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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4x47lj | how safe am i on a plane? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4x47lj/eli5_how_safe_am_i_on_a_plane/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6cbap6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I get creeped out sometimes when I think about it... and I work in aerospace. And I build the stupid things. I reassure myself like this:\n\nThe team that engineered your lawn mower spent thousands of hours making sure it would be safe and reliable. \n\nThe team that engineered your car's safety features spent tens or hundreds of thousands of hours making sure they would be reliably and consistently safe.\n\nThe team that engineered that aircraft and the tools that made it have spent (cumulatively) millions and tens of millions of hours in making it safe. And designed for failure well beyond any condition the aircraft would _ever_ meet in its lifetime. \n\nNo airliner has been lost in the past 40 years that cannot ultimately be attributed to human error, negligence in maintenance or maliciousness (terror attacks etc.). Just don't fly \"Fred's discount airlyne\" and you'll be fine. \n\nYou are more likely to die in the car ride to the airport than you are on your flight. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
hpze0 | Can someone explain gyroscopic forces? | After being astounded by the fact that I can make my Powerball spin at 10,000 rpm I realised I have no idea why that happens.
...and why it's hard to rotate a spinning object in a different plane. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hpze0/can_someone_explain_gyroscopic_forces/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1xdsrr",
"c1xekkn"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
" > ...and why it's hard to rotate a spinning object in a different plane.\n\nConservation of angular momentum.\n\nWhats a powerball?\n",
"if you want to think about it in a more practical way, imagine a block sliding towards you on ice, and you have to push the block to the side so it doesn't hit you. You are changing the block's path of travel, and that takes force. The amount of force depends on how heavy the block is how fast its traveling, and how much do you want to deflect it from the original path. When you push the block, the block pushes back (action-reaction)\n\nIts the same idea except in a powerball you have mass moving in a circular path. Imagine a section of that mass. Tilting the ball around any other axis means you are changing the direction of travel of that mass, so it exerts a reaction force to you. Coupled with the geometry and circular motion, the sections of the mass on the internal spinning mass provide reaction forces in different directions. The sum of all forces manifests as a gyroscopic force. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
m8mqg | why did nazi germany treat british/american pows half-decently, but russian/slavic pows horrendously? | I understand that the Nazis consider the slavic people to be subhuman rats and therefore had no morale issue with treating them so badly but why did they go to the bother of treating British/American POWs half-decently? Why not just put them in terrible concentration camps like they did with Soviet POWs?
The only thing I can think of is, say if Nazi Germany were successful in conquering Britian, it would be difficult for them to explain to British citizens why they treat their POWs so badly, wereas for Russia and the east they planned to just "exterminate" them anyway. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m8mqg/elif_why_did_nazi_germany_treat_britishamerican/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2yyzya",
"c2z0agd",
"c2z3uhm",
"c2yyzya",
"c2z0agd",
"c2z3uhm"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You answered the question yourself. Russians were seen as subhuman, western Europeans and Americans not.",
"The Germans never really disliked the English. Even in WWI, the Germans always respected the English, and in both wars, never really wanted to fight them; it was the English that declared war on Germany. Their war was more professional than personal.\n\n",
"From an ethnic point of view, the English and German people share a common heritage - English is a Germanic language, and most English people are descended from Anglo-Saxon settlers who came an area that includes parts of what are now the Netherlands and Germany. The Nazis therefore did not regard the English as racial inferiors the way they did Jews and Slavs.\n\nThe Nazi classification of races regarded the \"Nordic\" European peoples as being of superior quality to the Mediterranean Europeans, while people of Slavic descent and Jews were regarded as subhumans. The Nordic European races included the English, Germans, Dutch, Danes, and Norwegians. As such, the Nazis had little interest in exterminating the English, and since many Americans would have been of English stock, the same would apply to them.",
"You answered the question yourself. Russians were seen as subhuman, western Europeans and Americans not.",
"The Germans never really disliked the English. Even in WWI, the Germans always respected the English, and in both wars, never really wanted to fight them; it was the English that declared war on Germany. Their war was more professional than personal.\n\n",
"From an ethnic point of view, the English and German people share a common heritage - English is a Germanic language, and most English people are descended from Anglo-Saxon settlers who came an area that includes parts of what are now the Netherlands and Germany. The Nazis therefore did not regard the English as racial inferiors the way they did Jews and Slavs.\n\nThe Nazi classification of races regarded the \"Nordic\" European peoples as being of superior quality to the Mediterranean Europeans, while people of Slavic descent and Jews were regarded as subhumans. The Nordic European races included the English, Germans, Dutch, Danes, and Norwegians. As such, the Nazis had little interest in exterminating the English, and since many Americans would have been of English stock, the same would apply to them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
54ckp4 | why do you never see large news companies being charged for libel? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54ckp4/eli5_why_do_you_never_see_large_news_companies/ | {
"a_id": [
"d80oqbi",
"d80pqtj",
"d80rcy9",
"d80sajj",
"d80t4dm",
"d80w4zz"
],
"score": [
35,
10,
10,
2,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they tend to be very careful about precisely what they say and how they say it so they aren't actually committing libel. They also have a bunch of lawyers to address any charged that are filed against them, but they are specialized in reporting news and know how to phrase things well to avoid it in the first place.",
"Because they are very careful to not commit libel. Being wrong in a news report is not libel, maliciously spreading a known lie with the intent to ruin someone is libel. That was common at one point with news agencies, but has not been for nearly a century. ",
"I'm a journalism student currently taking (among other things) a course about this.\n\nThe short answer: in Canada (and probably other countries), libel/defamation laws have exception clauses. Those exceptions include things like if the information is true, a matter of public interest, etc, so as long as what journalists report is factual, they cannot be (successfully) sued for libel/defamation.",
"What country are we talking about here?\n\nIn the US, libel is very hard to prove due to the need to balance it with the (broadly interpreted) right to freedom of speech.\n\nIn other countries, such as the UK, it's [easier](_URL_0_).",
"First off, libel is a tort, and is not a criminal offense in most places. That means you won't be charged with libel, but sued for it.\n\nAnd to be sued for it, someone needs to show damages. They will need to show that your statements caused them financial harm. \n\nNote that most of the time when the media \"gets it wrong\", they are reporting information that someone else got wrong. So, if the news says that \"Joe Smith is wanted by police for questioning in the murder\", and Joe Smith had nothing to do with it, he won't have a cause of action against the media outlet because they simply reported what the police told them.\n\nNews organizations aren't really in the habit of just making shit up. Know why? Because a libel suit is a very bad thing. Not just in money, but in loss of reputation, and that's usually even worse. A news outlet that invents stories gets a lower readership/audience, and will have a lot more trouble getting qualified journalists to work for them.\n\nIn breaking news, especially, there's a lot of misinformation going around early on. But it's not libel to report that unless you do it recklessly or with malice, and that's almost never the case.",
"I actually work for a news station and something I hear all the time being shouted across the room is we can't say he did \"blank\" we have to say he was accused of \"blank\" or the police department suspects he did \"blank\" or the suspect was arrested for \"blank\" if you watch any newscast about crime and there is a suspect but they haven't been charged you will here some variation of that.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z49LjJj3VTI"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
4ahv0q | why do people hate planned parenthood? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ahv0q/eli5_why_do_people_hate_planned_parenthood/ | {
"a_id": [
"d10gr2f",
"d10hd2e"
],
"score": [
15,
2
],
"text": [
"This is older than any videos.\n\nPP is synonymous with abortions, even though only a small percentage of the facilities actually provide that service. Unfortunately, the conservative side of America (or whatever the fuck they are), think it's appropriate behavior to protest abortion clinics, or to make death threats to the people who go in. Why? Who the hell knows. To their twisted minds, it's somehow tolerable behavior act like a jackass in front of a business they don't agree with, despite the fact that PP offers many other services, like family planning, certain kinds of counseling, and other stuff related to making sure women (some men, but mostly women) can live healthy lives",
"Planned Parenthood provides many services related to reproductive health. One of these services is abortions. Many people think that abortion is immoral and some of them would even say that performing a procedure to intentionally destroy an embryo or fetus is murder. Since Planned Parenthood is the largest and most well-known abortion provider in the US, opponents of abortion do not like the organization. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
3l6yqk | What is this? (German WWII decoration) | _URL_0_ | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l6yqk/what_is_this_german_wwii_decoration/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv3onvx"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"That is the \"Band\" ( Ribbon) of the Iron Cross second Class worn on the buttonhole. Higher honors were worn on the left breat pocket as you can also see in the picture. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/CkhN5ri"
] | [
[]
] | |
16vh61 | How is the 60hz electric power frequency and 60hz NTSC TV standards (refresh rate) related? | Should they be matched for the electric devices to work? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16vh61/how_is_the_60hz_electric_power_frequency_and_60hz/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7zrk18",
"c7zrk72"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"If you add two frequencies you get all combinations of those frequencies. If you have ever been in an airplane and heard the engines apparently throbbing, its because the RPMs are close enough matched that the difference between the two frequencies is audible and that is what you hear. Usually you can't hear or see frequencies over a certain range. Within that range is a 'beat' frequency. So if you have 60Hz and 50Hz you'd get a 10Hz 'beat' frequency you'd hear pretty distinctly. Same goes for what you see, except you can only see up to around 24 Hz then it becomes indistinct.\n\nSo, if a CRT is being refreshed at 50Hz and the lights are 60Hz, you'd see a beat. \n\nIf you have a CRT around, you can sort of test this. Look at the picture and make a 'raspberry' (I think that is what it is called) sound blowing air and causing your tongue to vibrate. The picture will distort because of the beat frequency between your vibrating head and the 60Hz image.\n",
"Long story short, NTSC uses a 60Hz refresh rate because the power supply runs at 60Hz. Similarly, the European PAL standard runs at 50Hz because of their power grid frequency.\n\nThis is especially relevant for old analog tube TVs. The TV's circuitry would use the AC frequency as a timing signal to control direction of the sweep of electron beam inside tube. Whenever you tune to a station, the incoming signal usually won't be in sync with the sweep and it has to realign the two. That's why your TV screen flickers whenever you change channels. It needs a short time to synchronize the picture.\n\nHope this helps!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
ht3uc | Why is the permeability of free space defined as it is? | I've been studying for my magnetism final, and I got to wondering, why is the permeability of free space exactly 4pi*10^-7? So I've been reading about it a bit, and I see that it's defined that way, based on two infinitely long wires, so I see where the 4pi comes from. But I would like to know why, exactly, they chose that experiment? Is it just because they needed some standard? Or because it is easy to determine experimentally?
Further: if the definition of a meter is based on the speed of light, why not make the speed of light 3E8? Would that have made the meter too far off from how it had previously been defined? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ht3uc/why_is_the_permeability_of_free_space_defined_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1y55sg",
"c1y6m55"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The expression \"MKS unit of force\" which occurs in the original text has been replaced here by \"newton,\" the name adopted for this unit by the 9th CGPM (1948). Note that the effect of this definition is to fix the magnetic constant (permeability of vacuum) at exactly 4 pi x 10-7 H · m-1.\n\nFrom [here](_URL_0_)",
" > But I would like to know why, exactly, they chose that experiment?\n\nThis definition was chosen exactly because you can perform the experiment to extremely high degrees of accuracy, whereas direct measurements of charge tend to be less accurate. So it is better to define the Ampere and make the Coulomb a derived unit.\n\n > Would that have made the meter too far off from how it had previously been defined?\n\nYes, that is off by 1 part in a thousand. Changing the meter would create havoc with standards and cost tons of money in retooling equipment. This is sort of like why the US economy does not adopt metric lengths: It is not so much of an issue of easy computation, it is a matter of having to literally change the production just about every screw and bolt in the hardware store."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/ampere.html"
],
[]
] | |
57d21b | When the US interstate system was built through wide open and sparsly populated areas such as the Dakotas, why it did they curve the road every few miles rather than just go straight through the vast expenses of flat land? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57d21b/when_the_us_interstate_system_was_built_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8rh1sg",
"d8rrsmg",
"d8s14x9"
],
"score": [
78,
19,
8
],
"text": [
"Though I'm not completely sure about the Interstate Highway System, I can answer why highways/state highways will often have small offsetting curves: specifically every 6 miles.\n\nThe answer has to do with surveying, specifically the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) used in the United States. (_URL_1_). Most land outside of the original 13 colonies is surveyed in 6x6 mile rectangular blocks called \"townships\" which are in turn split into 36 1x1 mile \"sections\". The problem is that rectangular plots of land (the system) don't fit together perfectly on a globe (reality): for example, all North-South lines are getting closer to each other as you move north within a given section. This leads to errors, which are \"reset\" every 6 miles at the start of a new \"township\".\n\nRoads are typically built along section/township lines (1 mile increments, or, more likely quarter-mile increments or quarter sections) because the point of surveying is to facilitate land ownership, and its better to have a road along properties than running through one (and they serve as natural boundaries/markers).\n\nSo the roads are built on N-S and E-W survey lines, but these have to shift a bit occasionally to make the system work. (Generally the shift is every six miles, but sometimes more often as the PLSS recognizes the primacy of an initial survey for land ownership even if it was done poorly, which leads to shifting roads later once the area develops.)\n\nNote, there are 37 initial surveying anchor points in the US which anchor a regional \"prime meridian\" (N-S) and \"base line\" (E-W). Those don't shift. The Dakotas mostly use the 5th principle meridian (which dates from the Louisiana Purchase with an initial/anchor point in Eastern Arkansas). More info here: _URL_0_ ",
"Every mile of highway alignment has its own rationale and back-story, but in general, to minimize right-of-way and construction costs, as well as to follow good landscape design and highway safety principles.\n\n**Right-of-way.** The Dakotas might look empty to you, but they're not completely. The landscape was studded with farm buildings and access roads that it would be cheaper to avoid. In general terms, it was usually cheaper to align the highway on the land line between farms, to avoid creating useless parcels, but you also don't want to cut off the driveways and local roads used by the farm owners.\n\n**Construction costs.** Those might look like featureless plains, but they're studded with creeks, marshes, lakes, and the occasional railroad—plus small towns. If you can shift the highway alignment slightly, you can save quite a bit. The predecessor highways, like US 2 or US 12, that often were the basis for Interstate alignments, ran straight through the small towns, but the new Interstates would want to swing around them to avoid wiping them out.\n\n**Safety and landscape.** By the 1950s, highway engineers were well aware of the problem of \"highway hypnosis,\" and the Federal Highway Administration discouraged lengthy straight sections in disseminating best practices to state highway departments. There also was a push from those concerned with the landscape implications of superhighways to make them \"lie lightly on the land,\" and that encouraged gently snaking through hills—even slight ones—rather than cutting and filling to create a straight alignment.\n\nEarl Swift's *The Big Roads* talks on p. 257 about highway hypnosis and FHWA best practices, apparently quoting from *Interregional Highways,* published by the US Public Roads Administration.",
"I work for the department of transportation in my state and I will tell you a little about what went on here. The interstate system did not come through Wyoming until the early 1960s. By this time, there was already a transcontinental road in place called the Lincoln Highway, also known as US-30. The Lincoln Highway followed the route in eastern Wyoming that the railroad did. The railroad first encountered mountains in Wyoming and had to find a route up and over or go with plan b, which was to route the railroad south to what is now Wellington, Colorado, and back up north to Laramie, Wyoming. Luckily, on the last approved surveying expedition, Grenville Dodge discovered a gradual sloping landform that rose up and over the Sherman Mountains (known as the Black Hills at the time). This is called the \"gangplank.\" It allowed for the trains to climb over the first topographical challenge they encountered on the westward route. The railroad was later moved a little south when a longer, but more gradual, route was discovered. \n\nThe Lincoln Highway followed this route. The gradual gradient allowed for cars to traverse the mountain range with less effort than in other areas. Later, Interstate 80 followed the route of the Lincoln Highway. For the most part, I should add. With more modern surveying tools and techniques, an even more efficient route was found, but it varied little from the original highway. \n\nNow, this is the mountains, you may ask? You are asking about the plains. Approximately 60 miles of Interstate 80 is on the Wyoming plains. When the railroad came through, towns needed to be located every so many miles to service the steam engines. A major yard was established in Cheyenne (still in action. Union Pacific's heritage steam fleet is based here if you ever find yourself here) to allow staging of materials and cars in preparation for the climb up and over the Sherman Mountains. Nobody owned any of the lands out here, except the native Americans, so the Union Pacific Railroad snatched it all up and sold it off at a profit. Western Nebraska and Wyoming are sparsely populated so towns popped up along the rail route. When the Lincoln Highway came through, it was built in a way that allowed it to twist and wind around farms and private land. This wasn't possible with the building standards of the interstate highway. Curves are regulated on a controlled access highway. So, the interstate was routed in a way that would follow the path of the original surveying and would affect private property as little as possible. That is why the interstate winds a little in Eastern Wyoming. \n\nInterstate 25 is the same story except when it was built, they wanted it to connect the two largest population areas in Wyoming. Casper and Cheyenne. There was also a mountain range in the way so it goes north to where the Laramie range cuts west. Then the highway cuts west to head into Casper. It then takes a northern route out of Casper to where it intersects with Interstate 90. The winds and curves are mostly due to the challenges of building infrastructure through privately owned land. When we build and widen roads today, the biggest hurdle is always in dealing with the land owners. \n\nInterstate 90 crosses the top half of the state and then enters Montana near Billings. It was built through private ranch and farm land as well. When the highway was surveyed, it was the goal to take advantage of the flat land up there while avoiding topographical obstacles that would make the road longer, or require expensive infrastructure to traverse. This desire was also weighed and negotiated with landowners. \n\nWe Are currently designing a section of state highway that will take advantage of a higher speed limit. We recently raised interstate limits to 80mph and primary highways to 70mph. Some sections of primary roads do not have the required 12-foot lanes or 12-foot shoulders. The right-of-way fence you see next to all highways off in the field must be a certain distance from the roadway as well. When we widen a road, we must also widen the right-of-way. This is where the challenge of dealing with landowners comes into play. We save eminent domain as a last resort so if we can realign the highway to appease the landowner and also meet our budget and safety guidelines, we will. \n\nTL;DR: out west, many of the curves in the highways are due to several factors. Avoiding, or minimizing intrusion upon, private land, using routes already surveyed by either smaller highways or railroads. Surveying is expensive. Or to avoid topographical obstacles along the route. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.clui.org/section/fifth-principal-meridian",
"http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/a_plss.html"
],
[],
[]
] | ||
e72vp3 | Why did President Thomas Jefferson think the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional when he was already going to purchase New Orleans? | I have read that President Jefferson approached France to purchase New Orleans for $10 million. France then counters with an offer for the US to purchase all the Louisiana Territory for $15 million. Jefferson considered this deal unconstitutional because the US Constitution made no provisions for land sales, and the US accepting such a treaty would violate Jefferson's strict constructionism.
Was the original proposal to purchase New Orleans unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution or because if violated Jeffersonian principles of strict constructionism? What about the whole process was unconstitutional? Or How was the Louisiana Purchase unconstitutional and the New Orlean proposal legal? Sorry, I think I am confusing myself with the whole question. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/e72vp3/why_did_president_thomas_jefferson_think_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9yein3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Jefferson believed that the Federal Government's roll was a minimal one and was more of an arbitrator between the states. He believed that anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution was unconstitutional and he took that very literally. \n\nBut James Madison and Albert Gallatin assured Jefferson that the purchase of New Orleans was legal under those powers and he moved forward. I doubt that Jefferson really needed much convincing though, he likely just needed Madison and others to do so so that he could maintain a bit of plausibility of denial for himself. We see this later in his life again and again, especially in the Sally Hemming story and his treatment of slaves in his later years.\n\nJefferson had seen the start of the French Revolution first hand, and everyone saw the consequences of Napoleon's rise to power and the impact on all of Europe. The purchase of New Orleans was to secure the port city and thus the Mississippi River from French, or rather Napoleon's, military aggression. With Spain controlling Mexico, it was not inconceivable that Napoleon would eventually use New Orleans and the resources of the land ceded to France (by Spain,) to pursue further military action against Spain in the Americas. Any such action would eventually bring the United States into war one way or another. And Jefferson had just drastically reduced the Navy and Army to reduce the National Debt. \n\nOn top of that Jefferson had forced the Nation to almost completely rely on import duties as it's income (90+%) , and New Orleans was a major port city. Plus it would further open up the Western edge of the United States to American Farmers, traders and settlement by increasing use of the Mississippi River, which was a huge Jeffersonian Idea by itself. He was among the first to propose that the United States would eventually reach all the way to the Pacific and had [created a map proposing state names and borders for the Northwest portion of the United States](_URL_0_) (east of the Mississippi, west of the original 13 states.) \n\nWithout the additional land Napoleon threw in, the successful purchase of the city by itself would have been a major coup for the United States economically and militarily as it would also provide a further buffer to Spanish aggression. It was bad enough that the Spanish would send out military patrols to attempt to intercept the Lewis and Clark Expedition. They only failed because the Spanish expected the Expedition to travel much further south than it did.\n\nJefferson's hand was also somewhat forced in the Louisiana Purchase. Due to the length of time it would take to communicate in those days, James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston went forward with negotiating the sale even though it was technically not within their abilities to do so. \n\nRealistically, almost nobody really had a problem with the Purchase itself. The only real downsides were negotiations with Britain and Spain to firm up the borders of the Purchase and where to come up with the money. Jefferson inherited an $83 million dollar debt that he was aggressively reducing and the $15 million would have to borrowed. (The debt was about $56 million when he left office after his second term.) Knowing what we know about Jefferson today, it's likely the prospect of finding the money worried him more than the Constitutional legality of the purchase. \n\nThe only real opposition to the purchase was the Federalists. They had just seen Jefferson almost completely undo everything they had accomplished in the 1790s (to reduce the national debt). So they used Jefferson's words against him, and turned the Purchase into a controversy. As a response, Jefferson wanted to propose a Constitutional amendment to allow the purchase of land as part of a treaty, but his Cabinet were still of the opinion it was not needed. For the most part Congress agreed, and ratified the treaty to approve the Purchase after only two days of debate. \n\nThe only other party that could have possibly stepped in was the Supreme Court, but even John Marshall (who was a staunch Jefferson opponent,) in 1823 said (in American Insurance Co. V. Canter,) “The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union, the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty,”\n\nI highly recommend listening to the Jefferson Hour Podcast for anything Jefferson. Episodes [1243](_URL_1_) and [1289](_URL_2_) are a good start on the Louisiana Purchase. There are also some episodes down in the 700's that deal with this topic but the newer episodes are better."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/248-friends-polypotamians-countrymen",
"https://jeffersonhour.com/blog/1243",
"https://jeffersonhour.com/blog/1289"
]
] | |
wiegl | The Battle of Agincourt - Breaking down a few inaccuracies | A year ago I wanted to do a project on the Battle of Agincourt as part of my EPQ. However the vast amount of inaccuracy of the battle from whether the English had horses at the battle as this [painting shows] (_URL_0_) prevented me to do a proper investigation into the battle.
I am now going to list a few of my issues that I had during this research that I hope someone can clear up:
* Did the english have horses? - I may be playing too much *Medieval Total War 2* but this was an interesting factor. It was believed that after the Siege of Harfleur (which dragged on for longer than it should) that the English army had so little supplies that they had to dismount from their horses and return home.
* Can a Longbow really pierce a Frenchman's Armour? - This is the most interesting discovery I found. The French Army consisted of mainly noblemen who wore very thick armour (so thick in fact that certain sources suggested that if they fell over they wouldn't be able to get back up). The reason why this is very important is because the Welsh Long-bowmen are often glorified for winning the battle for the English. A counter argument to this statement however is that often the archers would train from an early age to be able to pierce armour that thick. It would be cool if someone got a machine and tested this out...
* "Henry V the Superb Orator"? - It is fair to say that Shakespeare should not be an important historic account. Whilst the famous "Feast of St.Crispin" speech was clearly falsified, how good of an orator was Henry V to rouse an army to defeat another much greater in size.
* How muddy was the field? - I found numerous sources that states that the fields of Agincourt were a quagmire to just simply a little drizzle the night before...
* Did the French lose the battle rather than the English winning it? - There is some information that states that the French lost that battle rather than the English winning it. This can come down to a number of factors: The cockiness of the French, the bottleneck of the field that restricted the French's movement (to the point where they couldn't swing their swords). The Calvary charging before the infantry. The weight of the armour making them sink into the mud, fall over and be unable to get back up and the french simply walking over their own men if they fell over effectively drowning them...
I hope a good historian can clear up these issues for me.
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wiegl/the_battle_of_agincourt_breaking_down_a_few/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5dlsf1",
"c5dm3qo"
],
"score": [
27,
10
],
"text": [
"EDIT: Okay, I'm back at home. Here we go. \n\n > Did the English have horses?\n\nYes, definitely so. In the *Gesta Henrici Quinti* (possibly the most important source for the English side of Agincourt), mounted patrols are mentioned several times in the campaign leading up to Agincourt itself. In Chapter Eleven, these outriders are critically important to securing passage for the English army across the Somme. French forces were deployed at strategic crossing points, but when Henry ordered his mounted troops to charge the ford, they retreated. Juliet Barker notes on page 115 of *Agincourt* that all of the ninety archers Lord Scrope was required to bring to the wars had to be mounted. These mounted troops were used for scouting, foraging, and raiding, but Henry had no real intention of deploying them mounted in a full-scale battle with the main French army. \n\nAt Agincourt itself, the English fought entirely dismounted. A French account by Enguerrand de Monstrelet says that when Henry arranged his formations, \"he then formed two wings of men-at-arms and archers, and posted the horses with the baggage in the rear.\" The *Gesta* also corroborates this account, with the anonymous author stating that \"I who am now writing this and was then sitting on a horse among the baggage at the rear of the battle.\" \n\n > Can a Longbow really pierce a Frenchman's Armour?\n\nNot reliably, no. An arrow fired from a longbow at anything but point-blank distance will not punch through the kind of plate armor that the French knights would have worn at Agincourt. Wikipedia has a surprisingly good entry filled with modern tests performed about this exact subject. _URL_1_\n\nHowever, that doesn't mean that they were immune from arrow fire. English longbowmen fired en masse, sending hundreds of arrows at an enemy force at a time. Not every Frenchman would have had the best available armor, nor would he necessarily have maintained that armor very well. There are always weak points. There is no such thing as an invulnerable soldier on the battlefield. \n\nThe *Gesta* mentions specifically that the massive hail of arrows pierced \"the sides and visors of their [The French's] helmets.\" de Monstrelet's account mentions that \"the French stooped to prevent the arrows hitting them on the visors of their helmets.\" Unfortunately for the flower of French chivalry, this tactic proved ineffective. Out of a unit of eight hundred men specifically deployed to counter the English archers, only one hundred and forty survived. \n\n**TL;DR:** No, longbows could not reliably punch through plate armor at a reasonable distance, but that ended up not mattering due to a) the sheer volume of arrows and b) the French advance being slowed down by the terrible conditions. The longer you take to get across the field, the longer the English can stand there and lob arrows at you. Probability dictates pretty good odds that at least one of those arrows will hit you in a gap in your armor, or hit your horse in the eye. A longbow wound might not necessarily kill you, but I sure as hell wouldn't be eager to continue the charge if I saw a goose-feathered shaft sticking out of my arm. \n\n\n > \"Henry V the Superb Orator\"? \n\nI am terribly sad that I have to report this one as probably false. *Henry V* is my favorite Shakespeare play, and the legend of Agincourt got me into studying history in the first place. Unfortunately, it remains disputed as to whether Henry gave a speech to the assembled troops at all. \n\nThe *Gesta* mentions that Henry gave encouragement to his men on the eve of battle, but only specifically records what he is supposed to have said to Sir Walter Hungerford, who apparently wished that ten thousand more Englishmen would assist their outnumbered force. This is where the bones of Shakespeare's glorious speech appear. Henry replies that he would not wish for one man more, because he is confident that God is on his side and will support him in the coming battle. He cites the example of \"Judas Maccabeus\" to support his statement. We don't actually know who wrote the *Gesta* (aside from the fact that he was a monk who accompanied Henry to Agincourt), so we can't fully analyze his account of what Henry says here. It could just be an embellished account of what Henry really said, or made up entirely. So take that with a grain of salt. \n\nAs for other sources on Henry's hypothetical oration at Agincourt, check out this wonderful article by Mogens Hansen: _URL_0_. It's a very thorough account of the various sources we have on Henry's possible speech at Agincourt. Hansen does a better job of analyzing all of that than I ever could, so I'll leave you to read that. \n\n > How muddy was the field?\n\nProbably very. The *Gesta* doesn't specifically mention it raining on the eve of the battle itself, but it does note in Chapter 11 that the muddy roads have been \"quite remarkably\" churned up by the passage of the French army, implying that weather conditions were not exactly kind. de Monstrelet also mentions that conditions were pretty awful, especially for the English. Though there's a lot to criticize about Juliet Barker's analysis of the battle, I agree with her assessment that the body of evidence in both primary and secondary sources leans towards the fact that the rain was pretty severe at and before the battle. \n\n > Did the French lose the battle rather than the English winning it?\n \nNow I'm going to take this beyond Agincourt itself for a bit. \n\nI really dislike these kinds of questions, because they are of no real functional use in analyzing a battle. To say that one side \"lost\" rather than the other side \"winning\" denies agency to one group or another. Is it really fair to Henry V to say that the French lost through their own incompetence rather than his and his lieutenant's command skills? He showed exactly the right amount of daring and aggression, in my opinion. His order to uproot the stakes and replant them farther forward could have ended in ignominious defeat. But he made the right call, and Agincourt is one of the most famous victories of all time. Are we going to say that Henry had less part in that victory than the French did? \n\nThe French army made mistakes, no doubt about that. I very much take issue, however, with claiming that their mistakes were what cost the battle over good English tactical choices. If you want to make that claim, you could say that about every battle in recorded history. It's a slick line, but it means nothing. The mistakes of the losing side are obviously critical in deciding the fate of a battle. But so are the good choices made by the winning side. Elevating one in importance over the other lessens one's ability to truly understand a battle. You cannot make such an enormous a human endeavor as war and boil it down to a simple laundry list of mistakes. It is a complete, complex, story with a cast of thousands. We must strive for more complete and full understandings, not just in military history, but in all history.\n\nHope that answered your questions! I'll do the bibliography in another post. \n",
"My specialty isn't in the Hundred Years' War, but I did a paper on the English longbow, so I can offer my impressions, but not definitive answers. \n\nAs for the French losing the battle rather than the English winning it, there's certainly merit to that theory. In addition to trying to wade through mud in full armor and in restricted space, the French also squandered a great opportunity: King Henry, trying to end the stalemate, had all his archers pull up their stakes and move the battle line forward, leaving them vulnerable. The French *should* have attacked at that moment, but instead held back--in fairness, it was undoubtedly a confusing tactic, and the French were used to being tricked by the English by this point. The French also had their crossbows at the rear, preventing their contribution to the battle. In short, several tactical errors by the French contributed to their defeat.\n\nAs for arrows' being able to get through plate armor--as I've heard it, they can, but only a straight shot (a glancing blow will bounce off). However, plate armor has gaps, and the English were shooting veritable clouds of arrows--it's not accuracy but pure volume that allowed them to kill French knights. Keep in mind they also had time for plenty of volleys, as the French were slowly slogging through the mud, and that the French horses were nowhere near as well armored as their riders, so if a horse went down, the knight would likely be trapped under it. And of course, both the longbowmen and the men-at-arms took advantage of the chaos of the French soldiers in melee combat as well.\n\nAlso, I don't think most of the longbowmen were Welsh...there were requirements that English freemen be well-equipped with bows, and by this point the English had long appropriated the Welsh longbow and made it their own. Not terribly important for this, but if they had been a largely Welsh force, I doubt the same glorification would have occurred. \n\nLike I said, I'm not an expert. I hope someone can give more detailed answers and correct any of my mistakes."
]
} | [] | [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Schlacht_von_Azincourt.jpg/300px-Schlacht_von_Azincourt.jpg"
] | [
[
"http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/1998.02HansenTheLittleGreyHorse4663.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range_and_penetration"
],
[]
] | |
4hdrcp | What does it mean to understand something or not understand it? What's going on in the brain and conscientiousness that allows this to happen? | [deleted] | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hdrcp/what_does_it_mean_to_understand_something_or_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2q0gn4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think it comes down to how \"black box\" a thing is to you. I know exactly how a toaster works... coils get hot, bread gets toasted. So I feel like I \"understand\" a toaster.\n\nBut a jet engine? I know air goes in one end, yadda yadda yadda, and comes out faster on the other side. I have absolutely no idea what that \"yadda yadda yadda\" part is, so I feel like I don't understand a jet engine.\n\nSo can you break a thing down into it's bits and parts, or is there a bunch of yadda yadda to it?\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1bd8fm | Has the grieving process always been as painful as it is in the current time? In Europe 1,000 years ago or the Middle East 3,000 years ago etc would death have been viewed as more commonplace and consequently less emotional? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bd8fm/has_the_grieving_process_always_been_as_painful/ | {
"a_id": [
"c96111p",
"c9689ia"
],
"score": [
21,
3
],
"text": [
"Okay, before I start, it's pretty much impossible to compare subjective experiences like grief between *individual people today*, much less between cultures and across vast gulfs of time; it's also true that some cultures shun or penalize or repress the expression of grief more than others, which may (or may not - it's really hard to tell) alter the way people brought up in those cultures actually feel, as well as how they express it.\n\nWith that being said, I want to offer you some sources suggesting that the ancient Romans, at least, grieved as deeply and sincerely as we do. I have a paper on the formal (and informal) expressions of grief and mourning in Roman society that I could quote at length, but I think, in this case, it's best to let the primary sources speak for themselves.\n\n[An epitaph](_URL_1_) (CIL 1(2).1837):\n\n > Posilla Senenia Quart(i) f(ilia) Quarta Senenia C(ai) l(iberta) / hospes resiste et pa[rite]r scriptum perlig[e] / matrem non licitum ess[e uni]ca gnata fruei / quam nei esset credo nesci[o qui] inveidit deus / eam quoniam haud licitum [est v]eivam a matre ornarie[r] / post mortem hoc fecit aeq[uo]m extremo tempore / decoravit eam monumento quam deilexserat \n\nAnother (CIL(2).1603):\n\n > Cn(aeus) Taracius Cn(aei) f(ilius) / vixit a(nnos) XX ossa eius hic sita sunt / eheu heu Taracei ut acerbo es deditus fato non aevo / ex{s}acto vita < e=I > es traditus morti / sed cum et decuit florere aetate / iu(v)enta interi{e}isti et loquisti in maeroribus matrem \n\nAnother (CIL 1(2).1222):\n\n > Sei quis havet nostro conferre dolore(m) / adsit nec parveis flere quead lachrymis / quam coluit dulci gavisus amore puella(m) / [hic locat] infelix unica quei fuerat / [donec complevit] fatorum tempora numphe(!) / [nunc sublat]a domu cara sueis(!) tegitur / [et candor vult]us et eo laudata figura / [umbra levis nun]c est parvos(!) et ossa cinis \n\nAnother (CIL 1(2).1223):\n\n > [3]lius P(ubli) et Clodia[e] l(ibertus) Optatus / vixit annos VI m(enses) VIII / [hic me] florentem mei combussere parentes / [nemo d]um licuit superis acceptior unus / [cui nemo po]tuit verbo maledicere acerbo / [3] ad superos quos pietas cogi[3] / [3] modeste nunc vos quon[3] / [3]tis dicite Optate sit [tibi terra levis] / [3]o annorum nondum [3] / [c]um ad mortem matris [de gremio rapior] / Manibus carus fui vivos cari [3] / adverseis quae me sustulit [ominibus] / desine iam frustra mea mater [desine quaeso] / te miseram totos exagitare die[s] / namque dolor talis non nunc tibi [contigit uni] / haec eadem et magneis regibus [acciderant] / Clara Amaranto[3] / Av[ \n\nAnother (B 507):\n\n > Tempera iam genitor lacrimis tuque, optima mater, / desine iam flere. poenam non sentio mortis; / poena fuit vita, requies mihi morte parata est. \n\nThe Roman philosopher Seneca, in his various [Consolations](_URL_2_), wrote extensively on grief, its effects, and its proper limits. In his *De Consolatione ad Marciam*, written ostensibly to console a certain Marcia after the death of her son, he gives examples of women who endured grief in order to encourage Marcia to gain control of her own sorrow. The example I quote is that of [Octavia, sister of Augustus](_URL_0_):\n\n > Si illud prius sequi vis, eximes te numero vivorum: aversaberis et alienos liberos et tuos ipsumque quem desideras; triste matribus omen ocurres; voluptates honestas, permissas, tamquam parum decoras fortunae tuae reicies; invisa haerebis in luce et aetati tuae, quod non praecipitet te quam primum et finiat, infestissima eris; quod turpissimum alienissimumque est animo tuo in meliorem noto partem, ostendes te vivere nolle, mori non posse.\n\nI could go on and on (Cicero's grief at the death of his daughter is particularly well-documented), but I think the quotes above are sufficient to show that the Romans, two thousand years ago, loved, and grieved, and suffered loss, just as we do today.",
"Of course it is hard to compare the impacts of emotion and how persons express it in an archaeological record. One common example in philosophy/history/archeology courses is Alaskan Natives practice of senicide. Even though it was commonly accepted to have old persons left alone, there are many records of children spending days chopping chord after chord of firewood to keep their parents alive, even if it would even be for a short amount of time. We also know that the practice of ashing amongst the Iroquois would last for up to several years. The bible is filled with examples of persons grieving. Homer is pretty much about longing for lost loved ones. Also there are a lot of examples of very young children mummified. However there are also examples of persons disregarding the value of life represented in every newspapers agony column or example of warfare. The answer that I like to look to is that humans has attempted to keep their understanding of the value of person a little bit sacred over the years."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www2.cnr.edu/home/araia/senecaconsolatio.html",
"http://www.attalus.org/docs/cil/epitaph.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca%27s_Consolations"
],
[]
] | ||
1vyjrz | why do countries require visas and limit the people who can enter the country? (china, north korea?) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vyjrz/eli5_why_do_countries_require_visas_and_limit_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cewzx48"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Unknown quantities of foreigners in a country can present a security threat and stress public services. For example, how do you know if they leave?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
dxvpfq | Does the movement of plates have any effect on the axial tilt of Earth? | [deleted] | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dxvpfq/does_the_movement_of_plates_have_any_effect_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7x2vb9"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Yes, the plates can and occasionally do cause Earth's axis to move. Most of the time, the movement of the plates are so slow it doesn't have a big effect. Earthquakes, on the other hand, shift the mass quick enough that there are measurable changes. For example, the [2010 Chile earthquake](_URL_1_) shortened the average length of a day by a few microseconds. It caused the spin axis to move by about 3 inches.\n\nAny process that can steal angular momentum from the earth can change the rotational axis. The moon is constantly doing this by moving the tides. Since it is tidally locked, each time the earth spins around a little bit of energy is lost due to moon tugging on the oceans. This causes the moon to move a little bit further away (about 4 cm a year) and the earth to spin just a little bit more slowly. Eventually, the earth's rotation will be locked to the moon and the planet will take 47 days to rotate once and the moon stay in the same place in the sky ([source](_URL_0_)).\n\nThere is also a purturbation to the earth's axis that causes it to wobble around. This causes the seasons to be slightly longer every 13,000 years or so.\n\nEdit: spelling\n\nEdit 2: forgot to mention that it will take 50 billion years for the moon and Earth to become locked. The sun should become a red giant in about 5 billion years. So even if humanity lasts that long, Earth probably won't be around from the sun eating it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://futurism.com/a-rocky-relationship-is-the-moon-leaving-the-earth",
"https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/3/100302-chile-earthquake-earth-axis-shortened-day/"
]
] | |
6cb7g8 | Can someone please help me identify the WW ll rank of my grandpa? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6cb7g8/can_someone_please_help_me_identify_the_ww_ll/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhtgp2p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I am not sure, however:\n\n1) His collar stripes indicate, of course, that he is an officer\n\n2) As for the officer rank. It doesn't help much that the picture is black and white. Also, I can't really make out the shapes of the objcets on the shoulder straps. My best guess is this:\n\n-2nd Lieutenants had no extra shapes on the should straps\n-1st Lieutenants had one shape.\n-Captains had two shapes.\n-Majors had a very fancy fluffy spiral kind of shape so that is out of the question.\n\nSince I see two shapes on the shoulder straps, I am assuming he was a Captain (german: Hauptmann)\n\nEdit: However, if the middle shape is a number, then we would have a number and a shape (and by shape I always mean like an object like a pin) then it might be Sergeant (Feldwebel)\n\nCouldn't be of much help I am afraid"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1l5rrw | what is germ theory? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l5rrw/eli5_what_is_germ_theory/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbw0v2q",
"cbw11iz",
"cbw1gcf"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"That germs exist and that is what makes you sick. ",
"Germ theory is a scientific theory that explains how germs - small microscopic organisms - are the cause of illness and disease.\n\nBefore germ theory, the common explanation for diseases were things like spirits or \"bad air\" (e.g. air that smelled bad).\n\nWhen large outbreaks of disease started occurred, scientists noticed some patterns in how they were spreading which made them start doubting the old superstitions about how diseases were caused.\n\nLater experiments/developments supported the idea that tiny organisms were at involved. For example, scientists noticed that if you heated food and then cooled it off and kept it well covered, it would prevent the food from spoiling. This supported their idea that the small organisms which were causing the food to go bad were being killed. \n\nLater on with the invention of ways of observing the tiny organisms (e.g. powerful microscopes,), we confirmed their existence and their role in disease. \n",
"At its simplest, germ theory explains that there are microorganisms (Bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) and they are the causative agents of disease. While this may seem very intuitive now, before the advent of microscopes people would have had no reason to accept the existence of something invisible to them. To explain the cause of sickness any number of hypotheses were generated including miasma theory, humorism, and witchcraft but failed to recognize the actual disease causing agent and often did little to mitigate the issue. Skeptics and critics of these ideologies had to overcome a great amount of resistance from scientist (and doctors) to finally recognize what we know today as germ theory. There were a very long series of experiments spanning centuries that finally established the \"germ hypothesis\" as \"germ theory,\" but the experiments conducted by Robert Koch are considered the standard for identifying a microorganisms (germ) as the causative agent of disease. He established four main tenants of diagnosis which are dubbed Koch's postulates:\n\n1. The microorganisms must exist in great number in an infected host, but be absent in a healthy host. \n2. The microorganism must be isolated from the sick host and grown in pure culture.\n3. The microorganism must cause disease when a healthy host is inoculated experimentally\n4. The microorganism must be reisolated from aforementioned experimentally inoculated host. \n\nAlthough there are certain exceptions to the above mentioned guidelines (which I can discuss if you want) these were the first parameters for determining the cause of disease and are the primary support for germ theory. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
xrlqt | How does a spacecraft come back from the moon? | In the manned missions to moon, how were they able to escape the moon's gravity and have enough force to come back to Earth? I can only think it requires less force than on Earth simply because the moon is smaller but if we were to ever set a manned mission to a hypothetical large planet (not necessarily the gas giants) with a large gravitational force, would it be possible to even leave given the right amount of equipment? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xrlqt/how_does_a_spacecraft_come_back_from_the_moon/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5oyr0d",
"c5ozwi7"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The lunar landers carried enough fuel to where they were able to leave the moons orbit, hitch up with the command pod and float towards Earth orbit. If we were on a much larger planet with more gravity, we'll just have to carry more fuel to to make it out of orbit.",
"[relevant XKCD should help](_URL_0_). Grok the fullness of the comic, but pay attention to the panel at lower right."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://xkcd.com/681/"
]
] | |
25g48t | How much art was lost during WW2? | Was watching Monument men and wondered how much art was destroyed by the Nazis. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25g48t/how_much_art_was_lost_during_ww2/ | {
"a_id": [
"chh3g9b",
"chh8lra"
],
"score": [
7,
17
],
"text": [
"[Approximately 20% of Europe's art was destroyed during the Nazi plunder](_URL_1_). The monument men, which were of course founded to protect European artwork from both Allied and Axis forces, did [sieze over 700,000 pieces of art](_URL_2_). Indeed, much of the stolen art was [returned to the rightful owners](_URL_0_), however we cannot estimate the exact number of individual art pieces burned or destroyed during WW2. Although somewhat related, there was news last November that over 1.6 billion euros worth of art stolen by the Nazi's was found hoarded in a German basement. ",
"One of Van Gogh's self portraits titled \"Painter on His Way to Work\" was in a museum in Berlin along with a Caravaggio (and many others, of course) that burned down in 1945. Courbet's \"The Stone Breakers\" was moved to a castle in Dresden for safe keeping and ended up getting destroyed along with over 100 other works. \n\nHere is a database of works that were destroyed or lost during the war: _URL_0_\n\nThere is also a database of looted art that still needs to be returned to the rightful owners. ~~I can't find it right now but I will keep looking.~~ Here it is! It's in German and French. _URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/summer/nazi-looted-art-2.html?template=print",
"http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/records-and-research/documenting-nazi-plunder-of-european-art.html",
"http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10388"
],
[
"http://maca.contentdm.oc... | |
2jjub4 | why does every shower, no matter how hot i have it set for, always have that initial burst of ice cold water? | That half-second is the worst half-second of your life if you haven't pre-adjusted the shower head to point straight down. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jjub4/eli5_why_does_every_shower_no_matter_how_hot_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"clcdvbw",
"clcdx69",
"clcdxt8"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"The initial burst of water is the water that is sitting in your pipes. It is the temperature that your house is kept at. ",
"Because the hot water comes from the water heater. There is water in the pipes between the water heater and the shower head. When the shower is not in use that water is sitting in the pipes. It is at room temperature, thus cold feeling. So it takes a second for the hot water to make it from the water heater to the shower head.",
"I'm about to change your life.\n\nTurn the shower on and let it heat up before actually getting into it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2fpvy6 | What were different between modern time people and 2 century AD Rome | Like question says. I want know what are difference in mentality between modern people and people in Rome of 2 century or 150 AD. Can anybody could help me? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fpvy6/what_were_different_between_modern_time_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckbtj4w"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is currently a rather vague question. Is there any particular subject you'd like to know more about the Roman mentality towards? You can also check the [FAQ](_URL_0_) and see if it has your answer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/wdrt"
]
] | |
2ut8pk | In the 1800s, American congress seemed to have a much more informal and rowdy tone similar to British parliament today. When did that start to change and why? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ut8pk/in_the_1800s_american_congress_seemed_to_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cobqaed",
"cobz8xm"
],
"score": [
29,
22
],
"text": [
"Aren't you begging the question here? I think you need to establish that your premise is correct in the first place; that the US congress *was* rowdier and that it *did* change. I am not an expert on the subject, but my impression is that it's always been a more subdued gathering than parliament. ",
"In his book covering LBJ's Senate Years \"Master of the Senate,\" Robert Caro covers a lot of American Legislative history.\n\nI would not describe the Senate ever as \"informal.\" It always has had a set of rules governing conduct to maintain a gentlemanly vibe. Like when directly addressing Chuck Schumer you wouldn't call him by name but you might say, \"The Senior Senator from New York.\" \n\nBut the Senate did have a different vibe back in the 1800s when it was both smaller and more powerful. Back then the Senate had more power when it came to foreign policy and even domestic policy than it did after the presidencies of the Roosevelts who concentrated more power in the executive office.\n\nSo in a way, the smallness of the Senate, combined with it's power, led to way more heated exchanges."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1jnprt | Did the Roman Senate ever get 'gridlocked'? | This came to me after hearing that the current US Congress has been the least productive one. I was wondering if the Roman Senate (during the Republic obviously) ever got into a state of gridlock where they were passing very little legislation or not really making many decisions. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jnprt/did_the_roman_senate_ever_get_gridlocked/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbgnm03"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Especially in the last years of the republic we have a vast account on obstruction tactics in the senate, mainly archieved by long speeches which are to some extent comparable to a filibuster. Somebody who is quite famous for this approach would be Cato the Younger. In fact, this is seen by some researchers as a confrontation policy in order to deliberately destabilize the political culture at the time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
a3dvys | why are hispanics counted as white in demographics when there's a follow up question asking white people if they have hispanic heritage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3dvys/eli5_why_are_hispanics_counted_as_white_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb5cevq",
"eb5cmaa",
"eb5cp79"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because there are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, mestizo Hispanics, indigenous Hispanics, and even Asian Hispanics. The life experience and reality of a black Hispanic is likely dramatically different from that of a white Hispanic.\n\nCalling Hispanic a race or ethnicity is as accurate as calling American a race or ethnicity.",
"Hispanic is not considered a ethno-racial category, but rather ethno-linguistic or ethno-cultural\n\n > The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to \"a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race\" and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity",
"Hispanic is not considered a \"race\" by the federal government (and lots of other people who keep those kinds of statistics). The distinction between a race and an ethnicity is pretty arbitrary when you get down to it, but here are the reasons why:\n\nSome Hispanics are descended completely (or mostly) from the Spanish colonists and look just as \"white\" as anybody descended from Englishmen, Germans, Poles, etc. They speak Spanish and have a different culture but there is no easily visible physical distinction.\n\nSome Hispanics are descended completely (or mostly) from African slaves brought over to work on plantations on Cuba or Brazil or wherever. These people speak Spanish (or Portuguese, which is also considered Hispanic) and have Hispanic culture but look just as \"black\" as any African American from a physical perspective.\n\nThen you have Hispanics with a mixture of ancestry from European, African, and/or Native American sources, who might be anywhere in between.\n\nUltimately the concept of race is going to have a lot of overlaps and fuzzy borders because it's something society made up, not something that has an objective scientific definition. But as long as society marks the distinction between races people will want to study and classify them in the same way. To paraphrase Morpheus, it's real because your mind makes it real."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
11698s | What were the primary causes for the rapid decline in Indigenous Latin-american People's populations post-European contact? | Most of what I've heard in popular opinion in classes has attributed it to smallpox. However, a professor today said in her opinion and research it was more forced labor and murder that did so than disease. (She focused in a little bit on people around the Andes mountains, too)
Any other perspectives or recommended readings? Sources are very much appreciated! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11698s/what_were_the_primary_causes_for_the_rapid/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6joahg",
"c6job52"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"You may find [these threads in our FAQ](_URL_0_) helpful as a starting point.",
"Smallpox was the big one, but the general treatment of the native \"savages\" by the conquistadors definitely contributed to a decline in population as well.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zirmo/meta_lets_do_this_faq_together/c65hblx"
],
[]
] | |
pwnet | Is it truly unsafe to pump petrol/ gasoline while your engine is running? | I feel like this is a pretty common practice, especially in the winter. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pwnet/is_it_truly_unsafe_to_pump_petrol_gasoline_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3t1t0j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"With petrol, it is the vapour that is the really flammable bit. I got to go on a training course where we \"played\" with fire and petrol. Setting an actual puddle of petrol on fire is much harder than it's made to look in the films (and diesel is even harder). Petrol has a pretty low flash-point (the temperature at which it can exist as a vapour to mix with air and combust) of -43°C (-44°F), meaning that no matter how cold the day is, petrol vapour can and will form.\n\nPetrol vapour is also pretty dense (roughly 4 times denser than air) meaning that it sinks to ground level pretty quickly. If there is a light breeze, vapour can be blown under the car where the incredibly hot exhaust is. Petrol vapour has an autoignition temperature of about 360°C (680°F). Exhaust manifold temperatures for normally aspirated cars vary from about 250°C (480°F) to around 600°C (1,100°F). Turbos and rotary exhausts are hotter.\n\nIt is fairly unlikely but by no means impossible and certainly not a clever idea. I ran a petrol station for 5 years and I'm not aware of anyone filling up with the engine running. I did have someone wearing a shell suit ignite vapour though.\n\nSources: Ran petrol station for 5 years, went on various safety courses/competency exams.\n\n**TL:DR** Yes, it is pretty unsafe, but thankfully most people do switch off engines before filling up.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2vihnc | what is the rational basis of a no-knock raid in a country where guns are legal? how do you prevent police officers from being killed? | _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vihnc/eli5_what_is_the_rational_basis_of_a_noknock_raid/ | {
"a_id": [
"cohxszs",
"cohyi06",
"coij2ya"
],
"score": [
6,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"No knock warrants are suppose to be reserved for cases that you already believe the occupants have weapons and are likely to use them on police if given a warning before entering. In such cases the safest thing for the police is to enter with overwhelming force hoping to neutralize the situation before it becomes violent. Overusing no knock warrants, though, makes things more dangerous for everyone involved.",
"Screaming, \"POLICE\" before crashing in like the Kool-Aid man isn't lawful identification to me. They can't verify you have heard and acknowledged their identity and they haven't provided any real credentials. \n\nA police officer was killed in Virginia because of a no knock raid went wrong. Guy was thought to be growing weed but was an avid gardener who was growing Asian plants to go around his Koi pond in his yard that were mistaken for marijuana. All he heard was his door caving in and he fired at the first person through it. They did find a misdemeanor amount of weed and that's it. Now he's in prison for manslaughter because of a false accusation and needless use of force. Did I mention the false information came from a police informant that BROKE INTO his home? Yeah..... \n\n_URL_0_",
" > How do you prevent police officers from being killed?\n\nIn most cases, by the cops being pro-active: shooting anything that moves, tossing flashbang grenades into the cribs of potentially-dangerous babies (I *wish* I was making that up...), that kinda thing.\n\nAnd then, when people who have been jolted out of bed at 2 in the morning by a bunch of screaming guys in black with machine guns actually *do* stand their ground and shoot one, you charge them with murdering a cop.\n\nSee? It's a win-win for everybody. Um, except society.\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-seeking-death-penalty-officer-killed-knock-raid/"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Frederick"
],
[]
] | |
1nsokl | What is the longest duration a human-made satellite could last in Earth's orbit? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1nsokl/what_is_the_longest_duration_a_humanmade/ | {
"a_id": [
"cclo89e",
"ccluelr"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on altitude, space weather, and on board power requirements.\n\nThis explains it better than I could:\n_URL_0_",
"Satellites in low-Earth orbit typically last less than a decade. Parts of the International Space Station have been in orbit since 1998, but it is frequently resupplied with fuel to keep the orbit from decaying due to very gentle atmospheric drag.\n\nGeostationary satellites are thousands of miles higher and can last [much longer](_URL_0_), possibly for centuries.\n\nEarth orbit is a broad term, though. Consider the moon, which is high and very massive. Your 70-million-year satellite will have to be quite large, armored like a battleship (or ten battleships) to fend off impacts with micrometeors, and be constructed with power and control systems that go way beyond present human capabilities.\n\nYou want to put it in an orbit that is high and stable so it survives small perturbations. Honestly I would just bury a monument to our existence on the moon instead, or park the colossus in the asteroid belt. These are popular places for ancient evils to be found in science fiction.\n\nEDIT: if you don't mind diving deep into interstellar space to retrieve it, both of the Voyager satellites contain golden disks inscribed with information about 1970s-era Earth culture. Voyager 1 will have passed many other stars by then."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524891/satellite-communication/288217/How-satellites-work"
],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS-3"
]
] | ||
6lldbx | how does the tour de france work? | How is it team based but only individuals win the different stages? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lldbx/eli5_how_does_the_tour_de_france_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"djun72y",
"djuq0fz"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"The primary objective of any sport is to get as much attention for the sponsor as possible. They are the ones who pay the salary. There are a few ways of doing this in a bicycle race. For example leading the race means there are a lot of cameras aimed at you while you wear the logos of your sponsors. There are also separate competitions for sprint point and climbing points as well as being judged the most aggressive rider of the day which will get you some attention. So some teams often have different racers going for the different objectives so they can get attention to their sponsors. However to perform well in a bicycle race you often need a team of helpers who make sure the main riders are well rested and comfortable. These helpers are paid almost as well as the main riders and even get their share of the price money whenever the team does well. They might also try to draw attention to their sponsors as often as possible.",
"Around the idea of teams competing but individuals winning the different stages, the individuals require their teams around them to help. Someone like a mountain climber would stay with their team to get longer-term speed advantages and help on the stretches, then 'break away' from the team on the hills to try and win that specific piece.\n\nTypically, the individual has the better sponsorship money and will 'donate' winnings from those stages to the team."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
22zjo9 | When scientific articles mention that they have "adjusted for" various factors, how is it done and how accurate are the results? | [This study](_URL_0_) has gotten a lot of attention in the media, as it suggests that eating fruits and vegetables is very good for you. My first thought (before looking at the article), was that people who eat fruit are well-educated and from a high social class and therefore live healthily. In the study, these factors are all adjusted for - but I have no idea how. Can anyone explain it? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22zjo9/when_scientific_articles_mention_that_they_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgs3r47",
"cgth9z4",
"cgv6sf7"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You can adjust for certain things by choosing the right things to measure and by trying to diversify your sample. For example, a common question is \"Do men and women make the same amount of money?\" You could look at total amount of money for a year, but then you are ignoring the amount of time worked. So to adjust for that you look at money per hour worked. That is better, but that ignores that there might be differences in experience in your sample. So you take a look at money per hour per year worked. In the case of the article you mention, they could do something like split the people in the sample into two groups, one wealthy and one poor. Then they split those groups into the fruit/veggy eating and non fruit/veggy eating. Now you can compare wealthy people to wealthy people and poor people to poor people. That way it should highlight the differences because of eating rather than just being wealthy.",
"Somehow no one actually addressed your question. Look at the bottom of page two in the left hand column and you'll see that the same variables that are \"adjusted for\" (you'll see \"controlled for\" as well) are the same variables that are included in the analysis. In a statistical setting \"controlling for\" and \"adjusting for\" generally mean they were included as regressor variables in a model and that is the case here.",
"In many articles, there is no real model underlying the prediction, and it just means fitting a GLM ([Generalized Linear Model](_URL_1_)) on the data using all factors you can come up with as [covariates](_URL_0_). Sometimes the GLM is applied to squares, roots, or logarithms of the actually measured values. In your example, income could be used as a covariate, as could age, gender, years of education, number of books read, etc. Each factor contributes a bit of the variation of the outcome, and then you see how much stems from the one you're interested in.\n\nHowever, it is not a good way of separating cause and effect, so once there is a suggestion that eating fruits and veggies is healthy, a real experiment should be set up to make sure that eating fruit and veggies does have the estimated effect. Unfortunately, that is nearly impossible in this case."
]
} | [] | [
"http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/03/jech-2013-203500"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariate",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_linear_model"
]
] | |
3ho0nm | Is there any correlation between California's lowering water tables and Earthquakes? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ho0nm/is_there_any_correlation_between_californias/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu91rbf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Changes in water level are related to earthquakes, yes! They have been observed many times, as was noted by Roeloffs et al. in 2003. However, variations in the water table generally tend to return after a few weeks to month to pre-earthquake levels, and are more related to local earthquakes than to far off ones, and energy amplitude dissipiates. The change in groundwater level is related to things like changes in fluid pressure, changes in permeability in the hydrogeological setting etc. There's a paper that deals with this in depth, by the aforementioned author. \nIf you have access to academic sources, check it out:\n\"Water-level changes induced by local and distant earthquakes at Long Valley caldera, California\", Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research: Volume 127, Issues 3–4, 15 October 2003, Pages 269–303."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2puwob | Are Black Holes and White Holes connected? | So i'm decently sure this has already been asked/theorized/questioned, but what if the singularity inside a Black Hole is a Wormhole to a singularity inside a White Hole, explaining where matter goes inside a Black Hole, as well as where White Holes might get their matter from. Maybe all Black Holes have a matching White Hole somewhere else in the universe, no matter how far away it might be.
_URL_0_ | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2puwob/are_black_holes_and_white_holes_connected/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn0bgqu",
"cn0ef9n"
],
"score": [
26,
9
],
"text": [
" > explaining where matter goes inside a Black Hole\n\nThe matter in a black hole stays in the black hole, that's why it still has gravity. Also, there's no evidence for the existence of white holes. They probably aren't real.",
"White holes don't exist, at least we have never found a white hole or evidence of a white hole anywhere in the universe. There's no physics or math that supports their evidence -- thus it's purely a little shower thought or a science fiction prompt if anything.\n\n_URL_0_ is a good solid theory though. Basically, a black hole slowly emits radiation, shedding off its mass very slowly because of weird event horizon physics."
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/mo6OHTD"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation"
]
] | |
gpszg | I'm fascinated by space travel, I have some questions that I hope you can give an answer to. | I'm agglomerating the questions here because I don't want to spam.
* Is it possible to create artificial gravity in space like in the movies? If so have any experiments in this regard been made?
* From what I understand we are centuries behind actual space travel beyond our solar system, what can I expect in the next 50 years in this regard? We cannot travel at light speed, and even if we could some systems are millions of light years away, is the universe exploration even possible?
Thank you very much! | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gpszg/im_fascinated_by_space_travel_i_have_some/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1pczo5",
"c1pd27j",
"c1pd2x3"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Artificial Gravity - There are no devices that you can turn on and create \"gravity\". What you can do however is to have the ship move in such a way as to create the same effect as gravity. This means the secton of the ship that you want gravity in has to always be accelerating. This can be done by having the whole ship always accelerating at 9.8m/s/s but that would require a lot of energy to maintain. Another is to have a section of the ship rotating (as seen in Kubrick's 2001). In the same way that you are \"thrown\" to the side of the car when you travel around a bend, with the ship section rotating at the right speed you will be \"thrown\" towards the ground in a way that \"feels\" like gravity.",
"Avagad nailed the gravity question, so I won't repeat the answer ...\nWith regards to what we can expect in the next fifty years: We humans are pretty active in space, so much so that we have already created a cloud of \"space junk\" around our planet. This kind of activity will continue and probably accelerate in the next fifty years. However, when considering \"deep space\" exploration, the furthest humans will travel in the next fifty years is to Mars.\n\nWe can hope for some miracle technology to be invented overnight, and there might be some real science behind the 'warp engine' of Star Trek, but this is not likely.\n\nThe greatest challenge faced by space exploration endeavors is funding. People think that spending billions of dollars to put people and machines on distant, drifting, desolate rocks is horribly misguided. Is it really worth spending money on exploring something that is mostly empty when we have one billion people on Earth with mostly empty stomachs. \n\nGranted, the logic here is terribly flawed (\"you aren't thinking four-dimensionally!\"), but logic never has much power in voting booths or in congress, so we're stuck with this gem for a while. The only glimmer of hope is the recent activity of private corporations towards the goal of space exploration. If billionaires are willing to spend their own money for a chance to orbit the planet, to walk on the Moon (someday), and to travel to Mars, then we don't need taxpayer money or to rely on the 'logic' of congress. The rich will fund the development of space technology for their own pleasure or as investments in their own businesses. At this point, I think this is our only hope at reaching beyond Mars. Keep an eye on the private sector for a few 'firsts' in the near future (e.g., Google will award $30m to the first team to land a robot on the moon; this would be the first privately owned spacecraft to land on the Moon).",
"I have a question regarding the artificial gravity.\n\nWhen articles are written about Neutron Stars, they often come up with some analogy that if you took a teaspoon of Neutron Star matter, it would weigh about 6 Billion tonnes (can't find a link to specific mention, but I'm sure you will have read it before).\n\nSo if there was some magical way we could obtain a teaspoon or fist sized amount of Neutron star matter, and placed it in the middle of our huge hypothetical space ship, would that produce enough gravity to replicate 1g? \n\nI'm aware we couldn't actually get the matter in the first place, this is just a hypothetical scenario."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5i69hy | why do caffeine tablets taste absolutely disgusting but caffeinated drinks taste nice? | Caffeine tablets on their own tastes extremely bitter - a lot like a powder. When drinking fizzy drinks or energy drink, I can barely taste the bitter taste. How do they mask the flavour? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5i69hy/eli5_why_do_caffeine_tablets_taste_absolutely/ | {
"a_id": [
"db5pxu7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sugar and other chemicals in such drinks overpower the taste of caffeine, especially because there's so much less caffeine and so much more sugar eg 30 grams of sugar vs 200 mg of caffeine. That's not an accurate measurement, but a good example."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2b60fp | why does it appear that certain ethnicities originated from certain locations around the world. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b60fp/eli5why_does_it_appear_that_certain_ethnicities/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj245l5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Can you be clearer on your meaning? or is it simply why do Asian people look like they come from Asia why do etc etc ?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3emcmx | Has the relationship between major United States political parties been always been tense, or have there been time to relative cordiality? | I'm researching the relationship between the major political parties in this country's history. I wanted to know if the parties in this country have always been at odds with one another with extreme gridlock or were there periods where they compromised with one another and weren't so polarized with eachother. If you have any books you know of that touch on this subject, that'd be great as well. Thanks! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3emcmx/has_the_relationship_between_major_united_states/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctgghcf"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I had a professor that argued that the advent of the 24-hour news cycle was a catalyst for our current state of \"hyper-partisanship\". He cited past accounts of legislators from both parties going out after session for some beers and steak. Sitting down and hashing out issues like adults. \n\nHe argued that the 24 hour news cycle created a different atmosphere that encourages constant bickering and places value on confrontation over consensus.\n\nI highly recommend The Second Civil War By Ronald Brownstein. \n\nAt least half of the book is a rich, erudite history of partisan politics from 1896 up to the dawn of the new millennium, and it's wonderful to gain a greater understanding of the evolution of American politics over the last century."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
szqhp | A question about early civilizations. | Why didn't any major civilizations evolve prior to Sumerian/Egyptian or Indus valley civilizations? Any specific trigger that caused the rise of these civilizations with in a span of few hundred years.
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/szqhp/a_question_about_early_civilizations/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4ibjm1",
"c4icpqm",
"c4icpr2",
"c4icrye",
"c4icsnd",
"c4idp2g",
"c4ifv7m",
"c4in1zk"
],
"score": [
29,
15,
14,
9,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not an expert on prehistory, but the development of agriculture, instead of hunting and gathering, pretty much did the trick. \n\nAgriculture lets you have a steady supply of food, and because you've got a steady source of food, you can therefore stay in one place for longer. It also creates food surpluses, which allow for the specialization of the labor force: you can have bakers and writers and police officers, since not everyone has to work for food. This specialization allows for stratified societies, which become cities, which become civilizations.\n\nIf you don't mind a little quirkiness, John Green has a very good video on this exact topic [here](_URL_0_), but any introductory anthropology book will have information on this in detail.",
"There is [this](_URL_0_) about Gobekli Tepe, which is not a city but a temple complex, built about twelve thousand years ago, a ridiculously long time--not by a farming society, but by hunter-gatherers, apparently. This is dumbfounding because it was widely assumed no society could gather the resources to construct something like this unless they had lots of people supported by stores of food, as well as some sort of centralized leadership. Naturally this leads us to wonder how the hell these people pulled it off, and also what were they doing BEFORE they built it? Where did they get the idea, and the technology? It just makes me feel that we don't know nearly as much about ancient peoples as we think we do, and it's fascinating.",
"Let me add to, and refine, night-hawks' answer a bit. There are two major reasons that civilizations did not arise prior to the earliest recognized civilizations. The first, and most important, is that our criteria for identifying a civilization is tied directly to a particular kind of civilization, namely: monumental civilizations. That's due in part to our bias *as* a monumental civilization, and in part because our methods for finding out about prior civilizations (most prominently, archeology) favor the characteristics of monumental civilizations.\n\nWhat do I mean by \"monumental civilizations?\" Basically, those that leave enduring monuments, typically in the form of architecture, statuary, or written records (e.g. stele, literature, political/economic documents). Generally speaking, the practice of leaving behind monuments is tied to a few other general characteristics, and so we tend to associate monumental civilization with those characteristics. As such, monumental civilizations tend to consist of urban centers dependent on outlying agricultural regions, foreign trade, and warfare – usually with some form of slavery.\n\nReason two, then, is that humanity migrated out of its evolutionary crucible in Africa, and most of Africa was unsuitable for the development of that particular sort of civilization. Agriculture was limited by the terrain, climate and biological diversity (read: pests), and without agriculture, it was difficult to foster cities, and thus, monumental culture. Those elements would have to wait until humans ventured far enough north and east to adapt their folkways to the ebb and tide of the Nile.\n\nWhich is not to say that there was no civilization prior to the foundation of Egypt. But because of our cultural and methodological biases, we don't often recognize the complex societies of pre-Egyptian Africa as civilizations in the same sense that we accord that title to dynastic Egypt. Nevertheless, pre-Egyptian Africans had art, language, culture, trade, social structure, traditions – all things that could, from a slightly different perspective, be taken as the constituent elements of a civilization.",
"The question is how do you define civilization; is it the emergence of a distinctive material culture? The creation of cities? The creation of writing? Settled agriculture? The creation of a central state? No one factor can adequately explain the creation of a 'civilization', and yet major civilizations have had one of the many factors I could list missing and are still considered to be 'civilized'; the lack of writing does not disqualify you from being a civilization, for example, and even the presence of writing does nothing to indicate literacy levels anyway. Likewise cities are not strictly necessary, and there isn't a strict linear divide between sedentary and nomadic lifestyles.\n\nTo muddy the waters even further, becoming a 'civilization' as a concept is not exactly the same as developing a state, nor is it entirely separate. It is quite a nebulous concept when you think about it. At what precise moment does a group of people become a civilization? Do they develop writing, and at that instant suddenly become a civilization? That doesn't really seem to work. I wonder whether there is a specific moment in time where any group of people in their history of development can be separated into 'civilized' and 'not civilized'.\n\nAlso, 'civilized' and 'civilization' are both pejorative terms. In order to qualify as a 'civilization', there must be cultures/groups that are not. And if that is the case, it is making a judgement on the achievements of the 'not civilized' group, because civilization is a state that they have not achieved yet. It is essentially saying that some societies are better than others, even if you aren't actively thinking that when you use the word. Try explaining the concept of a group 'civilizing' without implying that they were lesser beforehand, it's nearly impossible.",
"This is a hotly debated topic with many theories floating around but not much conclusive evidence. There is one interesting book on the topic called Death from a Distance and the Birth of a Humane Universe. The author argues that agriculture is the effect not the cause of the drastic changes in community size and evolution of collective human knowledge. The cause he goes on to say is related to the problem of information sharing between members of the same species. He breaks it down to a biological level, increasing survival chance of your unique genetic information by sharing information and resources with those that share your DNA (relatives). Humans are the only ones that can coexist without being related, because we can project threat from a distance. Meaning anyone foolish enough to oppose the community faces the barrel of a gun. He ties the major changes in human societal development with changes in the development of ranged weapons that impose threat without anyone having to actually kill each other. He backs everything up with a lot of evidence, going back to the first appearance of cave drawings, to the early empires, to modern day. \n\nGreat read, I highly recommend it. ",
"You would probably really enjoy the British TV series [\"Connections\"](_URL_0_) which aired in 1978. Though it's 30+ years old, it covers both modern and ancient civilization quite well. It can be watched for free on Youtube.\n\nLong story short, the rise of farming - particularly the invention of the plow - is what jumpstarted civilization.",
"Francis Fukuyama (not a historian, but an academic, though) focuses a lot on the reasons why tribes or bands would join together to form a civilization. His main argument is that it would take some form of outside pressure to bring nomads and hunter/gatherers together across tribes.\n\nMesopotamia and Egypt could be explained by the geographical limits created by the fultility around the rivers. Other reasons could be outside pressure (war or illness) or the spread of a common religion.\n\nThis should of course be seen in combination with the other explanations.",
"Actually agriculture was an accident that could have easily been left behind leading nothing really, but this does mean that my answer has two parts to it. The first part is how agriculture came to be and the simple answer is that is was the Agricultural Revolution of the Neolithic era but the problem with this is that there are many, many theories on why/how this happened. Though the point is it that one day the weather was finally sable for it to happened, now the common thing (as you can see from the top comment) is that if you have food in one place you don't need to move around and even though this is very true early humans would not have thought of this as the nomad life was not a brutal one (people only having a 14 hour \"work week\"). One of the newer theories is that the cultivation of barley for the production of beer is the reason that civilization had formed.\n\nSo to some everything up as to why weren't there any major civilizations prior to Sumerian/...ect times? First because there was no such thing as agriculture prior to then and second the want for beer (possibly for it's \"feel good\" effect). These two things put together lead to the creation of civilization itself and, personalty, because of certain evidence I am willing to believe this theory."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I&list=UUX6b17PVsYBQ0ip5"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29"
],
[],
[]
] | |
fdn70 | How can scientists can give the Universe's expansion a speed? | It seems illogical to think you can calculate any speed since the theory of relativity directly correlates light speed with distance traveled based on the compression of space.
Wouldn't we need a base that is outside the Universe to create any calculations?
Edit: Title fail can fail | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fdn70/how_can_scientists_can_give_the_universes/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1f5gg0",
"c1f6cim"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Well any time someone talks about an \"expansion speed\", it is non-nonsensical, and one of my greatest pet peeves. Expansion is a rate, not a speed. Statements like \"the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light during inflation\" are entirely meaningless and wrong. But anyhow, we can give assign a speed to galaxies a certain distance away... that is the rate at which it appears galaxies moving with the Hubble flow appear to be moving away from us at. This is of course, Hubble's law, v=Hd. These are all well-defined notions in our universe.",
"Velocity is expressed in units of distance per unit of time.\n\nThe rate of metric expansion is expressed in units of distance per unit of time *per unit of distance.*\n\nAnytime anyone ever refers to the \"speed\" of expansion, they should be required by law to put a pound in the swear jar."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
427ule | why is it autocorrect struggles with simple mistakes like 'convienent' but always finds a way to make inconvenient changes like 'one sec' into 'one sex'? | I have been ruined one too many times by auto correct! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/427ule/eli5_why_is_it_autocorrect_struggles_with_simple/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz8ax9w"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Could this be due to confirmation/selection bias? The number of times that it worked correctly was not noticed, but when it works wrong, you notice and remember it. Over time, it makes you believe that autocorrect doesn't work as it should."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
66h7mh | how do companies design their products such that they are very likely to break/malfunction/deteriorate short after warranty ends? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66h7mh/eli5how_do_companies_design_their_products_such/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgifwoh",
"dgig690",
"dgip9du"
],
"score": [
20,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"There are a handful of examples where a company builds an expiry date into a product. The companies that do this are assholes that everyone hates and are opening themselves up to massive, massive, government fines and penalties (which include class action lawsuits, etc.).\n\nIt is actually really hard for companies to \"get away\" with doing much that you would find despicable if you were truly informed of all the facts and issues at play. It happens, don't get me wrong, but its far less common than you think, its far harder for them to get away with it, and its seldom as overtly evil as one might think.\n\nHowever... Every physical object is going to have tradeoffs. Would you like your remote control to weigh twenty pounds but never wear out or need batteries - or would you like it to weigh five ounces and wear out after 10 years of average use?\n\nCustomers have spoken and they want cheaper, lighter, fancier shit - and they are wiling to pay for it.\n\nSo really what companies do is design the product so that in average use conditions it lasts a reasonable period of time, and then give consumers a warranty that covers a shorter, but still reasonable, period of time. And then if your toaster, or television, or jeans wear out sooner they replace them with an apology, and if they last longer... good everyone is happy.\n\nThe real issue though... Seven years ago you went to the store and bought a computer for \"word processing and browsing the internet\", and now \"browsing the internet\" means streaming netflix and you are trying to use a computer capable of opening Word, and reading CNN, to run a home media center. And its not up to the task.",
"This is done through MTBF prediction( Mean Time Between Failure). There are several methods based on field(real data) and some physics ones or simulation with which you can predict when something is going to break/fail.\n\nBest is if you have field(real) data based on previous product designs, but if none are existing then you can make accelerated lifetime tests (temperature, humidity, vibration .... anything you can think about) and then based on this how severe were the conditions during the test you can round up/predict in approximately how many hours/cycles you will get to failure.\n\nThe more data is available the more accurate is the prediction.\n\n\nP.S. This is not used only to design the product to break after the warranty. It is vital to the maintenance of life support systems, airplanes, power plants and etc.",
"Despite all the negative responses here, we don't design products to fail. We design products so that ~98+% will last until at least the end of the warranty period. But we also design them as cheaply as possible, and this often results in one of the parts failing shortly after the warranty period has expired. So if you want a product to last longer, buy the product with the longer warranty."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
24a1st | why does the american education system (primarily elementary and middle school) insist on the "everyone wins" policy. | It seems counter-productive that teachers are told not to necessarily tell their students they are wrong. A teacher of mine said this is to prevent "hurting the feelings" of students? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24a1st/eli5why_does_the_american_education_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch51sxg",
"ch52pdt",
"ch580j9",
"ch5qrlk"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Could you provide some background for why this isn't a loaded question? Why do you think the education system \"insists\" everyone wins?\n\nMy wife works in schools all the time and teachers routinely tell students they're wrong when they're wrong.",
"I'm not sure that teachers necessarily don't tell their students they are wrong, though I have had instances where teachers have let their kids down softly to escape helicopter parents from bursting through their class room door and yelling at them.\n\nLots of parents are very protective of their children and many think that little Susie can do no wrong.",
"I've seen it, I've lived it. What you talk about happens. Not all the time, mind you, but my grade school teachers would have all sorts of little class competitions and \"team building\" exercises, and everyone would get an award or _something_.\n\nI blame white, middle class suburban mothers who are sissifying our children because they believe their _precious snowflakes_ are _special_ and deserve a fucking medal for everything. The can't accept that a diversity of people can demonstrate a diversity of strengths and talents, that their children aren't going to be good at everything, and they feel the impulse to smother their children with emotional over-protection.\n\nSo these Smothers have rallied and pressed our school systems into conforming to their bizarre sense of reality, and all children have to bear the consequence of it.\n\nAnd it is counter productive. Children who grow up with this are emotionally fragile snowflakes as adults. They expect a handout with everything, don't do things \"because it's hard\", and these fucked up mothers think their children are fully prepared to be adults the second they turn 18.\n\nI've seen this in my school system, but I wasn't treated this way at home. Several acquaintances I know did get this treatment at home, and as a result, one, for example is finishing his Masters and won't look for work in his field because he's \"afraid\". He can't handle the feeling of rejection should he not get the job, so he doesn't look in the first place. He'd rather work a part time job at a bookstore. Others just don't know how to act as adults and turn to binge drinking because their behavior is utterly unchecked; they only kept in line when their mothers were there to wipe their asses. My fiancee tutors, and some of these college kids, they skip class all year long and then attempt to guilt her, \"I'm going to fail this semester if you don't help me.\" Really, kid? Like not going to class and not taking notes has nothing to do with it? Do you think she actually believes your line of bullshit? Or that it's even necessary?",
"I am a teacher and recent college graduate, and I have never been told not to tell a student they are wrong. We try to soften the blow a little, and the main reason is that constant negativity makes students feel worthless and helpless when we want to empower them to improve. \n\nWe are,trained to focus on positives and strengths rather than weaknesses. There are a few driving ideologies behind this. One is the concept of self efficacy. Once a student starts to think that they are too dumb or incompetent to be successful, the chances of them closing the achievement gap hits close to zero. Children are very perceptive of this even at an early age. My first graders have already started to idenfity and point out the better readers, early finishers, and discussion dominators in the class. While students can't officially drop out until the age of 16, they give up in elementary school. By focusing on what students have accomplished, and giving praise alongside corrective feedback we help keep students from frustrating out.\n\nSecondly, pointing out what students lack does not help much with promoting student growth. If I make a list of things a child cannot do or does not know it does not tell me where to start instruction. I need information on the skills they do have so I know where to go from there. I have also noticed several mistakes made in the classroom our when students try to apply information incorrectly. They have a strategy that works for one type of problem but they get the wrong answer when they try to use it somewhere else. If you do not explain that, they may discard that strategy as worthless.\n\nThat first part addressed the never telling students they are wrong or need to improve misconception. The fact is we do, quite frequently in fact, but we aim to keep a ratio that favors praise over redirection.\n\nAs for the idea that schools have an everyone wins policy, I do not feel that my school buys into that. Some schools probably do, but I do not think they are the majority. In my classroom I make sure all students are praised, even my lowest students. The lowest students are the ones that often need it the most to keep up their self esteem. The big focus is on growth. If a student comes in not knowing their letters but end the year near grade level that calls for celebration more than a student who barely grew at all but is still exceeding becuase they were more than a year ahead coming in (although typically the gap in achievement grows each year). However there are special celebrations only available to students who meet a prescribed standard. Some of these celebrations are academic, but others are behavior oriented. The biggest celebration of each quarter is based on district test scores, and only the parents of students scoring above 80% (where a passing score can be as low as 60% becuase the of the way questions are tiered) are invited.\n\nIn addittion to only presenting awards to students who demonstrate academic excellence, we don't withold the fact that students are failing. Almost all of my students who were at risk of being held back were at the conference when I informed their parents and compared their score to the benchmark and went through a pile of failing assignments. We like to focus on what students have accomplished and what can be done to improve towards a target, but they need to know where they are. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
w4rt5 | What effects does stress have on blood flow? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w4rt5/what_effects_does_stress_have_on_blood_flow/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5acmhb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Overall, stress causes vasoconstriction, which decreases blood flow and increases blood pressure.\n\nIf you are talking about short-term stress, a few things would happen. First, your [sympathetic nervous system](_URL_1_) would be activated and cause the release of [epinephrine](_URL_2_) (adrenaline) into your blood. Epinephrine causes the blood vessels in your extremities to constrict, which decreases blood flow. At the same time, your body will start to make more of the proteins that help your blood clot. This would not have an effect on normal blood flow, but would make you stop bleeding faster if you were injured.\n\nChronic/long-term stress is often associated with an increase in [cortisol](_URL_0_) levels in the blood. Cortisol reduces vasodilation, causing further decreases blood flow. Cortisol also increases the amount of clotting proteins."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenaline"
]
] | ||
2vat1g | what is ameristralia (in reference to r/ameristralia) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vat1g/eli5what_is_ameristralia_in_reference_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cofzzde"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"It was a 2013 reddit meme going around where the joke was basically while Americans sleep Australians take over providing content on reddit and vice versa."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
bbiu6h | how/why the length of a wire affects the output electricity. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbiu6h/eli5_howwhy_the_length_of_a_wire_affects_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekj4rf8",
"ekj4v86",
"ekj4yiq",
"ekj56sc"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Bonus: How to reduce/minimize the loss.",
"The wire has electrical resistance to the flow of electricity. It's kind of like friction and the longer a wire is, the more resistance the electric current will see. This will make the wire hotter and the electrical force on the other end lower",
"Because wire produces resistance (measured in Ohms). More wire means more resistance. In essence it simply isn't a good conductor and absorbs/dissipates that electricity as heat (which you can feel if you run too much through a wire). The reason we still use copper wire despite it not being a very good conductor is because while there's better materials they're too expensive, and copper is \"good enough\".",
"Every electrical conductor has a certain resistance, that depends, amongst other factors, on its length (measured in Ohms/meter). In a longer wire, the electricity must travel through \"more resistance\", which will limit the electrical current, that can pass through. For example, if a wire with a given length has some electrical resistance, then a wire with twice that length will also have roughly twice the resistance, only allowing half the electrical current to pass. If you want to send a high current through a very long cable, then you will need a high voltage, to overcome the resistance of that wire. You can also use a wire with greater diameter to allow more current to get through, as resistance also depends on the \"thickness\" of the wire."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
5x3wm8 | how can we distinguish something that is real news and fake news? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5x3wm8/eli5_how_can_we_distinguish_something_that_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"deezvpw",
"deezxpn",
"deezz1w",
"def01ti",
"def0rbz",
"def15c7",
"def2anz",
"def3dc8",
"def3tx0",
"def557r",
"defcwz4"
],
"score": [
3,
58,
5,
2,
12,
5,
7,
12,
6,
58,
5
],
"text": [
"Follow the sources. If an article do not include sources it is probably fake. If an article lists another article as a source that does not include sources it is probably fake. If the initial source contradicts what the article say then the article is fake. If an interview shows the subject contradict all his previous and future statements then it is probably fake.",
"First, look at the reputability of the source. The source may be a *biased* source (every source is biased in its own way), but if it's reputable, then you can typically trust the facts. If the source has a print edition or was around 30 years ago, its reputability increases. If the source's headlines are typically sensationalized or \"click-bait\", its reputability decreases. If the headlines are written in a way such as to make you feel angry, jubilant, or prideful, its reputability decreases. \n\nAlso, look for multiple reputable sources reporting the same facts. If nobody else is reporting it, wait a day and see. You don't always have to be up-to-the-second with whatever the news cycle is telling you.",
"By verifying the claimed facts across multiple sources, identifying the primary source of the claim, and evaluating the credibility of the source on the subject. ",
"Sources. If a news article lists and links out sources to other websites, or if searching for the elements of the article and you get other websites reporting on it, the less likely it's fake. Also, check the about pages and fine print of websites that something comes from, fake news often comes from 'satire' sites that specifically come up with false stories.",
"It is admittedly hard to tell, as no site is correct 100% of the time, but some do have a better track record than others. There are a few things you can look for though.\n\n* Is it a reputable source? Even the best news sources can be have wrong info sometimes, and a normally terrible site can sometimes have a nugget of truth, but in general something like the BBC is going to be more reliable than random blogs.\n* Are other news outlets saying the same thing? Every time there's a major event reporters swarm to it, so if something big does happen you can bet that many, many other places will be telling the story. If a particular website seems to be the only place saying something then that's suspicious.\n* What are their sources? In particular, look for primary sources backed up by photos and videos. While digital media *can* be edited and manipulated, it's better than nothing at all.\n* Does it report objectively and let you draw your own conclusions or does it tell you how to feel? There's a big difference between \"the president attended this meeting and had this to say\" and \"OUTRAGEOUS! Listen to what the phony president said! All true Americans should be outraged!\"",
"As an addition to the other good advice already given, take a look at...\n\nTone. Does this read as NEWS or an opinion piece? If it reads like an opinion piece, be wary.\n\nDoes it make seemingly outrageous/major claims with major ramifications without citing specific sources? Just because someone cited an unnamed source doesn't mean it's fake (this is common in real journalism), but it doesn't mean you should blindly accept it either.",
"Did you see the story on Facebook? Or some other service that's trying to hold your attention by appealing to your predispositions? Then it's fake, or at best biased.\n\nDid the event happen within the past 36 hours? If so, then the most reliable stories haven't been written yet, check back tomorrow.\n\nDoes the story offer \"secret knowledge\" that \"(somebody) doesn't want you to know\"? Then the likelihood it's fake is 90+%.\n\nDoes the story tell you that the world is simple and you/government/somebody should obviously do (something)? then it's probably pushing an agenda.",
"\"Real\" news is clearly distinguishable from \"fake\" new. \"Real\" news will usually cite multiple sources, and will fact-check their material. Their sources **must** be credible (Verified eyewitnesses, expert testimonials, hard scientific or statistic data, information from authorities, videos/photos). \"Real\" news also tends to be at least somewhat decent about correcting itself on inaccuracies they reported earlier. \"Real\" news tends to agree with other news in most cases, if not initially, eventually. Have you ever noticed that while FOX and NBC have quite different demographics for viewing, when they both report on something, the reports are often almost identical? \"Real\" news will be reported as it is, not as it is wanted to be. This is why critical stories that multiple networks report on are near-identical. They are all working with the same source material, they are all fact-checking the material. It's hard to come up with a different story from the guy ten feet away when you're both looking at the same thing.\n\n\"Fake\" news will fail to cite many, if any sources. These sources, if present, will not be credible. Sources may be heavily altered photo/video, false witnesses, experts nobody has ever heard of, statistics that don't match the norm, and a lack of information from the authorities. Fake news will usually not correct itself, and it will usually come from small, obscure \"news\" outlets. These outlets may be disguised to look like mainstream \"real\" news outlets, but can often be caught by check the url, or other details. Fake news reporting on a common story will often not match any other reports, with either no similarity, or changes to major details.\n\nPlease note, just because a news outlet makes a mistake, that doesn't make them fake news. Just because they don't agree with what you think, that doesn't make them fake.",
"It can be difficult which is part of the problem. Here are some tips:\n\n* check your sources - fake news often comes from fringe sources, butbwe aware mainstream news will often repeat those stories\n* check your bias - the most dangerous fake stories are the ones that tell us things we want to believe...make sure you separate your bias from what you are actually hearing\n* develop critical thinking skills - understand the difference between evidence and proof, anecdote and data, causation and correlation",
"I really like this blog post from [Popehat](_URL_0_)\n\nEssentially, read every news article like it's a search warrant and look for the presence or absence of three things: attribution, corroboration, and particularity.\n\nAttribution: For every fact asserted in the article, how does the author know it? If a statistic is reported, where does it come from?\n\nCorroboration: Other facts support what the author is saying. Anonymous sources are permissible if other facts support the assertions.\n\nParticularity: If a story attributes a stance, or a goal, or a motive to a public figure, does it give specific examples of conduct consistent with stance?\n\nEver since I read this post I've looked for all three things in news articles and it makes it pretty easy to distinguish fake news (fabricated) from news that isn't fake (just because something doesn't confirm your world view doesn't mean it's fabricated).\n\nOf course, there's still the issue of bias. Bias (implicit or explicit) can still encourage authors to make the facts fit the conclusion and that's why it's really important to read things critically. Be on the look out for logical fallacies that are used (many times very successfully) to manipulate readers. Appeals to emotion, attack the messenger, straw men, and ad hominem attacks (i.e. personal attacks), are good examples of logical fallacies that unscrupulous (or unwitting) reporters use to force a particular world view.\n\n",
"Well, here's how I do it...\n\nFirst thing is a \"gut check\". Does this news sound unlikely? Does it go against common sense? If it does, I head over to the front page. Is there a bunch of news on the front page that also sounds sensationalist, or is grossly skewed one way or the other? If so, I'm assuming this is BS and I'm outta there.\n\nSecond thing is are they the only one reporting it? News does not happen in a vacuum. If they're the only one reporting it and it's been a few hours, I call BS and move on.\n\nThird is the site itself. What kind of reputation does it have? Is it known as a serious news site, or a fringe site? I'm going to give a lot more credence to the NYT, NPR, BBC, AP and Routers than to the Huffington Post, Breitbart, Fox, or the Other98.\n\nLastly is, does the reporter cite sources? Obviously some sources are anonymous, and that's fine, but if they quote statistics or studies and don't reference those, I get suspicious. If the phrase \"some people say\" (or anything similar) appears anywhere in the article, I'm assuming BS."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-warrant-application/"
],
[]
] | ||
3vbuf4 | why do fish never bump into one another while swimming? | So when you walk down a busy street, you bump into people all the time, but when you see a large school of fish, or fish in an aquarium, they all seem to fluidly move past one other without any contact. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vbuf4/eli5_why_do_fish_never_bump_into_one_another/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxm46v2",
"cxm5n7f"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Many fish have a line of sense organs along each side, which helps detect what is in the water nearby. \nGoogle \"fish lateral line\" to learn more.",
"When you're milling around in the park, you're the fish in the aquarium. No bumping. Lots of room, people talking, peaceful.\n\nWhen you are at the skating rink, you've got a lot of people in a generally open space. You're mostly all moving in the same direction, if in circles. You can see each other and talk, but mostly you just try not to bump into those around you. That's when you see a large school of fish in the ocean, or in a blue water tank, when they're moving in circles or moving fast.\n\nWhen you're walking down the street, you're the salmon moving upriver in a vast school. They bump into each other all the time, then. Moving fast, trying to follow the current, walls on both sides of you, it's pretty chaotic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
6qi8j1 | how do one-way windows actually work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qi8j1/eli5_how_do_oneway_windows_actually_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkxgl47"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They are just heavily-tinted windows. What makes them one-way is that the room that's supposed to be visible is well-lit, and the room that's not supposed to be visible is dark (same way tinted windows on cars hide what's inside).\n\nThe window is actually just as visible in both directions. It's placement that makes it work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3gxh5a | how do they work out the death count for disasters? | Do they go by physical body count? People who are missing?
Roll call of people who are generally in the vicinity? Like schools rolls and timesheets?
Reports from family of friends of the deceased?
What if an entire family goes missing and their bodies are never found? Are they counted? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gxh5a/eli5_how_do_they_work_out_the_death_count_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu2jl70"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All of the above. In the UK for example during a major incident one of the responsibilities of the police is to set up temporary mortuaries for the dead and reception centres for everyone else. There are lots of operational plans in place to ensure everything is adequately recorded."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1vmham | How expensive would a tapestry have been? (1600s or so on) | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vmham/how_expensive_would_a_tapestry_have_been_1600s_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cettct9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There would be quite a difference between tapestries based on size, materials and craftsmanship. \n\n[One of Henry VIII's tapestries from 1537 cost an estimated £2,000- £3,000 which is the price for two warships. Its materials included gold and silver threads.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://youtu.be/Xzp6CVZnh8c"
]
] | ||
12kvar | what are the "brain zaps" people experience during ssri withdrawal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12kvar/eli5_what_are_the_brain_zaps_people_experience/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6vz3g1",
"c6vzdlq",
"c6vzop9",
"c6w00hi",
"c6w02tq",
"c6w1dgq",
"c6w1jl4",
"c6w1ly5",
"c6w1x9t",
"c6w40rq",
"c6w595d",
"c6w5hub",
"c7vwf03"
],
"score": [
4,
21,
10,
18,
2,
2,
7,
10,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Probably related to the change in neurotransmitter availability. Whatever the SSRI drugs were controlling the amount of, the body got used to and so it stopped handling the production/regulation of said neurotransmitter. Now that there is less of the drug available, the body has to regulate itself, which may take some time to readjust, resulting in this \"brain zap\".",
"Shit feels crazy, son. Mine lasted almost a week and would go through periods where I'd get them every 20-30 seconds. \n\nIt wasn't really that bad to be honest, just strange. I'm glad I'm off SSRIs now, but they did help me through a rough time. ",
"SSRI discontinuation syndrome. [Here's an article](_URL_0_) on wikipedia with references.",
"I would love to know this. Weirdest feeling ever. Like accidentally touching a live wire with your eyes, and from out of nowhere.",
"I get these all the time (well, not all the time, maybe a couple times a year, but I remember getting them even as a kid). I've heard they're commonplace, no idea what causes them.",
"What do they feel like? I'm not on an SSRI but I'm curious. Never even heard of them.",
"I've tried to explain this symptom to other people, including medical professionals and they all looked at me like I was stupid.\n\nThey don't call it \"brain zaps\", or \"mild electric shocks\", like I called them. \"Oh, do you mean your teeth, tongue, fingers, toes and eyeballs feel *tingly*?\" Yes, asshole. Thanks for making me suffer while you dicked around over semantics.",
"Not an answer, but I found that it was related to eye movement. If you keep your head still then dart your eyes about, each movement causes a 'zap'. What's odd, if you focus on something and move your head so that your eyes are moving but you're looking at the same thing, it *doesn't* seem to zap. \n\nAlso, it's been a while since I had them but I seem to recall that if you close your eyelids and then dart your eyes about like before but with your lids closed, the zaps don't happen. Very odd indeed. ",
"Sometimes they frustrate me, even if I've taken my meds for some reason I'll get a few zaps. However they are also a good reminder for if I've forgotten my meds. If I get to around 2pm ill start getting zaps and that usually reminds me to take them!\n\nEdit: I thought this was on r/bipolar so it wasn't exactly an answer. But I'll keep the comment here anyway.",
"SSRI discontinuation* syndrome is no joke. I took myself off of a high-dose SSRI a decade ago, and had these shuddering flashes of disorientation for two weeks straight, multiple times a day.\n\nMy best shot at explaining it is like this. Neurons communicate electrically and chemically. When the chemicals get out of balance with each other, the communication gets distorted or interrupted, at least in a sense of deviation from normal.\n\nSerotonin is that neurotransmitter that sort of makes everything in your body talk with every other part, and with the world outside. An excess makes you sleepy, cuddly, alert, dreamy, or downright trippy. A deficiency means other chemicals, like dopamine, norepinephrine, & acetylcholine (all of which hype you up and are related to attention to stimuli) are out of balance.\n\nSo here's the thing: if the chemical that helps your cells make a cohesive unity of it all is (relatively) suddenly reduced, then you're getting a lot of exciting electro-chemical signals that your brain is having trouble filtering & making sense of.\n\ntl;dr static on the line, you're disoriented for the split second it takes for your brain to clean up the signal.\n\n Source: degree in research psych, personal experience.\n\nEDIT: Posted from my phone. Neodymium is right, I had a brain fart and posted serotonin syndrome at first.",
"A friend of mine and myself always knew it as the \"whoosh\" feeling. I'm just curious if anyone else has described it that way.",
"When my eyes are closed, I see actual small flashes of light when they zap. ",
"A little late to the conversation here but I thought I'd contribute my situation. I'm on celexa. I've been taking for six months and now that'll clean of it, it's been three and half weeks of the zaps. I've had them before coming off of something else in the past but they were more intense..blink your eyes...get the zap. This stuff is giving me more of a dull zap when I close my eyes (usually get 2 or 3 in a row) or if I'm out in public. I find the zaps get more frequent and often when I'm out around other people. I'm guessing it has something to do with the nervous system and just feeling like people can see what's happening. Does anybody else find they intensify when in public?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4np33e | The Bible references Inns such as during the birth of Jesus they attempted to stay at an inn. Or in the parable of the good Samaritan the Samaritan took the hurt man to an inn to care for him. What were these inns like at the time? What sort of services were provided and how common were they? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4np33e/the_bible_references_inns_such_as_during_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d45yodw",
"d45zrxk",
"d463jff"
],
"score": [
68,
13,
52
],
"text": [
"Luke 2:7 (the birth narrative you're referring to), likely doesn't have in view a formal inn like we would think of. The Harper Collins Study Bible (a standard in academic Bible courses at secular institutions like Yale), has this to say about Luke 2:7:\n\n > A formal inn is not in view here (as in 10.34), but rather a temporary lodging for travelers.\n\nAs implied in that note, the inn in the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:34 is likely a formal inn, more like we would think of with the word \"inn.\"\n\nThat's because the Greek terms for \"inn\" in these two places are different. In Luke 2:7 it's κατάλυμα, which BDAG, the standard lexicon of the New Testament, describes in this way:\n\n > **lodging place**. The sense inn is possible in Lk 2:7, but in 10:34 Lk uses πανδοχεῖον, the more specific term for inn. κ. is therefore best understood here as lodging.\n\nUnfortunately, I have nothing to say about the sorts of services that would have been available at the more formal sort of inn (πανδοχεῖον) mentioned in the parable of the good Samaritan.",
"To piggyback on this question, I've never really understood why Mary and Joseph were required to go to Bethlehem for the census in the first place. Wouldn't it make more sense for the Romans to have everyone stay where they actually lived in order to get an accurate view point of the population? ",
"I can't really speak for the specific case of Joseph and Mary as I am not sure about the situation in the Levant, but in the Roman Empire as a whole there certainly were inns. These are quite well documented archaeologically in places like Pompeii, but rather than going deep into those details (long story short, an eatery with a bunch of rooms attached is probably an inn) I'll point you towards [the beginning of Apuleis' *Golden Ass*.](_URL_0_) In this, the narrator Lucius comes upon a man named Aristomenes who talks about coming upon a friend of his named Socrates (not that one) who is disheveled and out of sorts (this sort of embedded narrative within embedded narrative is common within classical literature), and tells this story:\n\n > ‘Woe is me,’ he cried, ‘I was chasing after the delights of a famous gladiatorial show, when I fell into this misfortune. For, as you know well, I’d gone to Macedonia on a business trip, and after nine months labouring there I was on my way back home a wealthier man. Just before I reached Larissa, where I was going to watch the show by the way, walking along a rough and desolate valley, I was attacked by fierce bandits, and stripped of all I had. At last I escaped, weak as I was, and reached an inn belonging to a mature yet very attractive woman named Meroe, and told her about my lengthy journey, my desire for home, and the wretched robbery. She treated me more than kindly, with a welcome and generous meal, and quickly aroused by lust, steered me to her bed. At once I was done for, the moment I slept with her; that one bout of sex infected me with a long and pestilential relationship; she’s even had the clothes those kind robbers left me, and the meagre wages I’ve earned heaving sacks while I still could, until at last evil Fortune and my good ‘wife’ reduced me to the state you saw not long ago.’\n\nThe two then go to an inn, where they share a bed (I believed this practice was common in all premodern inns). That night, Meroe (who was a witch) casts a curse on both and pees on them.\n\nThe story as a whole is worth reading for its little details about Roman innkeeping practice (as is the book as a whole, for example Keith Bradley's *Apuleis and Antonine Rome* is based on that). The inn serves travelers who don't want to wander the bandit infested roads at night. The owner is a woman. Entry and exit is controlled by a night porter. Crime within the inn is a concern. It seems to have been attached to a set of baths. The tale was set in Thessaly, hardly the beating heart of the empire (it is witch infested though) which argues for them being pretty common an mundane.\n\nIt is difficult to really drill down into details, but by all accounts inns in the Roman world resembled the stereotypical \"tavern\" beloved of fantasy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/TheGoldenAssI.htm#anchor_Toc346614953"
]
] | ||
26rlfu | Historically speaking, what are the key signs of an empire or dominant power in decline? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26rlfu/historically_speaking_what_are_the_key_signs_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"chtv0kv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sorry, we don't allow [throughout history questions](_URL_0_). These tend to produce threads which are collections of trivia, not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for. If you have a specific question about a historical event or period or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again. Alternatively, you may PM /u/caffarelli to have your question considered for an upcoming [Tuesday Trivia](_URL_1_) thread."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22in_your_era.22_or_.22throughout_history.22_questions",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/features/trivia"
]
] | ||
o6pog | Is "totally drug-resistant TB" real? Should we be
afraid of it right now? | _URL_0_
This article about "totally drug-resistant TB" made the front page. The article mentions how first- and second-line drugs have no affect on this particular strain and patients are urged to try experimental drugs and/or surgery.
How scary is this article, really? Is this something that has never happened before (to our knowledge)? Is the "infect 15 people in a year" number true? Inflated? Bullshit? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o6pog/is_totally_drugresistant_tb_real_should_we_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3etbz2",
"c3eujo6",
"c3ewaaj",
"c3ewvo1"
],
"score": [
52,
2,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, it is real. Here is the [publication of the original discovery in 2009](_URL_2_). It is scary. For people who have the disease, TDR-TB is awful. I'm not going to say that it is a death sentence, but it's bad.\n\nAs for it threatening *you*, who I assume lives in a First World country, I have some good news. We have had [safe and effective tuberculosis vaccines](_URL_4_) for almost 100 years. Americans rarely get it because the vaccine leaves a scar and your chances of getting TB in America are virtually nil. But if TB started to become a global epidemic, a quick shot in the arm would protect you for approximately 10 years.\n\n**EDIT:** Since this is climbing the AskScience front page quite quickly, it might be a good time to spread a little knowledge about how antibiotic resistance is transmitted. I assume that everyone has at least a passing familiarity with the concept of antibiotic resistance, but I'll run through it from the beginning.\n\nDifferent antibiotics kill bacteria in different ways. Some break down their cell walls, some halt DNA replication, some halt DNA transcription. For every antibiotic we have ever developed, bacteria have evolved an immunity to it. On [page 7 of this PDF](_URL_1_) you can see that bacteria develop resistance to **every** antibiotic we have ever made within only a few years. The immunity is always caused by a spontaneous mutation (natural mutations happen all the time!) that just coincidentally happens to protect that bacteria from the antibiotic. The chances of a single mutation being able to do this are very very small, but with literally *trillions* of bacteria mutating all the time, it is inevitable that one will become resistant to the drug.\n\nSo say you have a person infected with a bacteria. Inside their intestines are one billion bacteria. You treat the patient with antibiotics, which kill 999,999,999 of the bacteria. By chance, 1 bacterium happens to be resistant to the antibiotic and survives. It now lives in an empty intestine and has lots of space to grow. It grows a whole colony of bacteria that are just like it, and they are all immune. This is evolution in action, and it has selected for antibiotic resistance. \n\nWe overcome this by attacking them with multiple antibiotics. If the chances of a random mutation protecting a bacterium against one antibiotic are one in one trillion, the chances of a single bacterium being protected against two antibiotics is one in (one trillion)^2 . That is small enough that it doesn't happen by chance.\n\nBut multidrug resistance comes from an entirely different place. Humans (and all eukaryotes) get their DNA from their parents. Bacteria start with a copy of their parental DNA, but they can get more. Bacteria can pick up DNA from the environment ([Transformation](_URL_5_)), can be passed little pieces of DNA from other bacteria ([Conjugation](_URL_0_)), or can get pieces from mis-packaged viruses ([Transduction](_URL_3_)). This allows bacteria to pick up genes *from other species of bacteria!*\n\nSo by using an antibiotic we have selected for bacteria that are immune to it. This happens all the time and is not a huge deal. However, these bacteria can also trade their resistance genes, becoming immune to multiple drugs. While this is still a random event it is far more likely than the one in one trillion spontaneous mutation! It was only a matter of time before one bug collected *all* of the resistance genes...",
"If you are in clinical healthcare, yes, it means that you could be exposed to TDR, which is not good for you. But, since TB almost always infects a certain demographic, or those with long term exposure, unless you live on less than 32 bucks a day or are a nurse in a govt hospital in india, dont worry.\n\nTB is a slow moving illness, the risk of TDR TB becoming a pandemic or a widespread health threat is very low, for now. \n\nthe nubmers are probably low.\n\nBCG vaccine is great, but practically everyone in india who develops TB has received BCG as a child, its efficacy in protecting against adult pulmonary TB is highly questionable, in fact there are researchers who believe that the reason the west was able to eradicate TB had to do with economic and social reform, not vaccination.\n",
"To answer your question in short, yes this is real, but no, we (the general public) shouldn't be afraid, unless you are in direct contact with these individuals, and especially not if you are in a country with a very low incidence of TB, such as the United States. Still, resistance is and has been increasing in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), so this is a real concern among those that are working towards eradicating it on a global scale.\n\nTo put things in perspective, about 2 billion people world wide are infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Of these 2 billion only 5-10% will ever get sick, even if they are not treated. This often occurs when an individual becomes immunocompromised. This could be in HIV-positive individuals or in those being treated with immunosupressants (you may recall hearing commercials recommending being tested for TB before taking rheumatoid arthritis drugs, this is why). Still as so many people are infected, there are about 8 million new cases of TB and ~2 million deaths a year (the WHO just released a report saying that this number is finally starting to decline after being on the rise since the 80s).\n\nDespite these high numbers of infection world wide, countries like the United States still have a very low rate of tuberculosis. In my state for example, there are only about 70 cases a year out of about 6 million people, usually in high risk environments or among immigrant populations. While the use of antibiotics helped to reduce the numbers and keep them low in the US, clearly this wouldn't help if we were combating a total drug resistant strain. From what I understand through discussion with heads of my state's health department, though, is that all of the drug resistant strains of Mtb found here are found within a specific immigrant population, suggesting that if a total drug resistant strain was introduced through immigration, it may not spread quickly through the general population. \n\nAs already mentioned, there is a vaccine for Mtb, a live attenuated Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) strain of Mycobacterium bovis (part of the Mtb complex this species very similar to Mtb and also causes TB in humans as well as cows and other animals like badgers and wild boars). This however does not bring a lot of comfort when considering a large scale drug resistant outbreak as studies have shown a range of efficacy from 0-80% among adults. Additionally, among immunocompromised individuals, BCG can cause infection and even death ([source](_URL_1_)). Because of this TB vaccination is still an active field of research. BCG does have a proven effect against disseminated TB in children however, and this is largely why it is still in use in countries with a high prevelence of TB.\n\nI don't have a lot of time now so I've left out some sources, but will come back and add in more details and sources here or in response any questions I get. I should also say that while I work with Mtb, it is not on an epidemiological level, so any epidemiologists should feel free to chime in if I've made any mistaken assumptions. Here is some more information from the [World Health Organization](_URL_0_).",
"Could TDR-TB be combated by introducing an infection by a non-drug resistant strain of TB? There should be a huge metabolic burden on the TDR strain to maintain resistance, so the non-resistant strain should be able to outcompete it and push it out?"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_first-cases-of-totally-drug-resistant-tb-in-india-one-dead_1634439"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation",
"http://peds.stanford.edu/Tools/documents/AntibioticResistanceLLD.pdf",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19349380",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transduction_%28genetics%29",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_Calmette-Gu%C3%A9rin",... | |
n06c9 | Would touching your organs hurt? | If it did would it be a slight pain or a strong pain and could you move your organs around if it didnt hurt? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n06c9/would_touching_your_organs_hurt/ | {
"a_id": [
"c35aw2w",
"c35awl6",
"c35aw2w",
"c35awl6"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Your brain, no, because you don't have pain receptors on your brain. Everywhere else that I can think of, yes you'd have some discomfort if you handled them roughly. The degree of pain would depend on force applied, same as external pain. \n\nThis, of course, ignores the pain associated with the huge breach in your skin. ",
"is this a clever rouse to get someone to touch your organ?\n",
"Your brain, no, because you don't have pain receptors on your brain. Everywhere else that I can think of, yes you'd have some discomfort if you handled them roughly. The degree of pain would depend on force applied, same as external pain. \n\nThis, of course, ignores the pain associated with the huge breach in your skin. ",
"is this a clever rouse to get someone to touch your organ?\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
76m0bs | Were there any Historical attempts to make bullet-proof armour in the 16th and 17th centuries? | I know that it is possible to make armour Bullet proof as the Ned Kelly gangs armour was able to stop bullets but are there historical examples of similar attempts to make amours that could withstand bullets. Were the armours of Cuirassiers and harquebusiers bulletproof?
| AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/76m0bs/were_there_any_historical_attempts_to_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"dofalam"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There were always historical attempts to make bulletproof armour ever since the very first gunpowder weapons. In fact, the very term \"bulletproof\" comes from the practice of early modern armourers firing a bullet into their armor as proof that it could withstand bullets. The reason why the use of armor died out in Europe wasn't because armourers weren't capable of making armour capable of resisting bullets, so much as that equipping soldiers with armour grew prohibitively expensive as army sizes increased."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3pifpi | Why was the First Mexican Empire so focused on getting a European Emperor? | I recently started reading about the First (and second) Mexican empires and had this question in the back of my mind the whole time. Why were the Mexicans so hell bent on having a European as monarch? And why did Ferdinand decline the offer of Mexico becoming a Commonwealth?
Edit: I'll expand the question in hopes someone will see it.
The injection of a European royal in the second empire makes sence to me since Napoleon III was looking to push his influence in the Americas and having a member of his blood line in Mexico gave him a in and a puppet from which to expand his influence. But for the first empire, I would assume (probably incorrectly) that the recent independence would fuel a more nationalistic idea of a Mexican being crowned Emperor like how Iturbide was eventually crowned. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pifpi/why_was_the_first_mexican_empire_so_focused_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw6mfqy"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"For one thing, you have to understand that the separatist movement that succeeded in Mexico was an essentially conservative one (conservative with a lower case c, not upper case Conservatism as it would exist in Latin America in the following decades). Absolutist monarch Fernando VII had been temporarily obliged to accept a constitution which was essentially liberal (in the Spanish sense) in 1820 after 'Riego's Revolution' (an uprising of liberal military officers in Spain).\n\nLiberalism in Spain meant two things. In social issues, like the role of the Church and potentially even slavery, it was usually very modernizing. In economic issues, it meant a strengthening of metropolitan economic controls over Spain's overseas colonies. This is exemplified in the Liberal constitution of the 1830s.\n\nSo when Iturbide and the other pro-status quo officers rebelled they were, to cop a phrase from Lampedusa's The Leopard, changing everything so that nothing changes. New Spain (later Mexico) was, after all, a vice royalty (*virreinato*), so the idea was to proceed towards independence to defend their interests, both economic and in social matters, against peninsular liberals but without significantly altering the established order. In particular they had in mind the radical independence movements of the previous decade which had successfully energized popular sectors who were normally not active players in politics.\n\nAttracting a European monarch solved two potential issues. It would help establish a new regime which would perpetuate the status quo in socio-economic issues, backed by all the legitimacy that an old European aristocratic house could provide. It would also potentially defuse the situation with Spain, such as if a Bourbon monarch sat on the Mexican throne. Brazil, for example, became an empire with a cadet branch of the Portuguese royal family from the 1820s up until the 1880s. Mexican elites were looking for something similar. When that failed, they tried to invent an empire. Didn't turn out so well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
8ix7ko | how does melanin protect the skin by making it darker? doesn't a darker skin tone mean that the skin absorbs even more light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ix7ko/eli5_how_does_melanin_protect_the_skin_by_making/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyv9lck"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Absorbing the light is how it helps. Light skin will allow UV rays to penetrate the skin and get absorbed by cells and their DNA which can lead to either the cell going through cell death or mutations such as thymine dimmers where two thymines bind to each other on the same side of the DNA. But in a dark skin, most of the light will be absorbed by the skin, causing as little of it to go through into the body. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
et9xx8 | In old America (1799-1900), did towns or states restrict guns in some sort of way? And if so, how did it work out? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/et9xx8/in_old_america_17991900_did_towns_or_states/ | {
"a_id": [
"fff22wn"
],
"score": [
91
],
"text": [
"Yes, it was not particularly controversial given jurisprudence of the time, however. I'll repost an older thing I wrote on the topic which touches on this issue a bit although it is more broadly focused.\n\nWhen originally written, the Bill of Rights was *not* understood in the way it is today. Rather, it was only intended to deal with the Federal Government, and enjoin against the Federal Government from enacting laws which violated the various rights laid out in those Amendments. The 1876 case *United State v. Cruikshank* (which we'll return to shortly) is a pretty concise example of this application in the 19th century, a key phrase being:\n\n > The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.\n\nSo basically, from the implementation of the Bill of Rights up until the early 20th century, the States were *not* automatically prevented from violating those rights. For example, in the Early Republic, a several states had established churches, which as /u/uncovered-history wrote about [here](_URL_0_) might have been controversial, but wasn't seen as unconstitutional. There is definitely *some* argument about whether that was as intended, and in early debates you can find some who would have preferred a broader application that encumbered the states as well, but it was for the most part generally accepted. Akhil Reed Amar remarks on Thomas Jefferson that:\n\n > Thomas Jefferson, often invoked today as a strong opponent of religious establishment, appears to have understood the states'-rights aspects of the original establishment clause. Although he argued for an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment-the federal government should have nothing to do with religion in the states, control of which was beyond Congress's limited delegated powers-he was more willing to flirt with governmental endorsements of religion at the state level, especially where no state coercion would impinge on dissenters' freedom of conscience.\n\nIn any case, to get to the specifics of the 2nd Amendment, what this means is that the understanding of the 2nd Amendment was mostly in line with the idea that it prevented the Federal government from limiting the ownership of firearms in fairly absolute terms, *but* that it ought not be so understood at the state level. This is massively important, and something which is often overlooked since it greatly colors how the Amendment can be read. Let's break it into its two main parts, since both are telling. In this context, *“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*\" can be read fairly absolutely. \"*The people*\" are the people, \"*keep and bear arms*\" is just what it sounds like, \"*shall not be infringed*\" places the highest level of scrutiny on any law which would impede that right. But what about *“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”?* Well, this is also telling. The amendment was certainly written with the militia in mind - although by law that was the male population of military age. \n\nFor starters, the Bill of Rights was ordered purposefully, with the Amendments being in ordered respective to the sections of the Constitution they related to. The 1st and 2nd Articles (which were not ratified at the time) were related to Art. 1, Sec. 2 and Art 1, Sec. 6 respectively. The 3rd and 4th Articles, ratified as the 1st and 2nd Amendments, are about Article I, Sec. 8, where the Powers of Congress are listed. Congress has several enumerated powers that relate to the militia, and the 2nd Amendment can thus be read in this context as a check on how far those Federal powers go. More broadly, the context in which the need for the Amendment was pressed was in the idea of the dangers of a standing army, and the need for the militia to have independence from the Federal government. So while in a plain reading, the Amendment speaks of the right as as being about people, and not specifically tied to militia service, it nevertheless is to be firmly understood as a law rooted in the idea of the state militias, and at the time, not necessarily intending to enshrine an individual right as we would understand it.\n\nIn short, the 2nd Amendment ensures that the states can maintain an armed militia and that they maintain some oversight independent of Federal control. As one might thus be inclined to read the Amendment, it could be as such:\n\n > The Federal government can’t ban people from owning weapons because it would be oppressive to The States.\n\nThe Feds can't, but the States can. That is a not particularly controversial way to read the 2nd Amendment in the context of the 19th century. And while the Supreme Court rarely rules on 2nd Amendment issues, which makes top-level jurisprudence slim, this was the very clear impetus behind the decision in 1885's *Presser v. Illinois* which concerned state regulation of non-state organized militias, and held:\n\n > [...] a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.\n\nNow, *that all being said*, here is where I insert some caveats. The first is that none of this necessarily precludes the fact that there was belief in an individual right in the period. The 2nd Amendment might have *only* been applied to the Federal government, but that doesn't mean the states were implementing laws which strictly regulated the ownership of firearms. Many state constitutions of the period, both before and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, enshrined the right as well, some with explicit nods to the *individual*, such as Pennsylvannia's \"*That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state*\", while others pointing at least implicitly to the idea of the militia and collective defense, such as Tennessee's *\"That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.\"* (In neither case though ought it be assumed they were enforced specifically as written, as Pennsylvania, for instance, did nevertheless did have laws one might think violated a plain reading, but were not deemed to). Not every state had such a provision, but the main point is that while it is anachronistic to talk so casually about an individual right stemming from the 2nd Amendment, that isn't to say that there wasn't a conception of such a right at the state level.\n\nThe second caveat is that, as any one who has paid any attention to Constitutional Law *ever* knows, there probably isn't actually anything which can be called settled and readily accepted as the perfect interpretation by *everyone*. As I mentioned, *Presser v. Illinois* saw the US Supreme Court rule on the 2nd Amendment and ratify what was the general understanding of it, that as a part of the Bill of Rights is applied to the Feds and not the States; and additionally as I mentioned, although generally accepted when implemented in the 1790s, some people would prefer it to go further. What this of course means is that at least some people would have preferred to see it to apply to the states and although there is little drive for this immediately, you do start to see this view forming by the middle of the antebellum period Although obviously the Supreme Court never agreed with that view in the period, and explicitly disagreed with *Presser*, at the lower level, the case of *State of Louisiana v. J.B. Chandler* presents an interesting counter-push:\n\nChandler was on trial for the killing of Patrick Daley in 1848, and part of the indictment included the charge of violating Louisiana's concealed weapons law (one of the most common forms of early gun control laws), which made it a misdemeanor to do so. His counsel had tried to argue:\n\n > *that to carry weapons, either concealed or openly, is not a crime in the State of Louisiana; that the Constitution which guarantees to the citizen the right to bear arms cannot be restricted by the action of the Legislature.*\n\nOn appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the decision is an interesting one, since on the one hand it upheld the law, but on the other, it nevertheless affirmed that the Constitutional right from the Second Amendment was an individual one, affirming the right but also establishing that there were logical limits at which infringement was permissible in the interest of the state. Or rather, in the words of the opinion:\n\n > This law became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) \"in full open view,\" which places men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74o082/how_did_official_state_churches_work_in_the_early/dnzw1si/"
]
] | ||
1k2pyf | if the human body is around 70% water, how come we don't have pure h2o in our bodies? | It's a bit confusing to ask, but I'll try to make the question more sensible:
Excluding things like urine and sweat, I just can't visualize how 70% of our *entire* bodies are made of H2O! I mean, if we hurt ourselves I don't see water pouring out; I would mostly see blood. Is H2O just found in little places throughout the entire body or is there somewhere in the body where it's just plain "water"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k2pyf/eli5_if_the_human_body_is_around_70_water_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbkrfk0",
"cbkrgas",
"cbkruw4",
"cbks75e"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So 80% water doesn't mean that there are bags of water in us, it means that parts of us are made, in part, with water. \n\nThink of orange juice: its mostly water, but you don't see *any* water in it. Yet, you can \"concentrate\" (dehydrate) it a bit, and you get an orange juice goo. \n\nNow you can take this goo and add water, yet it appears to be identical (or very close to identical) to the original orange juice. Where did the water go? \n\nIt's still present, its just no longer isolate, pure water. ",
"Have you ever taken a bottle of water, and put just a drop or two food coloring in it? You know it's mostly water. You know it's nearly all water. But it doesn't look like water, because it's not all water.\n\nBlood is like that. Nearly our entire bodies are like that. If you ever see a dissection of some animal, you'll notice that most of their insides are very wet.\n\nThe water is everywhere, it just isn't pure, because why would need pure water inside our bodies? We use the water as a liquid medium for storage and transport of minerals, and nutrients. Why leave it pure?",
"Our cells (the vast majority of them anyway) are essentially little bags of water with various solutes dissolved in them. That's pretty much how we function: chemical reactions in solution in little bags of water contained by phospholipid membranes. There is a whole lot more to it than that of course, by for eli5 purposes it's a decent description.",
"It takes energy to separate miscible (mixable) things. It's a lot easier to make Kool-Aid with sugar and water and flavoring than it is to make those three things from Kool-Aid!\n\nBesides, the things dissolved in your bodily fluids tend to serve important purposes like keeping you from leaking too badly and keeping conditions for the various functioning enzymes and other proteins maintained and easy to maintain.\n\nPlants *can* store pretty pure water in their vacuoles (little cellular storage pouches), but they do this even more to keep a firm fluid 'skeleton' (and stay pointed up toward the sun and the air!) than they do for consumption."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
33se81 | why is it okay to call a british person a brit but it's not okay to call a japanese person a jap? also is it offensive to call a communist a commie? | I only ask because I want to see someone actually try and explain this as though they were talking to a five year old. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33se81/eli5why_is_it_okay_to_call_a_british_person_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqnylb5",
"cqnylj9",
"cqnzv7y",
"cqo0gu8",
"cqo2jx1",
"cqo3fq3"
],
"score": [
2,
30,
9,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well Jap was a derogatory term that rose up during WWII. Brit was never used in a derogatory form to describe people from Britain or the UK. \n\nAs for the commie part, that term is never used in Canada so I cannot comment with any validity. ",
"Most slurs are slurs because of their history. It's not that calling someone a \"Jap\" is offensive by itself. It's that a whole lot of people who meant very bad things by \"Jap\" used it for a long time. So today, if someone uses the word, it's like they're saying they agree with the bad things that were meant by it in the past.\n\nSince the same thing didn't happen with \"Brit\", it's not seen as offensive today.",
"Because \"Jap\" was used in racist war propaganda with explicit purpose of dehumanizing the enemy. This was the same time that we were rounding up Americans with Japanese ancestors and putting them in concentration camps.\n\nThere is no real history here of persecuting British people, apart from our war of independence. Even then, a huge part of the colonial population considered themselves British. It's been a very, very long time since people thought of the term \"Brit\" as derogatory. It doesn't conjure up images of persecution in British people's minds. There are still Americans alive today who remember when \"Jap\" was a term used against them as justification to treat them as second-class citizens. That's why it's inappropriate.",
"For what it's worth, Canadians don't mind being called Canucks. Snow Frogs on the other hand...",
"As others have said, \"Jap\" was used in a derogatory sense in contexts intended to dehumanise the Japanese, while \"Brit\" was never used in that context -- and indeed, the British themselves are perfectly happy to use the word \"Brit\". (I should know, I am one.)\n\nAs for \"commie\", that again is usually used in a derogatory sense (if you call somebody a \"commie\", you are almost certainly criticizing them), and is also usually used to describe people who aren't actually communists, just people whose politics you happen to disagree with.",
"I agree with everything said here but, as an Englishman, I can guarantee that calling someone here a 'Brit' will get you at the very least an odd look, if not a 'piss off' for some Scottish/Northern Irish individuals. A lot of people here do not like being generalized as British instead of their actual country. \nFrom what I've seen this seems to apply in double when Americans are involved (maybe just because you're the ones that do it the most)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
4mia7r | when a calf got rejected by its mother after having been in touch with humans | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mia7r/eli5_when_a_calf_got_rejected_by_its_mother_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3vpcbe"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Herds are huge, calves can't survive that long without their mothers, and it would be almost impossible to find that calf's mother. \n\n\nIf you read the story about the recent bison calf, it was rejected *by the herd*, not by its mother. There was no way they could have found its mother specifically. The herd would have rejected it for smelling like a stranger, not because it smelled of humans. You can see on youtube that there are many times a baby is attacked by a predator but manages to return to the herd - this wouldn't happen if a herd or mama animal would reject a baby that smelled like a predator. [It is a myth that animals reject babies that smell of humans.](_URL_0_) \n\n\nBaby bison are introduced to a herd through its mother. So the major issue was the separation from the mother. \n\n\nEdited to add, because I was curious: another potential reason for the herd to reject a baby without a mother is this, written about cows who are herd animals like bison are: [\"It is not by accident that a cow rejects the approaches and nursing attempts from all calves except her own. If females let all the calves in the herd nurse, then only the oldest calves would survive. Natural selection insures that females will invest in their own offspring and no other.\"](_URL_1_)\n\n\nSo the bison herd would reject a strange calf because they will not nurture anything but their own babies. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-birds-abandon-young-at-human-touch/",
"http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/herdmed/applied-ethology/articles/maternal.html"
]
] | ||
24nho7 | Where do photons of light go? | I was watching the episode of Deeper, Deeper, Deeper Still of Cosmos and during it they kept mentioning photons of light. It got me thinking about how things absorb light allowing us to see different colors and stuff.
So where exactly do the photons of light that initially bounce of off "things" and into our eyeballs end up? I've seen multiple diagrams showing the light bouncing or refracting off of a material and then into the retina or cornea (can't remember which) of our eyes. If it does this, is that the end of the road for a photon? Our eyes? Or does it go through our eyes and continue on into space? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24nho7/where_do_photons_of_light_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch8w7jk",
"ch8wvi0"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"The \"end of the road\" is when they are converted into another form of energy. This could be heat when absorbed by a non-reflective surface, or the movement of an electron (photosynthesis and photoelectric effect).\n\nWhen light hits the retina in your eye, a type of molecule known as a \"chromophore\" absorbs certain frequencies of light and this absorption causes an electron to move to an excited state. \n\nIf the photon continued into space, that would mean it was not absorbed, and thus could have had no effect on your eyes or body. (think radio waves - they pass right through you.)",
"Most photons that enter your eye through your cornea are absorbed by your retina, which is how you perceive vision.\n\nSome are reflected back out though. You have probably witnessed this phenomena as \"red-eye\" in a photo, or in an animal's eyes \"glowing\" at night."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
5pef88 | If a high wattage laser is invisible, you still need eye protection to use it? | If its an infrared laser, can it damage your eyes if you use it without laser protective goggles? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5pef88/if_a_high_wattage_laser_is_invisible_you_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcr14zq",
"dcr18k0"
],
"score": [
12,
16
],
"text": [
"Yes an invisible laser is still very dangerous. Depending on the wavelength it can burn your cornea (not too bad) or your retina (very bad). The issue with invisible laser is that it's not always immediately obvious that you have been hit. This is why people who work with high power lasers are supposed to get regular eye exams. ",
"Yes. At that point, it is treated as non-visible radiation. That's why most physics labs that use lasers have equipment that are not set at eye-level to reduce accidental exposure to eyes.\n\nAnd depending on the characteristics of the laser, you have different needs of protection. So, if you find a eye protection that worked in one experiment with a laser Type A, that eye protection might not be sufficient for laser Type B. And vice versa.\n\nAnd in your situation of infrared, it's going to burn."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
6kma8m | why you can put in the recycling bin same files with the same name but you cannot do that in any other folder ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6kma8m/eli5why_you_can_put_in_the_recycling_bin_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"djn4fca",
"djo7x7h"
],
"score": [
89,
3
],
"text": [
"The recycling bin is a \"virtual\" folder that shows a list of deleted files that can be undeleted. Deleted files aren't actually *moved* in to a different folder: they stay where they were, they're just *marked* as deleted. The recycling bin is a \"view\" that lets you see all the deleted files in one place.",
"On the Windows operating system, the files are all moved into the one Recycle Bin folder, but are first renamed with a unique incrementing number. The original name of the file is stored in a special hidden file called \"INFO2\". When you view the Recycle Bin, it does not show you the actual recycle-bin's folder structure, but uses a specialized control to display the INFO2 contents like a folder. See _URL_1_ for a bit about the Recycle Bin, and _URL_0_ which shows the contents of an INFO2 file."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/recycle-bin-forensics",
"http://www.infocellar.com/winxp/Recycle-Bin.htm"
]
] | ||
chdgdr | Regarding the cause of climate change, why is all the emphasis on greenhouse gases? What about all the thermal energy being produced from electricity and other technology? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/chdgdr/regarding_the_cause_of_climate_change_why_is_all/ | {
"a_id": [
"eus8b9d",
"eusw92b"
],
"score": [
30,
18
],
"text": [
"Two reasons:\n\n1. The direct heating from humans releasing energy is at least an order of magnitude less impactful than the extra heating from greenhouse gasses trapping IR radiation ([this study estimates it at 1%](_URL_0_), I've seen some other sources estimate it a bit higher but even the most generous estimates are less than 10%)\n2. Even if they were of similar scales, greenhouse gasses trap extra energy that the Earth would otherwise radiate out into space, which is a cumulative effect over dozens to hundreds of years (depending on the greenhouse gas), while direct heating is a \"one and done\" type of effect. If we cut our energy output in half, the direct heating term would, almost instantly, be cut in half. But if we reduce our emissions by half, the existing gasses are still there warming the planet, since the chemical processes that remove them from the atmosphere take decades to centuries. That's a much harder problem to deal with if you let it get out of control.",
"Earth receives 10,000 times more energy from sunlight than humanity's total power usage (174 petawatts vs. around 18 terawatts according to Wikipedia). So causing the planet to retain even a little bit extra of that solar energy can vastly outweigh the heat we directly produce."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2017116"
],
[]
] | ||
b9u4sq | how do they flavor “naturally flavored” and “essenced” sparkling waters without any listed additives? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b9u4sq/eli5_how_do_they_flavor_naturally_flavored_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ek6x915"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"“Natural flavors” don't need to be named individually in the US at least. This is probably just as well when you consider that there's a natural raspberry flavoring that comes from the anal glands of beavers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
uxcds | Hi, I am interested in pursuing a career in History and.. | was wondering what have you been able to do with it? Make any money with it? Was it worth it?
Sorry about this not being a "history" question but just wanted to get some info from historians to see if I could be one. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uxcds/hi_i_am_interested_in_pursuing_a_career_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4zejrf",
"c4zekma",
"c4zfonp",
"c4zgcu6",
"c4zghnf",
"c4zgsv9",
"c4zh0xf",
"c4zjdm1",
"c4zjrln",
"c4zk675",
"c4zk8ok",
"c4zl9o1"
],
"score": [
6,
15,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"What kind of career?\n\nYou have jobs such as in academia, museums, teaching etc., that are more directly related to history.\n\nHowever, there are plenty of careers where a person with a history background can do great, draw on what (s)he's learned in the degree(s), while not working directly with history (Politics? Investment? Analysis?).\n\nIf you are interested in history, study it, do well, and you'll find a career that suits you!",
"First off, if you want to be a historian, be prepared to spend lots of time reading and writing. (It helps if you're good at those things, too.) If those things don't appeal to you, you won't like it. If they do, you'll have a good time. History tests your critical thinking skills like you would never believe: you have to put together lots of different puzzle pieces to come to a new conclusion.\n\nIf you want to go down the professional historian / working with history route, it's really hard work; I've only just started and it's tested my patience more than a few times. It's a long commitment and there's *a lot* of work involved. You really, really have to like history. Not just like history as in \"I like watching Ancient Aliens on the History Channel durrr,\" but in a \"I'm passionate about history\" kind of way. The people you see in this subreddit hang out here because they enjoy talking about history even when they're not in class or at work. It's something they're interested in - *really* interested in. You don't have to be interested in all kinds of history, but you've really got to like it if you want to devote 6+ years of your life to it.\n\nIf you don't want to go down the professional historian route, people debate whether or not a history degree is actually useful. I think it is - I think it teaches you critical thinking and tests your writing and communication skills - but then again, I'm one of those people getting a history degree, so... anyways. You *can* make money with it, but here's the thing - if you get a history degree you are not guaranteed a job. If you major in something like nursing or accounting, you have a *skill.* Nobody else can be a nurse or an accountant unless they have that particular degree. But say you have a history degree and you're applying for a job as... I don't know, a manager of something. Some schmuck with an English degree could just as easily take your job - that means you really have to do your work in undergrad so you can distinguish yourself from that English major. But if you do that, you can do lots of things with it - there's the traditional ones like law and teaching and working in museums and working in archives, and probably some other ones that might come your way - and then I'd say it's totally worth it. ",
"I have an inquiry in the same direction as the OP. Right now I'm in my 3rd year of undergrad for art, so it's a bit late to change. But after I graduate I would really like to pursue the history thing. Medieval history especially has been a lifelong interest of mine and I'd like to do something professionally that deals with it. Is an undergrad in history necessary to get into grad school or am I going to have to pursue a second bachelor's degree first? \n\nSorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, I'm new here. ",
"I'm an editor at an upper-middlebrow monthly that focuses mainly on intellectual and cultural history. The money's no good, though it's slightly better than what some of my adjunct/non–tenure track friends are pulling down. The work becomes especially rewarding when the adjective blossoms into a noun: editors aren't saddled with so much of the i-crossing and t-dotting as are their editorial assistants. It's more like being an intellectual midwife (and less like being a library maid) at the higher levels. And then there's the added benefit of working in a field that values style as much as it values rigor.\n ",
"I find myself in the same boat. I'm starting my last year of undergrad in the fall, and I'm at a loss at what to do. I know I want to go to graduate school *eventually*, and I want to be a professor, but I have absolutely no idea how to go about that (finding a school, etc). My adviser is awesome, but when it comes down to my future...any suggestions? I was also thinking about taking a program to teach English abroad (English minor). Which would be more rewarding and practical? Thanks!",
"The question is your field, mostly, and what you hope to accomplish with it. If you want to make money and still want to be a history major in your undergrad, your best bet would probably be Law school for after...although that's not as much as a sure thing anymore.\n\nThe problem is that there is a gluttony of History graduates out in the field pounding the pavement for jobs right now, especially if it has anything to do with American history. The school I attended had two American history positions on a tenure track, they received in excess of 300 applications for those two positions. Other disciplines may fair better, but you have to realize that there is a lot of history majors, and why should they hire you over another hundred? \n\nSpecialization helps, great grades help, and knowing people helps too. But this is mainly in the Academia sphere. Although, I see my History Degree as more of a stepping stone. I can go into so many different fields, other than scientific ones, which I don't care about. But if you want to make History your one and only, make sure you can fight it out in the sea of sharks before you take the plunge. ",
"There are allot of your fellow undergrads that feel the same way. I feel that you have to be open to all the opportunities that studying history can unlock. Studying history leaves you with many skills; critical thinking, research, writing just to name a few. ",
"Asking as an Ancient undergrad - historians, how difficult/competitive is it to get an academic career in history?",
"You have to be very dedicated and open to both rejection and work outside your desired history field (at least for some time). \n\nI'm in grad school for a Master's in history and I work at a rather low-paying job that has nothing to do with history (although it focuses a bit on digital archiving). I have relative professional experience but when it comes to applying to museums, archives, historical organizations, most are not hiring (even for entry-level positions). It's a little frustrating but I'm aiming for the PhD route eventually. \n\nSometimes I get bouts of self-defeating sentiments. I'm about to become licensed to teach history, but then I keep hearing of history teacher layoffs in my region because it's an untested subject...so you have to bear that mentality in mind.\n\nBut what keeps me going is that I love history, writing, and the other skills mentioned in the replies. I'm passionate about the period of history I focus in and I thrive on the discussions and interpretations of history that you are presented with in academia. ",
"Does teaching count? Honestly, I'm a teacher more because of my love for history than my love for teaching. Don't get me wrong; I like teaching, but I *love* history. \n\nI do have the ambition of eventually going for a doctorate, though, and perhaps working at the University level (which would still be teaching, but if someone studies history at the University they must really like it, which makes me really want to teach them). Who knows, I might end up at somewhere like a museum, too. \n\nPoint being, if you really, *really* like history, then go study it. Worst case scenario is you get some pedagogy along with it and you get to teach history for a while. ",
"Chances are you will make little money (teacher salary). ",
"I think that we need to stress that we historians aren't just instructors. Some of the folks that I worked with as a TA (I just graduated with my MA in May and I'm in the running for a lot of different positions) are now archivists, museum workers, in the Park Service, and in myriad government positions. I advise you to look up stuff on _URL_0_ and speak with your History Dept. chair. \n\nGood luck!!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.h-net.org/~hist-thr/"
]
] | |
3gy89a | why are some states classified as midwest when they are clearly on the east side of the u.s. | _URL_0_
Why does Michigan, Ohio, Indiana etc fall under "mid-west" categories when they are clearly in the eastern part of the U.S.
_URL_1_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gy89a/eli5_why_are_some_states_classified_as_midwest/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu2kagz",
"cu2leto"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"For a long time, the United States was just New England and The South. Everything else was The West. The Midwest is west from all the older stuff, but it's not quite as west as The West. It's in the middle. ",
"Michigan, Ohio, Indiana are clearly in the middle. They are west of the Appalachian mountains and for a long time were the western US. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/j1TufCo.jpg",
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
tt7ym | Does raising the heat setting in a vehicle while running the AC, put less strain on the AC? | It seems the AC is either on/off - does raising the temp setting reduce output from the AC, thereby lowering fuel consumption, or just mix in warm air?
Edit: Not sure if it matters, but some newer vehicles have electronic temp regulation controls. I'm referring specifically to older mechanical systems (ie a knobs/dials/sliders).
| askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tt7ym/does_raising_the_heat_setting_in_a_vehicle_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4pjtam"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In a classical automotive air conditioner, the air conditioner is controlled by engaging and disengaging the AC clutch that couples and decouples the AC compressor from one of the many belt-pulley systems under the hood of your car. The temperature slider controls the mixing vanes in the air flow that mix. Additional controls alter the fan speed and control if the air is recirculated in the cabin or taken from the cabin air intake outside the cabin.\n\nNow, given that, there is going to be some variations in the load on the AC compressor depending on what temperature the cold and hot sides are, but I would imagine those to be fairly small compared to the load of \"compressor on\" vs. \"compressor off\". As such, I'm pretty confident that in the old simple mechanical automotive air conditioning, having the AC clutch engaged meant approximately the same fuel consumption regardless of the position of the temperature slider.\n\nI tried to find a cite, but unfortunately I can't seem to find anything substantiated. Sorry."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
6lmyi1 | how do personality tests predict with accuracy your personality based on questions that are somewhat unrelated. | Examples like
hypnoid:
_URL_1_
Mbti:
_URL_0_
Etc. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lmyi1/eli5_how_do_personality_tests_predict_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"djv0h72"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"First of all, personality testing in general is not that accurate. The problem is that often there are flaws in the questions such as questions that don't measure what they intend to measure, issues with culture or preexisting knowledge and problems with the wording of the questions.\n\nThe most obvious \"flaw\" in these kinds of tests can be seen if you take it more than once. In general personality is something that should remain consistent over time, changing very slowly if at all. But people will sometimes answer those questions differently depending on their mood or recent experiences and that can cause significant changes in the results. For example, last weekend I went out with friends and had the most amazing time, everything lined up just right where it was a REALLY fun party. So my brain will tend to rank \"going out\" as more fun and I'll appear more extroverted. Wheres if I had a really shitty experience last weekend, everything went wrong, people got arrested and someone broke my nose. I'm less likely to rank going out as fun and therefore will appear more introverted. \n\nBut in theory each question is placed there to measure a particular indicator. There are normally many questions that measure that indicator and after all are answered they can be used to measure consistency and dominance of that indicator. For example, you might ask 5 different questions that involve \"going out\" vs \"staying in\" to see what people prefer and that might give you an indicator if they are introverted or extroverted.\n\nIf the questions in the test were organized by indicator it would be obvious to the test taker what was being measured. One of the secrets to these tests is that they measure many indicators and mix up the questions. So the introverted questions might be number 1, 7, 16 and 30. So they seem unrelated but in reality they are not. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/home.htm?bhcp=1",
"http://www.hypnoid.com/psytest2.html"
] | [
[]
] | |
21mk84 | how do we know wireless internet is harmless? | When living in any big city or even small town, inevitably we are subjecting our bodies to the relentless streaming of wireless information passing through our bodies. How can we be certain this is not harmful over a lengthy exposure period ? Example: if a router was placed on one side of your brain and a wireless device on the other and gigabytes of data fed back and forth, would it have an effect on you, over say 10 years or 10 million terabytes ? To me it seems questionable that it would do NOTHING to your body. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21mk84/eli5_how_do_we_know_wireless_internet_is_harmless/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgehcbq",
"cgehw39"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because we've had radio since 1896, and microwaves since the 1930s. This is the part of the EM spectrum that is used for WiFi. If there was a problem we would have noticed long before now. It is non-ionizing radiation, which means it does not affect cells.",
"Everything we know about electromagnetic radiation (which is what wi-fi and radio waves *are*) says that there is simply no mechanism via which waves of the frequencies in question can interact with the body in a way that would be damaging\\*. And we know electromagnetic radiation pretty damn well. It's always *possible* there's something we don't know, but that's not the way these decisions are made. If we used that as a rationale for not doing things, we'd never do anything, since there's always the possibility of something that we don't know. No study (or even a plausible hypothesis) has shown these waves to be harmful, whereas many studies have shown them to be harmless, so we operate under the assumption that they are safe.\n\n*They can cause heating, but limits are placed on the allowed power output in order to keep this at manageable levels.\n\n > To me it seems questionable that it would do NOTHING to your body.\n\nIndeed. Like I said, there will be a heating effect, but the device cannot produce enough waves to cause enough heat to be damaging.\n\n-----------------------\nJust an anecdote to go with the explanation: the power of radio waves drops off so quickly with distance that the cell phone in your pocket warms your body more than if you were standing 15 ft away from a fully-powered and active radio tower. Unless you use a transmitting antenna as your pillow, you are never going to suffer any ill effect from a radio tower. And even then, I doubt it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
bmimw6 | The Federalist Papers | Good morning my fellow historians;
& #x200B;
I'm an avid bookworm, and love all things history related. My specialty is WWII history, and I've recently (after becoming OBSESSED) with the musical HAMILTON by Lin-Manuel Miranda, I have ordered a copy of The Federalist Papers. Being a Canadian, my knowledge of US history is rather limited except for America's WWII era.
Can someone help me understand what I'm reading? What or who were the Federalists and anti-Federalists. I know that the Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison to defend the US Constitution but I feel I'm missing out on not fully understanding what each side believed.
Hamilton (I think) wanted a centralized government, what exactly did that mean? Any help understanding this would greatly be appreciated!
& #x200B;
Thank you all in advance! | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bmimw6/the_federalist_papers/ | {
"a_id": [
"emxwu1a"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The Federalist Papers were written as a justification for voting for the Constitution and were intended to be read by the people of New York. The Articles of Confederation was the first government framework and it had several problems the Constitution was designed to correct, most of which were the result of a weak Federal government. Hence the Federal part of Federalist Papers. The Continental Congress had been operating and conducting the revolution under very similar rules and actions as found in the Articles of Confederation, which gave them legal justification to continue when the war was over. There were problems with the federal government functioning, as there was no president, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base, just Congress. It was the inability to tax that created the most problems. They couldn't raise money to pay for the revolution, let alone help states with their trade and economic problems. So, they replaced it and these letters attempt to explain why to New Yorker's at the time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4hub8v | why can a battery never be recharged to its full capacity once it has been used once? | I have read that once a battery has been used, recharging it will never allow it to contain the same amount of energy that it had when it was made. Is this correct? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hub8v/eli5_why_can_a_battery_never_be_recharged_to_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2sclhu"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Actually, this is wrong. \nSome batteries (Lithium Polymer, for example) even have to get (dis-)charged several times, until they get their full capacity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
syjo9 | Would it be possible to create a population of sexually-reproducing organisms whose offspring are of only one gender? | I came across something pretty gut-wrenching/disgusting on reddit today about the egg hatching industry: hatcheries that supply hens to egg producers have no use for male chicks, and apparently dispose of said chicks by (and excuse the complex terminology) "chucking them into a giant goddamn grinder". At one of the world's largest hatcheries, 100,000 chicks are allegedly puréed like this [*a day* WARNING WARNING ULTRA-NSFL NOT EVEN KIDDING](_URL_0_). Sorry for ruining everyone's day with this.
Putting aside the leviathan of ethical implications here, it seems absurdly wasteful to spend all this time and energy running incubators when half your 'produce' is just going to get churned up to make the smoothie from hell. So I began wondering if there was some way to actively select for one gender over another before the eggs are laid - preventing formation of ova carrying Z chromosomes, making ZZ embryos unable to implant to the uterus, hormone treatment, etc. - and making this in some way sustainable.
A lot of problems become immediately apparent here, like making this viable for more than one generation, as I hinted at just now. i.e. "you need both genders for babies to happen, doofus". I was looking it up and apparently breeding monosex tilapia (fish that are only male) is standard practice, but this is probably an exceptional case.
Thanks in advance! | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/syjo9/would_it_be_possible_to_create_a_population_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4i28sq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes they do it with fish in fish farms. Similar to chickens, the best eating fish are females as they grow bigger and taste better. You can treat young female fish with hormones to make them develop male sexual organs despite still have the genes of a female (aka having XX instead of XY). You can then use the milt from these fish to fertilse eggs from normal females. Basically you are breeding two females together, the only outcome of which is female babies. \n\nAs to why this isn't done with other animals i have no idea. I would speculate that it is due to the nature of fish that develop sexual organs after birth allowing them to be changed by hormones. You also have the advantage of external fertilisation in fish meaning you can fertilise a whole bucket of eggs with a teaspoon of milt with relative ease."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hatchery/"
] | [
[]
] | |
2dtz3o | if we can get ear damage from a shooting a handgun in enclosed space, how can soldiers in wwii could protect their ears from firing huge coastal/naval guns in bunker? | Like this one : [Nazi 38cm coastal gun](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dtz3o/eli5_if_we_can_get_ear_damage_from_a_shooting_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjt1am4",
"cjt6jxt"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They didn't. and they were all deaf. They did cover their ears with their hands, but that doesn't do much.\n\nPreventing hearing loss wasn't much of a concern until the 80s. ",
"Modern audiology actually got its start from soldiers returning from WWII with hearing loss. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1986-104-10A%2C_Atlantikwall%2C_Batterie_%22Todt%22.jpg"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
9v2b0z | are coalitions possible in the voting system of the united states? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v2b0z/eli5_are_coalitions_possible_in_the_voting_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"e98rtlh",
"e98srru"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So, while it is theoretically possible, the way that US elections are held make it effectively impossible for third parties to get elected to higher office. Unless we switch to ranked voting, and remove the \"first past the post\" rules, third parties will not be able to get serious support in the US. ",
"Not in the same sense as a coalition in a parliamentary system.\n\nA coalition in a parliamentary system means two or more parties agree to form a government together. In this context, \"government\" really means the executive. That typically happens because no single party has control of Parliament, and Parliament is responsible for choosing the executive. So the only way they can get the support they need to form a government is by agreeing to team up so together they have a majority.\n\nIn the US the executive is the president and the cabinet he appoints. A coalition isn't possible because it's all decided by an election for a single office (well, two offices I guess including the VP, but they come as a package). There's no way for two parties to partially win. In theory a president could agree to share power with another party by appointing heads of departments who are aligned with other parties, but he has no incentive to do that. Unlike in a parliamentary system, his role as president is not dependent on Congress supporting him.\n\nI suppose the closest thing to a coalition would be if a third party gained some seats in Congress, and made an agreement with another party over what bills to support so that together they have enough numbers to pass the bills they want. But that's not really the same as a coalition in a parliament."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
dzfjqj | Exactly how does water temperature affect Dissolved Oxygen? | I heard in class that the temperature of water can affect its ability to hold dissolved oxygen, How that that work? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dzfjqj/exactly_how_does_water_temperature_affect/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8aihy7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Temperature effects the amount of any gas that can be dissolved in water. When oxygen dissolves in water, intermolecular forces between the water and oxygen \"hold\" them together. As the water-oxygen solution gains energy, heat, the bonds between gas and water break, releasing the oxygen."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5r9dgm | Why was the National Endowment for the Humanities established? | The NEH is under threat right now, which got me thinking about its establishment. I'm aware that in 1963–64, three humanities associations sponsored a committee recommending a national humanities foundation, making way for NEH legislation the following year. The [committee's report](_URL_1_) makes some breathtaking claims about how the humanities are vital to America's national life, and how without the humanities, America would be reduced to a nation 'skilled only in gadgeteering'. Humanities, the committee claimed, present a need 'no less serious than that for national defense'.
These sound like lofty words from a group of tweed-coated professors, but the committee also included a senior partner from Sullivan and Cromwell (international lawyers), a former chairman of New York Life Insurance, the chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, and the chairman of IBM! Add to it that the committee began its meetings during a year when the President was deploying troops from Alabama to Vietnam—the very year that JFK was assassinated—and that it concluded its recommendations the year that Barry Goldwater coined the phrase 'law and order' in his race against LBJ. I can't imagine that these references to national defense and an American way of life were dropped offhandedly into the commission's report.
What's amazes me just as much, though, is that Congress and the President bought into these arguments. The [NEH legislation](_URL_0_) proclaims: 'the world leadership which has come to the United States ... must be solidly founded upon ... the Nation's high qualities as a leader in the realm of ideas and of the spirit'.
My question is: Can we take this language seriously? There was so much going on in the early 1960s, did people—academics, business leaders, and politicians—really see the humanities as part of the way forward? And if so, where did these opinions come from? Or was this all just political fluff, covering concerns that didn't make it into the texts of these documents? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5r9dgm/why_was_the_national_endowment_for_the_humanities/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd5enyy"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"u/restricteddata talked about some of this in the stickied NEH thread we posted yesterday -- [see this comment](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg845.pdf",
"https://www.acls.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/NEH/1964_Commission_on_the_Humanities.pdf"
] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5r1dlk/the_trump_administration_and_the_national/dd52t3d/"
]
] | |
6robzo | Why do I only hear bass and low tones outside of clubs and shows? | I'm super curious as to why it seems like no treble or high pitches can make it through to the outside, and why the music sounds so muffled. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6robzo/why_do_i_only_hear_bass_and_low_tones_outside_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl7311e",
"dl7dzib"
],
"score": [
6,
10
],
"text": [
"Basically, the waves of deeper sounds like bass are larger than higher sounds, meaning that they come into less contact with whatever they travel through. Smaller waves get caught up in the walls, while larger waves make their way through.",
"Sound is vibration in whatever medium it's passing through. When you hear noise through a wall, what's happening is the sound (vibration) on one side of the wall is causing the wall itself to vibrate. The vibration of the wall then causes the air on the other side to vibrate; that vibration is the noise you hear.\n\nWhy do you only hear low tones? Because the wall doesn't like to vibrate very fast! the wall is acting like a driven [harmonic oscillator](_URL_0_) here, and like a harmonic oscillator, attenuates inputs that are above a certain frequency. Exactly what frequencies that happens at, and to what extent, is a function of the construction of the walls (materials, thickness, weight, stress, etc). In general, stiff, thin material (sheet metal or glass, for instance) will be a poor attenuator (sound will pass through more easily, and at higher frequencies); thick, soft material is a good attenuator (stops sounds well, and is effective at lower frequencies). That's why soft foam is such a good soundproofer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator"
]
] | |
7tj58n | how does it work when you sync those buttons in your car to transponders (e.g. garage door openers)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7tj58n/eli5_how_does_it_work_when_you_sync_those_buttons/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtcwga2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The garage door opener responds to a particular code. You can set the buttons in your car to produce that code. Push the button and the garage door opens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
kwc36 | A friend claims that bread mold is entirely harmless to eat, is this a myth? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kwc36/a_friend_claims_that_bread_mold_is_entirely/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2nr4l1",
"c2nr5se",
"c2nrdrc",
"c2nsdke",
"c2nt91e",
"c2ntjfa",
"c2nu756",
"c2nr4l1",
"c2nr5se",
"c2nrdrc",
"c2nsdke",
"c2nt91e",
"c2ntjfa",
"c2nu756"
],
"score": [
99,
16,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
99,
16,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your friend is wrong.\n\nMolds produce mycotoxins that can make you quite ill if consumed. This, of course, depends on the mold species in question... some molds are used to produce food products (like blue cheese) and are harmless.\n\nIn general, it's a good idea to avoid consuming mold and especially moldy grain products. Also, cutting off the visibly moldy part isn't enough to remove all of the mold; molds are made up of microscopic hyphae that can extend far into the food item in question. The part we see is simply the part where they're dense enough to be seen.",
"Here is a bit of research I did on bread mould species and it does appear as if it is not a good idea to ingest it. The problem with a rhizopus fungus infection is that both the fungus and human cells are eukaryotic which means they function in similar manners and thus it is hard to eradicate the infection without harming the human body\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_",
"You should check with the [witches and werewolves](_URL_0_) - but I think the scientists got this one! Here is a more reputable source on [ergot poisoning](_URL_1_).",
"My grandma used to feed moldy bread to birds, would that be unhealthy for them?",
"I believe you should consult [this man](_URL_0_)",
"Eat ergot from rye and go berserk like the Vikings used to. ",
"Aside-\n\n[Here's a Rastafarian bread mold](_URL_0_) Surely you don't want to eat that guy.\n\nIt's an SEM picture I took a month or so ago, the blur is from charging movement.",
"Your friend is wrong.\n\nMolds produce mycotoxins that can make you quite ill if consumed. This, of course, depends on the mold species in question... some molds are used to produce food products (like blue cheese) and are harmless.\n\nIn general, it's a good idea to avoid consuming mold and especially moldy grain products. Also, cutting off the visibly moldy part isn't enough to remove all of the mold; molds are made up of microscopic hyphae that can extend far into the food item in question. The part we see is simply the part where they're dense enough to be seen.",
"Here is a bit of research I did on bread mould species and it does appear as if it is not a good idea to ingest it. The problem with a rhizopus fungus infection is that both the fungus and human cells are eukaryotic which means they function in similar manners and thus it is hard to eradicate the infection without harming the human body\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_",
"You should check with the [witches and werewolves](_URL_0_) - but I think the scientists got this one! Here is a more reputable source on [ergot poisoning](_URL_1_).",
"My grandma used to feed moldy bread to birds, would that be unhealthy for them?",
"I believe you should consult [this man](_URL_0_)",
"Eat ergot from rye and go berserk like the Vikings used to. ",
"Aside-\n\n[Here's a Rastafarian bread mold](_URL_0_) Surely you don't want to eat that guy.\n\nIt's an SEM picture I took a month or so ago, the blur is from charging movement."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472954",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1147614"
],
[
"http://www.damninteresting.com/bad-rye-and-the-salem-witches/",
"http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/bot135/lect12.htm"
],
[],
[
"http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/1078... | ||
63qqd0 | why if you throw, for example, a spider from a tall height, chances are it will survive with no injuries, but if a human is thrown from the equivalent height, we'd be badly injured/die? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63qqd0/eli5_why_if_you_throw_for_example_a_spider_from_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfw9wvr",
"dfwap5m"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Spiders aren't heavy enough for them to be greatly damaged by a fall, plus their skeletons are outside, so it acts like armor. Humans are heavy, and our skeleton is inside, for support rather than protection (skull, spine, and ribs notwithstanding). ",
"Terminal Velocity.\n\nTerminal velocity is dictated by the mass of an object. The TV of a down feather, is not as high as it would be for a 15lb bowling ball.\n\nIf you toss a teeny bug off the empire state building, it's likely going to land unharmed (or, more likely, blown away and hit the ground far from the base of the building) Because it's mass is so low....A human's mass is much greater, there for...well....clean up on 5th avenue!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
4q6a9i | why we need 70+ gender terms | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4q6a9i/eli5_why_we_need_70_gender_terms/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4qldq0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Why does the number matter though? How is having 4 terms any different than having 2 in any way lol. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3ng9oz | Do Historians Tend To Be More Or Less Religious? | This isn't really a history question, but I'm trying to get a consensus here. While I'm aware that many in the fields of science and philosophy tend to be less religious, I am unable to find a good insight into what most historians believe.
Do you consider yourself personally religious, and if so/not did your study of history affect your decision? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ng9oz/do_historians_tend_to_be_more_or_less_religious/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvnr48j",
"cvnsncr",
"cvnwhnv",
"cvnz35m",
"cvogyef"
],
"score": [
13,
12,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"~Not really a question that can be sourced, so this is all anecdotal~\n\nIt seems to depend on the field. I know a Catholic medievalist who has told me that other religious folks (mostly Catholic) are more common among medievalists than among, say, historians of early modern Europe.\n\nI've also noticed that there seem to be more Christians studying the 'biblical' eras, which makes a certain amount of sense.\n\nOverall, historians seem more irreligious than the general population, but less so than, say, physicists.",
"Not a historian, but an archaeologist- I'm one of the very few even slightly religious folks in my field. It's not surprising, in the American anthropological archaeology, that this is case. It's hard to be an apathetic believer when your discipline preaches cultural relativism.\n\nThe interesting thing is that I've found myself shifting strongly to a more traditional, conservative Christian mindset (i.e. that of Catholics and traditional Lutherans and Anglicans) and away from the contemporary, Americanized faith I grew up in. In modern protestant and reformed circles, there's a lot of effort to kind of integrate with the public. This occurs quite frequently in regards to church functions: us Lutherans love poking fun at the \"latte-Baptists\" with their early-30s, gottee-ed, flannel shirted dude on a metal stool with a latte in one hand making painful attempts at connecting with hip high schoolers. We understand the attempts, and if they should work, all the better for you. But we also see it in their approaches to academics. My friends and family are always bringing up yet another time they found Noah's Ark on \"Mount Ararat.\" I grew up watching Ken Ham's videos in science class, where they told me that, had they lived millions of years ago, the dinosaurs would have fallen off the earth because it spun too fast. It's always felt like they were desperately grasping for scientific and historical evidences to bolster their faith, as if if they found enough facts they could prove once and for all that they were right.Now not only do I find this kind of societal integration un-Biblical, I also find it increasingly obnoxious. Our faith is based on some guy who turned water into wine, walked on water, died, and came back to let his friend stick his fingers through his stab holes. I don't think the irreducible complexity of a flagellum can even come close to reproducing those scientifically. Catholics, Lutherans, etc. simply respond \"Well, you ain't seen nothing yet.\" It's weird, magical, supernatural, and intrinsically non-scientific, and we're not gonna try to hide that- in fact, we're proud of it.",
"Again, an anecdotal response.\n\nAs has been said, religion among medievalists seems quite common, maybe less so among those who study late antiquity, unless they are specifically interested in Patristics. I also know a number of early modernists who are committed Catholics, and study Catholic recusancy.\n\nIn general, academic life (at least in the UK) can be pretty secular. A member of the theological faculty at the University of Oxford who is also a Catholic priest once told me that university colleagues often treated him as though he were dishonest - being a clever man, they thought, he couldn't actually believe all that mumbo jumbo.",
"Many of my history profs were religious, one was Catholic (European history), another Orthodox (European history), a Baha'i' (Southern/Afro-Am), a Quaker (Asian History) and Jewish (Military History/Cold War)\n\nPersonally I tend towards agnostic theism.",
"With the same disclaimer made by other posters re sourcing, my perception is that academic historians as a group tend to be less religious than the general population and more religious than academics in general.\n\nAs others have written, there are specific areas related to religious history that seem to be dominated by religious people, for obvious reasons."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2ojqpe | How much were the Orthodox involved in the crusades? | As an Orthodox i'm curious to know how much did the Orthodox do in the crusades. I know that they asked for help from Rome against the Seljuk empire but did they do any fighting against the muslims or give other kinds of support to the crusaders? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ojqpe/how_much_were_the_orthodox_involved_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmnwxbb"
],
"score": [
55
],
"text": [
"During the First Crusade, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I provided extensive support to the Crusaders, but with ~~ulterior~~ his own motives: his intent for the Crusaders was that they would retake the portions of Asia Minor that had been taken from the Byzantines by the Seljuqs. This is why, in exchange for his support, he made the leaders of the Crusader armies agree to return any captured cities that had once belonged to the Byzantines to him upon their seizure of it.\n\n(In point of fact, the agreement was that they would return to him any city that had ever belonged to the *Roman Empire*, which theoretically included Jerusalem, but by the time they took Jerusalem, relations between the Crusaders and the Byzantines had deteriorated considerably.)\n\nThe Byzantines generally did not commit actual troops to the First Crusade, but did provide material support and advice. The main exception was during the siege of Nicaea, when Alexius sent a small fleet overland to Lake Ascanius to blockade the city.\n\nDuring the siege of Antioch, Alexius became convinced that the Crusaders would fail and abandoned them. This considerably damaged future relations between the two groups, as you can imagine.\n\nOf course, the Byzantines weren't the only eastern Christians in the region. The Levant had a significant Christian minority, mostly of Armenian ethnicity. The Crusaders took extensive advantage of this opportunity, and the local Christians did provide much advice on fighting the Fatimids who controlled Jerusalem, including the secret to defeating Greek fire (which was that it could not be doused by water, but could by vinegar).\n\nSource: The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
ctig3g | How are lab rats given specific diseases? | I remember seeing a post about rats with pancreatic cancer, how are they given this cancer? Are a bunch of rats bread and the "lucky" ones get sorted out? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ctig3g/how_are_lab_rats_given_specific_diseases/ | {
"a_id": [
"exl0kkt",
"exlc5u0",
"exlik99"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Gene editing can be a large part of this, knocking out certain genes can produce some diseases. By knocking out I mean removing/suppressing a certain gene from the rat which then means the proteins encoded by that gene are not expressed. These aren't always cancer models but other models such as cystic fibrosis etc. Unless knocking out key immune system genes which can make immunosuppressed mice which in turn are more likely to develop cancers due to a lack of immune control - because immune systems are designed to try stop cancer development.\n\nSometimes multiple genes may be knocked out, or point mutations made in the gene to reflect what happens in humans.\n\nOther ways of producing cancerous disease models include exposing the mice/rats to carcinogens, such as localised radiation to key organs (panaceas in OPs example) or giving them chemicals which promote cancerous growth. \n\n[Link](_URL_0_) to a good paper on mouse models Hopefully this helps and isn't to confusing :)",
" Oftentimes one would use rats/mice that are either knockout for a specific gene or set of genes or rats/mice that are immunodeficient. Search for “nude mouse”.\n\nHaving a weak immune system allows easier implantation of tumor cells, and the strategy is most likely pursued for diseases other than cancer. Nude mice however are very frail.\n\nImplantation in healthy rats and mice is also a possibility, but then you will need more aggressive tumor strains to yield reliable results, or be able to implant a higher amount of tumor cells.\n\nIn other scenarios rats/mice receive compounds that are known to promote the development of tumors. Combinations of what has been said are also very much possible. It depends on your scientific goals and your budget.",
"As others have mentioned, you can use targeted methods to alter specific parts of the genome to make animals (and all of their descendants) more prone to specific types of cancer. We've done *a lot* of genetic studies on cancer, so genes that cause various cancers in humans and laboratory species are very well known. Easier than this though, you can create malignant cancer cells in a petri dish with carcinogens or gene mutations (it's way easier to do mutagenesis on cell cultures than whole animals), and then [transplant them into mice](_URL_2_). The problem is, a lot of the time you CAN'T give a human disease to a mouse, you just sort of have to mimic it's symptoms. For example, mouse models of diabetes are usually created by [chemically ablating the animal's insulin producing cells](_URL_0_). \n\n\nFor rats/mice that are genetically pre-dispositioned to have a certain disease, most scientists would just order their models from stock centers like [The Jackson Laboratory](_URL_1_) that keep thousands of mouse lines, and you can order specific mice that act as various disease models, have various mutations, etc. Scientists can also source diseased animal lines from other scientists who already have them if they are not in a stock center. For rare diseases that have never been studied in animals, a scientist may have to come up with their own way to create a model, either via mutation screens/CRISPR/other methods, or by pharmaceutical/other non-genetic methods. This takes a lot of time and manpower though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013310/"
],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417415/",
"https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services/find-and-order-jax-mice",
"https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc.2016.91"
]
] | |
v1btk | Relationship between cannabis and mental health? | I have heard that cannabis is alleged to bring on certain types of mental illness in people prone to that illness earlier than they would normally get it, but I wonder has there been any research on the possibility people with mental illness in its early stages gravitate towards cannabis as an attempt to self medicate their undiagnosed (at that time) symptoms meaning its not necessarily cannabis causing the illness?
| askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v1btk/relationship_between_cannabis_and_mental_health/ | {
"a_id": [
"c50fe6w",
"c50g3n7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a number of correlating factors that can produce symptoms of mental illness in a person with a genetic predisposition. Drugs could be one of those factors, but it's more common that it arises from stress factors. Environment usually plays a huge role on how we handle our stress, and this alone can lead people to self medicate. Marijuana is a common self medication drug, as it's effective in suppressing the person's overriding stress. Self medicating, though, has the ability of stunting a person's ability to effectively handle stress, which in turn can be the catalyst to that person's mental illness. It's theorized that people who didn't effectively learn to handle stress as youths are more susceptible to self medicating and therefore may be attracted to marijuana. Hope this makes sense, I'm trying to type this on my iPhone.",
"This has a pretty good job at showing how high levels of THC can give you symptoms of Mental illness.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nA little more explanation.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe research literature, in general, doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that the illness is there first and the use of weed is a trigger. The general discussions in [/r/bipolar](/r/bipolar) and [[/r/bipolarreddit](/r/bipolarreddit) appears to be split. Some of the posters stay away from use because it triggers symptoms, others claim they use it to self-medicate. There doesn't appear to be a clear majority and self assessment is impossible to do.\n\n The vid linked demonstrates the difference that comes with high levels of THC vs mixed cannabinoids found in typical weed. I can't find a direct answer for you but it seems reasonable that use could trigger episodes.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20031003-10391704.html",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snz-o10A3v8"
]
] | |
pzof2 | In Earth-like conditions, how much stronger gravity can a planet have to support life? If Earth had a stronger gravity (2x, 5x, 10x?), how life would have evolved differently? | I've always wondered about this. If Earth was twice the size, and with twice the gravity, would we be 4 meters tall? Or twice stronger?
Does gravity influences the speed we age?
This may be specially pertinent given this: _URL_0_ | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pzof2/in_earthlike_conditions_how_much_stronger_gravity/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3tjn66",
"c3tkgil"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"heavier the gravity the smaller and more compact the life. we would all be dwarves with great beards and axes! if the earth were larger and gravity was less... life would grow in size but be comparatively weaker.",
"Surely it's all relative. Who's to say that the Earth is at some sort of sweet spot, where weaker would mean larger and stronger would mean smaller? (That's a question being asked, not just me sprouting off, well abit of both) \n\nWhy couldn't you have a planet with 2x gravity and then still get big creatures and such, they wouldn't know, just like how we find Moon gravity a joke so would they if they came to Earth, if you get what I mean.\n\nIf anything the Earth itself and the huge variance we have of life on here is proof that gravity probably plays little in the types of life, to an extent.\n\nA real interesting question is how adapted is life to our gravity (~ 9.81m/s^2) ...someone asked that question a few days ago, basically it wouldn't really do any good if we started having babies on the Moon or Mars. Which is why I'm pretty against having proper colonisation of those planets (Venus is good though, almost identical gravity, but still not identical)"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17117030"
] | [
[],
[]
] | |
bg5pmt | how do you know what temperature to set to defog car windows? | I never seem to set the right temperature and it drives me nuts when the window fogs up. How do you know what temperature to set it to in order to defog it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bg5pmt/eli5_how_do_you_know_what_temperature_to_set_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"elijc21"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"You set it to warm to evaporate the water on the windshield and set the AC on to dehumidify the air."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
e6e5o3 | In Antiquity, how long would it have taken an army to move from the City of Rome to the Island of Britain?? | Hypothetically speaking, lets say a Roman general set out from the city of Rome with an army of 10,000 men. Assuming ships were prepared ahead of time for when the army reached the sea, about how long total would it take to transport this army from Rome to the Island of Great Britain? This includes the march, sea voyage, rest, eating, etc. Total time. Thanks | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/e6e5o3/in_antiquity_how_long_would_it_have_taken_an_army/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9qswkz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"From Rome to Gesoriacum, the port at Boulogne-sur-Mer, with two legions, at normal marching speed, overland, is about 60 days, covering about 1700km. With a few stretches of forced marches, you could cut that down to about 50 days. This route goes north from Rome via Arretium and then across to the Po Valley, then westward down the valley via Mutina-Placentia-Vercellae and across the Alps at Augusta Praetoria. Once in Gaul, the route veers north to Augusta Raurica and then west across central Gaul to Samarobriga, just north of Lutetia (Paris), and then to Gesoriacum. \n\nFrom Gesoriacum, assuming all transport is waiting, and assuming it is Summer and good weather, it is only 2-3 days to Londinium, about 3 days to Camulodunum (Colchester), and about 5 days to Eburacum (York)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2r79np | Do we know of any planetary systems that have a black hole instead of a star? | So, as I understand it, a black hole with the same mass as the sun would have the same gravity as the sun. Does this mean it's perfectly possible to have the equivalent of a solar system with planets but with a black hole in the center? If so, do we know of any? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2r79np/do_we_know_of_any_planetary_systems_that_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnd5vst",
"cnda1ck",
"cndd0ee"
],
"score": [
51,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"A black hole is a remnant of a supernova, and supernovas are pretty violent and would likely destroy any close planets. That's not to say that planets far from the star couldn't survive a supernova. There are a few neutron stars that have planets (read about them [here](_URL_0_)) but black hole planets haven't been discovered.",
"There are two main ways we detect exoplanets: by observing the gravitational wobble they cause in their stars, or by observing their shadows as they transit their star. (pass in front of it like an eclipse)\n\nIn both cases, it would be nearly impossible to do that with a black hole, because we can't see the star.",
"At the center of our own Galaxy, their are stars orbiting the black hole at incredible speeds, it's possible some of them may have planetary systems, although I imagine that close to a black hole the gravity would sling them off, or life would not be possible due to radiation.\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar_planet"
],
[],
[
"http://www.eso.org/public/usa/videos/eso0846a/"
]
] | |
58y5um | how does motion tracking working in programs such as after effects? | Over the years motion tracking has overcome editing each frame individually however how does the computer/program physically identify each object and where it moves throughout the video? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58y5um/eli5_how_does_motion_tracking_working_in_programs/ | {
"a_id": [
"d944sxj"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"You track the pixels, this is one big benefit of shooting in 4K or higher even if your movie is 2K, this is a reason why most CGI-blockbusters, like say Avengers, shoot in 4K+ but only release in 2K (because 4K CGI takes way too much time/money). \n \nYou also have to track neighboring pixels as well to make sure you are locked onto your target. In instances where motion capture doesn't work well, you have to manually adjust it. Besides for CGI, motion tracking is used for stabilization, [which Tom Scott has a great video on](_URL_0_). \n \nFor background replacement, that is why the entire room has dots/crosses, it's for the program to easily track."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/BgAdeuxkUyY"
]
] | |
fgu346 | Where is the best place to start researching if one wanted to understand the collapse of the Weimar Republic? | This is a time in history I have always found particularly interesting not just in Germany but across Europe. I was looking for any recommendations on books that provide a solid account of the time period. I have always thought that the collapse was inevitable due to German attitudes post World War One, the stock market crash and the impact of the treaty of Versailles. Is this somewhat true or is there something I am missing?
Enjoy your day :) | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fgu346/where_is_the_best_place_to_start_researching_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"fk7q2ad",
"fk8d7jp"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Studied this in high school and I think a really good place to start for basics on why the Weimar Republic collapsed and how the whole system contributed to the rise of the nazis is; Weimar & Nazi Germany: The Schools History Project\n\nIt’s covers all the way from the creation of the Weimar Republic up until the fall of the Third Reich. I think a really important contributing factor to the fall of the Weimar Republic would be the implemented voting system. Democracy was new to unified Germany, and they very much messed up how parliament was elected/structured. You had proportional voting for the lower house (meaning it was hard to have a one party majority, and there were always minority parties), and the issue here is that how can you set up a majority government in the lower house (where it’s supposed to be derived from) if the voting disallows for a two-party majority system? I think there were a lot of other contributing factors (the Great Depression, loss of WWI and the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty), but the voting system was also a major factor. \n\nFrom 1928-1933 until Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor by President von Hindenburg (who had the power to appoint a chancellor in the event of a lack of clear leader in the lower house), Germany had four federal government elections, more so than if they had instead used preferential voting for the lower house. \n\nBut anyways the above book is really helpful, because if you don’t have a good understanding of the different types of voting and the structure and origin of the Weimar Republic, this is really good place to start.",
"If you want to understand the collapse of the Weimar Repulbic, you have to start at the beginning, with the (failed) revolution. To give a rough sketch of the context: In the war there were the so called Burgfrieden politics of the social democrats (SPD), which meant that the SPD and it's unions would support the war effort by voting for war credits and by not striking. This decision split the SPD; on the one hand the right wing majority, on the other hand the anti-war left and center wing, which founded the independent social democrats (USP) and radical left groups, which after the war would found the communist party (KPD).\n\nIn the revolution worker and soldier councils mushroomed everywhere and were dominated by the SPD. At the General Council Convention in December the relation of SPD delegates to the left wing delegates was 7:2. The convention decided three things: it wants a parliamentarian democracy, a new democratic army instead of the old militaristic one, and socialization of \"ripe\" industries. \n\nAt the same time the new interim government, dominated by SPD leaders like Friedrich Ebert, wanted mostly to maintain order. It feared a left wing coup like in Russia the most. Only days after the revolution it decided to build alliances with the old order: the Ebert-Groener alliance with the old army and the Stinnes-Legien agreement between the unions and the big industries. And it began to build up paramilitary units to fight the left: Freikorps, Sicherheitswehren, ... Most of the recruits were officers and front soldiers, who were disenfranchised by the revolution. In 1919 the government used those units against uprisings in Berlin (with over 1200 dead); against the \"council republics\" in Bavaria(over a thousand dead), Bremen, Mannheim, Braunschweig; against wildcat strike waves and uprisings in the Ruhr-area.\n\nThose Freikorps were the rallying point for people who did not like the new order and around those units groups formed who wanted a right wing coup. But they weren't really sure about the when and how. Exactly one hundred years ago they thought that now is the time, because the allies wanted the disarmament of the Freikorps and especially of the Freikorps in Berlin. Those were the core military units of the coupist, so they started the Kapp coup. But they had no mass support. A big general strike began against the coup and a lot of workers armed themselves to fight the coup. The coup failed after four days, but the armed uprisings did not end that fast. So the reinstated SPD-lead government send the coupist Freikorps to put down the uprisings; hundreds of workers died. The usage of those Freikorps, which often used the swastika as their symbol, by th SPD sped up the disenfranchisement of large parts of the working class from the SPD, which lost a lot of it's base. On the other side a lot of Freikorps soldiers went on to join the movement which would become national socialism.\n\nSo the (quite violent) aftermath of the revolution created a factionalised and polarized Weimar society, which could not overcome it's differences. Obviously what I wrote is quite rough sketched in broad strokes; it can only be a motivation to look into those events. I don't know a lot of English literature, but one book, which tries to tackle that phase and which is quite accessible is \"Founding Weimar\" by Mark Jones. (Sorry for my bad English.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
cfxvx8 | What does it mean to have better depth perception than the others? | Do you see the edges of objects better? I see the world just fine and my depth perception is not as good as other people. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cfxvx8/what_does_it_mean_to_have_better_depth_perception/ | {
"a_id": [
"euebyz9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Depth perception is your understanding of how far away things are. You still \"see\" the same way as other people (usually), but you have a harder time figuring out the distance to things. One example of this is when someone gets a new pair of glasses or contact lenses, their depth perception changes and until they learn to adjust, they often misjudge distances. Ex: One time, after I had gotten new glasses, I jumped off of a ~4ft ledge and almost broke my legs because I thought it was slightly lower than it actually was. Most people with poor depth perception learn to live with it, and it makes almost no impact on their lives, although they may have to be more careful when driving or jumping off of things than people with good depth perception."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3m7nxm | fiber internet | Fiber internet is now in my area: How does it work, Is it better, and should I get it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m7nxm/eli5_fiber_internet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvconjm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Fiber optic internet works by shining a light down a long glass or plastic cylinder (fiber). The light reflects toward the center of the fiber because of the design and coating of the fiber. If you want a thorough explaination of the physics involved, r/askscience probably has some experts.\n\nIt is a very good form of fast internet in most cases.\n\nYou should look at it the same as any other Internet service though. \n\nHow fast is the service? \nWhat is the cost?\nWhat is their customer service like?\nHow reliable is the service?\n\nAll these issues are largely independent of the technology (fiber-optic vs copper wire), and will depend on the business practices of the company."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5u4805 | why are animal foods so often cheaper than plant foods? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5u4805/eli5_why_are_animal_foods_so_often_cheaper_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddr82xx",
"ddr8aze",
"ddrc3ka"
],
"score": [
4,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the vegetation that animals can eat is much easier to grow in bulk than the vegetation that humans will eat.\n\nAlso, if you're buying groceries, produce is often going to be a *ton* less expensive than meats.\n\nIt's just the restaurant business that vastly overcharges for salads, and that's so they can make up the cost of the meats that they're not making as much profit on since if their meat meals were too expensive people would just eat at home.",
"You're comparing the cost of *prepared* foods. A restaurant has to keep enough product in stock to supply the demand but if they have too much on hand & it goes bad, they're losing money on that product and need to charge more for to get their profit margins back up.\n\nHamburger can be frozen without much loss in quality. Lettuce must always be fresh & tends to go bad quickly. There also tends to be more labor in chopping up everything & making a salad than plopping a frozen burger puck onto a grill - everything on a burger can effectively be mass produced in a factory & simply assembled on site. These are what drive the cost of these items up, not the raw value of the ingredients ([the beef in a Big Mac is only like 40 cents](_URL_0_)).\n\nLike many things that come around ELI5, your fundamental mistake is thinking that a business exists just to supply *you* with a product and then then do the exact same thing a million times a day when they actually try to find very efficient ways to do the same thing a million times a day **first**. It's the same as watching package tracking information and thinking that it should come directly to you rather than through a central hub.",
"Subsidies. [The cost of meat if it weren't subsidized would be much more expensive.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.trueactivist.com/this-sheet-shows-exactly-how-much-mcdonalds-menu-costs/"
],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cost+of+cheeseburger+without+subsidies&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"
]
] | |
2ldtue | How were lawyers of Ancient Greece and Rome viewed? Was being a lawyer a profession like it is today? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ldtue/how_were_lawyers_of_ancient_greece_and_rome/ | {
"a_id": [
"clu414y"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"According to Cicero, a person could become a lawyer in 3 days if they really put their mind to it [Cicero, Pro Murena]. Cicero himself is considered a lawyer based off our standing right now, but he officially referred to himself as an orator, however a lot of what he wrote had powerful legal rhetoric in it (this also shows how little they were thought of b/c Cicero was a very vain person who would have labelled himself as a lawyer if this propelled his authority). Although his musings on the duration of a lawyers training is probably an over exaggeration, it breathes insight into how little standing lawyers had in ancient Roman times. Rogelio Pérez Perdomo in Latin American Lawyers: A Historical Introduction argues that lawyers in Roman times did not have to know vast amounts about the law, but just enough to answer basic questions asked by the jurisconsults. \n\nDefendants and plaintiff's in ancient Roman times also had to represent themselves in court, and so this would greatly diminish the authority of the lawyer as we view in modern times, [x] (_URL_0_). They were able to seek the counselling of the lawyers beforehand, however through an act passed in 204BC, lawyers were unable to charge anything for their services (according to John A. Crook in Law and Life of Ancient Rome, this law was widely ignored). After the law was abolished by Claudius, a barr of 10000 sesterces was placed on how much lawyers (or advocates) could charge, this was apparently not a lot of money as Geoffrey C. Hazard in Legal Ethics: A Comparative Study makes note of the Satires of Juvenal complaining that there was no money in working as an advocate (or a lawyer).\n\nIf someone was truly interested in studying law and making a healthy salary, they would aspire to be part of the jurisconsults. These were the people well versed in the law and regularly gave advice, however Crook argues that this was not their primary source of income. The jurisconsults would also advise the judges before they gave out their verdict in court. They would also advise the lawyers and ordinary people in legal issues. \n\nSo, all in all, lawyers weren't that well respected in the community as they did not earn a lot of money (money = respect), and weren't that great with the law side of things to begin with. If you wanted to study law and earn a lot of money you'd try for the jurisconsults.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Law/"
]
] | ||
hfhy5 | What's happening when my eye gets red? | This question is spurred by my contact lense suddenly deciding it hates my eye. Within a minute of something being wrong, when I go to take the contact lense out my eye is filled with red lines. Of course, as you all know, this doesn't only happen for contact lenses spazzing out, but also for particles in the eye, smoke, lack of sleep, etc.
So what's happening there, and why does it happen? I assume the red we see is blood, but where is the blood, and how does it get there? Is this somehow involved in flushing the eye of dirt, or is it caused by something being wrong? And why in response to lack of sleep? Learn me what's happening!
Thanks! | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hfhy5/whats_happening_when_my_eye_gets_red/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1v0563",
"c1v07qb"
],
"score": [
4,
16
],
"text": [
"The irritation of your cornea causes a histamine response in response to a possible foreign object in the eye. This causes the blood vessels in the sclera (the white part) of your eye to dilate some and get more blood to the area, mostly in order to supply your tear glands with more raw material to make tears with. ",
"The red lines you see are the blood vessels in the conjunctiva, a translucent tissue that covers all but the cornea in front of your eye. The conjunctiva prevents anything from going behind your eyeball, including contacts. When your eye gets irritated, dry, or detects a foreign body or substance, it becomes inflamed and the blood vessels dilate. Inflammation is a natural immune process, and your eyes are very sensitive and quick to react.\n\nIf your eyes become red often or for long periods of time, consult an eye physician. Red eyes can be pretty benign, but can also be secondary to seriaus diseases and conditioned.\n\nAs a side note, vasoconstrictor drops like Cleareyes and Visine can reduce the redness temporarily and are safe to use **occasionally**. Chronic use can have a rebounding effect, causing your eyes to become more inflamed when the effect wears off. This encourages you to use it more, which causes more inflammation and a horrible cycle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
9qudky | How were the people of Martinique and the wider French Caribbean affected by the Nazi takeover of France? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9qudky/how_were_the_people_of_martinique_and_the_wider/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8ci1p5"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Martinique, Guadeloupe, and French Guiana were all Vichy-aligned during the War. This answer will focus primarily on Martinique, as it was the political center for the Vichy regime in the Caribbean.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAt the conclusion of the Battle of France and the establishment of the Vichy collaborationist regime, Admiral Georges Robert, the colonial High Commissioner of the French West Indies and Guiana, declared allegiance to the Vichy government as the legitimate government of France. There was immediately great fear from the Western Allies that Martinique and Guadeloupe would be viable Nazi naval bases in the Caribbean as the Battle of the Atlantic began to hit a boiling point. For a time, New Orleans and Mobile were two of the most dangerous ports on the planet to ship goods out of due to the German U-boat presence in the Gulf of Mexico. Considering the volume of American ships sunk, sailors killed, and goods destroyed in the interim between the Fall of France and American entry into the war, Washington paid close attention to the new political developments playing out under the new pro-Vichy regime of Admiral Robert during the war.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWhile the US officially recognized Vichy as the legitimate French government at first, the military was acutely worried of the possibility of a full-on German takeover of the islands. Immediately, talk was done of a possible American invasion of the French West Indies island by island. It was however, unknown what the German response might be (if any). The War Department wondered if the invasions would precipitate a full-scale American entry into the war in Europe, or if occupying the islands and Guiana would be worth the economic or political resources that would be sunk into it. This debate was avoided in August 1940, when Vice Admiral John Greenslade and Admiral Robert signed the *Robert-Greenslade Accords*, a sort of gentlemen's agreement as author Kristen Childers put it. The deal entailed the US getting permission to set up a diplomatic consulate on Martinique (including naval personnel) and receive two days notice on the arrival and exit of ships to and from the French West Indies. The consulate would also be notified of political changes in the local Vichy regime, which they could then pass on to Washington.\n\nIn exchange, the US promised to allow the movement of food and fuel to the islands (rather than totally blockade them as the British government wanted) and not to directly interfere with the power of the local Vichy fascist government. The US would also sign the Destroyers for Bases agreement with Britain immediately after this deal with Robert, strengthening American presence in the Caribbean. The existence of this agreement to the American public was not revealed until almost a full year later in June 1941, when Secretary of State Cordell Hull discussed it in a widely publicized letter to Sen. James Mead of New York. There was some debate about this in Congress, with more pro-war voices detracting from the administration's secret agreement with a fascist state, and insisting on American occupation of the French colonies. Hull also revealed that the government had allowed previously frozen French funds in the United States into the Robert administration's coffers again as part of the agreement. This attracted political controversy, thought was soon overshadowed by the German invasion of the Soviet Union a few weeks later and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December. German ships would soon begin docking at Martinique for fuel and resupply anyway, despite the presence of the American consulate. A share of American food aid and fuel supply to Martinique certainly ended up going to German naval personnel, who used those resources to go back out into the ocean to engage and destroy American ships and kill American merchant sailors. War is not without its ironies I suppose.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn Martinique, there was fierce resentment for the Vichy government. Vichy sailors and administrators were openly racist to the mainly black population, and the island took on a distinctly white supremacist character during the Vichy regime. American vice-consul on the island Harwood Blocker would write this:\n\n > \"It appears that the general desire of the people in Martinique is to remain French. They do not approve of the Pétain Government, but feel that they have no other course open to them. Their friendliness to the British has cooled greatly, although there is no question about their desire to see the British win out in the present European struggle.\"\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThis white supremacist colonial pathology was not at all lost on a politically astute teenager by the name of Franz Fanon. Fanon's first ideas of the nature of European colonialism developed during his young adult life in Vichy Martinique, in which he said that the colonizers removed their masks and behaved like authentic racists. Additionally, the war totally disrupted the trade economy of Martinique, domestic crops like pineapple and sugar cane that would have normally been exported to mainland France rotted in the fields unharvested. Plantation owners and small farmers on island lost their incomes, and finished consumer goods that normally would have been imported to Martinique from France never came. This economic disruption also led the populous to detest Robert's government, and the relatively reliable stream of American foodstuffs fostered a continually pro-Allied consciousness among the populous.\n\nThis would eventually channel into civil protest and some forms of minor political resistance. Drivers would honk out the letter V in morse code to symbolize V for Victory in traffic. In at least one instance, football spectators left a match shouting \"*Bravo le Goal, Vive le Goal, Vive la France!*\", Vive le Goal being \"Long live the Goal\" and \"Le Goal\" sounding a hell of a lot like De Gaulle, the leader of the Free French Forces. There were political crackdowns by the government that involved some resistors getting sent to a prison camp in Guiana, but no too drastic actions could be taken out of the fear of American response. Thousands of people built makeshift rafts and left Martinique and Guadeloupe during this time, including Frantz Fanon. Many of these people, including Fanon, would fight in the Free French Forces for the remainder of the war. The United States took many of these anti-Vichy political dissidents. American officials were actually told to treat the mostly black dissidents with an uncommon sense of racial equality and to avoid segregating them, so as to not ruin the image of the United States as pro-freedom and pro-equality in the global fight against fascist tyranny. One man would later recollect:\n\n & #x200B;\n\n > \"It seems that American authorities, conscious of such problems, tried to prevent Antilleans from experiencing racism. The Antilleans all recount that they were welcomed into white families and that from the moment they bore their epaulets marked ‘‘Free French,’’ they no longer had to worry .... On the whole, Antilleans still have very positive recollections of the United States.\"\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn 1943, Free French Forces successfully liberated Guiana, and that summer, popular uprisings overthrew the Robert regime in Martinique and Guadeloupe. The 3 years of Vichy occupation were a very dynamic period for the French Caribbean colonies. It marked what can be considered the westernmost point of the Axis-aligned powers, an instance of Allied collaboration with fascist nation during the war, and as the historian Kristen Childers argues in her article on the subject, a watershed moment in which the black populations of Martinique and Guadeloupe genuinely developed a French nationalism as they overthrew their local Vichy state and declared the islands free French territory themselves.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSource:\n\n & #x200B;\n\nChilders, Kristen. \"The Second World War as a Watershed in the French Caribbean\". *Atlantic Studies* (2012).\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
6h8883 | how is man-made land created and what prevents it from collapsing or washing into the ocean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6h8883/eli5_how_is_manmade_land_created_and_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"diw927p",
"diwm778"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"With cement walls. Or erosion barriers like giant concrete pilings. or low tech with piles of big rocks",
"You will typically have to start with something that the sea is unable to shift around. Large rocks is a good example. Someone, somewhere is blasting away a mountain to get room for a city, a factory or a tunnel. (though, the tunnel example is a bit flawed since they are usually drilled nowadays.) \n\nIf you take care of all that rock (sometimes, if you are lucky, you can have it for free if you are willing to stash it someplace for eternity) from another project and stash it in a neat pile on the sea floor that reaches all the way up to the surface, you'll literally create a new island. Once you are up above sea level, add more gravel-like materials instead that willingly stay up on top of the rocks, and you'll eventually literally end up with a huge gravel-covered parking lot. Out in the sea.\n\nYou'll also have to add some way for the gravel to be protected from the damage that can come from a stormy sea, but there are so many ways to do that, that it's better to leave that part of the question open for later. (or let someone else chime in with suggestions. I would probably run an iron border around the entire island myself if I was to choose.)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.