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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4hnjy6 | why do #2 / 2hb pencils work on bubble exams yet others don't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hnjy6/eli5_why_do_2_2hb_pencils_work_on_bubble_exams/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2r1nkp",
"d2r1sf4",
"d2r4257"
],
"score": [
6,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"pencil numbers refer to how hard the material is and thus [how dark](_URL_0_) the mark the pencil makes is. Marks made by pencils other than #2 simply are recorded incorrectly by the machines that read the tests.",
"It's the way the graphite reflects light that assists machines in grading the tests. I can't tell you why #2 mechanical pencils aren't allowed, however. I've used them when the moderator said not to, and they work fine. ",
"In the early days of OMR, only #2 worked but these days, the machines are advanced enough to detect any reasonably dark pencil."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://pencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/lead_grade_swatches-11.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
ecbd8g | How multicultural was the city of Rome during the height of the Empire? | If I went to Rome in, like, 200 CE, would I find a considerable population of people from across the empire? Would there be an Egyptian or a Moor neighborhood, for instance? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ecbd8g/how_multicultural_was_the_city_of_rome_during_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbakyd8",
"fbalky5"
],
"score": [
57,
1081
],
"text": [
"While we wait for an answer, you might find these previous answers about the demographics of ancient Rome by u/Tiako, u/EnclavedMicrostate, and u/XenophonTheAthenian interesting:\n\n* [Did ancient civilizations like Rome or Egypt have immigrant neighborhoods akin to Chinatown or little India?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [How did the different ethnic \"quarters\" in Rome and Constantinople work? Was it like you weren't allowed in there if you weren’t of the right ethnicity, or were they more like Chinatowns in modern cities?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [How would the population/demographics in Ancient Rome be distributed throughout the city? Would we see divisions based on ethnicity like we see in modern American cities?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [What were the neighborhoods of Ancient Rome like?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [What were the demographics of Ancient Rome? Where there ethnic districts? What about prominent black Romans?](_URL_2_)",
"Early imperial Rome was the most multicultural place in the classical world. Probably the chief source of non-Italian immigrants was the slave trade, which brought tens of thousands of captives (mostly of eastern origin) to the capital. But there was also voluntary migration on a very considerable scale - again, if we can trust the comments of xenophobic Roman authors, primarily from the eastern provinces.\n\nThere are many testimonia to the diversity of Rome's population. Both Augustus and Caesar put on public entertainments in multiple languages (Suet., *Caes*. 39; *Aug*. 43). We hear about Rome's Egyptian community (or at least devotees of the Egyptian gods) rioting on several occasions (e.g. Tert., *ad nat*. 1.10). It been estimated, in fact, that as much as 3/4 of imperial Rome's population may have been at least partially descended from slaves / non-Italians.\n\nThe most colorful description of Rome's multicultural makeup (and the most vitriolic demonstration of Roman xenophobia) is Juvenal's Third Satire. Like the rest of the author's works, this should not be assumed to represent Juvenal's, or anyone else's, real views. Its outrage is literary, calculated to reach a Roman elite audience. If nothing else, however, the satire reflects the cosmopolitanism of Rome at the end of the first century CE.\n\nJuvenal begins by castigating the \"Greeks,\" by which he means not only the ethnic Greeks of modern Greece and western Turkey, but also the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Syria and Asia Minor:\n\n\"It is the fact that the city has become Greek, Citizens, that I cannot tolerate; and yet how small the proportion even of the dregs of Greece! Syrian Orontes \\[the river that ran through the great eastern city of Antioch\\] has long since flowed into the Tiber, and brought with it its language, morals, and the crooked harps with the flute-player, and its national tambourines, and girls made to stand for hire at the Circus.\" (60-65)\n\nJuvenal lists a few of the occupations associated with these Greeks: \"grammarian, rhetorician, geometer, painter, trainer, soothsayer, rope-dancer, physician, wizard\" (76-7). He especially resents the \"Greek\" ability to win the favor of the rich and powerful, and so become better-off than native Romans:\n\n\"Shall this \\[Greek\\] fellow take precedence of me in signing his name, and recline pillowed on a more honorable couch than I, though \\[I was\\] imported to Rome by the same wind that brought the plums and figs \\[i.e., am a native Roman\\]?\" (81-3)\n\nJuvenal then hints darkly that the Greeks have the ability to seduce wives and children, before proceeding to a wider-ranging diatribe on the expenses and discomforts of living in Rome. On a similar note, the poet Martial, a rough contemporary of Juvenal, mocks a Roman woman for consorting with immigrants of every ethnicity:\n\n\"You grant your favours, Caelia, to Parthians, to Germans, to Dacians; and despise not the homage of Cilicians and Cappadocians. To you journeys the Egyptian gallant from the city of Alexandria, and the swarthy Indian from the waters of the Eastern Ocean; nor do you shun the embraces of circumcised Jews; nor does the Alan, on his Sarmatic steed, pass by you. How comes it that, though a Roman girl, no attention on the part of a Roman citizen is agreeable to you?\" (7.30)\n\nRome's foreign populations probably did congregate in certain neighborhoods, though there is limited evidence for permanent \"ethnic quarters.\" There was, however, a large Jewish community in Trastevere (Juvenal mentions it in his third satire), where most of the Rome's synagogues (there were at least eleven by the second century CE) seem to have been located. Other communities may have congregated near shrines to their national gods - there was, for example, a concentration of dedications to the gods of Palmyra on the slopes of the Janiculum, which may indicate that a sizable population of Syrians lived nearby. \n\nThe only evidence for an Egyptian neighborhood comes from the mid-second BCE, when the exiled king Ptolemy VI, \"accompanied by only a single eunuch and three slaves\" stayed with an Alexandrian painter in the upper reaches of a Roman insula (Diod. 31.18). \n\nRome, in short, was extremely cosmopolitan, and in many parts of the city (including those that housed most Jews and early Christians) you would have been as likely to hear Greek or Syriac as Latin. Yet despite the cultural prestige of Greek among the Roman elite, Latin culture and literature remained hegemonic. The emperor Claudius once stripped a man of his Roman citizenship because he couldn't speak Latin (Suet., *Claud.* 16.2).\n\nThere is additional information in [my old post](_URL_0_) on ethnic discrimination in Rome, which this answer cheerfully cannibalizes.\n\nEdit: added some details"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7nc15q/did_ancient_civilizations_like_rome_or_egypt_have/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dy1mq/how_would_the_populationdemographics_in_ancient/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/t4ukx/what_were_the_demographics_of_a... | |
2bfk69 | what are the fundamentals and basics of islam? | I'm looking to just understand this a bit more so I'm after anything you've got to offer. Names, terminology - anything. But I'm here because simple would be nice. I can't just dive into it or I'll be lost. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bfk69/eli5_what_are_the_fundamentals_and_basics_of_islam/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj4ue2g",
"cj4vpcm",
"cj4vuns",
"cj4wp7e"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Well I don't know much, but I know the Five Pillars of Islam are like the Ten Commandments for Christians and Jews. According to Wikipedia, here are the five pillars\n\nShahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger\nSalat: ritual prayer five times a day\nZakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy\nSawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan\nHajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to",
"I saw a anti-Islamic comment on here that got removed by the mods. I have already typed up a couple things on Islam and women, Christians, and Jews... so here ya go.\n\n > Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat, anyone who doesnt accept/follow islam should be KILLED.\n\nUh... no. From the Quran...\n\n > There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] religion. [2:256](_URL_1_)\n\nFurther...\n\n > Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. [2:62](_URL_2_)\n\nAs for women, Islamic scripture, like the Bible, is misogynistic by modern standards, which you would expect of a text written within a patriarchal ancient society. However...\n \n > For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much - an obligatory share. [4:7](_URL_0_)\n\nThis may not seem like much, but in the context of 8th century Arabia it is downright revolutionary. Women were more often granted no inheritance whatsoever. Even stating that a woman has rights *at all* is revolutionary.\n",
"It's a **religion of peace** contrary to how badly it's been portrayed lately so don’t listen to these terrorists who incorrectly will tell you the religion is about killing, beating and blowing things up.\n\nBack to a contributive answer: \n\nMuslims refer God as \"Allah\"; muslims' book is Qur-an, and they follow the teachings of prophet Muhammad. \n\nIslam has fundamentals:\n\n* Believing in one and only God\n* Believing in judgment day and afterlife\n* Believing in prophets\n* Believing in holy books\n* Believing in angels\n* Believing in faith (destiny set by God)\n\nIslam has obligations:\n\n* Testament of faith (oneness of God)\n* Praying (five times a day)\n* Fasting (a month a year)\n* Charity (1/40th of wealth a year)\n* Visiting holy land (once)\n\nIslam suggests prophet Muhammad was the last messenger as there were many others prior such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham etc… the religion acknowledges and respects them all.\n\nThe main idea is to live a pious, righteous, and prosperous life while helping others, regardless of whom, financially, emotionally and spiritually. All (humanity) eventually would face a grand judgment and based on individual’s good and bad deeds, the person secures time of bliss or punishment.\n\nIt forbids taking life as it can only be given and taken by God. There are obviously exceptions, such as self-defense - if someone was to evade your home to hurt you and your family; obviously no different than federal and state laws in US.\n\nI guess I can go on explaining but this should lay out the basics of the religion. There are no deep notes or catch twenty-two or tolerance about doing “bad” and “evil” in this world – not for God, not for seventy-two virgins. Those who misunderstand and misinterpret the religion usually are uneducated, close-minded, illiterate people who don’t bother learning fundamentals of Islam by asking questions - unlike you.\n",
"Hello. Like any religion, even on the most basic points, you are going to get some form of bias when looking for condensed, basic fundamentals. Studying any religion, for academic or spiritual reasons, is going to take time and commitment, otherwise you often end up with half-studied facts, the distorted opinions of others and so on. There are very few people who are truly objective when discussing religion. My advice: \n\nYou needn't be afraid to dive in, and don't worry about getting lost. If you are serious about understanding Islam, I recommend buying a copy of the Qur'an, preferably the M.A.S. Abdel Haleem translation with a parallel Arabic translation. (search 978-0199570713 on Amazon) This sounds daunting, but just looking at a page of Arabic next to the English translation, you can see how difficult it is to interpret the original for mere translation! With this respected edition, you also have notes and introductions. Be casual about it, simply read it, and most importantly, come to your own conclusions about the religion. Understanding a religion isn't simple, but it's worth it if you want to be truly objective and well-read on the subject. \n\nJust so you know, I am not a Muslim myself, but I believe everyone should approach any subject of study without bias, and reach their own conclusions in a paced, comprehensive manner. \n\nGood luck!\n-Nibblelard"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://quran.com/4/7",
"http://quran.com/2/256",
"http://www.qurantoday.com/BaqSec8.htm"
],
[],
[]
] | |
apak6o | What was daily life like for a Viet Cong soldier? For example, how much time did they actually spend in tunnels? | Forgive my ignorance on this topic, but I know basically nothing. I saw a post in r/all about the Vietcong camouflage techniques, and ended up seeing a post [here](_URL_0_) about Vietcong tunnel systems used to trap & attack US forces. I don’t know how accurate it is, & it sounds hellish to be living as a Vietcong guerrilla soldier based on this graphic. I’d love some more context about the prominence of tunnels, and how much time people actually spent in them. Is it just my comfortable lifestyle that makes this sound so terrible, or was it less terrible living from the Vietcong perspective compared to mine? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/apak6o/what_was_daily_life_like_for_a_viet_cong_soldier/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg89b0e"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The broad answer is that it depended greatly on where exactly you are talking about. Tunnels were used extensively during the Vietnam War (dating back to the French conflict, where they proved their usefulness). The images you show are relatively accurate, but *only* for a select area of South Vietnam in the area usually referred to as Cu Chi. This area was notorious for its tunnels, particularly the area known as the Iron Triangle. Reason being, it was close to Saigon, and the nature of the clay in the region made it near perfect for the construction of massive tunnel complexes. Normal dirt does not hold up well digging so much with extra structural support, and is very prone to flooding. Most places, if you dig 30' down you'll hit water, so you have to be able to get around that. The clay in the Cu Chi area did not flood, and had a lower water table. Most tunnels are also prone to cave ins, especially with use of high explosives, but the Cu Chi tunnels were not. The pressure from explosives in some ways actually *strengthened* the walls by compacting them. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe main reason for the tunnels was American air superiority, and artillery. Because we could call in air support, via helicopters or other aircraft, fire missions literally within seconds, the NLF (National Liberation Front, usually called the Viet Cong by Americans), had to go somewhere to be hidden. In I Corps, near North Vietnam, Viet Cong forces would blend into the local community if possible or into the jungles. Tunnels existed everywhere, but in most cases outside of the Cu Chi area, they were less massive, but still there. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAmericans never fully understood just how bad their tactics were in dealing with tunnels. The assumption that you can use gas, explosives, and very brave men with revolvers and clear a tunnel only appeared to work. Water traps, similar to the U joint under your sink, were used to trap gas. Explosives only blocked superficial aspects of the tunnels. Even the ubiquitous Tunnel Rats, brave as they were, still were barely scratching the surface (no pun intended) of the complexity of these tunnels. Booby traps abounded in them. The simple ones could be waiting for an American to crawl up through a hatch and stab him, or use of grenades, or even venomous snakes tied to a bend in the tunnel. Even as Americans began finding amazing things, like full size hospital wards, artillery pieces, and even a tank, once, they never grasped how little of an impact they were making. The 1st and 25th Infantry divisions spent the war trying desperately to destroy tunnel complexes and never really succeeded in any of it. The only thing that came close to being destructive on a large scale were B52s, and even then, they were hit or miss on that. Americans tried defoliants, so we could see the entrances, and that proved superficial as well. We also came up with seismic devices designed to resemble a plant that worked (sort of). Point is, whatever we tried, at best it delayed them, and likely cost many lives in the process.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBut to another part of your question, the tactics used by Americans meant the fighters living in the tunnels were forced to stay underground for longer periods of time. And living in the tunnels, compared to our standard of living, and typically *any* human standard, was difficult. Bugs, lack of sunlight, inadequate fresh air, and especially bacteria meant hospital conditions and clean water were scarce in many areas. How do you get new food if you can't get to the surface? You ration the small bits of rice you have. They created a type of kitchen to be able to cook underground with fires, but these still were inadequate to the real needs. Some literally spent years in the tunnels with only a handful of chance to ever see anything above ground. Children were even born in the tunnels. From the Vietnamese perspective, this was hellish, but was a price to paid. They also tried to keep life as lively as they could, even having entertainers come in and had shows put on for fighters undergound. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nAgain, most NLF fighters weren't living in tunnels all the time, but its likely most spent time in a tunnel somewhere for some length of time. But especially around Cu Chi, the tunnels were really the battlefield. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor sourcing, I'd of course recommend *The Tunnels of Cu Chi* by Tom Mangold and John Penycate. Its still the seminal work on tunnels. But just about any Vietnam account by anyone I've every read mentions use of tunnels, even if its just a bunker under a pig pen to store weapons or rice. The Viet Cong and NVA used the earth the way Americans used the skies.\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [
"https://m.imgur.com/gallery/13vR0"
] | [
[]
] | |
2hk59i | why is it possible for sprinters to get faster times.through the decades? | How is it possible that 100m sprinters can improve their times vastly between different generations of sprinters? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hk59i/eli5_why_is_it_possible_for_sprinters_to_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cktejcl",
"cktekqc",
"ckteqfa"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Because training techniques and regimens have improved between different generations of sprinters. ",
"There's some difference between what athletes of today can accomplish with better sports science and nutrition and athletes in prior times. Also, there are a lot more people alive today than there were even two generations ago, so there's a greater chance that the fastest person ever is alive today than two generations ago.\n\nThe big difference, though, comes from shoes and track surfaces. Surfaces and shoes that allow for the right amount of bounce, firmness, and friction all help improve times.",
"* technology has improved training, nutrition, sports medicine, and equipment\n* the rise of professional athletes, who can earn a living devoting their lives to running fast\n* an increase in the number of people aspiring to be professional athletes\n* quite possibly, performance enhancing drugs"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
39es8r | "In 1850, 42% of free Negroes in Charleston SC owned slaves" How accurate is this statement? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39es8r/in_1850_42_of_free_negroes_in_charleston_sc_owned/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs2wxko",
"cs33x6u",
"cs34igg"
],
"score": [
61,
2,
14
],
"text": [
"That quote seems to have originated from an [article](_URL_0_) published on The Root in 2013 and written by the renowned scholar Henry Louis Gates. In the article Gates is quoting Stanley Engerman, an economic historian who has written on slavery as an economic system. Gates does not give the exact source for the quote (unless I missed it it somewhere). Engerman wrote a controversial and sometimes criticized economic history of American slavery, but given that it would be an easily verifiable statistic and Gates himself is quoting it, I don't think its an inaccurate statement. \n\nCharleston was somewhat of a unique city in 1850. In 1850, there were few relatively large cities in the South, with New Orleans, Charleston and Richmond being the largest, and only New Orleans being in the top 10 in terms of population in the entire US. Charleston lay right in the middle of an area of intense plantation agriculture, meaning that there were many large plantations with large enslaved populations not far from the city and the city become the economic hub for that plantation rich region with many economic activities relating to slavery happening in the city. \n\nIn 1850, Charleston's population was 42,985. Of this, 3,441 were free Blacks and 19,532 were enslaved Blacks; meaning about 1,445 free Blacks owned slaves in Charleston in 1850. The full quote also says that 64% of these people were women. \n\nUnfortunately I don't know much about slavery in Charleston during this time period to go into any depth about slavery there, but I would highly suggest reading the above-linked Gates article since it goes into detail about how the phrase \"owned slaves\" might be misunderstood when it came to Blacks owning slaves in the Antebellum South. Basically, many Blacks who \"owned\" slaves had purchased members of their families, and for whatever reasons (i.e. states often made it difficult to free slaves) never formally freed their \"slave;\" although there are cases of Blacks owning a large number of slaves for the purpose of economic exploitation. ",
"If this is a true figure, or close to it, I have a question. I had been taught that most whites in slave owning areas did not own slaves, because they were expensive. Now, 42% owning is still most not owning, but it surprises me that such a large percent of free blacks in the slavery era south would advance enough economically to be well off enough to own slaves. How were they able to accomplish this?\n\nADDED: What percentage of whites owned slaves?",
" > By 1800, one third of colored heads of households in\nCharleston had slave property. Between 1820 and 1840, the percentage\nincreased to 75 percent. By 1850, the percentage had declined to 42 percent.\n(Davis 1994).\n\n[Source](_URL_0_) Page 18\n\nEDIT: Note that it says \"heads of households\". So considering that the freedman's family isn't being counted in the total freed population, the 42% figure is somewhat misleading.\n\nNot much to add, but just wanted to confirm the quote. I couldn't find a pdf of Engerman's book online, but that article is great resource on the topic. It's also important to note that urban black-owned slaves were owned largely by women, and worked as house servants (often rented out to white households.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.3.html"
],
[],
[
"http://people.uwec.edu/ivogeler/CCL-bookchapters-pdf/4-racism-blacks.pdf"
]
] | ||
a67g2a | Is there historical evidence of Cleopatra being beautiful? | I hear this all the time, about Cleopatra being supposedly one of the most beautiful women in history. Is there any evidence of this? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a67g2a/is_there_historical_evidence_of_cleopatra_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebtjq0n"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"I thought for sure that I had written an answer on this already, but I certainly can not find it!\n\nThe short answer is, yes there is historical evidence of Cleopatra being beautiful. However, there is also historical evidence that she was emphatically not considered the most beautiful woman of her time, and would almost certainly not be considered the most beautiful woman in history. More importantly, what evidence we do have is not really as helpful as you might think. \n\nWe do not have any surviving biographies of Cleopatra. We know that these were written in Antiquity, but all we have are other books which reference these. For example, these biographies were among the sources of Cassius Dio’s *Roman History* and Plutarch and Nicolaus of Damascus’ biographies of Roman politicians. This leaves us with scraps of her life that intersected with Roman politics and were seen by Roman authors as altering the stream of Roman history.\n\nTo start with, contemporary and near-contemporary Roman accounts do not really have much to say about her appearance. It has to be remembered that these authors were most concerned with her political role, not her sex appeal. To this end, we have plenty of anecdotes which make claims about her ambition, her eloquence, her savvy, or her ruthlessness. But if we were to try and sketch her based on literary accounts, we would be unable to describe even her hair colour or her height. This actually contrasts with say, golden-haired and unkemptly handsome Augustus, or tall, balding effeminate Julius Caesar. Since we have so much more information about these men’s personal lives, we also know a lot more about their appearance.\n\nIt is often assumed that she was short, something which seems to have been something of a stereotype about Macedonians at the time, with Cleopatra being of predominantly Macedonian descent. Accounts of her being carried to Caesar’s quarters while concealed in a carpet bag seem to imply that she would have to have been fairly small, as one man easily carried her over his shoulder without suspicion. Beyond this, the [Esquiline Venus](_URL_2_), a possible Cleopatra, has rather small proportions and certainly portrays a shorter than average woman. The Esquiline Venus is thought to be a 1st Century CE copy of a 1st Century BCE Ptolemaic original, and there are several clues which suggest a portrayal of Cleopatra.\n\nCicero, one of the most prominent Romans of the age, spoke about meeting her in his letters. He remarked that she was arrogant and untrustworthy, and he was apparently rather miffed that she promised him some “literary things” (probably books) and never actually sent them. But Cicero never actually even mentions her appearance. Aside from Cicero, we do not really have any first hand impressions of her as a person. Julius Caesar, Marc Antony and several other prominent Romans were said to be dazzled upon meeting her, but this is generally attributed to her charming speech, education, and nearly incomprehensible wealth. The idea that her physical attractiveness was one of her greatest assets is not one that shows up in historical accounts of these meetings.\n\nIf we flash forward a few generations after Cleopatra’s death, we have a lot more sources to work from. In the 1st Century CE, Cassius Dio claims she was a woman of “surpassing beauty” but Plutarch claims she was “not such as to strike one”. Plutarch stated that her beauty stemmed not from physical attractiveness, but from charisma and eloquence. Plutarch also claims that she was compared unfavourably to Octavia Minor, who was renowned for her beauty and her chastity. In this regard, the simple virtue and beauty of Octavia was compared to the extravagance and vulgarity of Cleopatra. When Roman histories do mention her appearance, they tend to focus on her attire or her hair. This is not surprising given the narrative value and political relevance of her reputedly elaborate and expensive costumes. But a well put together royal is different than a beauty queen.\n\nRoman poetry came to vilify her, with authors like Propertius and Horace using her as a foil for their Roman protagonists, but these are mostly mum on the topic of her appearance. These poets tended to focus on her defeat at Actium, and the symbolic idea of a war between Roman and Hellenistic/Egyptian culture. Book 10 of Lucan’s 2nd Century CE epic poem *Pharsalia* portrays a fair skinned, flirtatious Cleopatra with heavy makeup and jewellery. Now this poem was certainly based on historic accounts, but it is also definitely a work of fiction and should be understood as a work which was not preoccupied with literal truth. Even if it was, it is not really any less vague than other texts.\n\nBy now you might be wondering whether ancient art can help historians to paint a picture of Cleopatra. And, it can, but within limits. For one thing, it is a lot harder than you might imagine to attribute portraits to individuals. More often than not busts do not come with a handy name tag, and there is definitely a tendency for news media to attribute portraits to famous personalities even if the evidence is inconclusive. Archaeologists do a fantastic job of decoding evidence like context, hairstyle, facial features, costume, provenance, etc. to try and attribute portraits to the correct figure. Sometimes they come from a tomb or some other context which makes it easy to identify, other times they end up with a title like “Portrait of a noblemen”.\n\nThis [older answer on Cleopatra's hairstyles has links where you can view a wealth of Cleopatra portraits](_URL_0_) which I am going to reference below. When it comes to Cleopatra there are very few securely attributed contemporary portraits of her. For obvious reasons the stylised reliefs and statues that graced Egyptian temples are not really helpful for historians who want to know what she actually looked like. Instead these portray her as eternally young, smooth, proportional and more or less identical to millennia of Egyptian rulers.\n\nThere are a few busts done in the more naturalistic Graeco-Roman style, and they portray her with strong, somewhat masculine features. Much like the smooth, generic features of Egyptian art, these Graeco-Roman portraits were designed with a political purpose in mind. A prominent, hooked nose, corkscrew curls, large eyes, and a stern expression served to project an air of authority in a society where power was coded as masculine, and Greek features were coded as aristocratic. Here it is important to remember that when it came to her subjects, Cleopatra cared about seeming like a strong monarch, and less like a beauty queen. Coins bearing Cleopatra’s face tend to follow this pattern, portraying the queen as serious, masculine, and comparable to other leaders around the Mediterranean. Some of these features, namely the nose and eyes, also seem to run in the family as they are typical of Ptolemaic portraits. At the same time, this resemblance could also be a result of traditional Hellenistic and especially Ptolemaic artistic conventions.\n\nThere are two Roman murals which may portray Cleopatra, one is a portrait of a red haired Hellenistic queen, the other is a dark haired Venus in the Forum Julium. Each of these features the long nose and large eyes of Cleopatra, and either, both, or neither could be bona fide contemporary or near contemporary portraits.\n\nIt has also been suggested that she, like many other Ptolemids, struggled with unhealthy weight gain. It is quite likely that the Ptolemaic dynasty may have had a predisposition towards corpulence, as the majority of them were portrayed as heavy, particularly towards the end of their life. That she had 4 children from three pregnancies may also have contributed to a fleshier build. Historian Duane Roller interpreted a passage from Plutarch which mentioned her not eating for an extended period as a possible attempt at at post partum weight loss, although Plutarch claims that she refused to eat in order to persuade Antony to take pity on her. One Pompeiian mural which portrays an obese queen swallowing poison, although this may not be Cleopatra. On the other hand, the majority of representations of her depict her as being of a typically healthy body weight, and there are no literary accounts of her being overweight.\n\nOf course, Cleopatra certainly did put a good deal of effort into her appearance. From her expensive clothing and opulent jewellery, to her exotic perfumes and cosmetics, she spent plenty of time and money on looking her best. And this only made sense as a way to project her wealth, culture, and charisma. The Ptolemaic dynasty in particular was known for its ostentatiousness and vanity, but this was a regular feature of Hellenistic court culture besides. This [satirical April Fool’s post on Cleopatra's fashion routine](_URL_3_) might be of interest.\n\nUltimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there were certainly those who found her beautiful, but it is not historically accurate to claim that she was ever considered the most beautiful woman in the world. If we take all of the existing evidence, she was a charming woman dressed to kill, possibly short and with somewhat masculine features, but otherwise fairly average.\n\nFinally, you may find this older thread to be interesting\n[Most people see Cleopatra as an Egyptian, but she was actually Greek. What is her real story and how did we come to the legends about her?](_URL_1_)\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7gwxeb/did_cleopatra_vii_always_cut_her_hair_short_at/dqmu1zw/?st=jposf9ki&sh=ff70aa51",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/66vomz/most_people_see_cleopatra_as_an_egyptian_but_she/?st=j1tfux1d&sh=ff63c2c2",
"https://en.wikipedia.or... | |
11qlvv | How many single atoms would you have to pile up before you could see the pile with the naked eye? | What would it look like? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11qlvv/how_many_single_atoms_would_you_have_to_pile_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6oqq08"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"Let's do an order-of-magnitude calculation.\n\nThe eye can see about 1/60 of a degree. At 10 centimeters, this is about 0.003 centimeters for the diameter of a small disk. The disk will have an area somewhere around 2.7x10^-5 cm^2 (2.7x10^-9 m^2 ).\n\nLet's say the radius of an atom is about 10^-10 meters (100 pm). This is a cross-sectional area of (10^-10)^2 * 3 = 3x10^-20 m^2 . This means the disk will be composed of around 10^11 atoms before being visible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
b1nz5j | why is it that wild animals are able to drink “wild” water (lakes, rivers, etc) yet humans appear to not be able to drink water out of a wild water source? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1nz5j/eli5_why_is_it_that_wild_animals_are_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ein0t1e",
"ein12sc",
"ein34vn",
"ein3q4j",
"ein8ian",
"ein9vdv"
],
"score": [
22,
6,
4,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Gut flora is the main reason. Over time we have lost the ability to digest complex microbioata that are dangerous. Also it's not safe for other animals to drink contaminated water, they face similar problems and die to ameobic dysentery as well",
"We actually can drink \"wild\" water as long as it doesn't have any diseases in it.\n\nThe thing is, it's hard for us to tell if \"wild\" water has diseases, so we just drink water that has been treated because we know it is safe. There's no need to risk the wild water.\n\nI'm not sure if animals are better at telling if water has diseases but I'm pretty sure they just don't care as much as we do, especially since their lifespans are usually way shorter than ours. They also don't have the same options we do(except for pets, but even they don't seem to care where their water comes from. My dog will drink out of random puddles in the street if I let her).\n\nEdit: filtered water is different than treated water, and just bc it's been treated doesn't mean it will taste better. I just took the taste part out altogether ",
"Because a raccoon isn't gonna understand what a parasite or pollution is no matter how hard you try to explain it. They will avoid water that smells/tastes rotten or polluted, at least a lot of mammals will, until they get desperate. ",
"We more or less can. If we got all our water from streams and lakes, we'd be ok-ish, although with bouts of giardia and other problems from time to time, and maybe one of those times it's too rough and we die. But the thing is, wild animals face the same situation. Parasites are pretty common and wild animals often die young. It's not an easy life.",
"And [older threads](_URL_0_).",
"Wild animals get sick all the time and often have parasites. Humans could drink from wild water sources too, and many human populations do, it's just not a good idea when you have options. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=Wild%20animals%20drink&restrict_sr=1"
],
[]
] | ||
3lo4d6 | How much time to evaporate a glass of water kept outside in California.? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3lo4d6/how_much_time_to_evaporate_a_glass_of_water_kept/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv7ufjq",
"cv7yngz"
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text": [
"Well first of all, if you're in California, go put a glass of warer outside and see.\n\nSecond, this is a difficult problem to solve, and is dependent on a lot of factors:\n\nWater temperature\n\nWater volume\n\nExposed surface area of the cup\n\nHumidity of the air\n\nPressure of the atmosphere\n\nThe way the evaporation works is that you have some number molecules leaving the surface of the water each second. This is independent of the humidity in the air, and has to be determined experimemtally (probably can find this data online) or with some very, very complicated math.\n\nThen you have the same task for figuring out how quickly water molecules from the air are condensing back onto the water. Basicallythis porblem isn't as simply as you seem to be hoping, but you can find lots of experimememtal dat for it.\n",
"For an exact answer you also need to know the height of the glass. According to this website: _URL_0_, water evaporates at about 1/8\" (~3.2 mm) per day. If you assume that your 250 mL of water is 5 cm deep then the water will take about 15 days to evaporate. That means that water is leaving your glass at a rate of 16.67 mL/day.\n\nThis is highly dependent on a lot of things, including:\nOutside Temperature\nWater Temperature\nHumidity\nPressure\nExposed Surface Area"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5194613_fast-water-evaporate_.html"
]
] | ||
2gco2t | the axiom of choice in zermelo-fraenkel set theory. | I need to know what this is for a math project. I have searched around the web and haven't come across a simple explanation. Help! :) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gco2t/eli5_the_axiom_of_choice_in_zermelofraenkel_set/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckht7sw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Suppose you have three sets. {1,2,3}, {a,b,c}, and {+,$,#}. You can pick one element from each set - say, 2 from the first set, c from the second, and + from the third. You can prove this using only the other axioms of ZF by, say, going from one set to the next and selecting an element from each in finite time.\n\nThe problem comes when you have *infinitely many* such sets. Say you have sets S1, S2, S3, S4... on forever. Now you can't just pick one from each set in sequence, because that operation never terminates. It turns out you can't prove that any such method exists using only the axioms of ZF - so we add a new axiom, the Axiom of Choice, that says \"you can do that\". Specifically, the axiom of choice states that given any infinite collection of sets, you can pick an element from each set."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
kdr6i | how do you sharpen a diamond knife? | Do you need to have an object that's harder than the blade? How does this work? For the most part, I've only found guides on how to sharpen a knife. Aren't diamonds the toughest minerals? "Since diamonds are very hard to cut, special diamond-bladed edges are used to cut them." How do you make a diamond-bladed edge in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kdr6i/how_do_you_sharpen_a_diamond_knife/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2jg4h0",
"c2jgel4",
"c2jgojk",
"c2jj7eh",
"c2jk3cs",
"c2jg4h0",
"c2jgel4",
"c2jgojk",
"c2jj7eh",
"c2jk3cs"
],
"score": [
24,
3,
12,
5,
3,
24,
3,
12,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know about diamond knives, but I do know that both diamonds and lasers are used to shape and cut diamonds. BTW, you can use two rough diamonds to make a sharp diamond, it is much harder to do this, but it is possible.\n\nAlso, other materials can break diamonds as well. ",
"Diamonds are very hard, but brittle. A large amount of force concentrated at the right point will cut the diamond.",
"a diamond is like a pane of glass. for the most part, it's really hard, and looks the same all over.\n\nbut, get in close, and you can see differences in thickness and some hills/valleys on the surface. a diamond is really hard where it is solid, but still has fault lines. being able to spot these lines on a raw stone is what makes master jewelers...well, master jewelers!\n\nyou can sharpen a diamond's surface by tapping on these fault lines with another hard object. it doesn't need to be harder than diamond, just hard enough to transfer the force. that's it!\n\nninjedit: you can also use synthetic diamonds or lower-grade diamonds to form a sort of sandpaper edge, which, put on a spinning plate, will wear down the edge of other diamonds. another way to sharpen!",
"In reality, diamonds are cut by grinding them with a constant stream of diamond dust. I cut other gems, the equipment for diamond cutting is similar, it is just an iron grinding wheel with a constant drip of oil with diamond dust mixed in.\n\nAfter rough shaping with a laser, tt takes 12-24 hours to grind a 1 carat diamond. It would take much longer to shape a diamond into a blade in the first place, but sharpening it once it is already knife shaped wouldn't take as long.\n\nedit: Are you talking about a metal knife with diamonds embedded in it? I work with grinding tools like that. You use a tungsten carbide tool to resurface it by tearing the diamond grit out of the metal and reveal a new, sharp layer of diamonds. Cheap tools are made by electroplating metal onto diamond grit, they can be resurfaced once or twice, depending on the number of layers. Sintered bronze tools can be resurfaced many times.",
"This might not be the answer you're looking for, but: \n\nMany ordinary knives are labeled \"Diamond\"-somethingorother. Diamondblade knives, USA, is one good example. These are simply steel blades that have been honed or cut with some diamond implement.\n\nSimilarly with [\"Ceramic\"](_URL_2_) knifes and actual [ceramic knives](_URL_0_). \n\nThere are actual diamond knifes, and most likely you'll never see one. They're brittle - you can [destroy them with a cottonbud](_URL_1_), and they're used to cut cell samples in laboratories for electron scanning microscopes and suchlike.\n\nThese knifes are sent back to the manufactorer, disassembled and re-sharpened, before they're re-mounted in their cutting case.",
"I don't know about diamond knives, but I do know that both diamonds and lasers are used to shape and cut diamonds. BTW, you can use two rough diamonds to make a sharp diamond, it is much harder to do this, but it is possible.\n\nAlso, other materials can break diamonds as well. ",
"Diamonds are very hard, but brittle. A large amount of force concentrated at the right point will cut the diamond.",
"a diamond is like a pane of glass. for the most part, it's really hard, and looks the same all over.\n\nbut, get in close, and you can see differences in thickness and some hills/valleys on the surface. a diamond is really hard where it is solid, but still has fault lines. being able to spot these lines on a raw stone is what makes master jewelers...well, master jewelers!\n\nyou can sharpen a diamond's surface by tapping on these fault lines with another hard object. it doesn't need to be harder than diamond, just hard enough to transfer the force. that's it!\n\nninjedit: you can also use synthetic diamonds or lower-grade diamonds to form a sort of sandpaper edge, which, put on a spinning plate, will wear down the edge of other diamonds. another way to sharpen!",
"In reality, diamonds are cut by grinding them with a constant stream of diamond dust. I cut other gems, the equipment for diamond cutting is similar, it is just an iron grinding wheel with a constant drip of oil with diamond dust mixed in.\n\nAfter rough shaping with a laser, tt takes 12-24 hours to grind a 1 carat diamond. It would take much longer to shape a diamond into a blade in the first place, but sharpening it once it is already knife shaped wouldn't take as long.\n\nedit: Are you talking about a metal knife with diamonds embedded in it? I work with grinding tools like that. You use a tungsten carbide tool to resurface it by tearing the diamond grit out of the metal and reveal a new, sharp layer of diamonds. Cheap tools are made by electroplating metal onto diamond grit, they can be resurfaced once or twice, depending on the number of layers. Sintered bronze tools can be resurfaced many times.",
"This might not be the answer you're looking for, but: \n\nMany ordinary knives are labeled \"Diamond\"-somethingorother. Diamondblade knives, USA, is one good example. These are simply steel blades that have been honed or cut with some diamond implement.\n\nSimilarly with [\"Ceramic\"](_URL_2_) knifes and actual [ceramic knives](_URL_0_). \n\nThere are actual diamond knifes, and most likely you'll never see one. They're brittle - you can [destroy them with a cottonbud](_URL_1_), and they're used to cut cell samples in laboratories for electron scanning microscopes and suchlike.\n\nThese knifes are sent back to the manufactorer, disassembled and re-sharpened, before they're re-mounted in their cutting case."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.urieagle.com/image/NG-Knife-2006-300dpi-crop1-.jpg",
"http://www.ddk.com/PDFs/knifecareanduse.pdf",
"http://www.google.dk/imgres?q=ceramic+steel+knife+-sharpener&um=1&hl=da&safe=off&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=923&tbs=isz:l&tbm=isch&tbnid=X... | |
2szsd7 | Did Hitler or the Nazi's hate Mickey Mouse? | I've read this circulated over the years as fact, and attributed to different things – most commonly that the Nazis compared the Jews to 'dirty rats', and saw Mickey Mouse as holding the mouse up as an ideal.
That seems far-fetched to me, but I'm wondering if there is any truth to the idea that Hitler or other high-ranking Nazis hated Mickey Mouse (or had any feelings about the character at all). | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2szsd7/did_hitler_or_the_nazis_hate_mickey_mouse/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnukq71"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The second volume of Art Spiegelman's wonderful graphic novel *Maus* starts off with a famous quote from a Pomeranian Nazi newspaper calling for the downfall of Mickey Mouse, which has popularized a notion that the regime despised Disney.The Third Reich's stance on Disney and its products is somewhat more complex. Certainly a number of cultural luminaries within Germany decried Disney and it had three strikes against it: Disney animation was not German, it was in a medium that embraced a mass cultural society with its attendant capitalist merchandising, and Disney cartoons were popular among the German public. All three of these factors were invoked against Disney among various cultural critics within the Third Reich. The rationale for much of this criticism predated the Third Reich, for example, there were campaigns against *Schund* (trash- i.e. mass market) literature in the 1920s and such criticism would continue after 1945. One prominent example of the latter was Thodor Adorno (certainly no Nazi!) attacked Donald Duck as an example of how mass society engenders apathy among the proletariat. \n\nHowever, much of the state campaign against Disney stemmed from the Third Reich's cultural policies to stimulate native German arts which amounted to tariff on the non-German media. The Third Reich quadrupled import duties on foreign films or tried to arrange a quid-quo-pro trade deals by which foreign film companies would have to accept German films if they wanted to show their products in German cinemas. These policies drove out many American companies and Disney found that they could seldom turn a profit in Germany despite their products' popularity. \n\nDespite the low and mid-level attacks upon Disney, some higher ranking Nazis were fond of Disney's animation. Goebbels famously considered *Snow White* a masterpiece. On the occasion of Hitler's birthday in 1937, Goebbels gave his master eighteen Mickey Mouse films and his diary noted that Hitler \"is pleased to no end.\" Like Goebbels, Hitler also had a special print of *Snow White* and apparently screened it. \n\n*Sources*\n\nEvans, Richard J. *The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939*. New York: Penguin Press, 2005. \n\nGiesen, Rolf, and J. P. Storm. *Animation Under the Swastika A History of Trickfilm in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945*. Jefferson: McFarland & Co., Publishers, 2012. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1q4q5t | why are sponges considered to have no tissue? | Why not? I googled and found only vague explanations like "partially differentiated tissues, and not true tissues", but I still don't understand what makes a differentiated tissue "partial".
And even if they weren't differentiated, wouldn't that mean that sponges happen to be made of a single tissue entirely? What's the point of saying that they don't have tissue? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q4q5t/eli5_why_are_sponges_considered_to_have_no_tissue/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd95eoq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A tissue in the biological sense is that cells differentiate into different forms, assuming different functions; and that said cells organise themselves into recognizable shapes to enable the function ti occur. \nSponges don't have that. Every singe sponge more or less consists of one cell type with a few variations, but usually not enough to be considered a separate type. All cells are the same, they all have cilia - little whip-like hairs - that they use to move water past themselves so they can then remove nutrients from the water. \nThe cells' colony aids the single cell in a whole colony being able to move around a larger volume of water. Usually the water is being drain in at the sides, filtered through the 'body' and expelled though a chimney-like structure up and out. To facilitate this, all cells also secrete a little part of what in the end becomes a silica skeleton. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
avgqt4 | do different patterns of emergency vehicle lights have different purposes? if yes, what do they mean? | First: I live in Italy, so it might work differently in your country. This is a question I had since I started to drive.
For example: I've seen some police cars with their lights constantly on (cruise mode) some with their lights flashing and some with their lights off during normal patrol (so no emergency), both during the day and night.
How do they chose if to turn the lights on and what pattern to use?
Do those different patterns have different meanings or purposes? If they do, what does a pattern mean and in what situation they should use it?
Bonus question: Why other emergency vehicles (firetrucks, ambulances) sometimes keep their lights on even if they are not in an emergency and have no hurry? I thought it was for visibility, but they also do this during they day, when they are clearly visible. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/avgqt4/eli5_do_different_patterns_of_emergency_vehicle/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehf419b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Emergency vehicles can definitely drive with lights but no sirens, as they want to keep the quiet. They normally only put sirens on if they are approaching traffic and need to make everyone aware. You should still pull over for emergency vehicles with lights but no sirens. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
82dkad | why does gravity always pull and cannot push like magnets can? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82dkad/eli5_why_does_gravity_always_pull_and_cannot_push/ | {
"a_id": [
"dv9ax5t",
"dv9b9ji",
"dv9bz5e",
"dv9i3ns"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because that's not how gravity works.\nGravity has nothing to do with magnets. \n\nIt's like asking, why can't our lungs breathe water. \n\nOr why Hydrogen has the lowest atomic mass. ie. Why it has the amount of neutrons/protons that it has. \n\nIt just does. ",
"Magnetism is the transfer of electrons in one direction. If the directions of two magnets line up (Pos to a Neg) the electrons flow in one direction and pull the magnets together. If they flow opposite directions (Pos to Pos) then they will push each other apart.\n\nGravity works in an entirely different way. Every atom in the universe is drawn to every other atom. Think of the way a bowling ball sits on a trampoline, pulling the mesh down. If you put another ball on there, they will roll towards each other. The mesh is the gravitational plane which all atoms sit upon, drawing all other atoms in with their “weight” (literally gravity).",
"Simplified, gravity is basically mass attracting mass. The more mass something has, the stronger the gravitational pull is. That's why we're stuck on earth via gravity, but we don't have objects getting stuck to us. We don't produce enough gravity. \n\nMagnetism is caused by a flow of electrons.",
"I feel like the other answers here sound a bit... condescending perhaps. Sure, I could also tell you that it is just the way it is. Gravitation is the only force which is *always* attractive. The thing is, though, that the question you are asking is really great!\n\nOne of the big (unanswered) questions in physics is exactly this \nquestion. And nobody knows the answer.\n\nA further step from the \"it is as it is\"-answer would be to note that there exists no negative mass (take electric charge for example, both positive and negative electric charge exist, and, as it turns out, *opposite* charges attract, unlike gravity, where positive masses attract each other, they don't repel each other like electric charges do). Maybe if negative mass existed, we would see pushing gravitation. But why is there then no negative mass? Now, I am of course only speculating, but I think it is great that you are thinking about these things. Sure, you can always just say that things are as they are, but that is boring and doesn't get us anywhere...\n\nBtw, you were mentioning magnets. Magnets have poles, right? A north pole and a south pole. You cannot have one without the other. Every magnet has both. If you cut a magnet in half, you just create two magnets with a north and south pole each. Another unanswered question in physics is \"is it possible at all for magnetic poles to exist independently?\" We have never observed an independent magnetic pole. They always seem to come in pairs. But why?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1kn66g | what were friedrich nietzsche's core beliefs? | do you have any criticisms? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kn66g/eli5_what_were_friedrich_nietzsches_core_beliefs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbqtwvb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"this looks suspiciously like crowdsourcing your homework..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
14vtt4 | why my vicodin makes me itch. | I am prescribed vicodin to help with pain in my hip and back. Why does it make me itch, and what is the mechanism by which it occurs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14vtt4/eli5_why_my_vicodin_makes_me_itch/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7habnz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"obviously someone else can answer this better, but I believe opiates cause the release of histamines. If you were to take benadryl and vicodin, you shouldn't itch."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8gcjce | Is veganism/vegetarianism a recent phenomenon? Were there people in history who didn't consume animals for ethical reasons? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8gcjce/is_veganismvegetarianism_a_recent_phenomenon_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyb5im2",
"dyc1gno"
],
"score": [
46,
2
],
"text": [
"It is certainly not a recent phenomenon at all. There are numerous historical examples of vegetarianism and veganism. One of my areas is in dietary ethics in South Asia so I will just discuss some historical cases there. However, the Ancient Greeks also had examples of vegetarians, in particular Pythagoras. \n\nIn terms of ancient India we know for certain that there were a number of religious groups that practiced vegetarianism and sometimes even more extreme diets. \n\nIn the Pali canon the Buddha reports that he practiced various types of fasting which were considered amongst the orthodoxy to be instrumental in spiritual development. The view was that by depriving the body in various ways it was possible to remove spiritual impediments and this would hasten religious awakening (*moksa*). However, this kind of dietary deprivation was mostly spiritual and often did not have any obvious ethical implications as far as the animal is concerned. \n\nThe best example of this level of moral scrupulousness during the ancient period is the Jains who were a rival heterodox sect to the Buddhists. The founder of Jainism Mahavira required that his followers abstain from meat altogether. The view was that killing or even supporting the killing of animals would produce bad karma. Under the Jain view, this bad karma would attach to the soul and weigh one down preventing liberation which was understood as elevation to the highest plain of existence called *siddhasila*. The Jains took things even further, however, and Mahavira even asked his followers not to inform farmers or hunters of where animals are located for fear that they might use the information to kill the animal. So they take the killing of animals extremely seriously. As Basham notes, we know that some Jains deprived themselves of food to a point where they would starve to death. This was considered an act of martyrdom. \n\nMoving on to the Buddhists one of the interesting things that we uncover is just how raw and personal the rift between the Jains and Buddhists were in respect to vegetarianism. Like the Jains, the Buddhists held the principle of non-violence to be a basic ethical constraint that also applied to animals. But unlike the Jains, the Buddhists did *not* make meat eating mandatory at this time.\n\nWe learn in the Pali canon that the Buddha was approached by a disciple named Devadatta who insisted that the Buddha make vegetarianism mandatory. The Buddha rejected this plea and reinforced a prior injunction that meat could be consumed if the person who ate the meat was sure the animal had not been killed for his benefit. This is a clear difference from the Jains who thought that this personal connection was irrelevant. Here, the Buddha seems to be saying that killing animals is immoral, but eating their flesh is acceptable *provided it doesn't support the practice of killing animals*. \n\nDevadatta would later be ejected from the Buddhist order after an assassination attempt against the Buddha. One interesting thing we learn from Xuanzang, who was a 6th ce Chinese explorer who was sent to India to investigate the state of Buddhism, was that there appeared to be a splinter group of the early Buddhists living in an Eastern area of India who practiced the injunctions of Devadatta. This included a strict adherence to vegetarianism. So if his records are anything to go by, a renegade cell of Buddhists appear to have formed after Devadatta and the Buddha's death with the idea of continuing Devadatta's recommendations around diet.\n\nGoing back to the arguments between the Jains and Buddhists, we actually see in the Jaina sutras a number of passages where Buddhists are excoriated by Jains for their apparent indulgences which include meat consumption. We have to consider this accusation in context to the area when fasting and other deprivations were the norm. In any case, these Jain texts ridicule the Buddhists for what the Jains perceive to be overindulgence. Karen Lang has done a lot of good work on this question and I encourage anyone to have a look at some of her articles on these disputes. Katherine Ulrich has also written an excellent article on the same issue.\n\nWe should consider the fact that this rejection of meat eating also appears to be a feature which develops in the orthodox religions which we now come to see as Hinduism. However, much of these deprivations have less to do with the importance of meat abstention as a moral matter and more to do with it being a matter to do with spiritual advancement. Caste purity and pollution is also an important factor in context to the orthodox tradition and we discover in some of the Dharmasastra texts (which are of ancient origin) that meat is considered an impure contaminant for people of certain castes. C.F. Fuller (and many other scholars) have also pointed out that animal sacrifice has long been important in orthodox and Hindu ritual practices since Vedic times. So we see a certain degree of ambivalence around the moral relevance of meat eating and animal killing in the orthodox tradition. As an ethical practice it has always been associated with the heterodoxy. \n\nAnother note here is with King Asoka who seems to have ruled around 200BCE not long after the death of the Buddha, Mahavira and the other heterdox leaders. From inscriptions on the famous Asoka Pillars, which are still accessible in India, we quickly learn that Asoka expressly forbade the killing of animals and seems to have endorsed a restricted diet on the grounds of morality. There is much debate as to the original source of Asoka's disposition and the Buddhists are quick to claim that this was due to Asoka's supposed conversion to Buddhism. The reality is probably that Asoka was a pluralist who was courting a number of different religions. Since many religions of the time frowned upon animal killing it was quite a safe bet for him to ban it in these injunctions. It is also doubtful that these rules were enforced but it does give us an indication of the historical importance of animal non-killing and the knock on effects this had as far as diet was concerned. \n\nThe above is just a fragment of some of the historical issues that come to the fore in the case of India.\n\nEdit - I neglected to mention that the Carvaka/Lokayata tradition who were something like scientific materialists may have had followers who were vegetarians. Because most of the texts in that tradition do not survive we don’t actually know why they were vegetarians and therefore can’t say if it was for ethical reasons or for some other justification such as health. ",
"[You might appreciate an answer I gave in response to a question about a particular historical vegan, arguably the first, al-Ma'arri.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/88d6cv/almaarri_9731057_was_the_first_conscientious/dxi8f4w/"
]
] | ||
2sxs2c | why do broadcast tv stations limit streaming? i thought they wanted more viewers. | I thought they wanted more ad revenue based on more viewers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sxs2c/eli5_why_do_broadcast_tv_stations_limit_streaming/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnttvsw",
"cntu6k4",
"cntyspv"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The ad revenue from streaming websites doesn't go to the broadcasters. It goes to whoever set up the site to steal their content and rehost it. This is why the Supreme Court has found time and time again that these services are illegal.\n\nIt's the same reason musicians don't like it when you steal their music and play it for free... as much as reddit loves to imagine it \"helps\" that's just a shoddy rationalization for the theft. In reality, people take free stuff and stop spending money because they come to expect it all for free.",
"TV stations get money from advertisers. During a regular TV show the viewer most likely sits on the couch and endures the ads - several commercials at a time.\n\nIn streaming the viewer is typically at a computer watching the show. In that case the viewer can navigate away from a commercial pretty easily and come back to the show after it begins again. They can even rewind the show so if they leave while the commercial is playing and come back after the show's been running for a few minutes they can still rewind it easily enough.\n\nTo thwart the viewer from leaving, the TV-streaming service will shorten the ad breaks to just 1 or two commercials. This makes it less troublesome to a viewer to sit and watch than a normal 5 minute break on regular TV.\n\nBut, the shorter commercial break means fewer ads from a less interested viewer base. Therefore, less money from the advertisers. \n\nServices like Hulu and Netflix pay a flat fee to run shows in syndication. Other than the licensing fee the TV stations don't make money. \n\nIn summary, TV stations get better ad revenue from their over-the-air broadcast than they do from their streaming service (like their website). They get significantly more money from broadcast than they do from Netflix or online-streaming. \n\nIf you look at Netflix's lineup you see they have a lot of showtime and HBO shows. That's because those channels can't run their shows in syndication on normal TV (cussing, sex, violence, etc). They also don't generate ad revenue. HBO and Showtime also know that most shows won't do well selling box sets of the seasons (most people don't really care to buy TV series in seasons). So the best option for them is to put the TV series on Netflix and get the licensing fees.\n\nTL;DR: TV stations make money off ads and a listening viewer base. Streaming has fewer ads and a less attentive viewer base. Therefore, TV stations make less ad revenue from their own streaming services and make much less from streaming services like Netflix or Hulu.",
"European reporting in, hi :)\n\nThe situation on our side of the pond is much the same. In some cases they may not have the rights to stream something via the net, only to have it on TV. Examples include English Premier League football/soccer, network premiers of Hollywood blockbusters (that one pisses me off something chronic). We are also really big into playback services (where you can stream on demand at a later date convenient to you), and again some stuff can't be shown as a result of broadcasting rights that they do or do not have.\n\nIf they break the rules, the provider of the content isn't gonna do business with them again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
43ur9h | Swabbing the poop deck - why were they anyways mopping on boats? | It seems like sailors are always depicted as mopping. The obvious term, 'swab the poop deck comes to mind', and I can think of numerous world war sailors in dancing, mopping routines.
I've had a boat, albeit small at 24ft, and everything was always wet. I didn't bother mopping. I would just hang a towel and dry my feet when I needed. Why did sailors always have to mop or where did this legend originate? Surely they weren't using fresh water, were they?
If I had to speculate, I'd say it was busy work. The more I think about it, I guess it could be boat maintenance or slip prevention. Thanks!
Edit: auto correct in the title, it should say 'always' | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/43ur9h/swabbing_the_poop_deck_why_were_they_anyways/ | {
"a_id": [
"czl4sh4",
"czldn34"
],
"score": [
26,
6
],
"text": [
"In terms of the cultural impact of mopping on ships, I do not feel qualified to comment, however there were several practical reasons for regularly swabbing decks. During the Age of Sail and usage of Ships of the Line, loose powder on gun-decks was a significant fire hazard and danger. Therefore swabbing decks to keep them moist dampened any powder that fell to the floor and reduced the risk of fire. Loose powder would also need to be cleaned up after the guns were used. Regular cleaning of wooden decks slowed down decomposition and was also an import part of discipline, giving a sailor a task to achieve instead of succumbing to boredom or idleness. \n\nSources:\n\n William Quereau Force, *Army and Navy Chronicle, and Scientific Repository, Volume 11* (1840)\n\nAdmiral Philip Patton, *Strictures on Naval Discipline and the Conduct of a Ship of War, intended to\nproduce a uniformity of opinion among sea officers* (1810)\n\nEdit: Syntax",
"One interesting reason, not mentioned in the other posts, is something they found at Mystic Seaport with the repair of the Charles W Morgan: freshwater makes wooden things rot, salt water keeps wooden things from rotting. If you keep swabbing the decks with seawater, you reduce the chances of falling through them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
vmfdv | Is it possible to convert heat generated by computer farms to produce electricity like solar updraft towers do ? | Found this : [solar updraft towers ](_URL_0_). Could we replace the sun with computers ? I mean many, many computers... | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vmfdv/is_it_possible_to_convert_heat_generated_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"c55qs42",
"c55se0g",
"c55srtj"
],
"score": [
43,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Possible? yes, the concept still works whether you are heating the air by the sun, computers or a hairdryer. \n\nYou could only ever *at absolute maximum* extract the same energy you put into those computers, computers are not natural sources of heat, you put electricity into those computers and a lot of it comes out as heat. You could only ever hope to recover some fraction of your input electricity. This limits the application to cases of pre-existing computer farms on a quest for efficiency not any kind of electricity generation.\n\nSo what kind of efficiency are we talking about? The theoretical limit for a heat engine is based on the temperature differences you have available between your hot reservoir (your server room) and the cold reservoir (the outside). The relationship is efficiency = 1- Tcold/Thot. If we take some toasty computers which work in a 50 degree (320K) room with the temperature outside a nice 20 degrees (290K) we get an efficiency of 9%. This is before any losses such as the turbine efficiency (much lower than a steam turbine). Nothing to write home about if you are only gaining a few % of the electricity you put in back out and it is at the cost of a very expensive updraft tower with all its turbines and having to keep a sauna for a server room.",
"Intel has a [white paper available](_URL_0_) about using heat recovery to reduce the energy consumption of datacenters. I'm not sure if they ever deployed the technology. It can help offset a bit of the energy cost of running such a facility, but not a huge effect.",
"You don't need a solar updraft tower to generate electricity from heat, either a [sterling engine](_URL_1_) or a [thermoelectric device](_URL_0_) would convert excess heat to electricity just fine, however you'd get back only a tiny fraction of the energy you're putting into the computers in the first place.\n\nAs stated by other posters you're better off using the excess heat to save energy elsewhere in the building such as the heating system."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower"
] | [
[],
[
"http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/green-it/energy-efficiency/intel-it-data-center-heat-recovery-helps-create-green-facility-brief.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine"
]
] | |
xtbz9 | So... what happens next if Curiosity finds a form of life? Also, what would they consider life? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xtbz9/so_what_happens_next_if_curiosity_finds_a_form_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5pebx6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"According to NASA, MSL/Curiosity's mission is not to search for life, but to do geological survey and search for traces of past environments that might have been suitable for life. At any rate, the rover is not equipped with instruments that would be able to discover life itself."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
43y2ai | coal/carbon is black, but when compressed make clear diamonds. how does the color change? | Additionally, are there any intermediate colors? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43y2ai/eli5_coalcarbon_is_black_but_when_compressed_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"czlvw8v",
"czlwf30",
"czlz04a"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Diamonds aren't formed from coal.\n\nCoal is made from organic matter, most diamonds predate any sort of life.\n\nAside from that, it's based around the arrangement of the carbon atoms.\n\nThis determines all the properties of various carbon forms, from graphite to carbon fiber to coal to diamonds.",
"These different forms of materials, made of the same element, are called allotropes. These allotropes have completely different properties because each atom is behaving as if it had a completely different way of bonding to it's neighbors (which they do). In the case of carbon allotropes in which one is transparent and others are opaque, this has to do with the energy levels available to an electron in the carbon atoms. With things like graphite and soot (coal has carbon but in lots of compounds with other elements), the atoms are bonded in sheets and small chains where the electrons have lots of nearby energy levels, so when light hits them they can capture a photon and excite into a higher level making the material absorb light and thus appear black. In diamond, the carbons are in a three dimensional matrix with bonds all around the atom in a tetrahedral shape. The energy required for a photon to carry an electron to its higher energy level is too high for any visible light, so the photons aren't absorbed and instead they just pass right through (transparent). Because a photon can't send an electron partially up to the next energy level therr is no partially opaque allotrope of carbon in the way we think of it. There are some exotic forms of carbon alloptopes that do have color however. The Carbon Dimer (two carbons together much like O2 or H2) is a gas that can exist at extremely high temperatures in labs on Earth and they also appear in the tails of some comets with a green hue (I don't know if these are spectral lines or from reflection however)\n\nEdit: grams",
"Coal changes to a \"colorless\" diamond based off the carbon inside lining up. The colors you know of though (such as the blue hope diamond )are due to impurities. Blue diamonds are blue due to Boron being trapped inside.\n\nThe colorless diamonds have no free electrons for the carbon inside since they're arranged in a lattice like structure, being stuck together with other carbon molecules so all 4 are in use.\n\nNow let's add Boron. Boron has only 3 electrons to the 4 Carbon electrons. So when carbon is with boron, the carbon has a free electron. That free electron absorbs red light and helps the diamond look blue. You don't need much Boron in a diamond to make it blue either, but there is different grades (cut, clarity, color, and carat).\n\nDiamonds (typically) range from purely colorless, to yellow. If we get rid of impurities and stick with pure carbon, then the best choice is the colorless diamond since it helps display all colors of the rainbow and let light pass cleanly. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3blsqp | Is it reasonable to assume that the average person is getting more attractive each generation? | As attractive people mate more than unattractive people, it could be assumed that they have more offspring, and therefore more of a presence in the genre pool. Is this true? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3blsqp/is_it_reasonable_to_assume_that_the_average/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuzmi2r",
"csnt6ma",
"cso1dm9"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I wanna add on too that unattractive people are still more than capable of reproducing. If a 'perfect 10' man and 'perfect 10' woman have 2 kids, that's the exact same impact on the gene pool as two unattractive folks matching up and having 2 kids.\n\nWe definitely have a preference to select for attractive people, but we don't really select *against* unattractive people... If you can't get that 'perfect 10,' you move down the ladder until you find someone close to your fitness level (as in 'survival of the fittest'). \n\nSo in practice, unattractive people are still able to match up and reproduce fairly unimpeded.",
"I'm going with no. \n\nBiggest reason is that what is deemed attractive is social construct and changes from generation to generation. It was not long ago that pale skin and being overweight was considered more attractive than tanned skin and skinny.\n\nSimilarly, this varies even in a single generation with culture. A notable example is that the face type that westerners generally find attractive in Japanese women is seen to the japanese as unattractive, and vice versa.\n\nGiven the lengths of time it takes for natural selection / evolution to occur and that this moving target of attractiveness changes on timescales much shorter, it is extremely doubtful there will ever be trends in attraction long enough to seriously affect the genome. \n\n",
"We've been doing this pretty much since forever. [Sexual selection](_URL_0_) only has so much influence. At some point, other effects start countering it. That's why you don't see peacocks with infinitely long tails."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection"
]
] | |
9eyayp | what was/is the purpose of the lhc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9eyayp/eli5_what_wasis_the_purpose_of_the_lhc/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5seyol",
"e5siont",
"e5sjy1v"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"It's sorta like how car companies will crash their cars in order to see what happens to them and the dummies inside them.\n\nExcept in this case, you're smashing tiny particles together to mimic the big bang, and you're looking for evidence of subatomic particles that we don't **know** exist but are sure are there because the math suggests that they have to be.",
"There was a long time ago that we thought that Atoms were the smallest particle in existence, and then we learned that Atoms actually had photons, electrons, and neutrons inside of them. Now we have learned that there are even smaller particles that make up the atoms, which we call quarks.\n\nThe problem is that it's not exactly easy to study a quark. They can't exist on their own, they have to be bound together to form a higher level of particle (or if they can be, we haven't found a way to force them apart). As such, we need the LHC in order to study them. Think of it like breaking an egg, except as soon as you break the egg, the stuff inside evaporates into the air. What we do is we break open an egg and record everything that we can possibly record, and then filter through it to try and study the quarks, since they only exist for a fleeting moment before they are gone. Hardon's are the easiest to study (which are photons/neutrons) and so that is why it's called a Large Hadron Collider, it literally his a huge tube that accelerates hadrons until they hit each other, and them records the data. \n\nFun Fact: Each collision creates petabytes of data to work with.\n\n",
"Suppose I have a bunch of cars and you want to figure out what they are. You can't see the cars but I will let you perform tests on them. For example you can have them drive around at normal city speeds and look at fuel consumption and make some educated guesses. But the real way to find out exactly what those cars are is to push the limits of what they can do. Load them up with as many passengers as possible, or the heaviest load they can tow, or drive them as fast as they can go. By doing those things you can establish limits to their capabilities and identify what kinds of cars they are.\n\nThat is sort of what the LHC does. It pushes physics and particles to their limits, producing conditions we don't normally see in order to provide more information about how things work. You don't normally try to fit 8 people into a Toyota Corolla but until you tried you might not have been able to distinguish it from a different car. Similarly if you bash tiny particles together at great speed it can tell us things we couldn't determine otherwise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
32fimj | Can a taser shock if the person being shocked is in the air? | Just wondering since the person being shocked has no contact with the ground. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/32fimj/can_a_taser_shock_if_the_person_being_shocked_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqapv20"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"The target does not need to be in contact with the ground for a taser to work. The taser fires 2 electrodes, connected by wire to the taser, at the target and this created a complete circuit for current to flow: From taser via the first wire, through the target, via the second wire back to the taser."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
wvdej | Why is the sun yellow? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/wvdej/why_is_the_sun_yellow/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5gs6wu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"All hot bodies emit radiation according to a characteristic curve called the black-body distribution.\n\nActually, the black-body distribution is an ideal, and in reality, the actual spectrum of the sun will be slightly [different](_URL_0_), but it's basically the case.\n\nYou can see the different shapes of the curves of different temperature bodies [here](_URL_3_), as you can see, a hotter body releases more radiation overall, and the peak is at a higher frequency for a hotter body. This explains why for instance, as a poker heats up it goes from a dull red (lower frequency) through yellow up to white (a higher frequency).\n\nIn fact, this is how we can tell the surface temperature of various stars, all we need to do is look at the colour of the star, then look up what temperature would give that characteristic distribution. So the hottest stars in the sky will be the blue ones, while the dull red-giants will be far cooler. Beyond that, it's a lot harder to see stars in the sky because they're not emitting much visual radiation, just like a room temperature object tends not to glow in the dark.\n\nInterestingly, understanding the black-body distribution from a theoretical perspective was one of the great challenges of late 19th century physics, and was one of the starting points of quantum mechanics. Physicists could explain the start of the curve, but their theory [diverged more and more](_URL_1_) at explaining the rest of the curve, to the point where the theory predicted that an ordinary household fire would give off enough x-ray radiation to burn out your eyes in an instant if you looked at it. \n\nThe problem was ultimately solved by [Max Planck](_URL_2_) with (what he thought of at the time) a kludge, where he assumed that packets of light could only assume energies consisting of an integer multiple of some fundamental constant later called Planck's constant, and the rest as they say, is history."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/images/solar_spectrum.png",
"http://damnedhippie.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tpqm_01_01.png",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck",
"http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/Images/bb3T.jpg"
]
] | ||
rgn8w | Does entropy indicate that eventually energy will spread out so much, through spontaneous processes, that all matter will eventually cease to exist? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rgn8w/does_entropy_indicate_that_eventually_energy_will/ | {
"a_id": [
"c45ntrd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"See [here](_URL_0_).\n\nBasically, the idea is that since entropy is increasing the universe will reach a maximum entropy and all energy will be evenly distributed. All matter would not cease to exist, but would be in thermodynamic equilibrium."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe"
]
] | ||
52cgon | why does the u.s. court hear cases about the nfl such as deflategate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52cgon/eli5_why_does_the_us_court_hear_cases_about_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7j5b76",
"d7j5ktl",
"d7j6276"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Yarr, ['twas asked by those what sailed in before ye!](_URL_1_)\n\nEnjoy yon older explanations, and remember [rule 7](_URL_0_) says search to avoid repostin'.",
"The courts didn't rule on the rules of football - that's the NFL's problem. They got involved because a player was suspended & the player claimed it violated their contract with the league. It had nothing to do with sports, it was a labor/contract case.",
"There are two court systems in the US. You have Criminal court, where the government tries people for violating laws, and then doles out punishments if they are convicted. You then have civil court. Civil Court is where the government acts as a mediator for disputes between two private parties(lawsuits). All citizens have a right to petition the court to settle their grievances with other citizens. In this case, Tom Brady felt that the NFL had violated a contract they had negotiated(Collective Bargaining Agreement) by punishing him against the guidelines set forth in that document. The NFL by doing this \"damaged\" him by reducing his salary by 25%(4 game suspension). Therefore he petitioned the court to stop the NFL from suspending him, because it violated the contract they negotiated. In the initial trial the judge sided with Tom Brady. On Appeal the Appeals Court reversed that decision and sided with the NFL saying they followed the policies and procedures of the contract negotiated. \nIf private citizens were banned from using the courts to settle grievances, because it cost taxpayers money, then all contracts would be meaningless, because you couldn't enforce them if one party violated it. The end result would be complete chaos."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/about/rules",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=eli5%20court%20OR%20government%20nfl"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
1h4o5a | Why does hot water cut through grease better than cold or room temperature water? | . | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1h4o5a/why_does_hot_water_cut_through_grease_better_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"car49ml"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is as simple as heating and freezing butter. When you heat it up, it turns into liquid, making it easier to wipe away/wash off. When cold water is applied, it can solidify if the water is cool enough. The grease doesn't liquefy enough to wash away with ease with cold water. \n\nHeat is the measure of kinetic energy. In other words, it is the average movement of particle in a substance. When kinetic energy is transferred from hot water to the grease, the grease's kinetic energy increases, thus making it more of a liquid. If the grease is warmer than the cool water, heat will be transferred to the water, and the grease will become more of a solid.\n\nThe order of kinetic energy is:\nSolids < Liquids < Gases"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
cysb5w | If we rotate around the sun, why aren't we getting a completely different sky every few months? | [deleted] | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cysb5w/if_we_rotate_around_the_sun_why_arent_we_getting/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyucy9l",
"eyuze7p",
"eyuzp25",
"eyv93ry"
],
"score": [
29,
14,
24,
5
],
"text": [
"We do. Orion is only visible at night in the northern hemisphere in the autumn through spring.",
"We do see different stars at different times of the year. Some stars we can see year around, though - like the North star from the northern hemisphere. You'll notice though that the stars around the north star are rotated 180degrees from where they were six months ago. Look toward the south and those stars are different than the ones you saw six months ago.",
" > If we can see Orion in January, shouldn't the sun be in between us and orion in July?\n\nYou're right, and is exactly why we *can't* see Orion in July.",
"The direction to the north star is roughly orthogonal to our orbital plane. It is never close to the Sun, so you can always see it during the night from the northern hemisphere.\n\nFor Orion and other constellations close to the orbital plane see the other answers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1x0c1c | How do molecules on one side of a permeable membrane "know" the concentration of that same molecule on the other side? | Say you had a semipermeable membrane separating 1M KCl and 1M NaCl solutions. The Na+ ions and K+ ions will equilibrate until the concentration gradient of each specific ion is equal on both sides. My question is: before that equilibration happens, how do the Na+ and K+ ions know that there are none of themselves on the other side of the membrane?
The same thing happens in cells. Ions tend to go "down" their concentration gradient, even when there is no electrical gradient or overall osmotic gradient pushing it towards the other side. How do these ions know??? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1x0c1c/how_do_molecules_on_one_side_of_a_permeable/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf7318n",
"cf74iyw"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"They don't know. They are all moving around all the time in random directions. Lets take your example of sodium ions diffusing across a membrane. In a given time period each individual ion has some probability of moving across the membrane. Since there are a lot more sodium ions on one side there will be many more ions moving across from that side than to that side. This means there is a net flow of ions from the more concentrated side to the less concentrated side. As the two sides equilibrate the net flow eventually goes away, because there will be an equal number of ions moving across in each direction.",
"Here's an illustration I used when I TAed freshmen chemistry a long time ago. \nTake a stack of coins, let's say about 12 pennies for instance, and split it into 2 groups of 6. Now from each group take half the coins present in each stack and place them in the opposite stack. You’ll notice that because we started with the same number of coins in each stack that the two stacks should have the same number of coins in the move.\n\nBut let’s set things up differently. Put 10 coins in a stack and put 2 coins in the other stack. Now if we take half of the pennies from the first stack we will be removing 5, but from the second stack we will only be removing 1. So after the move we will now have 6 coins in each stack and if we repeat the move there will be no net change because now both stacks have 6 coins each.\n\nYou can try this again, but take a small fraction of the coins per move. Let’s say we do a quarter of the coins per move instead. We’ll round to the nearest integer in case of an odd number. The stacks will move like this\n\n10 - 2 (Move 3 from the 1st and 1 from the 2nd)\n\n8 - 4 (Move 2 from the 1st and 1 from the 2nd)\n\n7 - 5 (Move 2 from the 1st and 1 from the 2nd)\n\n6 - 6 (We are now even and all further moves will result in no net change)\n\nAs you see no matter how many we start with or how little we take the system will head toward an even split. **This is exactly the same principal in Osmosis!** The side with more of a given compound will have more molecules hitting the membrane and passing through than the side with less of the compound. The result is that the net flow will move towards the lesser side. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4epm0m | attempted manslaughter | So as far as I'm aware, attempted murder is trying to kill someone and not succeeding and manslaughter is intending to hurt someone and accidentally killing them. So what is attempted manslaughter? How can one be unsuccessful in hurting someone which then leads to their death? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4epm0m/eli5attempted_manslaughter/ | {
"a_id": [
"d228elp",
"d228f19"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your understanding of the difference between the two isn't quite right. Generally, a killing is classified as manslaughter if it is accidental/ the result of criminal negligence (involuntary) or an in-the-moment crime of passion (voluntary). The second is a bit fuzzy, and many cases could be classified as murder rather than manslaughter. Murder requires either evidence of premeditation, unreasonable reaction (similar to crime of passion, but think killing someone over bumping into you on the street rather than because they were verbally assaulting you), or something similar. \n\nSo, to answer your question, attempted manslaughter would mean that someone had failed an attempt to kill someone in a situation that would have been classified as voluntary manslaughter (involuntary wouldn't really make sense because it wouldn't be an \"attempt\"). ",
"Manslaughter is killing someone without \"malice aforethought\" meaning without serious intent to kill the person before you did it.\n\nWhether that's an accident (involuntary manslaughter), a different crime that got out of hand (aggravated manslaughter), or killing someone in a heat-of-the-moment situation where you didn't mean for them to die (voluntary manslaughter).\n\nAttempted manslaughter is attempted voluntary manslaughter. Where, in a fit of rage or passion or whatever, you tried to kill someone and failed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3s4wwj | how are countries seperated? | E.G:
How was it decided where Germany would end and Austria begin? How was it decided where Poland ends and Belarus begins?
(sure you get the idea now, thanks!) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s4wwj/eli5how_are_countries_seperated/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwu2wvl",
"cwu3fe1"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"At some point in history they've decided where the borders are. In many cases it follow a natural landmark like a river, but in others it's just a decision on \"this is mine, that is yours\" or the result of a stalemate in a war.\n\nGranted, it doesn't always work perfectly, there's several places where countries disagree and both claim an area is their. Even close allies like Canada and the US have a couple areas they both say are theirs.",
"As others have said: generally by natural boundaries such as rivers, mountains etc. But boundaries shift over time.\n\nHave a look at [Europe in 1700](_URL_5_), for example. Many countries are still recognisable (Spain, Portgual, England, Scotland, Wales).\n\nOthers are combined (Denmark and Norway are a single country).\n\nItaly is a mass of different countries and independent states, as is Germany. The \"Hasburg Monarchy\" contains modern Austria, Hungray, part of Germany, and others. Greece is part of the Ottoman Empire.\n\nItaly was unified in [1871](_URL_1_), though a series of wars.\n\nOtto von Bismark [unified the various independent German states](_URL_0_), though Germany remains a federal republic, with lawmakers in each state being independent (to some degree). This also involved a couple of wars. Since you asked specifically about Germany and Austria, that link should give you an overview about how that specific border was drawn up.\n\nFor more details, have a read about the [Austro-Prussian War](_URL_2_).\n\nThese sorts of wars have been ongoing in Europe since the Roman Empire, and borders in Europe have moved much more frequently. England [used to rule half of France](_URL_4_), for example. [This page](_URL_3_) has a nice animated map of France, showing the borders evolving over time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/nationalism/unification/revision/1/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_France",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr... | |
1tvy9h | When I "start" two balls in a Newton's Cradle, why does it reflect with two balls on the other side instead of just the last ball with twice as much kinetic energy? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1tvy9h/when_i_start_two_balls_in_a_newtons_cradle_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cec0z0c",
"cec5ixe",
"cec93xg",
"cecglvf"
],
"score": [
70,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because both energy and momentum are conserved. Energy is quadratic in velocity and momentum is linear. If the energy of two balls went into one ball, the resulting velocity would only be 1.4x the original, meaning momentum would be lost. Momentum can't be lost, so that can't happen (at least not without something else getting involved).",
"Let's approach this blindly: two balls, each of mass m, strike one side at speed vi. On the other side, we allow N balls to exit with arbitrary speed vf. Let's write down conservation of momentum and energy:\n\n(2m)vi = (Nm)vf\n\n(1/2)(2m)vi^2 = (1/2)(Nm)vf^2\n\nThe first equation gives us vf = 2vi/N. So far, we can have any number of balls, provide each of their speeds is equal to 2vi/N. Solving for vf in the second equation, we find vf^2 = 2vi^2 /N. Again, N and vf are arbitrary, however they MUST satisfy the first equation simultaneously. So, we take the expression for vf from the first equation and plug it into the second equation: (2vi/N)^2 = 2vi^2 /N. The vi cancels, and we are left with:\n\n4/N^2 = 2/N\n\nN^2 = 4N/2\n\nN = 2.\n\nSo there must be N=2 balls on the other side. Plug this back into either equation and you'll find vf=vi. ",
"What I love about the usual answer (dspeyer and others) is that it is the typical solution that the research physicists are looking for - it meets the criteria of fulfilling the required equations and so the effect is \"explained\". \n\nThen the engineers step in and model the system with springs and free body diagrams and come out with a \"model\". \n\nThe mystery of what is happening on a micro level is the purview of the theoretical physicists to dream up some solution explaining it.\n\nAs to what is really happening to the molecules? ask the theorists.",
"I'm gonna go out on a limb. It can't be treated as 2 single moving objects, rather as 4 independent objects. 2 balls swing down, the first hits the second set causing the far ball to swing. The second swinging ball then collides with the first swinging ball (now stationary) and sends the second stationary ball moving. It just happens fast enough that it seems like one collision. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
1zkua0 | Are there any records of isolated communities in Europe or elsewhere retaining pagan traditions or practices locally a la "The Wicker Man"? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zkua0/are_there_any_records_of_isolated_communities_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfukavr",
"cfulykc",
"cfunpa7"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't think any communities were exclusively pagan, but elements of pagan belief certainly survived alongside Christianity for quite a long time. In Central and Western Europe at least, it's not really until the Counter-Reformation that they begin to be viewed as suspect in the eyes of religious authorities. Bear in mind, though, that it's hard to extricate actual practices from the fractured narratives constructed through interrogation.\n\nThere's a really good book by Wolfgang Behringer called *The Shaman of Oberstdorf*, in which he works primarily from a trial that occurred in the Alps, but does a lot of research on folklore to try and reconstruct the context in which it happened.",
"The Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania were some of the last areas of Europe to be converted to Christianity. Rural areas are said to have practiced paganism centuries longer.\n\nLink to paper on it : _URL_0_\n\n\"Although officially christianized in the thirteenth century, the ancient Latvians did not accept Christianity until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — and then only superficially. The main reason for this was the non-acceptance of the indigenous population as equals by the ruling German nobility. .. forced the indigenous population to keep their old traditions, deities and basic social structure.\"\n\nBut it wasn't really secret in the sense you are looking for. ",
"It was all Christianized, but you may know that in Iceland people have continuously continued to believe in Elves and in gifted people able to communicate with them.\n\nOtherwise, I read this scholarly book called \"Loki\" (by French researcher George Dumézil) on comparative mythology. In the book, the author quotes another author who wrote in 1898 that when he was a boy, in England, he witnessed a strange practice. A boy was sick, and the boy's grandmother hung three horsehoes by the boy's bed, and hit them with a hammer whilst saying :\n\n*Feyther, Son and Holy Ghoast*\n\n*naale the divil to this poast;*\n\n*with this mall Oi throice dew knowk*\n\n*one for God an' one for Wod an' one for Lok !*\n\nWod would be \"Woden\" (=Odin), and Lok is \"Loki\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.lituanus.org/1987/87_3_06.htm"
],
[]
] | ||
4zbg9j | why do we feel stronger when we're mad? | Title says it all | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zbg9j/eli5why_do_we_feel_stronger_when_were_mad/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6uezcm",
"d6ufo86",
"d6ui12u"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Well, when you get angry your body also gets mad, this means that once your brain releases power milk, this power milk is called adrenaline, and what it does it makes you think faster, get stronger and it gives you better reflexes.",
"Specifically, adrenaline increases heart rate, contractility (force of contraction). And it shunts blood supply away from the gut and peripheral system and increases blood supply to the skeletal muscle and vital organs. It also dilates your pupils and opens up your air passages to allow you to see better and to increase oxygen exchange in the lungs. So your heart is beating more blood and oxygen to the muscles that do a lot of work in the body. In nature this allows you to run away fast from danger or allows you to fight off a predator or attacker. That's why it's referred to as the \"fight or flight\" response. ",
"ELI5 answer: Because you are stronger, as others have stated Adrenaline is pretty good stuff. \n\nSeriously random experiment: go find something heavy, like a couch, or a box that you can just barely lift (keep safe, lift with your legs not your back, don't hurt yourself I am not responsible if you do), give it a go without over straining just to get a feel for the weight of it. \n\nThen have a scream, seriously scream angrily in a (participating) friends face or just at the room in general, jump up and down and do your best war cry, punch a pillow if you need to, simulated anger is the key. Then try to lift your object again, it will feel a lot lighter, My brother and I used this trick to lift a piano up a flight of stairs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
9fc5jx | Why did Portugal's overseas power decline so dramatically in the 17th century? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9fc5jx/why_did_portugals_overseas_power_decline_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5w6t9m"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"I tried to give an answer to a similar [question](_URL_1_) some time ago, but might as well add some more thoughts now\n\nIn a multitude of factors of the reason of Portuguese \"decline\" the main ones are: \n\n1) arrival of seaborne European competitors in Asia in shape of Dutch East India Company (VOC) but also English East India Company (EIC) and others \n\n2) financial and military exhaustion of Spain and Portugal (then in Union) due to Thirty Year's war and excessive debts and defaults of Phillip IV which peaked in 1620s and 1630s\n\nEconomically the new Charter companies proved to be a better economic model to sustain an overseas trade empire. Why exactly is that is subject to many inquires but in simple way: they could raise more capital than their opponents, had a larger ship and cannon production base, and ultimately they could learn from Portuguese examples while not be encumbered by their mistakes.\n\nFor example of the last point, VOC concentrated on SE Asia, with a capital at modern day Jakarta which VOC called Batavia - and that proved to bring several advantages. Most importantly in 1611 Dutch discovered that instead of going North after passing Africa, if [they continue sailing East in the wind plenty \"Roaring Forties\" latitudes](_URL_0_), they can avoid the Monsoons which dictated sailing times to India, which enabled them to reach Batavia and Indonesia multiple times per year with less time constrains. As Islands of Sumatra and Java could themselves grow pepper, and the area was close to Moluccas where rarer and more valuable spices were growing, VOC quickly challenged Portuguese Malabar pepper imports. \n\nWhen massive amounts began arriving to Europe, pepper prices dropped, and that meant Portuguese economic model of earning money on pepper and spice imports - already on weak footing due to piracy and increasing cost for safety - collapsed. If we compare the shipping estimates of number of ships and tonnage between the [Portuguese](_URL_3_) and the [VOC & EIC](_URL_2_), we see that there was both a massive drop of Portuguese activity since the 1630s, but also that VOC ships and tonnage had risen to incredibly high figures, never reached by Portuguese even at their peak. Part of it was due to economic model, and part due to military events.\n\n\nThe first military conflicts overseas began soon after VOC and EIC had arrived in Indian Ocean (and Atlantic) but for the first two decades Portuguese actually managed to defended their key posts like Malacca in 1606 or Mozambique in 1607 and 1608. Following the expiration of Twelve Year Truce between Spain and Dutch in 1621, the hostilities recommenced. In 1624 Dutch briefly captured Salvador (capital of Brazil at the time), but the joint Spanish-Portuguese fleet recaptured it the following year, as well as defended Elmina, Macau, etc. They did lose Hormuz to Safavids with the English help in 1622.\n\nBut the situation changed drastically with Spanish bankruptcy of 1627 followed by Dutch capture of Spanish Treasure fleet in 1628, all in the midst of Eighty Year's War and Thirty Year's War causing massive costs to Spanish-Portuguese throne. The 1630s were a massive shift in favor of the Dutch. In 1635 they managed to take some parts Northern Brazil, a key area with it's sugar plantations, and attacked the others part with limited success. They've taken over Elmina in West Africa in 1635 and attacked Goa in 1638, and while Goa was defended, Portuguese fleet was neutralized, and Dutch moved in and attacked Ceylon.\n\nThe Portuguese proclamation of Independence and their Restoration war over it with Spain initially only allowed Dutch to use the distraction for further gains (despite signing a truce with the Portuguese which overseas wasn't really enforced). Dutch then took over some more area in Brazil, as well as Elmina and Gold Coast in Africa, and Luanda in Angola. With the help of Johor Sultanate they've finally taken over Malacca. In the later part of the 1640s and 1650s, the Portuguese with the aid of their new allies the English managed to recoup some losses. They've retaken the Brazil, as well as Angola, and solidified their rule in Mozambique, Goa, Macau. They did lose Malabar coast to the Dutch in the 1658- 1661 (1663) period. With the peace between the Dutch and Portuguese in 1663, what areas Portuguese were left with remained pretty much until the the decolonization period (bar Brazil)\n\n\nThe unrevealing of events for Portugal was dictated by the economic collapse of Spanish-Portuguese Crown in the 1620s and 1630s, coupled with their Restoration War to reclaim independence in combination with furious economic competition of new, vigorous charter companies, which had access to a large industrial and resource base. Dutch were one of the most urbanized and industrial areas on Earth at the time, but what most people forget they also controlled a lot of Baltic trade so they had access to a lot of Baltic resources, e.g. timber, grain, but also swedish iron, like cast-iron cannons which in huge numbers appeared in the 17th century and of which Sweden was no.1 exporter. Compared to resource poor Portugal who had to import most of it's weaponry, the advantage was heavily against them. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://imgur.com/o5wOA8A",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6z8rq1/16th_century_portugal_was_a_powerhouse_what/dmtryho/",
"https://imgur.com/JimaV3T",
"https://imgur.com/h1KsqBM"
]
] | ||
2q30qk | How big of a reaction would Francium cause when dropped in water? | I've seen reactions with all the other alkali metals and I understand that the reaction is greater the farther down the family you go but I've never seen a reaction with Francium. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2q30qk/how_big_of_a_reaction_would_francium_cause_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn3imkz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You don't see the Francium + water reaction because it is too scarce an element to create a noticeable reaction. Francium is the most unstable of the naturally occurring elements, and has a half-life of just 22 minutes. \n\nAs such, you can't really amass enough of it to make a noticeable reaction with water.\n\nAccording to wikipedia, \"The largest amount produced in the laboratory was a cluster of more than 300,000 atoms.\". This is a very tiny amount, so the \"explosion\" of dropping this into water would scarcely be noticeable. If certainly wouldn't compare to the reaction of dropping even a tiny chunk of one of the \"weaker\" alkali metals in water.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2wyq42 | why do we glorify conquerors like genghis khan and vilify the likes of adolf hitler? | This stems from A discussion about Genghis Khan that is currently on the front page. Why do we hold him in such high regard? Will people one day look at our "great dictators" responsible for genocide and romanticize them as well? I remember Khan depicted in one of the Bill & Ted movies when I was a kid. I can't imagine them doing that with a modern day killer.
Genghis Khan was a ruthless leader responsible for the deaths of tens of millions; the mongol empire was responsible for 30-40 million deaths. Why do we think that's cool? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wyq42/eli5_why_do_we_glorify_conquerors_like_genghis/ | {
"a_id": [
"covc5ac",
"covdtxl"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Genghis Khan was the leader of one of the most powerful and widespread nations on earth that was nigh unbeatable due to his prowess on the battle field and diplomatic relations. He killed millions in conquest, like many other great leaders.\n\nHitler was the leader of a country whose conquest hardly spread outside of his own continent. Though he was charismatic, he was hardly a good leader. He slaughtered a few million in an act that probably weakened his nation more than it helped.\n\nIt's doubtful that people will look back on Hitler as great leader purely because he wasn't. He wasn't a good military commander, he wasn't a good economist, he was charismatic but so were numerous other leaders that didn't eventually get beat.",
"Genghis Khan won. Hitler lost. Also, time. I imagine old Genghis was every bit the monster that Hitler was but we don't know him like we know Adolph."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
gzl6w | Is it likely that genital Herpes will be cured within this decade (or the next)? | I remember reading about breakthroughs and the possibility of a cure for genital herpes becoming available within 10-20 years. This was all research and news articles I had read in 2000 when I found out I had contracted genital herpes. It is now a decade later and the latest news swirling around is the failed vaccine (Simplirix) and subsequent decision by GSK to abandon it last year.
While I have been disheartened that a vaccine still hasn't been successfully developed, I have high hopes that there will be a cure (and vaccine) within my lifetime. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gzl6w/is_it_likely_that_genital_herpes_will_be_cured/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1rgdbl",
"c1rgg48",
"c1rie1y"
],
"score": [
16,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"A cure is unlikely. The problem is when herpes is latent, it just kinda sits there. Unless if you have a method to actively inactivate or remove ~~latent virus particles (doubtful)~~ the viral plasmid, you'll never have a \"cure\".\n\nPrevention, vaccine, and drugs to suppress outbreaks are significantly easier to develop and more accessible than a cure.\n\n~~Incidentally, whoever figures out how to inactivate latent viruses will be one step away from curing a bunch of other diseases, like HIV.~~\n\n*edit: craigdubyah pointed out that the HSV's latent form is actually circularized DNA in the nucleus. That's even more difficult to target than an encapsulated, intact virus.*\n\n*On the other hand...*\n\n*Does anyone know if antisense DNA works against dsDNA? If it does, that might be one potential to deal with latent HSV. But then they'll have to keep taking the drug to keep the viral DNA latent. Nevermind.*",
"Highly unlikely.\n\nHerpes simplex viruses are incredibly common. They are incredibly well adapted to surviving in humans (in our neurons). After initial infection, the virus can lay dormant for years.\n\nAdd to that our track record of disease eradication. So far, it's just smallpox. Guinea worm might be eradicated in the next few years. But polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. continue to cause problems worldwide despite very effective, cheap vaccines.\n\nAdd to that the priority of eradicating genital herpes. I'd put it pretty damn low. Sure, it can cause problems in newborn babies and the immunocompromised, but it's more of an annoyance than anything. And don't overlook that it's more profitable to sell Valtrex to someone for a lifetime than it is to cure them and lose a customer.",
"There are no cures for any viral diseases. Vaccines are another thing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
6uvx7j | Did acting Quasetors have the right to vote in the Senate? | I have read that the Roman Senate was made up of ex magistrates, which makes sense because to qualify for any higher position they had to be a Quasetor first. However, does this mean that acting Quasetors could not vote? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6uvx7j/did_acting_quasetors_have_the_right_to_vote_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlw1paz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Quaestors were automatically enrolled in the Senate after the time of Sulla's reforms. That means as soon as they took office, they could participate in meetings. Having said that, most of them were not in the city while in office, but instead out in the provinces or with armies, doing their jobs. Some of them were assigned to the City and would be expected to be present and participatory at all Senate meetings. Once they were done with their year of office, they continued to be members of the Senate unless one of the censors removed them. Some would go on to further offices (aedile, praetor, consul), but of course there were 20 quaestors per year and only 2 consuls—many quaestors therefore never made it all the way to the top."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
n4fk1 | How could the first organism develop something as complex as replication without the evolutionary process? | It's obviously not possible that the very first organism evolved the ability to reproduce, as reproduction is necessary for evolution, so how could reproduction possibly occur?
Surely a process so complex couldn't happen randomly without the help of a natural force such as evolution. I don't understand how so many molecules could spontaneously come together perfectly so that it creates a system which self-replicates. It is as if reproduction could only occur if it was an evolved ability, which is obviously not the case. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n4fk1/how_could_the_first_organism_develop_something_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"c365ufp",
"c365vbe",
"c365ufp",
"c365vbe"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Crystals \"reproduce\" themselves, but they are certainly not alive. Prions are proteins who have the ability to copy themselves by corrupting other proteins.\n\nRudimentary reproduction is not exclusive to life and can be found in many places in nature.",
"Certain types of RNA can both act as a coding sequence and an enzyme of replication. It has been hypothesized that organisms built themselves around this basic mechanism. So instead of having to gain replicative function, the organisms had it since the beginning.\n\nTo go a little further, the core components of RNA are fairly simple and common in nature (sugars, nitrogenous bases, and phosphates). In the hundreds of millions of years it took for life to arrise on earth, it isn't far fetched to think that RNA, or a close homologue were created spontaneously in the correct environment.",
"Crystals \"reproduce\" themselves, but they are certainly not alive. Prions are proteins who have the ability to copy themselves by corrupting other proteins.\n\nRudimentary reproduction is not exclusive to life and can be found in many places in nature.",
"Certain types of RNA can both act as a coding sequence and an enzyme of replication. It has been hypothesized that organisms built themselves around this basic mechanism. So instead of having to gain replicative function, the organisms had it since the beginning.\n\nTo go a little further, the core components of RNA are fairly simple and common in nature (sugars, nitrogenous bases, and phosphates). In the hundreds of millions of years it took for life to arrise on earth, it isn't far fetched to think that RNA, or a close homologue were created spontaneously in the correct environment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5rk7fq | how does dna even do things? | I get the basics, I think. DNA is made of four thingies, it codes for proteins that are important (?) And it determines what traits you have. And then it splits in half and replicates itself to form new cells. At least that's my understanding after a couple days of biology class and about an hour of google. Still not quite sure how DNA even tells the cell what to do, but I sorta have an idea of that.
What I really don't understand and can't seem to find an answer to, is how does DNA work? As in, if there are only the four nucleotides, and they match up with each other in a certain way, then all the instructions must have to do with the order of the nucleotides, right? So how does a bunch of nucleotides in a certain order determine what your cells (protein thingies in the cell i guess) are supposed to do? What makes one order different from another?
Unless I'm completely wrong and the order isn't even important. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rk7fq/eli5_how_does_dna_even_do_things/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd7xnj3",
"dd7xv92",
"dd7yan4",
"dd7yeof",
"dd7zfg0",
"dd84w0y",
"dd85zh2",
"dd8eqao"
],
"score": [
33,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer: structure = function.\n\nThe order of the four \"thingies\" in DNA determine the order of the joined-up LEGO blocks that we call a protein. DNA uses 20 different, specific LEGO blocks. For example, AAA codes for one type of LEGO, AGA codes for a different one, and so on. (There is overlap - each of the 20 LEGOs has several different patterns that code for it.)\n\nDue to the basics of physics and chemistry, each of those LEGO blocks acts in a unique way with respect to the other LEGO blocks around it. Certain parts of LEGO A attract and repel different parts of LEGO B, and ditto for C, D, E, and F. So at the end of the day, you've got this long string of LEGOs that folds into a certain specific shape, and that determines what the finished protein actually \"does.\" Proteins are kinda like very simple machines, and the order of their parts determines how that machine will behave, simply due to the rules of chemistry.",
"So the function of DNA is to store information in a way that can be copied. This is why the complementary base pairs are important, and you touched on that. So in addition to copying DNA into DNA (replication), DNA can be copied into RNA (transcription). The most basic type of RNA is messenger RNA or mRNA. This is a single strand of nucleic acid that has a copy of a gene. At the ribosome, the mRNA is translated into protein using tRNA, which matches amino acids to codons, which are 3 base pairs long. A proteins starts out as a string of amino acids, the order of which is dictated by the mRNA strand that was copied from the DNA. Based on the order of the amino acids, the protein folds up into a specific shape and this determines its function. Basically all of the things in your cells that are doing anything are made out of protein (some things are other types of RNA). Some proteins, such as collagen, give our body structure. Some proteins are enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions. Some are just there to make one protein stick to another in the right place at the right time. There are also non-coding regions of DNA that aren't transcribed. They have specific sequences that can be recognized (stuck to) by proteins that are involved in regulating whether genes are transcribed or not, and are referred to as regulatory regions.",
"DNA doesn't necessarily \"do\" things. It is acted upon by proteins. \nDNA is composed of the bases A, T, G, C. (A & T pair up and G & C pair up)\n\nEach group of 3 bases (example ATC), called a triplet. Codes for a particular amino acid. (Here's a chart _URL_0_)\n\nAmino acids are the building blocks of proteins. The organization of amino acids determine the structure of the protein. The structure of the protein determines it function. \n\nPS left out RNA to keep things simple.",
"Your body is made of, among other things, proteins. Those proteins are absofrigginglutely amazing: many of them are actually tiny machines. When your muscles contract, you are actually forcing a tiny two headed protein to WALK down a \"wire\", stretching the muscle fibers, causing them to shorten and contract. \n\nThose proteins are made of chains amino acids. There are about 20 amino acids in your body and they all have a different shape. Put different ones together and the assembled protein will have a different shape. If the proteins don't have the right sequence of amino acids, the shape will be wrong and quite likely, the protein won't be able to do its job. Worse, the protein might actually do something *harmful*.\n\nYou have machines in your cells that will follow instructions and grab amino acids floating around in the cell and link them into a protein. So, our body needs to be able to tell those machines which amino acids to grab.\n\nHere's where DNA comes in. There are four bases (ACGT). You're right that order matters. To get enough combinations, we have to put them in (at least) groups of three, because groups of two would only give us sixteen (4^2) different combinations (e.g. AA, AC, AG, AT, CA, CC, and so on), but groups of three (4^3) give us 64 combinations. As it turns out, groups of three bases (called a codon) is what our cells look for. So the TTT codon tells the cell to add a different amino acid than CCC (TTT = phenylalanine, CCC = proline). Because there are extra combinations, there is some overlap. Some codons code for the same amino acid (TTT and TTC both code for phenylalanine).\n\nOur cells start reading DNA, and transcribing (copying it into a different format) called mRNA. That mRNA then gets read by the ribosome and then a machine called a tRNA grabs amino acids and links them up. So a sequence that reads, TTT-CCC-GGG-AAA will get you a protein made of Phe-Pro-Gly-Lys whereas a sequence that reads TTT-TTT-TTT-TTT will get you Phe-Phe-Phe-Phe.\n\n",
"You need the central dogma. DNA makes mRNA, which goes out into the cytoplasm and is used to make proteins, which then get processed and polished up to perform their functions. This video is a quick rundown of what happens.\n\n_URL_0_",
"[Here's a cool video of DNA replicating itself.](_URL_2_)\n\nThe blobs that do the work are made of proteins, which were created by [other proteins that read the DNA](_URL_0_), and then [turn the code into working proteins](_URL_1_).",
"Imagine you're working with three different alphabets and you're trying to translate from one to the next to the next. Let's say DNA is the first alphabet. Each strand of letters in your DNA is transcribed to the second alphabet (RNA). Then that strand of RNA is translated in to the third alphabet - Amino Acids. So now you have a long strand of amino acids. Certain amino acids in that strand are attracted to one another and certain ones are repelled by one another. As the amino acids attract to one another this string starts to fold together in a specific way because of the specific arrangement of the amino acids. This gives the final product a certain shape. (Imagine lightly crumpling up tin foil creating specific shaped pockets in it) The resulting shape of the protein makes it do a certain job (function). For one example we'll use the protein catalase. It is an enzyme which has pockets in it, because of the way it folded, which perfectly fit the hydrogen peroxide molecule. The protein fits the molecule in it and separates the hydrogen peroxide into H20 and Oxygen. That is one example but all proteins perform a function determined by it's shape which is made by the attraction and repulsion of the charges of the amino acids which is a long strand of letters from alphabet \"c\" which is translated from RNA (alphabet \"b\") which is transcribed from DNA (alphabet \"a\"). ",
"Try not to get bogged down with their only being 4 *thingies*. Machine code only has two *thingies* and machine AI can now beat humans at all sorts of things. We have computer code that can predict the weather and computer code that makes tinder appear on your phone, all of it can be reduced down to long strings of 1's and 0's.\n\nFewer values means you need more of them to describe something, that is all, it does not make it any less effective at doing something complex.\n\nI don't know the biology of how DNA works, but I know physics, and I know that there are just fundamental rules happening at the atomic and quantum level all the time. Forces repel, forces attract, momentum must be conserved etc. Given a complex enough system, you will see complex results. Such as how different materials have different properties. Thus you can think of an atomic (or subatomic) structure as a set of instructions for the laws of physics.\n\nNow completely flip that upside down. Imagine instead of the laws of physics we have a very basic computer that runs on machine code. And rather than leaving it up to evolution, let's give a bunch of monkeys a bunch of .txt files and keyboards with only two keys, 1 and 0. Almost all of those monkeys are going to write jibberish. The computer might be able to run the code, but there will be no tangible effect.\n\nHowever given enough monkeys and millions of years... then eventually one of them is going to write some code that writes code. That event, is on par with the existence of life. The code itself becomes a blueprint for a living thing, which on its own doesnt do anything, but when it gets processed by the machine (aka the physical world) the effects are that of life and evolution."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/aminoacids/dnacode.gif"
],
[],
[
"https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/central-dogma.html"
],
[
"https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/12-transcription-basic.html",
"https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/16-translation-advanced.html",
"htt... | |
1rlzg6 | How effective as a fighting force were the "martial races" e.g Sikh's and Gurkha's in the British Army? Were they deserving of their reputation? | Hi, im doing a mini-dissertation and im in the process of ~~panicking and raging about how I dont know what I want to do~~ forming my working title and project. Im focusing on and around the 'martial race' theory and I just wanted to ask if these 'martial races' were really *that* much an effective fighting force(excluding individuals) or were they simply hyped up for propaganda?
Terrible question I know but I really dont know how else to form what I want to ask.
Also if this helps, this is what my current working title is: What benefits and drawbacks; socially, economically and militarily, were there in the recruitment of 'martial races' within the British Indian Army? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rlzg6/how_effective_as_a_fighting_force_were_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdosigb"
],
"score": [
44
],
"text": [
"Remember, the Martial Race theory came to fruition not in the early part of British colonialism where the East Indian Company was actually conquering land (the two Anglo-Sikh wars were between 1846-1849; the \"Gorkha War\" was 1816-18, the Third and final Maratha War was 1817–1818, etc.). The \"martial race\" idea was really put into practice only *after* the Rebellion of 1857 (the \"Sepoy Mutiny\"). Who were the \"martial races\"? According to Pradeep Barua's \"Inventing Race: The British and India's Marital Races\", *Historian* 58:1, 1995, pg. 110-1:\n\n > Martial races became a concern immediately after the outbreak of the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857, when the government conducted an official inquiry into the causes of the munity. The report of the Peel Commission concluded that the British had been unaware of the true martial attributes possessed by various Indian ethnic groups. According to the report, the mutiny had started with the Brahmins, whose high caste made them scheming and dishonest. Such high-caste domination of the Bengal Army had interfered with the traditional Indian social structure and provoked the munity. This simple explanation appealed to the British administrators at the time. After all, the Gurkhas, Sikhs, Marathas, and Rajputs--once the most formidable enemies of the British--had remained loyal and accepted British supremacy. Because these groups understood the meaning of honor, and duty, the British felt that they were India's truly martial people.\n\nLet's just stop here and realize that one of the characteristics of a truly \"martial fighting force\" was their non-rebellion. If you scan Wikipedia's list of [martial races](_URL_0_), you'll see several that say \"later excluded for rebellion\" or something similar. \n\nThis of course, was not a satisfactory justification:\n\n > Of the three explanations for the differences between martial and non-martial races in India--climatic theories, physical qualitites, and behavioral characteristics--physical measurement or anthropometry gained the greatest favor [...] \n\n > Physical measurement formed a crucial element in the recruitment of the martial races. The chief measurements taken at the recruiting centers were height and chest width. Although RIsely's methods of measuring skull and nose were not followed, the recruiting handbooks were full of descriptions about these and other physical characteristics of the respective martial classes. The officer who complied the famous handbook, *The Goorkhas*, noted with pride that their \"physique, compact and sturdy build, powerful development, keen sight, acute hearing, and hereditary education as a sportsman, eminently capacitate him for the duties of a light infantry soldier.\" Handbooks went into great detail about distinctive physical characteristics of each of the martial races. Another officer/author of an equally famous handbook, *The Sikhs*, wrote: \"The Jat SIkhs have always been famous for their fine physique and are surpassed by no race in India for high-bred looks, smartness, and soldierly bearing. The lenght of limb makes them excellent marchers, and their physical activity is developed by active habits.\" Another handbook, *Jats and Gujars*, showered similar prasie on the fine physique of the Jat. In*The Dogras*, two authors conceded that \"for vigour and manly strength the Dogra is not equal to the SIkh or Jat,\" but added that \"when enlisted, however, they rapidly develop and fill out\" and commended the Dogras as decidedly \"a good looking race,\" being generally \"fair owing to the temperate climate in which they live, and among the higher castes, owing to the purity of their descent.\" Using Risley's anthropometric methodology, the authors continued: \"This is a specialty notable among the Brahmins and Rajputs, who are more refined in their appearance than the 'Rathis' and 'Firthis'. The clear, narrow arched eyebrows are a distcintive characteristic of the high-bread Rajput Dogra, as is the fine nose and norrow nostril\".\n\nSo here we see an emphasis that they were chosen 1. for their actual loyalty, 2. for their putative physical traits. We see surprisingly little history, \"We know they're good because we fought so many wars with them.\" I'm *far* from a South Asianist, but from the little I know this constructivist/loyalty argument, I think it's true but perhaps not the whole story. One of the questions is where does \"martial prowess\" come from? 1) is technology and equipment, and since after 1857, these groups were given the best equipment, one would suspect that they showed more prowess. 2) would be more cultural reasons, be they based in organizations, training and education, or the power of symbols, etc. This second point is more critical before 1857. I don't know the answer to it, but it's a very interesting question. How much was the British idea of \"martial races\" based on loyalty? How much of it was based on objective (but arbitrary) physical measurements? How much was it based on past behavior? If they were notably successful against the British, what caused this success? I don't know the answers to those questions and perhaps they can't even be answered. \n\nMethodologically, to figure out the benefits of the martial racehood, you have to have a comparison group, the non-martial races. I think particularly comparing before and after 1857 will do a lot to clear up how much of this was \"real\" and how much of this was a post-hoc explanation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race#Tribes_and_groups_designated_as_martial_classes"
]
] | |
2qu9ye | stock prices | I'm trying to get into investing, and I want to understand everything: I'm a bit confused on how stock prices rise and fall; what I studied says supply and demand, which I guess makes sense, however: how is the increase in price actually calculated? i.e who actually determines by how much the price rises/falls? Additionally, to my understanding of supply and demand if a stock is doing well why would it ever fall? People want it so the price will keep rising...? Last: does a company set its own value? Do they tell you how many stocks they will sell and for what price? Who owns the non-outstanding shares of the company...?
Thanks and sorry for the long q's. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qu9ye/eli5_stock_prices/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn9km6c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The stock market is very complex, so I'm going to address your questions individually.\n\nChanges in price are driven by the market, it's purely \"what it's worth\". This is both in terms of a share of the company (and it's worth) or what others are willing to pay for a stock.\n\nNo one determines the price, the market does. You can sell stock at a non-market price (most commonly seen in \"dumping\" where a big holder wants to turn stocks into cash as soon as possible, even if it's not sold at 100% what it's worth). You can try selling higher, but who the heck would pay more for something they could buy cheaper anywhere else? Most of the time, shares trade at market price.\n\nA stock doing well can fall if the company itself devalues, or even if the outlook for future performance is poor (EX: a company makes guns, and new gun laws were passed which would hurt business. Even though the company is doing as well as ever, the future threat makes it worth less today).\n\nA company does set it's own value, at least at IPO time. They decide a worth, and a number of shares to issue. Worth divided by shares=price. After that, market forces come into play. Changes in the company's value (profits/losses) change the stock price. Demand can change the price as well, since it's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Say all shares are sold, and the company is doing well, so people want those shares. They will likely be sold at more than they are \"worth\" as a share of the company's value, because the future value of the stock is worth paying a bit extra for today, and the buyer would have no incentive to sell otherwise."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1tmfzj | how can movie previews show scenes or quotes that are different from what is actually shown or said in the movie? | Not familiar with false advertising laws but I feel like this has to fall under that somehow. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tmfzj/eli5_how_can_movie_previews_show_scenes_or_quotes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce9dqki",
"ce9dxyl"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Previews aren't always based on final cuts. When a preview features a scene that isn't in the final film, it isn't out of an attempt to deceive, but because the editing changed between the time the preview was constructed and when the final film was released.",
"Many trailers are cut separate from the film itself. Often using a different editor. They might then dip into alternate takes than the ones chosen by the feature editor. Also some producers/directors chose to use alternates so when the audience gets to that scene they don't have the joke ruined."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
eenj4z | What major advancements were there in musket combat? | This is one thing I've always been curious about. There were centuries of musket warfare, and even into early rifles and breech loaders. But it's always depicted as the two sides standing 100yards away and firing at each other. I have a vague knowledge of different tactical advancements like fire by ranks, platoon fire, and oblique tactics. But I was curious what I was missing and if there are any game changers. Like it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a force that knows it's smaller to put professional troops immediately in harm's way. There might be a macro concept I'm missing, but any info about the key advancements in musket warfare would make my day! | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eenj4z/what_major_advancements_were_there_in_musket/ | {
"a_id": [
"fk4mmt9"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The problem is that way too much attention is paid to line infantry and even then too much attention paid to their use of muskets. In reality nor musketry nor line infantry alone paint an accurate, complete picture of warfare in the early modern period. First of all there's the fact that melee combat had never stopped being an expected feature of war, the pike squares of the 16-17th centuries were for much of the period the majority of infantry, and they didn't really dissapear because they were no longer useful, they just gave way to the bayonet of the 18th century, in order to combine musket firepower and the pike into one soldier. So the 18th century line infantry soldier often gets confused for light infantry which causes people to think they were fighting in a rather ineffective manner, but they were fighting in the same types of formations as the pikemen of old, or like roman legions or greek phalanxes, that is as heavy infantry, with the added benefit of integrated firepower support because their pike poles can shoot out lead balls. So while firefights could and did occur and could be very lengthy and bloody, they served a support role to the eventual bayonet charge, and the balance between both weapons varied, sometimes only a few volleys would be exchanged before one side gave way, sometimes a formation would approach the enemy, fire a single volley at very close ranges, and then proceed to charge, sometimes *they wouldn't even shoot at all* and go straight for the charge. The notion that two armies would just stand there and shoot mindlessly was the ideal that armies of the day sought to achieve, of disciplined, unflinching firepower to overwhelm the enemy, but it remained just that, an ideal, and musketry was actually mostly a hectic, disorganized, chaotic affair of anxious, frightened troops, which on its own could hardly be decisive, thus melee combat never really lost its relevance, which really makes 18th century warfare more similar to medieval than modern combat, which is often the frame of reference that people have since muskets are the predecessors of our modern weaponry.\n\nMore important is the development of light infantry tactics which is often overlooked. The technical limitations of the day established a sort of tradeoff, you can either have greater rate of fire at short ranges with a smoothbore musket loaded with a ball of smaller diameter, or greater accuracy with a tight fitting ball and a rifled musket at the expense of rate of fire. While the first is excellent for heavy infantry combat in which short ranges are to be expected anyways, the second is better fit for a different set of skills and tactics, and as such light infantry often fought in open order formations in broken terrain, relying not on force of numbers but on individual initiative and marksmamship, and they would often be deployed ahead of the main army to harrass enemy formations and snipe officers and drummers to sow confusion among enemy lines, plus engaging in smaller scale operations ouside the battelfield such as raids, ambushes, skirmishes, and was especially useful in sieges where the rate of fire was not really a pressing issue, which is very significant in itself given the absolute ubiquity of sieges over any other kind of military operation during the period. The complications of loading a rifled musket and its greater cost though meant that the smoothbore musket was overrepresented in the battlefield, but it doesn't tell the whole story.\n\nThen there's the fact that infantry was not alone in the battlefield, it also had to face off against cavalry and artillery, the former of which was a threat to the flanks and rear and could exploit any gaps in a disorganized formation, and the latter of which could be absolutely destructive against a dense infantry column or square. So infantry did not just statically fire volleys at other infantry, it had to weather murderous cannon fire as it approached the enemy before coming within musket range and had to quickly form up in squares to fend off incoming cavalry, and was of course also supported in its operations by its own cavalry and artillery arms, whether in the offense or the defense. Both cavalry and artillery have their own histories of tactical and technolgical development during the early modern period that played a fundamental role in shaping the overall conduct of war in the battlefield along with the development of musket infantry. In short there was an entire very complex and highly developed tactical system in which the musket was but one single weapon, even if the most common, and even so only by the 18th century.\n\nAs i talked about sieges above i think it needs some greater explanation because the art of siege warfare suffered a dramatic transformation during the period due to the influence of firearms, for the traditional fortifications of medieval times were ill suited to resist the destructive fire of the new siege guns, so fortification architecture developed to be able to better resist cannon fire as well as to be able to emplace guns itself for defense. Arsenals of fortifications included all sorts of guns of all sorts of calibers for defense, and this significantly included large numbers of garrison troops armed with muskets to shoot over the walls, through musket loops, from the covered ways or in trenches, ditches or whatever other makeshift fortifications to aid in the defense. Musket fire was essential both by attackers and defenders during the assault made on a breach made by cannon fire or in an attempt to climb over the walls. Heavily fortified fronts such as the Netherlands, Italy, Livonia or the Balkans were the stage for long drawn out wars of sieges and countersieges in which the demand for musket armed infantry was significant.\n\nIn strictly technological terms the musket *was* the big advancement in itself, for once proper handheld firearms with a wooden stock and a firing mechanisn were developed in the late 15th century it hardly changed at all for the next 300 years, sure there were several incremental improvements later on, the most significant of which being the universal adoption of the more reliable flintlock but also including paper cartidges, lighter barrels, bayonets, steel ramrods etc. but the underlying ballistic performance of the weapon remained much the same, for rifles were expensive as stated above and breechloaders even more so, not to mention often too delicate, thus the issue was far more geared towards finding effective tactics with which to employ the sturdy and cheap smoothbore muzzleloaders, which resulted in the development of the pike and shot formations in which the musketeers served a support role to the pikemen, and these configuration was what would dominate the battlefield until the 19th century, with various changes and improvements with regards to pike to shot ratio, drilling, formations, organization, firepower delivery, command and control etc. but still at heart a formation of heavy infantry supported by light infantry.\n\nSources:\n\n* Keith Roberts, Adam Hook - Pike and Shot Tactics 1590-1660\n* Bert S. Hall - Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics\n* Nosworthy - With Musket, Cannon and Sword: Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies\n* Stuart Reid, Steve Noon - The Flintlock Musket: Brown Bess and Charleville, 1715–1865"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4x6x9f | Is there anything that suggests that Nazi Germany encouraged its Olympic athletes to dope? | I have been reading about past Olympics and found out that the DDR had a systemic doping program, (especially in Munich in 1972). Given so much was riding on the 1936 Berlin Olympics, such as Hitler's ideas of Aryan supremacy, would the German team have used performance-enhancing drugs?
EDIT: By doping I mean to take drugs that would improve an athlete's performance | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4x6x9f/is_there_anything_that_suggests_that_nazi_germany/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6db7kw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not a complete answer but some facts:\n\nSteroids weren't marketed commercially until 1960 however have a record of being used in sport since at least 1954 (Soviet physicians talking to Ziegler)\n\nThere is definitely an element of the definition that the substance needs to be banned to be considered doping.\n\nThere has been a tradition of using substances since antiquity.\n\nIn the Berlin Olympics in 1936 amphetamine first made the scene to a notable level.\n\nIn 1988 Ben Johnson was stripped of his medal for steroid use. I think this is the first case of steroid use resulting in a high profile penalty.\n\n\nIt seems certain that the answer to your question is subjective based on the meaning of doping. I don't think a case can be made that any of these examples went against a ban from a governing body. I don't see that there was any specific international agreements in place at the time that would prevent performance enhancing substances from occurring and it doesn't seem like this is an organized practice until the Cold War started. I suspect that view might be a tad naive as there are credible pieces of evidence that several actors were,in an organized way, supplying their athletes with substances."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1465st | why does my mouth get all salty before i puke? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1465st/why_does_my_mouth_get_all_salty_before_i_puke/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7aaa84"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"My wild guess would be it is to counter the awaited stomach acids (more than a salty flavour i found it weird-flavoured, but definitely alcalic)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
14ptr1 | how despite trade embargoes north korea has successfully launched a rocket to place a satellite into orbit | Given that the place is supposed to be cut off from the rest of the world, how on God's earth are they managing to find the know-how and supplies to put objects into orbit?
How is this possible? They cannot be doing this without the tacit support of at least the Chinese, right? And are people doing business with them in spite of their status? What- if anything- is being done to punish those doing so? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14ptr1/eli5_how_despite_trade_embargoes_north_korea_has/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7fc5sd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"North Korea is not really cut off from the rest of the world. A lot of companies are doing business with them. Take the Ryugyong Hotel for instance. It is being build by an Egyptian company and will be run by a German company. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7up1br | does drinking 1l of water 2-3 times a day have the same “hydration impact” as spreading the water out over the day? | Is there an ideal frequency and volume to hydrate with? I feel like I drink a lot of water, but I do it in large bursts, and still feel dehydrated at times. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7up1br/eli5_does_drinking_1l_of_water_23_times_a_day/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtm1ose",
"dtm1pb6",
"dtm4jvp",
"dtmd3tm"
],
"score": [
20,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of nonsense out there masquerading as science about how you need to drink so much water every day, but unless you have a health issue or are an athlete, drink as much water as you need to not feel thirsty, and don't worry about not drinking enough. Your body does a pretty good job of telling you when you need to drink water by making you feel thirsty. ",
"I'm no scientist, but from my experience the more I drink in one sitting the more likely I am on avg to pee afterwards. As opposed to taking sips now and then or the odd drink where I am more \"regular\". ",
"My coach said that we can only take up 2dl of water per 15minutes. If you drink more then you will just pee it.",
"The research (anyone have the citation?) that triggered all these claims about how much water you need to drink a day said that a person needs to consume 8 glasses of water a day. Note \"consume\", not necessarily \"drink\". You get water from your food and in other drinks too.\n\nDrinking 2-3 litres of water a day is unnecessary unless there is a good reason for it, such as being in a very hot climate or it being medically prescribed. Drinking a litre at one sitting will just act as a diuretic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
a9faxx | young and old sperm impact | If i were to freeze up my sperm right now as 23 year old, and in 10 years i make a baby with that younger me sperm and older me sperm, what differences would there be between those two babies? Does our genetic code changes as we go through life, and does it have an impact on our offspring? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9faxx/eli5_young_and_old_sperm_impact/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecisp50",
"ecjaso8",
"ecjeodq"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The likelihood of genetic mutation is higher at an older age. Coupled with factors like smoking and stress also increases that likelihood. ",
"Sperm from men over age 40 start to have more issues. Basically, when the body makes sperm, it makes copies of copies of copies. Over time, more mutations gather. So older men have more likelihood of a child with autism or schizophrenia, though risk is still small. The man could also develop more health problems, causing issues such as low sperm count, decreasing fertility.",
"Our genetic code does change as a result of spontaneous mutations and replication errors\n\nBut in order for those genes to manifest in the sperm, the mutation has to occur in the testes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1mhgki | can we calculate the death of a star with enough accuracy to watch the light disappear from the sky? | I'm thinking naked eye star gazing. I understand the star would die some time prior to the light extinguishing from view, but is that sort thing actually calculable? Or would a dying star that's located close enough to be viewed with the naked eye kill us before we could see the spectacle? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mhgki/eli5_can_we_calculate_the_death_of_a_star_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc9b1ug",
"cc9bc12",
"cc9cbft"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, the thing is stars stay pretty bright after dying, and in some cases get much much brighter.",
"We can look at a star's mass and spectrum and say a star will go \"soon\", which to an astronomer means definitely some time between now and about a million years in the future. For example, we're currently waiting patiently for a red giant star called Betelgeuse in the constellation Orion to go supernova. It has already used up most of it's hydrogen fuel and is clearly on its last legs.\n\nThe supernova will be visible \"soon\". Eta Carinae is also visible to the naked eye and predicted to go off in the near-ish future.\n\nDying stars are unlikely to be much of a threat to Earth. There is nothing big enough, close enough and pointed in the right direction to do much damage, although the radiation from either Eta Carinae or Betelgeuse might damage some satellites.\n\nYou actually just missed a good one, in astronomical time, by about 1000 years. SN 1006 was brighter than a full moon from Earth. There have been [many other easily visible supernovas](_URL_0_) but none in modern times.\n\n",
"In astronomy the term \"century\" is used about as often as \"nanosecond\" is in normal speech.\n\nWe can narrow it down to about a million years, but under no circumstances *ever* down to a certain date."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation#Early_history"
],
[]
] | |
218fbh | why do americans need to file tax returns each year? | Why do we need to submit complicated paperwork to the government each year before we get our yearly net tax refund/bill? Why doesn't the government just calculate how much tax we need to pay for each paycheck based on basic information (salary/wage, pay frequency, state of residence, etc)? It seems that the only reason someone should need to file anything is if he/she had additional things to deduct, such as mortgage interest, student loan interest, or other special items. It doesn't make sense how someone who pays taxes with each paycheck could end up owing the government thousands of dollars more at the end of the year with basically no warning. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/218fbh/eli5_why_do_americans_need_to_file_tax_returns/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgal9z8",
"cgalgln",
"cgaoqpk",
"cgarbi5"
],
"score": [
43,
6,
6,
4
],
"text": [
" > Why doesn't the government just calculate how much tax we need to pay for each paycheck based on basic information (salary/wage, pay frequency, state of residence, etc)?\n\nBecause that's not enough to determine your taxes.\n\nAre you currently a student? Are you paying back student loans? Are you paying off interest on a mortgage? Did you buy an electric car? Did you install solar panels on your house? Did you earn income from gambling? Did you earn interest on savings accounts? Did you donate to charity? Did you have a child?\n\nAll of those factors (and many more) will change your tax obligation, and the government needs you to explicitly list whether or not those things apply to you.\n\n > It doesn't make sense how someone who pays taxes with each paycheck could end up owing the government thousands of dollars more at the end of the year with basically no warning.\n\nThe only way that can happen is if you **really** screw up your deductions when you fill out the W-4 form that your employer gives you when you begin employment (or fail to update it when you have a change in life circumstances).",
"Filing is how you tell the government what you made and whatever other information they need to correctly assess your taxes. They get a copy of your W-2 and other tax sheets, but that doesn't tell the whole story most of the time. If it does, then all you need is the one-page 1040EZ to just confirm it.\n\nYou also need to remember that the taxes you pay throughout the year are deducted by your employer, not the government directly. Your employer deducts it based on what they think you'll owe for the year. If they're deducting too much or too little, that's an issue with your employer, not the government.",
" > It doesn't make sense how someone who pays taxes with each paycheck could end up owing the government thousands of dollars more at the end of the year with basically no warning.\n\nCertain situations pretty much guarantee this will happen. Waiters in the US are paid $2.13 an hour on their paychecks. As long as their tips add up to minimum wage for the pay period, the restaurant doesn't actually have to pay them minimum wage. Because there's so little money on the paychecks, ALL of it must be withheld for taxes, meaning every paycheck a server gets is for $0.00. Even so, $2.13 an hour doesn't add up to shit when tax season actually comes around, so you end up owing a lot of money because not enough was withheld throughout the year. This hits especially hard for myself because I'm not paying for my own schooling (my parents are), I don't have any loans, and I'm still claimed as a dependent by my parents (I let them because they pay for my schooling). This all adds up to a perfect storm of bullshit and I ended up owing $1400 this year.",
"Another aspect is IRS code is used to incentivize certain activities. Encourage people to buy houses? Give 'em a credit. Want to encourage more energy efficient homes? Give 'em a credit for insulation, windows, and doors that reduce heating/cooling costs. Education credits, retirement credits, and so on. Preferred tax treatment on investments held for more than a year to encourage investing.\n\nUS tax code also assumes $X for \"Standard Deduction\" and \"Exemptions\" (per-person in household), money the government won't charge income tax on. Got two jobs? Good way to mess that up. Both may assume, based on your W-4, they are the only source of income for you and will figure in the standard deduction (and exemptions you claim) as not taxable, possibly doubling the amount of income that tax was not withheld on (this can cause taxes to be due).\n\nDoes your country do a flat-rate tax from the first < unit of currency > earned?\n\nAmerican income tax increases base on earnings. 0% for the first $X. 10% on the next $Y. 15% on the next $Z, added to the tax from $Y. (I may be a bit murky here, sorry.)\n\nTo further complicate things, the Standard Deduction can be supplanted by Itemizing certain qualified expenses (Medical Expenses (Reduced by a formula), Mortgage Interest, Real Estate Taxes, Sales Tax, and so forth). If the amount of these expenses are more than your Standard Deduction, you are better off taking these.\n\nSocial Security and Medicare? Flat percentage from dollar 1 (Social Security stops at an earnings point somewhere around $117,000 for 2014), half withheld from your check, half paid by your employer.\n\nSelf-employed? You get to pay both portions if you made more than $400. In this way you can end up not making enough for Income Taxes, but still have to pay in to the IRS (passed on to the Social Security Administration).\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
8qvvi7 | why is a burger not considered a sandwich, but a pulled pork "sandwich" is? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qvvi7/eli5_why_is_a_burger_not_considered_a_sandwich/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0mfoco",
"e0mfpm6",
"e0mfsvx",
"e0mfu6g",
"e0mfuwx",
"e0mh15p"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"a burger is a sandwich, it is meat between two pieces of bread. Hotdogs are typically one piece of bread with the meat on top.\n\nBut ya a burger is a sandwich, which is meat between two pieces of bread.",
"Burgers are sandwiches.\n\nA sandwich is defined as \"an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal.\"",
"A burger is a particular type of sandwich. The status of hotdogs is irrelevant.\n\nIf you are making an assertion (Burgers are not Sandwiches) but cannot support your assertion such that you need internet strangers to make your argument for you, you should concede the point.",
"Both pulled pork sandwiches and burgers use similiar buns, so the bread wouldn't be the deciding factor. The main difference would be the state the meat is in, i.e. shredded vs patty. I don't think this difference is enough to qualify a burger as NOT a sandwich while shredded pork is, so I would actually say that both are a type of sandwich.",
"Burgers are in fact sandwiches, hot dogs are not, ice cream sandwiches aren't actually sandwiches. Crazy world huh ",
"First of all, by definition, a burger is a sandwich. \n\nThe reason why some people might not consider burgers as sandwiches is just a quirk in semantics and the way people associate words within semantic fields (some words fit much more firmly into certain semantic fields, while some are more periferal). If I tell you to list a bunch of fruits, you'll likely say apple, banana, orange, strawberry, etc. But you likely won't mention avocado or tomato, while botanically they are fruits, they are consumed more like vegetables (ie in savory dishes). \n\n On a typical restaurant menu, there's often a section called \"Burgers and Sandwiches\" or if it's a speciality burger shop, \"sandwiches\" may be on a different part of the menu all together. \n\nSo we definitely differentiate the two in daily life, and there is a meaningful distinction (namely, a ground beef patty on a bun). If someone were to ask you \"hey, are you eating a sandwich?\" and you respond \"no I'm eating a burger\".\nNobody is going to second guess your response or get confused. However, if your response was \"no, I'm eating a Reuben.\" that would be a much more contentious answer, since Reubens are clearly sandwiches, and while burgers are technically sandwiches, they have a their own distinct semantic field. For example, \"are you eating a hamburger?\" \"no I'm eating a bacon cheeseburger.\" again, contentious, a bacon cheeseburger is a type of hamburger. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3uwrom | when a pregnant woman is rh negative, they receive the rhogam shot, where the doctor automatically assumes the man is a positive blood type- i have a few questions about this. | I have tried googling this, but only am able to get information regarding how the shot helps the fetus if the mother is negative.
1. Is it that unlikely that their partner is a negative as well because of how rare it is?
2. Or- are men prone to having a positive blood type? (I am female, rh negative, and I have actually met a few people with negative blood types but so far, all were women. My child is a positive blood type.)
3. What would happen if both parents actually were RH negative, would receiving the shot affect the developing fetus in anyway?
4. Why do doctors not look into the male's blood type??? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uwrom/eli5_when_a_pregnant_woman_is_rh_negative_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxidx34",
"cxxafeo"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To my knowledge it does nothing to the fetus. If you are fairly certain as to who the father is, the doctor should take that into account. The purpose of the shot is to keep the mother from developing antibodies to the rh+ blood factor(it protects future babies, not really much for the one you are carrying when you get the shot). I do not think there is a gender disparity of rh factors.",
"It's easier to just give the shot, which poses no threat to the fetus, than start brining up questions about paternity. Yes people lie so might as well be safe than sorry. (I work in a blood bank)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
aalp6k | How do astronomers both find things so far away that aren't objects, like the KBC Void or Boötes Void, and identify objects' properties like atmosphere, temperature, and whether there's water and such on or in the object? | I understand we have VERY powerful telescopes and fairly advanced technology, but if you look at any photo of the night sky, no matter how high the quality or magnification, the sky is so densely packed with objects that it seems totally impossible to identify certain 'Voids' that are basically just gaps in between stars if we use the naked eye. Also, I understand that this isn't really a single question but I have a few that kind of overlap (and I don't see the point in making a separate post(s)).
When we find out what a planet and its atmosphere is made of, is it always the result of us sending things like probes to physically examine it, or can it be done from here on Earth?
Sorry for making such a long post. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/aalp6k/how_do_astronomers_both_find_things_so_far_away/ | {
"a_id": [
"ectec36",
"ectmmgm"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For voids, we essentially look at how far away all the objects in a given part of the sky are, this can be done using redshift (See [here](_URL_0_)). When a survey was done by Robert Kirshner, Augustus Oemler Jr, Paul Schechter and Stephen Shectman of Galactic redshifts in 1980 they discovered that there was an area in the direction of Boötes with a very low galactic density. When we look at it we see that almost all the galaxies in that direction are closer to or further away from us than the void.",
"Here's how we work out what a distant planet's atmosphere is made of. When light passes through the planet's atmosphere, some wavelengths of it are absorbed by the gasses and then re-emitted. However, the direction these wavelengths are emitted are essentially random, so when someone on Earth looks at the light coming from that planet, there'll be a dip in the number of photons of those wavelengths being detected. Then we compare which wavelengths are not being detected as much to tests done here on Earth and from that can work out what gasses make up that atmosphere."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://lco.global/spacebook/redshift/"
],
[]
] | |
1nz3tm | if you're not supposed to ever button up the lowest button of a suit, why do they exist? | Fashion dictates that men never button the second button of a 2-button-suit or the third button of a 3-button-suit. Then why are they there? If it's just for "style", why not have the button, but no hole? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nz3tm/eli5_if_youre_not_supposed_to_ever_button_up_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccndsvo",
"ccne986",
"ccneeug",
"ccnefkf",
"ccnehz8",
"ccnekxh",
"ccneob7",
"ccnep1l",
"ccnezqf",
"ccnf1ax",
"ccnf1zd",
"ccnf1zt",
"ccnf3gb",
"ccnf4qw",
"ccnf4xv",
"ccnf5qa",
"ccnf96e",
"ccnfbqj",
"ccnfe7n",
"ccnfjos",
"ccnfpwt",
"ccnfvf7",
"ccnfz71",
"ccng39a",
"ccngub8",
"ccngxsv",
"ccnhepd",
"ccnht5v",
"ccni9mw",
"ccnibe3",
"ccnint8",
"ccniuca",
"ccnj52j",
"ccnjkh5",
"ccnjo1a",
"ccnjyny",
"ccnkkq0",
"ccnlfo0",
"ccnlle2",
"ccnlxz8",
"ccnlz9b",
"ccnm6cr",
"ccnmhkg",
"ccnmo9w",
"ccno8zl",
"ccnq2ti",
"ccnqkyu",
"ccnrb7g",
"ccnszyx",
"ccnurvn",
"ccnuvnf",
"ccnw0p7",
"ccnwhpd"
],
"score": [
1661,
99,
3,
5,
38,
9,
9,
9,
3,
2,
4,
10,
4,
5,
2,
4,
3,
7,
2,
2,
5,
5,
6,
6,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2,
5,
5,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
12,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a silly reason, really.\n\nOriginally, jackets were *supposed* to be done up all the way. But at some point, people decided it looked better if they 'flared out' around your waist (since this was typically the widest part of the body... at least if you're a wealthy over-indulgent Earl). Having the fabric pulled in around you could look silly, and so they stopped buttoning it up.\n\nSince then, manufacturers have started tailoring jackets to intentionally take this into account, *but they never removed the button*. [EDIT] As some other commenters have remarked, it is like a vestigial remnant of times gone by.",
"\"Historically, in the early years of the suit as everyday menswear, it appears there were no formal buttoning rules. Look to trade magazines and illustrations from the earlier part of the 20th century, and one sees jackets with between one and five buttons, each buttoned in a manner that suited the personality of the wearer or the cut of the garment.\n\nBut much of this changed with a king who was too fat to button his jacket. Or at least, that’s what legend says.\n\nAccording to the lore of menswear, in the early 1900s King Edward VII started the trend of leaving the bottom button of a suit undone.\n\nApparently, he grew so rotund that he was unable to fasten the bottom button of his waistcoat and jacket. To not offend the king, those associated with him started doing the same. The custom then gradually spread the world round (as England was still largely an imperial power with great influence across the globe).\" -Art of Manliness article on the subject _URL_0_",
"The buttons form a decorative line that would otherwise get interrupted. Another reason might be that buttons are consided a status symbol on suits. E.g. the buttons that you have on your wrist are an indicator how expensive the suit is. If it's a modest one they are sewed in and you can't open them. If it's an expensive suit you can often unbutton them.\n",
"You are supposed to button up all buttons on funerals, or other tragic events. Seriously.\nSource: 5 year experience in selling high quality suits and top notch European clothings.",
"Okay, not the actual reason, but a VERY USEFUL one: \nIt's one of the many, many little traps designed to betray people that don't know proper etiquette. To many, putting on a suit is all that is necessary to look \"professional\", but to habitual suit wearers they are easy to recognise by at least one of the following deadly blunders: \n \n1. Buttoning the third button \n2. Badly cut suit (often legs too long, they must JUST rest on the top of the shoe, anything else is too long, or shoulders too bulky, or arms too long- must JUST rest on the wrist, not a millimetre more). For the record neckbeards, your \"made-to-measure\" Pakistani suit makes you look like a well-to-do Pakistani, possibly a programmer. That is not meant as an insult to Pakistanis, but yes, I can tell about a MILE away that your suit fabric is too coarse, too heavy, the shoulders too square. Sorry Pakistani tailors, please step up your game and get some Italian cuts. \n3. Putting anything into shirt and suit pockets. There is NO, repeat NO pocket on your suit that is actually intended to be used, with the possible exception of a business card in your inner coat pocket. Not a stack of cards though. For anything else, carry a brief case or a coat. \n4. Outlandish/ garish shoes. Bit of a trickier one, you don't HAVE to wear Oxfords/ Brogues (though it does help), but if any sort of rubber was used in the sole, please don't wear them with a suit. \n5. ANY sort of jewelry apart from a wedding band, and a seal ring (if you have a name). Anything else will make you look like a pimp, not like a businessman. \n6. Ties with any sort of motif, or writing, or (even worse) black ties outside of a funeral. No, you don't look like MIB or Pulp Fiction, you look like you came from a funeral, and people will ask, and you'll be thought of as an idiot. Black suit is actually a tricky one, the purist would say no outside of funerals, too (and go for dark anthrazite instead), but US bankers somehow made that one acceptable. Not in a Gentleman's club in London, though. \n7. Outlandish shirt collars. Your shirt should be white unless you know what you are doing, and feature a standard collar and cuffs. DON'T go with the extreme flared-down Italian, or the button down, or the rounded corners one, you don't know what you're doing. A little bit of flare back is acceptable (it's called \"half-shark\" in German, no idea about English). \n8. Your tie knot. Yes, it does matter quite a lot. We're no longer in the 90s, so none of that garish ballooning shit. Neither is hipster style appropriate for an office, so none of that supertight 60s style either. Learn to tie a tight yet comfortable Windsor and stick to it. \n9. YOUR DEMEANOUR. Probably the biggest one. You are wearing a SUIT not a track suit, so don't: a) slouch, EVER b) sit cross-legged c) jump, run, fool around d) leave buttons closed as you sit. Pretend it's a formal dinner, and you're 10. NO FIDGETING! \n \n...if you fail any of the above, my colleagues and me would immediately spot you as a wannabe faker, and we WOULD think less of you in a business sense (e.g. not hire you as a consultant), reasoning that you are either very, very inexperienced, or you are very unperceptive, both of which are not qualities to recommend your service. If I meet you like this at a social function, I will just not take anything you say seriously, you could be Steven Hawking and I'd still think \"yeah you got a Nobel prize but your suit still makes you look an idiot\". \nTL;DR: Not original purpose, but together with other suit etiquette it's a sure-fire Idiot Flag. \nEDIT: I did not know Pakistani suits with 70s flared collars and crepe soles are that popular on Reddit. Ah well, shoulda figured suit elitism would evoke your ire... :-)",
"The second button exists so you can leave it unbuttoned. ",
"My parents always liked to tell me farfetched stories as a child when I asked questions like why dad never buttoned his bottom button. They told me that apparently when the first CEO to wear a suit came to a meeting, he was so fat that the bottom button popped off when he sat down. All other members in the meeting unbuttoned their bottom button in solidarity. It just caught on from there. Fashion is weird.",
" > Fashion dictates\n\nYou knew it all along!",
"They exist because although no longer functional, they may still go in or out of fashion. Like some musicians.",
"This doesn't explain the jacket at goodwill that had a top button with no matching hole. ",
"Have you ever tried getting on a horse with the last button fastened? Fucking impossible",
"It's an homage to the male nipple, which is equally useless.",
"This post made me google \"suits\" into google images, and NOT ONE picture had the second button buttoned up!",
"I never knew this. I'm 28. ",
"I thought it was a styling choice. Like groomsmen have the choice but just needs to stay consistent. ",
"It's a skeuomorph!",
"Button factories conspiracy",
"It's so you can tell which people are the rubes that don't know how to wear a suit, and which people came from money.\n\nAlso, that pocket you thought was fake is actually a real pocket sewn shut to keep it tidy until the suit gets to its owner. You can pull out the thread and have a pocket. ",
"Is this sufficiently complex to warrant an ELI5? Just saying, you can probably ELI35 and the answer would be the same.",
"Because if the button wasn't there we would have to keep the middle button undone and that would look silly.",
"Button the buttons. Screw the system.",
"It's a product of a bygone era, as explained well by u/The_Helper and is now kept to give an aesthetic indication of confidence. Silly as it may sound seeing someone 'refuse' to button up their shirt fully makes them appear distinguishably more attractive due to the confidence it portrays coupled with it typically making their body look slightly better. If you removed any button from a shirt there would be a noticeable difference in how people felt towards it, though it would be more of a niggling feeling than something you really think about, which indicates a relation to emotional impulses like when you're just feeling hungry or happy about something inexplicably. Basically we just feel shirts look better not fully buttoned, but without the bottom button we'd feel differently about what a shirt portrays.",
"Do you wear polo shirts? Do you ever button up the top button? If you do, then don't.\n\nIt just looks good to have the button there and not use it. It's like being really buff and being able to beat up anyone but always being cool and getting along with everyone. (It's exactly like that, actually.)\n\nBottom line, it would look weird if the button wasn't there. It looks weird to button both buttons. So there's a happy medium.",
"FYI--for a two-button suit, always button the top, never button the bottom.\n\nFor a three-button suit, the order is (from top to bottom): \n\nO sometimes\n\nO always\n\nO never",
"You are making the mistake of assuming that fashion has to make sense.",
"My father always told me to button the bottom when standing, and unbutton the bottom when sitting....\n\nI'm wrong?",
"Arbitrary does not equal trivial.\n\nA few posts reveal the history of this trend in men's suit jackets, but they don't answer why we still do it today.\n\nThis \"rule\" is a quick and easy way to gauge someone's ability to pay attention to details. It's subtle, sure. But someone who doesn't button the bottom button on a jacket does this for one of two reasons. Either someone told them this rule and they just kept following along without questioning, or they understand that arbitrary rules are not trivial rules.\n\nSo in practice, you are not immediately impressive because you **DON'T** button the bottom bottom... you immediately a poor first impression because you **DO** button the bottom button.\n\nNot to call out /u/MoDannyWilliams, but his [comment] (_URL_0_) shows that he either doesn't understand the subtlety, or simply no one has told him. Regardless of the reason, since he doesn't abide by this rule you could make the case that he may not have much experience in the business world.",
"I enjoyed this thread, thank you for the ELI5.\n\nBut there is one thing I just couldn't quite wrap my head around: to whom does this stuff matter anymore? I mean, socially. It's a neat bit of trivia to have about the anachronisms of men's fashion, and I'm all for that. Anything to win an argument. \n\nBut who, especially on reddit, is in such a social circle that whether or not you button a button will get you gossiped right out of the club? Also, do those social circles still exist, in such a manner that we should be taking cues from them instead of mocking their outmoded ways of sexism and dress?\n\nTo wit, I do not \"get\" fashion. It's *stretch* of utilitarianism has always baffled me. I mean, I don't dress like the Sixth Doctor or wear a skirt, but these things being talked about here are as foreign to me as the need for a hajib.",
"Because if you did't have a last button the second to last one would be the last button and so on",
"Fuck me. Too many rules for suits. I honestly had no idea it got this detailed. I love wearing a uniform every day. There are only a few things that are optional on them. Most evrerything is standard and written to a T. No interpretations.\n\nMilitary uniforms that is.",
"So the legend says... A long time ago in England, one of the Kings (one of the Edwards I think) grew too large to button his coat up all the way, and thereby started the tradition of never buttoning the bottom button. This style rule applies to jackets, vests, sweaters, etc. \n\nSo short answer: It's tradition. ",
"I never knew you weren't supposed to button the bottom button.",
"This is a style trend that comes and goes. The only practical purpose is to allow the coat to expand a bit when you sit down, but you're supposed to unbutton the top button before you sit, so it serves no practical purpose. It's fashion; it rarely makes sense. ",
"it's called a decoration. not everything has to have a functional purpose. ",
"Am I the only one that thought it was meant to serve as a spare when you lose one so you don't have to use a different looking button and look like an idiot? THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN USING THEM FOR YEARS ANYWAY.",
"As I recall, some British king was a little too fat so he had to undo the lower button. His court followed suit (no pun intended) and being sympathetic the began to unbutton their suits as well",
"Many men will shun your for buttoning ALL of your buttons.....all the while, they don't bother having their suit tailored in a fashionable manner. ",
"Suits exist to make people look nice. Buttons exist to fasten suits. ",
"There will always be a lowest button unless you don't have any buttons.",
"But if we eliminate the last button, then the second to last button would become the last button",
"The same thing is true for vests of a three-piece suit. The bottom button is never supposed to be buttoned and there are several theories as to why that is the case.\n\n1. Edward VIII: Edward had a ballooning waistline that his tailor's could not keep up with. It is said that he often could not button the bottom button of his waistcoat. So out of respect for Edward, the people began leaving the bottom button unbuttoned and the trend stuck.\n\n2. Two Vests: A second theory goes back to a time when dandies used to wear two waistcoats at the same time. In order to show off both of them, the bottom button of the top vest was supposedly left open.\n\n3. Horseback Variation: The more practical third theory is that the bottom button of the vest usually had to be undone in order to get up to and ride a horse. Others claim the bottom button was left unbuttoned to keep the vest from sliding up the chest. \n\n4. Gunslingers: The fourth, and least plausible theory in my mind is that the bottom button was left undone so one could reach their gun quickly and more effectively. However, even if gunslingers popularized leaving the bottom button unfastened, others had worn their waistcoats in the same manner many years before. \n\n1 and 3 seem the most likely reasons in my mind.\n",
"Edward VII started the whole hoopla and it does seem rather ridiculous but at the same time, if I ever see a guy wearing a suit and he buttons ALL of the buttons, he looks like a 5 year old wearing dad's suit to me. It may not make sense, but it is the way it is.",
"In prep school we used to button the bottom two buttons of a 3-button suit and leave the top one unbuttoned. It was supposed to signal a rebellious attitude.",
"Same reason men have nipples and women have assholes. Just for the look. ",
"It's so that you can tell the nerdy people from the normals.",
"Is it weird that I got the answer to this question years ago by reading the comic book Y: The Last Man.",
"All my buttons broke off, so I have no buttons.\n\nSo How do I have one unbuttoned when there is none to unbutton or not button? \n\n\nbutton button\n\n",
"Same reason men have nipples I suppose.\n",
"a lowest button must exist if there are multiple buttons ",
"First there is no 'one way' to use the buttons. Sometimes I unbutton the top, sometimes the last.\n'Why not just have a button'? Because it would look unnatural. This can be further explained by noticing that most suit jackets have pockets sewn shut. Why? To stop men from putting things in them which would weigh down the jacket making it look stretched and odd. Why not leave the pockets off, because it would be odd. Why not make them fake pockets? Because there is no one way to use them, and some people do.\nI have sold suits for 3 retailers in 10 years.\n",
"There is at least one legitimate reason to keep the button: people who have been told that they \"should leave the bottom button undone\" and consistently do so would now be leaving the next button undone, but they shouldn't actually do that. I think a great compromise is to replace the bottom button with a completely non-functional pseudobutton.",
"I think, to unbutton the lowest is just that the suit is not looking too tight. When sit down, ALL buttons will be opened. When stand up, the upper buttons will be closed again.\nThen, the pockets can be unfunctional, means fake pockets, depends on making.\nFurthermore, a good tailor will cut the jacket in a way, that e.g. the wallet is not too visible.\nOverall, it is a question of culture and style like in the past it was common to remove any hat in closed rooms. Today, youngsters keep their infantile base cap on the head even in restaurants and do not realize how fucked up it looks. ",
"Because without it the second bottom button would be the one we don't button. It's so obvious."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/04/02/art-of-manliness-suit-school-part-iii-a-primer-on-suit-buttons/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfi... | |
4mnurn | why do all relationship/dating mediums have way more men than women? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mnurn/eli5_why_do_all_relationshipdating_mediums_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3wwgqf",
"d3wxofq",
"d3wytej",
"d3wyw6d"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
5,
8
],
"text": [
"You are not considering the possibility that there is an equal number of single men and women but that they seek for dates in different avenues.\n\nWomen, in general, don't seek out dates via dating websites as much as men. That doesn't mean they aren't seeking out dates via friends or in a club, for example. The reason why women don't use dating websites as much usually comes down to certain social attitudes (internet dating is still seen by some as more desperate / less romantic and they don't want this reputation - these attitudes are changing though so you do see more and more women willing to join these websites), harassment (many women on dating websites get harassed which means that if they join, they often do not stay a member for very long), safety (women worry more about how safe their dating partners are and internet dating comes with its fair few horror stories. If you meet a guy via your friends, they can vet him for you, internet dating doesn't really offer this)",
"Most cultures have, or have recently had, a notion that in relationships, men are the pursuers and women are the pursued. A man chasing after women is seen as normal, a woman chasing after men is seen as desperate or promiscuous.\n\nMost of this is due to lingering sexism, but there are practical considerations as well. Women face greater risks while dating, sexual assualt, STDs and pregnancy to name a few. This causes them to be more selective in the venues they choose to use.",
"Men and women function somewhat differently, especially when it comes to sex. These differences were made more prominent with the introduction of \"spheres\" (different \"worlds\" for different genders). Early human society was far more egalitarian.\n\nNow, in nearly every community around the world, women who are openly sexual are looked down upon - ironically by men who crave it.\n\nMaybe you are a woman, but if you were, I'd think the answer is obvious. Ask a female friend of yours about their experience in clubs or on dating apps. Every one of my female friends gets multiple requests for sex in some way. One girl showed me her OKCupid account and it's just guys asking, \"Do you give good head?\" No first message. No build up. That's what's out there. And then, if they aren't like that, they turn out to be days later.",
"Because when girls join these sites they get inundated with hundreds of messages from guys and unsolicited dick pics. A lot of them delete their profiles within the first week, if not after the first day."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
6xrd2r | what does kim jong-un gain by provoking the us and japan? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6xrd2r/eli5_what_does_kim_jongun_gain_by_provoking_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmhx9mv",
"dmhxbpe"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A seat at the grown ups table instead of being stuck over with the little kids like Venezuela, Nigeria and Greece. And he's infinitely harder to kill off with nukes than without. Just ask Saddam and Qadaffi.",
"They're the scrawny little brother of the big, strong boy down the street who can be a butthole to other kids and won't face consequences because he's protected. \n\nHe does this to protect his ego from insecurities. \n\nChange that last sentence \"to make KJU look strong to his subjects \" who do not get to know that they're only kept safe because of China. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
an7vqp | Which civilization invented gunpowder and are there historical records on gun powder? | I was looking at a list of chinese inventions and gunpowder came up. I was wondering 1) If the discovery of the chemical compound of gunpowder emerged anywhere else independently. 2) Was it first discovered by a chinese dynasty and if so, 3) was it brought to the west by marco polo. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/an7vqp/which_civilization_invented_gunpowder_and_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"efrmm7n"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
" > 2) Was it first discovered by a chinese dynasty and if so,\n\nThe earliest known texts that we can reliably call references to gunpowder are Chinese, and are Tang Dynasty. The earliest recipes that have survived are Song Dynasty, and these are most certainly gunpowder. It's possible, likely even, that the earliest versions of gunpowder would burn, but not quickly enough to be useful for guns or explosives.\n\nAs far as we can tell, the Chinese invention of gunpowder was an accidental discovery in the course of alchemical search for immortality. The Chinese name, huoyao 火藥, can be translated into English as \"fire drug\" or \"fire medicine\".\n\nFor lots on the early Chinese history of gunpowder, including translations of primary sources, see Joseph Needham and Ho Ping-Yü, *Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 7, Military Technology: The Gunpowder Epic*, Cambridge University Press, 1987.\n\n > 3) was it brought to the west by marco polo.\n\nGunpowder appears to have spread to the West via the Mongol invasions. There are early possible mentions of gunpowder weapons being used by the Mongols in the West (in the Middle East) in the 1270s, and possible use by the Saracens against Crusaders at the siege of Acre in 1291 (however, these might just refer to the use of burning projectiles thrown by mechanical artillery). The earliest certain descriptions of gunpowder in Europe are by Roger Bacon, in 1267, where he describes fireworks. His knowledge of gunpowder and fireworks might have come from William's of Rubruck's visit to the Mongols in the 1250s. This predates Marco Polo's return, so knowledge of gunpowder didn't come to the West through Marco Polo.\n\nSomewhat later, in the 14th century, we have unambiguous descriptions of gunpowder weapons in use. Whether such weapons reached the West in the 14th century or the 13th, they appear to have been important in spreading knowledge of gunpowder in the West - note that the very name \"gunpowder\" describes its use in guns.\n\n > 1) If the discovery of the chemical compound of gunpowder emerged anywhere else independently.\n\nThere have been claims that gunpowder was independently discovered elsewhere. Some of these claims are rather far-fetched, such as ancient Indian gunpowder (e.g., 4th century BC). Brenda J. Buchanan, *Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: A Technological History*, Routledge, 2016, discusses the ancient Indian claims. Such claims are usually based more on extreme nationalism than evidence. The Indian evidence amounts to incendiaries having been used in ancient India, which might or might not have been similar to gunpowder.\n\nThere are also claims of independent Arab invention, either in Spain or the Middle East. The usual dates are not long before gunpowder would have reached the Arab world via the Mongols, and are largely based on later manuscripts that are claimed to be copies of older works. The accepted opinion is that gunpowder wasn't independently invented by the Arabs, but was brought by the Mongols.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3pz6jx | why does a phone's camera focus on close objects for a second then unfocus? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pz6jx/eli5_why_does_a_phones_camera_focus_on_close/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwap927"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is because the camera did not recognize the close object as the object that you are planning to shoot, this can be corrected by lightly pressing the focus button."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1yfu9v | Regarding interstellar colonization: Is it possible to find a nebula with an earth-like atmosphere? | I was thinking about this the other day and wondered that if we can find planets with our technology why haven't we tried finding a nebula like our atmosphere? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1yfu9v/regarding_interstellar_colonization_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfk49pa",
"cfk8u4a"
],
"score": [
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Firstly, nebulae are really, really low density - more than 10^(14) times less dense than our atmosphere. That is considered an excellent laboratory vacuum here on Earth! As you can imagine, you wouldn't do very well when put into a lab vacuum chamber...\n\nThe Earth's atmosphere has also been heavily affected due to it being a rocky planet - we've collected lots of heavier elements (notably Nitrogen and Oxygen), but are relatively devoid of Hydrogen and Helium, because they just float off into space. This means that we've sifted out the heavier elements over a long period of time - this doesn't occur in a gas cloud, meaning that they are still mainly composed of Hydrogen and Helium.",
"There was a time when this might have been possible. When the universe was much younger, the interstellar medium was thick enough and background radiation warm enough that it could conceivably have supported an \"atmosphere\". Without looking it up though, I rather doubt that both such periods coincided _and_ there were actually enough other elements available for real chemistry to take place, and even if there were, it wouldn't have lasted long enough for anything interesting to happen.\n\nAlternatively, try Larry Niven's novels The integral Trees and The Smoke Ring. It's about a gas torus orbiting between a neutron star and a gas giant. The gas giant orbits at just the right distance such that the neutron star sucks off its atmosphere slowly enough that the central part of the resulting gas torus is habitable. As described on Wiki, \"No 'ground' exists in the Smoke Ring; it entirely consists of sky. Most animals therein can fly--even the fish. Furthermore, the Smoke Ring is in orbit and therefore in free fall: there is no 'up' or 'down'. Most animals have trilateral symmetry that allows them to see in all directions.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
70mdco | if the internet is basically a network of wires and computers, how does data navigate itself from one specific computer to where it needs to be? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70mdco/eli5_if_the_internet_is_basically_a_network_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn498em",
"dn498fj",
"dn498yb",
"dn4a0kw",
"dn4ajfy"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
5,
69
],
"text": [
"Same way as packages do in mail. Items are just atoms but when you look at certain package, you can read the address and send it forward. Data is encapsulated into a package. A network device looks at certain bits on the packet and interprets it as an address and sends it into right direction. Routers have a certain type of table which they use to check the address.",
"In short, addresses. \n\nYour computer has an address. The router it talks to has addresses for your computer and your ISP to use and all the systems the info passes through have addresses too. \n\n The data from your computer gets wrapped up in a Packet, with info about the data, and some addresses for where it is going. The router gets the packet, checks the address against a list of address ranges that it keeps and if the packet is going to a network it is on, it sends it to the right place. Rinse and repeat. If the address isn't one it knows what to do with, or is told to ignore, it drops it. \n\nIt gets more complicated the more you look at it, but it's basically just a metric ton of addresses and directories working really really fast. \n\n\n",
"Whenever you hear about a \"router\", that's what it's doing. It looks at the traffic, consults a routing table, and sends the data back out on a particular port. The router doesn't have to know the complete route to the destination, it just has to know the next step. You probably have one in your home internet connection, which basically decides whether your traffic is for the Internet or not. Your ISP has routers, their backbone providers have routers, and before long your request could be heading across the Pacific to Japan.",
"It's pretty much like the post Office\\USPS.\n\nYou post\\send a 'packet' out to an address (a bit like a post\\zip code). If it's local (on your network\\the postman's round) it gets delivered by the postman. If not, it sends it to the next distribution centre (router) that it is attached to.\n\n The routers have a list of, regularly updated addresses it knows about and where to send it to. So, once there, the same thing happens. This happens again and again until delivered - if it knows the address is local it delivers it, if not it sends it to the next link in the chain. ",
"_[rolls up sleeves]_\n\nAs others have said, it all comes to addresses, but there's a bit more to it than that, and it's sort of, kind of, magical when you understand it. This is long, but I'm writing it because I love talking about this stuff, and I hope it entertains somebody.\n\nFirst, you have to realise that a computer network is split into multiple layers. \n\nWhen engineers talk about these different layers, they normally do so in the terms of something called the \"[OSI model](_URL_2_)\", and as you can see, that has 7 layers. On the Internet, we normally only talk about some of them, because we group some together.\n\nHowever, all networks (including the Internet) at the bottom layer are physical, you're right. \n\nYou are most likely to be using a wireless connection (WiFi), so there is some stuff going on there at a radio transmitter/receiver level in the gigahertz-range. If you're on your phone and not on WiFi, similar concept, you're just using 4G or 3G, or whatever. Wired stuff is normally in your local network going to be Ethernet, but the link to your ISP is probably going to involve copper cable, fibre, and a few other things (including, perhaps, microwave links - fancy!).\n\nOver the \"top\" of that physical layer is another layer called the data link layer. You will know some terms from this - if you've ever heard of a \"MAC address\", there you go, that's data link. Simplifying greatly, this is a way for all the devices on the same shared physical network to identify themselves and for communications to be clearly routed. A network router can say \"I have a message for this MAC address\", and whilst all the devices on that network might hear it (unless it's a \"switched\" network), only the one with the right MAC address will actually process it.\n\nAnd yes, that does explain how network interception can work, and why WiFi is considered insecure for a bunch of reasons.\n\nNow, above that, the Internet uses, as you may have heard, \"IP\", or the internet protocol. The thing you will be most familiar with is the \"IP address\", which normally looks like 4 numbers between 0 and 255 separated by periods: 192.168.0.1 or 127.0.0.1 for example.\n\nAt this layer the stack looks something like this:\n\n +-----------------------+\n | HTTP, DNS, etc. |\n +-----------------------+\n | TCP or UDP |\n +-----------------------+\n | IP |\n +-----------------------+\n\nSo for your HTTP (i.e. web) traffic get across the web, that protocol sits on top of TCP, which sits on top of IP. When you type in \"_URL_0_\" into a browser, that gets turned into an IP address first using DNS, which uses UDP (normally), which goes over IP. When you collect email via IMAP, that goes over TCP, which goes over IP. Same for SMTP: goes over TCP over IP. With me?\n\nSo this IP thing is sort of a big deal. Your local network has special IP addresses (they start 192.168... or 10.... probably). That gets into public IP addresses using something called NAT which is worth a post all by itself and is the bane of many an Xbox, Playstation or Nintendo Switch fan.\n\nHowever, the public internet, that's where magic happens. This is the point where all internet technologies - web, mail, Skype, your games console - ultimately have to come down to, and how your small little local network gets to play on the big open World stage.\n\nIP addresses are scarce. We sort of ran out of them some time ago (which is why more ISPs are moving to IPv6, something we won't cover here, but I can cover in a follow-up post if you want), but broadly this is how they get allocated.\n\nThey're carved up into ranges or blocks and assigned to organisations that represent some part of the World, called [Regional Internet Registries](_URL_1_). There are five of them in the World, and they are responsible for issuing IP address blocks to organisations in their territory who ask for an allocation.\n\nWe have to get a little technical here: an IP address that looks like 4 numbers - a.b.c.d - is actually one number that is 32 bits (ones and zeroes) long. Each of the four numbers represents one byte (8 bits) of that number. If you're struggling with understanding that [this article might help](_URL_3_). \n\nThe reason I mention this is because allocations are described as the number of bits you can put into your \"net mask\". If I assign you 192.160.1.0/24 what I'm saying is \"24 bits of this number are fixed, you can vary the remaining 8 bits\", and that variation gives you 256 theoretical addresses (in practice, 255, and because one of them will need to be a gateway address, actually 254, but that's another discussion again).\n\nSo when somebody says \"[ISP] has got a slash 8 allocation\", that means they have something like \"4.0.0.0/8\" and that is 16.7m IP addresses. A huge amount. In fact, 4/8 is a bit of an infamous block, but again, time, I'm digressing...\n\nIf you're running a largish organisation, you can go to your ISP and say \"I need some public IP addresses\". They'll require you to justify the needs. If successful though, they'll give you a /30 (4 IP addresses) or a /29 (8 IP addresses).\n\nNow, how does my IP traffic find your IP addresses over the internet? We can finally talk about the clever bit: BGP.\n\nYour ISP has links to other ISPs. Physical links, with fibre optic cables, and network switches and all that jazz. Those connections will be regulated a little with a protocol called BGP which is basically what makes the internet work.\n\nLet's suppose you've been allocated 4.0.0.0/30. Your ISP will make sure everything in that range of IP addresses gets to you. They will then \"advertise\" via BGP that they have a route for that IP address range to their neighbours. Those ISPs they \"peer with\" will have other connections to other ISPs, and they will say \"Hey, I can get you to 4.0.0.0/30, with one hop\". Those ISPs _they_ peer with then re-advertise the range with 2 hops, and _their_ peers re-advertise with 3 hops, and so on, and so on.\n\nIt might look something like this (with the numbers being hop counts incrementing as we get further apart via that route):\n\n 1 2 3\n A ---- B --- C --- E\n | 2 \\ / 4\n | D ---- Me\n You 3\n\nIn this example, I peer with 2 ISPs so when I want to get to you I have two possible routes via D or via E. My router hears from E \"I can get there in 4 hops\" and from D \"I can get there in 3 hops\", so my router goes via D. But if D goes down, I still have the other route, so this is a very fault tolerant setup.\n\nAnd this scales up, and up and up across the whole Internet. Every ISP that does BGP peering (called an AS or Autonomous System), has a routing table for every IP address on the planet and knows how many hops away it is via the peers they interact with, and sends traffic accordingly. This means any IP address can reach any other IP address, and the whole thing can route around outages.\n\nIf you wanted a second ISP like me, you would go to your RIR and ask for an AS number, get a BGP router, and ask your ISPs to advertise your range like that. In practical terms it's a lot more complicated, but this is ELI5, and I've just tried to explain BGP4 AS peering...\n\nAnd that, in short (I know this is long, but I've missed a lot of detail), is how a bunch of wires and computers works across the planet, and why you can read my words that I sent from a machine in London to Reddit's servers in milliseconds, and how they can send them to you, wherever you are, and on whatever type of network you are using locally.\n\nI hope that makes you feel a small sense of wonder like I did when I first learned it.\n\n**TL;DR: the sort of marriage between mathematical graph theory and engineering that is indistinguishable from magic.**"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"www.reddit.com",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Internet_registry",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-decimal_notation"
]
] | ||
2j59lp | if obama is the head of the executive branch, and the fcc is a part of the executive branch, why can't obama just tell the fcc to get rid of internet fast lanes? doesn't he have power over the fcc? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2j59lp/eli5_if_obama_is_the_head_of_the_executive_branch/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl8hwqt"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"We have a system of checks and balances... the president is not the king who has unilateral authority. The job of the executive branch is to enforce the laws, the legislative branch of the government makes the laws, and the judicial branch of government makes sure these laws are constitutional. \n\nThis is an ideal way the system should work... but there are always some hiccups that happen.\n\n*Edit for the TL;DR version: If the president tried it, the FCC is well within it's rights to tell the president to go fuck himself \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1u8jn8 | What technique can be used to tell if an AI is truly intelligent? | Not just mimicking human interactions really well. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1u8jn8/what_technique_can_be_used_to_tell_if_an_ai_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cefkf2h",
"ceflapv",
"cefoujj"
],
"score": [
27,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Before your question is answered, you have to evaluate what you mean by intelligent. When discussing Artificial Intelligence, usually the benchmark is that intelligence is a feature exhibited by something if its reactions fit the environment. However, we have to be a bit more specific, since we would usually want to rule out creatures with basic reflexes as being considered intelligent. Therefore, we want to state that a creature is intelligent if it makes the \"right\" choice in a given situation when multiple options are available. Note that this is different than a \"sentient\" being, since you don't necessarily need a mind to navigate the potential options. \n\nA common test of linguistic intelligence for computers is the [Turing Test](_URL_1_) developed by AI pioneer Alan Turing back in [1950](_URL_0_). Basically, the Turing Test has a judge, a person, and a computer in separate rooms, but with a terminal so the judge can talk to the person and the computer. However, the judge does not know when they are talking to a person and when they are talking to a computer. Turing proposed that if the judge is unable to determine if they are talking to a person or to a computer, then the computer can be sufficiently advanced to be determined to be \"intelligent\". \n\nNow to your distinction, how do we know that they aren't doing what [Cleverbot](_URL_2_) does by just doing an analysis on a lot of human interactions and mimicking them? Well, they can, and still be considered intelligent. Take babies for example. They mimic what they hear around them to learn language, and are able to create novel orders of those words to communicate. However, they are just mimicking what they hear around them! As the baby develops, they are able to \"learn\" from others by copying what they do, and by creating new orders of what they see other people doing they exhibit their own intelligent behavior. So, it could be argued that mimicking IS a form of intelligent behavior, and that if a computer can mimic a person to the point that they are able to fool a human being, then we can consider the computer intelligent. ",
"I'd argue that you need to solve a few problems that humans do well:\n\n1) Learn structure from unstructured input.\n\n2) Solve the n-ary problem: that is, when you're faced with predicates with differing numbers of arguments, know what goes with what without resorting to an external lookup table. For instance, humans reason incredibly quickly about the correspondence between quiet(cat) and louder(boombox, headphones).\n\n3) Solve related mapping problems, e.g., the correspondence between quieter(cat, lion) and louder(boombox, headphones).\n\n4) Some kind of control mechanism that allows the system to choose goals (starting with general principles is fine, e.g., write the world's best fanfic) but it has to be able to figure out what is and isn't relevant and how to get from where it is to where it wants to go.\n\n5) This should be a general system - that is, the same framework should be able to develop expertise in a wide variety of domains, and you shouldn't have to fiddle with it a ton to produce good outcomes in each domain.",
"I'm under the impression that any test of deep intelligence requires another deep-intelligent (human) being to evaluate. That would seem to automatically make it subjective, since I don't know of any machine test that isn't objective due to such a test's predestined nature.\n\nI think my favorite form of [the Turing test](_URL_0_) is, \"if you can spend your entire life interacting with it in some articulate fashion, like talking or moving, without suspecting it to be anything but human-controlled, it's intelligent enough.\" There has to be some point at which, [to borrow the parable,](_URL_1_) responding to requests with Chinese flash cards and understanding the context of Chinese are functionally equivalent. It would be a step further for the artificial entity to *assume perception equivalent to a human's;* but that's more than sufficient for intelligence, I think."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html",
"http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/loebner-prize.html",
"http://www.cleverbot.com/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Test",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room"
]
] | |
6my0ma | why are turtles not considered amphibious? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6my0ma/eli5_why_are_turtles_not_considered_amphibious/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk596bb",
"dk5ac3z"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Depends on what you mean by \"amphibious\". The more general definition: \"suited for water and land\" certainly applies. But scientists use words differently, and in this case \"amphibious\" has a very specific meaning for biologists. Amphibians are a class of animals that, among other things, are generally (but not always) born with gills and generally (but not always) metamorphose into adults with lungs, along with some other important characteristics, for instance they are vertebrates, they do not have scales, they lay eggs, they have semipermeable skin, they are cold-blooded, etc.\n\nTurtles have some of those characteristics, but obviously not all of them. Even discounting the amphibians that do not metamorphose, turtles have scales, putting them pretty firmly into the category of \"reptiles\". For that reason, turtles are not *amphibians*, and to avoid confusion it's best if you do not call them *amphibious*, which could mean different things in different contexts.",
"I literally teach 5 years old at a nature camp as my job, so here it's goes...These are the points I drilled...amphibians lay eggs in water, undergo metamorphosis, coldblooded, and need to keep their skin moist. Reptiles lay eggs on land, have scales, coldblooded and live on land. Bonus: a turtle scale is called a skoot. (I think it's cute sounding)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1te0ch | At what rate is history still being actively uncovered? | I read /u/brigantus' post regarding the roles of most historians
> A professional historian usually refers to an academic, so what they do boils down to what any academic does: research, publish findings, and teach.
but certainly there must still be texts untranslated, personal accounts left unarchived and stories generally uncovered as of yet.
I'm not sure what answer I'm looking for or even exactly what I'm asking, but are there still people actively searching for new evidence (not necessarily Tomb Raider style) or are we done with that?
Have we stopped looking and just focused on publishing?
Are we still learning or just organizing? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1te0ch/at_what_rate_is_history_still_being_actively/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce6zl6e"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Oh, boy. Where to even start with this one? There is all sorts of awesome information/text/archaeological finds, etc. etc. that are constantly being uncovered, and researched and discussed and argued over and published. The very concept around a Doctorate isn't just to say, \"Wow, I learned a helluvalot, and now everyone knows because I have this shiny piece of paper.\" It also says, \"I contributed something new to my field.\" \n\nBut that's just *getting* a PhD, or an MD, or what have you. The key to finding and keeping a good job in academia (or just any job in academia) after you get a degree relies upon publication. Publication publication publication. And then some more publication. Most professors are *required* to publish a set amount of work every year or so. \n\nThat being said, publishing and the discovery of new ideas are by no means mutually exclusive. What do you think people are publishing about? Those words have to come from somewhere or describe something (one would hope). I had a professor who worked for years on an archaeological site in central Turkey, and the artifacts he dredged up from this ancient Roman military outpost served to fuel his publication material, research, and subsequent output.\n\nYou quoted the three things \"any academic does: research, publish findings, and teach.\" But I think you may have glossed over the second of those points. *Publish findings.* That implies that they have found things. That those things were previously untouched or unexplored or unarchived. And now it is the academic's job to not only publish and teach those things, but to find them in the first place. Whether this refer to a tangible object, like a coin from Parthia, or to an intangible thought, like the construction and corrosion of authority -- these discoveries remain real discoveries. \n\nThere will always be new materials to unearth, to conjure and manifest; by no means have we discovered all there is to know or study. And we're still finding them. All the time. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
11phoo | Do certain enzymes "die out" if not utilized? | For instance, if you were born with lactase to break down lactose, but you never consume any dairy products, will your body cease to produce that particular enzyme, and if so, can this be passed on to your spawn? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11phoo/do_certain_enzymes_die_out_if_not_utilized/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6owmb0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That's really not how it works.\n\nOvertime people accumulate various mutations across the genome, randomly. Evolution loves to roll the dice. Most of the time, these mutations don't do a whole lot. Once in awhile though, a mutation will have an effect: most commonly, it is deleterious, and the organism fails to to pass it off to their offspring due to low fitness. An even more rare circumstance is when the mutation is of benefit. If a mutation increases fitness it is generally favorably inherited due to selection. This is what happened with lactose tolerance; a mutation rendered production of the lactase enzyme constitutive, and as a result carriers could drink animal milk in adulthood. These people were able to subsist more favorably, and passed the gene down."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2odloz | is it possible to not have citizenship of any country? | For example i get expatriated from the US and i don't get a citizenship to for a example Sweden. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odloz/eli5_is_it_possible_to_not_have_citizenship_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmm4087",
"cmm4cc1",
"cmm4dj8",
"cmm4f3l",
"cmm4fyg",
"cmm4rod",
"cmm55w6",
"cmm5waf",
"cmm5ysy",
"cmm6zfj"
],
"score": [
87,
22,
7,
11,
8,
3,
2,
7,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Short answer: yes, it's possible. The repercussions are that any nation can declare you persona-non-grata which means you can be arrested simply for being present in their territory.\n\nAdditionally, you would be legally considered an alien anywhere you were, and have to deal with the local issues.",
"Yes, it is called [Statelessness](_URL_0_), and quite a few people are still in that terrible condition nowadays, notably in Palestine, Greece and Kuwait.",
"Yes, it's possible. For example consider Palestinians. They are not citizens of any recognized country.",
"What's that movie with tom hanks in the airport? That's what this made me think of.",
"Movie:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nBased on:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Here's a guy who is voluntarily stateless: _URL_0_",
"Look up the sea Gypsies. They just live at sea and are completely stateless. ",
"Yes, the term for it is stateless person.\n\nNot everyone can become stateless. Some countries grant unconditional citizenship, some will not let you give up citizenship without having another one. There are international conventions to prevent people from becoming stateless accidentally basically. \n\nBut a few ways you can become stateless: Your state ceases to exist (you may then acquire statehood in a successor state, but maybe not). Your state revokes your citizenship and you don't have another. Your state and place of birth have conflicting rules. Most countries don't allow anyone born there to automatically get citizenship, but you would inherit citizenship from your parents, except you might not, if for example the country of your parents citizenship requires you reside there within X years or X generations and you, well, don't. You can also renounce citizenship, which can leave you stateless if your government doesn't care that you're leaving.\n\n\n\n",
" > is it possible to not have citizenship of any country?\n\nThis is actually a tricky question.\n\nThere are only 2 countries that grant citizenship at birth:\n\n > Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens.\n\nNow that said, that's people that are born on 'soil.'\n\nNow Citizenship & Nationality are different things. Not having either can result in what is called Statelessness, which others have linked:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nCitizenship & Nationality are generally used interchangeably however they don't usually mean the same thing. For instance, A US National, and a US Citizen would both be issued a US Passport, and can travel freely inside the US, however.... they aren't accorded the same Rights & Privileges. People born in some of the US Territories are only considered Nationals, while anyone born in the States, DC, and some of the other Territories are considered Citizens.\n\nOther countries have similar rules.\n\nI believe the Commonwealth countries had Citizens & Subjects up until the mid 1900~s.\n\nSo long story short, you can end up being a Citizen, a National, or a Stateless person. Citizens & Nationals have a home country, whereas a Stateless person does not.\n\nHere's a link to the IRS website which shows how we define it.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Hello! I live in Singapore and have an aunt who was born during the Japanese Occupation here. There were a lot of complications with her registration as she was adopted, her birth parents were nowhere to be found, and her adopted mother (my grandmother) kind of forgot to register her once proper administrative procedures were in place. She's 70+ now and has no citizenship of any country as Singapore has rejected her application multiple times (probably because she's not educated nor wealthy). Her ID card looks similar to that of a Permanent Resident's, but it says Stateless. (She recently saw a doctor for some bone problems and he was absolutely stunned by her ID card, most people don't know these things can exist.)\n\nThankfully, as she has an adult daughter who's a citizen, she lives with her and is well taken care of :) I dread to think what might have happened to her if she didn't have a child to support her, as she's denied all medical/housing/retirement/whatever benefits that citizens or PRs have, and wouldn't have had the income to support herself in old age."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Karimi_Nasseri",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal"
],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gogulski"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Internation... | |
4asi9m | why there is such a big public outcry against stopping illegal immigration if it is illegal in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4asi9m/eli5_why_there_is_such_a_big_public_outcry/ | {
"a_id": [
"d134l6b",
"d134nip",
"d137zu6",
"d1380xl",
"d138yet",
"d13cg27"
],
"score": [
4,
52,
8,
2,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"America spent a bunch of it's early years being extremely open with immigration. Making it super easy. Virtually no one in the US is native american, almost everyone is immigrants in the last few hundred years. \n\nThen around 50 years ago they started really changing around how immigration works and started making it harder and harder to be a citizen. And that is kinda okay, you can see that people can't just come and come forever. But it got really sketchy because what we basically did is set up society so we have 12 million people who live in the US who live here but aren't citizens. And we have this whole big weird system that works exactly like every single system where you end up with an underclass set of non-people. Where stuff like whole industries rely on being able to hire workers with no legal protections for a dollar a day or whatever. ",
"The current situation in the US is that there are a lot of illegal immigrants and not a lot of resources dedicated to finding and deporting them. Nobody really likes that situation, but the question is what to do to resolve it.\n\nOne side thinks the country should spend a lot more money on deporting people and keeping them out in the first place. The other side thinks the country should make it easier to immigrate so that those people can immigrate legally. So the debate isn't really about whether the US should or shouldn't deport people who are there illegally, but whether or not all these people should be allowed to legally immigrate.",
"Because it is illegal, but not enforced. You have sanctuary cities, which are cities that basically pledged not to turn anyone to ICE. Those cities still get federal funding for breaking the law. Couple of years ago, ex governor of Arizona passed a law which required for any foreigner to carry their ID with them, and forbade employing illegals. Obama threatened to sue her.\n\nSo, there is an outcry, because people feel lied to.",
"It's more about **preventing and enforcing** illegal immigration laws.\n\nIt's not about passing more laws to stop it since, as you mention, it's already illegal - it's about paying for more cops and border enforcement agents etc to police it.",
"There are a lot of negative effects of a massive deportation scheme. People think \"yay, higher wages and more jobs\" but what actually will happen for 75% of our population is \"Boo, prices for consumer goods have skyrocketed because the cost of labor is significantly pricier!\"\n\nA better solution would be easier path of citizenship for non-violent immigrants already in America. They'd probably demand more money then, but significantly less than their natural counterparts without the ridiculous rush to find replacement employees for areas in the middle of nowhere.",
"This all breaks down to money and therefore votes. On one side you have an idealogy of personal responsibility and therefore feel that they should not be forced to pay for someone else's living expenses. The other side believes that it's OK for the government to pay welfare to those who need it. Now if you bring a bunch of people, namely illegal immigrants here typically they can only get very basic, if any, jobs at all. So many people feel that if these people were made legal they would inherently vote for the people that give them more welfare and take care of them rather than assimilate to our culture and better themselves educationally and professionally. Thus you potentially have a gigantic voting bloc of new \"legal immigrants\" that would vote for leftist welfare policy. So because of that the other side highly opposes it because it would lead to an imbalance of power both voting wise and economically. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2mbstb | Question about Chicago Manual of Style Citation for Census Information | How do I cite census information found on _URL_0_ using Chicago Manual of Style? I can't seem to find examples anywhere. Any help is greatly appreciated! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mbstb/question_about_chicago_manual_of_style_citation/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm2rulc"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Personally I would just treat it as a government document and cite it that way. These two links should help:\n\n[American](_URL_1_)\n\n[Canadian](_URL_0_) \n\nIf you want to be a hundred percent sure, just ask your professor or whoever assigned the thing you are getting citations for, they'll tell you what they prefer."
]
} | [] | [
"ancestry.com"
] | [
[
"http://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/writing/citing-statistics",
"http://library.bowdoin.edu/help/chicago-gov.pdf"
]
] | |
3z85pm | why are mobile websites much faster and more responsive than the dedicated app they beg you to install? | Facebook, CNN, ESPN etc..
Shouldn't a dedicated app wrote for a certain phone actually be nice to use? In my experience they are almost always buggy, laggy pieces of crap. Why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z85pm/eli5_why_are_mobile_websites_much_faster_and_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyjzd4c",
"cyk8er9"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Follow-up question: does it have something to do with revenue? Are there more ads on the horrible apps? Good question, OP!",
"I always preface my explanations with this being ELI5 I'm going to try to keep my language as \"shapes and colors\" as possible because it is how I would want something explained to me.\n\nSo webpages generally serve you very lightweight content, when you request something from reddit a lot of the work is done on their end. So you say \"Hey Reddit\" I want a salad, they prepare it for you and all you have to do is take the plastic lid off and eat it.\n\nWhen you install an app, it places much of the salad making process in your hands, such as a salad bar, it also gives you more options to customize it (interacting, drag and dropping, touch capability, etc).\n\nAnother food analogy while I'm at it, web content = buffet, app = that grill part of the buffet where you can choose what you want and they cook it in front of you but it takes longer.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3512j1 | Was drinking water available to plebeians in Rome at any time? | According to the attached image, it is stated that drinking water was available to 'wealthy homes'- and I think I am safe to assume that this referred to the Patricians of the time. How true is this?
_URL_0_ | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3512j1/was_drinking_water_available_to_plebeians_in_rome/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqzyv92"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Only those who could afford to pay the state for the license to connect private pipes to public aqueducts could have a private water supply. The license wasn't especially expensive, but it was certainly a luxury--the city was filled with public fountains, so there was little need for a private water supply for anyone but the extravagantly wealthy. As regards to wealth, your assumption that only the patricians had wealth is entirely untrue, particularly by the time of Augustus, when the license to connect private pipes began to be sold--see [here](_URL_0_). Plebeians could be just as wealthy and often were vastly wealthier--the equestrians could not exist if the plebs could not gain extraordinary wealth. The social orders are a political distinction, not an economic one, and they're a social distinction that began to lose importance as early as the 5th or 4th Centuries, B.C. and were almost totally irrelevant by the end of the 3rd"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.history.com/minisites/ancient_rome/HC_ROME_final.png"
] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34xvwj/what_are_the_origins_of_the_roman_aristocracy/"
]
] | |
7iaznq | how is it that people look so different from eachother despite the fact that our faces have the same components, with only millimetres in difference of the placement of said things? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7iaznq/eli5_how_is_it_that_people_look_so_different_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqxf5xa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Objectively, many human faces are quite similar. But our brains are incredibly attuned to small differences in faces, because the ability to recognize different humans is crucial to humans' operating as a social species."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1djuyc | why does a song sound different when you hear it on the radio compared to listening it on e.g. a cd on the same speakers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1djuyc/eli5_why_does_a_song_sound_different_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9r0adc",
"c9r11po",
"c9r4j60"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It's mostly dynamic range (how loud or soft something can get). We measure changes in volume in dB. Our ears have a dynamic range of about 120-130 dB, so we can hear the difference between loud and soft pretty well. Commercial CDs have a dynamic range of 96dB, which is close enough to the human hearing to be comfortable.\n\nNow FM radio (I assumer you're talking about FM) has a very limited dynamic range, about 50dB. That's a big jump. So, radio stations have to do what is called compression, which basically shrinks the dynamic range of a song, so it's harder to hear the difference between a \"soft\" signal and \"loud\" signal. Thus, you get a different sound from a CD to radio.\n\nSource: I'm an audio engineering student \n\nEdit: After some research, I also found out that FM radio can only transmit up to about 15kHz. All this means is that the high end of is a little muffled. Most people can hear up to 18-20kHz, so it's really only the tinny-high stuff that gets taken out. ",
"All of what other people said - but also stations usually speed up songs slightly to fit more in per hour. Its drives me CRAZY.\n\nIts hard to tell, until one of your favorite songs comes on and its way ahead of your whistling rhythm.",
"Nearly every radio station uses one of these compressors:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.orban.com/"
]
] | ||
9ehqlv | Why does each planet have exactly 5 Lagrange points? | I can understand the location of L1, since it is located on the line segment connecting the centers of the Sun and the planet in question. Could someone explain where the other four should be, and why there are only four more? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ehqlv/why_does_each_planet_have_exactly_5_lagrange/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5pgndk",
"e5pohwc",
"e5pphkn"
],
"score": [
2,
18,
4
],
"text": [
"And if I might piggyback on this, is there anything currently floating around in Earth's Lagrange points?",
"There are 5 Lagrange points because there are 5 solutions to the problem of where acceleration is 0 in the 2 body problem in a rotating reference frame. At each of these 5 points, and at no others, the gravitational forces of the two bodies perfectly balance the centrifugal force of the rotating reference frame.",
"The geometry, where forces of gravity and centrifugal force (if you take the non-inertial frame of reference bound to the set of the two bodies) - is rather complex and gives these saddles/isles in the graph. If you draw a 3D plot where X, Y are distances in the 2-body system, and Z is the value of the gravity - centrifugal force sum, you're getting [this](_URL_0_) - and treat this as a surface with a pull \"downwards\" (away from you) and a body released at any point will \"roll down the slope\". But if you put it in any saddle point or top, it won't. These are the Lagrangian points. L1 between the two bodies. L2 behind the two, where the pull of the two adds up and prevents escape. L3 - analogously but on the opposite side of the set. And the esoteric L4 and L5, leading or trailing the smaller body by 60 degrees.\n\nBut Lagrangian points are an abstraction that only applies to a 2-body system. Since planets are far apart from each other, and don't affect each other much, the abstraction works pretty well in reality. But if you tried to put a probe in the lagrangian point of one of Jupiter's larger moons, it wouldn't last more than a few weeks. That nifty plane from that linked image, which remains pretty much fixed, except rotating around the Sun with the planet, in case of a system with more bodies becomes a wobbly jelly, and the *actual* Lagrangian points wobble and move around as the summary gravitational field changes. Ah, and they work well only for orbits with very low eccentricity. Make the orbit elliptic and it stops working too.\n\n(now why orbits of most planets are so close to a perfect circle? A different story, let's just say tidal forces circularize the orbits.)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/Mi5q4SP.jpg"
]
] | |
p6liq | What causes rogue waves? | What causes rogue waves? Or does science not know? I've always wondered, especially after just watching Poseidon. :P I've heard that waves are nonlinear, and sometimes merge together and thus causes rogue waves, is this true? And also, why don't rogue waves hit coastlines? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/p6liq/what_causes_rogue_waves/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3myczx",
"c3mywei"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, lets start by looking at a completely linear system, which waves in water nearly are. In this case, when two waves are in the same place, the total water height is simply the sum of the two. The waves completely don't interact, so they then move away from one another again. If you seed the system with lots of random waves then inevitably as they move around you'll get some areas of unusually high wave height. These would be rogue waves, though the definitions used are quite vague, and also permit phenomena not necessarily meeting the obvious characteristics such as the 'three sisters' phenomenon which is fairly well documented.\n\nGiven that the sea is just such a random system, with randomness induced by the wind, we can see that there will inevitably be rogue waves even with nothing special happening, simply because by chance waves will sometimes be in the same place and you'll get one very large wave.\n\nSo, there's nothing particularly special about large waves in themselves, but when we look at how the sea really behaves it turns out rogue waves seem to be much more common than such a linear model would predict. It's not really accurate to describe the sea with any simple equation (though we do have such equations that vaguely describe certain types of situation), but the main important point is that nonlinearity is involved. In the simplest and least truly accurate terms, this ends up meaning that waves have a tendency to clump together in one place, which increases the rate of extremely high wave production. It also leads to the core concept of 'modulation instability', which (again in a simplified way) means that small disturbances under the right conditions have a tendency to collect further energy and grow in size. Understanding modulation instability is thus core to understanding why rogue waves form, but the reasons for its occurence are complex and may involve diverse effects such as inherent properties of the water and environmental factors like the wind.\n\nDescribing this with any accuracy is very much an area of investigation, and is made more complicated by the ocean being unhelpfully difficult to work with, with many possible phenomena contributing to the main causes of rogue waves. For instance, it is thought that there may be relatively common situations where the wind consistently helps to add energy to a certain part of the system, helping rogue waves to form in certain places. The landscape also affects things, manifesting (for instance) as certain areas being thought to have ocean-bottom features which help to funnel energy into rogue waves. I think this is considered to be an important part of why rogue waves don't seem common near coastlines; the shallow water changes the way the water behaves in such a way that these effects are much diminished and less common.\n\nOne interesting way to look at this kind of thing is through the eyes of optical theory, most specifically the behaviour of light in nonlinear optical fibres. These are described by equations very similar to our simple ocean models, so we might hope that understanding light's behaviour here may help us understand the ocean. Because the situation is much simpler than the ocean, researchers are able to look much more directly at relevant mathematical phenomena such as the [Peregrine soliton](_URL_0_) and see how they behave. Ocean rogue waves are probably always much more complicated than anything involving these pure mathematical features alone, but it's an interesting start. In fact, the Peregrine soliton was fairly recently confirmed to have been actually detected in such a fibre.",
"[Great documentary on the topic!](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_soliton"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUn8WQ4Y1bM"
]
] | |
2anvkq | when answering the most difficult unsolved maths problems, how are wrong answers known to be wrong? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2anvkq/eli5_when_answering_the_most_difficult_unsolved/ | {
"a_id": [
"cix1mf7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Let's start with a simple example and work our way up.\n\nSuppose \"What is 2232^(2)?\" were a difficult, unsolved problem. \n\nSuppose you gave me a proposed solution: 4981825.\n\nI know, immediately, without even thinking, that your proposed answer is wrong. How do I know that? Well, 2232 is even, so 2232^2 must be even, but your proposed answer is odd, which makes your proposed answer wrong. So we go back to the drawing board.\n\nDifficult, unsolved math problems have difficult, long solutions. Some solutions run [over one hundred pages in length.](_URL_0_) However, the principle applies: it's easier to verify an answer than it is to come up with it in the first place. A mathematician will send his or her solution around to peers, and those peers will check it for inconsistencies, errors, or flaws in logic. The proof will typically be split into semi-independent parts. Different people might focus on verifying different parts of the proof, because different people will have different specialties. \n\nAt the end of the day, if the mathematician's peers think the proof is sound, the proof will be published in a journal. If the proof contains errors, the author will look for ways to repair the proof and salvage the remaining, true bits. Oftentimes even proofs that ultimately fail will have instructive or useful segments. They might highlight strategies that would otherwise have been overlooked, or they might fail so sharply that certain strategies are blocked off -- and it's important to know when that happens, so that other people don't waste time on those strategies for that proof. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long_proofs"
]
] | ||
4x65br | why do astronomers feel like tabby's star may have an alien megastructure around it? | All I know is that the star's luminosity drops a little over 20% sometimes. Does it do this on a regular schedule to indicate something in a stable orbit? Does it dim differently than a spherical object would make it dim? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x65br/eli5_why_do_astronomers_feel_like_tabbys_star_may/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6ctxpe"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The dips in luminosity are of differing scales and periods. This is really weird, because orbiting objects should have a regular period, and we can usually simulate a plausible set of planets to explain the changes we see in the star. Other ideas, such as a swarm of comets, have been proposed, but it would need to be an extremely unusual and massive swarm. So far, no suggestion for a set of orbiting objects is an especially compelling explanation for what's going on.\n\nComplicating matters further, historical records seem to indicate that the star has been declining in brightness for more than a century. If true, there's no ready explanation. However, others have countered that the records in question really just reflecting changing telescopes over the decades, and that other stars in those records show a similar apparent dimming.\n\nCurrently, there's no very good explanation. While this leaves room to dream about an alien Dyson sphere, the safe money is still on some collection of orbital mechanics and stellar dynamics."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
56ao0z | why do some people feel slow and out of it during the day but awake and focused at night? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56ao0z/eli5_why_do_some_people_feel_slow_and_out_of_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8hpri1",
"d8huzl3"
],
"score": [
72,
91
],
"text": [
"People have different natural waking and sleeping cycles. If not restricted by work hours or stuff like that the will slowly adapt to their natural cycle. There was a woman in scandinavia that after retirement went on to live her natural cycle that consisted of 48 hour waking periods and 24 hours of sleep. ",
"Your body has what is often referred to as a **circadian rhythm**. This is basically just a 24-hour long cycle that repeats every 24 hours (very approximately). \n\nThe circadian rythm regulates the function of a number of processes, especially in the **autonomic nervous system**. That's the part of your nervous system that you don't control. It releases hormones, regulates body temperature, and does a lot of other stuff that keeps you alive. \n\nOne of the systems within a circadian rhythm is the sleep-wake cycle. Contrary to belief this isn't a binary on/off, but rather a smooth and continuous sine wave, going from \"more awake\" to \"less awake\" over the course of the day and night. \n\nThis is a very complex process involving hormones and neurotransmitters like cortisol, melatonin, serotonin, dopamine, and many others. The levels of these chemicals in your body create different levels of \"wakefulness\" or \"sleepiness\". \n\nThe circadian rythym is meant to be susceptible to outside Zeitgebers, which basically just means stimuli that helps you determine an external sense of time. Since human biology is meant to operate in the daytime, the presence of sunlight is meant to increase our wakefulness, and the absence of it is meant to coax us into sleepiness. It's a pretty simple process, whereby more like detected by your eyes sends a signal to the brain that says, \"hey, there's a lot of sun!\" and then your brain starts pumping out wakefulness hormones in response. \n\nBut because your circadian rhythm is highly sensitive to outside influence, its easy for it to change and adjust based on innumerable factors. It is also sensitive to genetic mutations or variations; a large number of people differ from the \"normal\" rhythm by at least 2 hours in either direction, sometimes more so. \n\nI am an extreme night owl - I feel best going to bed around 4AM and waking up around 12PM. I start to \"wake up\" around 10PM and am most productive between 11PM - 3AM. \n\nAlthough genetics are almost certain a factor, I've often considered there to be a psychological component to this. I'm fairly introverted - I am a friendly and open person during the day, but this takes a lot of energy out of me, and I work best in a quiet environment, where no one disturbs me, and where I feel I have total privacy. \n\nBecause of this, I think I've naturally gravitated towards nighttime productivity because ever since I was very young, that was the time when other people would be asleep and I could be completely alone. It presented a sense of psychological relief and freedom that has likely strongly impacted my circadian ryhtm even well into adulthood, because I had come to greatly enjoy that time. \n\nI also probably tend *dislike* the hours of 8AM-12PM, because this is the time of day where other people feel \"most awake\", so if I do have to wake up at 8AM, other people are usually difficult to tolerate because I'm at a very low energetic point, and they're at a much higher energetic point, talking louder, moving faster, etc.\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
6cjhlx | What Technology Would be Needed to Produce Element 119? | By "What technology" I mean: 1. How powerful would this tech need to be to produce element 119, and 2. What, specifically, would one need to produce element 119. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6cjhlx/what_technology_would_be_needed_to_produce/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhv4kv2",
"dhvb7kh",
"dhwi3nf"
],
"score": [
18,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"We can likely produce element 119 already, although it's not a trivial matter to figure out how to do so.\n\nThe easiest way to produce an extremely heavy nucleus seems to be using heavy ion fusion reactions. Using particle accelerators we can very easily accelerate a moderately heavy stable nucleus such as calcium-48 to a high energy, and smash it into a much heavier nucleus (actinides). Nuclear fusion can occur, and they can form a yet heavier nucleus.\n\nBut there are some problems. Fusion reactions at high energies result in a highly excited compound nucleus which boils off particles (gamma rays, nucleons, alpha particles, etc.) in order to \"cool down\" before reaching its final state. This is not conducive to creating the heaviest possible nuclei; you don't want any nucleons boiling off in the process.\n\nSo you can instead do your fusion reaction at a lower energy, below the [Coulomb barrier](_URL_0_). Unfortunately, this means that the probability of the reaction occurring gets very small.\n\nSo you need to turn up your beam intensity, or run the experiment for a very long time. But beam time at a particle accelerator is extremely expensive; you can't just leave the beam on for months and wait for superheavy elements to show up in your detectors. You need to carefully plan your experiment, optimizing everything to be able to achieve the desired result in a reasonable amount of time.\n\nAnd furthermore once you've got a plan for your experiment, you still have to propose it at some user facility which has the capabilities you need, wait for it to be approved, and wait for the actual start date.\n\nSo needless to say, it takes a while between experiments. And once the experiment is done, it still may take a year, or even more to actually analyze the data and provide a convincing argument that the next element has been definitively discovered.",
"Multiple experiments to produce Element 119 have been performed beginning as long ago as 1985.\n\n^254 Es + ^48 Ca, superHILAC, Berkeley\n\n^249 Bk + ^50 Ti, GSI Centre, Germany, 2012\n\n^249 Bk + ^50 Ti, Dubna, Russia, 2019\n\n^249 Cf + ^50 Ti, Dubna, Russia, 2019\n\n^248 Cm + ^51 V, RIKEN, Japan, planned\n\n^248 Cm + ^54 Cr, RIKEN, Japan, planned\n\n\n",
"Alright, so if it's possible to make element 119, at what point would we need a major technological advancement before we can make any given superheavy element past 119."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier"
],
[],
[]
] | |
ln5gb | What is the Zero Point Energy Field, and why does it seem to not be prevalent in our modern scientific community? | Hello,
I don't know nearly as much as I would like to about this subject. I have seen a lot of charlatans hocking goods that have something to do with this, but I have also read some interesting books and articles about how this theory relates to quantum mechanics. I was wondering if anyone had some more reading materials I could peruse, or if you have a decent understanding could explain it to me.
I apologize for my lack of knowledge in advance, and very much appreciate anyone who takes this question seriously. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ln5gb/what_is_the_zero_point_energy_field_and_why_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2u15ep",
"c2u15ep"
],
"score": [
12,
12
],
"text": [
"Essentially we know that bound states of particles can't have *zero* energy. But neither can you extract energy from that lowest state, as there would *have* to be a state lower for that bound state to fall into. So you can't actually *use* this for anything. It's just a fact of reality that you can't extract *all* the energy from a system, the system will retain some of it.\n\nEdit: analogy time: Imagine you have a pitcher full of water, but the pitcher is shaped in such a way that you can never pour *all* the water out. Only most of it. That water left in the thing never helps you any, it's just... there. You have to include it when you consider how much water you can pour from the pitcher, as you know you'll only be able to use part of the pitcher's water at any point.",
"Essentially we know that bound states of particles can't have *zero* energy. But neither can you extract energy from that lowest state, as there would *have* to be a state lower for that bound state to fall into. So you can't actually *use* this for anything. It's just a fact of reality that you can't extract *all* the energy from a system, the system will retain some of it.\n\nEdit: analogy time: Imagine you have a pitcher full of water, but the pitcher is shaped in such a way that you can never pour *all* the water out. Only most of it. That water left in the thing never helps you any, it's just... there. You have to include it when you consider how much water you can pour from the pitcher, as you know you'll only be able to use part of the pitcher's water at any point."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
43nqhi | if lead is so insanely dangerous why do we leaden things like decanters and water pipes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43nqhi/eli5_if_lead_is_so_insanely_dangerous_why_do_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"czjjuom",
"czjk245",
"czjk8k0"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Leaded glass is pretty inert and doesn't intact with much. It's pretty safe.\r\rLead pipes are just old. Once they have been installed for a while, they get a protective costing over the lead and are fairly safe. We don't install new ones anymore.",
"Leaded glass is sparklier than lime glass (the regular stuff) and easy to blow or cut into decorative shapes. It's safe to use as a drinking vessel, but not for storage of foods or drink. After 2 days, you're looking at wine with 5x the EPA's safe standard for drinking water, and the lead content will keep increasing. Frequently-used lead glass is safer, as the more lead leaches out of the glass, the less is available to leach out into what you're drinking.",
"We don't make any pipes leading to your drinking faucet out of lead anymore since we learned how bad lead is for humans. This is a bit ironic since the whole plumbing profession is named after lead (Plumbum being the Latin for lead, and Pb the chemical symbol)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
9vhh33 | reuptake inhibitors | Drugs like SSRI’s and SNDRI’s restrict the reuptake of neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin. It just seems counterintuitive that inhibiting the reuptake of these chemicals improves the concentration of these chemicals to improve mood? What am I missing here?
Cheers | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vhh33/eli5_reuptake_inhibitors/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9c8uaf",
"e9c951n",
"e9ccjfv",
"e9ccnc7"
],
"score": [
2,
27,
18,
3
],
"text": [
"If the reuptake is inhibited then more of the neurotransmitter is left in the synapse to interact with the receptors on the other neuron. As more is produced the concentration increases because what was there isn't gone. Think of it like a bar. If you do 1 in and 1 out the concentration stays the same. 1 in 0 out it increases.",
"The reuptake inhibitors block the \"pumps\" ,for lack of a better term, from pulling the serotonin and norepinephrine back into the neuron. Therefore leaving them in the space, called a synapse, to help transmit the electrical signals between neurons. The thought is that most depression is caused by low levels of these neurotransmitters in the synapses and by turning off the pumps there will be higher levels of them available where they are needed",
"In-between your brain cells, there are little spaces. Those spaces are filled with fluid and lots of little molecules whose job is to get the brain cells to work together to do certain things or make you feel certain ways. When one brain cell wants to tell another brain cell to do something, it puts a molecule into the space, and the other brain cell grabs it so it knows what to do. When the first brain cell is done letting the second one get the message, it takes the molecule back. \n\nWell, some of these molecules are for telling brain cells to make a person happy. If there aren't enough of these to go around, sometimes when the first brain cell takes the molecule back, the cell that gets the message hasn't done its job yet to make the person happy enough. What reuptake inhibitors do is tell the first cell it can't take the molecule back so that the second one has lots of time to use it.",
"Reuptake of neurotransmitters can be thought of as how a neuron recycles neurotransmitters. Reuptake inhibitors, such as SSRI's, block this recycling. This will result in more serotonin staying in the synaptic cleft(the gap between neurons). This increased concentrated is thought to increase the likelihood of serotonin interacting with receptors in the postsynaptic neuron. This in turn increases the likelihood of an action potential in the postsynaptic neuron. \n\nI am simplifying the process a bit for ELI5. There is still a lot we do not know about neurotransmitters and the effects of psychoactives. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
gommc | Did we really all originate from Africa? | Has this been proven yet? If not, how close are we to proving it?
What would happen to people who were racist against black people? Would they just deny it the way people deny evolution? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gommc/did_we_really_all_originate_from_africa/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1p3xgy",
"c1p400p",
"c1p4lcb"
],
"score": [
10,
28,
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, this is the consensus of the scientific community.\n\nRacists either\na) Don't know\nb) Rationalize they improved after leaving Africa\nc) Reject it",
"All the evidence suggests that humans and our relatives come originally from Africa. All of our closest primate relatives came from Africa (phylogenetic evidence). Genetic diversity is greatest in Africa (evidence that Africa is the evolutionary source population). Fossils get younger and younger as you trace them out of Africa (paleontological evidence). There is no scientific doubt that our lineage came from Africa. \n\nAll that said, there is very interesting research still underway about exactly which populations were where and when and who they were interacting with and how much evolution happened outside of Africa. But all the data ultimately points back to Africa. Read more about the competing theories it [here](_URL_0_).",
" > What would happen to people who were racist against black people? Would they just deny it the way people deny evolution?\n\nAlso note that those early Africans didn't just sit still while other populations migrated out. There were internal migrations and diversifications to the point where many Africans are as unrelated to each other as they are to Europeans and Asians.\n\nWhile those early humans certainly had dark skin, thinking of them as the same as the many \"black\" ethnic groups that inhabit sub-Saharan Africa is misleading."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans"
],
[]
] | |
fth2ll | if a person is revived is it legally murder? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fth2ll/eli5_if_a_person_is_revived_is_it_legally_murder/ | {
"a_id": [
"fm6zce8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It would be attempted as they’re not actually dead. The person isn’t legally dead until they give up resuscitation efforts and record the death."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2dj1ug | when/where do insects sleep? i've never seen one "sleep" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dj1ug/eli5_whenwhere_do_insects_sleep_ive_never_seen/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjpyv5c",
"cjpzws2",
"cjq4mrp",
"cjq6w6a",
"cjq8gep"
],
"score": [
3,
61,
4,
77,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of them don't sleep they restore energy on the move like ants. they doesn't need to **rest** to get back up again. I know there work rate is very high but there body is structured good enough to keep them working without a significant or noticeable sleep.",
"Mr. Bug: I have but 24 hours to live. Alas! There is no time for sleep! Carpe diem!",
"[Pictures of sleeping insects + dew.](_URL_0_)",
"Alright, there are a ton of wrong answers here.\n\nNo one really knows what the reason for sleep is. We just know that if you don't sleep, crazy shit happens and then you die.\n\nWhen you sleep, your brain synchronizes brain waves, your heart rate slows, your breathing slows, and your body temperature drops. That is because we are big animals in a resting state. Our body isn't working hard when we sleep so our organs don't need to work at a high rate.\n\nGenerally the more complex the animal, the more sleep it needs. We know that physical things happen to the brain when we sleep. It synchronizes brain waves, it creates, destroys, or strengthens neural connections, and it goes through cycles of deep sleep and rem sleep.\n\nThe significance of creating, destroying, or strengthening neural connections is that we are conscious living animals that make decisions and have memories. The way that our neurons are structured and how they fire is what creates a memory. So when our brain is changing the connections in our sleep, It is reinforcing what we have learned and optimizing our brain for these additional memories.\n\nTiny insects don't have memories (as far as we know). They solely rely on instinct and that's it. So they don't need to optimize their brain because they don't learn. They don't need complex sleep cycles to enhance memories or what they've learned, but humans, cats, dogs, etc do because we learn and need that knowledge to continue for our survival.\n\nDoes that make sense? I'm on mobile right now so my thought process might seem jumpy or broken on here. Let me know if you have any questions.\n\nSource: Degree in Psychology and I study Sleep and Sleep Disorders",
"You might find this interesting: [Link](_URL_1_)\n\nTL;DR We havn't found a way to study insects brain activity and we can therefor not *know* they're sleeping. What we have done is observe a state called torpor that seams to be some kind of sleep basically only reacting to strong stimuli.\n\nI don't know shit about insects but I do know how to copy paste the question into Google... \n\nTS;RM (to short; read more) _URL_0_ "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1260946/The-stunning-pictures-sleeping-insects-covered-early-morning-dew.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/our-modern-plagues/do-insects-sleep",
"http://insects.about.com/od/insects101/f/insect-sleep.htm"
]
] | ||
baw8f5 | How were Asian countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia able to keep their native language despite being colonized? | All the Latin American countries speak Spanish, but the Philippines doesn't even though it was also part of New Spain. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/baw8f5/how_were_asian_countries_such_as_the_philippines/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekf0ylx",
"ekfj73j"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"/u/Gertrump42\n\nIn the case of Indonesia, [see this old post](_URL_7_). \n\nIn the Dutch East Indies (DEI), by the later 19th-early 20th century there was already awareness that the teaching of Dutch language has advantages and should be encouraged. Even at the end of the 19th century, there were many more speakers of Dutch than there were speakers of Malay -- which was later to become the Indonesian language -- in the Dutch East Indies. After all, it was only in the 1880s that Malay-language newspapers started to be printed. \n\nWith the rise of Ethical Policy in the DEI, further primary and secondary education was made available to the public. \nHowever, there was a major difference between primary and secondary education, and what was available to the masses versus some of the native elites. Namely, that the *sekolah-desa* system that was founded provided basic a 3-year education in native languages, not Dutch and often not written. Instead, Dutch was used in schools reserved for the elites. Thus, effective literacy rates remained poor. \n\nWith rising nationalism, the issue of language came to a head again in the early 20th century, along with the question of whither the entire DEI should become one independent country or if it should become several. The current government would like all of us to think the former had always made sense. [But did it?](_URL_5_) Even if it did to remain a united country, what should it be? \nOrganizations such as Budi Utomo (for Javanese only, or at best Javanese-culture) focused on regional identity, while Sarekat Islam (only for Muslims) wanted a pan-DEI Islamist country, while the Indische Partij (IP) of Douwes Dekker the notable Indo eurasian, along with his partner Mangunkusumo, proposed a multi-ethnic, secular Indonesia. The history of IP is quite important but is overlooked, even as they played an important role in furthering public education through the so-called *Wild Schools* in the 1920s, founded following their *All Indies Congress* in Bandung. Thousands of students were enrolled in education given in the Dutch language. \n\nAround this time, the use of Malay as a national language was being advanced in the Eurasians and Chinese communities, who were ahead of native Indonesians when it came to literacy rates. \nMalay was the chosen language since it was easy to learn and they were commonly used in the coastal regions exposed to trade. The Eurasians were used to speaking it as they dealt with native traders, and the Chinese often used elements of Malay to speak among themselves in order to bridge the various Chinese ethnic dialects. The DEI colonial government itself promoted the use of Malay. After all, the *Volksraad* (People's Council) had two official languages: Dutch and Malay. \n\nFurther, in 1928 the 2nd (Nationalist) Youth Congress in then-Batavia declared the Indonesian language (based on Malay) to be the national language, and *Indonesia Raya* to be the national anthem. To most nationalists, there was no contradiction in seeking education in the Dutch language, as it gave them access to government and the economic apparatus of the colonials. And importantly, the nationalists themselves were working hand-in-hand with the colonial Volksraad when it came to the language issue. The colonial government itself founded *Balai Pustaka*, a publishing house, to promote literacy in the Malay language. Over time, it came to be one instrument through which the Indonesian government promoted the Indonesian language.\n\nThus, that was the situation approaching WW2, namely that education was highly uneven, the nationalists were pragmatically promulgating a \"new\" national language, while at the same time the use of Dutch in instruction was still sought. This was aligned with the policy of the colonials. However, literacy in Dutch and Malay were still very poor outside the elite. \n\nWe can quote van Mook, the Dutch Minister of Colonies, lamenting in his exile in England in 1943 that,\n > > *A common language is the surest measure for spreading culture and loyalty. The British always encourage the speaking of English in their dominions and colonies. We have not done this in the Netherlands East Indies. Let us do it after the war.*\n\n**WW2 and Independence**\n\nThe Japanese administration of the former DEI was [done very poorly](_URL_3_), up to and including suppression of Dutch personnel and administration, resulting in widespread famine and suffering. As the Dutch administration and citizenry were torn down and put into prison camps respectively, so did the use of Dutch as a language. \nRegardless, the Japanese knew they needed local collaborators and promoted nationalist leaders such as Sukarno, who further promoted the use of Indonesian. \n\nAt the end of WW2, the relationship between newly-independent Indonesia and the Netherlands was fraught from the get-go. See for example,\n[1](_URL_2_),\n[2](_URL_6_),\n[3](\n_URL_1_). \n\nWhen the Dutch launched the Police Action they faced opposition almost everywhere, even if they were largely not yet fully organized with each other. The Dutch leveraged a combination of post-war loans, British military presence, and available British war materiel. The 1945-1947 period saw chaotic fighting with all sides committing atrocities against opposing civilian and military groups, prisoners of war, civilians recently liberated from internment camps.\n\nThe US was concerned that continuing instability in Indonesia would provide an inroad for Communism: and it did. It was known that the Dutch East Indies had a large population and significant mineral wealth -- a key flashpoint in the new emerging world order. But Sukarno and Hatta's suppression of the 1948 Communist uprising in Madiun demonstrated to the US that they may end up being friendly to US interests in the region.\nRegardless, the Dutch insisted on a weak federal republic, the Republic of the United States of Indonesia (RUSI) and they had significant economic goals to pursue in the negotiations. Thus, they launched their last major offensive at the end of 1948.\n\nThe US and UN strongly opposed this offensive and forced the Dutch to negotiate. Unable to secure further loans -- the cost of the Police Action had risen to 20% of the Dutch national budget -- the Dutch had no choice. Truman also threatened to withhold further Marshall Plan aid.\nIndonesian negotiators agreed to a federation, RUSI, in a symbolic union with the Netherlands. They also agreed to return and respect the properties of Dutch companies and to allow Dutch nationals to continue to control those companies.\n\nHowever, the Dutch insisted that RUSI assume the total cost of war, a magnificent 6 billion guilders in debt ($1.7 billion USD), and income from exports of tin and foreign exchange!!! The translation of this, that RUSI had to assume the cost of war against it. Unsurprisingly, Indonesians refused, instead offering to assume debts but only up to 1942. The US envoy finally forced a compromise that RUSI accept the agreement to assume 4.3 billion guilders of debt, and at the same time that West Papua remain under Dutch control. All this in exchange of promise of aid from the US.\n\nMost importantly to this thread, the Indonesian Constitution declared Indonesian to be the official state language, with no space for the Dutch language. It became the *only* official language. Starting in the 60s-70s, the government standardized education and most publications to use the official Indonesian language, through institutions such as *Balai Pustaka*. \n\n**Whither India?**\n\nBy contrast, as India secured her independence in 1947, it was recognized that language was a major issue, and a compromise was made in the next few years whereby Hindi was *to be* the official language, but that the use of English for government purpose was allowed up to 1965, with the option for extension. Over time, English retained its place even if periodically this rose to become a political issue. See for example, [4](_URL_0_), [5](_URL_4_).\n\n**References**\n\n* J. Bresnan, *Indonesia: The Great Transition*, ISBN-13: 978-0742540118, 2005.\n\n* R.E. Elson, *Constructing the Nation: Ethnicity, Race Modernity and Citizenship in Early Indonesian Thought*, Asian Ethnicity (2005) 6 (3): 145-160.",
"I wrote about this relatively recently. Here is an answer from me and a little thread to go with it afterwards:\n\n[Why the Philippines speaks its native languages instead of Spanish ](_URL_0_) \n\nBasically, Filipinos did not really speak Spanish during the colonial period. Part of this had to do with the fact that the few Spanish people who lived in the Philippines were quite segregated from the Filipinos, particularly during the latter period of colonialism. There were not very much intermarriage/mixed families between Spaniards and Filipinos, and in the view of the Spanish, this divide would keep uprisings from happening. The language wasn’t pushed as a primary language because the Spaniards seemed to prefer to have a social and class divide between themselves and the Filipinos; instead, the Spanish evangelized and gave church services in the various native languages. The amount of Filipinos educated in Spanish would have been very, very low. \n\nI want to add that when independence came, there was no desire to preserve the Spanish language in the islands. Tagalog was made into the national language, and the few Spanish speakers left by that point (the 1940s and 50s) mostly disappeared."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/asia/17iht-letter17.html?mcubz=0",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4opwzo/why_dont_the_netherlands_have_a_larger_indonesian/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4x7es4/why_did_the_independence_of_the_dutch_indies_not/",
"http... | |
5m8wq4 | legally, what are the requirements for an action to be considered a "hate crime"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m8wq4/eli5_legally_what_are_the_requirements_for_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc1p4w7",
"dc1pedg"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”\n\nSource: [_URL_1_](_URL_0_)",
" > Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person . . . [shall be imprisoned].\n\nThat's from US federal law, [18 USC § 249](_URL_0_). Basically, it's a hate crime if you injure or kill someone else because of their race, color, religion, or national origin (or gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability - those are included in a later section).\n\nLet's say you're a Neonazi and your Neonazi group needs money. You go out to mug someone. The first guy you come across is a black Jew. You mug him. That's not a hate crime because you didn't target the guy based on his race or religion. While you may happen to hate his race/religion, it wasn't a motivating factor in the crime. If you went out looking for black people to mug, though, and injure a black person, that would be a hate crime.\n\nThat being said, most states have slightly different definitions and different law enforcement agencies have their own definitions for tracking statistics. They're all basically the same, though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes",
"fbi.gov"
],
[
"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249"
]
] | ||
h4wyx | Are sociopaths exclusive to humans? | I would imagine that other social animals, such as ants, wolves, elephants, monkeys, etc would occasionally produce someone that would be their society's equivalent of a sociopath. Does this actually happen? If so, how do their respective societies deal with them? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/h4wyx/are_sociopaths_exclusive_to_humans/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1slo4q",
"c1sm7uf",
"c1smalr",
"c1smn56",
"c1smv7b"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Maybe. I'm currently involved in a project that is investigating some genetic polymorphism that have been linked with sociopathy in humans in a nonhuman primate. I won't say it results in animal \"sociopathy.\" The word sociopathy is frequently regarded as the ontogenetic manifestation of psychopathy, which evidence suggests is a genetic phenomenon. Really we could only say humans are sociopaths because only humans have those special sociocultural influences that result in the \"sociopathic\" syndrome (in order to flout social conventions, there first must actually be social conventions to flout). But some of the baser elements of the disorder, like aggression, risk-taking, and sexual promiscuity, might have correlates in animal models. ",
"Maybe I am misunderstanding what a sociopath is, but aren't pretty much all dogs, for example, sociopaths?",
"The term sociopath is defined in terms of humans. No such classification scheme exists for non-humans, so it's really a question of definition.",
"Because it is a clinical diagnosis- now called antisocial personality disorder- and it has no anatomic correlates. The best you'd find is analogy.",
"From my understanding it is not uncommon for elephants who are otherwise very social animals to exhibit anti-social and aggressive behavior in captivity. \n\nThose are special circumstances, though.\n\nMale lions who take over a new pride routinely kill all the cubs so the females get into heat faster. That seems to be instinctive behavior though and not what you are looking for."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5wlttl | Considering there is strong criticism of modern Pop music involving very little actual talent, were the Beatles received the same at that point in time? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5wlttl/considering_there_is_strong_criticism_of_modern/ | {
"a_id": [
"deegs3y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've previously answered a similar question on how the Beatles were received in the 1960s by critics and the establishment [here](_URL_0_). \n\nHowever, I will also say that, if the question is specifically comparing the Beatles to modern pop music, it depends on who is receiving the group. Certainly not everyone was a fan of the Beatles (a current member of the Australian federal parliament, Bob Katter, [claims to have thrown eggs at the band during their Australian tour in 1964](_URL_2_), for instance), and there were bonfires of Beatles records after Lennon's comments about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus. The folk purists who booed at Bob Dylan concerts for going electric in 1965-1966 almost certainly would have despised the Beatles too, as the traits in Bob Dylan's music that they disliked were clearly also present in the Beatles' music.[ A review of *Revolver* by Ray Davies](_URL_1_) of the London group The Kinks in *Disc And Music Echo* called 'Yellow Submarine' \"rubbish\" and said of 'Eleanor Rigby' that \"it sounds like they're out to please music teachers in primary schools\". However, in general, music critics and musicians had positive things to say about the group.\n\nAdditionally, I should point out that the view that modern pop music requires little talent is not necessarily the dominant mindset of music critics these days, either; the '[rockists](_URL_5_)' who denigrate modern pop are largely seen as old-fashioned. For instance, the [Village Voice's 'Pazz and Jop' survey of the best albums of 2016 as voted by the majority of American music critics](_URL_3_) includes the likes of Rihanna, Beyonce, Solange, and Kanye West in the top 20, alongside more obvious critical darlings like Nick Cave, Leonard Cohen and Radiohead. Similarly, a modern classical composer like Nico Muhly [is happy to write an essay praising a Beyonce album](_URL_4_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ihcuf/did_people_in_the_1960s_realize_how_influential/",
"https://www.kindakinks.net/misc/articles/beatles.html",
"http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-06-30/i-am-the-egg-man-katter/2002186",
"http://www.villagevoice.com/pazznjop/albums/2016",
"http... | ||
a6rqn3 | When did we stop using "the class system" in America? Do we just call it something else? It seems like in the early 1900s, there was three classes... ?? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a6rqn3/when_did_we_stop_using_the_class_system_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebxxwe2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Flights still have \"first class\" although many call it business class. I'm sure ships and trains still have similar arrangements. I think it's a mistake to suggest that there is a direct correlation between this and a formalized position in society, although obviously more well off people are more likely to be able to afford better accommodations. \n\nAmerica did not have a formalized class system in the early 1900s, although like anywhere class and wealth were and are interrelated but not entirely overlapping and can have a profound impact on your life and opportunities."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
16t1h0 | how do the japanese type? | I'm learning Japanese, and seeing the remarkable differences between Japanese and English, I was wondering if they have different keyboards or if their capslock key was used for the difference between Hiragana and Katakana, etcetera. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16t1h0/how_do_the_japanese_type/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7z370w",
"c7z9d1j"
],
"score": [
34,
4
],
"text": [
"They make the syllables in romaji on the keyboard, which automatically turn into their hiragana counterparts. The current word is underlined, and they press SPACE to turn the current word into kanji if appropriate. Then, if they want a different kanji, they can scroll through a list of alternatives. It can actually be done quite fast, especially considering that Japanese is often more brief than English. Example: they type \"ka\" -- > か -- > 火\n\nEdit: Source: currently working in Japan",
"On a slightly different topic, whilst in Singapore (75% Cantonese Chinese population), I was watching a man writing a text on his iPhone which had a space for him to draw the character and just to the side of that space would come up the nearest matches which he could just click to select."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
6wyqhk | how magnetic chargers work. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wyqhk/eli5_how_magnetic_chargers_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmbw3am"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Did ye search?\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"www.google.com/search?q=eli5+wireless+chargers"
]
] | ||
1n2x7n | What did Northern Irish loyalists advocate? | I hope that this is not too recent, seeing as there is still republican and loyalist activity in Northern Ireland today. However, there has been a strong and stable sect of loyalists through Irish history.
Why do these people advocate remaining part of Britain and rejoining Ireland? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1n2x7n/what_did_northern_irish_loyalists_advocate/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccezkaf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Historians of the north of Ireland use the term \"loyalist\" to denote particularly hardline unionists, who, by definition, advocate for the maintenance of the official union between Ireland (and later Northern Ireland) and Britain, which was established with the *Act of Union* in 1801.\n\nThe colonial settlement of Ireland has meant that there has been a conflation between Protestantism and the political ideologies unionism and loyalism. England encouraged the settlement (or \"plantation\") of Ireland throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by Protestant farmers from England as well as Scotland; the vast majority of these settlers or planters were Protestant. (Many who came from Scotland were Presbyterian, which was a bit of a different story.) Over time, settlement led to the establishment of what historians now call the Protestant Ascendancy, which is a term that referred to Protestant political, economic, and cultural supremacy over Catholics and corresponding British rule on the island of Ireland. Northern Ireland's \"Troubles\" were a case of the large Catholic minority beginning to push back against and resist second-class status to Protestants in the state.\n\nSome people will tell you that \"unionist\" and \"loyalist\" are synonymous. This is not the case, especially as the twentieth century has progressed. To a greater and greater extent, these terms are differentiated by the class identity of the person claiming the ethnoreligious identity category. Particularly following the 1970s, when the mainstream public appetite for sectarian conflict and violence in Northern Ireland began to wane ever more rapidly, \"unionism\" came to be more often associated with moderate, \"respectable,\" middle class unionism, while \"loyalism\" came to be associated with working class unionism. \"Loyalist\" is also used to define those who advocate the use of violence to further the ends of unionism (as \"republican\" is used to denote people who advocate for the use of violence to further the goals of nationalism).\n\nLoyalists view and fear the reunification of Ireland as a defeat of unionism and, more importantly, the beginning of the eradication of what is ultimately the small minority of Protestants on the island of Ireland, although Protestants still make up a (small) majority of about 55% in Northern Ireland at present.\n\nThis is all a long story, but hopefully I've given you a sense of the basics!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3cjh6q | why do so many humans require glasses? | Do other animals suffer from the same poor vision as Humans? Have the invention of glasses enabled humans to continue having vision problems (evolutionary speaking)? Could wild animals survive with the same vision issues as humans? What would the human race be like had we never invented glasses?
Edit: thanks for the very interesting discussion and interesting hypothesis' Redditers! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cjh6q/eli5_why_do_so_many_humans_require_glasses/ | {
"a_id": [
"csw4jgr",
"csw4r0u",
"csw6kr6"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
293
],
"text": [
"This has been asked before, though I'll admit a simple search has a mediocre but acceptable signal to noise ratio. Try _URL_0_.\n\nBut a quick answer is that we do unnatural things like reading, while evolution selected for distance activities like hunting. ",
"Short sightedness (Myopia) is usually caused by your eye being too long and the focal point of your lens being in front of your retina. The so called hyperfocal distance of the eye is around 1m, so when you have normal sight, everything 1m and beyond requires the same curvature of your lens. When something is closer, muscles in the eye squeeze the lens, and change the focal point to hit your retina. \n\nWhen you have myopia, and work with objects at distances below 1m (like reading, doing fine motoric work with your hands like sewing or the likes), it is more relaxing on your eye compared to being normal sighted - your muscles have to do less work.\n\nIt is not entirely proven if the trait is being passed hereditary, or is developed in the first 20 years of your life (that is the timeframe when your eye is still growing), but it seems to be both of these. Someone being at school, reading a lot puts more strain on the eye, and will tend to develop Myopia in his life. \n\nSo I guess its a trend from being out and about during your life (farmers and manual labor) to being an educated society with lots of reading and near-the-eye work which causes this.\n\nFor reference: _URL_0_\n\nEdit: just noticed other questions. _URL_1_\n\nMyopia occurs in animals as well, mostly domesticated animals. If we never invented glasses, but kept on reading in our youths, we would have some big issues today with people not seeing further than 100 feet or so (I am short sighted, and I would say 100 feet is the max distance where I can properly distinguish things)",
"You'll see all sorts of wrong answers to this: nearsightedness is due to glasses becoming popular, nearsightedness is due to lack of selection for good vision, etc. But really, in humans, myopia is simply a disease of the modern world, like obesity, diabetes, or heart disease. There are numerous studies which show that among pre-industrialized peoples, the prevalence of myopia is quite low. For example, see pages 5-7 [here](_URL_0_) for a list of citations. Some rates cited in that paper: 0.4% for hunter-gatherers in Gabon, 1.2% - 1.5% in Angmagssalik Eskimos. Myopia is NOT a \"natural\" state of humans.\n\nMyopia rates can increase dramatically when populations go through economic changes. One of the best datasets comes from Singapore, where the military measured the eyesight of all new conscripted soldiers. In the late 70's, myopia was at 26%. In the late 90's, it was at 83% ([source](_URL_2_)). Similar trends have been observed elsewhere. This is far, far too fast for natural selection to be causing the change. Moreover, ethnically chinese children in Singapore have myopia rates of 29.1%, while those in Sidney have rates of 3.3% ([cite](_URL_3_)).\n\nSo what _is_ causing myopia rates to increase? People have claimed all sorts of factors: increased close-in work, high glucose diets, all kinds of things. But to my mind, the most convincing explanation is lighting. Myopia occurs when the eyeballs grow too \"long\" from front to back, causing light to focus in front of the retina instead of on the retina. When children are growing up, their eyes are growing too. Without sufficient exposure to strong sunlight, however, their retina never gets the signal to stop growing, and the eyes get too long inducing myopia. The biochemical pathways behind this are well documented in [animal models](_URL_1_) but it's not entirely pinned down in humans yet.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ebfv7/eli5_why_do_so_many_people_need_glasses_esp_in/?ref=search_posts"
],
[
"http://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/eye-and-vision-problems/glossary-of-eye-and-vision-conditions/myopia?sso=y",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia_in_animals"
... | |
6l7m0k | what is the scientific difference between a doctor prescribing stronger doses of a medication, versus more frequent doses? are they not the same? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6l7m0k/eli5_what_is_the_scientific_difference_between_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"djrolfv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Depends on the medication.\n\nTake Seroquel for example. At a lower dose like 150-200mg, it helps to treat schizophrenia. At a medium dose, like 300mg or so, it's great as an antidepressant. At higher doses in the 600mg+ range, it's a bipolar medication.\n\nThe medication itself can be metabolized fairly quickly, so higher doses are useful in treating different things. A lower dose, taken more frequently, would just maintain that dose level for a longer period of time; a patient taking 150mg 4x/day would never have more than the 150mg in his blood; versus a patient taking one 600mg pill."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.