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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
nxng7 | Why must a vacuum be 'filled'? | This is something that's always bothered me. I understand the idea of a vacuum and suction, but I always wondered why it happens. Why is it that a vacuum cannot exist beside matter? What is it that causes nature to fill the vacuum?
Lastly, where does the energy to facilitate the movement of the matter come from? It seems to me that it is quite literally *nothing* that is pulling the matter into the vacuum, and I can't make sense of it. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nxng7/why_must_a_vacuum_be_filled/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3cqynr",
"c3cqze6",
"c3cr9rj",
"c3cqynr",
"c3cqze6",
"c3cr9rj"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Random movement of particles results in a transition of molecules from a place with high density to a place with low density.\n\nLet's assume that there are two enclosed regions - one is filled with air and one is a vacuum. In the one filled with air, the air molecules are colliding with each other and with the walls. Now let's imagine we open a hole between these two regions. The molecules that collide with the walls and other molecules continue to do so, but the molecules with trajectories towards that hole have nothing to collide against. So they travel to the other region. This continues until we reach an equilibrium between the two regions - that is, until the number of molecules traveling from one to the other is equal in both directions.\n\nAs an analogy, imagine a supermarket. In the morning, it is empty. People enter, and the number of patrons in the market increases (higher pressure, reduces the vacuum). Over time, those patrons will finish their shopping and leave, while more will come in. Eventually you will reach an equilibrium and the number leaving will be approximately the same as the number entering.\n\nIn the case of the molecules in a vacuum, what makes them \"enter\" is simply momentum - an object will travel in a straight line until affected by a force.",
"Imagine if you had a bunch of rubber balls squeezed into a bottle. If you broke the bottle, the balls would fly everywhere, because they are under pressure. On the Earth, the pressure applied to our atmosphere comes from gravity. Create a vacuum and the air \"wants\" to relieve some of that pressure by filling it. Likewise if you take a container to a higher altitude you are taking pressurized air to a lower-pressure area. If that container is a spaceship and it has a leak, the pressurized air is going to come flying out.",
"First off, a vacuum can exist beside matter if the matter isn't under pressure, like a rock. Gasses, however, are just about always under pressure. The particles are bouncing against each other. If there is any unused space nearby the gas particles will tend toward it because they are less likely to hit another particle over there, and more likely to hit one where they are, which sends them in the direction of the empty space.\n\nSo suction isn't a pulling force, like we like to believe. In a vacuum, the air is forcibly removed from a space inside and then that space is exposed to the hose. The air outside actually pushes stuff into the hose, because of pressure. That's why, while you can blow air in a pretty straight line, you can't suck anything in a straight line, because suction isn't it's own force, it's just the air outside pushing in.",
"Random movement of particles results in a transition of molecules from a place with high density to a place with low density.\n\nLet's assume that there are two enclosed regions - one is filled with air and one is a vacuum. In the one filled with air, the air molecules are colliding with each other and with the walls. Now let's imagine we open a hole between these two regions. The molecules that collide with the walls and other molecules continue to do so, but the molecules with trajectories towards that hole have nothing to collide against. So they travel to the other region. This continues until we reach an equilibrium between the two regions - that is, until the number of molecules traveling from one to the other is equal in both directions.\n\nAs an analogy, imagine a supermarket. In the morning, it is empty. People enter, and the number of patrons in the market increases (higher pressure, reduces the vacuum). Over time, those patrons will finish their shopping and leave, while more will come in. Eventually you will reach an equilibrium and the number leaving will be approximately the same as the number entering.\n\nIn the case of the molecules in a vacuum, what makes them \"enter\" is simply momentum - an object will travel in a straight line until affected by a force.",
"Imagine if you had a bunch of rubber balls squeezed into a bottle. If you broke the bottle, the balls would fly everywhere, because they are under pressure. On the Earth, the pressure applied to our atmosphere comes from gravity. Create a vacuum and the air \"wants\" to relieve some of that pressure by filling it. Likewise if you take a container to a higher altitude you are taking pressurized air to a lower-pressure area. If that container is a spaceship and it has a leak, the pressurized air is going to come flying out.",
"First off, a vacuum can exist beside matter if the matter isn't under pressure, like a rock. Gasses, however, are just about always under pressure. The particles are bouncing against each other. If there is any unused space nearby the gas particles will tend toward it because they are less likely to hit another particle over there, and more likely to hit one where they are, which sends them in the direction of the empty space.\n\nSo suction isn't a pulling force, like we like to believe. In a vacuum, the air is forcibly removed from a space inside and then that space is exposed to the hose. The air outside actually pushes stuff into the hose, because of pressure. That's why, while you can blow air in a pretty straight line, you can't suck anything in a straight line, because suction isn't it's own force, it's just the air outside pushing in."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5hq38a | why are there no large anglotowns or european enclaves in china when there are lots of expats there? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hq38a/eli5_why_are_there_no_large_anglotowns_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"db21n32",
"db21pb4",
"db21u5v",
"db24lnl"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"There used to be like in Shanghai with various \"quarters\" for different countries. Or Ginja in Tokyo which was designed like a western town to show off the style. \n\nAnd you'll still find American/British schools designed with curriculums designed for expats. \n\nAlso European/western expats in Asia tend to be wealthier on average compared to Chinatowns in the USA that arose from laborer immigrant communities. People would live there because they didn't have much choice otherwise. ",
"There have been two areas of China under western European control, [Macau](_URL_0_) was a Portuguese controlled area, and of course, [Hong Kong](_URL_1_) a British controlled colony. Apart from those two areas, China was a pretty closed country, indeed for a time any European found outside those areas were subject to arrest, at best. European behaviour in the country, with Great Britain having several wars revolving around Opium and Tea trade and Portugal trade have meant for a long time we were treated with contempt. So communities in Chinese cities were only short term and based on trade, expat's were few and far between and more likely to be based in Macau or Hong Kong.",
"Apart from the historical reasons mentioned here (by /u/Lincolnmp68 ) I would also like to add an economic reason. \n\nWhen immigrants come in large waves and are mostly poor /minority they tend to stick together. Wealthier/highly paid immigrants tend to assimilate. \n\nIn US or other western countries the immigrant communities were built around waves of poorer immigrants. \n\nWestern people living in China are comparatively rich and they never arrived in large waves. So there was no reason for them to coalesce together. ",
"There's a fair bit of French architecture in Guangzhou (an entire island on the Pearl River I think) from European traders who were resident there. They were clearly there for generations as these buildings are fancy AF. I don't know if you would call it a French quarter, per se, but it would qualify as an enclave.\n\nThere were also British traders settled in Xiamen, and from what I gather, living in eastern ports during the opium wars and the time there after. I'm less certain on the timing of this one, but was scoping out a trip to Xiamen recently and read of British residents being there centuries ago. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
sw0ha | What would happen if you microwaved gasoline? | If I put a large, open bowl of gasoline in a microwave, and set it for, say, 10 minutes, what exactly would happen? I'm thinking you would just end up with a bowl of hot gas, as microwaves probably couldn't ignite gas vapor, but I'm curious. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sw0ha/what_would_happen_if_you_microwaved_gasoline/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4hfzy0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not much. Microwaving relies on dipole moments in the molecules. As a collection of hydrocarbons not much is going to happen to gasoline."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2kpjgh | if the devil is such a bad guy, than why would he punish people for sinning? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kpjgh/eli5_if_the_devil_is_such_a_bad_guy_than_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"clnij80",
"clnizaj",
"clnj37m",
"clnjkxb",
"clnld1l",
"clnn6tc",
"clnn7jd",
"clnpal5",
"clnpcf1",
"clnqb8a",
"clnr1e8",
"clnsjb7",
"clnvlng",
"clnvrww",
"clnw7ez",
"clo8cb5",
"clo8hnv"
],
"score": [
215,
29,
33,
10,
87,
2,
3,
38,
3,
4,
7,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In many traditions, he doesn't. He's in Hell being tortured along with all of the sinners.\n\nIn other traditions, he's just an overall angry guy who will torture anyone. People in hell are just convenient.\n\nIn jokes, he's usually a real nice guy, until a punchline ending in sex with Bill Clinton.",
"Devil is not a ruler of Hell. He doesn't have horns or pitchfork either. It's pop-culture image of him, not how he was written in the Bible.\n\nHe was the best angel of the best, but got into argument with God. God is a guy who wins arguments, so Satan doesn't live with him anymore, instead he leads humanity astray, just to piss God off. Like an angry ex running over your pet dog. \n\nImage of Hell as a series of ironic punishments is also cultural thing. Dante's Inferno (fanfiction) popularized it. Hell in the Bible is a place away from God.",
"I can tell you from Islam's (I'm a muslim) perspective. The Devil knows he's doomed, and he tells God that he's going down to earth to corrupt and manipulate the minds and hearts of as many people as he could until the end of time. ",
"Because the general understanding of \"hell\" is an amalgamation of a whole bunch of different cosmologies. \n\nIn Judaism for example Satan doesn't rule hell (there isn't really a hell but that's another story). He's an angel whose job is to challenge G-d. He's seen in the book of Job trying to convince G-d that Job is only pious because his life is good, and G-d lets him mess with Job to try to prove it. ",
"Your confusion is coming from the fact that what we call 'the Devil' is a combination of three different entities listed in the old and new Testaments.\n\nThe first is the snake in the garden of Eden. This is the creature that tempted Eve to eat of the fruit of Good and Evil and gain self-awareness along with Adam.\n\nThe second entity is the Adversary as he is known in the Old Testament. He is, in effect, a Heavenly version of the District Attorney who stands before God on Judgement Day and lays out the sins of those who stand in Judgement, to provide evidence as to why the Judged do not deserve to enter Heaven. \n\nA prime example of this role of Adversary and DA is the book of Job, where Ha-Satan(Adversary) is in Heaven along with God. God brags on Job's piety and Ha-Satan suggests that his pious nature comes from the fact that God has given him a very good life. So, God takes all that away from Job. In the end, God is proven right and the Adversary is proven wrong, but only after God shames Job for his self-righteousness. \n\nThe third entity is Lucifer, fallen Arch-angel. The story of Lucifer originates in Revelations, the last book of the Bible and many Christians assume that his fall from Heaven occurs before the creation of man, but that's up to debate. \n\nTwo thousand years of translation and re-translation and apocryphal stories from both early Christianity and different eras of Hebrew folklore have seen these three entities end up being merged into a single being with seemingly completely contradictory natures. ",
"AFAIK, the devil is tortured in hell rather then 'runs' it. He doesn't 'punish' people, but instead trys to manipulate people so he could get them to feel his pain in hell.",
"According to my NIV bible Satan in the original hebrew (or whatever) means \"accuser\". This note appears in the book of Job when Satan shows up to talk to God about Job. Also note that in Job Satan presents himself with the angels in God's court.\n\nIf you read the bible it seems like Satan's job is more to see if people will get themselves into trouble but he is clearly not as powerful as God.\n\nA few examples:\n\n1) Garden of Eden: Satan (the snake) tempts Eve into eating the apple. \n2) Book of Job: Satan requires permission from God to harm Job and his family to prove that Job is not that righteous. But Job is righteous.\n3) Temptation of Christ: This one is a bit unique in that under the theory of a triune god then Jesus IS God. So let us look at two scenarios. A) Christ = God but with the weakness of human form. It is obvious that Satan can tempt God as he practically goads him into letting him harm Job. So this may be just an extension of that. B) Christ is separate from God while human (but still part of an omnipotent god). Then this is a more run of the mill temptation but Satan does not harm Christ he merely makes promises. Which makes it more of an extension of the temptation of Eve.\n\nSo in the bible Satan does not punish sinners (that is God as made obvious in several parts of the bible). \n\nThis is a clear pattern: Eve was without sin before she ate the apple, Job was a righteous man, Christ was obviously without sin. Satan tried to bring them all down. He will tempt them or harm them (with God's permission) to see if the righteous will sin.\n\nTL;DR Satan is God's corrupt District Attorney\n\n",
"According to the new testament, the devil has already been defeated. \n\n\"He stripped all the spiritual tyrants in the universe of their sham authority at the Cross and marched them naked through the streets.\" - Col. 2:15\n\nIn those days, when one side would conquer another, they would march the defeated army (and the king) naked through the streets of their towns and put their victory (and the enemies defeat) on display for everyone to see. (That could be considered the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa. 14:16).\n\nThe devil isn't punishing people for sin (neither is God for that matter). What we see are the effects of sin still present from when the devil was the \"ruler of the world.\" Kind of like when a tornado blows through a town. Even after it passes, it still takes awhile to clean up the damage, and people might still act desperately and harm other people as a result, even though the tornado itself is no longer exercising power.\n\nSo natural disasters, cancer, disease, etc. aren't God or the devil punishing people for naughty behavior, they are simply a result of the world being separated from God (the source of life). It's us experiencing the effects of decay. Just like when skin is removed from the body, it shrivels and dies because it's no longer connected to its source of life. Same happened to humanity. We were like a limb severed from the body, dead and decomposing, but Jesus came and reattached us to where we belong. Though He brought life back into that severed limb, it is still slowly learning how to function again.\n\nPaul wrote in Rom. 8:19-21, that the whole creation is waiting for the sons of God to be made manifest and set it free from the curse. The intersting thing is it doesn't say creation is waiting for GOD to make himself known and set them free, but for the sons of God to make themselves known. Why haven't they? Because our churches are full of motivational speeches and self-help programs instead of teaching people who they really are, and what they are here to do.\n\nIn 1 John, the apostle wrote, \"The reason the Son of God (Jesus) came was to destroy the works of the devil.\" And before Jesus ascended into heaven He pretty much told His followers (the church) to do the same.\n\nThe original Christian mission is not one of \"converting\" the world to God or getting people to repeat a magic prayer to go to heaven when they die. It's to restore the world back to the heaven that it was before it was forfieted to darkness. Jesus never talked about a heaven outside of earth. Instead He said, \"Your Kingdom come, your will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven.\"\n\nSEMI-TL;DR: In the Bible, the devil is a defeated enemy. He isn't actively runnning around punishing people, neither will he ever get to punish people. He has beem disarmed and defeated by Jesus. The chaos we see in the world today is the effects of sin (choosing independence from God) on the world.\n\nSomeone will say, \"Why does God hold it against us if we choose independence? Is He that concieted?\" No. But it's like trying to choose independence from oxygen. God created man and breathed His own breath into man's lungs. And man said, \"We don't need your breath, we'll make our own!\" And the world has been suffering the effects of asphyxiation ever since. Jesus came, not to shame mankind for forsaking God, but to breathe new life into us again so we would remember where we received life from in the first place. Hence the miracles, which were a way of saying, \"Look! God isn't mad at you. He only wants to make you whole again!\"\n\nLong response is long. :)",
"reminds me of this I saw floating about the internet.\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"Hell is a bad place because you are completely separated from God. The devil is being punished there too. ",
"He doesn't do the punishing. He is just as much trapped there as every other sinner. ",
"I'm not 100% sure about any other religion. But in Islam he fails to acknowledge Adam as a special being. He is then shun from Heaven and is put into this world; he isn't killed as he is forgiven. However Allah (God) warns him that he will attempt to sway all Humans from the right path and he will burn along side them in hell. Also God will punish all those who follow the Devil. Religion and Reddit don't go hand in hand. But this is what I've known and learnt : > ",
"C.S. Lewis wrote a book called \"The Screwtape Letters\". It is a correspondence between a young demon (Screwtape) and his uncle (Wormwood) as the former attempts to lead a soul into temptation. Its a pretty funny story, but it introduces a demon's-eye view of the world. Torment is their job. They live of the suffering of human souls. The only way hell obtains souls is by tempting people to sin. Without sinners, the demons would have no jobs. But is more than a job, it is described as a cross between a necessity like eating or breathing, and a sexual pleasure. See, the demons are pure evil, they exist to inflict suffering.\n\nIt's obviously a literary liberty with the old/new testament (Lewis was a passionate Christian) since demons and hell are largely an invention of 2nd millenia humans to enroll followers [citation needed.. lol me]. \n\nBut my point is, the book introduces an interesting take sin and eternal damnation which paints the infernal hierarchy with greater depth which might give you some other ways to think about how some famous Christians writers view hell, the devil, sin and punishment.",
"The way I see it, he just wants to prove God wrong. God sees the good in us while the Devil sees all the bad and insights us to do more bad. \n\nAlso, the Devil (my opinion) doesn't punish the wicked, all the contrary, we helps them keep doing bad things so they can be as far away from God as possible. ",
"Lucifer/Satan does not punish people for sinning. He tricks/tempts people into sinning to ruin God's perfect creation. God punishes Satan as well as unrepentant sinners/unbelievers. \n\nSatan will suffer with all other unforgiven sinners, and he wants to ruin God's creation, so he tempts us to sin so that we suffer too, both in this life and the next. ",
"Well..... The devil wants to punish and torture all people, but only those who have sinned are turned over to him. ",
"Why would you assume logic would be involved with people worshiping the son of a god? My kids are fine, but I would rather you got instruction from me and not my kids, if it's work related. Of course, I am assuming god is in the business of religion."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/the-devil-is-a-dickhead.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2a2wms | how can i start my own currency? | What makes a currency a currency? What determines how much a form of currency is worth? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a2wms/eli5_how_can_i_start_my_own_currency/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciqynxj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You are welcome to start your own currency, using literal photocopies of Monopoly money if you want to. The trick is getting other people to accept it, which means you need to provide some kind of benefit and/or a promise of security to prospective users, of which you need a substantial number to make it work.\n\nThis same concept works on a small scale, such as with subway tokens or skeeball tickets at Chuck E Cheese; on a medium scale like coupons provieded by large multinational chains; or on a large scale, such as national currencies or crypotocurrencies like Bitcoin. The important thing to remember is that currency is **a reliable, albeit abstract, means of exchange.** Functionality and stability need to be your primary concerns, whatever scale you're working on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
o38zt | chinese politics. | Who is in charge? How is power distributed? How centralised/decentralised is the country? How democratic or otherwise is the country? How engaged is the average Chinese citizen in the politics of their country? How do they view countries outside of China?
Any answers to any of the above would be great. I have a perception of China as being something of a politically locked-down country, so I'd like to learn how accurate that is, but in simple language! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/o38zt/eli5_chinese_politics/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3e156v",
"c3e18ol",
"c3e18zc"
],
"score": [
4,
68,
3
],
"text": [
"I can give you an incomplete answer:\n\nMuch like in other countries, there's a split between the younger and older generation. The older generation tends to view their government as utopian (because they get most of the perks they set up for themselves in the past); the younger thinks it has flaws, but it's nowhere near the dissatisfaction level of the current U.S.\n\nCorruption is rampant, but the average person doesn't see it this way, since it's mostly hush-hush. It's usually money-related or job-ladder favors. For comparison, I would say worse than the U.S., but better than India, where you can bribe a police officer on the street for something like a traffic offense.\n\nThere's a fear of being too politically active, because you might just get arrested or worse, 'go missing.' It's also a cultural thing to just 'follow the crowd' and 'not stick out too much.' The most common method of expressing dissatisfaction is to hide behind a *weibo* (similar to Twitter, but without the monopoly) and post about it. The Chinese government doesn't yet appear to have the tech-savviness to police these yet.\n\nWith regards to censorship - not very many people care about it (keep in mind I'm still considering the whole population, not just the tech-savvy part). This is because there's a lot of things in the U.S./Europe that would be illegal that are legal there, e.g. downloading music. The understanding in China is that the ads themselves are enough to cover the cost of the download.\n\nThe only other country that I've ever known them to express a strong opinion towards is the U.S. They tend to think of Americans as arrogant, meddling busybodies (too much war!) who have blond hair and blue eyes.\n\n**tl;dr** China is probably as politically locked-down as you think, but the average citizen doesn't seem to be too aware of this, or just doesn't envision enough difference if it wasn't to care.",
"I hope this isn't too long-winded, but I guess you're going to have to read everything in order to understand the complexity of Chinese politics. I will use a lot of metaphors and similes to systems that you may be familiar with. I studied Chinese politics at a Western university as well as a top university in China.\n\n* **Who is in charge?**\n* **How is power distributed at the center?**\n\nThe government is split between ***party*** organs and ***state*** organs. The party organ has the **Politburo Standing Committee**. As a metaphor, think of this as the 9 most powerful people in the Democratic or Republican parties that make all the policy decisions, except it's always one party, the **Chinese Communist Party**. Hu Jintao is the boss here. The party organ also has the **National Party Congress** that meets every year (made up of 2000 party members). Think of this as the Republican National Convention or Democratic National Convention. They don't make policy or have power like the Politburo Standing Committee, but they get together to talk. This is where major announcements are delivered, like e.g. the new massive rail expansion project.\n\nYou also have the government organs. These exist for the party to *govern through*. The main part is the **Standing Committee of the State Council**. This is like a cabinet of ministers (or like secretaries like in the US). Wen Jiabao, the Premier, is the boss here. Also as a part of the state, you have the **National People's Congress**. This is a huge body of 3000 politicians which are elected by politicians from the provinces. They are sort of like the American House of Representatives. But they have no power. They are like the American House of Representatives, and not the entire Congress because their major role is more like a group of lobbyists for regional interests. \n\nAnd then you have a weird group called the **Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference**, which is how the Chinese Communist Party gives 'voice' to those not in the party. It is largely made up of business leaders today, and acts as the link between government and business in order to make the country's economy grow.\n\nThe relationship between the party and state is a little redundant. The Standing Committee of the State Council is made up entirely of Party members. There is no puppetmaster relationship because the state is made up of the party.\n\nSo what why do we still distinguish between the two? What role does one play that the other doesn't? The Party's role is to translate ideology into policy. The state's role is to implement the policy. The Party acts to promote and reward 'cadre' (party leaders), and the best bureaucrats are selected by the party. They are called **nomenklatura**. The Party can't be bothered to control every aspect of the public sector, so they delegate power to bureaucrats that don't act officially in the name of Party. These bureaucrats make up the **bianzhi**, or 'establishiment', which is similar to their public service. The party leaders (nomenklatura) and the administrative tasks they delegate to public service professionals (bianzhi) is where the party and state interlock.\n\n**TL;DR: Although there are state institutions, the country is largely run by CCP members, and real power is concentrated at the very top.**\n\n* **How centralised/decentralised is the country?**\n* **How is power distributed at different levels?**\n\nAnother area is the fact that there are different levels of government. You can't understand Chinese government without understanding it's levels of government because if there is any body that \"checks\" the central government, it may be the provinces.\n\nJust like the U.S., China is a big country. The way the government does its job in such a big country is to delegate power to sub-governments. In the U.S., the states have their own power to do many things. This is a \"division of power\". This is what it means to be a federalist country.\n\nChina is big too. But the difference is that the central government doesn't want to give power to the provinces (they have 22 provinces and 4 cities big enough to have province status). They do not 'divide' power between the province and themselves like the U.S., Canada, or India does. They let the provinces do some of the things to take some weight off of themselves, and to allow the provinces to take care of themselves. In the late 80s, the central government allowed the provinces to raise and keep their own tax revenues (they call this **'eating in separate kitchens'**).\n\nSo wouldn't the central government be afraid of loosing power to the provinces now that the provinces have the power to tax and spend on their own? How does the central government *see* what's going on in the provinces to keep an eye on them. They use the ***cadre evaluation system*** to keep an eye on the provinces. This means that the central government can appoint or fire anyone at a lower government. Just like any company, this forces local employees to please and suck up to the central goverment--if they want a raise.\n\nJust like a company, lower level governments report to upper level governments. The city officials do their work and report to their province officials for evaluation. The provinces then do their work and report to the central government for evaluation. This is called the ***tiao* relationship** (vertical hierarchy).\n\nWhat about the Party? How does the Party make sure all these local governments are following their ideology and policies? The city officials have to report to their city party committee. The provincial officials have to report to their provincial party committee. And of course, same at the central level. This is the ***kuai* relationship** (horizontal accountability).\n\nSo there are two bosses to report to! In the case of a city government, what if the Party Committee of that city tells the city to do something different than what their provincial superiors told them? Usually these two argue over power, but in the majority of cases, the Party committee wins out, because the Chinese Communist Party evaluates and elects all government officials.\n\nSo now we know how the central government *sees* the local governments, and how they give orders. They do it this way because they want constant control over the lower levels of government, unlike in the U.S., Canada or India, which simply give their lower governments their own authority.\n\n**TL;DR: China is a big country and its government looks after the country by assigning some powers to different levels of the country. Nonetheless, the central government in Beijing has the ultimate word.**\n\n**EDIT:** This is not to say the provinces and cities are not powerful. The provinces on the coast are rich and play host to China's economic boom. They have considerable lobby power and usually get what they want because the central government wants to act seamlessly to promote their economic success. Shanghai is big enough to have province-status, and that former city's leader now runs the administration of the Party and is most likely going to be the next leader of China (to replace Hu Jintao).\n\n* **How democratic or otherwise is the country?**\n\nChina is **very** undemocratic. Although a large 6-8% of the citizens are members of the party, this does not satisfy the democratic requirement of *effective* citizen participation as important decision making is exclusively made at the top levels. In 1979, a law was passed allowing for direct election of delegates to township and county-level congresses \"under controlled circumstances\". **This process is not entirely democratic** as not just anyone could run. You have to be nominated and endorsed by the CCP as deputy governors. The NPC has taken a more assertive role in seeing who they want running in elections and who they do not. Elections matter only if they are *competitive*\n\nThere are also elections at the village level. You can't control everything, the central government thought, so they ceded power to elections (I'm sure the central government would control village-level politics if they could). These elections are more competitive than the township delegate elections. After three or four rounds of elections, Chinese villagers began to learn that elections are an easy way to get rid of unpopular leaders. But how much impact to village-level policy makers really have when their resources are controlled by the government right above them? Around 82% of villages today hold elections today. \n\n**TL;DR: Despite there being elections, they are semi-competitive at best, and only at the lowest levels of government, where the least important policy choices are made. The country is not democratic in how it lacks elections in the most important parts of the government.**\n\nWhat about free press? The media is largely controlled by the government under China Central Television (CCTV). This is not a free media system, even thought he government allows producers some flexibilities. The people who run CCTV are appointed by the State, unlike other public broadcasting elsewhere (PBS, BBC, CBC). It's really tough to run editorials critical of the government, although more recently, there have been attempts. You know how Fox News broadcasters receive memos directing them what opinions their reporters should take? Imagine this on a large, institutionalized and unapologetic level with CCTV News, but this time the government is writing those memos. For example, recently, the government of China placed a quota on the number of entertainment shows in order to stifle the influx of \"Western culture\".\n\nWhat about free expression? Last year there were thousands of protests in China, but nearly all of these protests were launched against companies and local governments, not the central government. Those protesting the core and structure of the Chinese government (Chinese dissidents and pro-democracy activists like Ai Weiwei, Tan Zuoren, Cheng Jianping, Professor Guo Quan and Professor Liu Xiaobo) are quickly detained and jailed. The laws under which these activists are jailed include \"subversion of state power\", \"disturbing social order\", \"inciting social disorder\", and \"illegal possession of state secrets\".\n\nThe internet is a part of democracy, and expression in its truest form. The Chinese government is widely known to censor the internet (their efforts are known as the Great Firewall of China). The censorship efforts even come from non-state actors. Just as we may call militias and armed people fighting *for* a government a *paramilitary*, there is a *para-censhorship* group of internet users called the 50 Cent Party which takes it on themselves to post comments favorable towards CCP policies on internet message boards.\n\n**TL;DR: The television and internet media are strictly and controlled and regulated to favour the government. The country is not democratic because there is little press freedom. I want to say that this is changing, but the change is too slow to even take notice. There is very little freedom of political expression in China if that expression is critical of the government.**\n\n* **How engaged is the average Chinese citizen in the politics of their country? What do they think about their political situation?**\n\nWhat about the people? What do the people think of what's going on? They *define democracy differently*. If you begin to talk to a Chinese citizen about democracy, you'll find out in a few minutes that you two are talking about two totally different things. To the Chinese citizen, democracy means **socialist democracy**, which is more advanced than **liberal democracy**, because it's not victim to minority pressures and interests. The problem is that this leads to a tyranny of the majority. But Chinese citizens don't see that as a problem. The people (mass line) are the most important interest. Democracy is populism there, whereas here in the West, we're well aware of the dangers of populism (European democracies succumbed to fascism, and American democracy now suffers from those who are politicking for popularity). \n\nToday, 63% of Chinese believe the current regime is democratic, whereas 12% believe it is dictatorial. The Chinese trust their and outside NGOs, businesses, police and local governments the least, and the central government, the party and the army the most. This is because there are very weak labour protections in China, and companies many times don't pay employees the pensions they are entitled to. Local governments are most susceptible to corruption. The central government is seen as a 'father' that can right a wrong. \n\n**TL;DR: The people largely support the central government, but not always the local governments and companies. They have a different idea of democracy that does not consider minority rights, and they believe this conception of democracy is better than Western decision making.**\n\n* **How do they view countries outside of China?**\n\nStay out of our business! You have to understand Chinese history to understand why the don't like other countries interfering in their politics and society. Britain was trying to pry open Chinese markets against the wishes of the administration to sell China addictive opium. This led to two wars in which China lost big time (including Hong Kong). Japan invaded China several times, leading to brutal occupations of the country's East Coast. China wants Taiwan back, but the West continues to apply pressure against it. Throughout history, other countries have meddled in China's domestic politics.\n\nBut so what! That's history. What do the people think?! Well, politicians use these historical *stories* to create memories in citizens for popular support. These historical stories also work psychologically, as Chinese continue to try to find dignity in their identities. History, and historical stories matter. The result is that Chinese citizens aren't all too happy with the outside world. They have a victimization mentality.\n\nUnless, that is, if outside relationships provide economic growth. China vigorously pursues trade and economic ties with other countries, namely for natural resources such as oil and metals. Their strong presence in Africa is for this purpose, but unlike the West, China doesn't attach strings to their trade with poorer African countries. Because they don't want to be told what to do, they don't tell others what should be done. Many cite the moral implications of dealing and fueling African and other dictatorships through this policy.\n\nAlthough a large part of China's relationship with the outside world is economic, it's not all that. China has been active in attempting to foster social relationships with the outside world by building Chinese language and culture schools abroad called Confucius Institutes. This policy, China hopes, would improve the West's understanding of China, in their attempts to improve their soft power.\n\n**TL;DR: The Chinese suffer from a victimization mentality that makes them oppose outside influence. Their relationship with outside actors are almost exclusively economic, although there are growing attempts at social relationships.\"\"**\n\n**ULTIMATE TL;DR: Shit's in lock-down, son.**",
"I'm from a Chinese family, so I can provide perspective on *How do they view countries outside of China* from speaking with relatives.\n\nMany older people still have a very strong bias against Japan because of WWII. Many people who grew up during the Cold War also have a bias against the American government (not necessarily the people), because they feel American imperialism is just a parallel or continuation of European imperialism that devastated China for over 100 years previously. \n\nThere's an attitude of \"America should mind their own business\" or basically \"this is the Chinese sphere of influence, please get out\"\n\nHorrible racism against Africa and black people, as well as southeast asians. This stems from a misguided association that poverty=stupidity=worthlessness.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
44pri1 | why is black ink in fact deep purple? | After working years with inks every time I see black ink being washed it shows itself as deep purple. What material is that we use to produce "black" ink? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44pri1/eli5_why_is_black_ink_in_fact_deep_purple/ | {
"a_id": [
"czrzjpv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"What do you mean by \"being washed?\" The most common pigment used to create black ink nowadays is carbon black -- literally charred carbon, as in burnt coal or charcoal, so there's nothing purple about it.\n\nBut -- if you run a solvent, like water, over paper printed with carbon black, what the water is taking away are those things that are attracted to and are soluble in it -- and carbon black is water soluble. \n\nHow does carbon black create \"black?\" By preventing the reflection of light. But, when you dissolve it in water, what happens? Its powers to absorb all light are reduced because the molecules are pulled apart and diluted.\n\nAnd... how do the colors in the spectrum run, from shortest to longest wavelength? From deep-blue/violet to red.\n\nSo... the ink, when it's been used to print, is actually black. But as soon as you start to dilute it and lift it from the page it starts to become less opaque (or less absorptive) through dilution. At first, this means that you'll see deep violet/purple, but keep washing long enough, and you'll see all colors through the spectrum until you hit red."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
v6981 | Would it be possible for a mammalian type species to utilize copper based blood (hemocyanin) instead of iron based blood (hemoglobin)? | Pretty much what the title says "Would it be possible for a mammalian type species to utilize copper based blood (hemocyanin) instead of iron based blood (hemoglobin)?"
I already know hemocyanin is about a third as efficient as hemoglobin at conveying oxygen. But I'm still mega curious about this. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v6981/would_it_be_possible_for_a_mammalian_type_species/ | {
"a_id": [
"c51pdul"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"*Theoretically*, yes, because they perform the same function, as do cobalt (coboglobin) and manganese (pinnaglobin) derivatives. However, note that the ONLY reason why hemocyanin is used is because it is more adapted for those species that use it. It is more effective in places with low oxygen solubility (colder / lower pressure). It also requires more energy to pump because it is a bigger molecule and is more sensitive to pH change than hemoglobin.\n\nPossible, but not with any existing mammalian species."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4venlh | How could six Japanese aircraft carriers escape US detection to surprise attack Pearl Harbor? Why was the vast majority of the US Naval fleet stationed in Pearl Harbor and not patroling the Pacific? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4venlh/how_could_six_japanese_aircraft_carriers_escape/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5xse0g"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"Because the Pacific is really, really, really big. And the USN was making do with resources still barely mobilized, and in a secondary theater. \n\nKimmel had then had to distribute his meager scouting resources to the most likely initial targets. Midway, Wake, Guam, Johnson Island and the Philippines were all exposed forward positions that required or called for aircraft, be it land based or Catalina's.\n\nMeanwhile the U-Boat threat and Neutrality patrols had called many of those assets to the Atlantic, despite Kings dubious thoughts on their usefulness. \n\nAnd while it seems ridiculous in hindsight, even today the military still is less active on weekends, because sailors are still humans. And patrol flights, training, or too much flying of any kind can get expensive real fast, especially in a military just barely removed from Depression era budget constraints. Sunday the 7th was unique BECAUSE all 3 battle squadrons were in Port resupplying and repair, including a new paint job after regulations changed. Normally at least one was always at sea training, while an additional battle squadron that would have been at sea had been sent to the Atlantic to serve as a deterrent from German surface ships coming too far West.\n\nWhile continuosly keeping the fleet patrolling at sea was both unsustainable and counter to established strategy. The battleships sucked tons of fuel and the fleet did not have enough oilers to keep them at sea for long, especially when their much shorter ranged destroy escorts were factored in. To say nothing of consumables and differed maintenance. And in the event of war the fleet was not going to sortie immediately. It would concentrate at Pearl, possibly raid the Marshalls, and generally be reactionary to defend the IDL and East until ready to advance.\n\nI also have to point out the major fleet portions at sea. Both active carrier task forces were at sea reinforcing Pacific outposts. Enterprise was close to returning from ferrying Marine pilots to Wake, and Lexington was on the way to Midway to do the same. While Saratoga was headed towards San Diego to pick up her planes after a refit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
993i37 | What happens to the animals and the ecosystem after a large scale forest fire? | What happens to the animals in natural cases of forest fires
What exactly happens to all those animals.
I imagine a large amount of them will die but the entire area afterwards won't be empty of all life. Something must live there right.
Do the animals run away and go somewhere else then return? like what would the area look like a year from now that the fire and smoke will be gone? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/993i37/what_happens_to_the_animals_and_the_ecosystem/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4lcvyv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Animals will leave and return overtime.\n\nMount St. Hellens is a decent example for how an environment can recover. \n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_0_)\n\nAlthough initially detrimental, in some ways a fire can be beneficial."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/TheBenefitsofFire.pdf",
"https://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact\\_sheets/TheBenefitsofFire.pdf"
]
] | |
1b3xy6 | why is formula 1 so fast? (in laymens terms) | So I'm trying to explain Formula 1 and how fast it is to people that no nothing of racing in general, and I love to over complicate things. I want to simply tell them why the cars are so fast, so how do I do this is the simplest way possible? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b3xy6/eli5_why_is_formula_1_so_fast_in_laymens_terms/ | {
"a_id": [
"c93cmvr",
"c93dwoz",
"c93e9tp",
"c93ehsf",
"c93g20r"
],
"score": [
46,
9,
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Straight line speed is due largely to power-to-weight ratio. Formula 1 cars have pretty powerful engines, but they're also incredibly light, giving them an excellent power-to-weight ratio.\n\nCornering speeds are due to aerodynamics. The cars' wings literally push the cars into the ground, enabling the tyres to grip even in high speed corners.\n\nThey also have phenomenal brakes, which, combined with their light weight and very sticky tyres, means they can stop quickly.\n\nFun fact: if you consider that a 0-60 time of 4 seconds in a road car is pretty quick, then you might like to consider that a Formula 1 car can do 0-100 *and then back to 0 again* in under 4 seconds.",
"doesn't explain why...but show them this video \n\n_URL_0_",
"Because they are the fighter jets of cars. If a bus is a jumbo jet, a car is a small propeller plane, then an F1 car is a fighter jet.\n\nThey are cars, that cost millions and millions built to go as fast as we can make a car go around a track. And they are driven by some of the most talented drivers out there. It is a single point where human skill and engineering come to a cross. All with the single goal of going as fast as they can around a track.\n\nSo yes, they are fast. Why are they fast? because we made them to be fast, and we are very good at making things. Then we take someone who is very good at driving things and pay him to drive our fast thing as fast as he can. ",
"[Relevant Top Gear](_URL_0_)",
"I usually show this video: _URL_0_\n\nIt shows the difference in speed and acceleration between an F1 car, a fast sports car, and a normal car on an actual track. It's great for explaining how powerful the F1 cars are."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTS0qM7BJ6s"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VXNS7XPZnM"
]
] | |
24j1t5 | why are most conventional car models given names (i.e. sentra, camry) while most luxury models are given numbers and letters (i.e. mkz, r8)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24j1t5/eli5_why_are_most_conventional_car_models_given/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch7mfvv",
"ch7mypc",
"ch7nas7",
"ch7pcow",
"ch7qe0j",
"ch7rb2w",
"ch7sgb9",
"ch7t22f",
"ch7t7xo",
"ch7tlh6",
"ch7ubi6",
"ch7vqgx",
"ch81iv0",
"ch85027",
"ch88l46",
"ch8aype"
],
"score": [
13,
220,
3,
2,
2,
4,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They're trying to copy German luxury brands, where model names are either simple numbers or have some sort of code/heirarchy (even the old Volkswagen beetle was technically named the type 1). Mercedes has been using a letter for type of car and numbers for engine size since before WWII and many brands have tried to copy them to since the 80's when they came to dominate the luxury segment. Since then the major Japanese manufacturers have launched spinoff luxury brands, Lexus, Infiniti and Acura, while Cadillac and Lincoln have tried to rebrand themselves to generate interest from younger buyers. For example, Acura used to use names like Integra and Legend but switched to letters to be more like their German competitors. ",
"It's all down to how the companies are trying to market themselves.\n\nLuxury car companies try to build a reputation on the company name rather than the car model: they want people saying \"in my new Mercedes\" rather than \"in my new SR2\" so that people buy cars based on the company name and associate the classiness with the company name rather than any specific model.\n\nMore general manufacturers like Ford and Toyota have such a range of different types of cars that trying to build up a reputation on their company name would actually be detrimental. Toyota wants \"Camry\" to mean efficient and \"Hilux\" to mean tough and powerful but not vice versa. \n\nAnother smaller difference is one of turnover. If a certain model is terrible then it's easier to bury that model name and not have it rub off on the company name in the second case. A company is more likely to have a terrible model when they have a much wider range. \n",
"This is an opinion rather than an answer, but I believe it is in order to prevent comparison. It's much easier to compare a Polo to a Fiesta than it is to compare a 525i to an A6. The numbers give more vague descriptions of the products, and the manufacturers are working to make that even more complex. BMW, for example, has recently stopped using its classic naming scheme (i.e. class then engine size in 100 ccs) for no apparent reason. \n\nFurthermore, with a luxury car there are many more options and particularities that set each individual car apart than there are with cheaper models. What I mean is most Polos are the same, but a BMW can have a wider range of engines, options ranging from banal to luxurious, etc.",
"Rolls Royce - Phantom \nAny Lamborghini \nEtc",
"With luxury models, the number usually refers to something. With Mercedes and BMW all numbers refer to engine size, Xi means all wheel drive... For instance the Mercedes E350 has a 3.5 liter v6 the E550 has a 5.5 V8, the E63 AMG has a 6.2 V8...etc.\n\nPorsche don't name their models this way because the engine size stay the same... The Carrera (or 911, and all porsche models) have the base model, the \"S\" model with a bit more HP, the 4 and 4S\" same things but all wheel drive, the turbo which is an \"S\" model with turbo chargers. \n\nThe way I would summarize it is that luxury brands use numbers to logically differentiate the models within a \"class\" like the Mercedes C,E,S classes or BMW 3,5,7 series. \n\nLike others have mentioned, higher end brands use their brand name to sell the cars (Mercedes, BMW, Porsche) while lower end manufacturers use the model name (Camry, Mondeo, etc) \n\nThat's why they say when you buy the entry level model of a luxury brand you're just posting for the badge...\n\nHope this helped!",
"Mazda is a conventional car manufacturer and only uses numbers",
"Often the nice models have status info in the name. The Mercedes E350, for example, is an E class (level of luxury on Mercedes scale) with a 3.5 liter engine. \n\nIt is also just a cultural thing based on where the car was designed. Germany is more industrial, and (very generally) gives it's cars more structured names (R8, SLS, 918, etc). Italy often gives it's nice cars word names (Aventador, Daytona, quadraporte, etc).",
"Ummm, I wouldn't exactly call my old fiat 127 a luxury model.",
"The world's most expensive and fastest car was given a name. The Bugatti Veyron. On the other hand ww2 surplus jeeps were sold to the public as the CJ. All basic Mazda models have just numbers 3 and 6. So to answer your question there is no trend here car names are determined by marketing people.",
"Most Luxury cars are European. Europe has Germans. They have many very nice cars and an awesome road to drive them on. Germans are all for efficiency. So instead of a name, they want something like MX32.5 where 2.5 is the liter and m is the series model and x3 is the trim level.\n\nWhile thinking of Mercedes Benz as a brand means nice car, Saying \"I have a Mercedes Benz AMG\" takes it to the next level, and at that point I don't care about the model MX32.5 details, I care that its a Benz AMG.\".\n\nThough even a common car like a Subaru can have some additions to their name. Impreza (baseline, 170 hp), Impreza 2.5i(premium features, 170hp), Impreza WRX STI (sleeper rally car, 300hp)\n\nThis is something I think about when stuck in traffic. Luxury people want their car to sound expensive because they are used to hearing things like that. Course with Tesla Model S they are bucking the trend.",
"So you have to say the name of the manufacturer if you want to tell someone you drive.\n\nBob : Hey Joe - what'cha driving?\n\nJoe : It's a 2010 Civic. What about you?\n\nBob : An M3.\n\nJoe : What's an M3?\n\nBob : Sorry... a BMW M3.\n\nJoe : Oh.\n",
"Personally, I find that the number/letter combos are not very effective. Quick, what's the difference between a MKS and a MKX, or a MKZ? Exactly. ",
"They want you to remember the brand no the model.",
"\"People don't want cars named after hungry old Greek broads!\" -Herbert Powell",
"The car companies think it sounds cooler.",
"Here's an answer that I haven't seen.\n\nThe conventional models, most commonly japanese origin, usually have their names derived from latin, or a romanticized version of its name in japanese. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4vsdwg | how is 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound created in a movie? is it all done with the help of software or do movie sets really use multiple microphones? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vsdwg/eli5_how_is_51_or_71_surround_sound_created_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d60yt88",
"d60ytfd",
"d614m1x"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Both. \n\nPhysical microphones are used to record audio - whether on the set, on location or later on in a studio. Software is later used for mixing, and can redirect specific tracks to specific channels. ",
"A lot of movies don't use the recorded audio on-set. A ton of movies and tv shows used ADR, which is the actors go into a studio and dub over themselves, comedy movies are a main exception. Secondly, almost all the sound effects are not recorded on set, those are done in the studio as well. So, all the sounds are actually meant to go to different speakers. \n \nAlso, depends on the movie, a summer blockbuster is way more likely to do this than some indie movie. \n \nYou can have simulated surround, I can set up my surround sound system to mimic the stereos (or use Dolby Pro Logic II to intelligently decide) for the rears and have the center play all vocal-related frequencies.",
"The sounds that you hear in movies, like the images on the screen, are a completely manufactured product. Very rarely are you ever hearing just the sound that was recorded live on-set in an unaltered form.\n\nLet's set a simple scene. A couple are eating lunch in a diner. They are having a conversation when there is a car crash outside, and a waitress in the background drops her tray to the floor.\n\nThere are several sound elements here:\n\n* The dialog of the actors\n* The sound of objects being manipulated by the characters (glasses, utensils, and so forth)\n* The background noise of the diner\n* The car crash outside\n* The tray full of dishes hitting the floor\n\nTo record the dialog, you have two options - direct mike the actors (hide a wireless pack in their costume) or use an overhead boom mike. With direct miking, you can usually use the audio recorded on set in the final mix. You have two separate channels of audio - one from each of the actors - that are pretty clean of background noise. If you boom mike, you get one channel of combined dialog that has a higher chance of having extra noise or other defects.\n\nFor background noise, you can use stock sound from a library. Or, you can drop a couple of recorders into an actual diner at lunch rush and mix the resulting ambient sound into a stereo background track. Having the on-set sound be a realistic representation of an actual business is too much of a stretch - would pretty much never do this.\n\nThe car crash is likely a library sound, composed of a few elements (tire squeal, impact, debris hitting the ground, etc.).\n\nThe sounds of the characters moving their glasses around, cutting their food, placing their fork or knife on their plate, stirring their drink, and so forth are \"foley\" recordings. As is the tray of dishes being dropped. In a sound studio, these noises are recorded as separate elements by a foley technician who performs them in sync with the video.\n\nIf on-set dialog was recorded, and it's usable, then that becomes the primary dialog track. If it's not, the actors will come into the studio and re-read their lines in sync with the video, called \"ADR\" (Automatic Dialog Replacement) or \"looping.\"\n\nThere are now potentially a couple of dialog tracks, 3-4 tracks of foley, 2 tracks of ambient noise, a car crash element, and a tray crash element. All recorded at different times from different sources.\n\nThen in comes the sound engineer. Let's assume a 5.1 mix. They will clean up and equalize/normalize the dialog track(s), add any room effect reverb necessary in the case of close-miking or ADR, and use the surround pan control of the mixing software to place the dialog in the center channel. Some of the room effect will usually be mixed into the left and right front mains.\n\nFoley sound for the focal characters gets mixed primarily into front left/right.\n\nAmbient background noise is distributed between front left/right and surround left/right, with the sound engineer making the determination whether the sound stage is more observational (balanced to the front) or immersive (more ambient in the surrounds).\n\nThe skid and crash noises would likely be mixed primarily into the surround rears, as the action occurs out of shot and in a different \"space\" than that onscreen. The engineer may also pan the effect (have it appear to move from the right to left) to give a sense of motion.\n\nThe dropped tray probably gets mixed pretty strongly in the L/R mains, with a moderate amount of spillover into the surrounds. As one expects the sound of a full tray of dishes hitting the floor to more or less fill the room.\n\nEvery element described can have its volume adjusted, reverb levels adjusted, be EQ'd, and its position in the 5.1 soundstage manipulated individually by the engineer. When it's done right, you're fooled into thinking it's realistically \"live\", when in actuality it's anything but."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
30xqgy | why do we get to decide if iran is allowed to make nuclear weapons? | It's all over the news talking about if Iran is allowed to make nuclear weapons or not and why do other countries get to decide who makes what weapons? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30xqgy/eli5why_do_we_get_to_decide_if_iran_is_allowed_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpwqzw8",
"cpwrrld",
"cpwtbq8",
"cpwtntn",
"cpwwvy1",
"cpwxyx1",
"cpwyfsi",
"cpwywrr",
"cpwzate",
"cpx12l5",
"cpx3i8v",
"cpx52qn",
"cpx5f35",
"cpxic3e",
"cpxlakp"
],
"score": [
19,
238,
19,
71,
3,
3,
4,
7,
2,
3,
8,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because we are bigger basically. Is it fair? maybe not. Iran doesn't have to listen to us either though. So we can say no you cant have them but they can go make them anyways. We just might then go to war over it or exercise sanctions. ",
"Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has therefore agreed to not build nuclear weapons. \n\nSource:\n_URL_0_",
"It's more like we won't let Iran make nuclear weapons without repercussions. Right now, those are heavy economic sanctions that Iran's people have grown tired of. And those sanctions are multinational, not just the US.\n\nThe other side to it, is if Iran decides to pursue nuclear weapons anyway, it is going to trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle east, and that is BAD. Look at how unstable they are. Saudi Arabia, Iran's rival, has already said they want the same deal Iran gets. And you better believe that Israel, Iran's arch-enemy, will declare their nuclear weapons. They wont say the have them and they wont say the don't have them, but it is believed they do.\n\nNow Iran can still choose to pursue nuclear weapons, it's just that the repercussions will likely lead to military intervention by someone, probably Israel, to keep that from happening. ",
"International relations is not about fairness. Its about various actors each trying to get what they believe is best for themselves done. Quite a few actors, including powerful ones, think Iran getting nuclear weapons is a bad thing. Thus they are going to do what they can to stop it from happening. \n\nThere is no rule from on high here. Its the anarchic system, the powerful do what they want. Either entirely for their own interests or because they legitimately think its the right thing, or both. ",
"Because we are immensely powerful and have a leadership position in the world, where Iran is not and does not.",
"Because if Iran have Nuclear weapons then they end up like North Korea (another country we can not bomb anymore)...\n\nIt will only lead to great difficulty killing iranians because they have the bomb. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. If everyone had the bomb then we would have no power and then we could not bomb them when they don't listen to us. We would have to live in a world where we could not kill muslims.",
"International affairs are a state of nature - - there is no actual government or state under whose authority we agree to live under. Between nations, you can only keep that which you can hold onto with your own hands or convince other countries to let you keep. \n\nLots and lots of countries have decided that a nuclear Iran is an awful, awful idea (which it is) and so they banded together to put economic sanctions in place to put pressure on Iran to come to an agreement about stopping their nuclear research. The Iranian government is feeling the pressure, and so are willing to come over the negotiation table (across from the countries that have enacted the sanctions) to put their program \"on hold\" in exchange for an easing of the economic sanctions. \n\nIn short, we get to tell them \"no\" because we are big and powerful and committed enough to stop trading with them unless they do what we want. ",
"There is some rampant misunderstanding of international relations going on in this thread\n\nThe reason \"we\" (the United States) \"get\" to decide whether or not Iran is allowed to have a nuclear program is because the United States is a global hegemon. It has the *hard power* (military might, economic force) and *soft power* (diplomatic clout, etc.) to exercise significant influence over geopolitics.\n\nThe United States is doing this because it perceives an Iranian nuclear program as a threat to regional security. Whether it would be an aggressive threat and not a bulwark against the same type of attacks that American and Israeli hawks are threatening, or whether Iran even seeks a nuclear weapon at all, is for everyone else to bicker about in rest of the comments.\n\n\nRegardless, **TL;DR** the United States does not want want an Iranian weapons program because it perceives this as a threat to regional stability. It \"gets to\" make a fuss about this because it has the power and influence to make its key issues relevant on the global stage.",
"Because we still hold all the patents from the 1940's",
"Iran signed a treaty stating that they would not build nuclear weapons. We get to enforce that treaty. ",
"The real answer is that we get to decide if they are allowed to make nukes, because we already have nukes.",
"The problem with nuclear weapons is that they're really not that hard to make. The hardest part is acquiring the special nuclear material (SNM) that will actually sustain a super critical reaction. Al queda could easily build working a nuclear bomb (probably not very efficient, but working) if they had a way to enrich Uranium enough to make it work. \n\nThis brings us to the original question, why don't we want Iran building them? Obviously theres the big point that we just don't trust them and would always like to have that upper hand over them. But honestly, we just want nobody else building them. In the US we have an enormous amount of safeguards around nuclear materials so that it would be extremely hard to steal or transport any. The Soviet Union is a lot more relaxed around their SNM, but it would still be very difficult to obtain. The problem is, we can't afford for a terrorist organization to obtain any SNM from any source. And the more countries who are making it, the more likely it is that their safeguards will be more relaxed than ours and lead to a vulnerability. Especially in a region as unstable as the Middle East. ",
"Look at the war between Shia and Sunni muslims, would it be a good idea to let either side develop nuclear weapons?",
"1. The fewer nuclear weapons in the world, the better.\n2. They could point them at Israel, who is a US ally.\n3. They could point them at Saudi Arabia (classic Sunni-Shiite conflict), which could make the whole region unstable.\n4. Even if this Iranian government is responsible, revolutions happen in this part of the world all the time. Remember, this regime has only been in power since the 1970s. Some nut like Hussein or Gadhafi could take over and nukes would be part of their prize.\n5. They could be sold or funneled to smaller and less-predictable groups, like Hezbollah.\n6. American arrogance (backed up by military and monetary supremacy).\n7. The other members of the UN Security Council probably wouldn't like it either.",
"In true eli5 fashion, the bottom line is:\n\nBecause we have the power to do so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
17amni | Has anyone done (English-language) historical research in Italy? Any advice for researching in Europe? | I'm about to head back to Tuscany, where I teach for an American university study abroad program (with all American students and mostly American faculty). I'm looking to do some actual research work this semester, but I don't know where to turn because I don't know very much Italian. (I speak Latin and German aside from my native English, but my Italian and Spanish are both very basic.) My program is mostly an art program and I'm the only traditional academic, so I don't know who to ask. (This is aside from online research, which I can already do - hooray for institutional access to Jstor.)
The British Institute Library in Florence is the first place I thought of, but it's kind of expensive and I'm not sure if it's worth it. Anyone know of any other libraries in Florence/Sienna area that I could try? Or any other tips (besides learning Italian, since that's my goal this semester)? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17amni/has_anyone_done_englishlanguage_historical/ | {
"a_id": [
"c83ysvr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Since you say you know German, you might want to try out the [Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz](_URL_1_). They have a good [library](_URL_0_) and publish in English language as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://aleph.mpg.de/F/?func=file&file_name=find-b&local_base=kub01&con_lng=eng",
"http://www.khi.fi.it/en/index.html"
]
] | |
aunhvi | What did non-europeans call the Pacific Ocean before the Age of Discovery? | I just watched a video about why the Pacific is called the Pacific, and also just learned that the Chinese word for the name 太平洋 is just a translation of the word Pacific.
But there must be an older word that ancient Chinese people used for the sea right? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aunhvi/what_did_noneuropeans_call_the_pacific_ocean/ | {
"a_id": [
"eha25i5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Pretty boring answer, but the ancient name of the Pacific Ocean was just Sea 海 or Eastern Sea 東海.\n\nThe word 洋 has another earlier meaning of \"vast\" or \"great\" or \"plentiful\". However initially it is believed to originally be the name of a river, and only later did it get extended by the semantic connection to water to mean \"ocean\". Prior to that, the default \"big body of water\" word was simply 海 (hence we also have 上海 and 下海 as the original Jiangnan fishing settlements, not 上洋 and 下洋).\n\nThe use of 洋 for the ocean, and specifically 太平洋, happened much later, around the 16th century.\n\nThis meaning of \"vast\" or \"broad\" comes up in early texts like the _Shuowen Jiezi_ 說文解字 as well as the _Shijing_ 詩經. We have numerous historical records of 洋 as a modifier on words having nothing at all to do with water, such as virtue or other positive qualities, but also in reference to things like river.\n\nNote also this kind of use of things like 海 to refer to the Ocean was common for geographic features. The Yangtze River was originally known simply as 江, and the Yellow River as 河. Rivers more generally were called 水, or other semantically related words.\n\nSo, anyway, back to the original question, at least for Chinese sources the answer is pretty dull. They simply called it the Sea/Ocean, since it was essentially the only one that mattered or was known. Once there became greater need for distinguishing different oceans, well by then we had 太平洋 so it was a non-issue.\n\nHope that helped. Sorry it's not something more interesting. Let me know if you have any follow ups."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
50ytc7 | How did English armies change during the 15th century, especially in regards to the average footsoldier? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/50ytc7/how_did_english_armies_change_during_the_15th/ | {
"a_id": [
"d78v4zh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because I study armour and weapons, I will talk about the equipment of English soldiers and how it changed during the 15th century. I spoke about the [arms and armour at Agincourt](_URL_2_) and the [arms and armour of the Wars of the Roses](_URL_6_) in detail in previous answers, covering the first and third quarters of the century. So below I will sketch out the general trends.\n\nIn general, weapons remained much the same through the century. Men at arms (knights and those who fought as knights) mostly fought on foot and wielded the pollaxe at the century's beginning and end. For mounted warriors, the lance developed some - by the end of the century even the English were using a heavier lance that swelled around the hand grip - though note that around the time this was introduced some men at arms preferred a lighter lance, the 'lancegay'. Swords remained mostly the same, whether wielded by men at arms or archers (the vast majority of English armies) - they were mostly the acutely pointed shapes that Oakshotte referred to as 'type XV' and 'Type XVIII'. Falchions were also used. \n\nThe weapons of archers also remained much the same, though there are some signs there were a bit better equipped later. In any case, by the 1480's they are both recorded and portrayed as being armed with swords and bucklers in addition to their bows, as you can see [here](_URL_5_). You also see infantryman (perhaps archers) wielding polearms, often bills but sometimes glaives and other styles of polearm. Bows remained much the same through the century.\n\nFor armour, the armour of men at arms changed a lot in style, as well as construction. This is a very detailed topic and too involved for me to touch on in this post - if you are interested in learning more, please ask. Suffice to say, in the beginning of the century full plate armour was finishing the last parts of its development (the backplate an defenses for the throat), so that by Agincourt a state-of-the-art armour would protect the entire body (save for gaps at the joints etc) in solid metal plates. This remained the case through the fifteenth century, though the style of armour (including silhouette, decoration, helmet type etc) and the construction would change. Entire helmet styles would be introduced and fall out of use, decorative schemes would be adopted and abandoned, and English armour would develop a number of peculiar adaptation for armoured fighting on foot, and then lose them again as it followed continental fashions more closely by century's end. To give an idea of how different armour looked, in 1400 a man at arms would might well look like [this](_URL_1_), in 1440 like [this](_URL_0_), and in 1475 like [this](_URL_4_).\n\nFor infantry, armour change quite a bit more. In general, English infantry become better armoured as the century progresses, though for many archers for the entire century the defense remains a cloth jack (which was quite effective, if bulky). For the middle part of the century and until its end, many better-equipped archers wore a [brigandine](_URL_3_), a doublet like garment lined with metal plates. However as the century progressed plate armour became more common among common soldiers. 'Splints' or plate arm defenses are common in at least one inventory and in the last quarter of the century you see more and more breastplates made for infantryman depicted in art - just a decade or so before they were vastly outnumbered by brigandines. For example, in the Beauchamp Pageant from c. 1485 [the men kneeling behind the earl](_URL_7_) are probably his retained archers, and they seem to be wearing breastplates. In the 16th century a full cuirass (breast and backplate, with skirt - the fauld in front an culet in the back) with splints defending the arms would become a kind of standard infantry armour in England and much of the rest of Europe, and was mass-produced and mass-ordered. Based on both art and surviving inventories, mail was often worn but mostly as a supplement to other armour in the form of skirts, collars, gussets (shoulder and underarm defenses) and sleeves, though mail shirts were still worn. This was largely true in the beginning of the century and certainly true at its end - it is likely that mail used as an independent device declined further, but note that Thom Richardson and the Royal Armouries notes a transition to supplemental mail in the later 14th century.\n\nWhile hand guns were not adopted as enthusiastically by the English as by other armies (such as those of Burgundy, or the Hussites) guns were seen increasingly in inventories, and foreign merchenaries (if not others) fought with them in the later battles of the Wars of the Roses. \n\nSo the brief summary is that to the untrained eye not much changed. The basic 'load out' remained the same for both archers and men at arms remained similar. Armour style changed a lot, weapon styles changed somewhat less. Infantry became significantly better armored as time went on. Handguns were used, but did not transform English warfare."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://effigiesandbrasses.com/media/effigiesandbrasses.com/original/robert_grushill_s21_r2355.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Rubbing_of_the_Dyrham_brass%2C_Saint_Peter%27s_Church%2C_Dyrham%2C_South_Gloucestershire%2C_England.jpg",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/co... | ||
dz04t0 | when i work out, do i decrease in volume simultaneously, or does weight loss happen later? | When a workout machine says I've burned 200 kcal, did the volume of my fat cells also decrease by that amount while I was doing it?
If I were to burn like a million calories in one session, in theory, would you be able to actively see me lose weight? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dz04t0/eli5_when_i_work_out_do_i_decrease_in_volume/ | {
"a_id": [
"f84vg4q",
"f87i6bp"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"First of all, \"you just burned 200 calories\" is rarely true. It is too different for different people. However, you are to some degree correct. You are in fact burning calories in the moment. However, most of your weight (well, \"burnable weight\") is made of protein and fat. Your body is not fast enough to start burning fat fast enough. This is, very simplified, why you \"run out\" of energy, but still have plenty of fat on your body that you could technically burn. What you are burning is sugars, or carbs. If you ate carbs the right amount of time before you run, this is what you burn. If there is non available, you faint. \n\n\nSo how does this actually translate to a loss of fat on your body? Your body is constantly needing sugars to keep everything going. If you burn your carbs, your body will start turning protein and fat into sugar. Not fast enough to satisfy your workout, but maybe your heart two hours later (only symbolic example, not physically correct). This is probably why people talk about the \"afterburner effect\".\n\nPlease ask if you want more, or if you want more detailed/specific information.",
"Just chiming in to address some issue about how your body \"burns\" fuel and how to maximize fat loss through diet. Earlier posters are correct that your body doesn't use fat or protein directly - it must use sugars/carbs (in the simplest sense) for energy especially during prolonged exercise. It's important to note that there's no valid evidence that maintaining a 3,000 (or 3,500) calorie deficit yields a pound of fat loss - in fact, all evidence points against that being a valid statement. In other words, there's little truth to \"eat less, move more\" as a weight-loss methodology. \"Eat right and move somewhat\" is much better prescription if fat loss is your goal.\n\nThe body doesn't use up all the available sugars before converting fat and/or protein to usable fuel sources - this process (especially pulling fat out of storage) happens continuously. Fat tissue is constantly being broken down and released into the blood to be transported where it can be used as the precursor to fuel. However, the opposite is also happening continuously - sugars are being converted to fat and being stored, and fat is being deposited into storage. These processes happen all the time. What dictates (for most people) which process \"wins\" is insulin levels in the blood (and to some extent the body's sensitivity to insulin). Higher insulin levels = more overall fat storage and less overall drawing on fat stores for fuel. This is true even if you have a caloric deficit - if you eat sugary and starchy things, you will have a nearly impossible time reducing fat even if you burn more calories than you consume. \n\nKeeping insulin levels low is THE key to fat loss. Full stop. (And again, for most people - there are some with other endocrine issues that impair the functional work of insulin.) Before and after working out, and just generally throughout the day (and life), keep insulin levels low and fat will melt away, and that's largely independent of how much you actually eat! Without insulin, the body cannot store fat, and excess calories will not be retained - you'll either use the food consumed as fuel or pass it.\n\nKeeping insulin in check isn't that difficult - just ELIMINATE things that spike insulin levels. Pretty much anything sugary or starchy raises insulin dramatically, so work to avoid those things - protein and fat won't impact insulin levels, so no need to avoid those things (when working for fat loss). In direct terms, anything with added sugar (which is nearly everything in packaging or a bottle in a supermarket) and things like bread, pasta and rice should be avoided, pretty much all veggies are fine, especially cruciferous ones and green/leafy ones, fruits are fine but more fibrous ones are generally a better option and meat, fish, etc. are fine in abundance. Things like soda, juice, sweets, nearly all packaged baked goods, most flavored yogurt, etc. are better left on the store shelf.\n\nThis type of eating seems extreme based on the modern diet, but is in fact how humans have eaten throughout most of their existence. We started to eat far more insulin-producing foods in the 1970's and despite the introduction of every type of diet and exercise program since then, we've just continued to gain more and more weight (at least in most of the western world). It takes some effort to break out of the \"eat bready, starchy, sugary things more and fatty, high-protein things less\" mode, but once you do, it'll be easy to maintain and your body simply won't be able to store fat. \n\nI know this is well beyond the scope of your question, but wherever fat loss is an issue, the answer is nearly always - maintain low (to very low) insulin levels through diet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3c3vn4 | what's all the fuss about jesse jackson? | I'm not from the USA. All I know is that he's a minister, a civil rights activist, and he ran for President. What's so wrong about that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c3vn4/eli5_whats_all_the_fuss_about_jesse_jackson/ | {
"a_id": [
"csrz8rx",
"csrzd1o",
"csrzdmw",
"csrzl7v"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Fuss?? What fuss are you talking about? I'm not aware of any.\n\nAnyways, I see nothing wrong with what you've listed. Can you explain more??",
"To some, Jesse Jackson is a Gadfly in the political scene here, using social issues for self promotion. He can typically be found inciting already high-tension racial events with his views, often before all the facts are truly known. Although he has been an influential member of the African American Civil Rights community, he has had some very high profile personal problems which have lowered his stature here in the US. Recently he did an AMA here which didn't go well, filled with rambling, incoherent statements and pretty much failed to answer questions.",
"His AMA is possibly the reason for Victoria Taylor being fired which caused reddit to go into meltdown. \n\nUsers insulted him and called him a hate-filled race baiter in the top post. ",
"Jesse Jackson is a prominent civil rights activist and minister. He worked with Dr. King during the 60's civil rights struggle for black Americans. This is true and legitimate.\n\nHowever, he is also known for race baiting and injecting himself into any media-friendly issue that deals with black people. He extorts peo ppl me and business in exchange for not calling for boycotts. He tends to inflame racial tensions rather than working toward reconciliation. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1k4hop | if we are presumed innocent until proven guilty, why do some people get denied bail? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k4hop/eli5if_we_are_presumed_innocent_until_proven/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbl9o9m",
"cbl9ori",
"cbl9swi",
"cbl9vxg"
],
"score": [
23,
3,
13,
9
],
"text": [
"You are innocent until proven guilty at trial.\n\nBail--or lack thereof--is to ensure you get to trial",
"I'm guessing it's because they can't take the risk. I mean, if there was someone charged with killing, like, 20 people, would you really want him out on the streets, *just because he might be innocent*? No. You'd want him safely locked up in jail until there is sufficient evidence to *prove* his innocence.\n\n",
"Two words: Flight risk. If the guy is the kingpin of a multinational drug smuggling ring, of course he's not going to stay for trial. If he gets bail he'll be in Mexico before you can say \"Hasta la vista\".\n\nWhereas, an accountant with two kids accused of investment fraud is probably not going to flee the country.",
"Typically people are denied bail because they are considered a flight-risk (there is reason to believe they will try and escape to another jurisdiction to avoid prosecution) or because the person has a past history of not appearing in court when required to do so. Also, people who do not have a fixed address are often denied bail because there is a much higher risk that the court won't be able to locate them, if and when necessary.\n\nIn some Jurisdictions, bail may also be dependent on past criminal history, the seriousness of the crime and the possible risk to the community, but in most cases the primary consideration of whether bail should be granted basically comes down to how likely the accused is of voluntarily returning back to court when they are scheduled to appear for trial."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
8d5y02 | How reliable is criminal profiling? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8d5y02/how_reliable_is_criminal_profiling/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxlhr43"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's been a while since I learnt about this (like almost 10 years holy crap) but its relatively impotent - there are some checklists etc that can be completed by a layman identifying things like whether the crime was sexually motivated, disorganized and impulsive or organized and planned. \n\nMovies definitely overplay this sort of thing, standard police work is far more important in solving crime than psychology. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
8e37oh | Why did Lithuania get so little land after it's independence in 1918, considering it's great territory as Grand duchy of Lithuania? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8e37oh/why_did_lithuania_get_so_little_land_after_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxsmj36",
"dxspd67"
],
"score": [
19,
87
],
"text": [
"While it doesn't address 1918, the background in this earlier answer may be of interest: \n u/yodatsracist on [Why is Lithuania such a small country?](_URL_0_) \n\n",
"Short version: Because Republic of Lithuania is entirely different entity build on entirely different basis.\n\nLonger version: The roots of the modern Republic of Lithuania lies in the National Awakening movement, analogous to the other National Revival movements across Europe and was primarily concerned with needs and interests of ethnic Lithuanians. At the early stages Lithuanian National Awakening was concentrated with cultural and educational needs, as it was with all National Revival's and in Lithuanian even more so due to [press ban](_URL_0_). In fact the beginning of National Awakening in Lithuania was book-smuggling and underground school network launched by bishop Valančius. \n\nWith rapid Polonization of Eastern Lithuania being one of the main threats to the emerging ethnic nation and general hostility movement suffered from Polish (there are numerous and complex reasons of this I will not get in to here- it would require a lengthy and unnecessary for your question detour), Lithuanians at the time had a rather skewed consensus on history: everything after Vytautas the Great was simply bad, with Poland being first and foremost source of all evil and Russia holding a distant second. The good part of history- source of pride and inspiration- was Vytautas era and before. With latter period being willingly ignored, this era was to remote and disconnected to be actualized as political goal\n(This looks like very simplistic view, but first Lithuanian historian defended his thesis in 1905, so yeah... there's that).\n\nSuch perception of history with Polonization and Russification being foremost problems formulated a rather different goals than to chase after medieval borders. \n\nLithuanian National Movement first expression as political force was during First Russian Revoliution (few political organizations already existed but any impact they had was rather marginal). The resolution of the resolution Great Seimas of Vilnius (December 21-22, 1905) defined territorial claims of the Lithuanians as *ethnographic Lithuania as a core with whose borderlands that are attracted to it due to economic, cultural, ethnic or other reasons and inhabitants [of these borderlands] agrees to it.* \n\nWhile demand of autonomy in 1905 evolved in to declaration of independence in 1918, territorial claims never extended outside ethnic Lithuania. \nThere is entire library-worth of articles, books and pamphlets dedicated to discuss exact borders of this *ethnographic Lithuania*, however there was simply no-one arguing for the \"Greater Lithuania\".\n\nAs for the title itself:\nSeimas of 1905 envisioned Lithuanian autonomy as the Grand Duchy within Russian Empire led by democratic parliament elected in universal suffrage (*without making any distinction of gender, nationality, faith*), however in that time and place monarchy itself was associated with autocracy and monarchic titles as \"emperor\", \"king\" or \"grand duke\" were seen as a contradictory to democracy. \n\nAnd, as democracy was seen just as core tenant as *ethnographic Lithuania*, the new polity was a republic with intention to encompass all ethnic Lithuanian lands.\nAnything else was simply outs of the question.\n\n\nN.B. This, in general, is not exclusive to the Lithuanians. While all National Revival movements looked for a medieval kingdom to claim, only Poland and Hungary sought to establish nation-state within the borders of medieval polity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7g38v6/why_is_lithuania_such_a_small_country/"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_press_ban"
]
] | ||
dhbbpe | Why was there a housing shortage in the post-war US (1945)? | Was there a spike in population decades before the war and those men of marriageable age returning back to the US now needed housing that didn't exist before? Would there have been a shortage even if the war didn't happen? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dhbbpe/why_was_there_a_housing_shortage_in_the_postwar/ | {
"a_id": [
"f3nerqo"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There are two things going on that would cause a housing shortage in the immediate postwar. One is lack of housing starts during the war in places people would work after the war. The second is disruptions in living situations that people wanted after the war.\n\nConverting to a war economy involves a lot of people moving around. The huge factory at Willow Run for producing B-24s required construction of 1,900 dormitory housing units, and it was by all accounts immediately full as thousands of workers poured into the Michigan town from all around the country. After the war, when Willow Run's demand for workers fell dramatically, the people living in those dormitories had to move somewhere else to find peacetime work.\n\nAdditionally, during the war, housing construction not related to war work was effectively forbidden by the rationing system and draft. So the housing starts that would have normally happened in peace time were not built because there were no workers available, no lumber available, perhaps no nails or screws available without authorization from various goverment control boards. Basically the civilian economy got along with what it had in 1939-40, or what absolutely had to be built for the war industry. So basically there is 4+ years of pent up demand and no additional housing supply.\n\nWhen people want to move back to a civilian job, or want to move into a home big enough to fit a couple starting a family, it's very hard because there have been four years of building dormitories near war factories, not family homes near peacetime work.\n\nSource: Maury Klein, \"A Call to Arms: Mobilizing America for WWII\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7v4zr1 | When did musicians/composers develop the concept of an album? | I was listening to classical (well, baroque) music earlier and it occurred to me that for J. S Bach, for example, we divide the movements and suites of his solo cello music into songs, sub-albums (which used to be disk 1, 2, etc., and tracks.
I imagine, however, that for Bach the whole piece of music was a cohesive whole, and he wouldn't have imagined that people would listen to bits of it on their own, or out of order, because no performer or ensemble would do that.
So when did we develop the concept of an album, consisting of discrete songs? Moreover, did this occur before the development of technologies to record music? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7v4zr1/when_did_musicianscomposers_develop_the_concept/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtpthoc"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The word 'album' is an interesting one. The use of the word to describe, say, a 12-inch 33rpm record is a relatively recent one; the earlier meaning of the word is the one associated with the 'photo album', which the online Oxford dictionary describes as '[a blank book for the insertion of photographs, stamps or pictures](_URL_0_)', and which dates from the 17th century. But yes, think of the (physical) photo albums with clear, little photo-sized pouches, the ones that your parents might bring out to show your baby photos.\n\nEarly musical albums were albums in *this* sense. Before the invention of the 10\" and 12\" 33rpm records, there was only a very limited amount of time that could be stored on the 78rpm records that were standard - 3-4 minutes' worth. As a result, before the advent of the 10\" and 12\" 33rpm records, an album was an album like a photo album - basically a case that held several 78rpm records rather than several photos. Initially blank albums for 78rpm records were produced for people to store their 78rpm records in, in the same way that people in the 1990s would store their CDs in a lightweight case with little pouches for the CDs, if they were travelling around with a discman. However, by the 1940s, albums were being sold with cover art, and which were pre-stocked with 78rpm records - a set of songs that were *meant* to go together.\n\nExamples of albums in this sense, in the sense of a package with multiple 78rpm records that were sold together in this sense include [Frank Sinatra's first album, *The Voice Of Frank Sinatra*](_URL_2_) from 1946 (on discogs, you can see images of what the album looks like if you click on 'more images' under the album cover there), or [Woody Guthrie's *Dust Bowl Ballads*](_URL_3_) from 1940. And of course, there are plenty of early recordings of lengthy classical pieces like the movements and suites of Bach's solo cello music, which are split up into albums this way.\n\nIt was only with the advent of the 10\" and 12\" records that the album in the modern sense - everything on the one reasonably length disc, or in the same Spotify folder, for that matter, came to be; these continued to be called albums for convenience, to trumpet that they were a collection of songs. The first 10\" album, featuring eight songs on the one disc, that Frank Sinatra would release was in March 1950 on Columbia Records, titled *Dedicated To You*. And the first 12\" album that Sinatra would release was in 1955 on Capitol Records, titled *In The Wee Small Hours* (which was famously one of the first 'pop' records to use the 12\" format).\n\nSo the specific concept of 'album' was intimately connected with sound being contained on physical objects. \n\nHowever, I do get the sense that you mean something a little broader than 'album', something more like a set of connected songs that 'people would listen to bits of it on their own, or out of order'. So, seeing as it was listening to Bach that got you asking the question, the two books of Bach's *The Well-Tempered Clavier* do actually kind of fit this box. These books were of course a manuscript of Bach's compositions, and each of the two books includes a prelude and fugue for each of the major and minor keys that were possible on a well-tempered clavier (i.e., a keyboard). As far as I'm aware, there's no clear expectation with *The Well-Tempered Clavier* that the pieces should be presented together, or in a particular order, though they are often presented that way in modern commercially available recordings (e.g., [this one I own of Glenn Gould playing them](_URL_4_)). But it is also the case that [modern performance of the complete preludes and fugues sometimes sees performers mixing up the order of performance, as this review of a Sydney performance indicates](_URL_1_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/album",
"http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/js-bach-the-welltempered-clavier-review-exhausting-for-the-player-energising-for-his-audience-20150119-12t9m5.html",
"https://www.discogs.com/Frank-Sinatra-The-Voice-Of-Frank-Sinatra/release/3168364",
... | |
byaucx | Why heavy water is toxic, while ordinary water isn't? | If chemical properties of substances depend only on the outermost "layer" of electrons around the molecule, how come ordinary water isn't toxic, while heavy water is? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/byaucx/why_heavy_water_is_toxic_while_ordinary_water_isnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqfvskd",
"eqfx0jj",
"eqg7rn3",
"eqgeptl"
],
"score": [
25,
208,
6,
9
],
"text": [
"It's because the processes in your body do not all work the same way with heavy water due to differences in molecular weight and the strength of bonds formed. You could drink a glass of heavy water without much, if any ill effect, but if you only drank heavy water for a longer period, it would displace the normal water in your body and cause issues leading to heavy water toxicity.",
"There are a few reasons. Heavy water is called so because there are a lot of deuterium atoms in the water molecules instead of normal hydrogen. Hydrogen is just a proton with an electron. Deuterium is a proton, a neutron, and an electron. This alters the atom in some subtle ways.\n\nFirst, the mass of the atom is basically doubled. A neutron has a slightly higher mass than a proton, and an electron's mass is negligible. That added mass can affect the chemical properties of the water.\n\nSecond, and most importantly, the hydrogen bonds formed by heavy water are slightly stronger than those of normal water. There are thousands of processes in the body that rely on the very specific strength of hydrogen bonds. The stronger bonds found in heavy water can inhibit cell division, make protein action inefficient, or disrupt the proper functioning of cell membranes.\n\nHeavy water isn't radioactive like many other isotopes can be, but its particular chemical properties can cause symptoms similar to radiation poisoning. It's non-toxic in small doses, and is actually used for some diagnostic tests in medicine, but once the levels increase to 25% or more of the water in your body, severe symptoms start to appear.",
"Some good answers already but in terms of how the chemistry is different, think about how water is and can be used with every enzymatic reaction in your body and read into the [kinetic isotope effect ](_URL_0_) Basically most of your typical processes are less efficient and homeostasis is affected.",
"It is probably important to note that you have to replace a considerable percentage ( > 25%) of the water (H2O) in your body with heavy water (D2O) in order to actually experience significant ill effects. Considering the quantity of water in your body, you would have to drink quite a bit of heavy water for a sustained period in order to achieve that. Tritiated water \"super-heavy water\" (T2O), however, is more problematic since tritium is radioactive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_isotope_effect"
],
[]
] | |
29g3f1 | Can I dissolve as much sugar in sea water as I can in distilled water? Why or why not? | Asked fancier: does the concentration of a given solute affect the solvents saturation point for a different solute?
EDIT: So there seems to be two camps, one that points out (validly) that theory and logic dictates that more salt=less sugar able to dissolve. The other camp says that's nice but not how it works in reality. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/29g3f1/can_i_dissolve_as_much_sugar_in_sea_water_as_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cikmf7b",
"ciknuix",
"ciksiim"
],
"score": [
11,
68,
6
],
"text": [
"In short, less sugar will dissolve in salt water.\nIn salt water, the water molecules solvate the sodium and chloride ions, surrounding and separating the individual ions. Because water is a fairly polar molecule, it will be more associated with the ions in solution than the incoming sugar; so, while some sugar may dissolve, less will dissolve in salt water than in distilled water.",
"Sugar and salt do not share a [common ion](_URL_2_).\n\nOne will not directly interfere with the other's equilibrium in water. However, both will compete for water.\n\nCompetition allows you to [salt out](_URL_1_) some substances. Check out this [video demonstration of salting out](_URL_0_) where a solution of methanol and water is separated by giving the water molecules something else to stick to. It will be less extreme than the video, but you will be able to dissolve less sugar in seawater than in distilled.",
"It depends on what year of chemistry student you ask!\nIn first year the common ion effect is taught. This effect says that if you are dissolving two salts with a common ion, the solubility of one salt will be greatly affected by the concentration of the other. \n\nIn third year analytical chemistry ionic strength is taught. This is a correction of the common ion effect that says that even non common ions will have an effect, however it is generally small and can be ignored for an approximation.\n\nYes less sugar will dissolve in salt water however the effect is generally small and is likely negligible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxJMAGNWGIY&feature=player_detailpage#t=89",
"http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Non-Ideal_Systems/Salting_Out",
"http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Equilibria/Solubilty/Common_Ion_Effect"
],
[]
] | |
3uprk7 | why do our most worrying thoughts/ anxieties come to mind when we are trying to fall asleep? | A lot of people after going to bed (inclunding me) start thinking about awkward past experiences or something that worries them and they have a bigger impact when compared to having these thoughts during the day, why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uprk7/eli5_why_do_our_most_worrying_thoughts_anxieties/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxgs7xa",
"cxgt69c",
"cxgt6oy",
"cxgtfdz",
"cxgtj15",
"cxgtykh",
"cxh1n7t",
"cxh7ghw",
"cxhd4q2",
"cxhi4zf",
"cxhk8f7"
],
"score": [
147,
21,
8,
8,
4,
5,
21,
3,
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"You can't distract yourself from it anymore. It's just you and your head. This is why I got me some good sleeping pills.",
"From an evolutionary standpoint, this was bred into us, it makes you more alert of surroundings to hopefully get you to make a better choice of when and where you go to sleep.",
"It happens to me when I start getting tired, and I think it's because I'm just not as good at controlling my thoughts at this point. Not that I've been thinking of it all day, but my brain's just a jerk and knows it can get away with it at that point. ",
"You should read The Organized Mind by Daniel Levitin! He does a good job of explaining this, and offers many ideas for resolving this issue and others.",
"Thats what happens when you let your mind wander for an extended period. When you're doing something you have to keep your mind focused on that thing but when you're laying in your bed there is no distractions. ",
"Will my schitzophrenic roommate burn the house down before she leaves at the end of the month?",
"Emotional and cognitive avoidance is a strategy employed by us all, especially for worriers. Your guard lowers as you go to sleep (and during your sleep), and anxieties come through. There's a lot of work on mindfulness which looks at this - allowing emotions to drift in, and drift out, without us spending energy in fighting them. Check out work by Penman & Williams, Kabat-Zinn and John Teasdale for more.",
"These are thoughts you have been suppressing throughout the day, but as you relax into sleep that necessitates undoing the suppression process.",
"You are finally given a time where the millions of units of sensory information are not bombarding you and are simply alone with your mind; what you choose to focus on is up to you.",
"ASMR really works for a good sleep. it gets you paying attention to the sound and not your anxieties",
"For awhile I thought it was just me. I listen to podcast now, Adam Corolla, Joe Rogan, Greg Fitzsimmons, and even Hardcore History. Eventually I fall asleep. \n\nYou gotta work on the stuff that keeps you up though, little by little during the day. A little extra reading of my class textbook, a little homework way ahead of its due date, and a small list of things I need to for the next day to make it easier to sleep the following night. \n\nBasically, I was having goals, dreams, and passions and was doing nothing towards any of them for awhile. I sleep better when I feel accomplished. \n\nJust me anyways\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2m5mzu | how are awd and 4x4 automatic transmissions different? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m5mzu/eli5_how_are_awd_and_4x4_automatic_transmissions/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm15kmq",
"cm15pi6"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most cars have drive wheels and then a pair of wheels that just get pushed or pulled along. 4wd powers both so if one slips the other can pull /push it out ",
"4x4 usually describes truck and SUV drive trains which can be turned on/off. Typically in a 4x4 vehicle the front wheels turn at the same speed as the rear wheels regardless of what the driver is doing; this makes it very difficult to turn since all the wheels are turning at the same speed. In a normal vehicle when you turn the outside wheels have to travel a longer distance than the inside wheels, your front wheels typically travel a different distance than your rear wheels as well. \n\nIn an AWD car there there are 3 differentials, one in the front that distributes power to the left and right wheels one in the center that distributes power between the front and rear wheels and one in the rear that distributes power between the 2 rear wheels. Depending on how sophisticated the system is each differential can adjust how much power goes to each side making turning easier."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2ypquw | how do we know that a planet 'cannot support life'? | I mean, how do we know what things other living beings need in order to live?
Whilst humans need Oxygen (amongst many other things), what if other beings only need say...Chlorine Gas (insert random chemical/element) to survive? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ypquw/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_a_planet_cannot_support/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpbs7i1",
"cpbsbkt",
"cpbsj8t"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Scientists are only guessing based on what they know. We know that every form of life we've ever seen or known about requires water, oxygen, etc, so we kinda work based on the assumption that *all* life requires these things until those beliefs are proven wrong.",
"It's not that Planet X with the chlorine atmosphere can't support life. It's that it can't support *Earthlike* life. We know that in theory it's possible to have life in non-Earthlike circumstances, but we know definitively that Earthlike life is possible. For now, we're looking for Earthlike life just to narrow the search somewhat.",
"Honestly, there could be a whole race of hydrogen-guzzling giants living on Jupiter. The only problem is that we don't know what hydrogen-breathing giants look like, how they affect their environment, what they're made up of, what they excrete, etc.\n\nSince we don't know any of that, there's really no way to look and a planet and *know* that there isn't life on it. But until we find a better way to check or learn a *lot* more about the universe, it's useless to go based on guesswork.\n\nEverything living that we've ever seen has developed on a planet that's not too hot, not too cold, with plenty of water and a rocky crust. So our best bet is just to look for more of that, because that way we've found something that we *know* could hold life."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
23ctq7 | How legitimate was Edward III's claim to the French throne? | Was he the rightful heir or was this just a way to get out of paying the French homage or both? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23ctq7/how_legitimate_was_edward_iiis_claim_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgvtnpc"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Edward III thought his claim to the French throne was legitimate.\n\nHere is the background to the English Monarchy's claim to the French throne, and the start of the Hundred Years War:\n\nPhilip IV was King of France from 1285 - 1314. He had three sons and one daughter.\n\nWhen he died, his eldest son became King Louis X. Louis died just 2 years later. His only son, John I was born after Louis died, but died himself 5 days after being born.\n\nWho now should rule France? Louis X's daughter Joan, or Louis' next brother Philip? \n\nPhilip became King Philip V, and the reason given was 'Salic Law' (a law which was either rediscovered from the 5th century, or made up to justify the decision). Under 'Salic Law', it was proclaimed that a woman could not inherit the throne.\n\nPhilip V died in 1322 without children. His younger brother then became King Charles IV. Charles IV died in 1328, also without living children. That is when King Edward III of England claimed the throne of France. His mother was Isabella of France, sister of Kings Louis X, Philip V, and Charles IV.\n\nEdward III maintained that even if 'Salic Law' prohibited a woman from becoming monarch of France, it didn't prohibit her son from becoming King of France. He was the closest heir to the throne, and therefore the rightful King.\n\nThe French (not wanting to be ruled by the King of England) disagreed. They interpreted 'Salic Law' as forbidding not just the inheritance of the throne by a woman, but as forbidding the passing down of the inheritance through a female line. They therefore crowned the cousin of the three last kings (and of Edward of England's mother) as King Philip VI of France in 1328.\n\nKing Edward III did not accept the validity of this decision. He styled himself as King of England and France, and the course of future conflict was established. In 1337, Edward III refused to pay homage to Philip VI for his lands in Aquitaine and the Hundred Years' War was begun.\n\nThen it got even more complex.\n\nLeaving out a few intervening details, in the Treaty of Troyes in 1420, the English recognized Charles VI as King of France and the French recognized King Henry V of England as his heir (cutting Charles VI's son, the Dauphin, out of the succession). \n\nThis treaty was rather forced on the French by Henry Vs military victories.\n\nIn 1422, both Henry V, and then Charles VI died. At this point, Henry VI, the infant son of Henry V and Charles VI's daughter (the marriage had been another outcome of the Peace at Troyes) became King of England and France - The only English King to actually rule France (not personally, of course, he was an infant).\n\nThe Dauphin was upset by this course of events. With the help of Joan of Arc, he rebelled against the Treaty of Troyes and had himself crowned King Charles VII of France in 1429. \n\nBy 1436 he had re-taken Paris. By 1453, he had driven the English out of all of France except Calais and the Channel Islands (which Islands are today the only French possessions remaining to the English Crown).\n\n(If King Henry V had not died of dysentery at the young age of 35, things might have turned out differently.)\n\nNeedless to say, the Kings (and Queens - England did not adhere to 'Salic Law') of England continued to claim the crown of France for centuries thereafter.\n\n_URL_0_ _URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Hundred_Years.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_claims_to_the_French_throne"
]
] | |
4fw619 | What current research is being done on gravitons? | [deleted] | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4fw619/what_current_research_is_being_done_on_gravitons/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2clqiq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Here are over 600 papers from this year alone on the topic: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2016&q=graviton&hl=en&as_sdt=1,22"
]
] | |
29t53e | - what makes human love when their head/hair gets played with by another person? | ??? I'm five so please explain like I'm five | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29t53e/elif_what_makes_human_love_when_their_headhair/ | {
"a_id": [
"cio91fg",
"cio9ugl"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It's a reflex shared by all mammals, the same reason your cat/dog/rat loves when you pet it.\n\n\nYour skin has nerves at the end of the hair follicles that release endorphins when they are touched. It is evolutionary designed to promote social behavior like grooming ",
"That's why whenever I see a little girl in pig tails, I yank on them. I've only been arrested for it twice."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3jn0yg | After being in bright sunlight, most things appear as being blue, or as if there's a bluish hue stuck over everything. How does this happen? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3jn0yg/after_being_in_bright_sunlight_most_things_appear/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuqmm0i"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"After a prolongued stare at one only color, the receptors to that color get exhausted, or tired. As the sunlight that comes to us is yellowish, a mix of green and red, those get tired. The blue ones are the only working properly, thus the blue taint everywhere.\n\nInteresting fact: the place where surgeons do surgery (sorry for my English) is mostly green and blue, to give surgeon's eyes a rest for all the red that it sees during surgery. This helps him to be able to discern details in the red.\n\nEDIT: Humans have 3 types of receptors, or cones: red, blue and green. The remaining colours are created from a mix of this."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1j3e9q | What are some historical, cultural, unscientific explanations for fog? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j3e9q/what_are_some_historical_cultural_unscientific/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbaw5y0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Could you explain the question a bit?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2gce83 | why do we get that being chased sensation going up stairs? | The chill in your spine running up the stairs in the dark as a child, I dont understand the sensation of something being behind us is all. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gce83/eli5_why_do_we_get_that_being_chased_sensation/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckhpu7e",
"ckhqhtj"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know if its been scientifically studied, but I would assume that running up stairs in the dark sets off a \"fight or flight\" response in your brain because it thinks that you're being chased by a predator, so it activates your sympathetic nervous system and releases adrenaline into your body, thus creating that chill. If you did some biometric tests, you'd probably find an elevated blood pressure, dilated pupils, and goosebumps",
"Are the stairs heavily carpeted? The only time climbing stairs has ever felt weird to me is when the stairs have a very thick carpet on them. Makes my whole body feel strange."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
35hsag | how do digital cameras implement iso? | I understand that camera ISO is a measurement of light sensitivity. In film cameras ISO was based on film grain. How do digital cameras achieve this? Is it just turning on or off sensors so more or fewer sensors are reading light? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35hsag/eli5_how_do_digital_cameras_implement_iso/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr4jg4p"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There are usually 2 ways ISO can be adjusted in a digital camera.\n\nFirst, the signal from the individual pixels on the sensor are read through an electronic amplifier circuit with adjustable gain. Imagine this is like hooking up a microphone to a sound amplifier, and dialing the gain/volume dial. If the microphone signal is weak and quiet, you can crank up the amplifier and hear it loud, but the more you crank it, the more noisy it also becomes.\n\nThe signal from the camera sensor is amplified the same way. If very little light is being captured, the signal is weak, but can be amplified electrically, which is analogous to using a higher ISO film in a film camera. But the noise is also being amplified, resulting in noisier overall image. Each ISO setting on a digital camera typically corresponds to a different gain level on the signal amplifier circuit.\n\nHowever, many digital cameras can also adjust the ISO digitally beyond the limits of the amplifier circuit gain adjustment. This adjustment is done after the signal from the sensor has been captured and digitized (passed through analog to digital conversion) and is basically just a digital transformation of the individual pixel sensor readings/values.\n\nFor example you could simply multiply each sensor reading by 2 digitally to double the effective ISO. A pixel with brightness of say 100 would now show brightness of 200 - same as if you used a twice as sensitive film, or dialed in twice the gain in the amplifier circuit. Of course noise is still doubled as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3niyi1 | Is there a consensus view by historians on why Europe quickly progressed from a relative global backwater in the Middle Ages only to rise to global dominance within a relatively short period of time? | yesterday I posed the question that it could be the lack of Mongol conquest that was the most important factor, but most rejected that view. However, no one suggested other theories of why they increased in power as counter claims (most were just citing reasons why Mongol rule shouldn't have stopped it from happening). So I'm curious if there is a consensus on the subject, or something close to a consensus. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3niyi1/is_there_a_consensus_view_by_historians_on_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvoqq64",
"cvorrpp"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text": [
"I would recommend *The Rise and Fall of Great Powers* - Paul Kennedy. In the opening chapter of the book he analyses the great early civilisations (Mongol/Shogun Japan/Ming China, etc) and compares them with their European counterpart before concluding that Europe possessed multiple benefits which culminated in its head start in dominating and the 'rise of the West', these are:\n\n- The geography, which was not conducive to rapid mass invasion unlike the Russian steppes to the East and therefore fostered decentralised power - \"a political map of Europe drawn any time after the fall of Rome [would] look like a patchwork quilt\".\n- The diverse climate and farming conditions which encouraged the production of diverse products, thereby improving the chances of exchange within the continent and the use of Europe's many navigatable rivers to transport such goods creating an active merchant class. In particular, Kennedy points to the nature of trade in goods such as wool and timber being more beneficial to a prospering civilisation than the Eastern speciality in luxury goods.\n- The surrounding seas (Mediterranean/Baltic/Black) furthered international trade and lead to a stronger shipbuilding industry than found elsewhere. The international trade also stimulated a modern financial services industry much faster than contemporary rivals with the introduction of banking and bills of exchange. \n- The close proximity of multiple warring nations was said to have encouraged constant military innovation and a rapid evolution of warfare tactics. This delicate balance of power was maintained in part because of the prevalence of mercenaries fighting for the highest bidder and technological parity. These factors, when introduced to a more insular civilisation with no need to innovate to compete locally can be used to explain European conquest in other regions.\n- Finally, Kennedy makes reference to the increasing willingness of feudal lords and rulers to tax trade at an appropriate level so that both the trader and state have a vested interest in the continued movement of goods and later on, into expanding into new territories in the New World. This market-based approach was said to be one of the most influential reasons and one which differentiated Europe from other civilisations of the era. The examples cited were Japan under Tokugawa rule and dynastic China both of which employed isolationist foreign policy to a degree. \n",
"I don't know that there is a consensus, and I think the discussion continues today. There was a very recent interview with Turkish Economist Dani Rodrik where Rodrik was asked why Turkey didn't develop like western Europe. His response, referencing Barrington Moore, had a lot to do with the structure of the agricultural system. His reasoning was, in part, because Turkey and Western Europe started with the same basic agricultural economies and went in different directions. Western Europe had smaller peasant land holders while Turkey had larger landlords. He then said that Turkish agricultural processes were more labor-repressive than, say, Britains. This lessened the impetus to diversify into industry.\n\nHe then talked about the importance of spreading ideas within western Europe, positing that if France's initial conditions were more like Turkey's, and if France had been further east its outcomes would have been very different.\n\nI'm not sure what other historians think of this train of thought; Rodrik may be considered in part an economic historian, but most of his work has to do with more contemporary issues in economics. Anyway, this isn't even really an answer to the question, as it doesn't really get into the rise over a short period issue.\n\nSource: \"A Conversation with Dani Rodrik\" on the website _URL_0_ and hosted by Tyler Cowen: https://_URL_0_/conversations-with-tyler/a-conversation-with-dani-rodrik-e02cf8784b9d"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"medium.com",
"https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/a-conversation-with-dani-rodrik-e02cf8784b9d"
]
] | |
5o64t2 | what is the difference between .mp3 files and .wav files? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5o64t2/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_mp3_files_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcgv01e"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"An mp3 file is compressed by a factor of about 10 (75 to 95% reduction in size) while a wav file is raw sound data."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1tbxk6 | why are new prosthetics always cited as a benefit of 3d printing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tbxk6/why_are_new_prosthetics_always_cited_as_a_benefit/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce6drl8",
"ce6dvm6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"3D printing would allow for upgrading or enhancing them more frequently at significantly reduced cost, and also for obtaining new ones more affordably and frequently as they wear out, or for younger individuals, outgrown.",
"Because 3D printing gives you the ability to heavily customize prosthetics for the individual user at a much lower cost. \n \nUsing traditional manufacturing methods, it's very time consuming and costly to modify the process to tailor the product for each customer. But with 3D printing all of this modification can be done on the computer model and then printed straight away - creating different parts does not require different tools."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2i5tst | When they found out that hubble was near sighted, how did they know how to perfectly shape the corrective mirrors? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2i5tst/when_they_found_out_that_hubble_was_near_sighted/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckzvxwm",
"ckzwhyx"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"In optics there is a term called the point spread function. This is what happens when you give an optical system a single point (like a star) as an input, and look at the output on the other side. Ideally, you will get a single point on the output, but in a non-ideal system (like the flawed-Hubble) you'll get some blurry mess. This is a useful metric because we can imagine that whatever object you're imaging consists of many points and then your image will consist of the same points reconstructed on the other side of the camera/telescope.\n\nSo what can we do with this point spread function? We simply perform a Fourier Transform of the point spread function and we get the optical transfer function of the system (I know, more jargon). Since the Optical Transfer Function relates to the phase of an incoming wave, it is directly related to the error in the mirror system. It can give you a 3-dimensional reconstruction of what you need to do to fix the mirror. \n\nTL;DR If you give a telescope a point-source input (like a star) and perform a fourier transform of your image, you get a 3d reconstruction of the errors on the mirror.",
"In addition to the other answers, [here](_URL_0_) is the original paper where the commission to determine the nature and extent of the aberration presented their results. In addition to analyzing the Hubble imagery, they also investigated the mirror grinding machine's settings, and created models of their hypotheses that were able to predict images taken with the telescope."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...369L..21B"
]
] | ||
if0s9 | Why do people dismiss the possibility that some races are (generally) more "intelligent" than others? | Having started reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Dick Dawkins I was pretty amazed to learn how quick evolution occurs artificially (ie selective breeding of dogs, going from wolf to all domestic dogs). Having almost relatively zero knowledge of evolution I ponder this: if there was enough time for ones skin colour to "evolve", there must have been enough time for some homo sapien being's brains to evolve differently than others, from race to race. I know this implies that I'm a racist however I'm just generally interested on what's the take on this scientifically.. so don't downvote this because "OMG RACISM".
edit: Homo Sapien group *A* is seperated from Homo Sapien group *B* for *x* amount of years, enough years for Homo Sapien group *B* to evolve a different pigmentation. Basically my question is: is that time enough to also affect (in a very broad sense) cognition? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/if0s9/why_do_people_dismiss_the_possibility_that_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"c237i7o",
"c237ja7",
"c237kve",
"c237lde",
"c237xqu",
"c238tmq"
],
"score": [
5,
21,
18,
25,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not going to help with the science but just to jump in on the ethics matter - It does not imply racism to see a difference between different races (they would not be different races if they were all the same), it is a touchy area and people can get carried away with shouting racist at shadows. If there is unbiased evidence to back it something up then it is not racist.",
"From a purely scientific perspective, there's nothing racist about asking or seeking to answer such questions. Different races have, obviously, evolved in different circumstances, locations, etc., and it's not out of the question that some of the genetic differences could affect intelligence, broadly speaking. Nature isn't known to be politically correct :)\n\nThe worry that I think most people have isn't that any such scientific findings would be somehow racist themselves (they wouldn't), but that they could be used to support racism. Racism, much as we hate to admit it, still exists and is still a problem. Let's say I came out with a study showing that, to some statistically significant level, American blacks scored lower than American whites on some measure of intelligence. Who do you think would be the first people to jump on that? To what purposes would it be used? Not all of them would be good, I can assure you!\n\nI think this is why so many people are touchy about scientists even asking these questions. Personally, I think any and all questions which are open to Science should be asked of it; Science shouldn't be constrained in the battle to fight racism. But this is an incredibly touchy subject with cultural ramifications. That much at least we should recognize.",
"[There is no such thing as different human races.](_URL_0_)\n\n[It is a naive, non-scientific concept.](_URL_4_)\n\n[Virtually all research on the concept of race discredits the concept entirely.](_URL_1_)\n\n[Here is a layman's way of summarizing why there is only one singular human race [PDF].](_URL_3_)\n\nOther sources: any anthropology, biology, or psychology class ever. The only person that has tried to publish about it otherwise is a fellow named [J. Philippe Rushton](_URL_2_), who is a terrible scientist by all accounts. His case is commonly used when arguing that professors should not ever be given tenure.",
"Intelligence is kind of a tricky thing to evaluate, and it's something that is horribly tied up with socioeconomic status. ",
"**Regarding intelligence specifically (as defined by IQ):** \n\nThere is more similarity between children raised by the same parents than children born to the same parents. This suggests that race is not an important factor.\n\nThere have been many studies, typically using twins and adopted children, that are used to prove parts of the above statement. For example, when two identical twins are split up, and one is placed in a high income family and the other is not, the child who went to the high income family tends to test significantly higher on IQ tests.\n\n**Regarding all research into human traits:**\n\nWe are very comfortable studying and analyzing unlearned traits and attributing differences to race. For instance, stamina in marathon runners is often attributed to the genetic factors common among west Africans. \n\nWe are not as comfortable studying learned traits because they're hard to define and hard to test. Learned traits include things like intelligence and work ethic, things that seem to be mostly dependent on \"nurture\" rather than \"nature.\" It's logical to think that some people may be predisposed to being more intelligent or more motivated, but that's hard to show.\n\nYou need to:\n\n1. define the trait \n2. determine the non-genetic factors for that trait \n3. when holding non-genetic factors constant, show there is a correlation between the trait and genetics ",
"Even if there are measurable differences between races, as a whole, humans are ignorant and when you say that one group is inferior to another, what many people will take away from that is that one group is some how superior.\n\nSocrates had it right when the Oracle of Delphi declared that Socrates was the wisest and Socrates then remarked that he wasn't truly wise and what the Oracle must have meant is that there are no wise men. We can all learn a lot from this perspective.\n\nNow to another point. Let's say that we find that some Indonesian tribe have a culture and language and genetics that allow them to achieve a level of cognition that is 10% smarter than the average white male from England (so 110 IQ). How would you present this information that would prevent every British citizen from thinking that s/he is stupid/ignorant/inferior?\n\nLastly, the problem is denial. Even if you carefully crafted the experiments in a way that ignored cultural biases and you could measure raw intellectual capacity (very hard to do), the naysayers always find a way to kill or ignore your findings. Imagine those same indigenous tribes people from Indonesia were found superior, it is easy to imagine every ignorant, back-water from Mississippi simply saying \"no way those dumb Chinese know more than me\" (yes, I am from the States and I knew a guy from Mississippi who thought that Indonesians were Chinese). \n\nHistorically speaking, these problems have come up every time someone tries to measure intelligence and even things that have nothing to do with intelligence (cranial size for example) are used to imply superiority. IMHO, white Americans are more guilty of this than others, but all races and cultures find a way to feel superior to others even with the smallest amount of 'evidence'.\n\nTo your real question: intelligence changes over time. People become dramatically smarter (or can) as they age and there is a lot of evidence to support the idea of crystalline intelligence improving and IQ improving as we age. Also, people who are well-connected in large groups (cities) tend to outscore those in rural areas or back-waters by huge margins. This has more to do with societal norms, exposure to ideas, and work styles. So, if you are looking for groups or races that are smarter, you'll have the best luck in highly functional, well-connected, and educated with freedom of thought and speech societies (Japan, England, France, Sweden, etc).\n\nRace pales by comparison in importance in influencing intelligence to the above listed factors. Retarded children (I have two) can be raised in a way as to function normally in society and there is an abundance of stories of bright children's futures wasted by bad parenting or schools.\n\nBackground: psycholinguistics and child development"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.jstor.org/pss/682042",
"http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hub/summary/v081/81.5-6.long.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton",
"http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/PageDocuments/8JZ1LMI0A0.pdf",
"http://www.jstor.org/pss/2739576"
],
[],
[],
... | |
1qt68p | Is it possible to orbit a planet such that you'd always have it between you and the sun (night)? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qt68p/is_it_possible_to_orbit_a_planet_such_that_youd/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdg7l2d",
"cdg9kh0",
"cdgj213"
],
"score": [
7,
25,
2
],
"text": [
"Thats the Lagrange 2 point: _URL_0_\n\nBut note that L2 is not stable. Without some station keeping you will eventually drop in to a normal orbit around the planet.",
"Technically, it is possible if the body closer to the sun was orbiting at the L1 [Lagrange Point](_URL_0_) of the outer planet. In fact, we have satellites orbiting around this point. However, this is an unstable orbit and without active stabilization (hard to do for a whole planet) the inner body would fall into orbit around either the other planet or the Sun. \n \nAs neha points out, this is not possible for basic Keplerian orbits, as bodies orbiting the Sun at different distances would necessarily get out of phase since they have different orbital periods.",
"This is the second Lagrangian point (L2). It is possible, and we have satellites that are there (for example, the James Webb Space Telescope is planned for that, and the Planck Surveyor and Herschel are already there)\n\nHowever, the Earth does not fully eclipse the sun at this point. So the radial size of the sun is larger than the radial size of Earth.\n\nYou can solve this by going behind Jupiter. The density of the planet is less than earth, on average, so the radial size of Jupiter is much larger relative to the distance of its Lagrangian point."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point"
],
[]
] | ||
843e2x | what is the pareto distribution? | I was on r/customhearthstone and someone tried to explain it but I don’t understand the terms they used. Here’s the original post _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/843e2x/eli5_what_is_the_pareto_distribution/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvmgj1i"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Very basically, most of the work in a group is done by a small amount of people in that group. You'll hear the 80/20 principle which means that 80% of of the work comes from 20% of the people. If you think about your workplace or school projects, there are a few individuals 20% that perform and complete most of the tasks, and the other 80% add marginally, and in some cases not at all.\n\nYour example in the other thread is saying 90% of the work is done by 10% of the workers. And then they needlessly complicated it by throwing in square roots and other terminology."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/customhearthstone/comments/8405h5/these_new_mechanics_sure_are_sweet/?st=JEPKFLRZ&sh=d7328676"
] | [
[]
] | |
5kwz0v | how can a sitting us president create "permanent" legislation? | It seems the only good news coming out of DC as of late has been a series of actions in relation to environmental protection, such as the setting aside of marine preserves and the banning of offshore drilling in many areas.
In all of these circumstances, it is said that these ocean preserves are to be "permanently" off-limits to fishing and mining. Likewise, the bans on offshore drilling are supposed to be "permanent."
How can they be "permanent" bans? What is preventing the next president from just going in and reversing those permanent bans with the stroke of a pen?
Is it just another "norm" that subsequent presidents respect such legislation? Or are they required to?
I guess my questions is: how can a temporary head of state enact a law that is permanent and untouchable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kwz0v/eli5_how_can_a_sitting_us_president_create/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbr76em",
"dbr77mr",
"dbr8nbi",
"dbrqddi"
],
"score": [
3,
26,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"They can't, but they are the head of the executive branch, which is in charge of actually doing things. So, they have a lot of leeway to do things that are hard to undo. \n\nExample, once they declare something a National Monument, it sets things in motion that are hard to undo, or some small agreements with foreign governments can take place within the restrictions of an existing treaty that require negotiation with that foreign government to then undo. For example, if the USA has an ecology agreement with Canada and then both countries decide to use that treaty to set aside Arctic land for preservation, one side can't just decide to change their mind later.",
"They are permanent in the sense that if left as-is, they have not expiration date. They can still be modified by congressional action.\n\nFrom what I've read on the subject, another sitting president cannot undo the action because it is based on powers deligated to the President by law, and those deligated powers only provide for establishing these regions, not removing them. ",
"This question has been posted before and deleted. Here was my response then:\n\nBasically the Outer Continental Shelf Act was designed to claim jurisdiction of submerged lands in the outer shelf and to authorize the Executive branch to lease the lands (generally assumed for drilling, etc).\n\nThe act gives the President the ability to withdraw lands from being leased. Essentially, imagine a large set of land, the government comes in and says, this is under our jurisdiction and we can lease it out as we please. A small portion of the bill says the President can decide if lands (under certain circumstances) shouldn't be leased and pulled from the pool to be leased by the federal government. The Act doesn't clearly define that the President is allowed to change his mind and lands they pulled from the pool could be leased in the future by the same or a different President. Because of this, some politicians and environmental activists say Obama's actions to pull this land from the lease pool is permanent and you'd need to rewrite the act in order to give Trump authority to allow this land to be leased in the future. Since Republicans don't have a fillibusterproof Congress the assumption is they won't be able to get enough Democrats to vote to change this bill and allow the land to be released for leasing again. In reality, it's a bit of a gray area. Nobody has ever challenged this in court, so there is no legal precedent to follow here. But it's also a bit of a dangerous one. If this plays out the way Democrats want it also means that essentially any authority Trump uses during his Presidency can't be undone by the next president without an act of Congress, which is a bit of a stretch and I'm sure they wouldn't want that.\n\nSo there's a couple ways this can go. Trump can issue an executive order allowing the lands to be leased and a contract awarded to an entity for drilling, etc.\n\nOnce this happens one of two things will occur after a series of events takes place. Before there is any permanent outcome you'd first have to find someone with legal standing of damages to sue Trump in court. If you can even find someone who has legal standing, which is a pretty big if, you'd then have to go through the court system potentially up to the Supreme Court which is where one of two things happen.\n\nOPTION ONE. Trump loses his case and won't be able to issue leases from Presidentially protected lands going forward. The leases issued for the lands in question prior to the judgement will most likely remain since the government engaged in a contract with a third-party. It is not the third-party's fault the government broke their own protocol. They'd either keep their contract or would be eligible for damages. Most likely they'd just keep the lease.. the same as the \"DREAMers\" who were given benefits from Obama illegally until the courts shut it down. They got to keep their benefits, the courts just stopped Obama from continuing to violate the law further. Obama and Democrats knew that would happen which is why they overstaffed those agencies and had a huge push to get as many signed up as possible before the courts shut them down. And then even after the first court order they continued anyway until they were threatened with criminal action if they continued. They claimed it was a \"mistake\" that they continued anyway.\n\nAnywho, if the courts shut down Trump on this the Democrats would have now just set a legal precedent that a new President cannot undo a legal Executive Order from a previous president unless the law EXPLICITLY states they have the authority to change their mind. The vast majority of our laws are not set up this way. This means Trump's presidential legacy would be permanent < something I can't imagine anybody wants > and this land would likely continue to be drilled on anyway since the permits were provided. Very short sighted on their part.\n\nOPTION TWO. Trump wins and can do whatever he wants as he has done anyway, only now Obama and Democrats suffer another demoralizing political defeat.\n\nAlso, there's nothing stopping Canada from drilling in their coastal waters and taking out the oil from their land. The oil reserves breach the lands of both countries and can be drained from either side. So basically, Canada reserves the right to drill and take the oil themselves anyway. Long story short, this really doesn't matter all that much unless it gets to a point where the courts decide a new President can't overrule a previous President unless the law explicitly states they have said right to do so.\n\nThis whole thing is also very hypocritical coming from a President who has made statements that he didn't have the authority to do certain things and then says when Congress doesn't pass the laws he wants or doesn't move fast enough he intentionally violates the law/constitution to pass a \"new law\" via executive order. Such as the \"DREAM Act\" or making recess appointments when Congress wasn't in recess. He has had more unanimous Supreme Court decisions against him and his executive power grabs than any President in my lifetime and his taunt to his political opponents has always been \"So sue me.\" Now that he is leaving office he is saying every decision he makes is for all eternity and nobody can possibly ever overrule it.",
"The president cannot create \"permanent *legislation*.\" Only Congress can create laws. The president can, however, issue Executive Orders which may or may not have the apparent effect of a law, in some circumstances. But issuing said Executive Orders does not mean they will necessarily be carried out. A good example would be President Obama's Executive Order in 2009 closing the Detainee Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. While he had the authority to issue such an order, as president he lacked the power to create the funding needed to implement it. Only Congress could do that, and they refused. As a result, here we are, 8 years later, and Camp Delta is still in operation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1er3kx | what would happen to a person standing smack dab in the middle of a tornado? | I get that tornadoes form due to bodies of air with different temperatures, thus creating pressure differences, and therefore winds.
But let's say someone was standing in a small soccer field in a residential area and by chance the eye of the tornado passes over them. Would the person be in danger of actually getting picked up and carried some distance by these winds? Or would flying debris be the only risk?
Basically, what risk do tornadoes pose to someone besides the obvious risks of collapsing buildings? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1er3kx/eli5what_would_happen_to_a_person_standing_smack/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca2wx55",
"ca2wyoe"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Imagine a tornado as a giant vacuum cleaner from the sky. Yes it would absolutely pick a person up and not only carry them some distance, but also eventually throw them free of the vortex and send them flying through the air even further. While flying through the vortex, your body would be constantly hit with the flying debris that makes a tornado visible (a tornado that formed over a completely paved area that was free of all dust, dirt, and anything else would be invisible to the naked eye). The force of the wind of a tornado has the ability to take a piece of straw from the ground and push it through a telephone pole without bending the straw (I've seen it), so you can imagine what all that dust, rocks, etc would do to a soft human body. ",
"A tornado can pick up a cow. In fact, it can uproot trains and foundations from houses. They absolutely can pick up a human being."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
7ndlkr | Hitler planned a mega genocide of Slavs called Operation Ost. Why did he view Slavs as racially inferior but not French, Czech, etcetera? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ndlkr/hitler_planned_a_mega_genocide_of_slavs_called/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds1ctll"
],
"score": [
54
],
"text": [
"The plan you are referring to is the so-called Generplan Ost (GPO) [which I discuss in-depth in this past answer](_URL_0_). As laid out in the linked answer, the GPO is a series of documents detailing German plans on how to \"Germanize\" various territories of Europe, including on how to get rid of the native population in a genocidal fashion in order to make way for German settlers of these territories, which did include not only Polish and Soviet territories but also Czech and Slovene territories.\n\nSimilar to the anti-Semitism of the Nazis having certain historical roots as described [here](_URL_1_), the anti-Slav racism of the Nazis that informed and shped these plans also goes back to earlier stereotypes and antipathies.\n\nSimilar to anti-Semitism in its form practiced by the Nazis being a result of seeing race as a driving factor in history while referencing earlier / already common stereotypes and prejudices, the Nazis' anti-Slavism also originated from the attempt to explain how the world works and what the state of the world is through the lens of racial theory. Already in the 19th century (and probably earlier but that falls a bit outside my area of expertise), views of the Russian people and by extension in the 19th century, the Slavic people had a certain negative bend in Germany. Russia and its people were seen as backward peasants that missed the entry into modernity because of their \"archaic\" mindset, something amplified by the fact that the Russian Tsars in the second half of the 19th century took a viewpoint that was not entirely dissimilar and which in fact spawned certain reform attempts from up top (trying to abolish the last remnants of the feudal system in Russia e.g.).\n\nFurthermore, German racist thinkers in the 19th century formulated ideas surrounding German Lebensraum (\"living space\") in the east. Having come late to being a colonial power, these thinkers formulated that rather than having African or Asian colonies, traditional German colonial space was Eastern Europe with its Russian and Polish inhabitants viewed akin to how French and British colonialists viewed the native populations of Africa: savage, wild, uncivilized and so forth. This line of thinking, the Nazis readily took over saw the Slavs of Eastern Europe as the colonial people of the Germans, ready to be oppressed, subservient and treated as slaves.\n\nAlso, a strong presence within the German mindset about the Slavic people were the Poles. Large swaths of Poland were at that time part of German/Prussian territory and within the social set-up of it, the Poles occupied a socially inferior position with German / Prussian junkers owning land and Poles toiling it for them. This further shaped the perception of the Slavic people being a people / \"race\" that was predestined to serve its German masters as subservient.\n\nThe other important ideological strand, we can not neglect when talking about Nazi ideological perception of Slavic people is the Austrian situation since Hitler as well as other important Nazis were Austrian and strongly influenced by the political and ideological situation in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy at the time . The Austro-Hungarian monarchy throughout the second half of the 19th century and leading into the 20th century experienced strong conflicts based on a newly emergent nationalistic sentiment in its Slavic (Czech), South Slav (Slovenian, Croatian, and from 1878 on Bosnian), Hungarian, and German population with conflicts emerging surrounding the use of language, the question of political representation, and the German-speaking dominance of the state administration.\n\nWhat really once again racketed up the level of the negative perception of Slavic people among the German-speakers of Austria and Germany was WWI. In the Austrian case, the pretty obvious negative stereotypes against the Serbs as well as against its own Slavic population that was suspected of harboring sympathies for the Serbian cause. The letter even lead to the Austrian government deporting hundreds of thousands of its own Slovenian and Croatian citizens away from their homes near the Southern border to cities like Linz and others and interning them there in camps. For the Germans, there was of course the old stereotypes of the backward and inferior Russians, which were heavily solidified by the experiences of German soldiers in Russia. Seeing the abject poverty many of the Russian subjects lived in while marching through their country gave a lot of people the impression that they were essentially a people living in filth and neglect.\n\nWith the Bolshevik revolution occurring in Russia in 1917, anti-Slavic sentiments among many of the racist early »völkisch« (racialist, viewing the world and history through the lens of a supposed race conflict) thinkers combined anti-Salvic and anti-Semitic sentiment with anti-Bolshevism. The outcome for them was the ideological formation that communism was the tool of »international Jewry« and the Slavs its expandable vanguard. This was highly influential for the Nazis. In essence, they saw the Jews as the puppet masters of international Bolshevism that sought to impose its rule through the »asiatic barabrity« and »eastern despotism« of the Slavic people. [This Nazi propaganda poster](_URL_2_) gives you an impression of that. The depicted Commissar displays features attributed to Jews as well as Russians at the time and the depiction of the massacre below serves to portray their barbarity and cruelty.\n\nMaria Todorova, a highly regarded scholar of South Eastern Europe, speaks in connection to the Western European perception of the Balkans of a phenomenon she dubs »Balkanism«. Balkanism is the othering (i.e. making the not like us in the discourse) of the inhabitants of the Balkans, seeing them as naturally »savage«, »violent«, »uncivilized«, »non-European«, »oriental« in a manner similar Edward Said described in his book on Orientalism for the Middle East. While the concept can not be transferred 1:1 on other Slavic peoples, it still rings true that in the Nazi -- and also wider German perception -- of the Slavs the latter were made out to be inferior, uncivilized, brutal, asiatic, and only fit as a »slave race« (all with a degree of variance, while Russians, Poles, and Serbs were seen as completely inferior, Croats and Bulgarians were due to political necessity displayed in a more positive light, and Slovenes even as »Germanizable«).\n\nThis also had very concrete and horrifying political consequences. When the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, the SS Einsatzgruppen immediately started to execute Polish intellectuals, clergy, and politicians by the thousands. The idea behind that was to deprive the Polish people from any future political leaders or intelligentsia so that they could serve as slaves to the German master race. In the Soviet Union, not only did the Nazis plan to let millions of people starve so that they Germans could be fed, in their policies in the occupied territories, they for example forbid any Soviet citizen to get education beyond learning the basics of how to read and write because in the Nazi imagination, they wouldn't need anymore than that. Among the POWs of the Soviet army, those soldiers with »asiatic« features were immediately executed together with Jews and political commissars. Serbia as a country was placed under Wehrmacht administration because the Serbs were perceived as especially violent and treacherous because -- according to the German Wehrmacht commander -- \"the Serbs has Ottoman and Slavic blood, the only language he understands is violence\". The whole set-up of occupational policies such as placing the Czechs, Poles etc. under German adminsitraiton, not allowing their own bureaucrats within the ranks of the administration in contradiction to for example Belgium was not only because of the political necessity but also because of the racist view of the Slavic people.\n\nIn short, the Nazis saw Slavs as inherently inferior, savage, and uncivilized people, who only understood the language of violence. This translated into brutally savage policies of killing unbelievably high number of Slavic people whether it was through direct violence, starvation, or neglect. In the Nazi vision of the New Order, they were to fill the role of colonial slave peoples that had to serve the German master race.\n\nSources:\n\n* Mark Mazower: Hitler's Empire.\n\n* Wendy Lower: Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in the Ukraine.\n\n* Maria Toderova: Imaging the Balkans.\n\n* Dieter Pohl: Die Herrschaft der Wehrmacht in der Sowjetunion.\n\n* Robert Gerwarth: The Central European Counter-Revolutionary: Paramilitary Violence in Germany, Austria, and Hungary after the Great War.\n\n* Helmut Schaller: Der Nationalsozialismus und die slawische Welt."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6eqm99/why_is_the_generalplan_ost_considered_different/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4b7lgq/how_did_hitler_get_the_idea_that_there_was_a/d16truy",
"http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/plinth/legacy_url/802/47470-x700.jpg?144813090... | ||
4vd1q3 | Einsteins Equations? | Hey, I recently watched Michio Kaku's video 'The Universe in a Nutshell' and I have a question about something he says.
Within the video, he refers to "Einstein's equations" and how, I paraphrase: "break down at the moment of the big bang and at a black hole". Does this, therefore, mean that these equations aren't necessarily right, as they do not explain everything about the universe? Or are they just the best we have right now? Alternatively, are the two events/places/things(?) in question just completely different to what Einstein's equations are for?
Thanks. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4vd1q3/einsteins_equations/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5xe66b"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > Does this, therefore, mean that these equations aren't necessarily right, as they do not explain everything about the universe? Or are they just the best we have right now?\n\nYes to both questions. A theory of quantum gravity becomes necessary to explain the physics of the early universe, and there isn't a complete theory right now. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2x5oig | Pontifex Maximus - pagan to pope | When Rome was Christianized - The popes took on the pagan title Pontifex Maximus. How accurate to say they also Christianized pagan temples, sites, former gods and goddesses replaced by pantheon of saints, Mary as replacement goddess, took on the papal hat from pagan priests etc. Was the Vatican and roman Catholicism really a continuation of the pagan Roman Empire? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2x5oig/pontifex_maximus_pagan_to_pope/ | {
"a_id": [
"cox90kh"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
" > When Rome was Christianized - The popes took on the pagan title Pontifex Maximus.\n\nnot really. Gratian gave it to the pope after he removed the altar of victory from Rome's senate building and some pagan senators protested pointing out Gratian was pontifix maximus causing Gratian to give up the title and Leo I only took up the title in 440 and by that time the roman empire was pretty fully christianized. \n\n > Christianized pagan temples, sites,\n\nno one claims they didn't. We have imperial edicts and historians pointing out specific instances of this. But that can easily be seen in a holy war type mindset where you are dismantling the old gods and their systems and not suffering as a result (as many ancient writers did)\n\n > former gods and goddesses replaced by pantheon of saints\n\nperhaps but this is a different type of move than the other things. It's a social science claim about co opting local traditions instead of discrete acts taken deliberately. \n\n > Was the Vatican and roman Catholicism really a continuation of the pagan Roman Empire?\n\ncompletely different question. the Roman Empire became Christianized in the dominate era (post crisis of 3rd century) and there are clear historical links from Christianity to the pagan world but it doesn't seem as crassly imitative as you seem to imply. What do you really mean by that statement? Your conflating multiple types of evidence which don't point in the same direction. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
26jyly | Why is the southern coast of Australia far more populated than the northern coast? | For example, Sydney has a population of almost 5 million while Darwin only has a population of 140,000, despite the cities existing in similar climates. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26jyly/why_is_the_southern_coast_of_australia_far_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"chruclu"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"This relies on two things; one being the more important.\n\nFirstly, the climate; while Darwin and Sydney do share similar environments, one (Sydney) is situated in the middle of a agricultural-ripe belt of Eastern seaboard greenry whilst Darwin is possibly the most inhabitable area of ground for hundreds of kilometres. It exists in a shell of un-arable land, while Sydney has hundreds of kilometres of it. \n\nThis may have not been obvious upon initial exploration, but certainly encouraged growth in later years. Also, in more modern history you'll find that the Katherine areas of Western Australia and the Northern Territory are nowadays being properly irrigated and converted into very rich farmland. So, historical precedents are being reversed, but the reasons for more population in the southern coast are also historical.\n\nWhen Australia was discovered by European explorers in 1770 it was at Botany Bay that Thomas Cook made his landing. This is the northern Sydney area, and also where Cook made a recommendation to the British government to setup a penal colony. So already, we have the colonising government prejudiced for this land. Perhaps things may have turned differently if Darwin or Cairns have been home to this recommendation, but as previously explained I doubt that.\n\nSo in the next eighteen years all plans for the operation of an Australian colony were done on the presumption of Botany Bay as the prime area. And so it was when the First Fleet landed in 1788. From then onwards, Botany Bay and Port Jackson (the nucleus of modern-day Sydney) acted as the capital of New South Wales - the only existing Colony at that time. It was thus the heart of receiving anything from the UK; including migrants. \n\nSo, in short; Sydney was the hub of all colonial British activity and was also more attractive for farmers hence more population where the food is. \n\nPerhaps a more attractive comparison is between the booms of Darwin and Melbourne, Sydney being a more obvious explanation. Both Darwin and Melbourne were founded within a few years of each, in the 1830s. By this time Sydney was a populous city of several hundred thousand. Both Darwin and Melbourne were free colonys - free of convicts. But by 1850 Melbourne was larger than Sydney, and by 1901 it was being seriously considered as the capital of the new Australian Commonwealth. Darwin, meanwhile, remained a backwater under the governance of the Brisbane-based Queensland State some thousands of kilometres away. This is because, in two words - gold rush. While Sydney was the hub of all British migration up until 1860 - Melbourne took over this role during the Gold Rush. Victoria housed some of the world's richest gold fields, and so the population trebled. \n\nDarwin, basically, stood no chance. It had no arable land, Sydney was a inital migratory hub while Melbourne was the succesor migration hub for the remainder of the century. By 1901 the majority of the population called these two states home. \n\nAs a point of interest, all these explain this lack of population but I would point to arable land as to being the strongest point. For while South-East Australia may have the largest population, and the Eastern Seaboard being the more dominant - the West and Tasmania both have superiority in numbers over the NT, hence them being States and Darwin just a Territory. This is due to their lushness and wealth of mining materials. Darwin just can't win out, except perhaps in its location only. \n\nI hope this all explains it from a proud Australian; as an Aussie another good answer would perhaps be, 'Because Darwin's a dump', but perhaps that isn't the most searching answer! (And untrue nowadays I hear.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
16ate9 | If I wear an antistatic wrist strap without connecting it to the ground, then generate some static electricity on myself, can I discharge the electricity by grounding it now, without getting shocked? | I'd like to move around freely, and only ground myself when I realize I have of a buildup of static electricity. Is this possible? Thanks! | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16ate9/if_i_wear_an_antistatic_wrist_strap_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7uffgt",
"c7ugulf"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Technically yes, but the idea of an anti static wristband is to dissipate the energy continuously, thus keeping yourself grounded and not collecting any charge. However, as long as you make sure to discharge yourself before and during working with whatever it is that you work with, you should be fine.\n\nEdit: Im an electrical engineer.",
"How do you know when you have accumulated a static charge? Unfortunately, as soon as you aren't grounded, your charge begins to accumulate. \n\nAn anti static wrist strap has a resistor built in to protect the user from high current discharge while it slowly discharges any static build up. This is why you never ever just wrap a wire around yourself. While you will not be shocked after a pause thanks to the slow drain, they are meant to be worn and grounded continuously.\n\nThe static buildup may destroy sensitive electronics if you allow periods of unprotected contact. Keep in mind, most components are robust enough that a strap isn't even necessary, but others can be damaged by static much lower than the levels that cause noticeable shock. \n\nIn other words, if you really need to be wearing a wrist strap for sensitive components, you should keep it grounded.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
49wgis | Did people in the pre-renaissance speculate about future technologies? if so what were their predictions? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49wgis/did_people_in_the_prerenaissance_speculate_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0vk64i"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You might be interested in some earlier posts on this subject:\n\n* [Before 1700, is there any literature with a definite setting in the future? What did they think the future would look like?] (_URL_0_)\n\n* [How did the Middle Ages envision the distant future?] (_URL_1_)\n\nBoth of those posts are limited to the western European intellectual/literary tradition. I would venture to say we don't see evidence of speculative extrapolation from present technology to future possibilities in medieval Arabic authors, either, although there is some [fantastic 'technology'](_URL_2_)) that appears in both traditions (just, not in the sense of \"predicting the future.\")"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vovzs/before_around_1700_where_there_any_books_or_plays/cxplabi",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qafud/how_did_people_in_the_middle_ages_view_the/cwdjejh",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/47nnqj/are_there_any_records... | ||
3wyhq6 | why do sand dunes have such sharp creases at the top? | A couple of days ago [this photo](_URL_0_) was [posted](_URL_1_), and I suddenly realized something: That's one sharp crease!
Now I can understand non-uniform hills or dunes forming due to the wind, but how do these sharp crases form and, more importanty, stay that way? I would imagine even the slightest breeze from the slightest non-aligned direction would cause it to erode and sink away into a more smoothed out dune. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wyhq6/eli5_why_do_sand_dunes_have_such_sharp_creases_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxzz2ea"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Sand, gravel, and other particle materials have a natural *angle of repose* -- the slope at which (or below which) a pile of that material will be stable.\n\nIf you dump that material from a tube or conveyor, it will make a pile at exactly that angle as you can see [here.](_URL_0_) it has a sharp point.\n\nThe wind doesn't drop things from a single point, it pushes along a wide area, so what you get is a wide point -- the shape of a crease."
]
} | [] | [
"https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5753/20091750824_1be544ac91_o.jpg",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/EarthPorn/comments/3wn6bt/out_in_the_desert_in_western_namibia_19201280/"
] | [
[
"http://thumb101.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/175768/175768,1223815629,3/stock-photo-crushed-stone-pouring-off-an-elevated-conveyor-onto-a-large-pile-18761950.jpg"
]
] | |
1lm2c2 | Blinding as Punishment Historically | I'm listening to the 12 Byzantine Rulers podcast (tells the stories of the reigns of 12 particular rulers of Byzantium) and time and time again people are blinded in punishment. I can kind of understand losing a hand or foot (can no longer wield a sword or run away) - but would gouging out a person's eyes be the same as cutting out a tongue or off a nose (ie, for humiliation vis disfigurement) or was there some other meaning to blinding? Why was this done seemingly so often? Also, did many other nations beside Byzantium preform this practice?
Tldr: What's with all the blinding (in the history of the Byzantine Empire)?
(Sorry if it's been asked before/is too many questions) | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lm2c2/blinding_as_punishment_historically/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc0o8d2",
"cc0oczn",
"cc0tj3r"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Blinding someone means that you avoid committing murder, which is a good thing for your immortal soul. But it pretty much guarantees that the person who's been blinded can no longer be a serious contender for power. Those two things together make a nice way to deal with cousins and nephews and such who might be contenders for the throne.\n\nIn medieval Russia, by comparison, a standard thing to do was force someone to become a monk or a nun. Those vows, even if taken under duress, were considered irrevocable, and took people out of the running for the throne.",
"The Byzantines did seem to like blinding a fair amount, but they did engage in a [couple of other kinds of \"political mutilation\"](_URL_0_) too. As far as I'm aware, much of the idea here is religious. The laws of Leviticus specified that priests had to be \"unblemished,\" lacking big flaws or disfigurements. This was a sort of mirror of the requirements for sacrifices to God as well, in ancient Judaism as in most other religions: you can't go burning a nasty-looking bull as a present for divine spirits. \n\nAs the Byzantines saw the Emperor as one of God's chief servants on earth, mutilating somebody would also serve to substantially disqualify him from that \"priestly\" office. This is more of a guess, but it would also seem that blinding, as opposed to other forms of mutilation, would render a person quite uniquely helpless, never really able to be an independent leader capable of commanding others, but rather, always relying on constant, shaming assistance. While we might imagine, say, cutting off someone's legs would do the same, consider that this would be much more difficult to do a thousand years ago while keeping the person alive, which is part of the point.",
"As a side node I would recommend you getting the actually book on _URL_0_. it is a really good and interesting work and he get into more detail on lots of different topic, blinding among others."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_mutilation_in_Byzantine_culture"
],
[
"http://www.audible.com/"
]
] | |
2slzj2 | how are we able to see so far out into what is the "observable universe?" | Even with our profound modern technology, the sheer scale of the universe is so massive it's hard to understand how we can even observe it to map it in the first place. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2slzj2/eli5_how_are_we_able_to_see_so_far_out_into_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnqqjf2",
"cnqqpsj",
"cnqwai7"
],
"score": [
32,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The observable universe has nothing to do with our current technological capabilities. We see by detecting light that bounces off whatever were looking at. The observable universe is what we are capable of viewing based on this principle. As light takes time to travel we cannot see light that has not yet reached us. The border between light that can reach us and light that can not yet reach us marks the edge of the observable universe.\n\nThis is also complicated by the fact that the universe is expanding, which basically means that the observable universe is also expanding and is therefore not constant.\n\n Think of it this way. if I'm holding a gun and point it at you and shoot you square in the face, the bullet would represent light and I would represent the object emitting/reflecting said light towards you. This would be an example of a constant universe. \n\nHowever our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. Now imagine you put me on a train moving away from you faster than the bullet is travelling towards you. The bullet would never reach you. \n\nHowever this is further complicated by the fact that as the universe expands away from us, we also expand towards it. So now imagine you're a very fast runner and as I'm on the train I try to shoot you in the face, now imagine you begin running towards the bullet. Eventually you would reach the bullet and thus have been shot square in the face. \n\nHope this helps.",
"Very strong telescopes, and a long time.\n\nLight doesn't just die out--as long as it doesn't hit anything and get scattered, light just keeps going. The further you are from something, the more spread out the light gets, so the harder it is to see. But as long as there's *some* light, it's not impossible.\n\nAnd space is just that--space. There's a lot of matter out there, but most of it is collected in galaxies and stars, so as long as you're not looking right into our own galaxy, you can see light that's traveled for billions of years without hitting anything.\n\nOf course, this light is extremely faint, so we need big telescopes to collect as much of it as possible. And to do that, we also take very long exposures. The [Hubble Deep Field](_URL_0_) was taken over the course of ten days, with over 300 separate images. This lets us collect enough light to make some of the most distant images we've ever seen.",
"The best answer I can come up with is: by definition. What makes this part of the universe 'observable' is precisely that we can observe it.\n\nGiven that *you* look at things, you would assume that this is an active thing, but observation devices (eyes, telescopes,...) are actually just capturing light which has been emitted (or reflected) by the observed object. New technology does not allow us to look further, but to look with more accuracy. Think of it as a short-sighted person: they can see as far as someone else, but beyond a certain point, all they see is an indistinct blur. This is pretty much the same thing here: light from distant galaxy clusters have always hit our naked eyes, but the resolution of our eyes (and the *many* interferences in they way) doesn't let us discern it as spatial super telescope could.\n\nAs such, the observable universe hasn't changed, we are just able to see it clearer.\n\nHowever, as time passes, the light from distant objects finally manages to reach us, so technically, it gets bigger and bigger at exactly the speed of light. Add to that the fact that the universe is expanding, and the observable universe *does* change, but although this adds many complications, it does not radically changes the core of the problem (and given the ridiculous vastness of space, doesn't make a big difference on short timeframes, such as since humanity has walked this earth).\n\nStars emit light in all directions, and the light continues its course in straight line for ever. If the light had the time to travel between its source and earth since it appeared, it can be observed, and is therefore in the observable universe.\n\nExoplanets are very hard to see because they don't emit light and simply reflect a tiny bit of it, so we cannot observe them from earth in the current state of technology. This tiny amount of light *does* reach us however, so they are part of the observable universe; with enough technology, we might one day be able to discern it. However, a star 10^100 light years away is too far, and *cannot* physically be observed, even with the biggest telescope of all time: its light has simply never reached us. It's outside the observable universe.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#mediaviewer/File:HubbleDeepField.800px.jpg"
],
[]
] | |
cc1fqz | what’s the difference between different sound file extensions like .mp3 vs. .wav? is there any cost to converting from one to another? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cc1fqz/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_different_sound/ | {
"a_id": [
"etjs8sf",
"etjs9w4",
"etjsjn0",
"etjss4v",
"etk5ygs"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The main difference is the type of compression. Wavs are typically uncompressed, so they have much larger filesizes than MP3s of the same length. \n\nMP3s use lossy compression. That means the file size is much smaller, but it loses a bit of quality. However much of the data that's thrown away is supposedly imperctible to humans anyway, so MP3s are fine for the casual listener.\n\nThere are other formats like FLAC which use lossless compression. That means the file size is smaller than an uncompressed wav, but no data is thrown away, it's just represented in a more compact form.\n\nSo there is a cost from converting to a lossy format, or from one lossy format to another. Every time you do the conversion you lose some quality, so after a few conversions it will sound pretty bad.",
"WAV is lossless, which is its main advantage. It doesn't remove anything from the file. But because of this it's bigger.\n\nMP3 is lossy. It cuts some frequencies and then compresses the file some more. This results in smaller size, but obviously loss in quality.\n\nIf you covert WAV to MP3 you will lose some data. If you convert MP3 to WAV you won't change that much.",
"In some cases, the extensions indicate the container types and not necessarily what is in them. Most times, like in the example case, the extension indicates the types of CODEC (file compression) was used to reduce the audio. The [MP3 uses MPEG1 (or 2) Audio Level 3](_URL_1_) but the [WAV is a container type that could house different audio types](_URL_0_). A good playback app will just read the header to determine what's inside.\n\nTheoretically, you could have MP3 compressed audio in a WAV file.\n\nThat said, converting from one CODEC to the other is bad, m'kay. This is because during the compression phase, a good portion of the original data was thrown away, never to return. And each time you run a compressed audio file through a CODEC--even the same CODEC--you will lose additional data and the quality will be degraded [even more].",
"WAV files are \"raw\" files, meaning they have not been compressed to save space. They are usually an accurate representation of whatever sound is in that file (a song, someone talking, a bird, etc). They might take up 10 megabytes or more of space for each minute of audio.\n\nMP3 is not a raw format, but a compressed one. MP3 takes whatever audio is in the source (could be a WAV, or a CD, or recording music at a concert) and using various formulas, \"throws away\" parts of the audio in order to save space. This is usually high frequencies that humans cannot hear as easily, but other \"compressed\" formats (M4A, WMA, etc) might have different formulas as well. A medium-quality MP3 might take 1 megabyte of space for each minute of audio.\n\nGoing from one file type to another is called \"transcoding\". You can make MP3s out of WAV files by getting rid of some of the audio information. You could make a WAV out of an MP3, but you would then have a \"raw\" copy of a file that has missing information.",
"A file extension is just metadata for it's file which happens to be present in the filename; It isn't necessary to be read properly. If your computer knows what codec or encryption technique (with appropriate keys) was used, the extension means essentially nothing. You ever notice how you can read .txt and .html files the same?\n\n\nAnyway - yes, you can convert from one codec to the other; WAV is lossless as everyone has already explained in these comments. I have tried to find a table online which shows you which ones you can convert to and from without loss but I was unable to. Here's my one:\n\n\n\nCONVERTING TO:\n\nMP3, WMA, AAC, OGG \n\n\nWill always lose quality. \n\n\n\nCONVERTING TO:\n\n\nFLAC, ALAC, AIFF, WAV\n\n\nWill never lose quality.\n\n\n\nQUIRKS:\n\n\n\n.WAV will clip your file if you are trying to make it 4gb or bigger - it uses a 32 bit int for it's header. \n\n\n\n\nOn the off chance that, by \"cost\", you mean monetary - no; free converters exist from this to that no matter what."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
3125dq | Is it strictly impossible for two human beings to have the exact same genetic code or is it just astronomically improbable? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3125dq/is_it_strictly_impossible_for_two_human_beings_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpxvj16",
"cpy2eqa",
"cpy98hi",
"cpya9km",
"cpyb7i1",
"cpyc2c5",
"cpyct32",
"cpyd6au",
"cpye3ay",
"cpye8gh",
"cpyeoxj",
"cpyfc73",
"cpyg04q",
"cpygacv",
"cpylan5",
"cpyngn6",
"cpyql1u"
],
"score": [
1963,
511,
40,
2,
3,
18,
108,
2,
4,
6,
4,
5,
3,
4,
4,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Ignoring the existence of identical twins who do have the same genetic code (minus any somatic mutations that happened during their lives) technically it's possible, but will never happen because the odds are so high. \n\nIf it did happen it would be more likely in a very inbred family so there's little genetic variation to start. ",
"There's nothing impossible about it. The Universe doesn't keep track of every single person's genetics and magically edit each new baby's DNA just to make sure they don't match an existing person.\n\nIt is extremely unlikely, though. Even with identical twins, the mutation rate is estimated to be high enough that there is usually some piece of the twins' genomes that doesn't precisely match up.",
"Impossible? No. Astronomically improbable? Absolutely, especially if you mean by pure chance alone. \nAs most of you probably know, humans reproduce sexually, meaning that two individuals donate half of their genetic material, which then combines to make the genome of their offspring. If the genome could be perfectly conserved, then all individuals would have the exact same genetic code since it would be the same from each donor. However, genes are highly susceptible to mutation and therefore change readily, providing the variation necessary for evolution to occur. When mutations inevitably occurs in a gamete, that sequence change is passed on to the offspring and conserved in their DNA. So, if you think about every human as being a descendent of a common ancestral line, then the farther away you move from that common ancestor, the more likely you are to see variations in two individuals DNA sequences. This is the case since the location of a mutation is considered to be more or less random and can occur at just about any loci in the ~3 billion base pairs in the human genome. Granted, many genes are evolutionarily highly conserved, since these sequences code for products that are essential to life. Even still, the number of mutations that can occur in non-conserved regions is extremely large. So, the likely hood of the same changes occurring at the same loci in two independent individuals is astronomically low.\n\nYet, this still does not address the reality that humans reproduce sexually. This fact makes the probability of two individuals having an identical genome even lower, since both individuals would need to have parents with almost identical genomes in order to have the same gene pool to begin with. So, it has somewhat of a compounding effect when considering that you would need two sets of almost identical pairs to make one identical pair. \n\nThis is further convoluted by recombination and crossing over. During mitosis (cell division in preparation for reproduction) the two homologous chromosomes of each parent randomly exchange equivalent sequences to make a genetic combination different than that of their somatic cells. This process, crossing over, is an excellent mechanism from an evolutionary standpoint, but would make it nearly impossible to have naturally occurring genetic clones even if they share the same gene pool. This, in addition to independent assortment and some other things, is the reasoning behind why siblings are not exactly the same. \n\nThus, the existence of two human beings with the same exact genetic code is not limited by only the gene pool available. Even with the exact same DNA donors, it would be equivocal to winning the jackpot of a lottery that uses hundreds of thousands of numbers in sequence. ",
"Yes to previous answers, but also, it kind of depends on how you define \"impossible\". You were born with your exact genetic code, you were possible. One could certainly say that based on the fact that one person was born with a particular genetic makeup, it could happen again and in terms of probability all you have left to argue about is the size of the number. \n\nBut in addition to being physically possible (and therefore having some infinitesimally small but finite probability), there has to be a path from from where we are today to the outcome you want to talk about. This is less obvious. About the closest two people can get genetically is identical twins and we know now that this isn't exact (both in the coding sequences themselves and in the epigenetics). What doesn't seem to happen is organisms becoming more similar in subsequent generations. In fact when we try to make this happen in animals through deliberate in-breeding they develop problems that weren't there in previous generations. This is because while mutations are somewhat random, evolutionary pressures are definitely not random. \n\nSo I would tend to say that without using cloning technology that is way more accurate than what we have available today, I don't see a biologically plausible path from the genetic makeups of people currently living today to producing an exact duplicate person. So I would lean closer to functionally impossible than improbable.",
"It is astronomically improbable to the degree that you can say that it is strictly impossible.\n\nIt is effectively impossible for you to have the same genetic code *within your own body*, and that is starting from one single \"homogeneous\" cell. There is absolutely no chance that two different people can spontaneous develop matching mutations.",
"There are an estimated 3.2 billion base pairs in each human genome. Each of the bases pairs\ncan be either guanine,cytosine, adenine or thymine. Humans are estimated to share 99.9% of\ngenetic material. Therefore 3,200,000 of base pairs can be estimated to vary between individuals.\n\nThere are therefore about 4^3,200,000 genome combinations in question.\n\nThis number is astronomically ginormous.\n\nA number so big it is almost 2 million digits long. That is one huge fucking number.\n\nThere are only approximately 10^82 atoms in the universe, think how huge the universe is. That number is only about 83 digits long.\n\n4^3,200,000 is such a huge number that I am very sure that it wont happen by random chance, the margin is so imperceivably slim that it can be effectively ruled out.\n\nThis is only an estimate though using very vague information. In reality I'd imagine the number would be considerably lower than this due to each base pair not being completely random (i.e. [base pairs usually work in pairs of 3 called codons](_URL_1_), [the existence of repeated sequences](_URL_0_) and factors such as that). How much lower the true number is is a very difficult question to answer and is truly beyond my knowledge. This all demonstrates just how many elements are at play when considering an entire genome.\n\nThe only way you will get 2 individuals with identical genomes is with genetic twins or clones. There is just too much mixing up in the genome during processes such as, meiosis and gamete fusion otherwise.\n\nThe sequence of events which occur when a genome is created suggests that nature is trying to avoid identical copies of the same genome being produced.\n\nIf nature wants identical copies there are ways to achieve that such as binary fission in bacteria and budding in plants.\n\nEDIT: Also as drpeterfoster explained DNA replication errors occur during normal cell division which means even cells within the same individual will be non-identical.",
"Nearly all of commenters I've seen on this thread are ignoring replication error. Even in monozygotic (maternal, identical) twins, replication error pretty much guarantees that no two humans will have EXACTLY the same genomic sequence. You've got over 3 billion base pairs, and the \"commonly held\" rate of replicative mutation in mammals (good like finding an authoritative reference) is 10^-7 to 10^-9...ish per base. That means every time a cell divides, it is likely picking up a few to a few hundred brand-new mutations. Every time it divides.\n\nThen remember that you are the sum collection of billions of cells, each of which has at least a couple mutations that are different from pretty much every other cell. ...No, no two humans will ever have the same genetic code.\n\nTLDR: The AVERAGE genomic sequence of monozygotic twins will be ALMOST the same, but never exactly the same... replication error will take care of that. Statistically it is possible, but in the lifespan of the human species, it will \"never\" happen.\n",
"I remember hearing in a lecture that the odds of having a genetic match is close to 17 trillion to one. Over just 1 billion UK courts like to simplify the matter so any higher than a billion to one chance simply becomes, wait for it, a billion to one chance so \"everyone understands the odds\". ",
"Identical twin embryos start with relatively high chance of having the same identical genome, especially if the egg splits at single cell stage. However even at that stage chance is very low.\n\nAt each round of cell division, variations to the genome occur either from inherent instability of the chemistry of DNA, errors in the replication and division process, or from disruption by mutagen chemical from the environment or from cosmic rays. As the number of cells and therefore quantity of copies of the genetic code rise so too does the rate of variation within that individual.\n\nAs a result, in each *individual* the genetic code is not identical; different tissues arising from different cell lines can have different codes. If you exclude mutagens and cosmic rays, and just consider the base rate of DNA corruption and the quantity of DNA in the human body, it is strictly (i.e. astronomically beyond astronomically) impossible for two human beings to be genetically identical.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n\n",
"It is clearly improbable, but possible. \n\nYou know the universe produced the organism once, that means it can almost certainly do it again given enough time. \n\nIn actual practice the issue is that planets and ecosystems don't just stand still while time passes by and organisms change and evolve, so the time required for that chance to happen makes it near impossible.\n\nGiven the universe was infinitely large and expands forever, it's not just possible, it's certain to happen over and over again. It depends a lot on the terms in the question and yours are not very specific.",
"Since most of the DNA strand is junk, non-coding DNA, a better question might be \"is it impossible for two human beings to have the exact same genetic code at the loci of interest that produce our phenotypes.\" This lowers the improbability of this event by many orders of magnitude. On geological time scales, the smallest probability becomes ever more likely -- evolution is evidence of this fact. I would say it is astronomically improbable for the first phrasing of the question. For my variant, I'd say it is highly improbable but, given enough time, hardly impossible. ",
"I'll let others calculate the chances of an exact collision, but I'd like to point out that with DNA profiling (the DNA testing usually done for forensics) the chances of a collision are actually really high. We don't really know how high, because the government does not want to share how many collisions there are in it's database.\n\nOf course if you pick any two random people, the chances they happen to have the same DNA profile is really low. If you pick one random person and want to know the probability that someone else on earth has the exact same profile, the chances are pretty high (they might even be closer to 1 than to 0). If you ask, whether any two people on earth have the same DNA profile, then, yes, there are known collisions. (If these vastly different probabilities don't make sense to you, read up on the Birthday paradox.)\n\n[This page](_URL_1_) has a fairly good explanation mixed in with a bunch of other problems with DNA testing. I had read a better article that was just on the probability of exact matches, but I don't remember it's title or author and am having trouble finding it.\n\n[Wikipedia](_URL_0_) goes into some details on DNA profiling too.\n\nBut I'm guessing you actually wanted the chances of an exact DNA sequence match, rather than an exact DNA profile match.",
"A fitting analogy would be this - Imagine I take 100 decks of cards and arrange them however I want. I hand them to someone else. They're allowed to change the order of five decks, and hand them to another person, who is allowed to do the same, and so on, and so on.\n\nSay I do that, and pass it through 100 generations, and you do it, and pas it through 100 generations - what do you think the chances are that after that, we'll have two stacks of cards in the same order?\n\nThere's some inaccuracy with how it works, but you get the point.",
"Its possible but insanely unlikely, like winning the lottery 100 times. ",
"Of the 3,095,677,412 base pairs, there are 55,757,749 different variations. So the odds that a person would have exactly the same combination of variations is 1/55,757,749! , which is about 1 / 10^(10^8.610342058316798) (that's a 1 with nearly 1,400,000 zeros after it). \n\n \nThe estimate is that 107,602,707,791 people have ever been born. Assuming each has an equal chance of matching another, we'd have a grand total of : \n \n107,602,707,791 / 10^(10^8.610342058316798) odds of getting a match. You would have a much better chance off picking the same grain of sand off the earth that I did then you would have finding Archimedes' naturally occurring, non-twin, genetic duplicate. \n \ndata from _URL_0_ and _URL_1_",
"Since the nature of this is comparing populations to each other, do odds similar to the \"Birthday Math Trick\" come into play here?\n\nThe odds aren't whether two people are genetically identical.\n\nIt is the odds of 9 billion people all having 100% unique DNA compared to one another.",
"Theoretically, if we assume the multi-verse theory to be correct and the universe to be infinitely big, then there are infinite genetic copies of you in existence somewhere/sometime. \nHowever, the likelihood of you (or anyone on earth for that matter) seeing a genetic copy of yourself is practically 0. Even twins have numerous genetic mutations that set each other apart. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_sequence_%28DNA%29",
"http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Nucleic/TheCode2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7566/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling",
"http:/... | ||
3aw6y1 | Why, when talking about separating hydrogen from oxygen in water, do we only talk about burning the hydrogen as fuel? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3aw6y1/why_when_talking_about_separating_hydrogen_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"csgvf7m",
"csgvixf",
"csgxzei"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the air is about 21% molecular oxygen. There is a reason most combustion engines don't require oxidants outside an air intake.",
"This isn't the only way. Fuel cells react the hydrogen with oxygen directly to form water, producing electricity in the process. The reason this isn't as common as combustion is because it's much more difficult and expensive so it's limited to specialist uses.",
"Because oxygen is far more abundant and *cheaper* and easy to store and transport and safer than hydrogen. It's the same reason why in silver mines we talk about silver even though Pb is far more abundant in the ore."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
23xq14 | what is going on in someone's mind when they turn into an angry drunk? | I've seen the nicest people turn into absolute monsters. What is going on when that happens? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23xq14/eli5_what_is_going_on_in_someones_mind_when_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch1ljv0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The best explanation I've heard: Alcohol lowers your inhibition but can also lower your ability to regulate your feelings. Basically a feeling that might otherwise be quelled by the prefrontal cortex (that front bit of your brain) is left unchecked.\n\n [link!](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labile_mood"
]
] | |
5lt0lr | Did the American or Soviet governments have plans to respond to total defeat in WWII? | I have been watching The Man in the High Castle, a show about a postwar occupation of the USA by the Axis. While an Axis victory to this extent is of course beyond ludicrous, it made me wonder about worst-case planning by the Allies.
The Soviets, in my understanding, are not likely to have surrendered regardless of circumstance. The entrenched ideological differences, plus Nazi policies of extermination, plus the centralization around Stalin leads me to believe that they would never have surrendered, but would have fought until serious military resistance was impossible. Did they have plans for that eventuality and after?
Did the Americans have any similar plans in the event of a total defeat? Did the USA make plans for a negotiated peace in the face of defeat, say in the event of the fall of the USSR and/or the UK? Did the government have any contingency plans to respond to occupation? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5lt0lr/did_the_american_or_soviet_governments_have_plans/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbzam6e"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I'd also like to further the question to Britain, as operation Sea Lion made Nazi occupation of the United Kingdom seem like a possibility."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4408bv | How exactly was a Halberd or Pole-Arm Style weapon used in formation and individually? | Was a Spearing method or a Chopping method preferred for example? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4408bv/how_exactly_was_a_halberd_or_polearm_style_weapon/ | {
"a_id": [
"czmih6w",
"czmpzm4"
],
"score": [
43,
15
],
"text": [
"Thrusting and striking were both used. Which one was preferred would depend on the design of the weapon (overall length of the weapon and shape of the head) and the particular situation. \n\nHistorical depictions and combat manuals basically show two ways to wield pole weapons. One way is to grip it toward the butt end. You get a lot of range this way. Thrusting with this grip is very nimble if the head of the weapon is light. Strikes will be slower with a heavy head but they hit insanely hard. \n\nThe other way is to hold it toward the middle of the staff. Less reach, but you can quickly attack with both ends. You also have more leverage for takedowns. \n\nNow if the head has protusions, like a halberd does, you can use those to hook or push. The combat manuals show hooking the ankles and neck especially. They also show using the protrusion to push into the opponents weapon and basically catching it. \n\nAll this is just scratching the surface, but I hope it helps. ",
"We have dozens of manuals from contemporary fencers like Fiore Dei Liberi and Hans Talhoffer that tell us more or less exactly how they were used by individuals, and more rarely in groups. This is only for a period of time spanning a few hundred years, however. Manuals from before the year 1100 and outside of Europe are beyond my knowledge.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere are also instructions for several different contexts, such as on a horse, in armor, out of armor, against a sword, etc. etc. These manuals were written across several hundred years of time, so it's interesting to see what changes and what does not.\n\nFiore structures his polearm writings as a late stage in a sequential progression of competency in arms. He starts with unarmed, then moves on to daggers, then swords, then axe/halberds and spears, and so on. All the while he draws from commonly held guards, grips, attacks, and footwork.\n\n > I wait for you without moving in Porta di Ferro, ready to grapple with all of my skill. And this guard can be applied not only in the art of grappling, but also in the art of the Lanza [Spear], the Azza [Poleaxe], the Spada [Sword], and the Daga [Dagger]. -Fiore's grappling\n\n_URL_3_\n\nCuts and thrusts were both used in equal measure as appropriate for what you plan to do to your opponent and what you think they might try to do to you. Fiore structures his manual in a building cycle of attacks and defenses. Each section begins with a group of Masters in golden crowns who each demonstrate a guard. A master called \"Remedio\" (remedy) shows a defensive technique against some basic attack, and then student figures wearing golden garters on their legs demonstrate different variations on the defensive technique. After the student figures there is typically a master called \"Contrario\" (counter), wearing both crown and garter, who demonstrates how to counter the techniques demonstrated by the master and the students. Sometimes there's another figure who is used to demonstrate even more counters to those. There's a strong understanding of how the weapons interact as physical objects and how to exploit the body mechanics of not only your opponent but also yourself. Fencing masters loved to play with geometry, as well, since it is so important for understanding how weapons and bodies move through 3D space. Later era fencing treatises make an art of it.\n\n_URL_2_\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Staff_Weapons",
"http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Pole_Weapons",
"http://i.imgur.com/qXqnHUj.gif",
"http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi"
]
] | |
1zmwvr | When you wave your hand in front of a CRT screen, you perceive multiple images of your fingers. What causes this effect? | I would like to know what causes this strange effect to happen and why it only seems to occur with cathode-ray tubes and not with other light sources like a window in daylight or an LCD screen. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zmwvr/when_you_wave_your_hand_in_front_of_a_crt_screen/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfvacxb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"CRT screens are not always on. they refresh from top to bottom at a frequency.\n\nBecause of this, it is like a strobe light. an example of this is that car wheels seem to go forward at low speeds, but as a car speeds up, the wheels appear to slow down again and actually spin backwards. this is because your eyes see the image of the wheel every X seconds.\n\nIf you wave your hand in front of a CRT screen, it will appear skewed and a number of hands will appear. this is because your brain sees your hand every Y number of microseconds in many positions, and assumes that there are multiple hands in front of you.\n\nYou can't get this effect if you move your hand slowly, only if you wave your hand fast.\n\nlook at strobe light effects online. a good example of your exact problem is when a camera films a CRT screen, because they both have discrete refresh rates and the two interact in a similar (but not the same) way to how your brain/eyes react to a CRT."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
35fcgo | Would hydrophobic tires be better at braking in wet conditions? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/35fcgo/would_hydrophobic_tires_be_better_at_braking_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr5idyr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Tires are fairly hydrophobic anyway, but the key reason that wet conditions are bad for tires is hydroplaning. Water gets between the tire and the road, and prevents the tire from adhering to the asphalt. There is actually some (sort-of) chemical bonding that occurs, and water interferes with the bonds, reducing traction. You improve wet performance by what is called siping- very narrow grooves in the tire that allow water to be pushed out and the tire to contact the road surface."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1um28z | how does my dog know that we are getting close to somewhere familiar while we are in the car and he is asleep? | On the way to familiar places (home, work, grandmother's house, and my cousin's house who have a dog), my dog wakes up while he's sleeping in the car and eagerly stands against the window. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1um28z/eli5_how_does_my_dog_know_that_we_are_getting/ | {
"a_id": [
"cejghs2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely sense of smell. Dog's noses are incredibly more sensitive than ours, and a lot more of their brains goes to processing odors.\n\nTheir sleeping brain detects a familiar scent, and that's enough to wake them up and make them investigate. And it doesn't matter whether the windows are up, because cars are not air-tight and enough scent still gets in for the dog to be able to detect it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
23l008 | How could that 16-year old have possibly survived stowing away in the wheel-well of a that 35,000 ft altitude California to Hawaii flight? 5 hours of no pressurization, no heat, low oxygen; how did he not die? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/23l008/how_could_that_16year_old_have_possibly_survived/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgy22qf",
"cgy2bw6",
"cgy2co0",
"cgy2def"
],
"score": [
38,
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"It seems highly unlikely. The symptoms of hypoxia get increasingly severe above 10 000-18 000 feet. As a member of an Air Crew, I can tell you that in a low oxygen environment, you start becomming lightheaded and unable to properly function within minutes, if not seconds. We are tested annually, and in less than a minute, I'm barely able to operate an iPad. Also, at cruising altitude for this type of aircraft (roughly 34000-36000) the temp drop to -50C, which also makes things fucky. \n\nI don't know, but seems unlikely. ",
"He probably went into a state of hypothermia. Where the bodies major functions slow way down. and breathing and heart rate are next to nothing, but still enough that your not dead yet.\n\nThat being said, they said he survived. But they have not said wether or not the kids a vegetable. Not that he was very smart before the plane ride. I highly doubt the body can survive without any consequence, or long term damage, from this kind of exposure. ",
"_URL_0_\n\n| The cruise altitudes of these flights were in the 35,000 foot region with stratospheric temperatures at the (-) 65F range. Despite the lack of pressurization, or personal O2 equipment, the presence of warm hydraulic lines in the wheel-well and the initially warm tires provided significant heat. The stable climb of the aircraft enabled hypoxia to lead to gradual unconsciousness. As the wheel-well environment slowly cooled, hypothermia accompanies the deep hypoxia, preserving nervous system viability. With descent, and warming, along with increasing atmospheric oxygen pressure, hypoxia and hypothermia slowly resolved. At the ramp, with individuals were found in a semi-conscious state, and, upon treatment, recovered. Approximately a dozen copycat attempts have been made in 1993 with fatalities.",
"I suspect it had to do with the extreme cold at 38K; cold inhibits bodily functions which reduces the amount of oxygen you need.\n\nIf a pilot can survive being half out a cockpit window at cruising altitude and speed, then sure this story is certainly possible. I also read (source lacking) that 75% of wheel stowaways die.\n\nSource for pilot reference: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/aeromedical/aircraftaccident/wheelwell/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390"
]
] | ||
6rwhj9 | how does putting isopropyl alcohol in your ear work to help clean it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rwhj9/eli5_how_does_putting_isopropyl_alcohol_in_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl8azco"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It dissolves the ear way better than water. OTOH, there are some recommendations that you not do this unless the was has formed a clog in your ear."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
7or2yo | why does black text on printer paper fade into red and green? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7or2yo/eli5_why_does_black_text_on_printer_paper_fade/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsbn1j8",
"dsbv8j0"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"When wet? -\n\nA water droplet (or moisture) can absorb the ink in the paper. It then soaks into the paper (through capillary action) and as it travels the heavier larger in colors absorbed in the water get left behind and the smaller ink molecules make it further down the paper filter. This is called paper chromatography. Each color mixed into the black ink is a different size molecule. \n\nWhen in sunlight -\n\nOn an office inkjet printer, black ink is made by combining a bunch of colors together. Certain colors require absorbing more energy from a photon - who h leads to them breaking down first. The remaining colors are what you might see. ",
"Some cheaper color printers don't have black ink, instead they use a combination of the other colors to print in black. \n\nSince those different inks fade at different rates, some colors will wind up being more prominent than others over time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2s4bsg | what is halal and why do some people want to boycott it? | I keep seeing things on Facebook of people asking companies like McDonalds if they are halal certified, and when they say some things are, loads of people say that they will now avoid Maccas because of it. What is it and why do people keep linking it to terrorism? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s4bsg/eli5_what_is_halal_and_why_do_some_people_want_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnm2gff",
"cnm2giz",
"cnm2yvf"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"\"Halal is often used in reference to foods, i.e. foods that are permissible for Muslims to eat or drink under Islamic Shariʻah.\" - Wikipedia \n\nPeople are boycotting halal-certified restuarants because of their racist notions of terrorrism.",
"Halal is Arabic for \"permitted\". In this context, they're referring for foods that comply with Islamic dietary laws. It's the Islamic equivalent of Kosher. The only association with terrorism is that it's something followed by religious Muslims. ",
"Halal, in common English parlance, is essentially the Muslim equivalent of Kosher for Jews; a restaurant needs to be halal certified for Muslims to be able to eat there (in general). Some people want to ban it as part of general anti-Muslim sentiment.\n\nA slightly less bigoted reason some people don't like halal has to do with the way animals are butchered: by cutting the animal's throat and bleeding them out. Some people claim that it's inhumane and causes undue suffering in the animal before it dies, but that conclusion isn't totally supported by medical science."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
82z07c | How are microwaves considered safe as soon as you open the door? Does the radiation "disappear"? | This is just a question that popped in my brain so excuse my science virginity. Hell, I dont even know if I can word this right.
You microwave some food. Does the radiation transfer directly to the food to heat up? When you open the microwave door, there obviously isn't enough radiation in the chamber of the microwave to be considered unsafe, nor is the microwave even any shade of warmer than the air outside of it, so is it a direct transfer of energy where there's no radiation lingering around that wasn't used for heating your food when you opened the door, or do they sort of "disappear" really quickly due to their size?
| askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/82z07c/how_are_microwaves_considered_safe_as_soon_as_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvdxe51",
"dvdxekd",
"dve2hx5",
"dve3cxy",
"dve3djh",
"dve3ojy",
"dvez0tt"
],
"score": [
23,
15,
62,
2,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"it's not \"radiation\" in the sense you're referring to. a microwave oven uses electromagnetic waves to increase the speed at which the water molecules in your food vibrate, thus increasing the food's temperature. there's no radionucleic decay of any sort involved. Microwave radiation can be harmful in higher doses, but a federal regulation limits the amount of radiation that can be detected outside of the microwave; this regulation states that the measured energy should be less than 5mW per square centimeter of surface area of the oven at 2 inches from the surface of said oven. This limit is well below the level of microwave radiation which is believed to be harmful to humans, though even if you were exposed, you'd likely only suffer thermal burns. ",
"The microwaves travel at the speed of light. They bounce around the metal surfaces in the oven, until they are absorbed, faster than you can blink. \n\nAnd regardless, a low dose of microwaves is completely harmless. Microwaves only hurt us by heating, and even if you cut a huge hole in the door of your microwave you would have to very intentionally injure yourself. \n",
"The answers above/below aren't entirely correct. Electromagnetic waves ARE radiation, just not in the sense that most of the public thinks of radiation.\n\nThey do NOT just disappear when you open the door. They're moving at the speed of light, and the switch the turn the magnetron off activates WELL before you've even moved the door 1 cm. Therefore the remaining waves that ARE bouncing around inside bounce around a ton more before you've opened the door and after the magnetron has shut off, therefore they get absorbed LONG before you'd be exposed to them\n\nWith that said, microwaves aren't powerful enough to hurt you in small doses, and it is not ionizing radiation (meaning it won't give you cancer) therefore it wouldn't even matter if you got hit with a few microwave photons. In fact, there are even crowd control weapons that use microwaves (makes people feel like they are burning.)",
"The microwave door is part of the circuit that generates the microwaves. When the door opens, the circuit is broken, and the electromagnetic field inside the microwave is absorbed before you even finish cracking the door.\n\nIn general, however, it should be noted that \"radiation\" is a vague term and doesn't necessarily connote danger. Microwave radiation is slightly dangerous because it's the type of radiation that excites certain molecule's rotational transitions. This energy manifests directly as heat macroscopically and cooks most anything with a dipole moment (like water). Microwaves ovens themselves have been recognized as a mild danger because people stare at them to see if their food is cooked. The human eyeball has little to no capacity to sense temperature, so the danger is that if radiation were escaping the oven and you were staring at the microwave, your eyeballs would start to cook without you realizing it. To minimize this, there is a conductive screen on the door and the entire cooking area is surrounded by metal (forming what is known as a faraday cage: _URL_0_ ). But in general the eyeball thing is the only reason you can't be trusted to just notice you're getting warm and get away from it, like you would with any other heat source. \n\nFor the other class of dangerous radiation, we have ionizing radiation, which is electromagnetic radiation of UV or higher frequency and various high energy particles. This type of radiation is dangerous because it has sufficient energy to eject an electron from most molecules. This causes the molecule to form a reactive ionic species, which then goes on to react with whatever's close by. And the electron itself, if it's ejected with sufficient energy, can produce secondary radiation and will either be captured by another molecule (forming another potentially reactive species) or it'll escape. This poses a significant danger to biological matter, because DNA is fairly sensitive to these sorts of reactions and will either become irreparably damaged (and unable to function, resulting in cell death) or will become mutated but functional (occasionally resulting in cancer).",
"I think a clarification is needed between radiation and radioactivity, as that seems to be the root of your confusion. \n\n\nRadiation is simply some sort of traveling energy, that can pass through a vacuum. So sound isn't radiation even though it's traveling energy. However, light is. As are radiowaves, microwaves, UV, x-rays, and gamma rays. In fact, they are all the same thing, they are just light we can't see. Radiowaves and microwaves are just light way past red on the rainbow, and UV, x-rays, and gamma rays are just way past blue. There's also other forms of radiation that aren't simply \"colours\" of light. These are simply fast moving atoms or subatomic particles, such as beta rays (fast moving electrons) or alpha rays (fast moving helium). \n\n\nRadiation can be dangerous if it hits you with enough power or the right type. By right type I mean the very hgh frequency (past blue, UV and beyond) and the fast moving particles. These can break chemical bonds which is dangerous as things like your DNA are made from chemical bonds. Visible light and microwaves can't do this, but with enough power they are still dangerous. Notably, if you were inside your microwave being cooked wouldn't be good for you. Even visible light can be dangerous radiation, a laser for example. \n\n\nBut regardless of what kind of radiation it was, the second you turn off the supply it's harmless. Once you stop emitting the radiation, it stops and there is zero danger. There is no residual radiation. So your microwave goes dark when you open the door just like you room goes dark when you turn off the light switch. Your microwave is basically just a really bright 1000W light bulb in a small box, except the light bulb is very, very red, too red for you to see. The trick to a microwave is that air is transparent to microwaves (just like visible light), and the metal walls and metal mesh on the door act as mirrors to microwaves. So they only thing that can actually absorb the microwaves is food or beverages. \n\n\n\nRadioactive and radioactivity are a different things than radiation. They aren't radiation, they are *sources* of radiation. A radioactive substance is one that emits radiation (gamma rays and fast moving particles) as it decays. This is why radioactive elements like uranium are dangerous, they are constantly emitting dangerous radiation. You microwave doesn't use anything radioactive, so there is radioactivity. It uses electricity to drive more or less an antenna, so when you turn it off (by opening the door) the radiation emission simply stops. ",
"Microwaves are non ionising radiation, they vibrate the bonds between atoms rather than affecting the atoms themselves, which is how they cause things to heat up. We're bathed in microwaves at a very low concentration all the time, they basically don't interact with us, and will disperse after you open the door as quickly as the light disappears when you turn off a bulb. ",
"Let's say you open the door at Mach 1: 343 m/s. By the time the door has opened a single centimeter a mere 29 microseconds have passed. A typical microwave oven interior is about 1 foot across in its longest dimensions, conveniently very close to 1 light-nanosecond. So in the time it takes for the door to open 1 cm the microwaves inside will have bounced back and forth at least 29 thousand times. Even if the walls and everything else on the inside of the oven were 99.9% reflective of microwaves their intensity would diminish by more than a factor a trillion to one due to absorption within that 29 microseconds (from around a kilowatt to less than a nanowatt).\n\nAfter all, if nothing inside the oven absorbed microwaves nothing would get hot (this is why they advise against running a microwave empty, as the energy has nowhere to go but heating the walls).\n\nIn short, in practice it isn't a problem."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
17m17d | what are differential equations used to for? | And can you give me a dirt simple example? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17m17d/eli5_what_are_differential_equations_used_to_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"c86r062"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The answers that are here already are good, but there's a simpler way to say it:\n\nYou use a different equation to describe any situation in which the value of a thing is related to the rate of change of that thing relative to something else.\n\nThis is the easiest example I can think of: I'm going to drop a watermelon from a great height. How fast will it be falling after five seconds?\n\nIf watermelons fell at a fixed rate, this would be a trivial problem. The speed of the falling watermelon after five seconds would just be the speed of any falling watermelon at any time. But watermelons don't fall at a fixed rate; they fall at an *accelerating* rate. Meaning how fast a watermelon is falling depends on how long it's been falling.\n\nSo to describe this situation mathematically, and get our answer, we have to use a differential equation. It's the simplest possible differential equation: v = a t.\n\nHere v is the speed of the falling watermelon, in feet per second say, while a represents the acceleration of a falling watermelon. Acceleration is the *derivative* — that is, the rate of change — of speed with respect to time. So we can see that this equation relates a thing — v — to the rate of change of that thing — a — relative to something else — t. If you know a, you can multiply by *any* t to find out how fast the watermelon will be falling after t seconds.\n\nAs I said, that's the simplest possible differential equation. What about a slightly more complex one? What if I asked you *how far* the watermelon will fall in five seconds? Again, if watermelons fell at a fixed rate, that'd be easy: just multiply the rate times five seconds, and that'll give you the distance traversed after five seconds. But as we already established, watermelons *don't* fall at a fixed rate. Meaning the distance traversed over a given time by a falling watermelon is dependent on the rate of change of the watermelon's position — that is, the speed at which it's falling — but that in turn is dependent on the rate of change of the watermelon's speed — that is, the acceleration of a falling watermelon.\n\nIn this case, our equation is a bit more complex: x = 1/2 a t ². The distance traversed by the falling watermelon, x, is half of the acceleration times the square of the time it's been falling. In this equation we're relating a thing — distance fallen — to the rate of change *of the rate of change* of that thing. That makes this a *second-order* differential equation.\n\nBut it's still not very complicated, is it? There are *much* more complicated differential equations out there, but they all follow the same basic principle: When the value of a thing depends on the rate of change of that thing, welcome to Differential Equationville, population: you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
xaclr | what happens when you get water in your lungs? | Can your body fend off a certain amount of water? How much water does it take to kill you? Is there a difference between how your body responds when it's a little bit of water as opposed to a lot of water?
You guys know what to do! Thanks in advance! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xaclr/eli5_what_happens_when_you_get_water_in_your_lungs/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5kohur",
"c5koktg"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"First, a little A & P lesson:\n\nYour lungs have little pockets in them called *[alveoli](_URL_0_)* and you have **a lot** of them in your lungs (about 700 million). When you breathe in, oxygen fills these pockets and comes *really* close to your blood. When your blood cells ([hemoglobin](_URL_1_)) comes by, it gives the pocket some carbon dioxide and takes oxygen.\n\nYour lungs always have a little bit of water in them (along with other stuff, called *[surfactant](_URL_2_)*) to stop your lungs from sticking together. Even the air that you breathe is between 1-4% water. But when a lot of water (or anything) gets into your lungs, it means that these little pockets can't work as well. This means your blood can't get rid of the carbon dioxide and it can't get more oxygen.\n\n* Your body has 700 million alveoli\n* You can cough, which works really well. The place where your left and right lung split (the [carina](_URL_3_)) makes you cough the strongest.\n* Your blood vessels can suck some of the water out of your lungs\n\nThe big problems come during:\n\n* Drowning: You're forced to breathe in a whole bunch of water\n* Unconsciousness: You lose the ability to cough\n* High blood pressure/Heart failure: Your alveoli can't drain properly and starts to collect in your lungs",
"When water comes into your air tube, your body will seal it to prevent you from having too much much water in your lungs. In the end, you end up with no oxygen left, and this reflex end, so lot of water in your lungs and death.\n\n > How much water does it take to kill you?\n\nPossibly very little - this is called \"dry drowning\" : with even little water your air tube will be sealed and you can die from this.\n\n\n*(Not so LY5)* Another thing is osmosis : when you have a liquid with high concentrations ( for instance, your blood has high concentration in K+, etc) and another with low concentration, separated by a semi-permeable membrane, liquid from the low concentrated solution go into the high concentrated liquid and stuff in the high concentrated liquid goes into the less concentrated liquid. In the end, the two liquids separated are the same. \n\nYour blood is water with lot of stuff. Water is water with no stuff. Your cells' skin is a semi permeable membrane. If it is sea water, it is water with more stuff than your blood. In either case the chemical composition of the blood will be very fucked up and this lead to cardiac failure in 2-3 minutes (fresh water) or 8-10 minutes (salt water)\n\nSource: wikipedia."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_aveolus",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hemoglobin",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_surfactant",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carina_of_trachea"
],
[]
] | |
6p39o4 | how are free divers like guillaume néry able to go into the depths on a single breath? | I just watched a YouTube video of a free diver going into the world's deepest indoor pool on a single breath. How do they do it and how do they overcome human body's natural buoyancy?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6p39o4/eli5_how_are_free_divers_like_guillaume_néry_able/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkmcp16"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Free divers (people that dive down long distances) have tricks to dive deep. To keep the oxygen inside them for longer, they take advantage of something called the divers reflex. The divers reflex slows your heart rate, it's activated by jumping into cold water. Another thing they may do is hyperventilating before they jump in [DON'T TRY THIS, IT'S DANGEROUS]. Hyperventilating before let's you lower your level of co^2 which is something your body needs to get rid of when you hold your breath. When you breath your body get's rid of co^2 and takes in oxygen. Your body builds up co^2 quicker than it's need for oxygen. By lowering the levels of co^2 before you jump in you can stay in until your oxygen runs out. Free divers also usually have very large lungs to hold in more air so they can stay underwater for longer. I'm not fully sure how they combat buoyancy but it definitely is a challenge. Here's a link that goes more in depth _URL_0_."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.deeperblue.com/effects-of-pressure-and-depth/"
]
] | |
17ts3z | Is infrared and ultraviolet light made up of different 'colours'? | Do animals that can detect infrared/ultraviolet light (like snakes) see more colours than us, or do they see the light in a different way? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17ts3z/is_infrared_and_ultraviolet_light_made_up_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c88rrxn",
"c899zfm"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Color is a perception, not an intrinsic quality. It is simply a name for the sensory input provided by a detector; you and I \"see\" the same \"red\" because we have assigned a shared name to the input we receive when observing an objective phenomenon. There is no guarantee that the nerve impulses our brain receives is identical, but that isn't required.\n\nA snake that detects IR doesn't see a \"color\" because it doesn't communicate such things with others. It can detect the input and distinguish it from other things, but color as a concept and interpretation doesn't exist for a snake.",
"Colors are labels we place on frequencies of light. They see different spectrum, but the concept of \"more colors\" doesn't truly fit. \n\nAs an example, native Russian speakers see \"more blues\" than western speakers do. They have two words for the different kinds of blue. _URL_0_ They aren't seeing \"more blues\" but they are labeling the same spectrum differently. \n\nNow, some women do have receptors in their eyes that can see further off the ultraviolet end of the visible spectrum than most people can. _URL_1_ \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.pnas.org/content/104/19/7780.full",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy"
]
] | |
fr7oo0 | What is the advantage of Iris vs Slit eyes? | I’m confused on why some animals have slits instead of irises. Because even animals of the same type have different shapes. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fr7oo0/what_is_the_advantage_of_iris_vs_slit_eyes/ | {
"a_id": [
"flwa1u9",
"flub4gi",
"flubhh5",
"flucnjx",
"fluehgc",
"fluwl0u",
"flvhvmw"
],
"score": [
3,
29,
5778,
11,
30,
12,
8
],
"text": [
"I think this similar post from a few days ago would also help.\n\n_URL_0_",
"There are actually more like 3 kinds of eyes:\n\n1. Round pupil (what we have), bad low light but able to see far away and have everything in focus\n\n2. Vertical slit, (predators?), can open wide and let in much more light at night. Top to bottom in focus but sides are less in focus. \n\n3. Horizontal slit, (prey?) also great low light, horizon in focus, but top and bottom not. \n\n\nThere are subset of each other those as well, like seals have pear shaped pupils and other animals have different variations. \n\nWhat is interesting is these different pupils evolved independently in many different animals which demonstrates that they provide significant advantages in different situations. Round pupils tend to be better in daytime while slitted ones are much better at night and for camouflage. As daytime hunters we have round pupils while housecats are more nocturnal hunters and have vertical slits. Larger cats tend to have round, i’m not entirely sure why but maybe because round eyes are better to see far away across large plains and the low light is not needed when a bright moon isn’t obstructed by trees (just a guess ofc).",
"Species with vertical pupils are more likely to be ambush predators that are active both day and night. \nVertical pupils are better for judging distance by reducing [binocular disparity](_URL_2_) (the effect where if you focus on an object and close one eye, the object appears in slightly different places in each eye individually) and blur (where objects at different distances are out of focus). Slit pupils also allow much greater control of light with dilation and contraction at a [135 fold difference in some animals](_URL_4_) \n (compared to 10 fold in humans), which protects their sensitive eyes when they move around during the day. \n\nAnimals with horizontally elongated pupils (like [goats](_URL_3_)) are likely to be [herbivorous prey species with eyes on the sides of their heads](_URL_1_). \nHorizontal pupils expand the field of view, and also means the pupils are parallel to the ground so they can see better while grazing or browsing and limits intense light directly from the sun. They can't see as clear an image, but they don't need a crisp image of an approaching predator, they mostly just respond to movement. \n\nCircular pupils are linked to active foragers, or animals that chase down their prey. They're also [found in taller animals](_URL_1_). \nThey see [well in low light](_URL_4_) \n(i.e. dusk and dawn) and daylight conditions, but not so much overnight. We typically see better color and details, which is useful for identifying fruits, berries, etc when foraging. We have a wider field of vision than slit pupils, though not as wide as horizontal since we're still potentially prey animals and can detect movement at a distance. \n\nAnd there's a few other weird shapes which are more specially adapted to their specific niche - \n like [W pupils in cuttlefish](_URL_5_) (in bright conditions) which have two fovea in each eye so they can [have a clear view in the frontal and caudal periphery of the visual field](_URL_0_), as well as greater ability to adapt to varying light conditions, \nand [pinholes in some lizards](_URL_6_) which are great for detecting perfect striking distance.\n\nEdits: added more sources",
"Others have discussed the evolutionary basis for the different eye shapes, bit just to be clear, all vertebrate eyes have an iris (colored part). Round pupils and slit-like pupils result from different iris shapes.",
"It's to do with diffraction and physics, I spent an evening reading a paper on this once trying to figure out what advantage the Octopus eye has, it is a horizontal shape with globules on the end.\n\nAnyway, a vertical eye slit causes light from different distances away to diffract in different ways, leading to a kind of blur as a function of distance. This allows predators to accurately gauge distance (their brain has a cue at least to estimate it) to a prey. Vertical slits are most common in ambush predators, so presumably for them depth awareness is of considerably importance.\n\nNote the vertical slit does the opposite for horizontal spacing, the eye has a poorer discernment of wide field images. There is no blur as a function of x, if x is horizontal.\n\nMeanwhile the circular aperture gives a bit of both. It's a balance, and a good bet for prey, as they will be able to judge movements in a wide field of view, as they will have chromatic aberration as a function of position horizontally, a cue their brain can use. This is likely useful for seeing movement on a horizon in a wide area, far more useful for a prey than a predator it seems.\n\nHere's the paper, it's great\n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Slits: Scopes\n\nIris: Detail\n\nRectangles: 360 wide angle\n\nIt's a different shape for a different use. Slits are used to see further away to help an animal stalk its prey. Irises are better for up-close things and can see more detail in an object. Horizontal rectangles stay horizontal even if the animal bends over to eat grass, allowing then to keep an eye on their surrounding while they eat.",
"Increased field of view to scan for predators/prey vs increased singular point view with greater detail and depth perception.\n\nI think goats and sheep are a good horizontal slit example, they need to scan wide expanses for predators, so their eyes being on the sides of their heads with a long slit gives them the widest field of view to take in light and identify predators faster.\n\nCats have vertical slits, which create a corridor for them to focus their vision on as they Chase prey in front of them.\n\nIris' create the clearest, most detailed image of a singular point in front with binocular depth perception due to crossing fields of view and the maximum visual receptor cells focused in the center of the eye where light is received.\n\nSo:\n\n-what are the slits/Iris for? To create different fields of view.\n\n-why are they different? Evolution has shaped the natural development of eyes over time to suit the needs of the organism. The shape will benefit the animal and their primary survival mechanisms.\n\nFun fact: all eyeballs originate from simple organisms which lived in the ocean. These organisms would utilize sunlight for food, but had no eyes to know where the light was. They had cells which could detect the presence of light, and they would drift about in whatever direction the cell became more excited. Life and evolution happened, and the cells used to direct the cell towards light became more advanced, and these cells began to assemble basic visual information for the organism to have a rudimentary understanding of the world around them. (Think about when you have water in your eyes and try to look around, no images but you can see color patters and blurs of movement, especially light and darkness). These masses of light detecting cells eventually began to form into a structure which could trap light and more effectively hone the image from raw light into a clearer image which would help the organism find food and avoid predators more effectively. The structure began to represent the circular eye that we understand now, which traps light through an iris and reflects the image through a lens across the back of our eye into millions upon millions of cones and rods, which are the modern form of those same rudimentary light detecting cells which once floated in the ocean.\n\nFrom one, singular cell detecting the presence of light in order to float around in the ocean towards food, we can now see across the wide variety of eyes in the animal kingdom. The eyeball truly is a fascinating wonder of nature."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fo6hzm/would_animals_with_nonround_pupils_such_as_cats/"
],
[],
[
"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698913000539",
"http://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2142714",
"https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/523303/357... | |
1f28g6 | What makes ethanol corrosive to engines? | A common complaint about ethanol's use as a combustion fuel is that it tends to corrode engines. Is it due to the oxygen atom present in the molecule? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1f28g6/what_makes_ethanol_corrosive_to_engines/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca631af",
"ca641rl"
],
"score": [
22,
11
],
"text": [
"[Susceptibility of aluminum alloys to corrosion in simulated fuel blends containing ethanol](_URL_0_)\n \n* Aluminum is susceptible to rapid corrosion rates in dry ethanol blended fuels.\n* Water concentration and temperature were found to be the principal drivers.\n* Higher ethanol concentrations result in faster corrosion rates of aluminum alloys.\n* Galvanic corrosion did not appear to play a factor in the corrosion mechanism.\n* Pretreatment of the aluminum surface delayed the onset of rapid corrosion.",
"Ethanol generally isn't harmful to car engines because they are used almost everyday. The problem is engines that aren't run regularly, like boats, lawnmowers, pressure washers, etc. Over time Ethanol absorbs atmospheric moisture which can cause corrosion inside the cylinders and other critical areas. It's a horrible problem for boat owners like myself that can't purchase non-Ethanol gasoline."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236113003487"
],
[]
] | |
3iku8h | What was the Soviet Unions/Russia's reaction to the rise to tech and computer programming in the US in the 80s and 90s? | What was their reaction to powerful companies like IBM or Microsoft? Was there ever any attempt to compete? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3iku8h/what_was_the_soviet_unionsrussias_reaction_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cui46im"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"State run agencies began to copy successful designs by others for domestic production. The Elektronica BK-100, for instance was a PDP-11 clone. This was so widespread that DEC eventually began printing \"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery\" inside their cases. This didn't stop at hardware, either. MOS (or DEMOS, not sure if they're different systems or not) was a UNIX clone. I'm not sure if there were clones of VMS, but I'd think dealing with communism and VMS in the same century would be too much for any nation. \n\nSo far as consumer hardware is concerned, the soviets produced the kinda adorable Agat (a poor attempt at an Apple II clone). This was considered very cheap, but was woefully underpowered due to the difficulty in importing compatible chips. It ran under some sort of emulation scheme that made it software compatible. \n\nMicrosoft and IBM were also copied, I'm sure. The Elektronika and the Agat were probably deemed \"enough\" by the powers that be. \n\nQuick side note: Soviet obsession with DEC hardware may have had something to do with the PDP-11s contemporary (and, to my knowledge, continued) use in the minutemen missile program. So if you're an American, you can rest easy tonight knowing you're protected by 50 year old computer systems!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
a7851r | why is dandruff so common and has it always been so? | Is this something humans have dealt with forever or are we as a society doing things to increase the likelihood? Googling around says 50% of people have it.
Edit: also, I've heard people say "we wash more now so our skin is drier" but a lot of dandruff is from yeast on the scalp that feed off oils, so leaving that oil on for days causes more yeast food. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7851r/eli5_why_is_dandruff_so_common_and_has_it_always/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec18s9c",
"ec1lvs3",
"ec1n5j8"
],
"score": [
14,
17,
3
],
"text": [
"I have found a good portion of people also misdiagnose dandruff. Beyond the ideas that with more knowledge it is easier to determine if something is abnormal or not, many people often assume that dandruff is dandruff and not other causes such as dry scalp or something like psoriasis. \n\nI spent many years under the assumption that I had dandruff, and worked to treat the issue accordingly. I often never saw improvements. The issue is that I was treating dandruff which is often linked to a excess of oils on the scalp and the microscopic creatures that feed on it. I in fact had chronic dry scalp, which produces similar flakes. ",
"**One word: \"Repeat\"**\n\nThis is such a great question. The answer is \"No. It was not always that way. Common dandruff is a relatively new phenomenon\". And it's new on 2 fronts. \n\n1. Marketing. Some people have and had medical dandruff in decades past. Fungal infections and *seborrheic dematitis* can cause persistent dandruff. But it isn't common and didn't used to be such a big social issue. But much like Listerine created the stigma of \"halitosis\" by making up a name for a disease and fearmongering that \"[you might be unpopular because of your bad breath](_URL_0_)\" — Proctor and Gamble also created the social stigma of \"flakes\" and \"never wear black without the blue\". \n\n2. Also Marketing. But the real interesting bit is that rates of common, non-medical dandruff have increased sharply. \n\nDandruff is dead skin that dries out and flakes off. It's not dry as in non-wet with water, but non wet with *oil*. Oil is what keeps the protective layer of dead skin on your scalp from getting flaky. \n\nHow does all the oil come out? Well, surfactants like soap make oil soluble in water. So when you shampoo your hair, you dry your scalp out a little. \n\nAnd when you shampoo your hair every day–you dry it out even more. And when you \"lather, rinse, repeat\" you dry it out a lot. A lot of people think their dandruff is caused by not shampooing enough—so they use even more. Which can make it worse. The truth is, dandruff can be caused by not shampooing enough, or by shampooing too much. \n\n[Most dermatologists recommend only shampooing 1–3 times a week](_URL_1_). But as a result of advertising, most Americans shampoo everyday, often twice in a row—a behavior targeted to sell more shampoo; with the side effect of causing dandruff, which in turn can sell *even more* shampoo. \n\nSo yes, more people have occasional dandruff now than in the past and it's because we're overwashing our scalps, using harsher products, and simply noticing it more. ",
"Dandruff has been with us pretty much forever. [In the Middle Ages a fern was used to treat it](_URL_0_).\n\nPeople sometimes distinguish between different causes, oily skin, dry skin, other skin conditions such as psoriasis, etc, and while those distinctions are meaningful, the end result is more-or-less that same (the treatments are different though) and they’re all lumped together by outside observers.\n\nWhat may have changed are the causes for the condition."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/marketing-campaign-invented-halitosis-180954082/",
"https://www.sciencealert.com/how-often-you-should-wash-your-hair-according-science"
],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2181905"
]
] | |
b39gqi | why drink a bunch of water of i just keep peeing right after drinking it? what's the point? what's the real difference between drinking 1 or drinking 3 liters of water a day? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b39gqi/eli5_why_drink_a_bunch_of_water_of_i_just_keep/ | {
"a_id": [
"eiy0yyr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well for starters you drinking adequate amounts of water is shown to help physical recovery, cognitive function. And just generally a necessity if you're a person who enjoys working out, or you live in a warm climate as you'll lose fluids by regulating your body temperature (sweating) and if you can't do so you'll quickly overheat and pass out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5s9wye | How far away from the nucleus does 100% of the electron cloud extend? | The electron cloud is usually defined as the volume where between 90 and 97% of the electron resides. Using modeling software you can alter the parameter to see the cloud expand to 99% or 99.99%. Is there some portion (1X10^-100000ish) of the cloud existing a meter away from the nucleus? How about a lightyear away? Can we use this for ftl communication somehow? Does quantum nature or the Plank length act as a limit to this idea? I've tried looking through physical chemistry and quantum physics literature before, but it was too far out of my field and I gave up. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5s9wye/how_far_away_from_the_nucleus_does_100_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dddepvh",
"ddecrzg"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text": [
"The long-distance behavior of the radial wavefunctions for atomic orbitals is exponential decay. So there is no distance after which they go to zero.",
"Also just to add to this, electron tunnelling is an interesting phenomenon that occurs due to the concept of a wave function. Since the wave function means that an electron can theoretically exist anywhere (due to the fact that the wave function never reaches 0) an electron can actually be ionised (not be part of the atom anymore) even if it doesn't have enough energy to be ionised! \nSo a question that I would like to pose to you is this. When you mean how far the electron cloud extends, are you setting the limit at the point where an electron would be ionised and therefore not be a part of the atom's electron cloud any longer?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
9aja2t | why is our appetite so limited in variety when it comes to breakfast!? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9aja2t/eli5_why_is_our_appetite_so_limited_in_variety/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4vuqru",
"e4vx3hg"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Can I assume you actually mean from a United States perspective? Of course, Mexico is in North America as is Canada, and although I can't speak for the latter, varied foods definitely are eaten for breakfast in Mexico. (Two special offerings include pozole and menudo, but there are many others.)\n\nIt seems more likely that food preferences are related to food availability through history, but I'm sure someone who is well versed in cultural or biological anthropology can answer more definitively. But it's an interesting question!\n\nEdit: I know I did not answer the question but I hope that asking for a clarification of the question isn't against the rules. ",
"My guess is it's more cultural than anything else, and in relation to that like u/aceecee said availability of resources. When travelling in Japan they have things like fish, pickled vegetables and rice for breakfast, it felt super strange to me, I couldn't get the thought 'this is dinner food' out of my head, probably from a lifetime of conditioning to western food. Definitely worth trying new things, might find your new favourite breakfast food.😊"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2a5b4n | What is a good source on Classical or Medieval India? | I need to teach a course on world ancient history next term. I have a great handle on Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, but India is a gaping whole in my knowledge. Any good introductory sources? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a5b4n/what_is_a_good_source_on_classical_or_medieval/ | {
"a_id": [
"cirndb1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I was in the exact same position as you. These are the books I used:\n\nCambridge History of India is a great option. If your institution gives you access to Cambridge Histories Online, they are your best friend.\n\nI also used *India: The Ancient Past* by Burjor Avari is a nice narrative.\n\nI am teaching an environmental history of the world, so I used *A People's History of India 36: Man and Environment* by Irfan Habib.\n\n*Early India: A Concise History* By D.N. JHA is good for cultural aspects of early Indian history."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8vpdxc | what does depth perception look like? | I don't have depth perception. I haven't had depth perception since I was young so I don't remember having it. I know that this is probably a complicated thing to explain, but I would be thankful to anyone who tried to explain it to me. I would also be thankful if anyone told me that it's impossible to explain, because lord knows I won't accept that until someone tells me that. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8vpdxc/eli5_what_does_depth_perception_look_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1p9t2v",
"e1pah5z",
"e1pbez0",
"e1petb3"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It is something similar to describing color. If you've never seen it, it'll be hard ho imagine. I can give it a shot though:\n\nI am going to assume you know the basics of *how* depth perception works. and skip the explanation. What happens is you're able to see how close or far away something is very easily. In pictures and videos, you can generally tell due to things your brain picks up on. When you see in real life, though, you can actually see that depth instead of inferring it subconsciously. Things physically stick out towards you.\n\nI hope that explains it well enough",
"If you have an iPhone X or know someone who does, there's an app called The Parallax View that simulates depth perception by tracking your head and eyes. Super easy to use—change the settings to track one eye, open that eye only, and move the phone and/or your head. It creates the illusion of 3d stereoscopic vision. ",
"Take a look at the top split depth gifs on /r/SplitDepthGIFS/ to get a sense of what depth feels like. These gifs simulate depth perception: having knowledge of how far away something is by just looking at it. The white lines act as a fixed depth that get \"crossed\" when something in the image goes over it, making it look like it's closer.",
"The best way i can describe it is it's more of a sense of how far something is. As one example i will use my monitor, when i reach for it i can \"tell\" how far it is and how far my arm has to go to touch it. But when i close one eye i have a hard time telling how far it is, it feels kind of like my view went \"2D\" (its hard to explain) and if i were to reach for it,i may or may not touch it, or i could reach for it and go to far and jam my finger into it. it just helps me to reach my monitor and not miss it or punch it because i calculated the distance wrong. \n\nI hope this helps in some way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
23llbx | what happens when a movie takes in less money than it cost to make it? | For example Transcendence this weekend only took in 11.1 million dollars but it cost 100 million to make. Does everyone still get paid or do they have to take loans out or is it more of a long term process and they wait for rentals and DVD sales? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23llbx/eli5_what_happens_when_a_movie_takes_in_less/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgy6eyi",
"cgy7db2",
"cgy7hq4",
"cgy7v74",
"cgy8eeq"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's a long-term process. Studios recoup money gradually from domestic and international sales, then DVD and streaming video sales, along with any kind of merchandising, and so on. \n\nEveryone involved in making the movie has already been paid, so the only people affected are the ones who financed the film.",
"When a movie is made 90% of people have already been paid unless their contract is based off ticket sales. That's why a movie loses money when they can't recoup the tickets but there is a lot of money to be made off foreign markers, dvd sales, and rentals. Movies have to really bad to not make back their money.",
"The studio making the movie puts up the money up front. It goes to the actors, film crew, director, sets, travel, etc etc. If the movie made 11.1 million dollars and then disappeared off the face of the earth, then the studio would lose money. \n\nHowever, the movie will get released in foreign markets, so they'll make some money there. Then released to DVD and Bluray and make more money. If the movie ends up on Netflix, more money. Redbox or any other Video on Demand services bring in more money. If there was product placement (a character drinking a Pepsi, or driving a Hyundai), more money. \n\nThe studio can also sell the rights to the film, giving some other company control over it. \n\nIt's possible for a movie that bombs to cause the studio to go bankrupt or even close. ",
"Everyone involved has already been paid, that's why it cost $100M to make.\n\nAt some level, somebody is losing money although not as much as you might think. Let's say it cost $5M to record the sound. That's not a $5M check to a sound company, that's $5M being paid to the sound division of the studio that is making the movie.\n\nThis sort of \"Hollywood Accounting\" can result in successful movies that don't look like they made any profit.",
"The only people who don't see the benefit of the film making more than it's budget are those who are getting paid as a percentage of ticket sales (most people would have just been paid a lump sum) and those who have had to finance the costs of the production.\n\nBut it's really common for films to not actually make back the money put into their budget. This is why studios produce films like Transformers. They know that these films are just going to pander to the lowest common denominator of people with their simple good vs evil storylines and their piles of action. These films are not original, they are not inventive and usually they aren't well acted, they are just there to get lots and lots of sheeple to go to the cinema."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2wfgrd | Is it possible to jump off some material that is in mid-air ? | For example, if you would to throw a really big rock at a reasonable height, and another person would to jump towards that direction, could he jump higher by stepping on the rock ? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2wfgrd/is_it_possible_to_jump_off_some_material_that_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"coqkgdp"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Sure. Consider the person and the rock as one system. Their collective center of mass will follow a parabolic arc, and any internal forces (read: the person pushing the rock with their feet) will not be able to change the trajectory of the collective center of mass. However, the person can change the trajectory of his personal center of mass. It is just that the rock will move in the opposite direction in a way that keeps the collective center of mass on the same trajectory.\n\nYou can do this right now by pushing off of the earth and jumping into the air. It is exactly the same situation, just the earth has far greater mass than a person (I hope). This means that the earth barely has to change course at all in order to keep the collective mass of the person and the earth on the same trajectory as it was before the jump. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5uukfp | can we make an object infinitely small? | Can you actually make an object infinitely small? I mean if we have a pen and let's say we had a tool that shrinks objects, can we shrink the pen to the point it's no longer shrinkable? Can it be shrunk up to infinity? Or is it going to stop shrinking at some point?
Thanks.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uukfp/eli5_can_we_make_an_object_infinitely_small/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddwxwnd",
"ddwzmtt"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is theorized that the entire universe was infinitely small at one point. At that point of compression, your pen would no longer be shrinkable. It would not even be a pen. it would be smaller than a single quark. It would stop shrinking when it reached this singularity, and this singularity would be infinitesimal.\n\nBut no, \"we\" can do this to a pen. Not with our current technology, and probably not even with the technology we invent in the next 500 years.",
"This is a current problem with computers. The chips can be made with smaller and smaller components, to a point. Electrons aren't actually in one *place* but rather a cloud of probability and when you get small enough parts, the possibility that an electron might be somewhere it isn't supposed to be matters.\n\nBut that's only somewhat relevant. More importantly, how are you \"shrinking\" your object? Are you simply manufacturing a smaller version of it? In that case, you're making a miniature copy of your pen and, like the computer chips, there's a point when it stops working. Your ink molecules need space to flow around each other so they can eventually flow out of the pen to write with. The smallest you can make your pen and call it a pen is when it's too small for your ink to flow, which would be (relative to the scale of the microscopic universe) pretty big. If you wanted to make an even smaller \"pen-shaped object\" or something that *acts* like a pen but isn't truly a ink pen, you could go smaller, but again you have to define a \"pen\". Take a pencil instead, and define \"writing\" with it as leaving behind some carbon as you scratch it. Theoretically you could make that pencil as small as the diameter of six carbon atoms in a ring, stacked on top of each other (basically single rings of [graphene](_URL_1_) stacked on top of each other).\n\nYou could also define \"shrinking\" as removing the space between the atoms in your pen. Atoms are [mostly empty space](_URL_2_) and you can *theoretically* remove a lot of that empty space and make your pen take up less space without changing how many atoms are in it. This poses a few problems, though. To remove the space you would have to squeeze the pen *really hard* to force the atomic nuclei closer together. When you put enough pressure on a liquid, it stops being a liquid. Your ink is going to stop working. You're also going to break a lot of the materials in the pen, and probably start forcing the various molecules in the pen to mix. You'd have less of a pen and more of a homogeneous blob of plastic, ink, and metal (and whatever else was in the pen). Also, the electrons start acting weird, since their orbitals around their atomic nuclei are overlapping.\n\nAt some point, when you keep squeezing, the molecules stop being defined and break apart into their constituent elements. Keep squeezing and you start fusing those elements together into one larger element. We're already squeezing much harder than anything on Earth could possibly manage! This is the kind of squeezing that goes on in the cores of massive stars - even our own star isn't massive enough to fuse anything heavier than helium.\n\nSqueeze even *harder*, though, and you do something *really* crazy: you force the electrons to be absorbed into their nuclei and turn all the protons into neutrons. There's nothing holding those neutrons together, though, except for whatever force you're using to squeeze them together (which is probably the gravity of a truly massive star). You've essentially fused your \"pen\" into a single blob of neutrons that, without looking it up and doing the math, I'm fairly confident would fit well inside the radius of an atom. No one knows how this stuff (commonly called [neutronium](_URL_3_)) behaves since we can't make it on Earth (not even close) and the only place you can find it is in neutron stars, which have thousands of times more mass than our own Sun, shoved into the space of a few tens of kilometers - an entire star's worth of matter shoved into a [space smaller than NYC](_URL_4_). So it's not exactly something we could just casually observe, is what I'm saying, even assuming we had the technology to go fly to one.\n\nCompress it even further and...no one knows what happens. We already don't know what happens. It's weird. But let's imagine a magical device that completely ignores what your pen is made of and simply makes *everything* in the pen smaller without mucking about with the weird physics involved in that.\n\nThere is still a theoretical limit on how small *anything* can be, at all, ever, and that is the [Planck Length](_URL_0_). The Planck Length is defined by a bunch of math, but the significance is that if there's anything smaller than the Planck Length, it can't be measured, or observed. Not: \"We don't currently have the technology to do so\"; rather, it *cannot be measured*, ever. The laws of the universe don't allow it. To explain this, imagine you're measuring something - you need a ruler, something to compare it to. But your measurement can only be as accurate as your \"ruler\", so if you have a ruler that only shows you one foot, you can only measure something as being \"less than one foot\" or \"one foot and some more?\" At the Planck Length, the foam of quantum space is already bigger than whatever you're measuring. There's nothing you can compare it to. If it's smaller than that, you can't know how small it is except that it's *at least* as small as the Planck Length.\n\nSo that's your hard answer: nothing can be smaller than the Planck Length. Or at least, if it is smaller it doesn't matter, the smallest you can measure it to be, given literally any level of technology and science, is the Planck Length. To give you a sense of scale on that, a tiny grain of sand is about halfway between the size of the entire observable universe (93ish billion lightyears in diameter) and the Planck Length. It's many orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest particles that we know of. So you've got a long ways to go.\n\nAs /u/pseudopad mentioned, the entire **observable** universe was once infinitesimally small. But that's not the same as infinitely small. It was as close to zero as possible without being zero. Probably. The problem is that everything we know about physics stops working long before you get to the Planck Length when you compact any amount of matter that much, not to mention compacting everything in the observable universe! But even our best guesses, pure speculation with not a lot of scientific evidence behind it, completely stop working that small."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Graphen.jpg",
"http://www.dingtwist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/illusion-of-solidity.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium",
"https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/629007main_Ne... | |
g3o3y6 | how does ultraviolet radiotion work as a disinfectant? | So i was watching a video about cool gadgets and i came across a UV radiotion disinfactant for phones watches glasses, you name it, and i was wondering did it work! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g3o3y6/eli5_how_does_ultraviolet_radiotion_work_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"fnsdzpc",
"fnsf774"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"Ultraviolet light has high enough energy that it is capable of damaging living things. This is why you get sunburn and why UV works as a disinfectant.",
"UV has the ability to knock an electron free when it hits a molecule, this gives it the ability to break DNA apart. If you hit the DNA with enough UV you can break it apart enough that the cell can't patch it back together. This means the cell's instruction manual has been shredded and it can no longer build what it needs to continue existing and divide later\n\nThis kills the cell\n\nYou can use high levels of UV C to sterilize surfaces and kill all the bacteria and fungi on it"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
k4imx | who is ron paul and what is going on with r/circlejerk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k4imx/who_is_ron_paul_and_what_is_going_on_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2hgdbx",
"c2hgdbx"
],
"score": [
26,
26
],
"text": [
"Ron Paul is a candidate for the US 2012 presidential nomination. While he lacks mainstream support compared to the other frontrunner Republican candidates (Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney), he is known for having a very substantial following on the internet. Reddit in particular is known for showing support for the candidate. This is where r/circlejerk comes in. As a subreddit known for lampooning the rest of Reddit's activities, they began making fun of Reddit's support of Ron Paul. As memes tend to do, the whole Ron Paul joke on r/circlejerk exploded, with many people submitting jokes. The moderators of r/circlejerk then ran with it, changing the subreddit's layout to reflect the great number of Ron Paul submissions. Now, due to the layout and the nature of r/circlejerk, the Ron Paul joke is hugely popular in r/circlejerk, and shows no signs of stopping (although, knowing how fickle Reddit can be, I'd say that it doesn't have too much longer).",
"Ron Paul is a candidate for the US 2012 presidential nomination. While he lacks mainstream support compared to the other frontrunner Republican candidates (Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney), he is known for having a very substantial following on the internet. Reddit in particular is known for showing support for the candidate. This is where r/circlejerk comes in. As a subreddit known for lampooning the rest of Reddit's activities, they began making fun of Reddit's support of Ron Paul. As memes tend to do, the whole Ron Paul joke on r/circlejerk exploded, with many people submitting jokes. The moderators of r/circlejerk then ran with it, changing the subreddit's layout to reflect the great number of Ron Paul submissions. Now, due to the layout and the nature of r/circlejerk, the Ron Paul joke is hugely popular in r/circlejerk, and shows no signs of stopping (although, knowing how fickle Reddit can be, I'd say that it doesn't have too much longer)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
2otsqc | Why doesn't the Hubble keep taking more Deep Field photos? | The Deep Field photos are so stunning and mind-boggling, and I know it's just a tiny slice of the sky. Why don't we have more? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2otsqc/why_doesnt_the_hubble_keep_taking_more_deep_field/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmqhgtq",
"cmqmcss"
],
"score": [
44,
12
],
"text": [
"Hubble is still releasing new deep field imagery, for example [this](_URL_2_) composite image is a new enhancement of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image with UV data taken in exposures over the past 10 years, and was released last June. Also the [eXtreme Deep Field](_URL_1_) came out in 2012.\n\nWhy not do these all the time? The short story is that Hubble is very busy and there are many compelling things to do with it. Just check out the [Hubble schedule for this week](_URL_3_). Proposals for Hubble time go through a several-months long process organized by the Space Telescope Science Institute. The proposals are reviewed by scientists for merit and technical feasibility. The process is outlined [here](_URL_0_). ",
"Hubble space telescope time is extremely valuable for the field of astronomy. Competition for it is fierce, and additional deep field route projects have to be weighed and justified accordingly compared to all else that could be done. Deep fields take up large amounts of Hubble time (weeks), and are subject to diminishing scientific returns the more and more times this sort of project is repeated (outside of things purely local to the region of the sky investigated, like new galaxies). So, Deep Field is cited in 800 academic papers, Ultra Deep Field mostly confirmed the results seen in Deep Field, extreme deep field had received even less attention. There's also a clear need to differentiate each newer iteration from previous ones by making it more exact and taking even longer exposes, but this makes an already expensive position even more so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing/docs/proposingOverview",
"http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/xdf.html",
"http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2014/27",
"http://www.stsci.edu/~inr/thisweek1/thisweekonhst.html"
],
[]
] | |
jg0da | What color would pure Neutronium be? | I read a lot of scifi, and have a basic layman's understand of physics.
In Niven's stories, Neutronium looked reddish when a character approached a neutron star, and reflective when a character was near a free-floating blob of neutronium.
As I understand it, color and reflectivity are determined by an atom's arrangement of electrons - since they absorb and re-emit electromagnetic radiation. Neutronium doesn't have any electrons.
So, assuming you could get your hands on a blob of free neutrons big enough that gravity continued to hold them, what would it look like?
(I'm specifically asking about pure neutron-degenerate matter - as I understand it, neutron stars have some regular matter piled on top that would reflect light more-or-less normally. I'm also assuming that neutronium is only made of neutrons - no strange matter or naked quarks.) | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jg0da/what_color_would_pure_neutronium_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2bsntk",
"c2bt1pe",
"c2bvz66",
"c2bsntk",
"c2bt1pe",
"c2bvz66"
],
"score": [
11,
121,
3,
11,
121,
3
],
"text": [
"there's not such thing as 'free floating neutronium', the thing is made of pure neutrons, which has a propensity to decay when not bound by the strong nuclear force to a proton. the only reason it's stable is that in a neutron star, it is bound by the gravity of the star. if you got your hands on say a teaspoonful, which while gravity will be significant, would not hold it together.\n\nthat said, ignoring blackbody radiation from leftover heat of a star, you might find _URL_0_ interesting. it describes a proton/photon interaction though, with the lorentz force, which may not apply to neutrons. the most likely answer is that it is perfectly clear, as light would not interact with it, except gravitational and with gravitational lensing...",
"Here is a *guess* of mine. Since the quarks within neutrons are electrically charged, they should, in principle, be able to absorb light. Now for electrons in atoms, there are bound states that the electron must move between to absorb light (for simple gasses for instance). But in materials, the many-body interactions smear out the acceptable energy levels of the electron. Now, in metals, the electrons are free to exhibit long range motion, and this allows them to be reflective. In neutrons, quarks are not so free. So, considering the strong binding energy of neutrons are ~1GeV, for photon energies < < 1GeV, I will assume that the quarks are free to absorb those electrons. \n\nTherefore: I predict that neutronium would be opaque and non-reflective throughout the entire visible spectrum. So matte-black is my guess.\n\n(note: I am, as OP is asking, ignoring black-body radiation. I would imagine that a pure neutron star would be remarkably close to black-body radiation for all but high energy light)",
"From wikipedia:\n\n > The temperature inside a newly formed neutron star is from around 10^11 to 10^12 kelvin.[6] However, the huge number of neutrinos it emits carries away so much energy that the temperature falls within a few years to around 10^6 kelvin.[6] Even at 1 million kelvin, most of the light generated by a neutron star is in X-rays. In visible light, neutron stars probably radiate approximately the same energy in all parts of visible spectrum, and therefore appear white.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)",
"there's not such thing as 'free floating neutronium', the thing is made of pure neutrons, which has a propensity to decay when not bound by the strong nuclear force to a proton. the only reason it's stable is that in a neutron star, it is bound by the gravity of the star. if you got your hands on say a teaspoonful, which while gravity will be significant, would not hold it together.\n\nthat said, ignoring blackbody radiation from leftover heat of a star, you might find _URL_0_ interesting. it describes a proton/photon interaction though, with the lorentz force, which may not apply to neutrons. the most likely answer is that it is perfectly clear, as light would not interact with it, except gravitational and with gravitational lensing...",
"Here is a *guess* of mine. Since the quarks within neutrons are electrically charged, they should, in principle, be able to absorb light. Now for electrons in atoms, there are bound states that the electron must move between to absorb light (for simple gasses for instance). But in materials, the many-body interactions smear out the acceptable energy levels of the electron. Now, in metals, the electrons are free to exhibit long range motion, and this allows them to be reflective. In neutrons, quarks are not so free. So, considering the strong binding energy of neutrons are ~1GeV, for photon energies < < 1GeV, I will assume that the quarks are free to absorb those electrons. \n\nTherefore: I predict that neutronium would be opaque and non-reflective throughout the entire visible spectrum. So matte-black is my guess.\n\n(note: I am, as OP is asking, ignoring black-body radiation. I would imagine that a pure neutron star would be remarkably close to black-body radiation for all but high energy light)",
"From wikipedia:\n\n > The temperature inside a newly formed neutron star is from around 10^11 to 10^12 kelvin.[6] However, the huge number of neutrinos it emits carries away so much energy that the temperature falls within a few years to around 10^6 kelvin.[6] Even at 1 million kelvin, most of the light generated by a neutron star is in X-rays. In visible light, neutron stars probably radiate approximately the same energy in all parts of visible spectrum, and therefore appear white.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42951"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Properties"
],
[
"http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42951"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Properties"
]
] | |
1dio3z | Can someone explain how Marbury v. Madison increased the power of the Supreme Court? | I know the information about the case, but I don't understand how the Supreme Court gained power when they rejected it. Could someone illuminate? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dio3z/can_someone_explain_how_marbury_v_madison/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9qoc3a",
"c9qoqfy",
"c9qwaup"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The decision overturned part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, on the grounds that it caused the Court to overstep its original jurisdiction granted in the Constitution. In other words, that part of the Act was unconstitutional. This decision established the power of the US courts to review and overturn Congressional acts if they are a) in conflict with other laws or b) in conflict with the Constitution. \n\nWhat's a little bit confusing is that the impact of the decision meant that the court was *denying* itself additional powers (to intervene directly in administrative appointments of the government). So in a way it's as if SCOTUS were taking judicial powers away from itself. But in reality, by establishing the Court's power to review & overturn acts of Congress, the precedent it set was plenty powerful.",
"I would just add to the previous comment that the Court saw Article 3 as a ceiling for original jurisdiction over cases (not appellate review over cases, which is the Court's most prevalent power). Meaning, very few, if any cases come straight to the Court.",
"Not only what jetpacksforall said, but the beautiful part about the decision was that Jefferson's administration couldn't do anything about it. Justice Marshall, being a Federalist, was a political rival of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. It was, after all, a lame-duck Federalist Congress that passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 nominating a bunch of Federalist-friendly judges, one of them being Marbury, whose commission didn't make it to him in time before Jefferson stepped in to stop it. \n\nSo Justice Marshall basically says, Marbury deserves his Commission and what you did Jefferson was a very bad thing, shame on you, but this Court does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a Writ of Mandamus forcing you to give him his Commission, and therefore the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowing such writs is unconstitutional. Since the Court was overruling a legislation that increased its jurisdiction, there was nothing the other branches could do to undo that.\n\nAnother interesting part was that Justice Marshall was the former Secretary of State whose job was to ensure the commissions to these new judges were delivered. (He assumed incoming SoS James Madison would deliver the ones he wasn't able to complete.) So major conflict of interest as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
hlp5p | If I cut my hand and foot open, and held them together, would they heal together? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hlp5p/if_i_cut_my_hand_and_foot_open_and_held_them/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1wdonj",
"c1wdqm5",
"c1we1hy",
"c1wf8n7"
],
"score": [
26,
7,
74,
2
],
"text": [
"Surgeons actually basically do this when they need to supply blood to an area or reconstruct tissue.\n\nFor an ear, for example, I have hear of cases where someones arm would be spliced to where their ear is, then allowed to heal, then enough arm skin cut out to make an ear. \n\n",
"there was a motorcycle racer, mick doohan, who had this done to his leg when there was a big risk of amputation after an accident.\n\n > In late June 1992 Mick Doohan fell at the Assen GP and suffered a savage lower right leg break - spiral fractures of the tibia and fibula. After botched early treatment, amputation was on the cards. It was horrendous.\nAfter rescue and relocation, a radical op performed by Doctor Claudio Costa’s Clinica Mobile saved his legs from being sawn off and speeded up his recovery. Seven weeks after his crash, as weak as a kitten and with his leg withered and useless, Doohan came back to defend what was left of his once imperious 57-point Championship lead at the hideously dangerous Interlagos circuit.\nHis treatment had included radical surgery, sewing both his legs together and transplanting muscle tissue from his torso to his calves, to help get the dying muscles become oxygenated by the living tissue.\nMick, until that stage an unbeatable prospect, knew he was in trouble in Brazil and was a physical wreck. “I’d lost six kilos, and had been pretty lean to start with; I was run down, beat up and on some pretty strong pills,” says Mick with typical ‘no worries’ understatement.\nHe eventually finished 12th, but in 1992 that meant no points and all that grit and risk had been for nothing. He finished the Championship in second place, losing out to Wayne Rainey by just four points. “That was my toughest race ever, but I was happy that I had finished,” he says. “I got back to the pits and Costa and another doctor were crying. It was all pretty emotional.” But the legend that was Mick Doohan had been born. The infamous Gold & Goose photo of him in appalling pain, with his stick-thin leg clearly on display and Dr Costa offering comfort, shows the true grit of the man. And that’s why Doohan’s Sao Paolo effort is unquestionably our hardest race of all time.\n\n",
"[Rotationplasty](_URL_1_) - Cut off leg above knee, remove knee entirely, attach foot backwards.\n\n[Great toe to thumb transfer](_URL_0_) - What it says. (Gore)",
"Some of the early pioneering work in the field of plastic surgery was conducted as a result of WWI and WWII by a New Zealand man called [Howard Gillies](_URL_1_) and his cousin [Archibald McIndoe](_URL_2_).\n\nOne of the techniques they developed (before advances in vascular surgery) was the [tube pedical](_URL_0_) which allowed them to gradually move large amounts of skin and soft tissue from one distant location to the other whilst maintaining the viability of the donor site and the transplanted graft."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.medstudentlc.com/presentation.php?id=81",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJUcTbR2SY"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking-stalk_skin_graft",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Gillies",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_McIndoe"
]
] | ||
33d2vl | why did no one fix the issue of capital i and lowercase l looking identical on computers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33d2vl/eli5_why_did_no_one_fix_the_issue_of_capital_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqjpapl",
"cqjpgvh",
"cqjpj15",
"cqjpj5f"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can do this yourself easily. Just set the font to one with serifs.\n\nIt's not restricted to computers, in any case. Printed lower-case l and upper-case I have always looked identical in sans serif fonts.",
"Because sans serif typefaces (the ones that look like plain lines without the accents on the ends of the letters) are designed to minimize space as much as possible. They are simple intentionally, and the 'I' and 'l' characters are just as simple. If you look at the typeface used for this comment you can see that it is distinguishable so really it's up to the font designer. ",
"That is not a computer problem but a font problem.\n\nThe fonts used in modern computer are either based on or actually are fonts which pre-dates computers.\n\nTimes New Roman for example was created by the famous The Times Newspaper in 1931.\n\nNot all fonts used today have the l and the I looks identical.\n\nIn most cases it is assumed that people will be able to tell from context which was meant and in those contexts where both might be equally likely (semi random alphanumeric codes often only allow one or the other or treat them the same).",
"One, it's not so much a problem with computers, but with fonts. In the early days, computers didn't come with multiple fonts, and most used [OCR-A](_URL_0_) or something similar. In that font, capital I and lowercase l look different. \n\nTwo, this is not that big of a problem as usually context will clue the user in as to whether or not it's an I or an l."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCR-A_font"
]
] | ||
2o5xy5 | how can a surge protector turn one outlet into several safely, but plugging a surge protector into each of those outlets is unsafe? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o5xy5/eli5how_can_a_surge_protector_turn_one_outlet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmk04e6",
"cmk1k8a"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the amount of amperage you are drawing out of one circuit. In my opinion its not safe to use cheap surge protectors at all, due to their low amperage range. Then plugging 6 poor surge protectors into the first poor surge protectors is just asking for electrical problems. At least, blowing a breaker. Hopefully not burning your house down. Do not do this for christmas lights...",
"There are two basic stats to electricity that we are concerned with here - voltage and current. Imagine this like currency. Voltage will be like type of currency (dollars or pesos or whatnot) and current will the amount of money($10, $20, etc).\n\nEach outlet provides a certain voltage (gives out dollars). Everything plugged into it expects that voltage(wants dollars). Great! \n\n\nBut each outlet also has a maximum amount of current that can be drawn from it at once. So if an outlet is designed to allow 10 amps at a certain voltage (lets say $10), normally you can plug in any 2 things that want that voltage (dollars) and add up to 10 amps (perhaps 2 $5 items, or 1$7 and 1$3, or just 1 $10).\n\nNormally, things with normal plugs are limited to certain currents (costs), so that when you plug 2 in it will never overload the outlet.\n\nTheres enough extra room built in, and so many things are well below the max cost, that surge protectors can usually make these two outlets into 5 without much problem (most things cost under $2, so a $10 outlet most likely wouldn't have a problem if you plugged in 5 things. But if you have a couple expensive things in there, it could!).\n\nBut if you have multiple surge protectors that turn each side into 5 outlets, now you have ten outlets still on that $10 limit for the total cost. Putting even 7 normal, $2 items on this is now over your limit! your stuff costs $14, but you only have $10 to give. So you're trying to give some things less money then they asked for. Some just wont work when that happens, but some will get mad and break things. In addition, you're asking for $14 down a path only meant for $10. It can't all fit at once so depending on how far over you are sometime it will just only let the $10 through, and sometimes it will clog up (blow a fuse) and NOTHING will go through till you fix that fuse. Fuses dont solve all problems though, so dont think oh the worst that can happen is I blow a fuse. Thats a common result, but another common result is fire and damaged devices. \n\n\n\n\nAs a side note, on the voltage having to be the same, those big blocky square plugs like mosts phones and handhelds and chargers and whatnot have are transformers, which solve the different voltage problems. The turn 1 amp at 10v (1 euro) into 2amps at 5v (2 dollars). They're like a money changer. If you didn't have those for something that didn't want the voltage your outlet is at, you'd have a big problem. You'd be trying to give it the wrong currency and it would refuse it (unless it's really lenient and you're really close, but most times it will just cause a problem). This can either just make it not work(refuse), or make it blow up (get mad and destroy things)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
6tjnss | The name "United Kingdom" has been around for a few centuries; why did it only replace "British Empire" in common usage in the mid-20th century? When and why did the people of the UK stop thinking of themselves as an empire? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6tjnss/the_name_united_kingdom_has_been_around_for_a_few/ | {
"a_id": [
"dln9ufq"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland) became a unified political entity as of the 1701 Act of Settlement, and the since that point the country was known as Great Britain ( abbreviated to the UK or Britain). During the age of colonisation Britain established a global colonial empire, and in 1876 Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India, though she was still monarch of Great Britain and Ireland. Since 1701 the UK parliament was dominated by English landowners and politicians, with little Scottish, Irish, or Welsh say in the overall strategy of the empire. While Welsh/Irish/Scottish politicians such as Lloyd George and Ramsay MacDonald had a hand on the tiller at crucial points in British colonial history, they did so under a unified 'British' mandate, not a parochial Welsh/Scots/Irish mandate.\n\nThe British people still referred to their homeland as Britain, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom, while also celebrating the fact that they had an empire, which was globally known as the British Empire. Unlike the Empire of France or the German Reich, Britain never formally declared herself an 'Empire' in this sense, so while the monarch of was the King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the Empress/Emperor of India, they were never called the Empress/Emperor of the United Kingdom et al.\n\nThere was also the fact that the age of Empire, in terms of celebration and public recognition, only occurred from around 1870 to 1950, at which point the de-colonialisation process was underway (India had gained independence in 1949). Britain then transitioned the empire into a Commonwealth of Nations, hence the British Commonwealth, with the British monarch as head of many of those nations (such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada). Once the Commonwealth came into being the notion of Empire slipped into history, and while Britain retained colonies up until the late 1970's (it still retains small islands in the Atlantic and Pacific), the notion of an 'empire' slipped away gradually. The decolonialisation process happened gradually, and as such the evolution of empire into Commonwealth enabled the British people to see the Commonwealth as the natural successor to the former empire, while also allowing the British to 'gracefully' exit their colonies without fighting rearguard colonial actions (though Malaya, Kenya, and Rhodesia had armed conflicts in the run-up to and after decolonialisation).\n\nIf you are not a British person, you also have to remember that the national identities of the individual components of the United Kingdom still have their own regional/national identities. The Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, and English all have their distinct national identity, and while it is not unusual for a British person to view themselves as 'British', they are also likely to view themselves as Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or even Yorkshire before they say they are British. Britain has a complex social identity, and in the post Empire period these differences have become more marked, especially in de-industrialised areas such as the Scottish lowlands, southern Wales and Northern Ireland. The unity that Empire brought has been swapped for a more parochial vision, which has become increasingly more apparent in the English, which is why the Brexit vote was such a significant one, as it pitted the Scots, Northern Irish, and European facing English against those parts of England that had suffered under the neo-libral ideas of Thatcher and Tony Blair's governments. The revanchism, and appeal to a golden age of 'England' (namely a white dominated, Johny Foreigner excluding Empirer), resonated with voters who were desperate to recapture a perceived golden era that the late British Empire conjured up in their minds. (Note to the mods: I appreciate that this is under the 25 year rule, but it helps bring context to the question).\n\nUltimately your questions are complex, namely in that while the diplomatic nature of the UK never acknowledged the Empire (vis-a-vie France, Germany, or Russia) in its title, globally the sobriquet for the UK was the British Empire. It was not unusual in this respect, as the USA look this approach when it established colonies after the Spanish/American war.\nIn terms of when did the British stop seeing themselves as an empire, it depends on what generation you belong to. The post-Commonwealth generation have no emotional ties to the notion of Empire, and the generation that grew up under the Empire appreciate that it no longer exists, though there is an undercurrent amongst the English in particular that hankers after the role the United Kingdom (under English rule) played in the world during the colonial period."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
9ddhll | when, why, and how did large chunks of florida become "non-southern" in nature? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ddhll/eli5_when_why_and_how_did_large_chunks_of_florida/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5h3ncs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Florida native here! (That doesn't necessarily give me more credibility to answer your question, I just think more people should be at least somewhat proud to be from here.) Basically, those southern regions of Florida were never very Southern to begin with.\n\nUntil the early 20th century, the vast majority of peninsular Florida was sparsely populated frontier and swampland. Since the historic population centers of Florida were in the less swampy and more easily accessible panhandle and northern sections of the peninsula, the cultural traditions of the rest of the American South were able to take root and flourish there. \n\nThe construction of major railways through peninsular Florida in the 1910s made it much easier to traverse, but it wasn't until the great [land boom](_URL_1_) of the 1920s that the state started to become much more populated. During that time, shrewd real estate speculators with dubious scruples began buying up and developing land in South Florida, and to a lesser extent, the Gulf Coast and South-Central Florida. They then heavily advertised Florida in the Northeast and Midwest population centers as a pristine tropical paradise, to the point that most of the people moving into these new developments were from those areas. What those new residents found when they got here was often...less than what had been advertised. (Think houses literally sinking into the swamp.) \n\nIn any case, the massive speculation created a bubble that inevitably popped, and the whole thing went sideways around the time of the Depression. Population growth dropped off significantly after that, but by that time, cities like Miami, West Palm Beach, Tampa, and Orlando had been well established, populated mostly by former Northerners. When economic times got better, that migration pattern mostly continued, with those cities becoming prime destinations for retiring Northerners post-WWII. The construction of the Orlando theme parks beginning in the 1970s and growth of tourism as the state's primary industry made Florida a top destination for people from up north, many of whom decided to return here for good. \n\nAs an aside, the whole Florida land boom really was an interesting time in the state's history. I highly recommend [\"Oh, Florida!\"](_URL_0_) by Craig Pittman for more on this and other interesting bits of Florida history and current affairs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Oh-Florida-Americas-Weirdest-Influences/dp/1250071208",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_land_boom_of_the_1920s"
]
] | ||
7z8bm6 | How are decisions made on where large hydroelectric dams are located? | I'm working on a project for a remote sensing class on how RS technology is used to plan and manage large hydroelectric dams. I understand the factors involved with choosing a dam location (eg topography, river discharge etc), but I can't find much information on the protocol of how specific dam locations are chosen. If anybody working in this industry has some insight into this question, I would greatly appreciate it. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7z8bm6/how_are_decisions_made_on_where_large/ | {
"a_id": [
"dumc1ew"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There was next to zero real protocol for 90% of the dams in the US. \n\nBasically either US army corps of engineers or the bureau of land management put forth proposed dam locations for agricultural development, navigation, and water preservation. Electricity is only a byproduct meant to help fund the dam since very few dams actually turn a profit from electricity production. \n\nBeing that the each dam needed to be voted on by congress many projects were funded by “I’ll vote for yours if you vote for mine”. This brought money and work to these states, but at the cost of tax payer subsidized projects that were incapable of paying for themselves (relatively low electricity production). Oh and most dams in the US are privately owned.\n\nCadillac desert by Marc Reisner covers all the history. It’s too long and dry to read for a small project but very informative. \n\nDamNation (documentary) covers some of this mainly from an ecological and social equality viewpoint. \n\n[NPRs reflection on FLOYD Dominy ](_URL_1_) \n\n\n[another good site](_URL_0_) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/dominy/",
"https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126511368"
]
] | |
c8mzhy | how did the emergency services work during times of segregation in cities like nyc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c8mzhy/eli5_how_did_the_emergency_services_work_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"eso58ax",
"esqef3a"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Everything was very community based, and most solutions arose out of need, not governance. \n\nWhat I mean is, a community needed law enforcement, so they hired the best person for the job and called him sheriff. He deputized folks he thought were good for the job, and boom. You have a police force. \n\nThis is why Sheriffs (in most cases) are elected. It is a community driven service.",
"This is better in r/askhistorians."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
19n67n | what is the historical difference between monks, priests, and friars. | I was watching The Name of the Rose with Sean Connery, and the other day I was reading World Without End by Ken Follett. I'm confused by the difference between these classes of religious people. What were their roles? Are some higher ranked than others? Do their roles overlap? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19n67n/eli5_what_is_the_historical_difference_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8plv8j",
"c8pwmul",
"c8px1xu"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A monk takes his vows and commits to a particular self-sufficient community consisting only of monks. He serves the church through devotion.\n\nA friar takes his vows and commits to a larger area, a province, and is supported through donations. They will usually travel about their area and stay in a variety of places in the province they are committed to. He serves the church by working among laypeople.\n\nA priest can be a friar, monk, or neither. He is an ordained member of the church which means he can perform rites and rituals such as giving mass, performing marriages, and giving last rites, things that a non ordained friar or monk cannot do.",
"Monks belong to one kind of religious order, an important part of this type of religious order is \"stability\" staying in one place. So they're very much devoted to a life of prayer in a small community and not really out in the world much. These communities are mostly self-supporting. This means there is usually some kind of community work that pays for the expenses of the community (many make beer or jams or other products like this).\n\nFriars belong to a different kind of religious order. The most important thing about these religious orders (which have more variation among them than the type of religious orders that monks belong to) is that they beg for the money to support themselves. This naturally involves them being more involved with the community typically than a monk would be.\n\nBoth friars and monks take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They do not have individual property (everything is owned in common, though sometimes this can be a fair amount of property/money). They promise not to marry and seek to live chastely. They are all committed to obedience. There is a \"superior\" in each religious order which they must obey in all things not contrary to good morals. The superior in turn is obedient to some other religious authority (depending on the structure of the order).\n\nThere are two types of priests. One is a member of a religious order and thus either a monk or friar (one can be a lay brother, that is a non-priest monk or brother as well). The other type is called a \"secular\" priest. A secular priest does not make the three vows, but does live some of the realities of the three vows in different ways. He also promises not to marry. He can own personal property but makes a promise to live \"simply.\" He also makes a promise of obedience to the bishop (the church ruler of a local area called a diocese), but the bishop doesn't control every aspect of the secular priest's life the way a religious superior might for a religious order priest. The bishop does decide in what parish (local church) the priest will serve and the priest owes the bishop obedience in matters that pertain to that assignment.\n\nThe other difference is this: members of religious orders make their vows directly to God (in the presence of the Church) whereas secular priests make promises to the Church. It is much easier to receive permission to no longer live according to the promises than the vows.\n\nI'm sure you're a smart 5 year old. :-)",
"Just for good measure, how about; reverends, pastors, and ministers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2f03fq | Why is 9/11 considered a terrorist attack, but Pearl Harbor isn't? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2f03fq/why_is_911_considered_a_terrorist_attack_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck4lcog",
"ck4lcx1"
],
"score": [
17,
11
],
"text": [
"'Terrorism' is a pretty vague term, but the fact that Pearl Harbour was an attack on a military target rather than a civilian office building is probably the biggest reason.",
"Pearl Harbor was a planned military operation by the empire of Japan. 9-11 was a plot performed by a group independent of a recognized country. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
ec7h27 | What, if any, were the actual elements of “due process” in the Salem Witch Trials? | I am curious about the true life aspects of the fear-driven hysteria of these events. Did anyone actually intend or allow for due process to even occur? Was there an actual magistrate or judge that stepped in? Did the accused ever have attorneys? Also, sorry if this makes the question too broad, was there anything unique about the trials in the americas that differed from Scotland or other sites of witch hysteria? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ec7h27/what_if_any_were_the_actual_elements_of_due/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjzrvgw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There actually was! Kind of. \n\nThe legal process of 17th century New England was fairly established by 1692. First, an accusation had to be made. Complaints by the afflicted accusers were often filed by their fathers, other relatives, or community members. For all legal conflicts, accusers had to post bond to ensure that they were not making frivolous accusations. However, the judges did not enforce this during the witchcraft crisis until the new governor stepped in. The legal case was that the victims had been \"Tortured Afflicted Consumed Pined Wasted and Tormented.\" After that, the accused were apprehended by the Constable. Then, there would be a preliminary hearing or deposition, where the accused were questioned. At this point, any other accusations of witchcraft against them would come forth, as well as any testimony for or against them. Typically, spectral evidence would be provided by the afflicted accusers, as well as a touch test. In a touch test, the afflicted accusers would go into fits that could supposedly only be cured by the touch of whoever is afflicting them. This evidence would then be used at a grand jury hearing, where they would either be formally indicted or released by 18 jurors. Finally, the accused would go to a trial, with a jury consisting of 12 \"honest and lawful\" freemen who held estates worth at least 50 pounds. No one had attorneys, though that was the norm for the time. \n\nNew England society was especially litigious at the time, so the average villager, no matter sex or socio-economic status, would likely be familiar with the workings of the legal system. That being said, the testimonies at many of the trials were made in duress. Samuel Parris was rumored to have beat Tituba in order to extract a confession. Margaret Jacobs later recanted her confession, saying \"...they told me \\[that\\] if I would not confess I should be put down into the dungeon and would be hanged; but if I would confess I should have my life.\" At the depositions, the accused were often badgered with questions about their relationships with Satan.\n\nFor the first few months of the crisis, there were no actual trials. The New England colony had lost its charter in 1689, and with it, its formal government. Thus, no trials could occur. Early accused people, like Tituba, had to wait in jail after their indictment by the Grand Jury. Only when William Phips was appointed governor and the charter reissued in May of 1692 could the trials occur. Governor Phips set up the Court of Oyer and Terminer specifically for witchcraft trials. \n\nOnce the trials began, there were obvious conflicts of interest. The mother in law of Judge Jonathan Corwin was accused, and he did not recuse himself for the case. Some historians have suggested that Samuel Parris was a court transcriber in addition to his role as Salem's minister, a staunch supporter of the trials, and the father and uncle to two of the afflicted accusers. That would be another conflict of interest.\n\nThe court of Oyer and Terminer also seemed to have a presumption of guilt; they found 27 out of 28 cases guilty. During an earlier witchcraft crisis in New England, a court only had 8 guilty verdicts out of 31 cases.\n\nIn the defense of Governor Phips, it did seem like he wanted fair trial or at least to be seen as wanting them. As previously mentioned, he only became the governor in May and the crisis had begun in January. Once appointed, he immediately set up the special court of Oyer and Terminer to work through the backlog of witchcraft cases. The man he chose as Chief Justice was the Deputy Governor and \"the rest were persons of the best prudence and figure that could then be pitched upon,\" according to Phips's letter from October 12, 1692, to the Clerk of the Privy Council in London. Phips then left to the Maine Frontier on August 1st. If Phip's letter is to be believed, once he returned, he saw that the trials had been unjust and immediately shut down the court of Oyer and Terminer. Coincidentally, Phips's wife had just been accused of witchcraft. After that, Phip's created a new court that was forbidden from using spectral evidence. Everyone who was sentenced to be executed by the new court was then pardoned by Phips and the crisis came to an end."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3x7fcv | how does congress actually "hide" something within a bill? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x7fcv/eli5_how_does_congress_actually_hide_something/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy24tfe",
"cy25aap"
],
"score": [
4,
21
],
"text": [
"They make a bill excessively long, minimum 10 pages and sneak a paragraph of what the want somewhere in the pages in the middle.",
"Dear Robot, this isn't an anecdote, it's an example to explain to the user how it works. Were a Congressman to put up a 1 line bill that /u/beep-frotz should be shot in a week, the user would mobilise opposition, and persuade people how unjust, offensive, and wrong it is.\n\nWere a Congressman to put up a 200 page bill about the wonders of apple pie, and how the only thing better than apple pie is the incredible US military fighting hard to defend our citizens freedoms, and somewhere 2/3 of the way through, there's a paragraph explaining how termination is necessary & obligatory for users containing a hyphenate, whose second part is 25% longer than the first, which alphabetically precede Congress, and end in the ultimate of Roman alphabetisation, and then I put it up for vote tomorrow - I'm afraid you're dead."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.