache Cassandra, a column oriented datastore. It uses RabbitMQ for offline processing, HAProxy for load balancing and memcached for caching.\nIn early 2009, Reddit started using jQuery.[46]\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit",
"web.py"
]
] | |
17gyxs | when i add bass to my tracks, why does the song sound/get louder? | With my [track](_URL_0_), I looked at the waveform and I noticed that it is thicker after the bass drop than it is before the drop. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17gyxs/eli5_when_i_add_bass_to_my_tracks_why_does_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c85e0x8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Our ears are less sensitive to bass frequencies compared to mid-range or treble frequencies. This effect has been documented by acousticians and charted as [equal-loudness contours](_URL_0_) (like the Fletcher-Munson curves and Robertson-Dadson curves). In order for bass frequencies to be perceived as equally loud as treble frequencies, they must actually be played louder (and would appear thicker when you look at the waveform)."
]
} | [] | [
"https://soundcloud.com/thecyberpunkmusic/touching-infinity-final"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour"
]
] | |
2ag51b | Did sailors back in the day (say mid-1700's) have issues with things like skin cancer from excessive sun exposure? | We always hear about scurvy with regards to sailors but there doesn't seem to be much common knowledge on other potential health issues that sailors experienced.
For example, was skin cancer a major problem back then? Or was the life expectancy low enough that it was more common to die or have problems from other things before skin cancer was able to develop far enough to be problematic? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ag51b/did_sailors_back_in_the_day_say_mid1700s_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciut7uw",
"civ63k4"
],
"score": [
652,
8
],
"text": [
"I asked a friend of mine ([see his website here](_URL_0_) who now joined because of the response to his post here as /u/RMission) who researches seventeenth and eighteenth century maritime medicine, and with specifics towards skin cancer, provided this answer: \n > My answer would be something along the lines of \"Almost certainly, but they didn't know it and medicine would rarely have recognized it as such.\" I don't really collect info in my notes on anything relating to the term cancer because the meaning differs between texts and sometimes even individual disease discussions within the same text. However, they would have had skin cancers then just as we do now. \n > From sea surgeon John Moyle's book, \"Cancers are usually extirpated [rooted out and destroyed], and the place brought to digestion [filled with healthy skin] and healed. You can extirpate a Cancer with your Catling [knife], but if a Finger or Toe, you extirpate it with your Chizel and Mallet.\" (Abstractum chirurgiae marinae, p. 87) \n > Enticing, but not really enough to answer the question. See, bubos [growths resulting from syphilis] were also thought to be cancers. Plus Moyle lumped cancers in with ulcers, tumors and fistulas. So what are we dealing with here? It COULD be skin cancer. It almost SOUNDS like it is, but is it? \n \nAs for learning about other health issues at sea, there are works you can look into concerning the subject: Brown, Kevin. *Poxed and Scurvied: The Story of Sickness and Health at Sea.* Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 2011.",
"Thank you all for the insightful and detailed answers! Very interesting stuff."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.piratesurgeon.com/"
],
[]
] | |
9rl1ts | what is the role of pigments in photosynthesis in autumn? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rl1ts/eli5_what_is_the_role_of_pigments_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8hnoly"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Strictly speaking, the colour change in autumn is actually the tree not continuing with photosynthesis. While there are a lot of other changes that occur in leaves around this time that also contribute to colour, the main reason they change is the chlorophyll in the leaves breaking down from not being required anymore. \n\nThroughout the year, leaves also have red and yellow pigments from components within, however these are masked by the vibrant green of the chlorophyll. When autumn arrives it isn’t viable to continue and trees abandon their leaves, and the chlorophyll breaks down. Without the vast amounts of green pigment, other colours can be seen, hence the change from green to reds and oranges. \n\nFinally the leaf is severed (intentionally by the tree) and the full process is complete."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
fkinxn | what is the difference between price gouging and supply/demand pricing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fkinxn/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_price_gouging/ | {
"a_id": [
"fksyk9k",
"fkt12qr",
"fktj34s"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Price gouging is when the product value is raised disproportionately to its value due to lack of supply. Supply and demand should show a regular, consistent price based off of value, with a sales price when demand drops, or supply increases. (When practiced properly)",
"In the classic (and simple) model of supply and demand it is _assumed_ that both supply and demand are what economist called \"elastic\". This means that if you reduce demand then supply will decrease and if you increase demand, supply will respond by being increased, or...if you increased price, then demand would go down.\n\nIn the case of a massive event like we're experiencing supply is _not elastic_ - it cannot be risen quickly enough and if prices were to go up dramatically as a result demand would _not_ decrease because demand is also at least temporarily not elastic.\n\nSo...to describe this phenomenon intersecting with something that we find morally questionable, we call it \"price gouging.\". there are lots of arguments for why we should allow the market to determine price even in scenarios like we are in now or like I described. there are - obviously - arguments on the other side that lead to this term and to price control laws for both classes of products that we simply don't let into the market (we don't have a free market for babies for example) or for circumstances.",
"Price gouging is usually related to hoarding, where sellers intentionally remove items from the market in anticipation of a shortage, applying behavior they would not have used if they were no shortage was expected. In this way, they contribute to and exacerbate the shortage.\n\nHowever, the line between gouging and supply and demand is ultimately a subjective one. If a store owner tripled their order of toilet paper in February, just in case, and customers are now offering $20 a roll, so that is where they decide to price it, is that gouging?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5r5ptd | why is calculus important in the medical field? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r5ptd/eli5_why_is_calculus_important_in_the_medical/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4nhqv",
"dd4uy9a",
"dd4xrhm"
],
"score": [
35,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"When you take any medication, someone has to have calculated how long the drug lasts at each dosage level. They have determined the correct dose for each body weight. They know how that medication is affected by other drugs, including how the duration or decay rate changes.\n\nTo do these types of calculations, scientists and pharmacists use computers... But they used to use calculus.",
"The science behind how modern medicine works requires calculus. Outside of certain specific circumstances a doctor probably wont be doing calculus on the fly while treating patients. but in order to conduct or even just understand medical research they need a solid grasp on calculus. Calculus is required in every scientific discipline and in order to understand and evaluate new research a medical practitioner needs to understand how the research was conducted.",
"Calc 1 is all about rates of change. This would be really applicable for things like determining dosages due to the fact that the body absorbs different drugs at different rates, and a certain concentration is required. A good example of this would be a changing blood/glucose level. But like everyone else is saying, this is all probably done by computers now. It's good to know what the computers are doing, though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5f8y94 | Is Santa Claus's conical felt hat based on any real hat that was worn by people? | I know the Sami have similar traditional hats, but I don't see how the popular perception of Santa Claus could have originated from them, especially in the US. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5f8y94/is_santa_clauss_conical_felt_hat_based_on_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"daj71go"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Thomas Nast likely combined two elements. One is mitre worn by bishops that ends in a point. Saint Nicholas probably didn't wear it but in Dutch and German speaking areas popular depiction of him in a [red bishop outfit](_URL_1_) (is there a better name for it? I am not familiar with Catholic vestments) has been around since at least the 16th century. \n\nAnother one is soft pointy nightcap commonly worn at night to keep warm (similar to the one worn by [Mr. Scooge](_URL_0_)). \n\nNote that almost all of Nast's illustration of Santa feature a suit made entirely of fur instead of felt or velvet with only fur trims. This came from the poem *A Visit from Saint Nicholas* where he was described as \"dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marley%27s_Ghost-John_Leech_1843-detail.jpg",
"http://www.iamsterdam.com/media/holiday-and-winter-season/zwarte-piet-amag.jpg"
]
] | |
3u015y | how is it that those affected with down's syndrome have varying degrees of function? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u015y/eli5_how_is_it_that_those_affected_with_downs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxawnwn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The same way that those without have varying degrees of function: humans are very complex, and many different factors, both those with which we're born and those which we experience, influence who we are and what we can do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3bjegm | I understand what gravity is, but I don't understand its mechanism. What facilitates for something to pull on another thing? | For example if I want to pull something, I grasp it with my hand and my muscles contract causing the object to be pulled towards me. What's doing that in gravity? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3bjegm/i_understand_what_gravity_is_but_i_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"csngs5b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's all about forces. What you simply call grasping is actually charges and spins of electrons, which repell each other. Both charge and spin are subject to the electromagnetic force and since this force is so much stronger than gravity, you can pull things up, rather than they glide through your fingers. \n\nForces can be attractive or repulsive. Gravity is an always attractive force, while the electromagnetic forces can be attractive or repulsive in different cases. Seemingly your assumption was, that you need something *matter like* to move objects and from that perspective it seems odd that gravity wouldn't require such and could attract \"by itself\". In reality however, you have fields both for electromagnetism and gravity, and particles sobject to them act accordingly. For matter like particles, the so called [fermions](_URL_0_), that means to repell others of their respective kinds, while still being being subject to the attractive force of graviy. This is the reason why things can gather to objects like stars, planets but don't collapse into singularities (at least as long as the repulsive force is not exceeded by gravity). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion"
]
] | |
17h84s | 2 Questions about ancient Egyptian mummies... | Hi Historians,
I have been reading about the mummies in school and I have 2 questions. I was wondering if anyone has some insight and history knowledge they would share with me. I could look the answers up on the internet further but our assignment is to get a knowledgeable response from a discussion board. Thx.
Concerning ancient Egypt (roughly ca. 2000 BC..)
1) If the nobles and important people got mummified (and access to heaven that way) - did the common man have (as easy) access to heaven , in the way they though back then?
2) How did the common man attain preparations for the afterlife- what perhaps simple things could they do as preparations for or after their death by their families?
Thanks for replies in advance...
D. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17h84s/2_questions_about_ancient_egyptian_mummies/ | {
"a_id": [
"c85i93v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mummification was a lengthy and expensive process. At its earliest, only Pharaoh himself was mummified, though later the process extended to the royal family, and then trickled down to the upper class. The idea of the Egyptian afterlife was fairly pervasive, but most Egyptians held (at the earliest) that the afterlife was just daily life without any hardship or woe. \n\nThe traditional thought of the mummy being surrounded by lurid hieroglyphs and depictions of gods is accurate for the upper class, who would've used the inscriptions on the walls to guide them through the afterlife. But most Egyptians had no knowledge of how to read hieroglyphic inscriptions, and so they would've found no benefit in the inscriptions. \n\nAs far as burial practices, the rich would get lavish tombs (most of the public idea of Egyptian burials are just such tombs) while the poor would typically be buried in graves in the sand, or in cairns. As far as prep went for the poor, I can only imagine that they would have made offerings to the appropriate gods (Osiris, Anubis, Thoth) and prepared as best they know how. I don't expect they would've had a comprehensive knowledge of the intricate workings of the afterlife that the rich would have been afforded due to their educational benefits. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2zfl09 | why are philosopher's like epicurus famous and still studied | My friend is currently writing an essay for her final grade in a university philosophy class. I dont understand how this guy's "arguement" is the focus... "something can only be bad for me if i exist...when im dead i don't exist....death cant be bad for me" I feel like this isn't worthy of focusing even more than 10 minutes on, and yet this guy gets remembered for a thousand years. HOW? WHY?
p.s. sorry if I'm essentially offending all philosophers :\ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zfl09/eli5_why_are_philosophers_like_epicurus_famous/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpiglnc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Thinking is a lost art, my friend. This kind of thing is important. We should figure out as much as we can about the universe and not only scientific things. Philosophy is a way of figuring out our humanity and our place in the universe.\n\nPhilosophers are famous because of their intellect. Philosophy is actually the root of all sciences. The atom was first thought of by an Ancient Greek philosopher. These philosophers are famous because their ability to think shaped what civilization knows about the world. We need to study then or else we'll lose that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2q0tdk | What's the earliest time after the Big Bang that a solar system could form? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2q0tdk/whats_the_earliest_time_after_the_big_bang_that_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn1xnm7"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The first stars were born at around ~400 million years after the beginning of the universe. They were mostly very massive and short-lived, and due to the total absence of any heavy elements, they would not have had rocky planets. It's possible that they might have had gas giant planets, and it's almost certain that many of the stars formed in multiple systems (even today, a large fraction of stars, especially high-mass stars, are in multiple-star systems), but it wouldn't look anything like our solar system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
525v7t | Why are ferrofluids so black? | Is light absorption a property of ferrofluids, and if so, why so? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/525v7t/why_are_ferrofluids_so_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7hod00"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Ferrofluids are just ground up minerals suspended in in liquid. Iron +2 oxide is a black pigment, magnetite contains both Fe^+2 and Fe^+3, and its pretty black. The color is mainly a property of the electron band structure, the magnetism is a property of electron structure too of course, I just don't know of any clear and convenient connection. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
awe27u | why do people want a foldable phone? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/awe27u/eli5_why_do_people_want_a_foldable_phone/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehlx11d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The first flip phones were about minimizing size while remaining functional(ish). Then touch screens were figured out, and internet and wireless functionality called for larger readable screens and therefore larger phones; so small flip phones went out of style. \n\nNow the tech exists that allows us to have both, which is why the flip phone hype is back again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
duyt3r | dual-channel ram in computers | I recently found out that I had my 2 RAM sticks in apparently a 'wrong position' (side-by-side).
Someone pointed out that they needed to be placed in alternate slots.
I read my motherboard manual, I tried doing as much research as possible about this but all I got from that is that the alternate placement puts the RAM in 'dual-channel' mode and is somehow better.
I haven't got any clear-cut/simple explanations as to WHAT 'dual-channel memory' means or WHY it's better.
Someone please ELI5. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/duyt3r/eli5_dualchannel_ram_in_computers/ | {
"a_id": [
"f79e0wl"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Just circuitry and the way they always wire dual channel memory slots. Think of each channel of memory access being the connection to each set of banks/slots. So channel 1 = slots 1 and 2, channel 2 = slots 3 and 4. \n\nIf you put two 4 GB sticks in slots 1 and 2, both are being accessed via a single 64 bit channel. \nIf you put one each in slots 1 and 3, you have a dedicated 64 bit channel for EACH 4 GB ram module. \n\nIn theory (depending on what manufacturer's benchmark report you read) dual channel RAM should give you a 10-15% improvement in memory access, but in practice (and due to a lot of other factors that make it hard to isolate) you get about 5-10% increase by utilizing dual channel."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
b2hfcp | What are the differences between Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics, and how and why do they manifest? | The equation
x̂(t) = x̂(0) + p̂(0) t/m
is arrived at after applying the commutator value \[x̂, p̂\] = iħ to the Heisenberg Equation of Motion for position of a free mass which says
dx̂/dt = i\[Ĥ,x̂\].
In classical mechanics, x and p can be determined simultaneously with infinite precision, that is to say, the Uncertainty relation, the Quantum Commutator is at the heart of which, does not exist in CM, and yet the classical analogue of the Quantum Commutator, the Poisson Bracket {x,p} = 1, leads to the same equation as above for the classical position of a free mass after using a classical Hamiltonian.
So why do these apparent similarities lead to different (*for ex., the abovementioned uncertainty principles, which I know arises due to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality restrictions on the Hilbert vector space, but what prevents this in CM vector spaces?*) as well as similar (equation of motion) results? What actually makes CM different than QM?
And what are some more such examples where CM and QM differ in results? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b2hfcp/what_are_the_differences_between_quantum/ | {
"a_id": [
"eism7iz",
"eit4c9e",
"eitehbc"
],
"score": [
68,
22,
2
],
"text": [
" > What actually makes CM different than QM?\n\nThe canonical Poisson bracket and canonical commutation relation look similar on the surface, but the interpretations of those equations are very different. Just look at the postulates of QM versus the postulates of classical mechanics (Shankar has a good comparison in his QM text). x and p mean very different things in QM and CM. In classical mechanics, they are continuous, real-valued functions, parametrized by time. And to find them, you just solve Hamilton's equations. In QM, these are Hermitian operators. Particles don't have well-defined positions or momenta, they have state vectors (or wavefunctions, in the coordinate representation).\n\nAs for how they differ in results, see any of the major experiments in quantum mechanics (double slit, Stern-Gerlach, etc.). Classical mechanics would not correctly predict the results.",
"The deeper I get into theoretical physics (now doing a PhD) the more similar Classical and Quantum mechanics look to me. The differences are in fact extremely subtle, so be very skeptical of everything you read. Replacing Poisson brackets with commutators does nothing on the surface, it’s still the same algebraic structure. The real difference is when the commutators are NOT just equal to the Poisson bracket (times i*h). And this is related to what’s called anomalies in quantization, which is a topic not covered even in graduate QM classes.",
"The best example I can give is in thermodynamics. It gives terrible results if we use classical mechanics to certain situations like temperature near zero. If we use quantum like properties, we approximate the classical to the quantum results. One difference might be considering particles throw their quantum numbers (spin angular momentum etc) instead of speed and position). No to mention quantum tunneling as an example of different properties. Energy is also a factor ( relativity Vs classical )"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
h0ft5 | Why do some people have thumbs that seem to bend back close to 90 degrees? | Taken from pics.
_URL_0_
edit: formatting | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/h0ft5/why_do_some_people_have_thumbs_that_seem_to_bend/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1ro2o5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Its called [Hitchhiker's thumb](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/XJyGY.gif"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker%27s_thumb#Variation"
]
] | |
chmtkr | why is it that when we take a picture of the sun or moon with our phones it never really looks like we see it with our naked eye. | This morning a big beautiful dark red sunrise over the lake. Then i snap a picture and its a blurred red dot. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/chmtkr/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_we_take_a_picture_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"euv867d",
"euvb0en",
"euw61c8"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Dynamic range. Your eye can resolve a candle a mile away at night, or the sun shining on white walls at noon, basically at the same time.\n\nPhone cameras are more limited, and tend to adjust for the brightest object in the field of view. That tends to darken everything else relative to your eyesight.",
"The eye is not a camera, not at all.\n\nThe sense cells in the eye have a combined \"how bright is it\" sense, which is used to control the iris, the eye's aperture. However, each individual sense cell has its own gain sensitivity.\n\nThe camera in your phone probably doesn't even have a variable aperture. Instead is has an overall gain control that it uses to adapt to overall scene brightness. That leaves bright regions over exposed and dark regions under exposed.",
"We got a few things that cause this.\n\n• Our camera doesn't quite zoom in on the moon as much as our eyes do. \n\nCamera lenses zoom in different amounts, this \"zoomability\" can be described by the 'focal length' of a lens. When you see some number followed by \"mm\" in a lens description, that's the focal length, e.g. \"35 mm lens\". \n\nThe bigger the number, the more it zooms. So a 50mm is pretty normal looking, 600mm zooms in a lot, and a 10mm sort of \"zooms out\" and gives you a wider field of view than our eyes normally can. \n\nYour phone camera is only something like 35mm, or 28mm. It is \"zoomed out\" a bit. And the further away something is, the more exaggerated this 'zooming out' effect looks.\n\n• Your camera overexposes the photo.\n\nExposure describes how bright or how dark the photo looks. Our eyes adjust to different levels of brightness almost instantly. Like what Gene is referring to.. if you look at that white wall at noon, your irises rapidly shrink to let in less light. Then you can see stuff like the texture on the wall once they adjust. Then if you look into a dark tunnel, your irises adjust again, they quickly open up to let in more light, and maybe after a second you can see the walls of that tunnel.\n\nYour camera tries to do automatic exposure adjustments, but sometimes it's not smart about it. \n\nIf it sees the moon in the night sky, it says \"ok, 95% of this scene is really dark, and 5% is really bright. Obviously it's more important to make sure 95% of the photo can be seen clearly, so I'll try to brighten everything up.\" ... it doesn't realize that the part you're interested in, the moon, is already really bright, and if anything the phone camera should be letting in LESS light.\n\nTo some extent you can fix this by having a phone camera where you can manually control the exposure settings.\n\nUnfortunately, you still have the first problem... instead of a tiny red dot, now it's a tiny dark red dot. You still can't see any cool details, on most phone cameras.\n\n• Your phone autofocus may be off. \n\nMost phones are pretty good about this but you mentioned a blurred red dot... it may be your phone accidentally focused on something close, and this can make faraway stuff a little blurry. \n\n• Your own hand movement can cause blurring.\n\nFor most photos, the slight natural movement of your hands is no problem. Phones do all sorts of smart tricks to fix this like take a quick series of photos and pick the sharpest one, without you even knowing it. \n\nBut if you're photographing something far away or with really small details, having your hands shift a tiny bit during the photo might cause those crucial details to look blurry. It's better if your camera or phone can be propped against something solid that doesn't move (a tripod, or even just resting against a wall or tree or something)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
dr9kqt | how do you treat injuries like the one andre gomes suffered from today? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dr9kqt/eli5_how_do_you_treat_injuries_like_the_one_andre/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6h6qso",
"f6hek3w"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"I saw it live, it was horrendous. But usually surgery to reposition the bones, insert rods/plates/screws to hold the bones together, remove threatening bone pieces and the rest is left to the body to heal itself over a long period of time. I’m sure sure if he will recover well enough to play again.",
"Sports injuries tend to be assessed in this order:\n\nFirst the team's trainer or doctor (a medical professional who specializes in sports injuries) will try to determine if it is a \"soft tissue injury\" (a sprain or a strain) or worse, and call over the emergency responders (EMTs or paramedics) if needed.\n\nThe emergency responders will check for excessive bleeding and control it with a tourniquet if necessary. They will check CMS - Circulation (pulse), Motor (can you wiggle your toes?) and Sensation (can you feel me touching your foot?) This will tell them if there is a blood flow or nerve problem. They either try to reposition the foot into its \"anatomical position\" (where it is supposed to be in line with the leg) and splint it or leave it as they found it with lots of padding. Protocol usually dictates that they only attempt to reposition ONE time, as manipulating an injury too much can cause further damage. But if achieved, getting the foot back into anatomical position can help alleviate pain and restore bloodflow. This will all happen immediately and simultaneously while they wheel the player off the field to transport him to a hospital specializing in trauma surgery. During transport he will get pain medications through IV (intravenous / in the vein) tube that can be used in the hospital for administering more meds and fluids.\n\nOnce at the hospital, the injury will be X-rayed and the patient will go to trauma surgery right away, especially if there is a bleeding or circulation issue, but further repairs may be delayed waiting for a specialist orthopaedic surgeon. the bones will be held together with pins, tendons and ligaments can be reattached but they do not regrow or repair like bones. The patient will then require physical therapy that will probably involve the team's trainer and sports physician again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1n3m1t | why do people who are abused as a child (sometimes) become sexually compulsive later in life? | I was with someone recently that experienced sexual abuse as a child, and explained to me sleeping around helped somehow? Its sad, and I don't understand.
edit: Wow! Just checking this again for quite some time. Thank you all for sharing your personal experiences/ explanations. I feel very privileged to have read them! Defiantly going to help | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n3m1t/eli5_why_do_people_who_are_abused_as_a_child/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccf3nwu",
"ccf3xzj",
"ccf42kr",
"ccf4cn7",
"ccf4gm3",
"ccf4s6d",
"ccf4tlt",
"ccf52a9",
"ccf5axu",
"ccf5big",
"ccf5lmy",
"ccf5p96",
"ccf697x",
"ccf6b1x",
"ccf6uno",
"ccf6uxz",
"ccf6v22",
"ccf70or",
"ccf7ijp",
"ccf7tyj",
"ccf82zb",
"ccf86ue",
"ccf8979",
"ccf8cd7",
"ccf8dh8",
"ccf8f90",
"ccf8g9p",
"ccf8j4l",
"ccf8o46",
"ccf8yzz",
"ccf9ak4",
"ccf9htt",
"ccfa30q",
"ccfa7tj",
"ccfadrb",
"ccfaisn",
"ccfakyp",
"ccfaxwu",
"ccfbe5o",
"ccfbn2g",
"ccfbotf",
"ccfbpix",
"ccfbsz6",
"ccfc4hw",
"ccfcc82",
"ccfcf4s",
"ccfcuno",
"ccfd4s6",
"ccfe0cm",
"ccfenth",
"ccfezjv",
"ccff6i0",
"ccffv5d",
"ccfgixs",
"ccfgm7f",
"ccfgrmr",
"ccfgxxp",
"ccfgzmi",
"ccfhj28",
"ccfieuv",
"ccfilu0",
"ccfinqq",
"ccfjri4",
"ccfjy53",
"ccfk5e8",
"ccfkcf0",
"ccfke37",
"ccfpctv"
],
"score": [
685,
34,
62,
15,
7,
12,
15,
3,
5,
2181,
4,
7,
10,
6,
2,
3,
11,
3,
2,
3,
5,
21,
4,
3,
12,
9,
3,
5,
9,
8,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
12,
3,
3,
3,
3,
9,
2,
6,
2,
6,
2,
2,
8,
3,
13,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They want to feel like they're in charge of their sexuality. Someone took that power, that choice from them. This is one way for the victim to reclaim control. ",
"Someone once explained to a group of us after attending a bystander intervention class, that victims of abuse were so hurt and traumatized as a kid that they never want to feel that hurt again, and by willing to be promiscuous they avoid ever feeling that hurt again.",
"Hormonally speaking, those who are sexually abused as children develop higher levels of oxytocin faster than their peers. (Oxytocin is a hormone that regulates many aspects of human sexuality and relationships)",
"Often, they're compensating. I've been going through therapy for a lot of issues in my own past, and thankfully none were sexual assault, but I think the theory holds. I dive into a relationship right into the deep end because I've had very few deep connections in my life and was often uprooted, so I'm always looking for that thing I never had. My sister even explained how she felt the same way, that by having a family of her own, she could control how it turned out so it wouldn't be like ours was growing up.\n\nFrom that, I would imagine that for people who were abused they want to take control to compensate for the lack of control they had from their abuser. It's easier to be the one in charge of the actions, even to the point for some of being the one to abuse again or simply being the one to start and end the relationship than it is to be on the receiving end of pain again.",
"There are different theories. In regards to someone who is sexually abused (you didn't specify) as a child, or even as a teenager-adult, the one with the most merit as of current, is that it is an attempt to normalize what happened to them. This is also why many rape victims opt for a more promiscuous lifestyle after their assault, or why many rape victims resort to rougher sexual preferences, control-play, etc. after the fact. \n\nAlso, like bhanel says, it's the victim taking charge in their lives, in an aspect that they CAN do so. \n\nPeople seem to be focusing only on child sexual abuse, when you simply said \"abuse\", however. Psychological abuse and physical abuse are going to vary in how the victim copes. You almost have to look at it backwards. Looking at their current behavior and deciding if you can attribute it to their prior abuse, then you can look at the path the individuals have taken to get to the point they are at now. There isn't a clear formula to this and it isn't ethical to test cause-and-effect in these situations, therefore we can only see correlations. Correlations meaning a relationship between the two variables. ",
"Hmm... I'll try to explain this as best I can (I have no degree in childhood development nor do I have a degree in psychology). I'll try to do so in the limited scope of what I know.\n\nYou. You are a child. The world is your oyster (though at this point that would probably taste pretty bad). See that big tree there? You can probably climb it- but wait, the big pink blob who keeps saying \"Mama\" is telling you that it's dangerous.\n\nThough at some point in time, you'll try to conquer that tree, today will not be the day. Let's fast forward a couple years. The world is still just figuratively your oyster, but Mom and Dad have given you what you need. You go to school just like the other kids and associate with them because they're just like you. Sure, some have nicer toys and others have less, but at the end of the day, someone will pick you up or you'll hang over another persons' house like a daily party until you can get picked up.\n\nFast forward more. You're in college. You experienced the full span of childhood so far. You climbed that tree and by goddamn that broken leg was worth it. Was it though? Mom seemed pretty pissed and cried a lot. That kind of made you realize something: your parents really care about you. For the past forever, you've been crying about your own needs, but the only times you see your parents crying is for your successes in failures. \n\nAs dumb as we are in our childhood, I think it's in college that we grow to appreciate what our parents did/do for us a lot more. We're cognizant that the world is not there to help us, but at least our parents are. Why would I need someone else's love when I have my parents? Of course there IS that one cute guy that talks to me a lot...\n\n-----\n\nYou. You are a child. The world is your oyster (though at this point that would probably taste pretty bad). See that big tree there? You can probably climb it. No one there? It's okay. Now you're scared. That probably was a bad idea, but at least a pink blob will find you right?\n\nLet's fast forward a couple years. The world is still just figuratively your oyster though you don't want to jump into that, You go to school and you go home- though you don't want to go home. Mom and Dad don't really say I love you more than when Dad decides to play a game with you. You don't like this game that much and it doesn't feel very good, but at least Dad says he loves you. Maybe you're okay with playing games.\n\nFast forward more. You're in college. You experienced the full span of childhood so far. You stayed in that tree and sometimes you'd rather the world close up. Without the love that Dad gives you, where else can you find love? Mom found out and essentially hates your existance, but Dad loves you.\n\nBut Dad isn't here. Where else can you find love? Wait. Dad loved you when you played games with him... maybe you can play games with someone else.\n\n",
"When you are a child you are learning feelings, you aren't born with them. The people who are supposed to love you and therefore teach you these feelings are your family and family friends. Most sexual abuse happens with people who the child knows. When a sexually traumatic event occurs children can associate the feeling of being loved to sexuality.\n\nThe human brain is amazing in that it finds ways to cope or survive almost anything. What the person you are describing is likely doing is using a coping mechanism to deal with confused feelings that are rooted deep in the way they were raised.\n\n\nDealing with trauma is one of the hardest things a person can ever do. You have learned through your whole life that this is the world and you cope with it. Now to heal from it you need to accept that the world is completely different than what you've known your whole life. It takes huge amounts of courage, support, and patience to successfully deal with trauma. It is a long and difficult process.",
"I've known a couple of women who were abused sexually as a kid and they tend to not sleep with men they really love and care about but will sleep with some piece of shit that just uses her like a toy. It's kind of a strange psychological phenomenon",
"And remember, not all do. My wife has abuse history and is the most closed, limited, shy, almost anti-sexcual person you can imagine. She hates it, but seems helpless to change it, for over 20 year's.",
"As someone who has gone through extensive therapy for just this reason and have done quite a bit of digging into my motives with professionals, I have found that there are a few reasons for this (some of them mentioned already, some not):\n\n1.) Control. If I say no, he could take it anyway and it would further degrade me and hurt me. If I instigate or go with it, I'm taking away his power to rape me.\n\n2.) Self worth. This is usually a result of conditioning. If I say no, I'm taking away his right to my body. I do not have any right to autonomy. If I don't give people sex, they will have no reason to want me. That is my purpose. I would be mean if I denied him that right, so I have to do it so he doesn't hate me.\n\n3.) Sex = love. This could be because I was also raised in a physically/emotionally abusive home as well, but I think this is also a common one. The people I cared about, who were supposed to show me love and affection did this to me. It must mean that they care. As a child, I needed to believe that my family cared about me, so this is what I taught myself to avoid rejection and lonliness. Now, if someone wants to use my body, it means they want me. That's all I ever got, so that's enough for me to feel good. It's just a way to fill that hole (an attempt to satisfy non-sexual needs with sex).\n\n4.) If I keep things about sex and be promiscuous, it makes sex meaningless. If sex doesn't mean a lot to me, that means that when it was forced on me it wasn't meaningful. You can't hurt me if what you stole is meaningless to me. It doesn't matter that I got sex instead of love and affection because that is all I need. I'm not lonely and I didn't want to be loved anyway, so fuck you.\n\nThose are just my processes that I have heard described by other survivors. Again, I'm not a professional. I've just done a lot of reflection with professionals.",
"With sexual abuse it's usually one or the other. Either they shut down sexually or they become hyper-sexual. With pysical or emotional abuse it kind of makes the victim seek out chaos. Causing fights, accusations of cheating etc. Because if things are \"normal\" the person is uncomfortable with that and needs the chaos. And conversly people who are abusers can sense people who are attracted to that.",
"I speak for myself when I say it's a way of coping. I'm giving freely to someone of my choice what was once taken from me. A way to wash over the bad memories with more pleasurable and happy ones, as well as an insult to the one who hurt me. Look, I'm giving away what you had to coerce from a five year old, and I'm forgetting you each time I do it. It's helped me handle the situations when I have to be around him again.",
"It's important to note that's not the only outcome.\n\nTake a look at the cdc website regarding the [Adverse Childhood Experiences study](_URL_2_).\n\nChildren with unstable childhoods have problems later, as shown in the [findings](_URL_1_).\n\n[another article about it](_URL_0_)\n\ntl;dr:\n\n* Alcoholism and alcohol abuse\n* Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)\n* Depression\n* Fetal death\n* Health-related quality of life\n* Illicit drug use\n* Ischemic heart disease (IHD)\n* Liver disease\n* Risk for intimate partner violence\n* Multiple sexual partners\n* Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)\n* Smoking\n* Suicide attempts\n* Unintended pregnancies\n* Early initiation of smoking\n* Early initiation of sexual activity\n* Adolescent pregnancy\n",
"If the child is too young to remember the abuse, can he or she still have psychological affects from it? I always thought for a few reasons, that I was sexually abused by my birth father's family. The only memories I have are hating going over to his mothers house, nothing beyond that. ",
"I was abused by two family members. One was an older man who was I believe married into the family and the other is an uncle I kinda have a decent relationship with. All of my family knows of the older man but only a few (not my parents) know about my uncle. When I was younger I was very fascinated with sex. I for the first time will admit that I did touch two family members when I and they were very young. One was my younger brother. We have never talked about it since we were in kindergarden and first grade when it happened. But I still wonder how much that has affected him. He is almost 30 now and has never had a relationship. The other was a female cousin, while she was sleeping. \nI regret my actions everyday and wonder the impact my actions had caused.\nI am the total opposite of promiscuous. Although I developed early (physically) and got lots of male attention, I have only been with one man. I actually feel weird when people that I only casually know try to give me hugs or try to touch me. \nI find everyday a struggle with my thoughts. I know it is in me to be a terrible person but I choose to be better. I have a son and I want the cycle to end with me.",
"I was sexually abused as a kid. Other people have had it way worse than me, and I was adopted after awhile. My evil stepmother used to make me eat her out everyday. 20 years later I can't get enough of performing oral on women. I'm obsessed with it and I sometimes like doing it more than sex. It's weird how I'm obsessed with something that should have totally turned me off to it forever. Can't really explain it.\n\nI'm way over the things I went through, and I'm doing really good for myself now. If anyone wants to talk. Just shoot me a PM and I'll be all ears.",
"This is easier to explain with cigarettes.\n\nIf someone *loves cigarettes* and thinks to themselves \"Oh my god, I love smokes. Can't wait 'til my next one!\" on a frequent basis they are going to smoke a lot.\n\nSimilarly if someone repeatedly thinks to themselves \"I can't believe I ever smoked! I am going to stop! I'm not going to have another cigarette, nope, not one more cigarette\" then they are still pretty much doing the same thing - obsessing over them so much that the likelihood of them actually stopping is extremely low.\n\n (In case you didn't pick it up by now, the way to not do it would be to also not thinking about it).\n\nSo why do those who were abused obsess over sex? Because of the abuse. And obsession in thought patterns leads to the emotions that create action.",
"There was a recently study that said that women who were abused had much higher levels of oxytocin than others. Oxytocin is a hormone that causes you to seek out sex. ",
"I know this is ELI5, but if you are really interested, read \"Don't Call it Love\" or \"Out of the Shadows\" by Patrick Carnes, \"Facing Love Addiction\" by Pia Mellody, or any SLAA (Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous) literature.",
"There are various reasons, and it is usually a combination of several. There are two common explanations that I know off the top of my head:\n\n* The victim wants to feel like they're in control, instead of having someone else control them. By being promiscuous, it allows them to say \"Yeah, I have a lot of sex, but it's all by choice. I'm *giving* it to people, so they can't steal it.\"\n\n* The victim wants to take the abuse that they went through and separate it from *actual* sex. They want to take that abuse, and rope it off with caution tape in their mind. Having lots of sex helps, because it lets them say to themselves \"This is what *real* sex should be. What happened to me wasn't real because I didn't want it, so I shouldn't feel bad about it.\"",
"I know I'm kind of late to this party, but I had a therapist explain it to me in terms of modelling the 'functional relationships' that you are brought up around. We model our parent-like figures. If you are around an abusive family, somewhere, deep down in your noggin, your brain thinks that its normal. The promiscuity and kink are you either reliving things or trying to recreate emotions (such as love).\n\n",
"Hypersexuality isn't limited to those of us who were abused. As well as being sexually, physically, and emotionally abused, I'm actually diagnosed Bipolar with a case of PTSD, and hypersexuality is very common among people with either, regardless of their previous experiences. \n\nAs people above and below have said, it's about being in control. Being wanted for any reason. Pretending it's love. A friend of mine is currently ending a 4 year relationship with a woman that cheated on him multiple times, and now that he's able to take a step back, he realizes her behaviors are very similar to his ex-wife, who was bipolar. He's attracted to excitement and unpredictability. Hypersexuality is one of the things he's attracted to. Some people enjoy it. \n\nPersonally, I'd love it if I could go a week without sex with my husband and not start thinking he's going to leave me, or he doesn't love me anymore. We're on different schedules, with a son, and he has uncontrolled severe Crohn's disease. It's not easy to find time sometimes, but my brain just screams \"HE'S OVER YOU! YOU'RE GOING TO BE A SINGLE MOM! DO EVERYTHING HE LIKES AND MAYBE HE'LL STICK AROUND!\" It's gotten better with medication and therapy, but it still happens. I even want sex when I'm in pain from my reproductive disorder, and sex actually has no pleasure. It makes me happy because he wants me. He treats me well, we love each other, but that sex thing can drive him crazy. \n\nAnyhow, having sex helps. Your self-esteem shoots through the roof, you feel worthy of other's time again, you have things under control. When you don't have sex for whatever time threshold you have, the opposite happens. You get depressed, feel alone, hate yourself, and get self-destructive. It sucks. Dating is hard. Even if the guy sucks, you still have to prove something to yourself. It's a very large cycle of self-abuse, in my experience. Feel free to AMA, I'm not special by any means, but I'll be honest. \n\nEdit: spelling",
"This article should clear things up.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt was a study completed around July if I recall.",
"Thanks for bringing this topic up. I am married to someone who I believe was sexually abused as a child and now has a mania over penises. It is not intercourse simply touching an pleasing men through hand jobs or blow jobs. In some instances she is the aggressor and in others she plays the victim. Although she is truly a victim. She refuses to admit that she has a sex problem. Is this very common among victims who become compulsive about sex? ",
"I was abused as a child and have done a lot of therapy, but I was very sexually compulsive in my teenage years. \n\nIt has to do with boundaries, and not having any, and not recognizing other people's boundaries.\n\nIt has to do with morals, insofar as sometimes when what people say and what they do is vastly different, a child growing up in that situation can come to believe that everyone is a bullshitter about morality and everyone lives in a similar way of parroting what they think others want to hear and doing whatever they want in private.\n\nIt has to do with learning behaviors where people act on impulses and then justify their actions later, and not understanding that this is a choice you can choose not to make, not just 'the way everyone secretly is inside'.\n\nIt definitely has a LOT to do with control. My virginity was taken away from me, and when I reached adolescence I was bound and determined to have a do-over of my own free will. I did it too, and it was a very positive experience for me emotionally, even if nobody else seemed to understand at the time. I still look on it as one of my first steps in taking ownership of my body and my life. I also had a parent who tried to molest me when I was younger, but I was so vocal about it that he couldn't seal the deal without me speaking up...so instead he just berated me for the next several years, obsessing over my sexuality (not even letting me use tampons), calling me a slut and a whore any time I showed the slightest interest in anybody or dressed up nicer than a tshirt and jeans, etc. This increased my compulsive behavior because the more I felt like this creep was trying to take control over every aspect of my sexuality, the more urgent it felt to me to go out and do things of my own volition. End result, a lot of compulsive behavior that I didn't actually really want to be doing but felt like my only option for trying to have any control over my own life and body. It's complicated. Even now anyone calling me a whore or a slut kind of shuts me down sexually and emotionally and it's hard to recover from it. \n\nAlso, I experienced this after a rape situation that was rather brutal - if they're going to take it anyway, I might as well just give it away and possibly save myself some broken bones and bruises. That's a dark place to be but I was there, and I know of several other women who found themselves in that place, too.\n ",
"Short and sweet answer... remastering the past. \n\nIt's a compulsion to take on a moment where all control was lost and now this time... this time I choose what happens. I get to be in a point of control in a moment where the past was uncontrollable, where I was violated. And now it's just not going to happen, not this time. Because fuck you for taking this from me, fuck you... fuck you",
"Victims of abuse early in life can actually have a changed brain chemistry. In situations they should be fearful and those hormones should be secreted, the ones that allow sexual arousal are secreted instead. I work in a mental health clinic and I was reading an article about the study that concluded this. I'm trying to find it online, will post a link once found. ",
"\"They made him watch. He probably tried to turn away, and they wouldn't let him. You call him a survivor? He's not. A man comes up against that kind of will, the only way to deal with it, I suspect, is to become it.\"\n- Malcolm Reynolds",
"I'd like to approach this from a different, potentially sophomoric perspective. I was exposed to sexual, domestic, and drug abuse in varying degrees from an early age and have spent a lot of time self assessing. I think of the brain as an associative matrix that when exposed to intense situations links certain stimuli with certain responses in a way that is extremely difficult to separate. E.G. You're on a frozen lake and fall through the ice, the fear is so intense you can't go swimming because you start reliving that traumatic experience. \n\nThe more often you have a thought, the more entrenched that thought becomes in your mind. In EMDR, they theorize that traumas are basically entrenched thoughts that are both isolated and circular, in that there is no naturally occurring association out of them, so when you get stuck in that thought and make no conscious effort to avert your attention, like a race car track you'll continue to go in circles. I saw a comment made about traumatic black holes, which I'm not familiar with but sounds similar in it's assessment. \n\nSex is both a strong stimuli and strong reaction in the individual. If exposed to sex in the formative years, like I was, sex becomes connected to virtually every other thought. You see a person, you think of sex. You touch your thigh, you think of sex. This can either be connected to fear and repulsion, or can lead to arousal addiction. If the latter case occurs, the arousal and the relief becomes the goal and often leads to an objectification of people, as though their only purpose was for sexual satisfaction. As this continues though, the relief decreases and the mind pursues more novel ways of satisfying that addiction.",
"Many people have answered this question well, but I think one aspect has gone unanswered.\n\nOne thing about many sexual abuse cycles is the grooming process, which is the process the abuser uses to make a subject more pliable.\n\nWhen the grooming process is done on younger subjects they learn at a really young age to exchange sex for attention or physical gifts and it becomes their normal. \n\nGetting young victims away from this behavior is really important in their survivor recovery, otherwise they will become really sexually manipulative or, as OP states, sexually compulsive later in life.",
"It doesn't only happen to children, teenagers and young adults can be abused and raped and turn out this way.\n\nThere was a girl I went to High School with, she was the sweetest thing ever, cute, shy, polite, soft spoken. She had a boyfriend who was for the most part a pretty good guy. Well her and I caught up a few years after High School when she was no longer with him and we ended up hooking up. Very shortly after I found out she had a boyfriend (different one), and that there was several other people she was regularly having sex with.\n\nShe told me about how the boyfriend from High School would abuse her, force himself on her, cheated on her, basically treated her like garbage and it caused her to become jaded about sex and it in a sense made her addicted to sex, a nymphomaniac she called her self. She told me how it made her feel good and wanted when she had sex, regardless of whether she was interested in the guy or not.\n\nThe worst part is she was the one who didn't want anything between us to continue, I was actually willing to look past the sex with strangers thing..",
"I don't have anything to contribute that hasn't already been said, and beautifully. I do want to point out, however, that remembering this quality is a good thing for anyone to remember before judging another person. We should all remember that we're on our own journeys, and there's no way to know how you'd be if you lived another person's life.\n\nPowerful stuff. Great question, and inciteful answers!",
"It can be a combination of things: feeling scared to say 'no' because of threat of danger, seeking attention and intimacy in the only way that is comfortable and familiar, feeling that that is all they are 'good' for, feeling of taking ownership over what made them feel so powerless before.",
"My friend once said kinks are a way for people to consent to something they weren't able to consent to before.",
"Well, thanks for this. Reading this thread was like talking to a close friends who has only good advice for me. \n\nA lot of issues got clarified, memories were revisited and I have emerged a stronger man.\n\nThanks a lot everyone!",
"This has never been so relevant...\n\nJust this week there was a boy in my year at college who everybody always knew came from one of those families. Nothing was ever done about it. Literally 3 days ago he was found guilty of molesting an 8 year old (he's 16) and it was all in the news. \n\nI can't answer your question, but there's my two cents.",
"Childhood is when your body and brain are learning what is normal. Your body and mind adapt to the things you experience during that time, whether it's language, metabolism, habits, sense of the world, and dealing with people. You learn how to live by observing the people around you, and because all you know for sure is yourself, you're very self-centered, so the things that happen to you are the most resounding. \n\nSo you learn that what happened to you is something that people do, and your psyche internalizes that and turns it around. Monkey see, monkey do. \n\nIt's the same reason that physically abused children grow up to be abusers themselves. They learned it first-hand that it was a way that people are, and that has stuck with them subconsciously.",
"My girlfriend was sexually abused a lot as a child/teenager and around age 20 she started sleeping around a lot. Even now, it seems like she's overly sexual to the point where I can't keep up sometimes, which isn't easy for a man to admit. She told me that the reason she started acting out sexually was because for most of her younger life, she didn't get choose her sexual experiences or her partners. Once she found out she was in control, she couldn't help but to act out on it as much as possible. She said it was very empowering to be able to choose her partners and what she did with them for the first time in her life. Once she started, it was hard for her to stop wanting more.",
"Like several other people responding to this topic, I was abused (sexually and physically) as a child. I've been dealing with sexual compulsions for quite some time (hookers/craigslist ads/internet meetups). \n\nSome people are saying it's a way to feel in control of one thing or another like it's something you're consciously doing to fix something else. For me it's not like that at all. It's like a constant itch on the back of my head. I can try not to scratch it, but the need to scratch it makes me unable to concentrate on anything else. Eventually you give in and scratch it and feel better for a short period. But then you feel worse afterwords, like you reopened a wound or something. You feel ashamed as you drive home and look in the mirror and literally have trouble recognizing that the person is you. \n\nEventually the feeling comes back. Unlike scratching, it takes work though. Going out, looking for someone, Or calling an escort and spending your hard earned cash. Which is dangerous, because once it becomes that easy, you can easily find yourself in debt. I can't count how many times I've told myself \"This is the last time\".",
"I think they is an over stimulation of the neurons/synapses or whatever that are involved with sex.\n\nI feel like when children are over sexualized at too young an age it physically affects their brain and builds a chemical requirement for that same stimulation.\n\nFrom there having lots of sex becomes a goal (as explained in the top post) and the victims then become addicted to sex and the cycle continues.\n\nAs a sex victim/perpetrator I see how the cycle does full circle",
"I've participated in a lot of therapy, and one of the things that comes up in the groups I'm in is the need for positive attention. So for instance, if a boy is abused by an adult male, the boy will begin to see sexual contact as the only viable way to gain positive attention from other males. Men, even though we don't like to admit it, need connections with other people - the abuse distorts the child's brain in terms of how to achieve that connection with others. Often times a stressful situation can \"trigger\" a survivor into \"acting-out\" in order to achieve the connection. ",
"You believe you are not worthy of love and thus seek out relationships and experiences that reinforce this belief. It is a vicious circle.",
"Or the unpopular idea that the person may have been more sexually compulsive in the first place. With psychology you can't overlook something just because it's unpleasant or inconvenient.",
"Sexual abuse survivor here. I read earlier someone asked the difference between being a victim and being a survivor? Being a survivor means you conquered the abuse and got help and have moved on from self destructive behaviors. \nI'm 16 years old, and from the time I was 10-13 years old I was abused by my adopted brother. To answer the question of why about promiscuity, it goes two ways for someone who's been sexually abused. \n1.) Always being focused on sex\n2.) Being terrified of anything sexual or even the thought of sexual experiences (even as little as holding hands) brings panic attacks and other side effects. \nUnfortunately I fell into the first group and I can explain my reason, which many of you may relate to.\nHe took my virginity when I was young. And being young, I was clueless and innocent. I had barely kissed a guy. With that being said, he manipulated me into thinking that sex was okay and normal to have with anyone. So growing up I never gave it much thought that sex was supposed to signify love.\nAnother one of my factors was the constant need to feel approval from a male, no matter how they treated me or used me for sex. The craving for attention, approval, and \"love\" made me promiscuous.\nAside from promiscuity, I also fell into drugs and alcohol. At the time, I had my abuse bottled up and I never told anybody. I tried to force it away and \"forget\" it. But it always lied in my sub conscience. Drugs and alcohol was how I coped because I didn't know why I couldn't stop doing drugs and drinking and having unwanted sex.\nAlas, my grandma was the one who came to me and predicted she knew why I was so self destructive (she is a former survivor as well). After realizing that the core to my self destructive behaviors was the abuse, I got into intensive sexual abuse therapy. \nI have been graduated from therapy for about 8 months. I got my first tattoo on my back of peace doves with the sexual abuse ribbon (it's like the breast cancer ribbon but teal) with the word survivor underneath. I've been in a solid and steady relationship with a wonderful and respective guy for almost a year now and we're engaged. \nSo to add on to your question, not every victim of sexual abuse will be promiscuous forever.\nFor everyone on this thread who relates to all these posts, go get help!!! No matter how hard and/or embarrassing it is, it is so worth it. I promise self destructive behaviors will never stop until you get the proper help..\nI am so sorry for everyone who's gone any kind of sexual abuse, but remember this:\nIt's not about how bad the situation is, it's about how you handle it and make yourself stronger from it. ",
"It's basically to garner feelings that you are in control of your sexual lifestyle and your own body as an adult because as a child you had none.\n\n\nSource: Child Psych that dealt with rape and abuse victims before he said fuck it, it's too much and quit is sitting next to me.",
"Although I may not have a good explanation, I would like to say I'm quite the opposite. \n\nI was raised in a situation where I had little control, was a consistent target for unwarranted anger that led to multiple physical conflicts, and was left defenseless at times by those who were supposed to protect me. I'm also VERY non-confrontational. \n\nI was raised in a situation where many things were blamed on me, and it molded me to become compulsively apologetic, regardless of whether something is my fault or not. \n\nI was taunted and teased because of my sexuality, and now I'm not sexually compulsive at all. I even have images from my past that prevent me from pursuing relationships with people who I feel I'm most compatible with. \n\nI had a teacher once tell me I wouldn't amount to anything, and at the time was going through a lot things at home. I once had a drive for school and after that year, I began to increasingly quit caring about school. If I wasn't going to amount to anything, why should I try? I was in an environment where I was talked down to, and didn't feel like an equal human being, so I self depreciate because no one can make me feel lower about myself than me. \n\nI guess I am fortunate though, because as far as sexual abuse, I didn't experience any (that I remember). Just the verbal abuse about my sexuality. I really think I_Shot got it right as far as this situation goes. I just hope that one day the world will realize how wrong it is to raise children in such volatile environments. \n",
"Sex was used to hurt and control me. I wanted it to make it something good. ",
"For me its a bit about Control. But not in the way you've described. \n \nIn fact its all of the things you mentioned, but switched up. \n \n1.) Control. I want to be in control of my life. I enjoy sex and I wont let past abuse get in the way. So its not fear, or taking away someones power to rape me. Its refusing to allow the memory of my abuse to continue to rape me. \n \n2.) Self worth. Again, true... but not in the way you have stated. In fact, I LOVE to say no to some guys. I will actually lead them on just so I can say no. Doing that to the creepers/douches makes me feel worth more than them. Its not 'right'... in the same way its not right to bully or do some other things. Then on the other side, the guys I do want to be with, getting with them is 'scoring'. \n \n3.) Sex = love. More accurately the link of sex and love. I can see how what you say is true. But for me Sex != Love... \"making love\" can be very enjoyable, but \"fucking\" can be just as enjoyable. You can only \"make love\" to people you have an enjoyable and emotional connection to... You can also fuck them... but you can also fuck a complete stranger. \n \n4.) Can't sum this one up in a quick 'blurp'. This is the one that I have the most trouble understanding. It seems to be the most harmful. While I mostly keep things \"about sex\" but I don't feel like its a 'shield' from being hurt. Its probably because, I don't link love/selfworth and sex the way you describe. \n \nI think it has a lot to do with the individual. Some people grow up and get married to their HS sweetheart get married and are ok with a 'dead beadroom'... others well... might get married, but are still very 'Open' and very 'sexual'. \n \nIMO, The trick is to find out who you are, and not let someone from your past rule your future. \n \nedit: Its a very complicated issue, and different for everyone. Thats why 'proper' therapy is so important. It lets you understand how things are effecting you, and lets you work out how you can be you.",
"Thank you for posing this question. After reading many of the comments from other victims of abuse, I would like to share this excellent site:\n_URL_0_. \nAdult Survivors of Child Abuse (ASCA SM) is an international self-help support group program designed specifically for adult survivors of neglect, physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse \n\nFor those who can not afford therapy or counseling, ASCA has a free, downloadable program called Survivor to Thriver. \nI wish us all strength enough to be our own best friends and help ourselves.",
"I don't know if this was said, but for me personally it was about counteracting the rape with a positive experience. like if I had consensual sex with someone else that was pleasurable then it would erase the negative. ",
"For me I was 5. My mom had just married this new guy and had left me in the care of my new grandma. I was lying on the bed. I had felt something hard and went to investigate further. I still remember how it feels. I remember him touching me and sticking his fingers in my vagina. I remember him shushing me as I told him to stop. The next day when he was driving me home he promised me a bag of lollies. That was all I was worth. I told my mom and she believed me. But my step dad didn't. He called him up and made me hug him. He said to me that it didn't happen if I could hug him. \nAfter that I told ppl but they didn't believe me. Even my mother but she was a bit of a liar and gossiper. My step father's family refused to acknowledge me and I wasn't allowed to come to any events. I was raised in a church and years later after he reoffended I wasn't allowed to know. The whole thing was hushed over. I was told later when I was 16 that I was too promiscuous when I was a kid. \n ",
"NSFW:\n\nWhen i was a kid, like 8 or 10 i was sleeping at my cousin he was secretly gay in a country in south america with high moral values where gays are not accepted by their famillys, he was 14 or 15 years old and one night he just teached me the blowjobs, he sucked my dick and i did it too him, i really enjoyed it and dont see it as an \"abuse\" and i consider myself bisexual but w/e the point is today i have a fetish for blowjobs, this is the thing i prefer in sex, i generally prefer getting a blowjob from my wife than having normal sex, i'm not sure if this is connected to my child experience or if it is normal to love blowjobs. \n\ntl;dr : blowjobs are awesome no matter what.",
"After reading this thread, I've come to the disturbing realization that a good portion of the porn industry probably employs actresses who were sexually abused as children.",
"This is particularly nefarious for young boys that are molested or raped by girls or women. The boys typically regard the experience as a *positive* thing. ... Until later in life because being molested when you are 8yo permanently sexualizes childhood to you.\n\nAnd there you have the cycle.",
"It's complicated. I'll explain it to you when you're older.",
"As a lot of redditors have stated below me there can be a myriad of reasons as to why this phenomenon occurs. One that I've heard frequently is security. Because what is supposed to be a safe haven has been warped into a den of nightmare, the abused may look elsewhere for self-affirmation, even if that means resorting to degrading lewd acts. \nAn evolutionary psychologist would say something more along the lines of \"because the abused doesn't know when they'll die, it's best to continue their lineage by having as much sex as possible to ensure that offspring will be produced.\"",
"In women sexual abuse is correlated with higher levels of oxytocin women and may be an underlying urge for closeness that is inappropriately expressed in promiscuity (sex releases oxytocin in the brain). More practically, when one learns very young that one's fundamental value is as a sexual object it effects later sexual expression once puberty is reached.",
"To me, the toughest part in reading these stories is the common theme of having to combat your instincts and compromise your heart. Doing this to try to make it feel \"ok\" in an otherwise helpless situation where some part of you is 100% sure that what's going on is wrong. That even seems like it could be the most damaging aspect of the experience....All the while they probably didn't tell anyone, so no one knew to help. I wish all of those at risk in the future could have exposure to a person or a place that would make sure the child understands that it is Not OK and make sure they understand that some kind help is available.",
"Shit, this hit home. I don't think I've ever conceptually thought about why I'm so desirous of sex before, but yes, I can completely understand. To me, definitely, sex is love. If we aren't having sex how am I to know you care. How do you change? The question I'm asking myself is do I even want to change? That's scary as fuck. Idk if I could handle that.",
"It's about control. Since we had absolutely no control over anything as a kid we overcompensate with the thing that we were abused by",
"OMG. What I am reading and learning here explains the troubles, drama and odd intensity of my relationships with a recent couple of friends who I am not friends anymore. Your explanation applies 100% to one and 80% to the other one. I also noticed that they tended to be more sexually compulsive in drinking context, to the point that they actually needed alcohol to have sex.",
"As a child you are supposed to trust others, especially those that are close to you. Unfortunately, sexual abuse is usually between two people that know each other. When something traumatic like that happens, it fundamentally changes how you view relationships, love, and trust. It changes how you define respect, power, honesty, and emotions. \n\nOthers have talked about control so know need to rehash. When you aren't sure what or who you can trust, you get anxious. To manage anxiety, sometimes we go overboard on the control. ",
"Really really late, but here's some science to go along with what everyone else is saying.\r\r_URL_0_\r\r > Half the kids — both boys and girls — had a history of physical abuse at the hands of adults earlier in their lives... Oxytocin levels in the abused girls nearly tripled from their baseline — already three times the non-abused girls' levels...\r\r > \"The peak in oxytocin may be helping to motivate these girls to form new relationships,\" Seltzer says.\r\r > Unfortunately, those new relationships may not always be more stable than the girls' abusive ones.\r\rSo basically girls that were abused have spikes in Oxytocin levels (which is used for love and cuddle feelings) in stressful situations (like being in a new relationship ^(that's me talking though), while girls that weren't abused don't exhibit these symptoms.\r\r|\r\r^^^I ^^^don't ^^^think ^^^anyone ^^^will ^^^see ^^^this.",
"I've never thought of my hyper-sexuality as sad... For me it's just frustrating. Mostly cause I'm afraid to say anything about it and why I have an insatiable urge to please and get pleased. I'm just doing my best to keep myself from cheating and be in a serious, normal relationship. But, again, I don't see my sexual compulsions or their origins in a sad light. ",
"There is a recent psychological theory that has emerged that instability in childhood leads to increased and earlier promiscuity for very biological reasons as well. Put it this way, if a child is raised in an unpredictable environment (i.e. one where harm comes from unexpected places, caregivers are constantly changing roles etc.) then, put into an evolutionary perspective, that human body would not expect to live very long because it can not predict the ups and downs of its own existence. For this reason, biological objectives have been shown to run into overdrive, the individual will often become more promiscuous in early adolescence as their body is telling them \"procreate before you die, we have no idea what's going to happen in the near future so do it quick\". Studies showing this have compared the lives of children with unpredictable childhoods to those who had either consistently positive or negative upbringings and they always seem to come off worse for that reason. That's a very scientific standpoint from an evolutionary biology perspective though and there are obviously huge amounts of other contributing factors to keep in mind. I just thought that was an interesting point when I first read it. ",
"A child valued solely based on their achievements may grow up compulsively obsessed with achieving. Even to the detriment of their own happiness.\n\nA child valued solely for their physical beauty may grow up compulsively obsessed with their looks. Even to the detriment of their own happiness.\n\nA child valued solely as a sexual object may grow up compulsively obsessed with their sexuality. Even to the detriment of their own happiness.",
"Jesus Christ.... My heart hurts for you all. ",
"I know this is so late, but I also wanted to add that as someone who wasn't sexually abused, but grew up without a father, I never really learned how to have a healthy relationship with a man. Because of that I've only really ever known how to interact with men sexually based on my surroundings/society. That was how I've sought \"love\" from a man, because I didn't know any other way. Now after 23 years I have my father in my life, and after a couple of rather immature/dysfunctional relationship, I've definitely toned down my sexual compulsiveness...but it does take a lot of time and growth/self-awareness to get past something you've done so casually for so many years. Things do eventually get better with therapy, and a great support system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-ellen-stevens/the-adverse-childhood-exp_1_b_1943647.html",
"http://www.cdc.gov/ace/findings.htm",
"http://www.cdc.gov/ace/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"ht... | |
2i39az | why do most people think of the number 7 when they are asked to think about a number between 1-10? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i39az/eli5_why_do_most_people_think_of_the_number_7/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckye0bu",
"ckympaz",
"ckyq02u"
],
"score": [
27,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it's because 7 seems like such a random number. \n1 and 10 are the extremes, which people tend to avoid. \n2, 4, 6 and 8 are even, so they don't seem very random. \n5 is a number that is often used in human lives (originated from the fact that we have 5 fingers on each hand)\n3 and 9 are also less random because we often think in multiples of 3 (in stores, economy packs often contain 3 boxes). \n\nSo I think that people try to go for the \"most random number\" because they think that less people will guess it. That's why people often think of 37 when asked for a random between 0 and 100. Because it seems less obvious and more random.",
"7 is an \"attractive\", aesthetically pleasing number. It's the golden ratio between 1-10, rounding up.",
"There's a great Radiolab episode which touched on this..\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/love-numbers/"
]
] | ||
36zeuq | If I ate 300g of food, can I theoretically only gain a maximum of 300g? | If I ate 300g worth of food, doesn't matter if its fat, protein, carbs or whatever, does it mean that I can only theoretically gain a maximum of 300g?
If not, where does the extra weight came from?
**Edit:** Wow, the amount of confusion and misunderstanding in the answers.
I guess I should have been a little clearer.
I understand that I would not gain 300g if I ate something that is 300g.
I was talking about in-theory. I was just wondering if you can eat something that is so "unhealthy" that it makes you gain more weight than its net weight. For example, they always say that sugar makes you fat, but I would think that the weight of the sugar you consumed ain't significant, yet you can gain tons of weight over a short period of time if you say, drink coke every single day. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/36zeuq/if_i_ate_300g_of_food_can_i_theoretically_only/ | {
"a_id": [
"crifdx7",
"crifk63",
"crifnso",
"criho8h",
"crivy11"
],
"score": [
15,
27,
120,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes, theoretically your maximum weight gain would be 300 grams. This is a matter of conservation of mass.\n\nEdit: My response is based solely on the assumption that nothing else happens during ingestion of 300 grams of material. I am not including insensible water losses through your skin and respiration, any negligible losses due to the exchange of CO2 and O2, any changes due to metabolism of sugar/fat/proteins to keep you alive, etc.",
"As well as eating, your mass can also be increased by drinking, even non-calorific liquids. The popular belief in the fitness community is that for every gram of carbohydrates you consume, you will retain four grams of water; though that would obviously only be true under certain conditions.",
"Theoretically, your body could store extra calories \"inefficiently\". Suppose there's an energy giving molecule with a formula X. Your body could take that energy and store it as XOsub10, making you heavier by combining the food with oxygen.",
"To add a bit of context on the scale of time; the body constantly takes in energy through your GI tract, and that energy is broken down into simple sugars by enzymes, stored in varying amounts, and expended thermally. \n\nThese states of catabolism (consuming muscle for energy), anabolism (storing energy as muscle), lipolysis (burning fat), lipogenesis (storing fat), glycolysis and ketosis are regulated by many processes, though primarily are affected by hormone signals (acutely) and by epigenetic expression over the long term.\n\nOther commenters expounded on the chemical processes that could add or subtract mass from the total-stored energy, but with the dimension of time this becomes a bit more complex.\n\nThe foods you consume and their respective amounts can ultimately have long term effects through the modulation of these hormonal transmitters and epigenetic expression--minus the pseudoscience media headlines, there is some truth to the statement: \"you are what you eat.\"\n\nInitially the composition of the food you eat will effect your digestive microbiome (the concentrations and types of bacteria in your gut), and altering this balance can up/down-regulate hormone levels as well as trigger or suppress the immune system.\n\nIn terms of enzymatic processes, your body will begin to optimize its response based on the food types and methods of conversion to simple sugars; also relevant, the frequency at which this food turns into glucose (and whether or not it creates a \"sharp\" insulin spike [bad] or is broken down more slowly [good]). As these chemical processes optimize for the given stimuli (types of food eaten), they alter your epigenetic (dynamic) RNA expression which in turn further regulates hormones, your gut microbiome, and your body's insulin response which dictates everything from metabolic rate to what energy gets stored as fat vs. muscle.\n\nTaken together, more than just an input-output, the food we eat and patterns we eat it in can compound to produce positive effects (more efficient/healthy energy storage) or negative ones (increased adipose tissue, lethargy, inefficient storage) and in turn this can ultimately regulate our weight gain through both chemical and behavioral processes.",
"Yes, it is theoretically possible because of respiration. There are practical limitations which prevent this, though.\n\nWhen animals metabolize food, they convert (food + oxygen) to (CO2 plus H2O). Different food sources have different amounts of oxygen, and therefore require different amounts of inhaled oxygen in order to produce CO2. This is sometimes used medically to determine someone's nutritional state. It is called the [respiratory quotient](_URL_0_).\n\nIf a food source has respiratory quotient 1, then for every 1 molecule of CO2 produced, it takes 1 molecule of O2. Carbohydrates such as sugar have respiratory quotient of 1.\n\nO2 has molar mass of 32. CO2 has molar mass of 44. If we had a food with a respiratory quotient of less than 32/44 or 0.73, then metabolizing that food would require a larger mass of oxygen than the CO2 it produces. While eating that food, you could gain weight simply by breathing!\n\nThere are fats which have respiratory quotient of 0.7 (see the table in the wikipedia link). If you ate only these foods, then you could theoretically gain more weight than you consumed, because the mass of air you had to breathe to metabolize it. In reality, the water produced in this reaction will be exhaled and excreted in the urine, so you wouldn't hold onto that weight."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_quotient"
]
] | |
22m1ri | How does vaginal mucus help sperm to live longer? | Does it provide specific nutrients, is it that it provides an isotonic environment, or something else?
| askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22m1ri/how_does_vaginal_mucus_help_sperm_to_live_longer/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgo8dve"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Without cervical mucus the vagina is too acidic for sperm to survive. The main role of the mucus seems to be neutralizing the pH and bringing that within ranges manageable by the sperm. [source](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.njnfp.org/resources/signsoffertility.php"
]
] | |
6o6r8x | Do we have any records of recreational drugs used in the ancient world that no longer exist? | If so, do we have any records of what effects these drugs caused? Did they have any uses in society apart from recreational enjoyment? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6o6r8x/do_we_have_any_records_of_recreational_drugs_used/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkfiwsr",
"dkfkgd5",
"dkfvtvm",
"dkgoi8c"
],
"score": [
1167,
142,
81,
2
],
"text": [
"We know that the Romans and their Mediterranean contemporaries used the herb **silphium** as an antifertility drug until it was driven to extinction due to the huge demand. Of course, this probably doesn't count as a \"recreational\" drug, unless people enjoyed having abortions (and given the occasionally painful side effects of abortifacient drugs, silphium was probably not fun).\n\nIn the Indian subcontinent, **soma** was consumed as part of liturgical practice. Both Zoroastrian and Hindu texts mention its use, but beyond that we are not sure exactly what it was. It was a liquid, derived from a plant, and its consumption was stimulating or enlightening, hence its use in ancient religion -- and that is the limit of our knowledge. Save that its processed form was a golden, sun-colored liquid, we are not even certain that soma was a plant! I list in my sources an article by Wasson which theorizes that soma was derived from the fly agaric mushroom, which could have been conceivably thought of as a \"plant\" and which bears some circumstantial evidence in its favor (namely: the soma plant was never described with roots or leaves, it can be liquefied in a manner that resembles the descriptions of liquid soma, and it has a history of use in other religious traditions) (also, my favorite point of evidence, Indra is described drinking soma and \"pissing it out,\" and other religions which used fly agaric discovered in their turn that the hallucinogenic properties are preserved in the urine of one who has consumed the mushrooms). This is not the universally accepted solution, and there are many other plants that are likely candidates.\n\nBut soma was not \"recreational\" in any sense, at least not in its official recommended use. Hindu society is traditionally divided into four classes, or varna: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra (this is separate from the caste system, which is a bit more complicated). There is evidence in the *Aitareya Brahmana* (an ancient commentary on the Vedic texts) that officiants at a soma-sacrifice might not have actually been allowed to consume soma, especially if they were a Kshatriya (the term used is Rajanya, but I am assured that this is equivalent terminology for Kshatriya at this particular time). While the specific rituals were not specifically limited to Brahmins, it was evidently their responsibility, and so it was them (and not others) who had the greatest opportunity to partake of soma.\n\nNow we have two drugs, one of which we know the name and what it looked like, and one of which we know the name but its origins and identity are still debated. I present to you a third drug, where we do not know the name *or* the identity of the plant! (Although there are some very good guesses.) Herodotus writes in *The Persian Wars* (1.202, G. Rawlinson translation) about the inhabitants of the region surrounding the River Araxes: \n\n > Besides the trees whose fruit they gather for this purpose, they have also a tree which bears the strangest produce. When they are met together in companies they throw some of it upon the fire round which they are sitting, and presently, by the mere smell of the fumes which it gives out in burning, they grow drunk, as the Greeks do with wine. More of the fruit is then thrown on the fire, and, their drunkenness increasing, they often jump up and begin to dance and sing. Such is the account which I have heard of this people.\n\nIt seems that Herodotus, assuming that he is accurately relaying an anecdote, is describing recreational use of -- well, historians seem to think he's talking about cannabis. He does not name or describe the appearance of this drug, however, so the possibility exists that he is describing an unknown, possibly lost pharmaceutical.\n\n-----\n\nFor further reading:\n\nKashikar, C. G. “Soma-Drink vis-à-vis the Ruling Class\" *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute* 67:1/4 (1986): 247-250.\n\nRiddle, John M., and J. Worth Estes. “Oral Contraceptives in Ancient and Medieval Times.\" *American Scientist* 80:3 (May-June 1992): 226-233.\n\nWasson, R. Gordon. “The Soma of the Rig Veda: What Was It?\" *Journal of the American Oriental Society* 91:2 (April-June 1971): 169-187.",
"So one clear candidate for \"bygone drugs\" for discussion in this thread would be a plant commonly referred to as \"Rigveda [ṛgveda] Soma\", based on its attestation in that Hindu Vedic text (although it is mentioned elsewhere too). I say discussion, rather than a clear cut answer though, for a reason, as it is a substance that is less 'no longer in existence' than it is a substance which there has been great debate over what it actually is, with a number of different analogues proposed by various scholars. What we do know is that it had ceremonial use, *\"specifically intended to induce a state of intoxicated ecstasy that produced spiritual health, renewal, and immortality through mystical communion with deity.\"* It wasn't recreational in purpose here, to be sure, but is broader evidence of both ancient drug use, and use specifically of a drug we're unsure on (there is no reference to recreational enjoyment or misuse in the Vedic texts at least).\n\nWesterners have been trying to figure out just what \"Soma\" is at since the early 1800s. Early proposals from that period included *Ruta graveolens* - an herb known as 'common rue'; *Sarcostemma brevistigma* - a type of milkweed; and *Ephedra sinica* - 'Chinese ephedra', an herb with some medicinal properties; but a full list goes into the dozens. *Sarcostemma* appears to have been an especially popular identification in that period, but became more and more rejected by the end of the century, while Ephedra remains one of the more enduring of the earlier proposed candidates with supporters still writing favorably for it in recent times.\n\nCannabis has been a popular identification, especially favored by the early 20th century author Mukherjee, although the first proposal came in 1884, and there are verses which can be read to support it, such as:\n\n > The immortal green-tinted Soma when purified is arranged\n\nAnd some scholars believe there is at least a compelling argument for it. B.G.L. Sawmy summed up the argument for this identification positively, although less than conclusively:\n\n > Thus there is reason to infer that it was the water-soluble factor of the Cannabis narcotic and that too in great dilution which opened up their 'doors of perception' and gave vocal expression to their mystic experiences.\n\nBut one of the most common identifications which pops up is that Soma was some sort *Amanita muscaria*, a psychoactive fungus called 'common fly-agaric', a red-capped mushroom. This identification is based on the work of R. Gordon Wasson, who published his theory in 1968 and then continued to revise it (he claims to have first hit on the possibility while chatting with Aldous Huxley). Is key arguments hinge on the description of \"Soma\" as a \"not refer[ing] to the roots or leaves or blossoms or seeds\", and that it was a preparation with \"inebriating property although non-alcoholic\". Others have pushed back against it though, especially Vedic scholars who believe he did not exercise the necessary caution in taking the Vedic text too literally, such as the description lacking roots and such being a passage intended to allude to the divine origins of the plant rather than a literal description of it. \n\nMany also push back that Wasson decided on fly-agaric and then went fishing for verses to support his theory (Mushrooms were *his thing*), and even some who agree with his end-theory find his method to be suspect, as at least some of his work seems to have been based off observations of Siberian peoples who used the fungus and then simply extrapolating some of his findings there, such as drinking the urine of a person who had previously consumed the plant. There is no hard evidence for it in the Vedas, and Wasson seems to be grasping at very weak evidence there. In Wasson's defense at least, he did at least seem consider other possibilities beyond fly-agaric, although always with a focus of psychoactives, and his recollections are imperfect. Early correspondence while working on his theory do point to his consideration of *Lagochilus inebrians* - \" inebriating mint\" and *Stropharia cubensis* - gold caps, aka \"magic mushrooms\"; as well as the seeds of various forms of morning glory, which contain lysergic acid.\n\nWasson's theory is on the outs though it would seem, as more recent archaeological excavations have uncovered evidence of cannabis, ephedra, *and* opium poppies in the temple sites where the ceremonies were conducted, dating to the mid-1500s BCE. If or how they were used specifically in the preparation of *Soma* of course is not clear though, nor how widespread their preparation style was, so it isn't quite the final argument. The evidence for Cannabis use points to it being a 'fumigant', the smoke unleashed in the chamber, so possibly not as an ingredient, or of course possibly just with multiple uses.\n\nOne additional thing ought to also be noted however. While the hunt for identification of ṛgveda Soma was about finding what it was *originally*, few disagree that there was wide variety of \"surrogate substitutes\" in later eras following migratory transitions by practitioners who found themselves in regions where the original Soma no longer could be found or grow. Even Wasson, who disagrees with the Cannabis or Ephedra identification, would agree that they were substitutes used later on, as well as other possible candidates that were proposed as the \"original\". \n\nRuck, Paul & Carl Anton. 2016. \"Mushroom sacraments in the cults of early europe\". NeuroQuantology 14(1) 68-93\n\nRiedlinger, T.J. 1993. \"Wasson's Alternative Candidates for Soma\". Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 25(2):149-156. 1993.\n\nShah, N.C. 2015. \"Soma, an Enigmatic, Mysterious Plant of the Vedic Aryas: An Appraisal\". Indian Journal of History of Science 50 (1) 26-41\n\nSwamy, BGL 1974. \"Sources for a History of Plant Sciences in India II. The RG Vedic Soma Plant.\" Indian Journal of History of Science 11(1) 11-32",
"There were many psychoactive drugs used by pre-Columbian Mesoamerican cultures, due to the large number of psychoactive reagents that are indigenous to the region. Most notably Teotalqualli roughly translating to “divine meal” used by the Aztecs in their sacrificial rituals. While not used for strictly recreational purposes the priests would often anoint themselves with the black mixture poisonous animals burned in a sacrificial alter then,\n\n“ to the ashes were added a large amount of tobacco and pulverized seeds of ololiuhqui, as well as a number of living scorpions, spiders, centipedes, black harry worms, and soot.”^1\n\nThis mixture would have its ingredients altered depending on the god it was meant to please. The priests would then anoint them elves in the mixture before performing rituals or before they would pray. people who were to be sacrificed were also anointed in the mixture while waiting to be sacrificed. The mixture was said to provide powerful and sometimes calming hallucinations. Precolumbian drug use is an incredibly interesting field and worth reading up on if you have time. \n\n^1 Teotlaqualli: The Psychoactive food of the Aztec Gods\nElferink, Jan G R\nJournal of Psychoactive Drugs; Oct-Dec 1999; 31, 4; ProQuest Central\npg. 435",
"Can I add a question? Blue lotus aphrodisiac in Egyptian times driven to extinction by demand. I have this factoid in my head from where I have no idea. But I would love to know if it is real or not. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
cr0540 | how does stretching my toes out wide give me better balance for a moment? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cr0540/eli5_how_does_stretching_my_toes_out_wide_give_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"ex0vn29"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It disperses your weight more evenly among the whatever it is against as it covers more surface area so that your center of balance isn’t as narrow as those with thinner feet than average"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
19w5uz | why is it that when i begin drinking (such as beer or wine), the beverage tastes great at first, but begins to taste more bitter and less enjoyable as the night progresses, causing me to resort to a new drink? | I'm sure it has something to do with your taste palate and memory. I find myself taking sips in longer intervals and smaller quantities the more I've been drinking.
Footnote: I've been drinking and apologize for my lack of grammar. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19w5uz/why_is_it_that_when_i_begin_drinking_such_as_beer/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8s09vi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We've all got these little bumps on our tongues called \"taste buds\". These really are our buds and help us to taste foods and drinks. It's like our tongues tell our brain what we're eating, and whether it's good. Our tongue's job is to give us the important, basic information about the food we're trying to eat. \n\nOur taste buddies let our brain know how salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or savoury a food is. This is pretty important, because while salty, sweet, and savoury foods are usually nutritious and give us lots of energy, sour foods are usually spoiled, and a bitter taste often means poison! \n\nBut the rest of how a food or drink tastes comes from certain chemicals in the food that are tasted not by our taste buddies, but our nose! Our noses and tongues are joined in a really complex way, and foods taste pretty plain if you're not using your nose at all.\n\nIf you're eating a food or drinking a drink for a long time, your tongue but especially your nose is going to get pretty tired of tasting the same thing. When this happens our brains automatically \"ignore\" the same complex flavours that are repeatedly being fed to it, and we're left tasting primarily with our tongues. This means we stop tasting the special qualities of the drink, and start tasting primarily the basic flavours like the bitterness of the alcohol, and the usually abundant sweetness.\n\nOur bodies get sick of eating the same things over and over again, especially if the food has a strong aroma (that means smell!)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5hcr02 | Why do lasers have to be a single wavelength? Could you create the illusion of a white laser by combining the beams of a red, green, and a blue laser? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5hcr02/why_do_lasers_have_to_be_a_single_wavelength/ | {
"a_id": [
"dazfs8n",
"dazg1c4",
"dazh2dr",
"dazwx93",
"db0gpru"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
18,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't, quite, but pretty close to it.\n\nThe essential characteristic of laser light is that it is _coherent_. This property is what enables lasers to form holograms, for example. It is also what allows them to form a small, bright dot even at large distances compared to the beam width. Coherence comes in various kinds, but they all mean that the the relationships between different parts of the wave, separated in space or time or in other more complicated ways, are fixed relative to one another. Spatial coherence is responsible for the “small dot” effect, and spectral coherence is responsible for the “single wavelength”. All light sources are at least a little bit coherent, and the degree of coherence is measured by, for example, the _coherence time_, or _coherence length_. \n\nFor an off-the-shelf, commodity laser the coherence length might be a few tens of centimetres, for a really good laser it can be hundreds of kilometres. For so-called black body radiator emitting visible light—an incandescent lightbulb is pretty close to that—it's a few nanometers. Turns out that the coherence length depends inversely on the spread of wavelengths that a source emits, the narrower the spread of wavelengths the longer the coherence length. Being highly coherent, which is the defining property of laser light, is the same thing as having a very narrow range of wavelengths.\n\nCan you combine a red, green and blue laser beam to create a “white” beam? Yes and no. If you reflect those three beams off a rough white surface then you'd get a white-ish effect to the eye. But because of that coherence in each beam, the red, green and blue reflection would have a different speckle pattern built in to it as it interferes with itself, so the effect would be very uneven. If you simply send the beams together then the resulting light is not coherent, by definition, as it has three distinct wavelengths and one of them (red) is about twice one of the others (blue). ",
"The laser is \"single wavelength\" because of the amplification process. In its most simple form a laser is a gain medium within a stable resonator, understand a set of mirrors placed so that light can bounce back and forth indefinitely. However there are losses. The only wavelengths which can be amplified are those for which the gain is higher than the losses.\nThe gain is determined by the electronic transitions of the gain material, more or less spread over a certain bandwidth. Typical diode lasers such as the red pointer have a very narrow bandwidth but other materials can be much more broad. For example the titanium:sapphire crystal can emit light over more than 300 nm (from < 700 to > 1000). \n\nRegarding your second question, it is possible to superimpose lasers to get a larger spectrum but it will just be several beams stacked onto each other and thus will not have a global laser behaviour (no coherence, spatial overlap will degrade with propagation...). There is however a way to create a very broadband laser: supercontinuum generation. Using an ultrashort pulse (less than 1 ps) with a high enough intensity, propagation through a transparent medium will lead to self phase modulation (SPM) which broadens substantially the spectrum. This way spectrums ranging over > 1000 nm have been observed. \n\nSource: PhD student with this kind of lasers. ",
"Sure, you could combine a red, green, and blue laser and get an output that looks white. However like you say that would only have the illusion of being a white light laser. The reason is that the three light sources would not be matched in phase.\n\nHowever, people have actually shown that you can produce a real monolithic white laser. [Here](_URL_0_) is a write-up about the story and here is the [full paper](_URL_1_). They achieved this result by using three different alloys as lasing media and used a cavity that compatible with frequencies of light in the red, green, and blue portions of the spectrum. In the end they were able to get true lasing with a white appearance.",
"By definition lasers tend to be monochromatic. This is due to their method of operation. LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (radiation being EM radiation / light). The \"stimulated emission\" part is the key here. What happens is that atoms or molecules are \"stimulated\" into having electrons in an excited state. If a photon with the same energy as the energy difference between the electron in its excited state and in the ground state happens to hit the electron then it can stimulate it into emitting a photon with matching energy and with the same phase.\n\nWhat happens inside a laser is that there will be some initial random emission of photons from electrons in the excited state which will then begin a cascade of stimulated emission inside the laser, causing a massive amount of light at the same frequency and with the same phase to be emitted.\n\nThat's why lasers are a single wavelength, it's an inherent property of the stimulated emission process which is the core of how they operate.",
"As far back as the late 1960's they made gas discharge [white light lasers](_URL_0_). I actually saw some run at the time.\n\n\nBasically they mixed krypton and argon gases in the laser cavity. Each has many different laser spectral lines. If you use broadband mirrors on the cavity, you can excite all the spectral lines at the same time in the cavity. The violet (and UV), blue, green colors come from the argon, The yellows, orange, and reds come from the krypton. Since they all are exiting the end mirror at the same time, the result is multi-spectral white light laser beam.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser",
"http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v10/n9/full/nnano.2015.149.html"
],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=intensity+fluctuation+interferomter+imaging&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=gas+white+light+l... | ||
4c7iuv | can somebody please explain why us brits use 3 pin plugs but the usa and other countries use 2 pin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c7iuv/eli5_can_somebody_please_explain_why_us_brits_use/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1fos3r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We have 3 pins in USA/Canada... the 3rd pin is a grounding pin and only makes sense on items that need a ground (e.g. aren't well insulated).\n\nYour PC for instance is grounded through the case so if the return (neutral) fails touching the case will cause problems for you. So the ground pin provides another return.\n\nYour desk fan is well insulated so you can't really touch it and get electrocuted. \n\nIf anything your circuits should be AFI protected and in Canada for instance all new homes require them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
4o7eh1 | In many Medieval-themed fantasies there are popular songs that are known and sung all across the land. Does this have any basis in reality? | Specifically in George RR Martin's *A Song of Ice and Fire* series it seems that from one end of Westeros to the other you can find some pub singing 'The bear and the maiden fair,' or 'The Dornishmans wife'. In let's say 14th century England or France, would there have been songs of similar universal popularity for the common people? What about for high society? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4o7eh1/in_many_medievalthemed_fantasies_there_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4ahz9u"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Sure, definitely possible. Songs in the middle ages were barely, if ever, written down. They were composed orally, taught orally, and performed orally. \"Nomadic\" jongleurs (minstrels) would travel through towns, villages and courts singing those songs. \n\n > Indeed, the actual practice—the actual performance, that is, of the noble songproduct—was usually left to what we now call minstrels: professionals of a lower caste, singer-entertainers called joglars in Provençal (jongleurs in French, both from the Latin joculatores, “jokers”); the derivation of our English word “juggler” from joglar should leave no doubt about its subartistic connotation. Most of the commoner-troubadours like Bernart started out as minstrels who learned the work of the noble poets by rote and who later developed creative facility in their own right. The relationship of troubadour to minstrel, and particularly the means of transmission from the one to the other, attest that the art of the troubadours remained an oral art. A noble poet would compose a song and teach it to a minstrel, thus sending it out into the oral tradition from which it might be transcribed, with luck, a hundred years later.\nFor written documentation of the troubadour art began only when the tradition was already moribund. The manuscripts containing troubadour songs, called chansonniers, are retrospective anthologies prepared in the middle of the thirteenth century. (Any song found in multiple copies in these late sources exists in multiple variants, thus precluding the restoration of a definitive “text,” assuming there ever was such a thing.)\n\nfrom: Oxford History of Western Music by R. Taruskin, vol1 (I have the kindle version so I cant reference pages)\n\nSome of these songs later became popular folk tunes that were still played in a recent past, thus surviving (orally!) for centuries.\n\nFrom the same source\n\n > **POPULARIZATION, THEN AND SINCE**\nThe other way in which we know Neidhardt’s songs were popular is that some of them have actually become folk songs. That is, they have rejoined the oral tradition, and were unwittingly collected (in considerably altered form, of course, but still recognizable) by the early folklorists of the German Romantic movement in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.\n\nMoreover you can find single references of songs in different parts of europe. North Italian poets like Dante were very aquainted with french/provencal music. Also, as quoted above, most of the written forms of these songs we have today were actually written down way later than the original date of composition. This is a proof that these songs somewhat remained popular for a very long time, or at least known in a form or another.\n\nSome songs also had a bilingual version. For example \"Ja nus hons pris\" written by none other than Richard Lionheart was known both in an old french version as well as provencal one. Only the french version survives today. \nI suggest you to listen to it because it is absolutely beautiful\n_URL_0_\nyou can easily find and english translation of the text via google\n\nTo sum it up: songs widely circulated during the middle ages. They would've been known both by the richs as well as the folks. That doesnt mean english peasants were singing in french, or that they would know exactly the same version as someone living in france or germany. These songs were popularized orally and like every oral art they went through countless variations: in language, performance, minor (and probably major aspects as well) aspects of melody. And so on. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJEZ4ODUuk4"
]
] | |
3223z7 | Why did Texas join the Confederacy? They already had the right to secede peacefully, couldn't they have just done that and avoided involvement in the war? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3223z7/why_did_texas_join_the_confederacy_they_already/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq754qr",
"cq7b1uf"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"Texas had no right of secession. Any concessions to the Republic of Texas made at annexation would have not applied to the state of Texas due to the Supremacy Clause, and *Texas v. White* in 1869 held no such right had existed.",
"Texas never had any special right to secession. [The annexation resolution](_URL_1_) is silent on the matter. It says that Texas may be divided into five states in the future, but all those states would remain in the Union. [The original treaty negotiated by John C. Calhoun](_URL_0_), which failed in the US Senate, prompting the joint resolution, is also silent on the matter.\n\nSo, when Texas was considering secession, it was in the same position as all the other Southern states: secession was legally an open question, with plausible arguments on either side and no definite resolution. Once they seceded, it made perfect sense for them to throw their lot in with the Confederacy, as law and public opinion put them in the exact same boat.\n\nSince then, of course, the legal question has been resolved by force of arms and ratified by the Supreme Court in *Texas v. White* (1869)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp",
"https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/4july1845.html"
]
] | ||
615i5s | why do humans seem to get diseases from bad water more? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/615i5s/eli5_why_do_humans_seem_to_get_diseases_from_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfbuxu3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not totally sure what you mean by this, but standing water is incredibly likely to be home to bacteria and microorganisms that can easily infect humans. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
20kmch | what's the point of spreading malware or viruses? | I don't really understand the purpose of basically just making somebody's computer unusable. Is there something that the creators of the virus are trying to accomplish? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20kmch/eli5_whats_the_point_of_spreading_malware_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg463tp",
"cg473b2",
"cg48i1n"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most viruses are not programmed to destroy your computer, but are supposed to give the creator information about you or, control over your computer. Most DDos attacks consist of thousands of 'infected' computer. A bit like zombies, except these attacks are usually orchestrated from some central place.\nIn the first case they are designed to send back things like banking information.",
"Monetary or power-related interests.",
"There are a few reasons. A lot of malware is created to get information (bank info, account names/passwords, etc.) which can either be used to steal money or that information can be sold to someone who wants to steal money, get revenge, or whatever. Spam is also sent out because some people will fall into its trap and lose money.\nSometimes it's to make a point. If you have control of thousands of computers, you can use them to temporarily crash people's websites, for example.\nA lot of times, it's just to harass and cause people problems. Some people really just like to hurt people and so create viruses to cause them problems."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1q3n5p | what's the difference between a program's source code and the actual program ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q3n5p/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_programs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd8tkai"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"In general, the source code is human-readable (some languages more readable than other) instructions that the computer will follow in order to do something interesting or useful.\n\nWhen you're done writing a program's source code you'll send it to a compiler (a special program) which will turn it into something that a computer processor can \"execute\". In that form it's not really readable by a human, but if the compiler does the job right (and they do), it does exactly what the source code says the program would do."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
53d4l2 | what makes glass transparant? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53d4l2/eli5what_makes_glass_transparant/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7s5cjr",
"d7sc9nd"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"So there are three things that can happen to light when it hits something - it can either be absorbed, reflected, or transmitted.\n\nWhich one will occur depends both upon the material being hit and the frequency of the light doing the hitting.\n\nFor absorption or reflection to occur; this goes back to the idea that electrons exist in discrete energy whole-integer energy levels, you can't have an electron at a half energy level. This means that in order to absorb light, the light has to be carrying the right amount of energy to knock the electron up by whole steps. If the light doesn't have the right amount of energy to do this, the electron won't absorb it.\n\nGlass doesn't absorb visible light because the energy level gap, called a band gap, can't be bridged by the energy that visible light has.\n\nHowever, higher frequency light *does* have enough energy to do this with certain types of glass, which is how they can block ultraviolet light. To UV light, types of glass are opaque.",
"Imagine you're walking through a room and there's a load of tennis balls (electrons) on the floor. You play the part of a photon (a particle of light with a certain amount of energy). And whenever you come across a tennis ball on the floor, you want to pick up that tennis ball and place it on the table next to you, which you do and that's your job done as a photon and you've lost all your energy by moving the electron - you, the photon are absorbed. That's what happens in opaque materials. \n\nNow imagine that instead of a table you have to put those tennis balls up on the highest shelf in the room, but you simply can't do it because they require more energy than you have as a photon to do it, so you don't bother moving any of the tennis balls, you don't lose energy and aren't absorbed, so you pass to the other side of the room with all your energy and exit through the door. That's what happens in transparent materials like glass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
de920x | in movies and tv, people strangle other people until they go unconscious and then they're dead forever...but that's not realistic is it? | I think your brain needs to be without blood or oxygen for a few minutes in order to actually die. I could be wrong. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/de920x/eli5_in_movies_and_tv_people_strangle_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"f2tiaf7",
"f2tjwxh",
"f2tk0qo"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"You are correct.\n\nI do jiu jitsu regularly. I've been choked unconscious many times. I've choked people unconscious many times. You like go after a couple seconds and they wake right up and think they're in the moment that they went out.\n\nto my knowledge no long-term damage has been recorded from a short wind or blood choke.\n\nTo kill someone you have to strangle them to the point that no oxygen can make it to the brain or heart. That indeed takes several minutes",
"So, if you do a choke 'correctly' (in the martial arts sense), it won't cause long term damage and the other person will recover right away. But the key word there is 'correctly'. If you choke someone in the *wrong* way, you can break their esophagus (not good, but not fatal), rupture their carotid arteries (very very bad and eventually fatal) or simply break their neck (extremely bad, often almost immediately fatal). This doesn't happen 100% of the time, but having someone die from being strangled to the point of unconsciousness by an untrained killer isn't terribly implausible.",
"For movie effect they speed it up. But one would have to continue after unconsciousness hits. \n\nIf u follow the rules of 3, 3min without air (unless you train for diving and learn to hold up to 15 min but most ppl dont) 3 days without water 3 weeks without food."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5r5qyy | Why is the moon moving a centimeter away every year? without any exterior source of energy? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5r5qyy/why_is_the_moon_moving_a_centimeter_away_every/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4rpqt",
"dd4rule"
],
"score": [
4,
9
],
"text": [
"You can read about this [here](_URL_0_) and [here](_URL_1_).",
"It has an exterior source of energy: Earth. The tides cause drag as they move around, or more accurately Earth causes drag as it moves under the tides. This causes Earth to slow down and the moon to speed up. Which also raises the moon to a higher orbit so it ends up going slower in the end."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/37-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-and-the-earth/111-is-the-moon-moving-away-from-the-earth-when-was-this-discovered-intermediate",
"http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12311119"
],
[]
] | ||
2vbfkl | Are they really using HIV to treat cancer or is that misleading? | EDIT2: I'd like to apologize for the wording of the question. Reading it now, I see how badly worded it is. In a way, it's kind of both (if I've understood the explanations). Rather, it can be misunderstood (so, not necessarily purposely misleading), but HIV is being used in a way (not a ["a normal/'wild type' HIV virus"](_URL_4_)). However, a better wording is ["they used a highly modified retrovirus to deliver genetic material to T-cells"](_URL_1_) and ["No form of virus is injected into the patient at any time"](_URL_3_).
See comment section for more detail.
/EDIT2
There are all types of sites that seem to say that HIV is used to cure cancer (such as [this site](_URL_5_)) and then there is [Cancer Research UK (article: *No, doctors did not “inject HIV into a dying girl” to treat her cancer*)](_URL_2_) which seems reliable, but I would like the opinion of experts as maybe this is just one case, and they actually are using HIV to treat even though that might seem off to me. Is HIV being used or is that misleading?
Also from the same site, [an article about how it's not exactly measles that is being used to help cure cancer](_URL_0_) which points out how it's not really measles or the vaccine that is being used. Assuming the site is a good site to get information, this seems like a common problem with the general public. Do any professionals have to deal with this or realize how much misinformation there is out there? What ways is there to counter mainstream media misinformation (this might be a question for another forum though)?
I bring this up, because I am currently going back and forth with a user about this and want to make sure that I'm not backing incorrect information.
Thank you.
EDIT1: This post was started due to a comment by /r/stoned_shaman which I didn't submit with the post, because I thought it wouldn't really be relevant. However, in some discussions it has become relevant, so I'm posting it here:
> Nope, human immunodeficiency virus actually. They're using viruses like HIV to kill cancer cells and there's good results from this! So if cancer is going to fuck you just get the oul HIV to kill it. The down side is you have HIV, but thats manageable and hey, your alive!
I should point out that I don't think /r/stoned_shaman actually believes this anymore as they were following this thread. However, I want to point out what the perception is for some people when they read of this type of treatment. I don't exactly know what I thought before this point, but I think it was close to the same (the virus in full, but disabled somehow... I didn't really think about it), but when it was spelled out the way it was put (the treated person actually gets HIV) something didn't seem right, so I looked it up. Then I posted this thread. /EDIT1 | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2vbfkl/are_they_really_using_hiv_to_treat_cancer_or_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cog7z4d",
"cog7zmh",
"cog7zqk",
"cog85ev",
"cog9q4s",
"cogap4h",
"cogh9ux"
],
"score": [
98,
6,
3,
28,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, they're not using what you might call a normal/'wild type' HIV virus. However the genetically-modified, therapeutic virus vector is derived from HIV. Same for the measles-based vector, etc.\n\nHaving said that, there are recorded cases where other viral infections have been associated with cancer remission, but that's not what these headlines are talking about (and I don't believe it's ever been recorded with HIV).",
"No, what's happening is a process called \"modified T-cell treatment\". This is outside of my area of expertise, so someone can correct me on the particulars, but the basics goes like this:\n\n* Harvest T-cells from patient\n* Genetically Modify T-cells (here's where the virus comes in, it's much easier to use a virus that is \"designed\" to successfully introduce genetic material into the type of cell you want, so HIV is an obvious candidate. You take genetically Modified HIV and use that as your transfection tool rather than something with a far lower success rate, like electroporation).\n* Re-introduce T-cells which now recognize the cancer\n* T-cells kill cancer\n\nThis is typically only used for early-stage cancers at this point (again, as far as I'm aware), because additional mutations makes targeting difficult.\n\nAs for your broader question the answer is this: Every field of science deals with simplifications in Journalism. Unfortunately, fantastical headlines draw clicks, even when they're not strictly true. And it's a really unfortunate fate for a revolutionary technology that people are \"let down\" when it's not as fantastical as they were promised. Think about it! This process involves:\n\n* harvesting T-cells and keeping them alive\n* transfecting genetic information into that same T-cell, using a genetically engineered virus based in part on a different virus that can be really dangerous!\n\nHow crazy is that!? Science, man...coolest shit.",
"The HIV virus is a unique virus that replicates itself by injecting its genetic code into the host DNA, [a retrovirus](_URL_0_). Additionally, it's one of the most studied viruses. \n\nThis combination makes it the perfect framework for experimenting with gene therapy. Researchers can basically gut the virus, and modify it to inject different DNA strands chosen by the researchers. \n\nAt this point, it's really not HIV anymore, it's a glorified, nano scale DNA syringe. The virus is being used as a highly modified tool. ",
"The doctors did not straight up inject the patient with wild-type HIV. Instead, they used a highly modified retrovirus to deliver genetic material to T-cells.\n\nHere's the simplified story:\n\nThe patient was suffering from leukemia, or cancerous B cells. Now, the highly experimental treatment that the doctors wanted to try is to reprogram T-cells (immune cells that have the ability to kill other cells) to target the rogue B cells. To reprogram the T-cells, they needed a way of delivering specific genes. How did they do this? They modified HIV, something that nature has already designed to efficiently deliver genetic material into T-cells.\n\nThe changed the virus by 1) removing genes critical for spreading and killing cells and 2) adding a gene that will reprogram T-cells to attack B-cells. What you end up with is what we call a gene delivery vector in the field. Hope that answers your question. It was once HIV, but now it's non-pathogenic while still being able to deliver any gene we want it to.",
"I work in science communications at Penn, where the research you're referring to is being conducted, so I've had a first hand view of how information about this therapy is disseminated and handled by the media and the public. I don't work with the June team directly, but I work closely with the people who do, and have personally been involved in some of the public-facing descriptions of the research. \n\nIn that sense, I can't speak to the facts about immunology, but I can weigh in on the framing of this research in the media. \n\nAs others in the thread have said, it hinges on whether \"using HIV\" is a sufficient stand-in for \"using an HIV-derived vector.\" I think it is, as you do need to \"use HIV\" to get the vector ultimately employed in modifying the T-cells, and because if you understand how HIV works as a disease, you have a leg up in understanding one of the mechanisms behind this therapy. \n\nThe critical article you linked to has some valid criticisms of the Upworthy headline — they do not directly inject the virus into the patients at all, which is what they corrected — but I think it is a little too doctrinaire in insisting that \"using HIV\" is inherently misleading. \n\nAs for why this misinformation spreads, it's like a game of telephone, or copying a copy. In the case of the Cancer UK article, they are covering Upworthy's coverage of a short film, which was essentially covering earlier news articles about the research, which were covering a press release my colleagues put out, which was covering a journal article the researchers published. Each step gets further away from the source material, so it's not surprising when errors creep in. Especially as the further you go back, the more a quantity-over-quality business model takes over. ",
"The research I'm aware of has been using a modified HIV virus, inside of another nano-particle. The nano-particle can attach to receptors on only cancer cells - or be engineered to so that it is absorbed when the HIV virus is then released. I know someone who was related to the research saying it was phenomenally effective, although they were having trouble getting funding because... HIV. Sounds like it might be different now. I didn't read this, and only heard it from a trustworthy source, so I can't offer any more citations than that unfortunately.",
"I think we all get the idea that it's not full-on HIV that they're using, but there's a follow-up question I have about this: What happened to the patients who took this treatment but were NOT cured? (31 out of 59 were cured) Why didn't it work on them?\nThis story is trending now partly because Shane Smith (owner of VICE) [re-tweeted a story](_URL_0_) about the modified HIV treatment on Jan 18th. He was so impressed with this experimental treatment that he's dedicating the up-coming [season preview](_URL_1_) of the show to experimental cures, including the HIV treatment. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/05/16/could-measles-cure-cancer-uh-not-exactly/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2vbfkl/are_they_really_using_hiv_to_treat_cancer_or_is/cog85ev",
"http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/06/25/no-doctors-did-not-inject-hiv-into-a-dying-girl-to-tr... | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://twitter.com/matthewkray/status/556832500660862976",
"http://www.vice.com/read/watch-vice-on-hbos-special-report-on-killing-cancer-217"
]
] | |
bm36qa | how do animals(?) that hatch from eggs grow? | Animals(?) that hatch from eggs - how do they get nutrients etc to grow while still inside the egg..? is everything they need built into the eggshell and over the time of their development they soak in(?) all the stuff inside the egg needed to grow/hatch? and once they use them all up, they hatch?
& #x200B;
^(the question marks indicate I have no idea what the correct terms are!) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bm36qa/eli5_how_do_animals_that_hatch_from_eggs_grow/ | {
"a_id": [
"emtl984"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Hello! I'm a biologist, and I used to study specifically the early development of chickens (as a model to see how brains and spines form).\n\nFirstly, yes, all the nutrients the embryo will need are packed in the egg. But the embryo is *not* the yolk. The yolk and the white are two different kinds of food, with two different purposes. \n\nAn egg yolk is surrounded by two little bags (membranes). The embryo actually lives sandwiched between these layers. In egg-laying animals, an embryonic heart develops really really early. In the first 3 days, the heart is almost the same size as the whole rest of the embryo.\n\nNext, blood vessels will form around around the yolk, still inbetween the two yolk sacs. This allows the embryo to absorb nutrients evenly from the whole yolk. It absorbs the yolk first for two reasons. First, the nutrients an early embryo needs are not the same as an older embryo, and the yolk mixture reflects this.\n\nSecond, the egg white also has a second job: it protects the embryo. Egg white is slightly jelly-like, and acts like a cushion. It's also full of little immune particles from the mother that help ward off germs, on the off chance something makes it through the shell and outer membrane. Usually this doesn't happen, and the baby chick will keep these immune particles to protect itself when it's just hatched.\n\nOnce all the white is used up, if everything has gone well, the chick will get an instinct to peck at the egg."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7z0ghd | How were poor peasant farmers in 17th century Europe convinced to adopt the four-field crop rotation system? | How were poor peasant farmers in 17th century Europe convinced to adopt the four-field crop rotation system?
Was there communication between peasants? Did the state teach peasants the new technique to improve yields? Were peasants suspicious of changing centuries old techniques?
Thanks | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7z0ghd/how_were_poor_peasant_farmers_in_17th_century/ | {
"a_id": [
"dulsupj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"First, I presume you are referring to Norfolk system of wheat , turnips , barley and clover. There's a certain strain of the history of the industrial revolution that focuses on the contributions of a few great men. One think to keep in mind is that farmers across England and the low countries were experimenting with new forms of crop rotation, animal breeding, news ploughs etc. Peasants and small farmers were constantly innovating and not just having innovation communicated at them. \n\nFirst, there was a strong tradition of rural touring. Many would spend months of time touring the countryside looking into the best farming practices. They would write up their reports, and converse with farmers spreading new technologies and ideas throughout England. There was also a class of professional surveyors, often farmers themselves, who would allow landowners to pressure tenants into adopting the latest technologies. The 17th and 18th centuries also had widespread literacy (I'm blanking on the exact numbers but male literacy rates were I believe around 40%). Farmers also set up societies and groups to promote progressive farming within their communities, and it was fairly common for farmers to send sons from backwards regions to more advanced regions for training and apprenticeship. Government involvement however, was fairly limited as far as agricultural extension is concerned. The following paper should go into much more detail than I have time to right now.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAs far as peasant attitudes at the time, it's hard to say. That said, my area of expertise lays more in modern agricultural history, and from my experience modern poor farmers are surprisingly willing to adopt novel technologies and crops so long as there is a good supportive environment. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jules_Pretty/publication/248777018_Farmers%27_extension_practice_and_technology_adaptation_Agricultural_revolution_in_17-19th_century_Britain/links/557c4e8008aec87640db4c89/Farmers-extension-practice-and-technology-adaptation-Agricultural-revolution-in-17-19th-century-Bri... | |
3bvggs | What was the fallout like after the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia? | Since the ruling on Obergefell v Hodges, some counties have refused to issue any marriage licenses, politicians are calling the Supreme Court an unnecessary institution, and many conservatives are worried about religious freedom. Was there a similar reaction when the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage? What was the reaction of conservatives or Southern states w/ Jim Crow laws? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bvggs/what_was_the_fallout_like_after_the_scotus_ruling/ | {
"a_id": [
"cspuucq",
"csq11nx",
"csqzpnt"
],
"score": [
88,
54,
6
],
"text": [
"Just a preemptive heads-up for everyone: keep this discussion confined to the topic of the public response to the *Loving v Virginia* decision. If you're unfamiliar with our [subreddit rules](_URL_0_), take a look at them. In particular, do not bring current events into your answers and do not rely solely on links to Wikipedia and other websites. We expect responders to be knowledgeable about the topic in their own right, not just serving as a replacement for a Google search. ",
"Are you asking about the popular reaction, the reaction among politicians/opinion leaders, or the reaction among jurists and law historians/commentators?",
"I was really hoping to find a good answer in this thread, and given the number of upvotes, I'm not the only one.\n\nSo, I decided to do a little of my own research. I only found one concrete item (I also found anecdotal reports indicating the reaction was mostly \"meh\" in the north.):\n\nThe Loving v. Virginia decision was handed down on June 12, 1967. In 1970, a white man and black woman (Louis Voyer and Phyllis Bett) attempted to get a marriage license in Alabama, and were denied on the basis that it \"would be against state law\" [source](_URL_0_;). According to the source, it appears they were not given a more specific reason, but the argument of the judge writing this opinion was that, given any other technicality preventing their obtaining a license, the clerk would have offered additional instructions (providing proof of age, residency, etc.), but the clerk offered no additional instruction. The couple actually got married in a neighboring state and returned to Alabama after consulting with a legal assistance office, which also put the lawsuit in motion - interestingly with the US as plaintiff, and not the couple. There's an interesting bit of information in the source about the United States' compelling interest in enforcing its own court decisions.\n\nLike I said, I'd be interested in looking up newspaper editorials (or letters to the editor) from that time in southern newspapers, since that's probably where you'd find the most \"meat\" of the reaction. Without a 24/7 news cycle, that's where a lot of the reaction would have played out.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules"
],
[],
[
"https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4101369272554922509&"
]
] | |
4htnfp | why is it that the alarm always goes off right before the highlight of our dreams? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4htnfp/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_alarm_always_goes_off/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2s8cu4",
"d2s8yhh",
"d2s8z2s",
"d2s9qfj"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. We only recall that it does because we're woken up in the middle of a disturbed state.\n\nSleep isn't a single state. Avoiding a lot of complexity here, our brains slip in and out of various periods of light sleep and deep sleep and dreaming sleep as the full night passes. \n\nSome people have intense dreams a lot more than others, and some people are much better at remembering their dreams than others. But for a lot of us, when the alarm interrupts a dream in a suspenseful moment, we have a tendency to remember it because it's so shocking and jarring. That shock causes our brain to record a memory of the dream as we return to consciousness.\n\nThe other dreams that we might have had in an earlier dreaming cycle often simply get forgotten because they were never really \"written down\" into the memory storage area - they successfully ended and our brains moved on into the next sleep cycle. So we REALLY remember the one that we woke up with by comparison.",
"This has already been answered really well over here _URL_0_\n\nThe user's account stands deleted, but the answer is very detailed.\n\nTLDR: your brain creates a false belief that you had just experienced whatever fucked up narrative you remember. It doesn't run it all through in that order when you wake up, it just convinces you that that shit just happened in that order, and just gives you the memory of that countdown, or fall from building, or whatev.\n",
"If you are able to realize that is a highlight you are already semi conscious, that realization might just make you completely conscious i.e. awake. \n\nBut you probably had many such highlights you just slept through without realizing it, so it's sort of because you woke up this time that you consider it a highlight that woke you up. Observation bias.",
"Also, you don't dream in real time. A dream that feels long might only take a few seconds in real time. It may even be that the alarm triggers the dream in the first place, and you experience the whole dream in the process of waking up! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1spvk4/eli5_why_does_it_always_seem_that_my_alarm_or/ce02g5b"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
6bwkz4 | what does it mean when software is open source? how come others can't just look at the coding of closed source software? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bwkz4/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_software_is_open/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhq19eh",
"dhq2o67",
"dhq37xn",
"dhq57wb"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
5,
37
],
"text": [
"Closed source software doesn't release its source code. It is possible - with some exceptions and caveats - to reverse engineer a lot of software from its compiled binaries (not human readible, but 1's and 0's that only the computer can read) but generally that's not worth the effort unless you're trying to decipher google page rank or stock trading algorithms to make a lot of money. \n\nOpen source software is released with its source code, which is made available under one of several open source licenses, which dictate its use and under what conditions a) you have to disclose that you're using open source software, b) you have to also include or reference its source, or c) any number of other conditions in exchange for your \"free\" use.",
"The key word here isn't \"open\" or \"closed,\" it's \"source.\"\n\nSource code is readable, logical, full of structure and flow. But the computer doesn't run that (well, it does if the language is *scripted* or *interpreted*, but those have huge tradeoffs). The source code is *compiled* into a program that your computer can run directly.\n\n**Almost all of the content of the source code is thrown out, when compiling. It's there to direct the compiler in making a finished product, not to be *part* of the finished product**.\n\nSo you can take the finished product and try to reverse it back into source code, but there's not much left to work with.\n\nIn Open Source software, you can see that original source code, and work with it. In Closed Source software, you only get the compiled bit. They keep the code private.",
"Source code is what software is initially written in by a human programmer. The programmer selects a language (or, in some cases, multiple languages) and uses it to create the source code of the program. Depending on the language used and the skill of the programmer, the source code could be very easily readable by a programmer, or it could be nearly impossible. Most software source code lies somewhere in between.\n\nThis source code represents the logic of the program, but it can't be \"run\" directly. Another program needs to either compile or interpret it. Compilation is the process of turning source code into byte/machine code, which the hardware knows how to run. Interpretation is the process of reading through source code and converting the source code instructions into into a running program \"on the fly\". Programming languages are often, at a high level, divided into \"compiled languages\" (like C, C++, or Java) and \"interpreted (or scripting) languages\" (like JavaScript, python, ruby, perl) depending on which route is used.\n\nFor (closed-source) compiled apps, only the byte/machine code is distributed. There is no deterministic method of reversing the compilation process back to get the original source code. There are many reasons for this but two stand out:\n\n1. Optimization. The compiler is much smarter than human programmers so when it compiles the code, it makes changes to the actual logic. This produces the same result that the programmer intended, but performs the task much more efficiently so that the code runs faster, uses less memory, or both, compared to what the programmer actually wrote\n\n2. There's More Than One Way To Do It. Programming languages are much more verbose than machine code. There could be thousands (or even infinite) ways to write the same program in a given high level language, that all compile to the same machine code. There would be no way to know which one of those alternatives was intended, given the machine code, so reversal is impossible.\n\nOn the other hand, for interpreted code, the source code is generally what's distributed, because there is no intermediary phase of compiling to machine code. Most developers of such software stick to an open source model for this reason, but for others, there are alternatives, such as obfuscation (turning source code into intentionally less-readable source code prior to distribution).\n\nEditing to add: one of the big reasons why source code is verbose and machine code is not is that in source code (for most useful real-world languages, anyway), things have names: variables, constants, functions, classes... all of these things are named (hopefully) to indicate what they're for, what they do, what they mean. When the source is converted to machine code, all of this naming is automatically lost. In the machine code, all those things only have numeric addresses -- there's no context of what things mean. The same thing can be accomplished through obfuscation: change every variable name to vNNNNN and every function to fNNNNN and your code will be nearly uninterpretable (to humans) without any change to its meaning to the computer.",
"Think of software as a delicious cake. Think of source code as the recipe for the cake.\n\nFor both open source and closed source software, you get to eat the cake.\n\nFor open source, the recipe is available to you.\nFor closed source, the recipe is a secret kept by the people who sold the cake.\n\nYou can take a closed source cake and attempt to figure out a recipe from it, but you don't really get the recipe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1pyzz1 | How did the anniversary of the execution of Guy Fawkes & co become a national night of festivity in the UK? | Was this encouraged by the government at the time? Was it a popular movement? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pyzz1/how_did_the_anniversary_of_the_execution_of_guy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd7qev7",
"cd7xw7e"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Point of fact: 5 November was *not* the date of execution. The Gunpowder Plot leaders were executed later; Fawkes on 31 January 1606. 5 November 1605 is the date they were *arrested* and the plot foiled. The celebrations may have had some spontaneous content but were helped along by the [Observance of 5th November Act](_URL_0_) of 1606, stipulating an annual day of thanks for the defeat of the plot. The early episodes seem to have involved a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment and occasionally the lighting off of explosives, and although the former does not exactly bring out the drunken festivities, the latter can.\n\ntl,dr: It's not just a good idea, *it's the law!*",
"Agreed with /u/khosikulu as to the dates and the Observance Act. I'll add that it was considered a *holy day* initially.\n\nI will qualify the *it's the law* aspect. It was adopted very slowly and unevenly: Pitstone Green didn't pick it up till 1607/8, and Chetton in Shropshire observed the wrong date, and as far as we can tell, most parishes didn't get going with it until well in the 1610s. By the mid 1620s it is firmly established in every part of England, and in some towns, corporations provided music and artillery salutes to accompany the bonfires and fireworks.\n\nAfter Charles I's ascension and subsequent marriage to Henrietta Maria (a Catholic), the celebration became even more fervent and pointed, and we see the resurrection of Queen Elizabeth's Day. Somewhere around 1625-40 it actually becomes 'Bonfire Night' in some places, and people began to burn images of the Pope (still done today in some parts of Sussex) and the Devil, and the event was accompanied with psalms and prayers. \n\nThe English Civil War/Interregnum saw the practice continue and even greater penetration of the English countryside of the concept (although one notable exception practiced it on the 1st of November for 6 years before catching up). \n\nAfter the Restoration it continued to be the most popular political event of the year. Samuel Pepys reports seeing young boys flinging crackers in the streets, and noted in 1664 that the smoke from the bonfires was so great that coaches couldn't pass. During the 1670s, the anti-Catholic message resurged as James II converted, and Londoners regularly burned effigies of the Pope. The government attempted to crack down a bit on this sort of thing, banning bonfires and fireworks.\n\nOnce William of Orange invaded, the old anti-Catholicism came back officially and the practice flared up again, with at least 57% of parishes (who left records) paying for Gunpowder Treason Day festivities. There was some concern however, about the flammability of the nation, as fireworks and bonfires were banned - for safety reasons this time, not for political ones as under James II.\n\nEnthusiasm wanes in the 1800s for a number of reasons, perhaps most prominently because of the sheer number of new holidays and celebrations brought about by the Hanoverian dynasty, but there was also the seeds of disapproval about the misbehaviour that the festival brought, from the throwing of fireworks around, to outright rioting in Lewes. As official support waned, the emergence of the 'Bonfire Boys' begins to wax. These were masked and costumed young men, mostly middle class, who acted as a form of charivari in the community. It wasn't just them either, as sometimes crowds would mask up and express their discontent by throwing stones and fireworks at their employer's houses, or as in Bethnal Green in London, the crowd there paraded the effigy of a police spy through the streets, beheaded it, and then burned the body. This obviously couldn't be allowed, and from the mid 1800s, there is a clampdown on street fires, flaming-tar-barrel-rolling\n etc.,\n\nThere is a removal of the legal basis for the celebrations in the 1800s as well, as the Tories didn't like the eulogising of a revolution, and the Liberals didn't like the abuse of the Roman Catholics. Queen Victoria also felt the Catholics had a point when referencing the language used against them. By 1858, Earl Stanhope requested officially that the Queen abolish the forms of prayer for the day as they were both politically obsolete and unfair to Catholics, a position supported by both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, and by March 1859, Parliament repealed the statute. Celebrations were now left to your own initiative.\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observance_of_5th_November_Act_1605"
],
[]
] | |
1kj47x | At what point did flight overtake the sea in regards to intercontinental travel? | I'm only guessing here, but I figure that during the 20th century, travel by ship from one part of the world to another must have been declining in favor of airplanes, but when did this task finally bow to flight, and how did ship lines adapt?
Bonus question, does anyone know if it is even still possible to take a ship from one continent to another today? I have to admit, the idea is a little enthralling... | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kj47x/at_what_point_did_flight_overtake_the_sea_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbphjz0"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"1957 was the first year more people flew across the North Atlantic, than went by sea. Source: John Maxton Graham \"The only way to cross\". Cunard still offers a limited number of voyages between Southampton and New York City on their ship the Queen Mary II, each year. These trips are not weekly occurances like they were in the mid 1950s. Some container ships have very limited space for passengers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
328cab | what causes revolutions? how bad do things have to get before such a large number of people agree on how bad things are and come together to fix it? | We hear politicians make promises during their campaigns, yet it seems that even though hardly any of those promises are kept, people don't really hold them accountable. However, there obviously have been times when the people get fed up enough and start a revolution. How come something like this hasn't happened to hold politicians accountable for their promises? How bad does it have to get? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/328cab/eli5_what_causes_revolutions_how_bad_do_things/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq8tbx7",
"cq8vwrm",
"cq8wyx3",
"cq8wzd2",
"cq8x4vq",
"cq8xlig",
"cq8xpjt",
"cq8yhh4",
"cq90u5i",
"cq912e9",
"cq919wf",
"cq91mvb",
"cq93ehg",
"cq941ob",
"cq95tam",
"cq95yqt",
"cq96dgk",
"cq96tp1",
"cq96x08",
"cq97p18",
"cq97zq4",
"cq98oz3",
"cq9943d",
"cq9amfa",
"cq9bdsj",
"cq9g6ot",
"cq9hqoc",
"cq9lfzt",
"cq9lzlo",
"cq9n4pn"
],
"score": [
112,
3,
23,
5,
102,
2,
80,
7,
4,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
5,
2,
3,
8,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"One big condition is common knowledge. In many cases, each individual feels that things are rotten, but worries that they are the only ones who feel that way. It's when something big happens that makes everyone realize the majority feels things are rotten that a lot can get done.",
"So a revolution is generally described as the complete or almost complete replacement of a nations institutions of order. Every single time we have seen it happen it has been the result of two things. The first being profound incompetence and weakness in the government and the second being intense, concentrated hatred of the government from some portion of the population. \n\nIt takes a lot more than shitty individual politicians to cause a revolution. A revolution is easily among the worst possible things a society or a nation can be subject to, and every single revolution we have seen has created an environment that produces an enormous number of human rights abuses, mostly directed at the most innocent. ",
"According to Lenin there are three major factors contributing to feasibility of revolution:\n\n- Tops can not govern in the old way - the inability of the ruling class to keep intact its rule ;\n- Lower classes do not want to live in the old way - a sharp aggravation of higher than normal and misery of the oppressed classes and their desire to change their lives for the better ;\n- A significant increase in the activity of the masses, drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis , and by the \" upper classes\" into independent historical action.\n\nYou also need a party: a group of charismatic individuals, who drives it. ",
"Listen to Mike Duncan's revolutions podcast. They happen for any number of reasons, and the story is rewritten every generation to better fit the current socio-political agenda.",
"You have clean water. You have a hospital service that will save your life if you have an easily treatable injury or illness (even if that does put you in horrible debt). You have guaranteed access to food. \n\nYou have freedom of speech, at least to the extent that you can hop online and openly call for revolution without a realistic fear of imprisonment. You have freedom to practice any religion you want, to the point where people argue over fucking cakes as if it's the most important thing in the world. The very idea that a gay couple wouldn't get a cake from a specific baker for their wedding, vs the religious rights of that said baker is a national debate. Tons of other places the answer would be 'tough shit' to either or both sides of the debate, but in the US, the very question crucial. That's how fucking serious freedom is to the US.\n\nThere are various welfare systems in place, and even though many people suffer from mental illness, or other circumstances that render them homeless, there is a state sponsored army of people doing their best to prevent that. \n\nExcept for the worst neighbourhoods, virtually everywhere in the US it's safe enough to walk down the street without being robbed or raped or murdered for no reason.\n\nThe US is ranked 5th on the human development index out of all countries. In median wealth, it's not stunning, sitting between 25-30th, but still pretty good on the grand spectrum of the 190 some odd countries in the world (also worth noting that none of the countries above the U.S. have a population larger than 100M, while the U.S. has > 300 M. The next closest 100M population country is Mexico with less than 1/4 the median wealth).\n\nLife in the US on a relative global scale is *awesome*. I say this as not American and I have never lived in the states.\n\nLife during and after a violent revolution is *shit*. War is fucking awful. Most revolutions end with periods of chaos, and widespread death for everyone. No more clean water, electricity, food, safety, houses. And it doesn't even mean that things get better afterwards. It could easily mean that some dictator takes power and everything stays shitty.\n\nA revolution in the US, or really any other English speaking western country, would be fucking terrible. \n\nEdit: Or anywhere for that matter. It's hard to imagine a violent revolution that wouldn't be terrible.",
"If we are looking at this from a purely historical POV revolutions tend to happen after a series of repeatedly negative or bad things. \n\nJohn Locke addresses this in his [\"Second Treatise on Government\"] (_URL_0_) --\n\n\"such Revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in publick affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient Laws, and all the slips of humane frailty will be born by the People, without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of Abuses, Prevarications, and Artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the People, and they cannot but feel, what they lie under, and see, whither they are going; 'tis not to be wonder'd, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which Government was at first erected. . .\"\n\n**TL:DR** Minor mistakes by government are bearable. We can put up with a lot of shit, but eventually if government continues to be crappy a revolution happens.\n\nSo, I guess government hasn't screwed up enough yet for there to be a revolution.\n\n*Source: I teach college-level history*\n\n[Edit] grammars and adding the rest of Locke's quote.",
"People know that they're probably going to die if they go up against a modern government, so things have to be so bad that they'd rather risk dying than living under the current rule.",
"There's a theory called the \"revolution of rising expectations\". It says that when the standard of living improves, expectations will rise as a result. If those expectations go unfulfilled, revolution will follow. In the words of James Chowning Davies:\n\n > Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. People then subjectively fear that ground gained with great effort will be quite lost; their mood becomes revolutionary.\n\nAccording to this interpretation, it's not so much a question of \"how bad things have to get\", but rather things not getting better fast enough.",
" > What causes revolutions? \n\nForeign influence.\n\n\nIf you dig deep enough, you'll find that almost every single revolution was made possible by foreign financing and/or with the covert use of foreign agents on the front lines of the angry crowds of locals.\n\n\nThe biggest and the most dramatic example (as far as the effect on the overall world history goes) is the Russian revolution of 1917. Lenin was financed by Germany to overthrow Russian tsar's regime to get Russia to withdraw its participation in WW1. So it was done for the benefit of Germany while fucking the Russian people in the process for decades after.\n\n\nThe latest example is, well, Ukraine. With \"students\" and \"office managers\" who were surprisingly proficient at making Molotov cocktails and employing group tactics of attacking armored vehicles at just the right time. It's probably safe to say the Ukrainian people are now fucked. As for who derives the benefit, well, we'll see.\n\n\nAnd a good example of what happens when there is no foreign involvement is: Occupy Wall Street. Nobody agitated the angry crowd. Nobody gave them the tools and taught them the tactics and means to engage the cops. Nobody \"steered\" the crowd from the inside to escalate the situation. And so there was no revolution as a result. Just a bunch of pissed off people who dispersed eventually. Thank God FBI, CIA, NSA did their job right and made sure no foreign agents were able to turn a protest into a war, forcing the government's hand and escalating it past the point of no (peaceful) return.\n\n",
" Revolutions are often financed by the very people being revolted against. So they can control their opposition and retain power through another name.\n\n In the French Revolution it was high finance rebelling against the crown for control of the money supply. The little people were just led to the target and thus became the bitches of debt money instead of the monarchy.",
"A full-on revolution never happens until the middle-class, middle-aged, parents of young children are willing/forced to stand up and join a revolution that will put both themselves and their families in danger, be the reason economic, social, religious, or whatever. Most people in this situation will do nearly anything to avoid risking the safety of themselves and especially their families (read: living under a harsh regime, bad government policies, etc). So joining a revolution that will almost certainly cause civil unrest, chaos, and a terrible environment to raise a child is a bad choice. It's a bad choice until it is perceived as the only choice.",
"People are always trying to have some kind of a resistance, even in America. It Just keeps getting worse until enough people come together and overthrow the government",
"**TL;DR If people have it good, losing an election is good enough accountability for them.**\n\nThis is actually something that's talked about a lot by historians and political scientists. As an ELI5 though there are a lot of different explanations for what causes a revolution:\n\n- Not enough food or things that people need.\n- Ideology. People get a new idea about how society should be run. They feel the best way to do this is by rebelling.\n- Reaction to oppression. Some people in society, either explicitly or indirectly, are oppressed by a dominant group in society. The more oppressed, the more they will want to revolt.\n- A weak, illegitimate government.\n\nThere are many more factors than this, and these are gross simplifications of complicated theories, but a revolution needs some mix of all of them to occur. \n\nWhat you're asking , however, is the context of a democracy in which politicians tend to break promises. Which is all of them, really. It is, essentially, a question of democratic stability; why does a revolution not occur even though politicians arguably lack accountability.\n\nTo explain this, let us take two hypothetical countries, Freedomville and Libertyland. Both are democracies. \n\n**Freedomville** has a long history of democracy. People running for elections accept defeat and will not take arms if they lose, and nor shall their supporters. The country is wealthy, people have equal rights, and while wealth is not perfectly even it isn't bad enough that people can complain too much. People feel as if they share, broadly, a common national identity.\n\n**Libertyland**, in contrast, has only had a democracy in place for one generation. It is poorer, and wealth is distributed unevenly. Its people are far from united; there is no clear ethnic, religious, or ideological group that dominates it.\n\nElection time has come for Freedomville. A charismatic candidate promises that they shall improve the economy, lower taxes, spend more and be your personal driver for a week if you vote for them! The citizens of Freedomville approve of this platform and vote them in. \n\nFive years later, the economy has tanked, taxes rise, spending has been slashed, and nobody has had a free ride at all. People are angry. They vote them out. The politician has lost their power, and thus the citizens are content that they have been held accountable. People are annoyed that they didn't get what they want, but hopefully the next guy will.\n\nLibertylands election cycle rolls around, and one hopeful candidate sees the success of Freedomville's presidential platform. So, they successfully offer the same promises and win the election. But, five years later, the economy has tanked, taxes rise, and spending has been slashed. People question his legitimacy. \n\n\"He's one of 'them', trying to oppress us!\" people from all sections of society cry! People are now starving because of the failed economy. Vital services have not just got worse, but collapsed altogether. People start to take take up arms. One group wins out, declares it a revolution, and a new government is sworn in.\n\nExamples of both have, and do, occur all the time. Simply put, there are many, many factors that make a democracy stable. It is not so much a question of \"how bad does it have to get\", but \"can the country actually function as a democracy at all\". Most people are satisfied that a president losing an election IS justice in and of itself because people believe the democratic system does its job. When revolution is not occurring in a democracy, it is functioning as a system of accountability. \n\nEdit: Formatting",
"According to recent data, food prices: _URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nCountries which import lots of their food (Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc.) are particularly vulnerable. An increase in the cost of bread can drop millions below the poverty line. And when you can't provide enough food for those you love, you become desperate. Millions of desperate people do not make for a stable society. \n\nUnfortunately, most governments are run exclusively by the rich who may not recognize these vulnerabilities. This leads to a 'let them eat cake' attitude that makes revolution much more likely. But the revolution is only a symptom of two larger problems, dependency on imported food and unresponsive governments. ",
"This is a major field of political science, Ted gur's \"why men rebel\" is a classic text. There are many more. A debate in the scholarship exists between \"greed and grievance\" as drivers. Then there's the Marxist theory of revolution, which is another can of worms, Hawbsbawm is pretty good for this. He has a big lit review called \"revolutionaries\". Good luck! It's a massive question.",
"I actually took a class that discussed this at length while in undergrad. I believe my professor was published on the topic.\n\nHis theory was that in today's age it came down to a question of assets. People are only wiling to act in certain circumstances. The general population is often hesitant to ask for change out of fear that even if they succeed at first the likelihood of the revolution having long term success was still small.\n\nHe had an interesting proposition based on this idea. He argued that once a population had a per capita income of over a certain level - he postulated around $6200 a year, they had the ability to start moving assets out of the country in order to protect them from seizure.\n\nHis argument assumed that the government had two basic choices in the face of revolution. Either give some of the allowances the population is asking for, or don't. If they choose the latter, he postulated that if per capita income was above the $6200 USD level, the chances of having a revolution were greatly increased because the population could move its assets out of the country. Thereby crippling the economic stability of the nation and making it so that the government is less likely to be able to maintain control.",
"I'm an American and an obvious layperson when it comes to hardship for an entire country of people. However, from observing the Arab Spring it seems when people's very basic necessities begin to become unattainable, that revolutions become imminent. I'm talking about access to food, communication, shelter, etc.",
"It's never just one thing or even a couple but a bunch of things that influence groups over a long enough time. Some key factors that readily stand out have been mentioned. Things like starvation/ constant invasion usually dont promote popularity for the ruling body. These are sources that played major roles in the french revolution as well as the splitting of the Roman Empire (among many other factors). Quite possibly the next most \"common\" is a revolution based on nationalism, more specifically, nationalism against empirical rule. Since the age of colonial empirial expansion, natives have been displaced and new pioneers and explorers settled in distant lands. Given enough time, the successive generations feel more and more disconnected. Mix in, harsh treatment, seemingly unfair laws, and a big enough crowd...revolution (US revolution/ many colonial revolutions).\n Still a plethera of factors that can/do play roles. Economics, corrupt politicians, disease, religion. These factors work well on their own but do wonders when used in combination with other factors. Ie...you take a man who blames group A for group B's problems, people back the new leader of B. He fixes problems, becomes leader, starts war. \nSo much more to add. Also, I studied chemistry in college. History is a hobby so I suggest talking to a historian!",
"Revolutions happen when there is a large amount of dissent. \nSome examples: \n\nThe Russian Revolution- Citizens under the czar's rule are unhappy with the monarchy and want to embrace equality. As a result, the monarchy is overthrown by the Bolsheviks and Communism is set by Lenin\n\nThe Iranian Revolution- Citizens under the Shah are unhappy because the Shah is too close to western ideas and is secularizing Iran.\n\nThe French Revolution- A king that spends does lavish spending and embezzlement with the country's money and the bourgeois want to overthrow the King to establish a republic.\n\nThe American Revolution- Britain's high taxation on goods cause anger within the 13 colonies.\n\nWhy did I list all those revolutions? To emphasize that most revolutions happen because the government set then are often unstable or unjust.",
"It will take at least 4 more viral illegal police shootings before any thing gets done about that. \n\n",
"Interesting question.\nWhen it comes to political parties, there's always somebody else that can come along to promise to change the bad into the good.\nIf one party is failing, the worst outcome is that party may be abolished or shunned, and people will move to another.\nWithin a representative democracy like the US, any number of parties can form for whatever reason you want.\nAnd when we look back through our presidential history, candidates keep roughly half to 2/3rds of their campaign promises, and only flatly break 15-30%.\nSo the majority, usually around 70% of promises are either kept, or stalled by opposition or a lack of interest (meaning even voters didn't care enough to want it followed through).\n\n\nBut for revolution to occur, it's not enough to simply be displeased with the political party you voted for, because the average citizen can either move to a different one, or ignore politics in general and move on with their lives.\nRevolution requires something far more visceral and immediate to threaten a person into action.\nIt requires some sort of interruption with a person's day-to-day life.\n\nIn the past, most revolutions could be traced all the way back to bread. Loafs of simply bread usually dictated whether a populas would revolt or not. \nThe reason is that only when people were not able to afford their daily bread did they see a reason to change current trends.\nRegardless of how bad things are, as long as the person gets their daily necessities, they will begrudgingly continue with their lives and their jobs. Even through depression and loneliness.\n\nDeprive them of shelter, food, or sleep though, and a person will seek to change their environment.\n\nThe bread nowadays can represent any one of those things.\nIn the American revolution, it may loosely be about taxation without representation, but it was the heavy taxes that the Monarchy attempted to enforce, that would have strangled poor families that couldn't afford it that really set it off.\n\nSome people don't realize it, but for nearly decades the colonies had no representation, and they were happy to simply not pay for many things that were deemed to expensive due to the heavy taxes imposed.\nIt wasn't until the British Parliament attempted to enforce payment through what were called the \"Coercive Acts\", which were punitive and heavy. Doing so interrupted people's quality of life to the point they had enough, and revolted.\n\nBasically, it takes immediate threat to a person's quality of life to propel them to action. Otherwise they'll be content to live under the most extreme of conditions.\n\nIn the US, we are all pretty much well fed and well entertained. Even if that comes in the form of reality TV and fast food. We have our basic human necessities, so don't expect revolution here anytime soon.",
"If you're desperate for a revolution just set up a democratically elected government in Central America and wait for the CIA. ",
"Alot of revolts have occoured over the course of hidtory and I mean ALOT the famous ones are famous simply because they were successful. Hell napoleon put down 4 or 5 Italian revolts in as many years if I recall correctly.",
"A big part of it is what's called cascade preference - - basically, the idea that oppressive regimes spend a lot of time and resources in convincing people that *you're the only one who is unhappy*. Even in the most awful regimes, the government is seriously outnumbered by their own people, but because the people have become convinced that they are part of a small number of people that aren't happy, and I'd they complain, they'll get shouted down by others (and/or arrested/executed). \n\nThis works pretty well right up until the moment that someone breaks the collective bubble, like the child declaring that the emperor has no clothes. Sometimes it's a tiny thing that breaks the illusion (the Arab Spring started because a food vendor had finally had enough of being hassled by the cops for kickbacks and operating fees). Once the authority is challenged and regular people don't step up to help the authorities (or even join in the opposition), everything changes. People realize that they are all unhappy with the government, and that they outnumber them a good 20 to 1 and are willing to take a stand (at which point, lots of government officials will stand down, which makes th cascade even more pronounced). ",
"It sounds like you want to know what causes isolated instances of civil unrest or waves of protest to progress into full blown civil war, wherein the established order or power structure changes. I'll use a couple examples from history, but to synthesize, revolutions occur when moderation fails to yield positive outcomes. The channels that moderates use to advance change, like reforms to the legal system, and political house-cleaning, they have to function or it turns moderates into radicals. Politicians have always mislead the public about their intentions. That doesn't rile enough feathers to abandon a system and replace it with another. Especially true if you live in a place with political plurality. If one party or regime screws you over, they can be replaced. But two things happen that cause discontent to evolve into the kinds of civil strife we tend to associate w/ revolutions. The first is that those channels of civil discourse get repressed, through censorship and violence. This forces the discontent underground, where it can spread very quickly without notice. The second thing that happens is formally moderate people become victims of repression, as the state (or power structure) freaks out and tries to control whatever it can at any cost. Think back to Egypt during the fall of Mubarak. Thugs get sent out into the streets, innocent protesters get beat up, bystanders get hit by rocks and tear gas... This is enough to make people abandon faith in the status quo sorting things out. It makes a revolutionary outcome look not just possible, but necessary. \n\nSo on to my examples from history. In 1905, Russia went through a dry run for the 1917 revolution. While there were elements of Marxism motivating the protests in 1905, a large swath of the populace was sympathetic for other reasons, like lack of food, and negative impacts of the industrial revolution, and aristocratic government w/o representation. Then an Orthodox priest named Father Gappo led a march on an imperial palace to deliver a petition. Peaceful Russians in their Sunday best sang and walked through the streets until they got close to the palace. Imperial guards opened fire on the crowd, killing dozens. This event had the effect of radicalizing scores of moderates. Marxist groups saw their ranks swell afterwards, and even though the 1905 revo did not achieve much, the steam continued to build. WWI worsened social conditions, and the government completely lost control in 1917. \n\nNext, Weimar Germany after WWI. The democratic (moderate) socialist government took power after the fighting stopped. They pushed thru reforms typical of democratic socialist regimes, but fell out of favor quickly after the global economy tanked in 1929. The 1930s were really bad for Germans; between hyper-inflation, war reparations, predatory speculation of commodities, and high tariffs, few were unaffected. The middle class burghers tended to blame the liberal elements in the political system, and promptly got behind the numerous nationalist, fascist, and radical socialist parties active in Germany. And active they were.. Berlin had about 35 daily publications in the 1930s. Eventually, the most appealing party to emerge from this shift was the NSDAP, later known as the Nazi Party. The rise of Nazi fascism is as much a revolution as the rise of Leninist/Stalinist Marxism in Russian. Society was completely re-imagined. \n\nTo conclude, it is essential that civil society has open discourse, and refrains from political repression. The press has a responsibility in that duty. The absence of moderation is dangerous to the social order. It creates a lot of inertia, and it usually knocks over anything capable of slowing it down before *being hijacked by autocrats and power-mongers. ",
"ITT people are failing to realize that a full blown revolution wouldn't be \"civilians get angry and the military stop them\", but more \"civilians get angry and most of the military join them because things are as fucked up for them as they are for everybody\". \n\nPeople are throwing around phrases like \"what about North Korea, they have nothing over there!\", and while that's true, the army over there is, mostly, better off than the common folk (even if it's just by a little, that's enough to differentiate \"us vs them\"). \n\nArmed revolutions are a step above civil wars. ",
"I think the Declaration of Independence explains it perfectly \n\n > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--",
"Revolution in the United States is absolutely possible, should happen and hopefully will in the near future. Will this be a violent revolution? Absolutely not. That's not necessary and probably wouldn't work here anyways.\n\nHere's one example of intellects in this country that are working on making it happen: _URL_0_\n\nFor those that are saying we don't have it that bad, that we have access to water, medical treatment, food, etc. Maybe that's the case with you, but look around. Your small pocket of comfort is not what all Americans experience. Whole towns in CA are without water, about 20% of our children grow up in poverty, not knowing where or if they'll have their next meal. Our medical system, while better than it was a decade ago, is still extremely flawed and caters to those with $. Our young veterans are committing suicide at staggering rates, countless are homeless and our elected officials are more concerned with donors and being re-elected. Our incarceration rate is embarrassing, as is the poverty rate and we are continuously slipping in education when compared to other developed nations. \n\nI love the US, I think it's a great country and I thank Zeus that I was born here...but I know we can do much better and that we owe it to ourselves and our children to strive to fix these problems and not just say it could be worse, it's not that bad, or that there's nothing we can do.",
"The US Declaration of Independence has a pretty specific list of grievances that can cause a revolution.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Traditionally revolutions were caused by starvation, extreme poverty, and plague. Take the French Revolution. The French government went bankrupt from helping to fund the American Revolution, added in with a lot of people starving in the streets of Paris and illness basically provided the fuel for the French Revolution. When Napoleon came into power, he ordered that there be a bakery on every street corner in France (as well as standardizing the bread recipe) to ensure that the populous did not starve and riot (this was also a constant concern from the Roman Emperors too). \n\nThink of the Russian Revolution: There was no parliament, the Czar ruled the country, they had lost the war against the Japanese, and then lost a huge number of men during the First World War before the Revolution took place. There was widespread starvation, protests were forbidden, and people were trapped in a never ending cycle of poverty and starvation. The idea of elections, of people having a vote, of having their voices heard (even when politicians lie through their teeth) still give people a sense of power in a system that wasn't really built for the bureaucracy we have today. If during the economic crash of 2006 there had been wide spread starvation and something like Ebola raging through the countryside, then yeah, revolution probably would have taken place."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s2.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/food-shortages-in-syria-send-prices-soaring-compounding-hunger-problem/2012/12/06/a47af3d4-3f22-11e2-bca3-aadc9... | |
5qmy6v | Are all of the British monarchs related? | Not until recently have I become interested in British Royalty. I'm a bit confused with the whole family tree and I was wondering if all of the kings and queens, from Egbert to Elizabeth II are all related. If not, where did the family tree break off? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5qmy6v/are_all_of_the_british_monarchs_related/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd0jwge"
],
"score": [
131
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure about the Anglo-Saxon kings, but after the Norman Conquest, yes.\n\nWilliam I was related to Edward the Confessor but through Edward's mother--not the usual line of succession.\n\nTwo of William's son became Kings after him: William II (Rufus) and Henry I (who married a princess descended from the Anglo-Saxon kings).\n\nWilliam I's grandson Stephen fought Henry I's daughter Matilda and claimed the throne, but Matilda's son Henry II inherited it from Stephen.\n\nHenry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine and two of their sons were Kings. Richard I (Lionheart) and John.\n\nJohn's son and heir was Henry III, who was father to Edward I (Longshanks).\n\nEdward I was the father of Edward II, who was father to Edward III, who had a passel of sons.\n\nEdward III's eldest son, the Black Prince, predeceased him, so after Edward came his grandson Richard II, who was deposed by his first cousin, Henry IV (son of Edward's third surviving son).\n\nHenry IV's son was Henry V, and his son was Henry VI.\n\nHenry VI was a weak king with mental illness and his reign was challenged by a distant cousin, Richard, Duke of York, who was descended from Edward III's second and fourth sons. This would be the basis of the War of the Roses.\n\nRichard of York was killed in battle, but his eldest son took up the fight and claimed the throne as Edward IV. When he died, he was succeeded by his underage son Edward V, but the boy was deposed by his paternal uncle, Richard III, and disappeared.\n\nRichard lost the throne and his life at the Battle of Bosworth to Henry VII, the first Tudor king. Henry was descended through his mother from Edward III through the third son, although it was considered a very weak claim. He married Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth.\n\nHenry VII and Elizabeth had three children who factor into this. Henry VIII, Margaret, and Mary.\n\nHenry VIII of course was father to Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I. Princess Mary's granddaughter was Jane Grey, the Nine Days Queen, who isn't always on the official list of monarchs.\n\nSince Elizabeth I died without children of her own, the throne passed to James I (VI of Scotland), the first Stuart King. James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, who was in turn the granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's sister.\n\nAfter James came his son Charles I, who was beheaded. About 11 years after that, Charles' son came back to England: Charles II.\n\nCharles II had no legitimate children (but a host of illegitimate ones!) so the throne went to his brother, James II.\n\nPrimarily for religious reasons, James was pushed off the throne, and his place was taken by his daughter and her husband, Mary II and William III. After they died, Mary's sister Anne ruled.\n\n(Side note: James II had a son, best known to history as James Stuart, the Old Pretender, whose son was \"Bonnie Prince Charlie.\" The Jacobite line.)\n\nNone of Queen Anne's children outlived her, causing a bit of a crisis. Parliament was determined to not have a Catholic monarch, which ruled out the Jacobite line. They ended going back to a daughter of James I, who had married into German royalty. This daughter had a daughter, Sophia, who married the Elector of Hanover. Sophia died a couple of months before Anne and her claim passed to her son, George.\n\nGeorge I and his son George II were both born in Hanover and the father, at least, was more involved in his German holdings, and we have the rise of the position of the prime minister.\n\nGeorge II's son died before him, so his grandson George III inherited. \n\nGeorge III too had a number of children, with plenty of sons. But as you may know, his health deteriorated and his mind was affected (\"Mad King George\"). So his eldest son became the Prince Regent (the Regency era) and later George IV.\n\nGeorge IV was married and had a daughter, Charlotte, but she died while giving birth and her child with her, so the throne went to George's brother William IV.\n\nWilliam was another with no legitimate children, so the throne went to his niece, the daughter of George III's fourth son and just barely 18, Victoria. (The Hanoverian territories went to another of George III's sons, because women couldn't inherit them)\n\nAfter Victoria came her son, Edward VII, who was succeeded by his son, George V.\n\nGeorge V's elder son was Edward VIII, he who gave up the throne for love (later known as the Duke of Windsor); it then went to Edward's next brother: George VI, the father of the current Queen.\n\nAfter Elizabeth II, the expected line of succession is Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, and Princess Charlotte."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5zmwcn | why can't they make smartphones that are able to shoot horizontally while holding it vertically? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zmwcn/eli5_why_cant_they_make_smartphones_that_are_able/ | {
"a_id": [
"dezcwqd",
"dezd94g"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"it's technically possible, but more expensive depending how they do it and not worth it because some (horrible) people actually do want to film vertical",
"The sensor chip is physically a rectangle so it's not just a matter that you can fix in software. Well ok you could, at the cost of throwing away half of your pixels. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.