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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1qwzx5 | chemistry behind nuclear bombs | Did some searching myself, the best I could gather was something starts a reaction that splits some molecule apart, and those two halves hit some other atoms that split them apart and so on.
Basically want to know if thats the explanation or is there more to it, and why is it best to detonate them high in the air instead of on the ground? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qwzx5/eli5chemistry_behind_nuclear_bombs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdhifhk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"As some others are saying.\n\nChemistry generally looks at the atoms, and the way they interact together. Chemical interactions primarily happen in the electron cloud around the atom.\n\nNuclear interactions are not chemistry. They happen in the nucleus of the atom, and involve either splitting the atom, fusing two atoms together, or certain other interactions (neutron absorption, or some radioactive things)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
gvrzz | Any suggestions on a good at home lab kit? | I am looking at getting an at home lab kit but I am very unsure on what one would be good. I was hoping to do some basic chemistry and physics experiments. I have a well ventilated work area available to me and have absolutely no equipment or supplies. Is there a particular kit or supply company you use that can be recommended for a novice? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gvrzz/any_suggestions_on_a_good_at_home_lab_kit/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1qmrg0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[Non Expert] If you're interested in hobby chemistry, the book \"[Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments](_URL_0_)\" seemed rather good when I had it. It has a lot of advice on where to get equipment, and how to set up your lab space."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.makershed.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=9780596514921"
]
] | |
c208uv | Do each of my chromosomes come from a specific grandparent or are they all a mix of genes from each? | I know I have 23 chromosome pairs, 23 from my mother and 23 from my father.
But is my 1st chromosome a match to one of my grandparents 1st chromosome or does it have a mix of genes from all of them?
If it's matching chromosomes, does that mean I get ~12 Maternal Grandmother Chromosomes ~11 Maternal Grandfather Chromosome from my Mother and similarly from my Father?
And then on back through them ~5-6 from each of my great-grandparents, ~2-3 from each great-great, ~1-2 from great-great-great, ~0-1 from my great-great-great-great, etc.
So does that mean if I pick an ancestor 6 generations back, I probably don't share any chromosomes with them?
Does that mean I wouldn't be any more genetically related to most of my 128 great-great-great-great-great-grandparents than I am to anyone else from that generation, since I only have 46 chromosomes only 46 of them could have contributed a chromosome to me? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/c208uv/do_each_of_my_chromosomes_come_from_a_specific/ | {
"a_id": [
"ergp9bf",
"ergpzlz",
"ergrdc8"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
14
],
"text": [
"Bonus questions, how does this tie into genetic tests of ancient ancestry?\n\nDoes that mean if Europeans have Neanderthal ancestry, they have some Neanderthal chromosomes, or is there a way that Neanderthal DNA gets mixed into a human chromosome?\n\nAlso when genetic test show ancient people like King Richard or Genghis Khan are related to a person would it be possible to tell even if some of their descendants wouldn't have received any chromosomes from them?",
"Chromosomes are all shuffled and mixed during reproduction! It's called [genetic recombination](_URL_0_). So each of your chromosome is a mixed of the ones of all your ancestors combined!\n\nWith the exception of your Y chromosome if you're male, as you only get your Y from your father... so you have the same Y as your father's father's father's father's father... (not exactly tho, some recombinations with the X still happen, but it's limited). From mother's you get the mitochondria (with its own DNA). These two are called haplogroups and allow to trace the maternal lineage and the paternal lineage!\n\nBut to answer your question, then no, chromosome aren't transmitted as it. They got recombined and you can have in your chromosome 9 (for example), a fragment of a gene on the top part that comes from your father who got it from his mother who got it from her mother... and just after it, the rest of the gene comes from a DNA fragment from your mother who got it from her mother who got it from her dad... it's all randomised!\n\nIf you pick any ancestor 6 generations back, you won't have any chromosomes being exactly the same as one of yours, but you'll have 1/64th (1.56%) of DNA in common with that ancestor spread all over your chromosomes!",
"The chromosome 1 you got from your father (similarly mother) is a mix of the two versions your father has of that chromosome. Importantly, it's not a random mix, but a \"recombination\": if we represent your chromosome 1 as a vertical stick, the bottom segment would derive from one of your father's chromosome 1's, and the top segment from his other chromosome 1. The split can happen anywhere, not necessarily in the middle.\n\nBecause the two chromosome 1's of your father were given to him by his own father and mother, it means that the two segments of your paternal chromosome 1 correspond to your paternal grandfather and grandmother.\n\nIf we go deeper it gets a bit trickier. Your paternal grandparents also had two versions of chromosome 1 (total 4 chromosome 1's for your two paternal grandparents), of which your father's two chromosome 1's are recombinations. You could have inherited segments from two, three or all four of the chromosome 1's of your paternal grandparents, depending on how the segments were randomly created over two generations (where recombination happens). But because the process is independent for each of the 23 chromosome pairs, you'll still get chromosome bits from each of your grandparents.\n\nThe further back you go in your ancestry, the more recombination happened, and the smaller the segments inherited from a particular ancestor become, on average (note that there are more and more ancestors). The point is, chromosome versions get broken up at each generation, so what is passed down isn't entire chromosomes, but segments of them.\n\nRegarding bonus questions:\n\nThere are numerous ways to mathematically measure ancestry. There are techniques that model the process above, but I think the most commonly used ancestry models at the moment don't explicitly do that. Though they do rely on the fact that you're bound to inherit a little bit of almost all your ancestors, even the distant ones.\n\nNon-African populations have chromosome segments that correspond to their Neanderthal ancestors. Those segments are small since the Neanderthal ancestors are very far back (I mean, Neanderthals went extinct some 40,000 years ago) but the total length is about 2% of the genome (on average, and not everyone has the same segments).\n\nIf someone famous is your ancestor you'll most likely have inherited some genes, so it should be possible. That said, relatedness is very tricky. If you're willing to go back far enough, you'll find that everyone is related to everyone, just because everyone starts having so many ancestors."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination"
],
[]
] | |
1115ol | Why are fuses rated in amps and not watts? | It has always been explained to me that a fuse must be rated above the voltage that that it will be used with, though how high above doesn't matter. The fuse will blow when the amp rating is exceeded. It seems to me that a 250V 10A fuse will blow with 12V 15A (180W) but not by 100V 5A (500W). Is my understanding of fuses wrong, or are the amps somehow more important in blowing a fuse than the actual amount of energy flowing (watts) for some reason? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1115ol/why_are_fuses_rated_in_amps_and_not_watts/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6ie0ez",
"c6ie5ty",
"c6iedx2",
"c6if2x4"
],
"score": [
6,
7,
11,
5
],
"text": [
"Think of voltage as the speed of water passing through a pipe in a dam (the dam is the resistance), the amps are the amount of water passing through the pipe, and the wattage is the pressure that the water can generate. It is best to monitor the amount of water, as the other two can vary and still represent the same value. You can speed up the water and decrease the pressure by adjusting the amount passing through the pipe. You can think of Amperage as the total amount of water that the pipe can handle, and therefore a good measure of the systems total capacity.",
"Power doesn't really \"flow\", it's dissipated across various components, via P = I V. When you've got 12V 15A, those 180W aren't being dissipated on the fuse, since there's almost no voltage drop on it. However, the manufacturer knows what that drop is, and since he also knows how much power is required to blow the fuse, he only needs to tell you the current.",
"Joule heating, which is the mechanism behind destroying a fuse, can be expressed as follows:\n\nP = I^2 * R\n\nAs you can see, it depends on the current and the resistance. The resistance is a property of the fuse, the current is what you put through it. So, specifying the maximum current is enough; the manufacturer was kind enough to provide you the maximum current when he computed the maximum power. ",
"The fuse opens based on its own temperature, the heat comes from power dissipated by the fuse itself and can be found from Power=I*V using ohms law (V=I*R) thus Power=I^2 *R. Where R is resistance of the fuse, V is voltage across fuse and I is current through fuse.\n\nAs you can see the power dissipated by the fuse only depends on the current through the fuse(thus the rating) and the intrinsic resistance of the fuse itself.\n \n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
dlefwh | what happens to the bodily systems when you consume too much alcohol? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dlefwh/eli5_what_happens_to_the_bodily_systems_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4phfor"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There are two effects: chronic (things that happen over time) and acute (things that happen right away).\n\nChronic overconsumption of alcohol can lead to liver damage, cancer, and a host of other health problems. \n\nAcute overconsumption typically results in vomiting, as the body attempts to get rid of the poisonous substance. This can lead to vomit inhalation and death from drowning. Furthermore the central nervous system is depressed, leading to coordination problems that can lead to injuries, in some cases fatal. At even higher doses the central nervous system becomes so depressed that some of its functions cease: new memories can not be formed (so called \"blackout\", where the drinker wakes up and can't recall what he or she did the previous night) and at extremely high doses breathing can cease, leading to death."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
a7yzlm | what is hadoop & spark? and how do they stack together? | I have googled it but since i have no background in data science or programming, those things just confuse me more. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7yzlm/eli5_what_is_hadoop_spark_and_how_do_they_stack/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec759nq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Google published a paper describing a cluster of computers that could be used to search through very, very large amounts of data and quickly return the results found in the data. They called it MapReduce. I won't describe how that works because tldr; and it's not directly relevant to your question.\n\nHadoop started as an open source project to implement the ideas described in Google's paper. One of the creators had a son whose toy elephant was named \"Hadoop\", and they used that name for their project. The Hadoop project started as one of the many software projects under the umbrella of the Apache Software Foundation.\n\nAfter several years, some limitations in the MapReduce/Hadoop became apparent, and the Spark project was launched at UC Berkeley's AMPLab to create a solution without those limitations. After about a year, the Spark project was donated to the Apache Software Foundation, and it's still maintained there.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2lj2vp | how does cantor's diagonal proof proves that real numbers are 'more infinite' than naturals? | I get that one can determine whether an infinite set is bigger, equal or smaller just by 'pairing up' each element of that set (using a bijective function ) with another's, and that in that way one can prove that there are as many Naturals = Integers = Even numbers, etc... All those infinities, while not having the same elements, would have the same cardinality.
It is said that the Diagonal proof shows that, in Real numbers, there would always be an 'odd' (extra number that does not pair up) number that can be construed out of any list of numbers, not matter how long, proving that the R > N. I can't get my head around this. Why couldn't I apply the same method to prove that Z > N or that 'even numbers' > 'odd numbers'?
Edit: phrasing, spelling... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lj2vp/eli5_how_does_cantors_diagonal_proof_proves_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"clv969p",
"clv96rc",
"clvc190"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Any set with the same cardinality as the natural numbers can be written as a list\n\n1.\n\n2.\n\n3.\n\nand so on.\n\nIf you made a list of real numbers\n\n1. 0.435345356346...\n\n2. 0.234345635623...\n\n3. 0.233454565345...\n\n...\n\nI then create a number that is different from the first digit of the first number, the second digit of the second number, the third digit of the third number and so on.\n\nSo 0.111 is not in the list I wrote. I can go to infinite places if my list is infinitely long.\n\n This way I can always create a new real number that is not on your list. This means your list can never be the comprehensive list. Since you can't list all the reals there are more real numbers than natural numbers.\n\n____\n\nHow to list other sets. In the following lists a quick bit of maths would allow you to figure out where any number in the set would be on the list.\n\nEven natural numbers. \n\n2,4,6,8....\n\nIntegers. \n\n0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3...\n\n",
"One key is that reals all extend to an infinite number of decimal places, even if you're just padding zeros at the end. This allows you to ensure that your constructed element is clearly not a member of the set.\n\nYou can't really do the same thing with integers.",
"What Cantor is really doing is proving that a bijective functions pairing N and R cannot exist.\n\nWhen you pair N and Z, it is easy to prove an iron clad bijector exists. N and Q are a little trickier, but still can be done. It is possible in both cases, because all members of Z and Q can be represented using a finite number of members of N.\n\nDiagonalization works because you need an infinite number of N's to represent some R's. So you can take the nth item on the list, and enforce some arbitrary property on its nth digit. With Z and Q, they might not be anything resembling an nth digit. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3fyj56 | why isn't the propellant in canned air, air cartridges, or aerosol cans just air? | It is usually always a flammable gas. Why can't they fill it from an air compressor with normal air? And why aren't pellet guns and paintball guns like this as well instead of using Co2? And according to the can, my shaving cream is using propane as a propellant. Wouldn't it be cheaper and just as affective to use air? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fyj56/eli5_why_isnt_the_propellant_in_canned_air_air/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctt6dxb",
"ctt7jie",
"ctt7lhf"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Very simply: water content. Atmospheric air contains a substantial amount of water vapour. Most applications calling for a propellant are used in combination with a product or substance which must be stored in a low or null-water environment, which is why iso-butanes, nitrogene, and tetraflourethan is commonly used.\n\nHope that helped!\n\nSauce: _URL_0_",
"For some applications, like paintball guns, it's useful to have as dense a gas as possible. CO2 is a good choice here, because it's dense and it's cheap. It's the byproduct of various industrial processes, like making cement, and gas suppliers can collect it practically for the price of hauling it away.\n\nWhy butane or propane? Because, under pressure, they become liquids at room temperature. Which means that not only can we pack a canister more densely, but, until the last of the liquid is used up, the pressure inside the can stays more or less constant. That's why spray can pressure doesn't start to drop off the instant you start spraying.",
"A lot of the propellants are liquids in the spray can that generate large volumes of propellant gas when the pressure is released (by spraying). Think of how a butane lighter works - it's liquid in the tank, but it turns to gas when you allow the pressure to drop by pushing the button.\n\nYou can build a spray can that will contain liquid propellant that turns to gas when needed a lot cheaper and lighter than you can build a much stronger spray can that contains the equivalent volume of propellant gas that is stored just as high-pressure gas."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.aveflor.cz/aerosol_propellants.php"
],
[],
[]
] | |
2yl9if | During the Napoleonic Wars, the national debt of the United Kingdom was as high as 200% of GDP. Any nation trying to borrow that much now is unthinkable. How did the United Kingdom retain the ability to borrow so much, especially in the face of such a protracted war? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2yl9if/during_the_napoleonic_wars_the_national_debt_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpb99y7",
"cpdztuc"
],
"score": [
44,
3
],
"text": [
"Pickety explains this rather well in Capitalism in the 21st Century.\n\nDuring the 19th century, inflation was more or less non-existant and interrests where stable at around 4%. \nDuring this period, most investors sought a stable haven for their money with little expactations to actually cash out the original investment (unless something unforseen happened), meaning that all a country as UK needed in order to service a debt at 200 % was the capacity to pay about 8% of GDP every year in interrest.\n\nModern financial systems are much more complex with varying inflation, interrest and a lot more alternatives for investors to deposit their money, which means that \"runs\" are much more likely.\n\nHowever, it should be noticed that the US on a global scale still works in a way similar to what national governments did during the 19th century, as a safe haven for investors.",
"Japan's Debt to GDP is 214-234% depending upon who you ask. So it's not unthinkable. \n\nSource: CIA World Fact Book/IMF"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
7eqkke | what stopped isp's from doing what people are saying they'll do now pre-2015 if we repeal nn now? why didn't they do it back then? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7eqkke/eli5_what_stopped_isps_from_doing_what_people_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq6ri6s",
"dq6thbn"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly the fact that the markets were still very much in flux, meaning they had more competition and people were more likely to switch to a different ISP if they were to limit their users' access to certain services.\n\nPlus, at the time, ISPs didn't own their own services that provide things like music/movies/whatever and (PROBABLY!) the fact that many internet services didn't make much money yet, so there was less money to ~~extort~~ gain by telling them \"if you don't cooperate with us, we'll make people essentially be unable to access you\".",
"Net neutrality, or rather the things that violate it, also is largely based on something called \"deep packet inspection\" and other methods that snoop out the purpose of your data. These methods were not nearly so sophisticated even just 5 years ago, and AI and machine learning is definitely a part of that massive growth. The more algorithms we create for this purpose, the better technology gets, the easier this type of control gets."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1q4ryc | Have there been any attempts to build a Third Temple or re-establish the priesthood for Judaism? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q4ryc/have_there_been_any_attempts_to_build_a_third/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd9aksi",
"cd9dtm7",
"cd9f9bj",
"cd9fc38",
"cd9jq1t",
"cd9jt9w"
],
"score": [
25,
19,
3,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I asked this question of a couple Rabbis recently, \"why not rebuild the temple after the formation of Israel?\"\n\nThey both responded with deep breaths and \"Oy\". Neither of them are men usually grasping for an answer.\n\nThey did point out that the site of the Second Temple is now occupied by a mosque; [The Dome of the Rock](_URL_0_). Obviously tearing it down to rebuild the Temple would be problematic.\n\nAs to re-establishing the priesthood? I'm not sure if any Jews envision that, and if not, why not. Except that there's a joke, \"in any room with two Jews, there are always three opinions\". That is to say; I doubt there's enough consensus between diverse moderns Jews to establish a common priesthood; the age of the priests is over; now we have a Rabbinate. \n\nBut I'm no expert on this issue, so others may have far better answers.",
"There are a few tough problems with the 3rd Temple plan.\n\n1. The practice of Judaism has changed and fragmented over the almost 2,000 years since the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Re-establishment of animal sacrifice and a centralized religion ruled by the kohanes (just two of many issues) would not be popular with modern Jews. \n\n2. There is no way an agreement could be reached regarding building a new Temple and how it would be run.\n\n3. Only kohanes may due certain Temple tasks. Over the centuries, we are not certain who is now, truly a kohane.\n\n4. The Dome of the Rock, a Muslim holy place, now stands on the Temple Mount. Most people would like to keep it there. It has been there for 1,300 years. \n\n\n\n\n",
"The Jewish priesthood is still around. There isn't a high priest, and without a temple their ritual function is much diminished. But there are still a decent number of them, and there are priesthood-related rituals that occur. ",
"The last pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate, tried to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. I'll start with [the short account](_URL_1_) by the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus:\n\n > And being eager to extend the recollection of his reign by the greatness of his exploits, he proposed to rebuild at a vast expense the once magnificent temple of Jerusalem, which after many deadly contests was with difficulty taken by Vespasian and Titus, who succeeded his father in the conduct of the siege. And he assigned the task to Alypius of Antioch, who had formerly been proprefect of Britain. But though Alypius applied himself vigorously to the work, and though the governor of the province co-operated with him, fearful balls of fire burst forth with continual eruptions close to the foundations, burning several of the workmen and making the spot altogether inaccessible. And thus the very elements, as if by some fate, repelling the attempt, it was laid aside.\n\nThe Christian historian Sozomen [elaborates on this](_URL_0_), saying Julian's motive was to enable the Jews to resume the practice of animal sacrifice which they had in common with pagans. When the work was begun, both Jews and pagans eagerly joined in it:\n\n > Although the pagans were not well-disposed towards the Jews, yet they assisted them in this enterprise, because they reckoned upon its ultimate success, and hoped by this means to falsify the prophecies of Christ. Besides this motive, the Jews themselves were impelled by the consideration that the time had arrived for rebuilding their temple. When they had removed the ruins of the former building, they dug up the ground and cleared away its foundation; it is said that on the following day when they were about to lay the first foundation, a great earthquake occurred, and by the violent agitation of the earth, stones were thrown up from the depths, by which those of the Jews who were engaged in the work were wounded, as likewise those who were merely looking on. The houses and public porticos, near the site of the temple, in which they had diverted themselves, were suddenly thrown down; many were caught thereby, some perished immediately, others were found half dead and mutilated of hands or legs, others were injured in other parts of the body. When God caused the earthquake to cease, the workmen who survived again returned to their task, partly because such was the edict of the emperor, and partly because they were themselves interested in the undertaking... But all parties relate, that they had scarcely returned to the undertaking, when fire burst suddenly from the foundations of the temple, and consumed several of the workmen.",
"The [Temple Institute](_URL_0_) is attempting to - if you wander around Jerusalem, on the steps down to the Wailing Wall, you can see the menorah they've made in preparation for it.",
"I'm a bit late to this thread, but could the absence of the ark contribute to this? Because the Ark was supposed to house God, and the temple housed the Ark, and it was only before the ark the sins of the Jews were mediated."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.freewebs.com/vitaphone1/history/sozomen.html#P3964_1740460",
"http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ammianus_23_book23.htm#C1"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Institute"
],
[]
] | ||
4sbv5h | how come it's illegal to tweet a threat but allowed in a rap song? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sbv5h/eli5_how_come_its_illegal_to_tweet_a_threat_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5821e7",
"d582ewi"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"There's a difference between a threat and just \"threatening language\". Threats are *specific*. Rap lyric threats are usually \"I'll crack your fuckin skull and use it as a bowl of cereal\" and shit like that. Rarely is it like \"John Andrews at 381 Boulder Ave, I'm coming to your house to beat you with a baseball bat\". ",
"Threats are illegal when they're considered a \"credible threat\". What that means is that a *reasonable person* would believe that whoever is making the threat has the intention and capability to follow through with the threat. This is not black and white, it's up to the interpretation of authorities. There are things they look for to establish credibility, in particular the specificity of the threat.\n\nSo for instance, saying \"I'm going to kill you and eat your babies and poop on your chest lololol\" a reasonable person would not think that's a credible threat. It's over the top, only the craziest of crazy people would actually eat a baby, etc. It's also very vague. Not illegal.\n\nOn the other hand, saying \"You live at [address] and tomorrow I'm going to get my AR-15 and gun you down on your driveway\" is very specific. It indicates premeditation (because they researched the address), it indicates the specific way they plan to do it, and the place and time. A reasonable person would believe this is credible.\n\nIf I said, \"I'm going to launch an ICBM into your house tomorrow at [time]\" that would not be credible, because although it's specific, no reasonable person would believe I'm capable of launching an ICBM.\n\nAnd of course, context matters. Although what I said above would be a credible threat elsewhere, it's embedded in a conversation and clearly presented as an example and not meant to be taken seriously. Likewise, if you're tweeting song lyrics, it's in a context and no reasonable person would consider it credible because reasonable people know the difference between real threats and song lyrics. \n\nThat said, again, it's up for the authorities to interpret. So you could conceivably tweet song lyrics and really mean it as a threat, which would be illegal. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1jlja6 | could somebody explain how irc chat clients work? what is freenode? and how do i search for unlisted channel topics that i'm interested in? | I have been looking for a comprehensive guide for beginners and I have no networking background everything seems to be about server this proxy that. How Do I make IRC easy? Is there a client that's just very minimal opens chat room text in almost a terminal-like minimalism? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jlja6/could_somebody_explain_how_irc_chat_clients_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbfyrn5",
"cbfztxi"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What operating system are you running? Something graphical will be much more intuitive if you're just starting out.\n\nFor windows: _URL_3_\nLinux: _URL_1_ (xChat)\nMac: _URL_2_ or Textual (paid)\n\nIf you google a bit you should find good guides but basically.\n\n1. Open your IRC client\n2. Locate server settings.\n3. Enter the IP/Server address - For freenode put _URL_0_ and or the port 6667.\n4. Enter the username you want to use on IRC, probably not something too generic as it could be in use and you would need to find another before connecting.\n5. Connect\n6. You should see a whole bunch of text from the IRC server as you connect. Basically you will want to type /list and you should be shown all the IRC channels that exist on the network. Usually from that list you can double click on the channel to join, or just type /join #channelname from the text box\n\nOh and Freenode is an IRC network that has a whole bunch of channels centred around free and open source software. There are other popular networks that exist although Freenode has a lot of random/offtopic channels which should fit most interests.\n\nSorry not exactly baby steps here but if you don't get the hang of it let me know.",
"So, what is IRC? IRC itself stands for 'Internet Relay Chat', and it's been around for *probably* longer then you've been alive (at least longer then I have, I'm only 19 though). It's a completely text based protocol for online communication (So, basically an instant messaging protocol that's text only).\n\nIt's handy because it's very minimal and fairly easy to use for communication. The basic idea around IRC is that you have IRC servers and IRC clients. The server's themselves make up different IRC 'networks', like _URL_0_. The servers handle distributing messages to everyone, handling accounts on the network, etc.. The basics you could think of. The IRC Client is simply what you run on your computer, and it connects to an IRC network you specify and then communicates with a server to send and receive messages so you can communicate. (It's worth noting, many people -- even me at times -- use the term IRC server when referring to an IRC network. I wouldn't be surprised if you see this, and generally assume it if you do see the term IRC server)\n\nIRC itself is setup is much of a chat-room like fashion. Each room is called a 'channel', and the name usually starts with a '#', such as '#ubuntu', '#archlinux', etc. (They look like Twitter 'hashtags', but IRC's been around and using them for far longer, Twitter stole the idea > . > ) Using the IRC Client you 'join' these channels, and then any messages that are sent to these channels (Along with notifications of when people join or leave the channel) are then sent to your client. Besides channels, you can also message people directly in the same fashion for private two-way conversation.\n\nI communicate on IRC regularly (Under the same name I have here, on _URL_0_), the client I use is 'irssi'. It's a completely terminal based client (I run Linux and like terminal stuff, so it works for it. It has a slightly higher learning curve then normal GUI based clients though). Others that I know which don't like terminal stuff so much use (I believe) HexChat, and other various programs (Just Google IRC Client, you'll see tons of open-source ones). Freenode also has a web interface which you could also use (I use it in environments like at my college where normal IRC is blocked). The web interface is extremely easy and requires no software.\n\nAs for using clients, the only real thing you should keep in mind is that most clients will not send a message starting with '/' as it assumes it's an IRC Client command.\n\nCommon commands include '/join', which when you add a channel name after it makes you join that channel (Ex. '/join #archlinux' makes you join the #archlinux channel). '/query' opens up a private message channel with another user (Ex. If you type '/query dsman195276' while I'm online, it'll open up a new tab/channel with my name which would let you message me directly, though it still goes through the IRC network). '/connect' will connect you to an IRC network, such as '/connect _URL_0_'. This may or may not be necessary\n\nBeyond that, that's really all you need to know to get started. It's not very complicated. I'd personally just jump on and find a channel that interests you, people are generally friendly and open to talk, that's why they're there after all ;) Going off the time when I posted this, if you get on freenode and want a bit more guidance, feel free to message me (assuming I'm on). I'm not sure I'll be on for very long after this post, however I should be on for a while in about 12 hours from now, to give you an idea."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"chat.freenode.net",
"http://www.silverex.org/news/",
"http://limechat.net/mac/",
"http://hexchat.github.io/"
],
[
"irc.freenode.net"
]
] | |
2q30s4 | that lurching feeling you get going over a bridge in a car? | Why does your stomach make that funny lurching feeling when going over a humpback bridge or riding a rollercoaster? Adrenaline? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q30s4/eli5_that_lurching_feeling_you_get_going_over_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn2bzcx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I assume 'humpback' bridge means that it's something [like this](_URL_0_).\n\nThe answer to that is acceleration. As you drive up the incline you're accelerating up - you're being pushed upward by the car as the car is pushed up by the incline in the road.\n\nAt the peak of the arch, though, this acceleration breaks. Then as you descend the decline you're now slightly falling as you're moving downward relatively quickly. This causes your body and all the fluids within to sort of fly about a little. Go get a water bottle, hold it up then pull it straight down. You'll notice the water floats up and maybe even hits the top if you pull it down fast enough.\n\nThat's happening to you and your senses notice it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.google.ca/search?q=arched+bridge&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&imgil=jd3hoF7OrN2fbM%253A%253BIQ5s412F8JHh-M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fkaleidoscope.cultural-china.com%25252Fen%25252F10Kaleidoscope3071.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=jd3hoF7OrN2fbM%253A%252CIQ5s412F8JHh-M%252C_&usg=__GC... | |
74exr8 | How did the Early Medieval Irish Economy work? | I have read in several places now that wealth in Early Medieval Ireland was shown by giving things away. In particular kings sustained their status by giving food and gold away. How did this work? Where did the food and gold come from for them to give away?
(This is a repost of an earlier unanswered question. I believe this is allowed for under the rules. My apologies if not!) | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74exr8/how_did_the_early_medieval_irish_economy_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dny1c8l"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Yes, kings did \"give things away\", but as in many premodern societies these \"gifts\" came with a catch ;). Irish kingship can be seen as an extension of the more general socio-economic hierarchy that underpinned Irish society. In this system, a wealthy individual (who in this context measured his wealth in the form of cattle, rather than money) would attract the attention of less prosperous individuals who wanted some of those cattle, as they could be used to increase their own personal wealth, pay legal fees, purchase goods and services and so on. \n\nSo the second individual would approach the first and enter a voluntary contract of clientship with the him. The type of clientship depended on one's status: those of low birth became *doercheile* (base clients) while poorer nobles became *soercheile* (free clients) which determined the amount of wealth they received and (this is where the catch comes in) the sorts of responsibilities that they would have to furnish for their lord. These included payments in food, participation in agricultural and manual labour for the lord and military duties. \n\nThis military participation in the patron's *buiden* (translated as \"host\", \"band\" or \"troop\") might actually have been beneficial for the clients themselves as their activities would have ensured the protection of their own property. Legal glosses explain that these military duties were divided into *fubae*; the destruction of pirates, violent criminals and wolves, and *rubae*; patrolling the frontier and strategic points of their local territory against hostile incursions.\n\nSo we've seen why a prospective client might seek to enter such a contract with a patron for purely economic reasons, but the system of clientship went much further than that. Clients and patrons benefited mutually from such arrangements in a number of crucial ways. Perhaps most importantly, both the client and patron earned substantial legal protection from their arrangement that would be unavailable to an individual living \"outside the system\". A client could look to his patron for support in legal matters, such as having him sign on as a prestigious surety for contracts made with other individuals (which I suppose is kind of similar to using a credit card through your bank). The patron, on the other hand, could use the support of his numerous clients in court cases to \"outweigh\" his opponents with testimony - one peculiarity of early Irish law was that legal outcomes could be decided by the side that furnished more oaths on their behalf than the other. Keep in mind that Ireland at this point was more or less a stateless society; people *needed* the support of others in the face of legal adversity and potential conflict.\n\nFinally, a prospective patron would seek to cultivate a mass of clients despite actually losing or renting out his wealth in order to accrue status and prestige. Not only did they receive legal protection, a personal warband and freedom from manual labour by the services of their clients, but their own honour was quantitatively increased by their number of clients. In medieval Ireland, honour was a real, quantifiable thing that determined one's status in society and the kinds of contracts they could enter and the quality of their legal testimony. For an aspiring aristocrat, accruing status and prestige through taking on a multitude of clients would give authority to the political, legal and military power that those clients themselves furnished him. \n\nSo the system of clientship was much more complicated than a simple exchange of gifts. Both clients and patrons thought the arrangement was advantageous for a multitude of reasons; the exchange of wealth ensured economic prosperity, legal protection, military power and status."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7i30vn | why do tea bags say ‘do not microwave’? | Does it have to do with how the tea steeps? Or something with metal staples on the bag? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i30vn/eli5_why_do_tea_bags_say_do_not_microwave/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqvqq6i",
"dqvsomn",
"dqvzk2q",
"dqw48io",
"dqw6e06",
"dqwqcfv",
"dqwtm2c",
"dqxdbxe",
"dqxyo7r"
],
"score": [
1466,
780,
94,
10,
10,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you are doing it wrong!\n\nYou are supposed to put tea into boiling water all at once, not slowly heat it up with the water. It does taste different that way.\n\nEDIT: To be clear, you don't put tea in water while it is still boiling, you bring the water to a boil, let it cool a bit, then put it in.",
"Oy vey. I can't believe so many people are talking about the staples. You can walk over to your microwave right now and prove that wrong. \n\nIt is how the tea steeps: the volatile flavor compounds in the tea come out from the leaves at different rates depending on the water temperature -- some of them are good, some of them are bad. \n\nIt's impossible to control the water temperature in a microwave, so you end up with a strange mix of good and bad flavors, in all the wrong proportions. \n\nThe manufacturers put \"do not microwave\" because they don't want someone tasting their product, having it taste like crap, and never buying that brand again.\n\n[Edit: I've microwaved tea (in times of dire necessity) hundreds of times, and never once seen any evidence of arcing or fire risk. But, to be fair to the folks who have commented, some people have reported that they have seen that.]",
"What a time to see this question, I'm at a tea factory in Kerala right now!\n\nYou're supposed to put the tea in boiling water, not boil tea water. They taste different",
"Because if you microwave the tea bag it will burst into flames. You are supposed to microwave water, and then after microwaving you put the tea bag into the water to steep. They put that warning on because some idiot burnt their house down.",
"It's because the staples may arc and set fire to the teabag if they're exposed/the wrong shape. It's a definite risk. Just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't change anything. Metal particularly if it has sharp edges (like a staple might) can definitely arc in a microwave. In close proximity to a thin paper bag, that's a recipe for a fire. \n\nIt does make me smile a bit that we Brits have the reputation for being obsessed with tea, and yet we're never the ones who get into heated arguments about temperatures, and steeping times, and all that kind of thing, and the benefits of multi stewing and onward ad infinitum. \n\nWith us, the discussion is normally about as far as make sure you put boiling water onto a bare teabag, add the milk afterward. Anyone who puts milk on a teabag or cold water and then microwaves it is a heathen. \n\nThe vast *vast* majority of tea brewed in the UK is done with ordinary teabags. I only know one person who even has the kit to brew loose leaf tea at home. \n\nYet Americans, who are supposed to have coffee as their main brew will debate till the cows come home about the proper way of brewing tea. Is it 90C, is it 85C, is it 95C... I didn't even know until I read this thread that you can get electric kettles that heat to particular temperatures. \n\nNot hating on anyone, just to be clear. I just find it interesting. ",
"When you microwave water, such as in a ceramic coffee mug, it doesn't boil normally at 212 degrees F / 100 C (no bubbles). Because of this, the water can actually reach temperatures *above* the boiling point.\n\nWith super-heated water, introducing turbulence with a teabag, or hot chocolate mix, will cause the water to explosively boil.\n\nCheck out videos of microwaved water for hot chocolate to see what I mean.\n\n",
"It has to do with the metal staples. People would put the bags in water in the microwave and the metal staple would turn red hot, instantly evaporate the water, become molten, melt through the bottom of the microwave, drop through the basement, burrow a flaming hot hole to the center of the center of the earth creating a tunnel for magma to exit the earths mantle and eventually forming a volcano where your house was. ",
"The tea bags, burst open when microwaved because the tea leaves expand a lot. Kind of like how microwaves superheat a portion of water inside the tea bag. The effect is similar to superheating of eggs: _URL_0_\n",
" The trick is to boil the water, add the tea bag, nuke it in the microwave for 30 seconds ay 60% power and bingo! A fantastic cuppa! (Steeps stronger and quicker without the tannin buildup)\n\nTry it, you'll thank me. \n\nEdit: this will get deleted for not being an explaination so I'll add: it's not you do with the staples, my brand has a single staple in the paper tab at the end and it's never been an issue. I would say what others have, doing it from room temprature not only would mess with the steep time, it's really power hungry and kinda irresponsible if you have a kettle that can do it more energy efficiency. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155582-superheated-water-makes-microwaved-eggs-explode-when-you-dig-in/"
],
[]
] | |
oa3dn | Would it be survivable to jump out of a plane using a Zorb ball instead of a parachute? | Here is a [video](_URL_0_) of Jackie Chan (presumably not genuinely) rolling down a cliff in a Zorb. A note on the video asks this question, and got me wondering. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/oa3dn/would_it_be_survivable_to_jump_out_of_a_plane/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3fl6ka",
"c3fr0gr"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It's theoretically possible to have a ball large and light enough to reduce terminal velocity to a survivable level. The question is whether or not you could find a feasible material to build this ball out of, and I'm afraid I don't have an answer for that.\n\nIf your question is whether or not you would survive in a normal Zorb, I suspect the answer is no.",
"This is basically two separate questions\n\n* What is the terminal velocity of a zorb?\n* Could a zorb cushion your impact from this speed such that the deceleration was survivable.\n\nFirst one's simple enough since the zorb's a rough sphere so we know the drag coefficent will be about 0.47. Mass is 65kg, plus 80kg for the passenger is 145kg. Radius is 1.5m. So using the [drag equation](_URL_1_) at terminal velocity\n\n0.5*1.3*v^2 *0.47*π*1.5^2 = 145*g\n\nv^2 = 658.7\n\nv = 25.6 ms^-1\n\nApparently the inner sphere is of a zorb is 2m, which means the thickness of the cushion at any point is 0.5m. Deceleration from 25.6 ms^-1 to zero in 0.5m is, from the equations of motion;\n\na=v^2 / (2d)\n\na=658.7 ms^-2 = 67g\n\nWikipedia reckons [ > 50g isn't survivable](_URL_0_) but doesn't give a source.\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI7vz9Bd664"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Typical_examples_of_g-force",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation"
]
] | |
2eqy24 | Why did the British never establish any titles of nobility in the new world. For instance, why was there never a Duke of Pennsylvania? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2eqy24/why_did_the_british_never_establish_any_titles_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck23sz3",
"ck2gd3m"
],
"score": [
13,
6
],
"text": [
"hi! always room for more input, but you may be interested in these related posts\n\n* [Why did the British Empire never extend the peerage system to their colonies?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [Why are there no Australian/Canadian/New Zealand nobility titles?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [Why were titles of nobility not issued for lands in the American Colonies?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [Why No American Aristocracy?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Indigenous peerages grafted onto European empires](_URL_1_)",
"There were attempts. John Locke (yes that one) wrote \"The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina\" in 1669. It essentially was written to prevent any form of democracy from arising in the Carolinas. It would have created a landed aristocracy had it been fully implemented. You can read it here _URL_0_.\n\nHowever, in its early days Carolina grew very slowly. The new rules put forth by the constitutions were not very popular, and were largely gone by 1700, and they were never ratified to begin with. Part of the reason is that the Lords Proprietors did not take an active role in developing Carolina, and the settlers preferred the Royal Charter which was more flexible in its allowance for government."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/181b1b/why_did_the_british_empire_never_extend_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ch1ne/indigenous_peerages_grafted_onto_european_empires/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u1nof/why_no_american_aristocracy/",
"ht... | ||
2u1veb | How did Japanese chroniclers portray early Christian converts? | before and after the purge of Christians and missionaries under the Tokugawa Shogunate. for instance (as an example):
how did the fact that many of the leaders of the vanguard of the invasion of Korean impact later assessments of the war and those
don't feel constrained by that specific example and honestly i would also be interested to hear more about Christianity in other East Asian societies. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2u1veb/how_did_japanese_chroniclers_portray_early/ | {
"a_id": [
"co4frnh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure I understand your post's subtext. Could you clarify what you mean by \n\n > for instance how did the fact that many of the leaders of the vanguard of the invasion of Korean impact later assessments?\n\nFirstly, it's important to note that Japanese religions were not unified and there was no 'national' religion at the time that Christianity was first introduced to Japan during the mid 16th century. In fact, during this period of time, there was no nation of Japan even. \n\nThis was the period of infamous warfare between feuding warlords called the Sengoku Period, or Warring States Period. \n\nArguably, the most influential religion at the time was Buddhism, because of their strong military, economic, and political presence. Buddhist sects had armies, large territories from which they collected taxes, and the political connections to influence warlords and nobles. \n\nIt's important to note, again, that Buddhism was not unified in Japan. There was (and still is) no central 'church' or authority figure for all of Buddhism. Many differing sects competed and larger sects had internal conflicts and power struggles. \n\nBut they were very much like any other major religious organization. They held sway over a great many people, whether common folk, soldiers, or leaders. \n\nSo major religious leaders were as much of a political and military player during the Sengoku Period as any warlord. \n\nThis no doubt influenced Japanese views on Christianity, seeing it as a new military, economic and political rival. And for religious leaders, a new rival in the spiritual arena as well. \n\nWhen Christianity first started gaining traction, it was through trade with the Portuguese that missionaries met the Japanese population. This was a significant reason that the Japanese warlords allowed proselytizing in their lands. Portuguese trade meant access to firearms from Europe, which were a game changer on the Japanese battlefield. \n\nSome warlords tolerated Christianity so they could gain access to lucrative and strategic trade with the Portuguese while others were genuinely interested in all the new things these foreigners had to bring to table, whether that was trade and weapons or new ideas and new knowledge. \n\nThe common people would have simply seen Christianity as another new religion among many. They were no strangers to competing and differing religions, value systems, and doctrines. Japan had it's own native folk religions, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Chinese folk religions that were all actively practiced throughout the land. \n\nMeanwhile, scholars and other people would have known about Taoism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. though they were not practiced extensively. But Hinduism did influence Japanese spiritual philosophy because of the connection to India through Buddhism. Another story for another time. \n\nJapanese Buddhism itself had a tremendous number of sects, many often disagreeing with each other over doctrine, interpretation, etc. Japanese native folk religions differed from region to region and often times from village to village. The Japanese spiritual landscape was incredibly diverse and they were by no means united. \n\nThat being said, Japanese people might have had their interest piqued at the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent god and singular god. Japanese people would have been used to the idea of a plurality of deities and spirits. Christianity would have rejected this completely, which likely caused conflict philosophically. \n\nBut for the common people of Japan, the message of an all loving God that sees all as equal spiritually, whether a lord or a peasant, certainly had appeal for some. And of course, the great many services the Christians provided, like medical care, establishing institutions like hospitals and churches as community centers, would have been welcomed by many. \n\nBy the time Christianity had spread and established a sizable community, the Sengoku Period had ended. Now that Japan was nominally united, the new leaders went about consolidating their power. This meant sequestering political rivals, namely the religious organizations that dictated a great deal of policy because of the strength of their armies and purses. \n\nIt's during this time that converts are persecuted and heavily ostracized. Christians go into hiding and they establish secret congregations, secret Christian organizations, etc. What's really interesting is that without proper guidance and teachings, many of these groups eventually lost much of their knowledge of mainstream Christian practices and became something entirely different from Christianity. \n\nMany groups changed many of their practices to hide their Christian worship in a desperate attempts to maintain their faith by practicing in form and spirit if not in content, while simultaneously avoiding torture and death. While their devotion was undoubtedly great, it's almost humorously sad that many contemporary Christians would decry them as heretics, that their apparent syncretism was simply a corruption or perversion of true Christianity. \n\nDuring this time, Christianity is painted as a foreign relic and to be expelled from the country, along with foreigners themselves. Part of the reason is that Japan no longer relied on the foreign trade for firearms, which was certainly a major factor that lead to several leaders adopting Christianity to gain an edge on the battlefield. \n\nAnother was that they were seen as a potential threat to the newly formed Shogunate. While we know in hindsight that they would go on to rule relatively peacefully for centuries with few revolts, they could not have known that at the time. They were wary of anything that could tear away their newly obtained place at the top of Japanese society from them. Christianity and missionaries were seen as a foreign foothold in Japan that the Shogunate leaders were not happy to let remain so they took steps to alienate Christianity and Europeans alike. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
505zxw | What issues would be be worried about if we were experiencing global cooling, instead of global warming? | With global warming, there are many interesting consequences that I never would have considered. What would these be if the planet was cooling? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/505zxw/what_issues_would_be_be_worried_about_if_we_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"d71u2ag"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Then you'd be wondering about whether we'd be heading for a full scale glaciation, such as the most recent one which ended about 0.1 MY ago, in the Pleistocene. \n\nSuch events can begin rather suddenly, geologically speaking, and would eventually lead to snow failing to completely melt in northern Canada, Scandinavia and Siberia. After a few consecutive such years, the unmolten snow cover thickens and compresses, at least locally, until it starts flowing under its own weight. The spreading snow and ice cover progressively lowers the planetary albedo, and more and more solar enegy gets reflected back to space, further accelerating things. \n\nBefore you know it (100 years? 500? the blink of an eye geologically), there is a wall of ice 1 to 2 km thick bearing down into the Dakotas. All climate zones shift towards the equator, with tundra spreading in the midwest and around Manhattan. This of course drastically reduces the amount of inhabitable and farmable land. Critters migrate equator wise, extinction events. You get the picture. Last time around, the ice ended in Wisconsin and eastwards into New York city.\n\nBut that's for just a normal glaciation. Your scenario allows for an even more titillating runaway scenario! What if cooling continues and we went back to a \"Snowball Earth\" situation, such as prevailed 1000 MY ago? Then the continental glaciers keep on growing, and growing, and pushing their way over the continental platforms, and over the oceans. Eventually they reach into the Tropics ... and we're not too sure after that ... Some evidence suggests that the icecaps met and merged at the Equator. But some other sources suggest that ice cover over the Equator was either partial, or seasonal. Either which way, it is very very bad news for our civilization..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
1qkb2r | Why is plasma hard to work with? | I was reading an article on fusion, specifically about MIT's Alcator C-mod reactor. It mentioned how they use plasma to prevent the walls from melting under the intense conditions and gave this:
> Indeed, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman once described confining plasma within a tokamak as trying to hold Jell-O with rubber bands: it's possible, but it's taxing and you'll probably lose at least part of the Jell-O.
I realize plasma is it's own type of matter, but I'm curious why it's particularly difficult to work with as it is essentially an ionized gas, correct? I looked at a design picture of a tokamak and it seems like it's a donut shaped vacuum tube, so I was failing to see why that couldn't trap a gas..though I suppose it isn't technically a gas.
Thanks for any information provided! | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qkb2r/why_is_plasma_hard_to_work_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cddoo5l",
"cddpu7v",
"cddq7io"
],
"score": [
55,
7,
8
],
"text": [
"Fusion plasmas are tough to work with because of several things. \n\n1. They're hot. **REALLY** hot. \n2. Plasmas exist as seperated ions and electrons. So, they are usually very chemically reactive. Remember that chemistry is basically electrons swapping around? Well, it's even easier with a plasma.\n3. They take a lot of energy to maintain. We haven't produced a self-sustaining fusion reaction yet, so typically for most plasmas you have to pump in a ton of energy to keep them as plasmas. This is usually done by microwave heating for bulk plasmas like in a fusion reactor.\n4. The math is hard. There are lots of phenomena involved in a plasma, two of which are [magentohydrodynamics](_URL_1_) and [Boltzmann transport](_URL_2_). To realistically engineer plasma fusion systems, we have to solve these systems in a coupled fashion, which is computationally very demanding.\n\nSo, it's a combination of the materials issues (containing the plasma without destroying the vessel*) and understanding the design of the systems is difficult as well. Among other things. \n\n\\* : Fusion plasmas are so hot that essentially nothing can survive contact with them. A tokamak works by suspending the plasma inside of the vessel using magnetic fields with a vacuum between the plasma and the vessel. Even then, you still have to worry about radiant heat transfer. Also a fusion plasma is going to emit nuclear radiation as well, which also destroys most materials.\n\nYou can see some pictures of the effect of fusion plasmas on materials and some talk about modeling it in [this presentation](_URL_0_), slides 5 and 6. Also [this one](_URL_3_), which is probably a bit more approchable and has better pictures. DoE people tend to have really busy slides for some reason...",
"Its not to difficult to make but the problem is maintaining and manipulating it. The other replies are correct: It's very hot, needs lots of energy to make, and lots of energy to keep around to use. Otherwise the spare electrons in your ionized gas zip off to anything else they can find that's stable or grounded.\n\nI operate and fix a few university particle accelerators and the ion source for making plasma on one of them require many stages of control. Several electrodes, high flow chilled de-ionized water, and\na mother of a huge magnet. All of this keeps the plasma in the center of the cylinder before extraction. But to give you an idea of the energy requirements, the electron supplying filament inside the source needs 180 amps just to get things started.\n\nTL;DR without A LOT of energy the ionic state just changes back into states of the original gas. ",
"Well, creating a hot plasma isn't the problem. Scientists have become quite proficient at making H-bombs. It's manipulating the hot plasma inside a vessel without melting your walls that makes it so difficult. It turns out that suspending a plasma in a toroidal geometry is not inherently stable (various mhd instabilites, ballooning modes, tearing modes, etc.). Occasionally the plasma disrupts and all of the stored energy gets dumped into the divertors. \n\nPlasma physicists are working to better understand how to control the plasma, and material scientists are working on how to prevent these divertors from melting (for ITER). They've tried things like water cooling but it just introduced impurities into the plasma. This kills the plasma. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffire.pppl.gov%2Fmaterials_ofes_wirth.pdf&ei=Mv6DUoq4D4i-sQSQ2oDQCw&usg=AFQjCNGF2FF92mSpGf98U2HW6XO8zC9E3g&sig2=VYpMPKgfJxJXKv8g2xASUA&bvm=bv.56343320,d.cWc&cad=rja",
... | |
44cvo5 | Whaling and what it brought? | Hi all historians i come from a place in the UK called Hull,it has quite the maritime past.We once was the icon of port and fishing even quite the masters at _URL_0_ we would have supplied quite the pretty penny and amount of trade .This was just a bit of history of my home town.But I am writing this to ask what do you think whaling brought and advances it created for industry and geographical profits and ect.I know that it has led to the endangerment of many species and maybe the extinction of some.I know i sound like an ass when i say but can we try focus on the positives and achievements it brought to our lives and how the world was changed by whale oil.Thank you all for reading! | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/44cvo5/whaling_and_what_it_brought/ | {
"a_id": [
"czpf4lk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hello! I actually wrote my [undergraduate thesis](_URL_0_) using the British Arctic Whaling Databank (built by the University of Hull). \n\nWhile the bulk of my research was centered on the econometrics of whaling, I included a lot of information about the industry and its place in the world, along with numerous footnotes which you can use as jumping-off points for expanding your research.\n\nYou can also tell your friends that according to some very complex modeling, Hull was the second most productive Arctic whaling port in Britain during the period 1775-1779.\n\nLet me know if this helps!\n\n-Dave"
]
} | [] | [
"whaling.So"
] | [
[
"https://github.com/DaveahamLincoln/Academic-Papers/blob/master/Thesis-%20An%20Econometric%20Analysis%20of%20British%20Arctic%20Whaling%20Ports%201770-1775.pdf"
]
] | |
5pw3pi | What was the point of buffalo eradication in 1870s? | Wouldn't it be more profitable if they harvested a self sustaining population? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5pw3pi/what_was_the_point_of_buffalo_eradication_in_1870s/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcv238z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"So you actually just recently missed a truly excellent post about very much this topic!\n\nHere is the link to the thread: _URL_1_\n\nAlong with this other longer post from /u/snapshot52 _URL_0_\n\nSimply put compared to cattle for consumption Buffalo left much to be desired as a domesticated animal. While on the other side of utilization, for their fur and pelts, there was simply no organization really concerned about or invested in protecting them. While organizations from the US Army on down saw their eradication as a method for advancing civilization forward, and would be key in restricting the freedom of movement for the Plains Tribes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4j42ag/there_was_military_involvement_by_the_united/d33w2sx/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5hx9mf/why_did_the_north_american_bison_never_take_off/"
]
] | |
3gpppv | california recently released black shade balls to conserve water. how does that work and wouldn't the black absorb the heat causing the water to evaporate faster? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gpppv/eli5_california_recently_released_black_shade/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu0ag1j",
"cu0j6mr",
"cu0v6zl"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Below the boiling point, water can only evaporate at a boundary between air and water. \n\nThis is because the temperature of a material is just the average temperature of all molecules. Within liquid water, you might have individual molecules cold enough to form ice, and others hot enough to form vapor. They don't because they constantly interact and exchange temperature, a particularly hot one will likely transfer its heat to another.\n\nEvaporation happens when individual molecules become hot enough to become a gas. However, as long as they are surrounded by slower water molecules, they will quickly lose that temperature and become a liquid again. But if they are at the surface to a gas like air or steam, they have a chance of breaking free of the water and keep their energy.\n\nThe reverse will happen with steam: Molecules become cold enough to become liquid, also typically at a boundary between gas and liquid.\n\nSince the balls reduce the surface area where water touches air, there are fewer water molecules that can escape from the water. ",
"The black balls are to prevent UV light from reaching the water, this prevents bromate from being formed.\n\nPictures and a longer explanation [here](_URL_0_)",
"the main function is to prevent a harmful chemical reaction; reducing evaporation is a side effect and so the material is not optimized for that.\n\nas for what it has this side effect: the balls probably absorb a similar amount of heat than the body of water they cover would without the balls - but as plastic doesn't conduct heat well, they can radiate much of it back as infrared before it reaches the lower part that touches the water."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.amusingplanet.com/2011/11/ivanhoe-reservoir-covered-with-400000.html"
],
[]
] | ||
1r5nsj | why is kennedy such a big deal in the us? | As I understand, he was well liked president, and was then assassinated. But it's been... How long? Why is he still spoken about so much, made movies about, Obama visiting his grave, etc.? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r5nsj/eli5why_is_kennedy_such_a_big_deal_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdjtq0h",
"cdjty5s",
"cdju3nq"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Its a big deal right now because tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of his death. Otherwise its what you said plus its a pretty big deal for conspiracy nuts as well.",
"Assassinations are somewhat of a dark spot in American history.\n\nThis country was based on a concept of freedom that assassinations precludes - the idea that you could be murdered due to a political belief is something that is *fundamentally* un-American.\n\nPlus, Kennedy's presidency was one where there was a clusterfuck of global and domestic events: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, he started what would be the Space Race (through the Apollo program), he sent the National Guard to deal with George Wallace in Alabama, and he called for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though he did not live to see it passed.\n\nHis views and policies had a significant effect on American politics and culture, so his death was seen as a particularly painful part of our history.",
"A few reasons:\n\n* His family's storybook legacy. His father was a self-made tycoon (during a time when being Irish in America was was still pretty frowned upon, no less). The rumors that this money was ill-gotten, and that his family was/is inextricably tied to the mob, only enhances that background.\n\n* He was the first (and to date, only) Irish Catholic president. This was a huge deal at the time. This happened in the lifetimes of Irish Americans who weren't permitted to use the whites' facilities in many places. And it was widely regarded that no practicing Catholic could be elected President.\n\n* His successfull navigation of the Cuban Missile Crisis was something of a unique achievement. It was probably the closest America got to a nuclear war. Whether a Soviet/Cuban strike would have ever really happened is up for debate, but the prospect certainly seemed real at the time, and he handled it like a pro (which not a lot of people would expect from such a young president).\n\n* He was a war hero. His ship was sunk in the Pacific theater in WWII, and he was at least partially responsible for his crew's survival.\n\n* He was incredibly handsome and a womanizer to boot. He ostensibly had sex with Marilyn Monroe on the reg. And his wife was no slouch either.\n\n* He declared that the U.S. would be on the Moon by the end of the decade (the '60's), and that we'd beat the Soviets doing it. Just declared it. Like some kind of prophet. And in spite of the fact that America was *way* losing the space race, we believed him. *And we did it.*\n\n* The fact that his life was cut tragically short only fortifies his legendary status. He's like the *Firefly* of American leaders.\n\nI could go on, but I from these, I don't think it's hard to see why people looked up to the man. He was a fighter, a lover, and a space nerd.\n\nEverything Reddit could want."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
15ml0r | In America, what causes political parties to change and/or die out, and are there any parallels to the current state of the Republican Party? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15ml0r/in_america_what_causes_political_parties_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7ntuzr",
"c7nu07d"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Hello!\n\n\nMost political parties die out because it's something that's more or less inevitable with first past the post voting (and having a democracy in general). There is an excellent video on this topic by CGPGrey that can explain it much better then me [here](_URL_0_).\n\nThough I am not sure if this question is suited for this subreddit, I feel it's better off in /r/AskSocialScience.",
"In /r/AskHistorians we discourage questions that are:\n\n- Primarily political\n- Predicated heavily upon current events\n\nAs /u/inferioryetsuperior suggests, this question would likely be better suited to /r/AskSocialScience. I hope you have good luck with your inquiries there!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"
],
[]
] | ||
339vym | why don't teeth grow continuously like nails? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/339vym/eli5_why_dont_teeth_grow_continuously_like_nails/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqiverb",
"cqivklu"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Your teeth are actually bones. Like most bones they do grow, but they fall out because you need bigger ones to grow in, not just expand your guns.",
"The why for most \"why doesn't our body do xyz\" tends to be a disappointing \"because it didn't evolve to do that, it does abc instead.\"\n\nThere's not planning in evolution. Changes happen, and if they work good enough to survive, they persist. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
4dv2y6 | why can you "hear" a tv when it flickers or the color suddenly switches, like from black to white? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dv2y6/eli5_why_can_you_hear_a_tv_when_it_flickers_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1un8cr",
"d1uq46p",
"d1uq4xi",
"d1ut0tn",
"d1utf6h"
],
"score": [
3,
69,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Do you mean a CRT TV or flatscreen?",
"What you're hearing is coil whine from the steering electromagnets of the CRT. In order to aim the stream of electrons coming off the high voltage cathode, a bunch of magnets are used. However these electromagnets are varied at extremely high speeds in order to draw each line of each frame of video. So what you're hearing is a loud, modulated, high-pitched sound that almost exceeds human hearing. In addition, the electron gun has its own high voltage power supply which is modulated to change the brightness of the scan lines (how pixels are represented). This power supply has its own coils as well. So you have lots of high voltage signals being turned on and off really fast and there is some sound that comes from the components that do this.\n\nCoil whine is caused by a combination of magnetostriction (the change in the shape of a material caused by magnetic fields) and the force of the magnetic field imparted on the coil, jiggling it around.",
"On older CRT tube sets, if you had good hearing or the set was going bad, you could hear it working. I could when I was younger (before I lost my high range hearing). I beleive it was that rapid charge/discharge of the capacitors that direct the electron beam.",
"The \"white whine\" tends to be much worse on whites that are \"too white\"...video is supposed to be between 7.5 and 100 IRE units, with white being the 100 end and blacks the 7.5. Most cameras can capture up to 108 IRE, and then compress it 100...usually...and if not, whiney whites can occur. Also, if the master control op didn't set his video levels for his source properly, or if he got a bad dub that had inaccurate levels, overmodulated video will get through...and make whiney whites. \n\nThis was much more of an issue in the CRT/analog NTSC days...I can't think of a single flatscreen anything that I have ever heard this issue with...mostly because the CRT has more components that are much more inherently likely to cause this than flatscreens.",
"On CRT and plasma, it's the buzz of the power supply. White uses more power. CRT and plasma both use a technology that produces color by stimulating individual phosphors on the screen. You need more energy to illuminate them all (white) than none (black). The buzz is from the transformer in the power supply working at full capacity. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
34hr0e | [engineering] what's the difference in fan design between a fan that blows and a fan that suctions? | Sorry if this is not the right subredit! And thanks in advance :) | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/34hr0e/engineering_whats_the_difference_in_fan_design/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqvg7e2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Take a fan that blows. Pick it up and turn it around. Now it sucks. It's really that simple.\n\nThe shape, angle and number of blades in the fan might vary based on the desired flow velocity and pressure change across the fan and desired rotational speed of the fan (and based on the properties of the fluid it is acting on), but the blow vs. suck thing is just which direction the fan is pointing.\n\n(Making the fan spin the opposite direction will also swap it between blow and suck, but many fans use asymmetrical blades, in which case this may result in lower efficiency)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
rwn9k | Why don't our lungs fill with mold? | When I think about it, my lungs are warm, moist, dark, and constantly exposed to mold spores in the air. How am I even still breathing? What keeps our lungs from being the perfect breeding ground for molds, fungus, and other nasty things? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rwn9k/why_dont_our_lungs_fill_with_mold/ | {
"a_id": [
"c499eal",
"c499f9m",
"c499ljc",
"c499nkc"
],
"score": [
141,
22,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"The lungs may be warm and moist, but they are able to defend themselves from mold (and other external pathogens) via the immune system. In people with normal immune systems, the mold spores are destroyed as they enter the body. \n\nIn people with weakened immune systems, mold can grow in the lungs. See for example [Aspergillosis](_URL_0_)",
"Your immune system does a great job of keeping mold and other nasty stuff from growing!\n\nFor starters, your airways are lined by a thick mucus which helps to trap any incoming particles (including mold spores, bacteria, etc.). Once the particles are trapped, cilia that are found on the cells lining your airways sweep the mucus upward, out of the lungs. You then swallow the mucus (by clearing your throat), where the mold spores are digested.\n\nSecondly, if a mold spore somehow gets past the mucus, you have [dust cells](_URL_2_) in your lungs, which essentially eat up and destroy any bad particles.\n\n[Here's](_URL_1_) an image showing the dust cells (labeled 'M') on the picture inside the alveoli.\n\nEDIT: The above assumes you're healthy. There are diseases which basically consist of fungi growing in your lungs. One example is [Aspergillosis](_URL_0_)",
"There exists within the lungs a lining referred to as the Airway Surface Layer (ASL) which is composed of a viscous mucus gel on the outer layer and the periciliary layer (PCL) on the inner layer. The cilia (small hair-like structures on the surface of the epithelial cells in the lungs) move in a very ordered fashion to transport mucus which contains mold spores, bacteria, dust, etc. up and out of the lungs. \n\nHere's one research group that I know of which is currently attempting to shed more light on the specific nature of the ASL: \n\n[Virtual Lung Project](_URL_0_)\n\nEdt: I see that I'm rather slow to the punch with an answer.",
"The lungs are lined with cilia and mucous which trap and move any foreign contaminants out of the lungs.\n\n[source](_URL_0_) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergillosis"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergillosis",
"http://www.calpoly.edu/~eperryma/yewang/dust.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_macrophage"
],
[
"http://www.advancedmaterials.unc.edu/research/180-virtual-lung-forest"
],
[
... | |
etj7ey | How was Muscovy (The Grand Duchy of Moscow) and later the Tsardom of Russia able to grow from being the backwater of Europe to being a Great Power with such a large population? | After being freed from Mongol rule, Muscovy didn't have a large economy nor population and was surrounded by states of equal strength such as Novgorod.
Despite this, over the years they were able to somehow gain a much bigger population (with the population of Siberia being rather small so I guess it didn't contribute much to this statistic once colonised) and economy in order to finally establish the Russian Empire and become a major European power.
How did they achieve this?
And on a side note, why is the Russian population so big, despite being historically rather small, having 6 million in 1500 compared to then Castile's 7 million or France's 15 million? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/etj7ey/how_was_muscovy_the_grand_duchy_of_moscow_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"fg2tqhr"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"First of all, thanks for the question. It’s not often that people are so deeply interested in someone’s story.\n\nThe Principality of Novgorod, the Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal, the Principality of Tver, the Principality of Moscow is the core of modern Russia, this is Russia. All their divisions are very arbitrary. Moscow for Russia, is like Prussia for Germany.\n\nThis piriod (from the 13th to the 15th century) in Russian history is called feudal fragmentation. This happened after the Mongols ravaged and destroyed the city of United Rus (Kiev). Another important point, in those days there was the so-called suzerainty of the great princes of Vladimir (Vladimir-Suzdal principality). The Principality of Vladimir is the heart of Russia, the most respected and one of the oldest principalities in Russia. The authority of the Vladimir princes was recognized by all other principalities and republics of old Russia. Despite the fact that in the 14th century, Russia was still divided, in 1380 the Battle of Kulikovo took place. The majority of the Russian northern lands took part in this battle. And although a difficult victory did not lead to the end of the Horde dependence, it nevertheless had great political and spiritual significance as a symbol of the unity of the Russian people around Moscow. The Moscow and Vladimir Principality officially united (1389). From now on, the Moscow princes bore the title: Grand Duke of Moscow and Vladimir. Thus emphasizing that they are the main ones in Russia. From that moment, the Moscow princes began to \"collect\" Russian lands into a single state. In 1547, the Russian Kingdom was proclaimed: the Grand Duke of Moscow, Ivan IV, was crowned Tsar.\n\nA brief summary: why Moscow principality? Because Dmitry Donskoy bequeathed the Principality of Vladimir to his son Vasily the first (Prince of Moscow). And as you hopefully remembered, the Principality of Vladimir was the main thing in Russia, and not Moscow. And also because it was Moscow, under its command, that gathered troops against the Mongols\n\nBy the time of liberation from the Mongol yoke, the Principality of Moscow was by no means a weak state, as you say. This actually was the strongest principality of all other Russian principalities. And also the richest, due to the unification with the Principality of Vladimir.\n\nNovogorodskaya republic can be said to be a democracy with a republican form of government. They were located to the north, and not so often fought with the Tatars and Mongols. The main enemies of the New Novgorod Republic were the Swedes, who can not even remotely compare with the Mongol and Tatar army.\n\nMuscovites also fought with the Tatars and also with the Mongols. These are the strongest armies of that period on the Eurasian continent. Contrary to the opinion of “some” experts, you cannot conquer one sixth of the land without a strong army.\n\nNow about the issue of population. I’m not sure where the data indicates that in the 16th century, the population of Russia amounted to 6 million people. Russia is a huge country, and even the 16th century was such. I do not even remotely imagine how people in Russia could be counted in the 16th century. I suspect that the real population was higher.\n\n\"the backwater of Europe\"\n\nWell, depending on what is considered the backwater of Europe. Novogorodskaya, Pskov Republic were one of the first in Europe to have a republican form of government. With the republican form of government were also Switzerland, Venice, San Marino, Hamburg, Bremen, Dubrovnik Republic. From this point of view, the rest of Europe can be considered a backwater. (Except for the above republics)\n\nSerfdom was introduced in Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, and the peak fell at the time of the highest dawn of the Russian Empire. So the old Russia is by no means a backwater; Russia became a political backwater during the time of the empire. Also, I'm not sure how you compare the economies of the old states. And why do you think that Russia had a weak economy.\n\nRussia was actively engaged in trade in fur, amber, honey, wax and other valuable goods. As well as jewelry. works of Russian jewelers Archaeologists find in Poland, the Czech Republic, Germany and the Baltic countries.\n\nTo summarize: Based on your incorrect assumptions, you draw incorrect conclusions.\n\nHistory says otherwise:\n\na) The Principality of Moscow was not weak. b) The Mokov Principality definitely had money, otherwise there would have been no opportunity to unite the rest of Russia under its authority.\n\nc) 16th century demographic statistics are not credible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
13bce6 | What happened to the French army after the fall of France in WWII? Why did they not have a beach for D-Day? | I've read that upwards of [139,997](_URL_1_) French Troops were evacuated at Dunkirk. [Wikipedia](_URL_2_) says that 86,000 were rescued on June 2 and 3 alone.
Did other French Troops manage to escape France after the fall? Somehow tons of Polish forces managed to escape the Poland (wiki says: ["The Polish armed forces in the west fought under British command and numbered 195,000 in March 1944."](_URL_0_)) How did they manage to escape a German and the Communist squeeze play so effectively and manage to contribute so much on the Western Front while the French are...where are they?
Where did these guys go? Why did they choose Canada to spearhead Dieppe and Juno? Wouldn't French Troops be better suited to this job?
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13bce6/what_happened_to_the_french_army_after_the_fall/ | {
"a_id": [
"c72fu8m",
"c72iatd",
"c72ieuh"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"French commandos fought at Sword Beach with the British on D-Day. \n\nThe French were granted the right to liberate Paris, and an infantry division was waiting under de Gaulle's command for that moment, but the 400,000 soldiers of Free France were mobilized in a more convenient theater - the Mediterranean, where they were garrisoning France's North African colonies. The French fought in Italy and the liberation of Corsica, and French troops were a vital component of Operation Dragoon, the landings in southern France that followed the breakout from the Normandy beachhead in the north.\n\n",
" > How did they manage to escape a German and the Communist squeeze play so effectively and manage to contribute so much on the Western Front\n\nThe were quite a few manpower sources\n\n- soldiers who escaped in 1939, mostly through Hungary and Romania (they were officially interned there, but it was relatively easy to escape as local people and officials often sympathized with Polish cause, especially in Hungary)\n\n- Polish expats (\"Polonia\") from Western Europe and Americas\n\n- Polish army that was initially created in USSR and supposed to fight on the Soviet side, but due to worsening relations ended up in the Middle East in 1942.\n\n- Wehrmacht POWs/deserters (!) - many \"German\" soldiers recruited in territories annexed by the Reich after 1939 (Silesia, Pomerania) were actually Polish. \n",
"The Poles came from several sources. In 1939, a part of the Polish army retreated into Romania to be interned. Romania was on friendly terms with France at this time, and many of the Poles managed to make their way to France to join the two infantry divisions, two mountain brigades (one of which fought in Norway and one that was training in Lebanon) and one mechanised brigade that the French raised from these men and the large Polish community in France.\n\nOne of the Polish divisions retreated into Switzerland and was interned there. The other made it south and split up, and some made it to Britain to fight on. The mechanised brigade was evacuated with the 2nd BEF from Bretagne, the mountain brigade in Norway evacuated to Britain and the mountain brigade in Lebanon crossed over to British-held Palestine to continue to fight.\n\nThe Soviets put their Polish prisoners in camps, shot most if not all their officers at Katyn and deported a massive amount of people from Eastern Poland. In 1942, they agreed to let the British take care of these people, and they were moved to Palestine to be fed, clothed and then trained (many were malnourished when they arrived, the Soviets had not treated them well).\n\nFrom the mountain brigade in Lebanon the Carpathian Brigade was formed and fought at Tobruk and in Operation Crusader. It was then merged with the men from the Soviet Union and the II. Corps was created (two divisions and an armoured brigade) which fought in Italy until the war ended.\n\nFrom the mechanised brigade and the mountain brigade in Britain (from France and Norway, respectively), the 1. Armoured Division and the Airborne Brigade were created, and they took part in several important battles, including Falaise and Market Garden, respectively."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II#Polish_Forces_.28West.29",
"http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_FRENCH_TROOPS_were_evacuated_from_Dunkirk_in_1940",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
1iwalj | I heard that Gorbachev broke the Communist Party's power. How did he rise to the top if that was his intention in the first place? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iwalj/i_heard_that_gorbachev_broke_the_communist_partys/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb8o9q2",
"cb8p0fz"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"[There was a similar thread a year ago](_URL_0_) with some good answers. New ones are welcome here as well though.",
"More or less, it was because the Soviet leadership understood a younger General Secretary was needed after Andropov and Cherneko both died pretty quickly after assuming office. \n\nGorbachev didn't create many waves until taking power, and he garnered the favor of the powerful chief ideologue Mikhail Suislov (who, ironically, would have viciously opposed Gorbachev's reforms had he been alive to see them). He also got the favor of Andrei Gromyko, the influencial Soviet Foreign Minister, and Gromyko proved decisive in having Gorbachev appointed over his chief rival, the more conservative Gregory Romanov."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ywga5/why_did_the_soviets_allow_gorbachev_to_assume/"
],
[]
] | ||
2srbmh | why only cheaper phones have dual sim | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2srbmh/eli5_why_only_cheaper_phones_have_dual_sim/ | {
"a_id": [
"cns57m3",
"cns6r8p"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Expensive and highend phones are mostly sold by cell service providers on a contract. They don't want that you use the phone you bought from them with the sim card of a different company.",
"Because the majority of more expensive high end phones are marketed and sold in countries with better mobile network infrastructures. I believe one of the selling points for dual sim is the flexibility to use multiple networks to make up for poor coverage "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
f3cr1g | Where to find raw/good quality Pulsar sounds? | Alright, not really a science thing but its about the space anyways. I am obsessed with pulsar sounds. Youtube has a crap audio quality so I am searching for other options. If you know, please tell me! Thanks in advance | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f3cr1g/where_to_find_rawgood_quality_pulsar_sounds/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhibluy",
"fhiclkp"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know what's on youtube, but here are some from Jodrell Bank: _URL_0_\n\nThere is noise present, but that's intrinsic to the data.",
"_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_4_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/pulsar/Education/Sounds/"
],
[
"http://www.radiosky.com/rspplsr.html",
"http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/~deneva/psr_sounds/pulsars_sounds.htm",
"http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/research/pulsar/Education/Sounds/",
"http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/audiofiles-puls... | |
2jgcq4 | why do streamed movies cost the same as dvds/blu-rays? | Shouldn't the price of a streamed movie be knocked down by lack of physical packaging such as the disc, shell, and paper insert, even by just a couple dollars? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jgcq4/eli5_why_do_streamed_movies_cost_the_same_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"clbgj53",
"clbhju4",
"clbic6k"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They charge that amount because people pay it. Yes, it's cheaper to stream than to produce a physical product, but since people will still pay the blu-ray prices for a streamed movie, that's what they charge.",
"It's a convenience fee. I mean, it's really always been like this. You go to a Hotel room and you can order off of the pay-per-view system for $8.00 a pop. Or you could go out to the local rental store and rent a VHS tape.\n\nThe only difference now is that the rental option has mostly vanished off the face of the Earth.",
"Its because people pay it for that price. If everyone stopped paying for digital copies at the same price as DVDs, digital copies will go down in price. Simple supply and demand. \n\nThe corporations argue that the price of the digital copy is the same as the physical copy because a majority of those profits are used to pay the workers and server costs. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
axjdbk | a vast majority of cords and cables are black. why? | My phone charger cable is black, my aux cable is black, my hard drive cable is black. My coffee machine cord is black, my toaster cord is black. Black, black, black, black. Why is it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axjdbk/eli5_a_vast_majority_of_cords_and_cables_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehtwxo6",
"ehtx0ah"
],
"score": [
4,
40
],
"text": [
"It is not a bright colour and doesnt attract your attention which somewhat increases the aethestics of what ever appliance is in question because you dont notice the cord as much ",
"There are several reasons for this. Black is usually a color that can be hard to spot. So no matter the color of the surrounding area it is safe to use black to hide the cable. The best is of course to have the cable in the same color as the surrounding area. Secondly a lot of plastic include bromide as a fire retardant in order to comply with fire safety guidelines. But bromide tends to turn yellow when it is exposed to light over a long time. But with black you do not see that the plastic changes color. And finally plastic degrades when exposed to strong UV light. However the black color prevents the light from penetrating into the plastic. So any cables that might be exposed to sunlight needs to be black in order to not get damaged."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
3te7e9 | how tyres work | I am at work right now, I have been working here about a month now. I sell tyres online/on phone.
I have no idea what actually makes a tyre good or bad or why certain tyres are better at things. I am good at pretending, but I would like to actually know these things.
Example; what is the physical difference between a sports tyre and a passenger tyre, and why are these differences important? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3te7e9/eli5_how_tyres_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx5g7qb",
"cx5gbc5"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"A tire is just a way for a car to grip the ground, without putting wear on the car's actual structure.\n\nA tyre has to be hard enough to last thousands of miles, but at the same time soft enough that you don't slide on the road as if you were on ice. The type of tyre you buy will be somewhere on this spectrum of durability and grip.\n\nThe tread(groves) in tires are designed so that when you drive over puddles of water, The water goes into the grooves and the rest of the tire can still touch the pavement, preventing aquaplaning.\n\nA sport tyre in general will be made of a stickier/softer compound. This allows the car to grip the road better, allowing tighter,faster turns and better acceleration with less wheelspin. Unfortunately this type of tire wears out much faster, and gets worse gas mileage because it is softer\n\nA passenger tyre (not sure what you mean exactly by this term) will probably be made of a harder compound, so that it will last longer. This tyre may also have more \"flex\" in the sidewall to absorb the road give a vehicle a smoother ride. Because this tyre is harder it will last longer and thus is a more economical choice.\n\nA summer tyre is a tyre with less tread, designed for the dry months and higher temperatures. This works similar to a sport tyre in that it gives the car more grip to, but in this case by having more surface area touching the ground. Conversely a winter tyre will have more tread, designed to displace more water and/or snow while still maintaining control",
"The main trade-off with tires is durability vs grip. The more grip you want a tire to have, the softer the rubber needs to be, and the shorter its life becomes. This is why you see race cars changing tires after maybe 50-100 miles. At the other end of the scale are OEM economy tires, which might last 60,000 miles or more, but don't grip the road all that well because they are hard as rocks. In between those extremes are a tons of different tires to fit different spots on that grip/tread-life continuum. Also just so I mention it, tread patterns are important because they not only influence dry grip, but also how well the tire can push water away (and thus how well they grip in the rain). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
9p66g4 | During Matthew Perry's second visit to Japan, he threatened to send 100 ships to Japan to declare war if his demands weren't met. Did Perry have authorization to start a war? What was so imperative about Japan that the US would threaten war? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9p66g4/during_matthew_perrys_second_visit_to_japan_he/ | {
"a_id": [
"e80199u"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I saw a similar question a few weeks ago, maybe the answers there (especially /NientedeNada) will be helpful to you.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8i5ci9/why_did_usa_give_japan_an_ultimatum_to_open_their/"
]
] | ||
4r8r54 | why do vegans avoid oils and healthy foods like avocados and nuts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r8r54/eli5_why_do_vegans_avoid_oils_and_healthy_foods/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4z49wq",
"d4z4bum",
"d4z4oky"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Not a vegan myself, but there is a huge overlap between modern day vegans and other diet-obsessed people. They may just avoid fat because they believe its also bad for you.\n\nIf you want to do \"the vegan plunge correctly\", I suggest going to a dietician (NOT nutritionist, that is an unofficial title) to ask what your options are and what they recommend, rather than trusting blogs, youtube and random people on reddit. A dietician has had a 3-4 year study and is (depending on where you live) qualified to measure blood sugar levels and whatnot, they will know what is the best path for your new diet choice.",
"I've never met a vegan who didn't eat avocados like all the time. Go to a vegan restaurant, avocados in everything.",
"There is no right path for vegan. Some vegans look down on people that aren't raw vegans, some vegans aren't really eating healthy...they just avoid eating any meat or animal products.\n\nThe best thing is to figure out why you want to go vegan, then figure out the best way to eat within those confines. If it's health reasons, it may be easier to go vegetarian as a stepping stone to get used to whatever \"full vegan\" path you're after."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
8i1g4d | what's the point in signing the credit card receipt after a purchase? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8i1g4d/eli5_whats_the_point_in_signing_the_credit_card/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyo5rn6",
"dyo5sqp",
"dyo5t5x"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In some places they do actually take your card and match the signature on the back to the signature you write on the receipt.\n\nIt also gives you a vehicle to dispute a charge you didn't make - if someone writes a completely different or obviously fake signature it can be proof that it wasn't you who signed it. \n\nSome places have moved away from that entirely by using Chip-and-PIN cards, but in the US it seems like we forgot about the \"and PIN\" part...",
"Its for verification if you report it as fraud. They can show your signiture as proof you were there and the one that used the card. \n\nMost of the rest of the world just put a pin on the credit card.",
"The vendor is meant to check that the signatures match. If you decide to draw like a kid then that's most likely why they do not bother acknowledging your mountains."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
enjo0h | how are the sequins on those reversible sequined pillows sewn? |
You know those sequined pillows where they're one color first, and then you rub the sequins the other way and it's another color? I couldn't help but wonder how factories manage to get all of those little sequins in an orderly fashion on the fabric for such a cheap price as to be found in Wal Marts everywhere.
Obviously, they're mass-produced, otherwise they'd be a hundred dollars and imperfectly spaced. I just can't think of a machine that can hold all those little discs of shiny plastic, pass through those holes without missing them and making an empty space, pass through the fabric back and forth, AND knot the work as it goes along to prevent mass unraveling. The only results I get on Google are about printing images on the sequins after the sequins are sewn. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enjo0h/eli5_how_are_the_sequins_on_those_reversible/ | {
"a_id": [
"fe0qv80",
"fe102j7",
"fe5ao1y",
"fe60wgf"
],
"score": [
297,
38,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I know you said you couldn't think of a machine that could do that, but fabric factory owners certainly can!\n\nIt is basically exactly as you'd expect: vast numbers of sequins pour into the machine, which has multiple sewing needles. Each needle is supplied with a specific colour of sequin, and a computer controls which needle fires at any point therefore deciding which colour is placed where.\n\nHere are a couple of short videos that will give you the rough idea: _URL_0_ and _URL_1_ (neither are particularly high quality, unfortunately)",
"Essentially, take a solid, two sided sheet of the sequin material - solid colour or printed patterns; then use a sewing machine like a serger that instead of cutting the material, it holepunches out a piece of sequin and sews it on in one motion, then moves on to the next spot. Repeat.",
"They make some that are a solid color on one side, but when you flip it over, its Nick Cage's face. Its delightful.",
"If you're trying to do one yourself it's really easy ( but a time consuming pain)\n\nJust put a sequin on where you want it, and dont stitch so tight. Give it some slack to roll over"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGSE3YE6n3Q",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd5kW0AAYTY"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
5aakgv | what exactly is the correlation between britain and england, and how are their governments structured? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5aakgv/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_correlation_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9f0s1m",
"d9f3yr1"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Britain- Island\n\nEngland- Country whose borders take up ~62% of the island mentioned above\n\nUnited Kingdom- Sovereign state made of the countries on the island of Britain, along with most of the islands that make up the archipelago that the island of Britain is a part of, several crown dependencies, and several commonwealth states. The government of the UK is a constitutional monarchy, although the commonwealth states have their own governments (Canada, Australia, etc)",
"England is on the island of Great Britain, along with Scotland and Wales. Great Britain together with Northern Ireland make up the UK.\n\n\"Britain\" is slightly ambiguous. Some people think that strictly speaking it means Great Britain only. But people do commonly use it to refer to the entire UK, including Northern Ireland, or even the UK plus all of its dependent territories.\n\nThe UK's structure is somewhat inconsistent. Back in the early 90s the entire thing was ruled directly by the UK parliament in London.\n\nScotland and Northern Ireland have always had their own separate legal systems, and some other institutions of their own, but back then the UK parliament made all those laws. England and Wales share a legal system.\n\nAt the end of the 90s, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland got their own governments. The details of how power is shared between them and the UK government differs in each case. The Welsh Assembly having considerably less power due to sharing a legal system with England.\n\nEngland does not have a government like that. England is ruled directly by the UK parliament. \n\nThis has the weird side effect that the other parts of the UK get a say on things that only affect England, but the reverse is not usually true. But since England has the vast majority of the UK population, not much has been done about this."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
62ibiv | ip addressing and isp's | My question is when you access the internet and you get a new IP frequently what information does the ISP have that allows them to know "Oh Address X is using this IP"
At first I thought it would be the MAC address of the modem that the ISP gave you to get address, but you can buy your own.
So, I guess to summerize, What information allows them to know Address X is using this IP, but Address Y is using another IP? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62ibiv/eli5_ip_addressing_and_isps/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfmsmpx",
"dfmx5bb"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You're still plugging the modem into the cable that goes to your ISP. That means they still see your MAC address. \n\nThey can also block all unknown MAC addresses until you call them, but most ISPs don't do that any more. ",
" > At first I thought it would be the MAC address of the modem that the ISP gave you to get address, but you can buy your own.\n\nEven when you buy your own modem, you have to call the ISP and have them bind the MAC address of your modem to your service account."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
f6uhck | when talking about web servers, what is a « cluster » ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f6uhck/eli5_when_talking_about_web_servers_what_is_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"fi71k0a",
"fi71vjs"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"A cluster is multiple computers that work as a unit.\n\nIf your traffic is too large for one computer to handle, you use some sort of load balancing scheme to distribute that traffic amongst multiple computers. A cluster also can act as a failsafe, if one computer goes down, the others stand ready to take on its load.",
"Clustered web hosting is when instead of having just one web server providing the service you have multiple physical machines sharing responsibility for the load. This both ensures your website can handle more requests at once and prevents services taking resources away from each other, but also makes sure that even if a computer goes down the website as a whole still stands strong. \n\nImagine you have 4 computers or nodes serving your website. There might be a fifth computer sitting in front acting as a load balancer: it will grab all the requests coming in, and try to evenly spread them across the 4 computers so that none of them get overloaded and the website can have more clients served at once."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
7wl1ha | Why did the Soviet Union organize its peoples into homogenous titular republics? | It seems like they would be easier to control if they were as scrambled as possible. For example, making a state half Latvian half Russian, or merging Kyrgyzstan with half of Kazakhstan. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7wl1ha/why_did_the_soviet_union_organize_its_peoples/ | {
"a_id": [
"du173xl"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Hi. Great question.\n\nI wrote an essay on this topic, so I think I can answer your question, hopefully it meets the standards. I will be using the nation of Georgia as an example of an incorporated nation-state, because it engendered a conflict between soviet leaders over how nations/republics should be treated within the USSR. The Georgian Affair, briefly, involved soviet higher-ups Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze calling in the red army to dispel political unrest over the level of autonomy that Georgia could expect to enjoy within the USSR. \n\nI think the underlying issue for your question was addressed directly by Lenin in a series of notes he dictated during Dec. 1922. titled ['The Question of Nationalities or \"Autonomisation.\"'](_URL_0_) The essays weren't published until after Lenin's death. The Question of Nationalities can be contextualised as a response to some of the problems involved in the creation of the USSR: i.e, your question, how should the state treat ethnicities and ethno-states.\n\nIn the essay, Lenin bemoaned that the current state 'apparatus' had too many hold-overs from Tsarism, and had merely been 'anointed' with 'soviet-oil,' quote:\n\n\"The apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been \"busy\" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine.\"\n\n\nLenin sees national minorities in the Soviet Union as 'oppressed' nations, as the USSR as the potential 'oppressor' nation. Referring to a political struggle called 'the Georgian affair,' Lenin writes: “in this case it is better to over-do rather than undergo the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities.” He sees this as a concession to past injustices/inequalities.\n\nThe Question of Nationalities, can be read as a warning against the organs of the Soviet Union falling into imperialist or ‘chauvinist’ attitudes towards national minorities. Lenin criticises Stalin and Ordzhonikidze as ‘Great-Russian’ bullies, and is wary of Dzerzhinsky’s ‘truly Russian frame of mind.’ His addition of ‘practical measures’ reveals the fear that the union of socialist republics will be weakened if the centre regresses into ‘imperialist’ behaviours, and that this attention to the Soviet ideals is more important than the processes of centralisation and incorporation of peripheral nations into the socialist sphere.\n\n\nIn short, the USSR was organised into 'titular republics', because of foundational ideologies of the USSR regarding national minorities. Many of these ideals, however, were eroded after Lenin's death and Stalin's rise to power. \n\n\n\nSources: \n\nSmith, Jeremy. \"The Georgian Affair of 1922. Policy Failure, Personality Clash or Power Struggle?.\" Europe-Asia Studies, 1998., 519,\n\nJones, Stephen. “The Establishment of Soviet Power in Transcaucasia: The Case of Georgia 1921-1928,” Soviet Studies 40 (Oct. 1988): 616-639.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm"
]
] | |
2ynev1 | i know pi doesn't = 4, but how can you explain this? | _URL_0_
Thanks for all the quick responses! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ynev1/eli5_i_know_pi_doesnt_4_but_how_can_you_explain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpb6afw",
"cpb6d2f",
"cpb720a"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The issue here has a similar principle to fractals. The thing to remember to spot the error is that a circle is *not* a polygon with a bunch of sides. As you get larger and larger numbers of sides, it will *appear* to become a continuous circle, but that is only because you are looking at it from farther out. In actuality, if you zoom in, every single corner is still a 90 degree angle. \n\nYou can imagine it like you were trying to walk a diagonal line, from say (0,0) to (10,10) if it were on a regular graph. If you walk the x direction and then the y direction, you will walk 20 total spaces. If you do half the x, then half the y, and repeat that, you still walk the 20 spaces. This will never change as you make more and more turns. It isn't until you walk straight down the diagonal that the Pythagorean theorem comes into play and you get a shorter distance.\n",
"The problem is, you are getting closer and closer to the area without ever getting closer to the perimeter of a circle. Even though a \"squared\" circle would look like a circle, the perimeter would not approach the perimeter of a true circle with d = 1. If you look at the 4th picture, you see that the squared circle is jagged. These \"jags\" account for the extra perimeter. There's a vihart video on youtube about this (look up \"squaring the circle\").",
"Imagine you had to walk along that line. Every time you stop and turn 90 degrees, you'll find you're walking a little bit more than the guy who's able to just walk along the real circle."
]
} | [] | [
"https://imgur.com/1v37hx9"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3nade0 | how did galileo observe that earth revolves around the sun? can an average person today convince themselves of that fact with some basic observations and math? | i.e. without any equipment that is super fancy. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nade0/eli5how_did_galileo_observe_that_earth_revolves/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvm9zg1",
"cvmakvx",
"cvmd7fl",
"cvmdniy",
"cvmf1v9",
"cvmgyoy"
],
"score": [
210,
17,
5,
2,
8,
16
],
"text": [
"He didn't. He observed that Jupiter's moons revolved around Jupiter. The previous position supported by the Church was that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that everything outside it revolved around us. The demonstration that, at least, the four moons he could observe did _not_ revolve around Earth was the final blow to that model. It had already been suggested, long before Galileo, that the planets went around the sun.",
"As to your second question: it depends how hard you are to convince. The fundamental problems is that epicycles (where you have planets on circles, with those circles orbiting on other circles, on other circles, etc.) can explain literally any orbit, if you have enough circles. ",
"suppose the planets revolve around the sun. Look at the trajectory that would result in the earth's sky. It matches observations and follows a rather simple mathematical concept.\n\nSupose its the earth at the center.Your going to want to kill yourself with the physics that could explain the receding and procedings of the planets.",
"hold up your thumb at arms length and look at it with one eye closed. Now look at it with your other eye. Note how your thumb will appear to jump. This is called parallax and was a primary argument for the geocentric model. If the earth did revolve around the sun then you would see a parallax from the stars. Unless they were super far away which was completely absurd to them. \n\nSo while Galileo did put a major nail in the coffin by observing that there are things that didn't revolve around us (heresy!) it is debated that the heliocentric model wasn't 100% proven until the early 1800s when a parallax was observed. \n\nYou technically shoe the parallax of distant stars given enough time and a big enough telescope but would take at least a half a year and a nice chunk of change in equipment to do",
"You can observe with the naked eye (granted that you chart it over an extended period of time) that Mars doesn't revolve around the Earth. Observed from the Earth, Mars sort of swings one way across the sky and then backtracks, which is due to its path being around the Sun and not the Earth. This is probably one of the more rudimentary proofs that the Earth isn't what everything else revolves around. ",
"I just taught this to one of my middle school classes. I am a physics guy and trying to teach them science as well as critical/scientific thinking so perfect timing.\n\nThere were many things GG saw in his self improved telescope that had never been observed and have been mentioned here. Jupiter's four Galilean moons was an observation and it did help, the idea that not everything orbited around the Earth. \n\nThe one that was the strongest evidence by far was the observation of the phases of Venus. Just like the moon Venus has phases. Unlike the moon we can never see a completely full Venus as it is obscured by the sun. Secondly, Venus changed in size dramatically in conjunction with the phase transitions. It was duly noted by GG in his drawing which you can see here. _URL_0_ If there were only a small change in the size of Venus then Venus might orbit the sun whilst the sun orbits the Earth. With the large apparent size change of Venus this cannot be, therefore sun at center. \n\nTo show this to the kids before I tell them what GG saw I give them a flashlight to represent the sun and two balls of equal size to fill in as the Earth and Venus. Then we dim the lights. They use the balls and flashlight to run through the two systems, Earth centered and sun centered, and observe. They realize Venus has phases and the size change. They draw their own pictures. The I tell them about GG and his observations and show them his drawing and theirs and his match. Great lesson and one you can easily do yourself. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fases_de_Venus_-_Galileo_Galilei.png"
]
] | |
1oafk2 | how does artists like banksy make a living? | Being unknown and apparently making illegal graffiti, how do artists such as Banksy earn money to live and even travel around the world constantly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oafk2/eli5_how_does_artists_like_banksy_make_a_living/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccq7tk3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know about \"artists like Banksy\", but he (she?) makes a lot of money selling original copies and prints of his work for huge sums, showcasing in galleries as most artists do, and selling several books of pictures of his work. Also I think he does some commissioned works for companies and events. \n\nDespite his reputation as a kid who just goes out, tags stuff entirely for social/political purposes, and runs off into the night, he actually monetizes his talent very well. He has an estimated net worth of $20 million. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3ztcog | how are presidential polls considered to be representative of public opinion when i've never met someone who has actually sat through a phone interview for one? | I've never been called for one, but even if I was I would probably think it was a prank or a telemarketer. So when I see poll statistics on TV and they say candidate "A" has 30% support, don't they REALLY mean candidate "A" has 30% support among the kind of people who answer polling calls? And doesn't that color the results? I feel like people who answer these phone calls are likely older, retired, or stay at home spouses. I would love to understand how this works. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ztcog/eli5_how_are_presidential_polls_considered_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyovd2p",
"cyowfdy",
"cyoxrhg",
"cyozkwx",
"cyozmbi",
"cyozti0",
"cyp0box",
"cyp14vh",
"cypouso"
],
"score": [
14,
72,
2,
7,
2,
3,
10,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Not sure how its done in US, but in Canada when they do poll they alway say somewhere on the bottom how many people they actually asked. And its usually no more than 2000 people. In city with population of 2.5 million what are the chances that somebody out of those 2000 is someone you know? And usually its older demographic who has that extra time to spend on their phones, or being stopped on the street.",
"Your typical professionally-conducted presidential poll talks to around 1000 people; in the presidential election season, there might be two dozen major polls conducted in a month for two years. That's roughly ~576,000 (=24 x 24 x 1000) people polled per presidential election, or about 1 person in 600. \n\nAnd by the way, I am one of those people. (I did a phone poll during the '12 election) ",
"Tl.Dr they aren't good because public opinion sways very quickly and it all is hard to tell until NH primary and Iowa caucus. Butttttt.\n\nThis is all about statistics. Long story short. Sample size is N in the function for the error that the sample represents the population. N is in the denominator (bottom). If the sample size is greater, then the bottom is larger so error approaches 0. 1/4 is smaller than 1/2. So even with a smaller percent of a population of USA. Say 30,000. That is still a huge number to divide a number by so error is small. Hope it helps. ",
"I took one of these once. The girl on the phone seemed really thrilled to get someone who would do it. I was with my husband when he got called, same thing. We're both big on participating in the system. \n\nIt was fun. People shouldn't dodge it. It was cool and I loved that my voice mattered. ",
"I feel as I can answer this question because I work for a research center. We conduct political surveys and some actually last around a year and a half so imagine all those people we call and they do actually take the public opinion survey. We're hired mostly by political campaigns or people associated with the candidates. ",
"Yea, I did a major survey once. I've also taken a few presidential polls of varying length. The major one took an hour or two. The presidential ones weren't that long. Anyway, the polls maybe call around 800-2500 people, so the chances you have met someone might be kinda small. Further, nobody has really ever asked me if I have taken any polls recently, so the assumption that you have never met anyone that has taken one could be wrong simply because you haven't asked everyone you've met if they have ever taken one. Such an error would be a bias in your own survey ;-)",
"You're right that there's a problem with only stay-at-home people being surveyed. Many younger people have no landline. \n\n_URL_0_",
"It's all in the demographic sampling. When you identify yourself as a male, Hispanic, college graduate between the age of 30-35 making between 75k-100k a year you represent that entire population. \n\nThrough statistics if they gather enough of your \"kind\" they can create a trend line that will predict who people like you will vote for. Compare that to the nation and you can begin to make generalizations about the entire nation once they get a large enough sample size. ",
"I have been polled a few times for presidential approval ratings and the like. \n\nWhat they do is collect demographic information about the person being polled so they get a statistical representation of the greater population (statistical sampling). Like, are you a registered voter, your age, race, sex, political party, etc. Sometimes they ask if there's someone aged 18-21 in the house and that sort of thing, if there isn't they thank you for your time and hang up.\n\nI find in a lot of political polls the choices are specific and not really open to nuance. Unless it's a \"push poll,\" done by special interest groups, in which case they try to make whatever they're for sound good and what they're against sound bad, but those aren't research so much as numbers to support propaganda. I had to tell those stupid NOW people I support gay marriage, they acted all shocked because, apparently, children."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470567/"
],
[],
[]
] | |
5jctz2 | how come various people from around the country contract meningitis without being in contact with each other? how come one contract meningitis out of nowhere? | Here in Italy we have a little meningitis outbreak but, of the 5-6 people who actually have the illness, only two of them were in contact with each other, the other are in town 200-300km from one another. How come one contract meningitis out of nowhere? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jctz2/eli5_how_come_various_people_from_around_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbf7jhu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Meningitis is not a disease, it's a set of symptoms. It can be caused by a whole bunch of different diseases, some viral, some bacterial, and some neither. There's no way of knowing where exactly it came from, but I doubt all five have it caused by the same thing, and I doubt that the incidents are related at all except for the two you mentioned. In the event that they are linked, it was probably a common source such as food or where they visited recently."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2wy5rz | how do we know that dolphins rape other dolphins? | Reddit continually likes to describe dolphins as rapey. I've heard it in many nature documentaries and the like too.
But how do we know that dolphins rape? A dolphin has no laws as such, and most likely do not have concepts or social constructs such as consent, age of consent etc. Couldn't it be that what we perceive or label as rape behavior amongst dolphins is in fact normal sexual behavior for them. Is it possible that this just some kind of anthropomorphistic assumption? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wy5rz/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_dolphins_rape_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"cov6nzo"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They behave in aggressive manners sometimes, but they don't even engage in the scientific animal form of \"rape\", which is called forced copulation. There may be isolated incidents of this occurring for all we know, but it's certainly not a common occurrence. \n\nEDIT: People don't seem to like this response, so I'll elaborate. Some animals engage in forced copulation as part of their mating process. Dolphins do not. Dolphins engage in sexual coercion, in which they jealously guard a mate, attacking other males when they come close. They also engage in sexual play, which can be violent or nonviolent but is usually \"consensual\". There have been cases of dolphins engaging in humping behaviors on humans, which appears to be similar to a dog's version of dry humping. There may be isolated cases of forced copulation, but it is not an inherent part of dolphin mating behavior."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2c8off | Several questions on Norman Knights | Hey guys, I have some Norman Ancestry, suffice to say I'm very, very interested in Norman military history. I have several questions, if you could answer them it would be greatly appreciated.
1. I do know that Rollo made a concerted effort to adopt a Frankish styled government, but how soon did the Danes adopt Knighthood (for a lack of a better word)? And who is the first documented Knight in Norman history?
2. Were the majority of Norman Knights of pure Scandinavian stock? Or were they of both Scandinavian and Gallo-Frank/Gallo-Roman ancestry? More importantly, would this actually be an issue when a young noble was Knighted?
3. Could you explain the training cycle for your average Knight? When did they begin their training, when were they typically Knighted, what tactics did they typically focus on? How capable were they on foot, compared to horse back?
4. Compared to other Knights of their day, how did they compare?
Thanks | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2c8off/several_questions_on_norman_knights/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjde8q4"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"1. Knighthood had not become a distinct institution at the time of the initial Norman settlement. Knighthood basically coalesced during the period of the 10th and early 11th centuries, simultaneous with the development of the duchy of Normandy.\n\n2. Not to my knowledge, no. After 150 or more years, the Norman aristocracy, besides being thoroughly culturally assimilated, was hopelessly interbred with the native population. Additionally, it should be noted that most aristocratic families of the 12th century, as illustrated by Duby's study of the Maconnais, could scarcely trace their ancestry more than a few generations.\n\n3. It's very difficult to say with certainty; what can be said is that the so-called classical method of training knights (a formal arrangement of a period of time spent as a page, followed by a period of time as a squire in service to a knight) only applied to the Late Middle Ages, if then. I can speak to the 12th century, but we really don't know as much as we would like about the earlier period of knighthood. An aristocrat might train his son, but if he were poor or undistinguished, and wished him to have a better martial education and to form better connections, he might be sent to the household of a greater lord, usually one whom the father was connected to by marriage, blood, or bond. This seems to have generally occurred around early adolescence - perhaps age twelve or thirteen. There he would have done arms training with the knights of the lord's household, learned to ride and hunt, the rituals of court and feast. Once in adulthood, he would continue to train, either with the knights of his lord's household, or, if he became landed, with the other knights of the neighborhood, who in war formed the smallest tactical unit (1-2 dozen) called a conroi.\n\n4. I don't subscribe to the view that Norman knights were innately better than those of other regions of the Frankish world. Where the Normans really stand out is the degree to which they exported military manpower abroad, and their propensity for expanding to fill any power vacuum. They produced copious numbers of younger sons with no prospect of inheritance, and unleashed them, armed and hungry for land or at least subsistence, on any region of the world in need of mercenaries. Norman mercenaries were brought into southern Italy in the mid-11th century and, before the century was through, had supplanted the local rulers and were reigning over half of the peninsula. Even before William's invasion of England, Normans had been brought over as mercenaries or military advisers, perhaps in an attempt to create a Saxon cavalry tradition."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
7gw292 | Does Pluto have a liquid nitrogen ocean under it's frozen nitrogen surface? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7gw292/does_pluto_have_a_liquid_nitrogen_ocean_under_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqm8maz",
"dqmnecr",
"dqn2a4i"
],
"score": [
32,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The reason we find liquid water oceans under the ice of certain worlds is because solid water ice is less dense than liquid water, and so ice can float over a water ocean and both maintain its pressure and insulate it to retain some heat. If there were somehow a liquid nitrogen ocean under Pluto's surface, the solid surface would sink below it, and the liquid nitrogen exposed to vacuum would either freeze or evaporate.",
"Not exactly, but Pluto does have cryovolcanoes that leak nitrogen, among other things. Cryovolcanoes are essentially geysers that eject compounds like methane, ammonia, water, and even nitrogen. Most of this matter is solid, so you wouldn't call it an ocean.",
"Nope! It's super.. odd.. but good ol' H2O works very differently than most known molecules. Ice (frozen water) is actually less dense than its liquid form due to the geometry of its frozen state. Everything else (that I know of) becomes more dense as it decreases in temperature, so the gaseous and liquid Nitrogen would be on top of the frozen Nitrogen, rather than under it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
9fnz29 | why do ups packages seem to take routes that are cover far more distance that what seems logical? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9fnz29/eli5_why_do_ups_packages_seem_to_take_routes_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5xxmni"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've always wondered this too because depending where I order from my packages end up occasionally going from somewhere on the east coast over to Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, etc. before making it back to Florida. Once in Florida they can sometimes go from Jacksonville to Miami before making it back up to me in Orlando. Seems like a lot of extra unnecessary travel, but they almost always get here on time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
37quax | if sound travels fastest through solids and slowest through gases, why does heat do the opposite? | Aren't they both just the vibration of molecules? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37quax/eli5_if_sound_travels_fastest_through_solids_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"crp1nu9",
"crp3xmd",
"crp40d5",
"crp7hox"
],
"score": [
27,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Heat transfer in a gas is primarily through the movement of the gas. As the gas gets stirred up the hot gas can move across its container very quickly.\n\nA hot solid can transfer heat very quickly in the same way. Heat a bucket of ball bearings up. Then through the bucket of bearings across the room. All the heat just moved across the room in a second.",
"What you may be experiencing with feeling heat through gas is that gas tends to move further from the point where it got hot. It can travel. Where as the solid just sits there. You also experience a lot of heat in the form of radiation (light) comming off of something. Gas lets this radiation head straight to you. Solids have to absorb it first and heat up before you feel it. ",
"Heat transfers through convection (moving particles), conduction (particles transferring heat to adjacent particles), and radiation (particles giving off light that is absorbed by other particles). Convection dominates in gas because the gas can move around while conduction is important for solids. ",
"Sound travels faster through solids because there is not much room between molecules, so it doesn't take as long to bump in to the next moluecule, and sound is just the result of molucules bumping in to each other and transfering the energy of the sound to the next molecule in a chain. No molecule is ultimately moved from where it started.\n\nHeat Travels slower because each molecule has to keep moving to be hot, so you it takes a long time for each molecule to get moving and stay moving and get the next molecule to keep moving with it. All the molecules are made to move and keep moving in order to be hot.\n\nThink of it like this: \n\nSound is a letter passed from person to person in a crowd, the closer the crowd, the less each person has to move to pass the letter from one side to the other (turning and passing the letter vs. turning and walking a few feet and then passing it over)\n\nHeat is like a person trying to move across that same field and get everyone dancing. The bigger the crowd, the more people you need to individually get with and motivate to dance.- it's a lot more work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3121xl | Is there any evidence that shows black holes could be pocket universes? | I've read a few descriptions of the event horizon around singularities as the line where space-time becomes so warped that there is no such thing as "the direction I came from" there is only forward and deeper. I've also read that the laws of physics break down in there and calculations run to infinity. Is it possible that since space-time is warped into a bubble around the singularity that there is an infinite amount of "space" within the horizon? A pocket universe bursting forth from an infinitesimally small singularity within a bubble of infinite time and space. As was our own. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3121xl/is_there_any_evidence_that_shows_black_holes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpxwsc1"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"No. Everything inside the horizon is falling towards the center quite rapidly. In fact, space and time essentially switch roles inside the horizon, so you can no more stop yourself from falling to the center than you can stop yourself from going forward in time as you are sitting at your computer.\n\nExperimentally, also no, as we can never see anything inside the event horizon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
d6hcw2 | Why did certain fringe elements within the black American community start to associate themselves with Hebrews/Judaism. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6hcw2/why_did_certain_fringe_elements_within_the_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0uh3la"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well, black slaves associated themselves with the Exodus narrative pretty early on, but if you're wondering about those groups that claim blacks are the real Jews (referred to as Black Hebrew Israelites on Wikipedia), the earliest explicit ones came in the 1880s and 1890s, the most prominent name among them being William Saunders Crowdy, a former slave from Maryland. His movement, like many of the others in the late 19th century, began with receiving a vision that told him that Jesus and the Biblical Israelites were black, and that those brought to the Americas in the Atlantic Slave Trade were descendants of the black Israelites. These teachings were appropriated by more black nationalist/separatist movements in the 1910 through the 1930s, when the Ethiopian Hebrew Congregations came into being. I made a YouTube video about it earlier this year. Here is a link to the footnoted script I used for the video. [_URL_2_](_URL_1_) Here is the video version of that if you are interested. [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/LeF1d3BONmo",
"https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f4zzTKf0Cc3p128csbyK0U2V-5ogUvDAH_Gtjx-63gk",
"https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f4zzTKf0Cc3p128csbyK0U2V-5ogUvDAH\\_Gtjx-63gk"
]
] | ||
9s1auu | if bedbugs are so difficult to kill and control how come they haven’t infested every building and home? | Bedbugs are the one thing that keep me up at night. I can go into a full sweat thinking about them and this was my latest thought. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9s1auu/eli5_if_bedbugs_are_so_difficult_to_kill_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8layc7",
"e8ld6uy",
"e8lypim",
"e8lyugv",
"e8mbit7",
"e8mda85",
"e8mlt28",
"e8nvfab"
],
"score": [
8,
44,
3,
9,
6,
5,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Many businesses and apartment buildings have routine pest control visit their buildings a few times a year and are usually able to keep on top of possible infestations.",
"Ex Rentokil technician here. \n\nBed bugs are difficult to get rid of. One of the most difficult pests I ever had to deal with, and the only one that gave me the creeps and had me worrying I’d take them home with me. \n\nThe issue with bed bugs is that they’re becoming immune to many of the pesticides available today. The one we use to use was not very nice and just the vapour would bring my skin out in rash after I’d sprayed a room down. \n\nSpraying in this manner can only really treat the floors and cracks and crevices. You can’t use it on the bed as obviously people have to sleep in them. \n\nFor clothes and beds we would heat them in a “room within a room” kind of setup for a few hours to kill them all and the eggs.\n\nThey will hide everywhere. Plug sockets, inside TVs, joints between furniture, etc etc. That’s the main issue with treating for them, you only have to miss a couple and the whole life cycle starts over again. \n\nThe other thing is they can go dormant for ages and then the vibrations from your feet and the carbon dioxide you breathe out wakes them up. \n\nAs for why they haven’t just infested every single house, well they’re a living organism and their goal isn’t to dominate the world it’s to survive. \nThey’re quite happy staying in one place for the most part because that’s where their food source goes to sleep, why make it hard on themselves? \n\nThey can and do move from room to room but the only way they can get to another building really is through luggage/clothes being moved or second hand furniture from an infested place.\n\nI’d recommend to always check your hotel room furniture and mattress before you put your bag down just to be safe, and thoroughly check any second hand furniture before buying too. ",
"They aren’t difficult to kill, just the pest prevention industry decided to lobby the government to ban the effective pest control. The substance they used to kill them isn’t illegal, it’s just illegal for them to use now, which they are happy with as a $100 treatment is now a $500 treatment. Farmers are still allowed to use the product. Countries that haven’t banned the product don’t have an issue with bed bugs. \n\nAs far as why they don’t infest everything, they don’t need to, they are happy with finding one food source which is you and they don’t need to go further away.",
"Like the above said. \n\nThey’re not small. They’re bigger than ants and easily visible to the naked eye. \n\nPull the sheets off and check the little folds around the edge of the mattress and any little crevices, also behind the headboard and the side tables. Especially in joints where wood meets wood.\n\nYou’ll either see live bugs or a load of little specks on the sheet or wood. That’s basically the excreted blood of their former hosts... ",
"I live in NYC and I got spooked when one of the ladies on my sales staff got infested.\n\n\nAfter seeing what she went through I got in touch with my insurance agent and he added coverage for a bed bug infestation to my existing policy. \n\n\nThe piece of mind is well worth the extra $30 a year. \n\n\nIf you're going to do it make sure it's thorough coverage. Most policies will only give you a few hundred dollars. ",
"Had the honour of sleeping in a bedbug infested room, pest control guy came weekly still took 2 months to finally stop them. Although the place I was at didnt really hurry with calling him, so it should have taken this long.\nAnd we were told to not move out of there, because then we would just spread it. (Happened before)\nI would honestly been OK with them, if I’ve not seen them all over me and my bed when I woke up at night. \nGood times.",
"Pure hatred. They can be eradicated if you're determined enough to give up everything to destroy them.\n\nAll it takes is an unquenchable smouldering spite that burns in your heart every moment of every day. Then you will find the will to achieve bedroom gentrification.\n\n...That, or exposure to a lingering cloud of pyrethrum. Shit. I'm getting hungry.",
"I lived in NYC for a few years and this quickly became a big concern of mine. There was a Victoria's Secret store on 5th Avenue that got infested and also a Hollister's, so people were being exposed to bed bugs by buying new clothes and simply visiting the stores. I'd read that some of the wood benches in the subway stations had been found to have bedbugs on them and that even brushing against someone on the subway (which is impossible to avoid) could be enough to take some home with you. Definitely not cool."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2fye7f | What is Islam's historical view of Jesus? | The standard view of Jesus (Yeshua of Nazareth) is that he claimed up-front to be the literal Son of God. By Islamic standards this is obviously horribly blasphemous, and yet Jesus is still regarded as a major prophet in Islam. How would a Muslim reconcile their faith's hardline divine unicity with a prophet who claimed to be a direct spawn/appendage of God? Or am I wrong about the general historical consensus view of Jesus, i.e. is it thought (by Muslims of anyone else) that Jesus of Nazareth did not in fact personally claim divinity, but rather the divinity of Jesus was strictly a formulation of his followers and later writers? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fye7f/what_is_islams_historical_view_of_jesus/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckez85k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"So the comments here are all talking about whether the historical Jesus claimed to be a descendant of God. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, the answer to that question is irrelevant. The question is, how did *Muslims* view this.\n\nVery simply, they (very explicitly) reject that Jesus ever ascribed divinity to himself. The 5th chapter of the Qur'an contains many passages about Jesus. Towards the end, it has these verses:\n\n*And [beware the Day] when God will say, \"O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides God?'\" He will say, \"Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship God, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.*\n\nThe Islamic viewpoint is that Jesus never claimed to be anything more than a prophet and that it was later generations who overvenerated him until he became divine. In fact, there's a hadith of Muhammad where he says \"‘Do not overpraise me as the Christians have overpraised the Son of Mary. For I am but His slave. So say ‘slave of God, and His messenger’.\" The point being that \"overpraise\" of the Christians is deifying Jesus.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2ixmx5 | When Byzantines and Arabs referred to Catholics as "Franks", were they generalizing or did they truly believe all Catholic Europeans were of a single language and culture? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ixmx5/when_byzantines_and_arabs_referred_to_catholics/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl6gmqq",
"cl6h5uz",
"cl6ierr"
],
"score": [
19,
36,
5
],
"text": [
"Piggy back question, did European Crusaders consider all Muslims and Middle Easters the same or did differentiate between Turks and Arabs. ",
"All those culture groups in the West at the time were Germanic, and Charlemagne had united France, and created the Holy Roman Empire, and conquered some remnants of Italy. After the death of Louis the Pious, these lands were divided by his sons in the Treaty of Verdun, so it was very easy for foreigners to still have no distinction between them long after Charlemagne's death, because they were the same Frankish rulers, but the rule did not last very long... By 888, the Carolingian Empire was on the verge of destruction, under constant attack from Vikings, and the now distinct seperation between their Germanic Eastern Francia, and Western Francia Kingdoms was more noticeable. Note that East Francia is an archaic term for the Kingdom of Germany, thus not helping to establish a difference between cultures. This being said, the educated of Byzantium most definitely knew the difference between the cultures during this time, and those who didn't, surely knew by 1000AD, as East Francia generally ceased to be a term after its fall from Frankish holding, in 962. However, the establishment of the Franks as a premier European power at these times generally leads to people just calling the entire area as they see it; a land filled with Franks, but as I said, the educated of these societies surely knew the difference of lands and specific cultures. Kind of the like modern term 'America'; when you say it we all know what you mean, but realistically, the term America can cover both continents.",
"Quick question about my purely speculative assumption: Does the term \"lingua franca\" not come from the fact that French was **the** language of the western European ruling class for a very long time?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4odcjl | is there any reason not to have a dash cam in the united states? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4odcjl/eli5_is_there_any_reason_not_to_have_a_dash_cam/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4bjrzm",
"d4bjs7a",
"d4bm27t"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, you have to buy it, you have to set it up, and you also have an impartial witness to YOUR behavior, as well as others.\n\nIf there are so many crappy drivers out there, logic suggests that if everyone had a dashcam, the bad drivers would be recording stuff that was their own fault. That doesn't benefit them.",
"the cost is all I can come up with. \n\nit could be used against you if you are at fault and someone see the camera. Not sure if you can be compelled to provide the footage.",
"I got pulled over once for speeding (90 in a 60) in a construction zone. It was Saturday morning and I was late for work, no other cars on the highway.\n\nThat is enough to get arrested for. \n\nThe cop asked if I had any recording equipment turned one, which I did not. \n\nHe gave me a ticket for 40 in a 30. \n\nI am willing to bet things would have been a lot worse and have followed the letter of the law if I was recording. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
176nyn | Rotational physics question | Hi there, askscience. A dumb question, but I'm the type of guy who will ask it anyway :)
First, here's a picture to demonstrate what I'm asking:
_URL_0_
Two circles fixed together at the centre of each circle. The first circle is larger than the second one. They rotate together. The red circles are marks, which are supposed to be at the exact same point on each circle, so you could draw a straight line between them.
Now to my actual question:
I know that if you rotate one circle, the other will rotate with it, and both red dots on the very outside edge of the circle will remain in the same positions, i.e. a line between each dot would not change. In essence, they would both revolve at the same rate (same RPM).
The red dot on the larger circle has to travel a further distance than the red dot on the smaller circle, in the same amount of time. In that way, I would say the red dot on the first circle is moving faster, or with a higher velocity than the second.
So, the outside edge of the large circle is moving faster than the small circle, and yet they stay 'in sync' and still rotate at the same speed. How does this work?
I feel that a fundamental lack of understanding of rotational physics has led me to ask this, so I apologise, and would appreciate any education on this.
Thanks.
| askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/176nyn/rotational_physics_question/ | {
"a_id": [
"c82p1dp",
"c82qnbm"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"the first and second disc will rotate at the same speed (equal radians per second). However the further you are from the center of the disc the dot needs to pass a longer distance in the same time, and therefor is moving faster. \n\nif you put a red dot on the first circle with an equal distance from center as the second dot, they will move at the same speed. ",
"We're talking about two different ways of expressing speed here. They have the same angular velocity, which basically describes the revolutions per time. It can be expressed as a function of linear (tangential) velocity, radius, and angle: _URL_0_ \n\nThe same goes for two points on the same disc with different distance from the center. One simply has more distance to cover in the same time so its tangential speed will be faster, but they are both covering the same amount of rotations per unit time. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/WFGSnfq"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity"
]
] | |
rqs2b | So I sliced my Ring Finger washing dishes... Why does my Middle Finger feel like it's sliced too? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rqs2b/so_i_sliced_my_ring_finger_washing_dishes_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"c47vsxy",
"c47xctp"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I did not slice my middle finger... :P",
"The ring finger and the middle finger are served by the same nerve, as Phage0070 pointed out to you. You've caused enough damage to the surrounding tissue to swamp the ends of the nerve with information."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
1bywl4 | What is quantum spin? Are there any "everyday" examples? | I was reading in a physics book (by Jim Al-Khalili, I believe) and it started talking about a property called quantum spin? I looked it up, and didn't really get any good info. So, Reddit, what is quantum spin? Are the particles actually spinning? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1bywl4/what_is_quantum_spin_are_there_any_everyday/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9bfdkk",
"c9bixoj"
],
"score": [
39,
2
],
"text": [
"Ordinary objects, when they are rotating, have a property called *angular momentum*. Angular momentum measures not just the rate at which something is spinning, but also how big the arc is through which it is rotating. Thus, when an ice skater is spinning and pulls his/her arms inwards and starts spinning faster, this is an example of conservation of angular momentum: the ice skater's arms, pulled in, rotate through a smaller arc, and so have to spin faster to maintain the same angular momentum.\n\nAt the quantum level, it turns out, objects can have some angular momentum that they get not by spinning, but just by existing. This intrinsic angular momentum is called *spin*. When you compute the total angular momentum of something, you need to include the spin as well as the contribution from the combination of position and velocity.\n\nInteresting fact: Combining quantum mechanics and relativity predicts the existence of spin.\n\nYou asked about an everyday example. The magnetic effects of ordinary bar magnets are a consequence of spin.",
"[For a visual representation](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://0.tqn.com/d/physics/1/0/6/2/-/-/06f_SpinFamily.jpg"
]
] | |
dtfff2 | why do some room temperature food items taste cold? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dtfff2/eli5_why_do_some_room_temperature_food_items/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6w8g9l",
"f6wbic2"
],
"score": [
17,
2
],
"text": [
"Your body feels temperature by heat loss, it doesn't really know the temperature number per se. That's why a wooden table feels hotter than a metal one, they are both at the same room temperature but you lose more heat by touching the metal one, so your body thinks it's colder",
"All items setting out are essentially the same temperature. What makes one item seem colder is its ability to transfer hear. An item that easily transfers heat seems and feels colder because it is rapidly transferring heat from your mouth and tongue. Similarly you get the same experience walking on a tile floor vs. carpeted floor. Tile transfers heat quickly hence it takes heat away from you feet leaving them feel cold"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
22eunv | how much repulsive force can two or more magnets produce? | I'd like to know if magnets on their own or using some combo can produce repulsive force of order like 1000N or so?
What factors hamper such things, like area, material etc? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22eunv/eli5_how_much_repulsive_force_can_two_or_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgm4jbf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It comes down to their strength, size, shape, and distance between them.\n\nHere is a calculator from a site that sells neodymium magnets, some of the strongest you can find\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nThe strongest I found was around 3000N between two magnets"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp"
]
] | |
2watkd | how is there more virtual money in the world than real money? | I have tried to understand this so many times but I just can't get my head around it. At what point did this occur?
If 10 people entrust £10 each to a bank, and the bank holds there money and invests it elsewhere, there is still the same amount of money. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2watkd/eli5how_is_there_more_virtual_money_in_the_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"cop3umb",
"cop3un9",
"cop4x3r"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"~~Check out fractional reserve.~~ Banks are only required to hold a certain percentage of their claimed balances in real money. They create money by lending out more than they ~~actually have,~~ would be able to distribute in case of a run on the bank and get even more in return as interest. Consumer banks \"print\" far more money than central banks do by lending out money that doesn't actually exist. ",
" > If 10 people entrust £10 each to a bank, and the bank holds there money and invests it elsewhere, there is still the same amount of money.\n\nNo, that isn't true.\n\nSuppose the bank lends £100 to some other guy. That guy receives £100, of course. But the original 10 people still have £10 in their bank accounts. So the total amount of money is now £200.",
"First we have:\n\n > 10 people with £10 each. Total £100\n\nIf 10 people give the bank £10 :\n\n > 10 People with an IOU of £10 each\n\n > Bank with £100\n\n > Total : £100 + IOU of £100\n\nIf the bank loans out £50 to a person, expecting £60 later.\n\n > 10 People with an IOU of £10 each\n\n > 1 Person with £50\n\n > Bank with £50 + IOU of £60\n\n > Total : £100 + IOU of £160\n\nThe £160 being virtual, as he money doesn't exist it is merely a record of an IOU.\n\nIf all 10 people tried to withdraw, then the central bank could loan newly printed money to the bank.\n\n > 10 People with £10 each\n\n > 1 Person with £50\n\n > Bank with £50 + IOU of £60\n\n > Central bank with IOU of £100\n\n > Total : £150 + IOU of £160\n\nFinally, the person who borrowed £50 gets payed by some of the people £60 to pay the debt.\n\n > 4 People with £10 each\n\n > Bank with £110\n\n > Central bank with IOU of £100\n\n > Total : £150 + IOU of £160\n\nThe central bank doesn't want to load too much, or the currency will be devalued too quickly and enter hyper inflation as everyone dumps their worthless Pounds.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3t5t7n | why is it so easy to take in 10k refugees and house them rather than house homeless veterans? (in america) | I know this question may sound political but when I recently saw this, I thought it was a no brainer (meaning to house veterans rather than refugess).
Therefore, I'm assuming theres more to the story than just the simplistic *refugee vs. homeless veteran* narrative. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t5t7n/eli5_why_is_it_so_easy_to_take_in_10k_refugees/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx3bgyf",
"cx3ch4m",
"cx3e11d",
"cx3e2k3",
"cx3eab7",
"cx3eafs",
"cx3f19j",
"cx3fpne",
"cx3fvag",
"cx3fzi4",
"cx3g5o8",
"cx3gkav",
"cx3gq7u",
"cx3hc30",
"cx3hvps",
"cx3i9vv",
"cx3iy2g",
"cx3j911",
"cx3k6q3",
"cx3kjh6",
"cx3l5ed",
"cx3lcwp",
"cx3m8s0",
"cx3n915",
"cx3ni5i",
"cx3njv4",
"cx3q707",
"cx3t33f",
"cx3tyy7",
"cx3uy2n",
"cx3v2ok",
"cx3wfkf",
"cx3x0s4",
"cx3x0vc",
"cx3xnzi",
"cx3xui4",
"cx3y43v",
"cx3y7um",
"cx3z3qm",
"cx3zis0",
"cx3zl0k",
"cx40evb",
"cx40vab",
"cx40vmn",
"cx40y6n",
"cx412pa",
"cx42eqd",
"cx42pjd",
"cx42ssd",
"cx42ytt",
"cx433r8",
"cx43v2l",
"cx4405e",
"cx445lp",
"cx44aco",
"cx44fpb",
"cx44qv7",
"cx44zpl",
"cx454rp",
"cx45b58",
"cx45c21",
"cx45jjx",
"cx45v0n",
"cx46q1m",
"cx46ru8",
"cx4947d",
"cx498wc",
"cx4aaqd",
"cx4b121",
"cx4biol",
"cx4c7yi",
"cx4cqqc",
"cx4eag1",
"cx4edmz",
"cx4enes",
"cx4ezee",
"cx4ezmk",
"cx4fb73",
"cx4fcvz",
"cx4h3v7",
"cx4igjm",
"cx4u9zk",
"cx5ws3u"
],
"score": [
3561,
329,
844,
6,
4,
79,
15,
9,
3,
2,
19,
17,
7,
125,
2,
26,
3,
71,
2,
2,
2,
8,
8,
43,
15,
11,
5,
3,
2,
4,
4,
5,
4,
2,
4,
72,
2,
715,
6,
6,
5,
3,
14,
2,
5,
2,
7,
2,
2,
12,
2,
3,
2,
3,
6,
5,
2,
5,
5,
5,
3,
3,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
10,
3,
3,
6,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The state-funded resettlement agencies are going to assist them in finding housing and work for 90 days. If they have family, they'll be flown into the nearest resettlement center. After that, AFAIK, they receive no special treatment, but are free to get the same support from Health and Human Services that is already available to the homeless and others in need.\n\nThe fact that the US gov't gets to determine where they go might be a factor too. Homeless are not exactly proportionally spread out across the US, and cities/states can get a lot of flak for trying to move their homeless elsewhere, which wouldn't be an issue for the federal gov't. They can just drop refugees in smallish towns or less expensive cities that are prepared to take them.\n\nAlso a lot of long-term homeless, veterans or otherwise, are mentally ill. This may mean that they are unable/unwilling to ask for help, or that the shelters and such are unequipped to provide it.",
"One reason it is so difficult to find housing for homeless veterans is because of the high rate of mental issues and drug/alcohol addiction. \n\nThe State of Virginia recently announced that they'd effectively ended veteran homelessness in the state. But there are still a lot of homeless veterans, it's just that those veterans have refused help, or possibly can't be located/identified as homeless.",
"If homelessness could be solved by giving people homes we would have done it already.\n\nThe problem is that the homeless are homeless for a reason (and I am NOT saying they deserve it). If I took you today, took away your home, your money, everything you own and dropped you naked on the streets of Orlando within a year you would have a place, a job, and food in the fridge. The difference with the homeless is that there are generally significant addiction / mental health issues (or personality issues bordering on mental health) that prevent them from a) getting the help they need b) making good use of the help they get, and/or c) keeping/forming the kinds of relationships they need to maintain a job.\n\nIf we took all the homeless and put them in a house, and gave them an easy job, half of them would be back on the street within a few months.\n\nWhat the homeless need is a home, a job, AND serious psycological assistance together with social workers and support people. Even then it is going to be a craps shoot as to whether they can recover as our medical skill with mental health issues is very limited. But that is really the difference. It costs X to house, feed, and cloth someone, it costs 10 times X to also provide that person intense psycological, medical, and social intervention.\n\nAs one other side note... After some really horrible treatment we stopped forcing people to receive psychological treatements. That was a social policy decision that was 100% understandable and may or may not have been right.",
"For start, it's not exactly _easy_ to house 10k refugees.\n\nBut more importantly, most of the homeless in the USA (and most homeless veterans) are homeless due to mental and drug problems. It can be difficult to make them not homeless. The root cause is generally not that they don't have or can't afford a house, it's that they lack the ability to hold a job, can't manage to abide by legal rules often required to stay in shelters or rehousing projects, or have a tendency to break ties with and flee people trying to help them (due to, eg, untreated paranoia). It's a bad situation and more really ought to be done, but it probably _is_ rather more difficult than simply rehoming a bunch of refugees.",
"The real reason is that people only care about hot topics. Homeless people are old news and are always around.",
"A handful of things I'm not seeing others mention:\n\n* There are a lot of homeless veterans; estimates [of nearly 50,000](_URL_0_) are common\n* Homelessness is often a transient condition; e.g. there are people who are homeless during a transition (like being kicked out of an apartment but not having found a new one yet). This makes it harder to identify and help them.\n* Lack of political will to address the problem. Any debate about helping homeless people -- including homeless vets -- inevitably gets bogged down in politics centered around a cultural belief that people who are homeless somehow _deserve_ their plight. This is often masked/added to by fears about abuse of any sort of state-run human welfare program, as well as small-government politics that push back against any expansion of government services.\n\nOf course, at the end of it, we should do better by our veterans, and by homeless people in general. And doing it _still_ wouldn't prevent us from helping these 10,000 refugees. We can do both, we're a wealthy, inventive, and capable country.",
"Not answering your questions directly, but I do think it's ironic (read: infuriating) when the people who say \"what about veterans/homeless/hungry children???\" are generally the exact same people who rail against \"welfare\" & \"handouts\".",
"They're different challenges. \n\nTaking in entrepreneurial people and a workforce we lack is arguably a quick investment on the part of the U.S., not a charitable effort. \n\nOur economy is partly dependent on a group of farmers who are already past retirement age. They work such long hours, doing such tiring work that few of our citizens will consider the job, even if they had the knack and the calling. (It's not a desirable job for veterans, particularly not those who need to stay close to medical care in urban areas.)\n\nSyria has an abundance of experienced farm workers. \n\nI expect that we'll have small ethnic neighborhoods that become hotbeds of small business, it's how these things usually work. Many cities have neighborhoods like little Italy and Chinatown where a generation of immigrant neighbors helped each other start restaurants and laundromats and gas stations and schools and learn the language. They often gentrified very poor areas, and made them safe places for tourists and people coming in from suburban neighborhoods for a good meal and a nice night out. \n\n",
"Just as others have mentioned, homeless veterans (as well as other homeless individuals) are plagued with mental issues. This in turn makes homelessness somewhat of a \"choice\". So housing them doesn't really solve the homelessness problem. \n\nJust to explain what I mean by \"choice to become homeless\" imagine you're a person that's compliant with your medication and you are in government housing.... Now that's great but somehow with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia you wake up one day and decide to just not take your meds. This leads you to mania/depression/psychosis....Which in turn makes you end up on the street if you don't have a strong support system. So it's not really your choice to want to be homeless because you know that this situation is not good for you but because of your mental condition you end up making poor choices leading you to living on the streets.\n\nThere are programs and medications trying to solve this like social workers visiting your home or depot shots that are long acting that you get once a month. \n\nTldr; a very simplified explanation. Homes don't solve homelessness, mental issues often rear it's ugly head even if you're compliant with medication.",
"I don't know about the US, but over here the public housing tenants usually have rules and guidelines they need to follow. No drugs/clean drug tests, no parties, etc. The problem is that a lot of the homeless people are either drug addicts, mentally ill, or a mix of both. And most of the time unable to take care of themselves OR their homes.\n\nFrom what I've read, a lot (half) of the US veterans are drug dependent. And I'm guessing that the subset of those again, which make up the homeless veterans, have a MUCH higher concentration of hard drug addicts and mentally ill(severe PTSD, depression, schizophrenia, etc.) people. \n\n\nThis is only a lot of speculation from my side, and from the various papers and articles I've read on the topic. There could of course be a ton of other reasons, but when it comes to public housing and homelessness, drug abuse and mental illness is a HUGE factor. And it's very universal. \n\n",
"These are the kind of arguments ISIS is hoping for. They would love for us to treat these people poorly. It makes their argument for them and also will embitter and solidify hatred for the west in many refugees. It's 10k people in a country of 300 million. \n\nThis Australian reporter nails it. _URL_0_",
"There are already programs in place to house veterans. Programs that pay their rent or provide housing subsidies, programs to furnish the homes, programs for food/power, etc Theoretically, there should be no homeless veterans. The reality is that it is sometimes hard for a mentally ill/addicted person to adhere to basic behaviors that keep their home. Things like paying the rent with your subsidy money rather than spending it on other things or not creating disturbances in your apartment community, etc. The Obama administration hired thousands of social workers specifically to help address these issues when he went into office.\n\n My best friend was one of the social workers hired. It's a real, detailed and implemented initiative, not just lip service.\n_URL_0_\n\nMy contention is not that homelessness is not the main issue here, but having enough mental health beds and a overzealous commitment to community housing of the mentally ill when long term inpatient may make more sense for that individual. \n\nIn terms of refugees, it's always a bit of a crapshoot when you choose to help someone. Whether it's a friend who is struggling or supporting a charity. It's best to do it without expectation of return. \n\nStudies have shown that an influx of immigrants/refugees historically has had no negative impact on jobs as they create jobs/businesses to support the immigrant/refugee community.\n_URL_1_\n\nIt' a complicated issue.\n\n\n",
"I work with people with disabilities and many of them are veterans. Alot of these guys have mental illness of some form or another, many from their service, but the sad thing is some would be \"normal\" people if they had support sooner. I just had a guy who was medically discharged for being diagnosed bipolar. He lost his job, income and sense of self worth all at once and has been in and out of shelters for 10+ yrs where he got into drugs and alcohol. He waited for 2 yrs for the VA to see him and he said he stopped going after a few visits because he didn't see the point. He's been to jail and prison enough and is super jaded at this point that he doesn't seek help from anyone. \nVeterans not getting the care they need is a massive problem in our country, but one that's much more complicated than just giving them resources, jobs and support. The issue is so complicated and so many people think they have a simple answer, when they have no idea that the window to help alot of these guys closes long before they issues even addressed.",
"For fucks sake, why does it have to be one or the other? Refugees and homeless people are both groups of people who are in need of our help. I understand that resources are spread thin, and the growing wealth gap means that more people than ever need more help than ever, but when you have normal families who are putting their children, who don't know how to swim, on fucking rafts, the alternative for them back at home must be terrible. At least the homeless people in the United States don't have a militia that literally wants to murder their families. This doesn't mean that I don't care about the homeless population, especially homeless veterans and the mentally ill. Instead of this thread reading like the comments section on Fox news, I wish people were talking about ways to actually help both of these groups. For example, I know I can donate time/money/food to food banks/shelters/refugee relocation organizations, but how can I help the mentally ill homeless population? Reddit should have a community service day where people actually do stuff rather than just talk about doing stuff on the internet. Anyways, I seem to be getting carried away.... Let the dowvotes rain.",
"Our government (or really, just about any very large, heavily scrutinized organization) isn't flexible enough to adjust resource allocation like this. \n\nThe Departments of State and HHS have authority to deal with refugees and budget authority at their disposal specifically for this task. Those agencies have no authority to decide to re-allocate their funds or staff to deal with homeless veterans. It would probably require legislative action, which is a non-starter given partisan gridlock.",
"A lot of misinformation and assumptions in this thread. People frequently assume that homeless people in the U.S. are homeless because of mental health or drug problems, but this is just not the case. In fact, only 16-20% of people who are homeless suffer from a mental illness, and that includes people who developed a mental illness while living the hard life on the streets ([1](_URL_2_), [2](_URL_0_)). Compare that to the figure they give of 6% in the non-homeless population, which is at any given time; the rate of having any diagnosable mental illness in one's lifetime is much higher. While mental illness and addiction are certainly negative forces that either contribute to someone slipping into homelessness or continue to interfere with people finding and staying in a home, they are just a couple of many other factors. Let alone that homeless people aren't just individuals, but children and families as well.\n\nI was personally involved in a research study looking at risk of death in the homeless population, and I did a documentary project about Dignity Village, an encampment outside of Portland, Oregon. In the research project, neither I nor anyone else on my particular team interviewed anyone who had an obvious mental illness. Many people with mental illnesses can appear normal, but my point is, that the homeless person ranting and raving to themselves is not the norm. We tend to be be biased by the [availability heuristic](_URL_1_) and the experiences we have of seriously ill homeless people may bias our opinions about the population in general.\n\nIn the documentary project, most of the people I interviewed became homeless due to medical expenses. I couldn't find a link, but I heard a story on NPR about how a large percentage of Americans couldn't scrape together $5,000 if they really needed it, not borrowing from friends/family, working another job, selling assets, etc. In other words, there are many hardworking people who are just $5-10k away from losing their home. It's not so hard for an injury, legal expense, etc. to hit $5,000+.\n\nIn answer to OPs question, I think part of it is due to the stigma of homelessness, which we can observe in this thread. Mental illness and drug addictions are seen as deficiencies in the individual. In some way, it assumes homelessness is someone's fault, rather than a collective failure on our part. It's not even about guilt though. Homelessness costs us all, in government services, and lost productivity of what people could have done.",
"The real question is why should the West be forced to take in millions of Muslim refugees when the rich Gulf Arab states refuse to take in any?\n\n\n\n",
"What I don't understand is why we can fly in and house 10K random refugees but can't let the translators from Iraq and Afghanistan who actively helped and supported our operations there into the country.",
"Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't most homeless veterans ended up on the streets after losing the homes they had? \n\nIn many cases these are people that are on the streets through choice AND circumstance. Most of them had homes at one time, but due to any number of issues affecting veterans (PTSD, alcoholism, depression, lack of funds, lack of jobs, etc.), they could not maintain or pay their rent/mortgage.",
"Because in this country there has been an overwhelming sense of white guilt for fucking up a shitty place that was shitty before we got there and will continue to be shitty until somebody does what it takes to end it ",
"Let's be realistic though 10k refugees is hardly a large amount. \n\nThe average city in america has 20k people. Out of all the cities this is the average. \n\nIf anything we aren't doing enough for both refugees and veterans. Me being the latter is considered successful for a veteran and I'm barely above McDonald's fry cook. ",
"Refugees (at least the ones fleeing Daesh/ISIS) generally aren't actually all that poor. They just don't want to go back and get shot. They had to ditch a large number of their possessions to flee, but they have relatives, a community, etc. that they can also ask for support from. (Remember people complaining that the refugees had cell phones? They bought those cell phones in the days before terrorists were trying to kill/subjugate them.) The really poor in the area generally didn't have the resources to flee.\n\nThey may have less money at the time, but they have a large community to help support them and work skills and a work history that help out with the employment thing. \n\nA side note, giving housing to the homeless actually works. [Utah, not a place associated with liberals, is doing this.](_URL_0_) It's cheaper than providing other support services and it actually works.",
"10000??\n\nHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA\n\nSincerely,\n\nSweden",
"Simplistically, it's not easy, and it's not easier. To the greater point, the current administration has made tremendous advances in housing homeless vets. I live in Houston, and as part of the Obama administration initiative we have effectively ended veteran homelessness in our city. We can't *force* anyone to come in off the streets, but any willing vet in Houston can be placed in housing virtually overnight. \n\nEntering the US as a refugee is the most difficult, most heavily screened/scrutinized method of entry. On average it takes approximately 3 years to obtain this status legally. Last year the US made it possible for refugee children at the US/Mexico border eligibile for refugee status, and a year later the number that we have fully processed is zero. \n\n Regarding terrorism, it would be much more expedient for someone to enter the US posing as a student, tourist, or businessperson. ",
"Vets (and other mentally ill people) don't all do well in housing. You can get vets housing and pay for it and many still end up on the streets. Refugees are generally working age people who can hold jobs. The governments also rarely *care* how a refugee is doing more than 2 or 3 years out.\n\nNew Orleans did [end homelessness](_URL_0_) \"functionally\", their biggest hurdle was figuring out where the homeless vets were and getting them to come in.",
"This is not a zero sum situation. We could easily do both. The fact that we don't is another matter.",
"A lot of veterans do not wish to live within rules or around other people who live in low-income housing. Often times due to this they are labeled as mentally ill. This compounds their refusal to deal with \"the system\" because they've known of other veterans who have lost their possession and freedom.\n",
"Homelessness is more than not having a house. It's a complex overlapping set of issues that lead people to be unable to hold down a conventional home and/or lifestyle. It usually isn't their fault that they've ended up in this situation, but there is more to their situation than not having a place to live.\n\nRefugees on the other hand often have no problems other than having been displaced by war or natural disasters. House them, and they are likely to establish normal mainstream lives quickly.\n\nFinally, I don't know why you are asking about veterans in particular. All of this applies equally to anyone who's homeless. Experiencing war as a combatant is only one of many forms of trauma that can lead a person to a place in life where they end up on the street.",
"Theres no reason why the causes of homelessness (substance abuse, lack of education, mental illness, disability) would be present in any great numbers among refugees. Actually my gut tells me that they are probably lower than the societal average. These people tend to get settled and moving forward with their lives pretty quickly.\n",
"I live in San Francisco. One of the problems with the homeless population is that many of them make a choice to stay homeless. In SF there are many shelter's and housing assistance programs for the homeless population that go unused. The reason being is that these facilities are drug, weapon and alcohol free. People who are serious about getting off the streets will use the services but much of the homeless population is either mentally ill or with substance abuse issues. It is very sad.",
"Because the Syrian refugees fit a political narrative. The homeless vets are a little more complicated because of the cases of mental illness and injury but it still could be done. The problem is that the vets can not be used as a political weapon against the apposing party. The narrative will be \"look at these awful republicans who don't want him to be safe (insert picture of a child).\" When you live in the world of identity politics anybody you can pose as a victim you do it. Also there seems to be a rush with this current administration to try and fix any problem except our own. The VA is a perfect example. Veterans died while on secret waiting lists and exactly 1 person lost their job. But that got brushed under the rug with the \"I have launched a full investigation.\" But a chance to bring a bunch of people we have no way of getting into this country that could possibly cause serious harm, let's do it. ",
"One answer that most people wouldn't think of is that the money used to pay for veterans' benefits and the money used to pay for services rendered to refugees are separate allotments of the federal budget. The department of veteran's affairs is funded under the defense department, while refugee services are funded by the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPs) appropriations subcommittee. Each of these programmatic accounts are beholden to spending limitations established by the previous fiscal year's continuing resolution or budget agreement. \n\nThe MRA account is much more lenient in its spending restrictions due to the inherent unpredictability of refugee needs. Therefore it is easier to reallocate resources in response to a crisis such as Syria. Veteran needs are very accurately tracked over years and even decades and almost every penny is already allocated in one way or another. \n\nThe federal funding for these programs is finite and the buck has to stop somewhere. Unfortunately it frequently stops on the doorstep of those who are least able to advocate for themselves; the homeless and the mentally ill. \n\nSource: working at a major international humanitarian aid organization involved in organizing funding for both these issues. ",
"Because many if not most homeless people, including veterans, are mentally troubled. Whether due to diseases like schizophrenia, PTSD or addiction they are for some reason unable to healthily function in normal society. We house tons of homeless but that won't solve their issue and they tend to end up back on the street. \n\nRefugees on the other hand are otherwise mentally and physically sound, give them an opportunity and most of them will be able to become self-sufficient after a short grace period.\n\nSimply put, it's a lot easier to house someone for 90 days than it is to heal someone with serious problems no matter how deserving they are.",
"We have an economic system that requires some percentage of the population to be unemployed and unpaid. They logic goes \"if people could live a good life without working, then nobody would work\".\n\nSo until something very deep down is changed, we will always have poverty and homeless.",
"Because homeless veterans aren't homeless because they came back from war and got lost on the way to finding a job and home.\n\nThey're homeless because they're mentally ill and/or drug addicted. Just like non-veteran homeless people are usually mentally ill and/or drug addicted.\n\nRefugees are not. They often actually have potential to become productive citizens.",
"I hate saying this, but after being in the military, current and former military members get no sympathy from me unless they were directly involved in combat. Keep in mind A LOT of us will never/have never seen real combat. \n\nIt's not perfect, but the military provides a hell of a lot more transition assistance that private companies that will simply fire you. There's terminal leave, mandatory classes you take before you are allowed to leave. You know well in advance (as in, years) the exact date you will stop getting pay and benefits. If you can't figure your shit out with these advantages, I'm sorry but that's on you. \n\n\nTHAT BEING SAID. The way we treat combat wounded/PTSD soldiers is ATROCIOUS. If Uncle Sam sends you to kill and you get injured that should get you lifetime medical support, whatever it takes to get you fully functional. Can't get fully functional? Well then that's uncle sam's responsibility too, for life. Too expensive? Stop going to fucking war. Take what you want. Pay for it. ",
"the veterans were written off by the government long before they came back from war. expendable fodder for the war machine",
"Hello, immigrant here (well, American citizen now).\n\nWhen we arrived to US, me, my sister, mother, father, 4 of us, right as we landed in DC in late 1990s, we were $2700 in debt to US government for our plane tickets. Our whole wealth included roughly $40 in cash, and whatever cloth we were allowed to bring.\n\nWe were placed in an apartment building in NW DC, our rent was $650 and paid for for the first 2 months by whatever agency/organization oversaw our immigration. We were enrolled in foodstamps program for 3 months, I don't recall how much, but I know we had to be careful and stretch it out (we ate a lot of hot dogs...fucking hot dogs, I hate hot dogs now). We had to start paying back the airplane tickets within 6 months as well.\n\nMe and my sister were both high-school aged, and you can't buy school supplies with food stamps, so that was kind of shitty, but we got some help from the school. Dad got a job as a dishwasher at a hotel within a month, mom followed soon as a housekeeper at a different place. Our plane tickets were paid off within a year, and the rest is history.\n\nUS government spent 3 months worth of food stamps on 4 of us, and that's all, not to mention the debt we had to pay to US government. We pretty much paid $2700 to have a privilege of being homeless in this country, and we were/are grateful. \n\nThis is why it's easier to take in 10K refugees than it is to house the homeless. There seems to be an illusion that immigrants are given massive wealth and money and support to come to the US. Sure the social services are available to us as well, as they are to anybody else, but that's just that, like anybody else, no special treatment, and that's wonderful in more ways than one.",
"Because nobody in this country gives a rat's ass about the working-class poor. Not even themselves.",
"The biggest issue with finding homeless people stable housing is not necessarily actually finding the housing. In many cases, there is often mental illness and/or substance use issues which present huge challenges for individuals who are seeking to live independently.",
"Why is it that I did not hear *anyone* expressing outrage at the deplorable state of need of our veterans until there was talk of bringing in refugees from the general area where the veterans fought? So, I guess there is a finite amount of caring for others we can manage after all, but unfortunately, not enough for both groups.",
"Why not house all homeless? \n\nVeterans are great- but people are people. Most homeless have mental issues. They should be in facilities but Reagan did away with that I believe ",
"The truth of the matter is this is a straw man argument. \n\nNo one that supports the refugees is going to say we shouldn't take care of the vets. In fact personally I think mental health care and rehabilitation needs to be skyrocketed for vets. Many people on this side of the fence are actively fighting for these causes. \n\n\nNow on the flip side, yes some people are going to say support vets and not the refugees. But really, are these people out I their communities advocating for human rights? Or is their idea of \"supporting the troops\" restricted to sending them to fight and letting PTSD and drug addiction destroy their lives when they return stateside",
"Seeing as there are an estimated 18.6 million vacant houses in the US I don't understand why there are any homeless people at all. Empty houses outnumber homeless people about 5 to 1. We could easily house them AND have room for refugees.",
"Politicians don't actually care about veterans, they just lie about it and milk the public's positive emotional response to stay/grow in power. What do most of them do themselves to help? NOTHING. \n\nThe only thing that gets \"done\" is mention it in speeches with everybody watching to gain falsified respect. When has a filthy rich politician ever spent a couple thousand of their own 100+ MILLION to help even one veteran? Never. ",
"Because to too many people that would look like socialism, which from what I understand about the US is scary and bad. But helping foreigners is good and happy because then the US doesn't look selfish.",
"Presumably because when you have 10k refugees queued up and asking you for housing, suddenly, you can task a department or committee with making it happen, give them a budget and a deadline and say \"get it done\". \n\nThe homeless veteran problem is more complicated, first because they're *already* homeless and therefore necessarily difficult to locate and get into contact with. Second, you have to contend with the challenges faced with housing a population that is already homeless, such as possible substance abuse, mental illness, criminal records that might disqualify them from certain housing arrangements and habituation to a homeless lifestyle (a fancy way of saying, they're either conditioned to accept homelessness and will be difficult to get off the street, or they're homeless by choice (or, \"choice\" in the case of the mentally ill). This is a problem that Gov. Macauliffe ran into with his ambitious (and largely successful) project to be the first state to eradicate veteran homelessness: some of them refuse to go inside. \n\nFinally, you have the question of who's to deal with the homeless vets. The DoD? The VA? HUD? Any of the other innumerable alphabet soup agencies dealing with veterans, homelessness, low income housing and every other damn thing. You'll have a bureaucratic pissing match between departments passing the buck (not their problem) and others fighting for a piece of the funding that comes with it. \n\nI could go on. \n\nBasically, it's easier for a government to come up with an ad hoc solution to something like a refugee crisis because it's pressing and there's not likely to be much of an argument over who has to deal with it. Housing an equivalent number of homeless veterans would likely present numerous challenges including the variety of issues endemic to dealing with *any* homeless population, the political football that is how we treat our veterans, and the challenges required of wrangling a bureaucracy in a constructive way and pointing it at the problem. ",
"Most refugees are ready to make a life and desire to do so. They are given really basic training to learn the language, etc. and helped to find work, provided housing and help with other social services, health care and living in our society. The process takes 6 - 18 months usually, and then they move on and become productive or unproductive members of society.\nVeterans have basically the same benefits, and more. They have opportunities for housing, healthcare, education & jobs. The issue, as we all know, is that whatever it is our veterans need, we've done a shit job providing them. If we're talking about homeless veterans, then the biggest issue is mental health. The VA, the gov't, has been reluctant to address mental health issues resulting from war in part because it's a relatively new idea. PTSD was something that the gov't, military and VA - started to CONSIDER after Vietnam, but none of those vets ever received treatment for it, because the higher ups at the time didn't all believe it was a real thing, or a big deal. There is a huge issue as well with general medical care provided to veterans, as we've all heard stories of veterans who have suffered due to long delays for treatment. I think the issue we face is that caring for veterans, is something a lot of people would like to keep \"our dirty little secret.\" Nobody wants to talk about the VA, and what veterans need. The commercials say Join the Army, Navy, Air Force and be super, and defend our country and be a hero. Nobody wants to mention the fact you might not die, but you might get really really jacked up - mentally or physically. Nobody wants to face this. I say, let's face it. Let's be real - war fucks people up - but for those who took the risk, for all of us, they deserve the best, and we should acknowledge their existence every day and know that they are being taken care of.",
"20-25% of homeless people, vets among them, have chronic mental illnesses. about 20% of homeless people have a felony while close to 60% of homeless men have a criminal record. Most of the homeless people have other issues that keep them homeless.",
"why can't it be both? Why are we saying we have to choose?",
"TIL we are getting 10k refugees?",
"The short answer is that it isn't hard to get housing for homeless veterans. The hard part is helping someone overcome the circumstances that led to homelessness in the first place. \"Someone blew up my home\" is a lot easier to fix than \"I struggle each day with crippling depression and PTSD.\"\n\nObviously, not every homeless veteran (or homeless anyone) has massive problems like that. But quite a few do. And some areas have made major strides in solving those problems. But most places don't see it as a priority.",
"Not saying that 10k refugees isn't much, but it isn't much. Even Norway have taken 20-30k last week, and we're tiny, low populated and really *ucking far north country. And that includes houses money and food for free for all accepted. So idon't exactly think the question is relevant.",
"It's trendier to go for the current top hashtags. People genuinely don't give two shits about veterans unless its near a memorial holiday, or John Oliver just mentioned them on his show, they have about a 5 day window on either side of that where they pop up on the news or reddit. After that no one gives a shit.",
"I'm a veteran and have to say for as much crap as the VA gets, there are services provided by the VA (and other agencies) to ensure that no veteran should ever be truly, on the streets homeless. \n\nThe issue as I understand it is that it is very difficult to advertise these services to the truly mentally Ill people who need them the most, much less find them, and more difficult still to convince them to take up the offer. ",
"I've only done work with homeless people once, so my point of view is obviously limited, and I'm also from Chile, not the US, but here it goes:\n\nAlmost all if not all of the homeless people I met, and have met, suffered from various degrees of mental illness. The ones I spoke to didn't even care for getting help, some had family but preferred the streets, etc.\n\nI'm not sure if homeless veterans are similar, but maybe they don't wanna be relocated. That seemed to be the most common gripe, they didn't wanna leave wherever they were, they had their reasons, and that was that.",
"Homeless vet ya say how about helping homeless people in general regardless of their armed service status?",
"This will probably get banned,but I don't care. I have no affiliation with the charity other than donating money,\n\nThere is a charity _URL_0_ that I give to every year. I usually give them $ 5K(in 2012 I gave them$8k). They don't preach to the homeless or force them in to rehab from the first day.\n\nFirst thing they do is house the people,then they start working on the underlying issues that caused the homelessness. \n\nI first was made aware of this program through a local news story that,eventually,led to a 60 minutes piece that was filmed in my hometown,Nashville.\n\nI am begging the mods or other redditors to not report this post in hopes that a few people will help their cause. No amount is too small.",
"It's ironic that the vets/current military personnel are responsible for the flood of refugees in the first place, but then the refugees will be taken better care of than the vets. ",
"Look...I've served for over 12 years now and have seen great and terrible people come in and leave.\n\nThe idea that homeless vets are somehow a special class is a really lazy generalization. Just like anybody else, if they made good decisions they're probably not going to be living on the street. If they made bad ones, be it financial or disciplinary, they may be struggling now. Odds are...they were a shitbag in the military and they're being denied VA befits as a result. They may still be a vet but they're probably also not necessarily a good person.",
"A lot of these homeless vets (like most homeless people) are difficult to employ. And since we don't provide much in the way of welfare for single men in this country they end up homeless. Most of the Syrian refugees on the other hand are employable though the language barrier is something most of them will have to overcome.",
"There is much greater International pressure for the US to take in some immigrants when other industriazed nations are doing their parts. The UN would like the US to take even more refugees.\n\nVeterans are a domestic issue. Any increases in spending for Veterans program would need to be created by Congress. Our Republican run Congress is actually doing the opposite of that, trying to cut spending on Veteran benefits.\n\nCongress is already making a stink about the money that will be spent on Syrian refugees.\n\nThe irony is that the people complaining about refugees getting help and not Veterans by and large voted in the politicians who have tried so hard to cut benefits for combat Veterans. Veterans groups have been condemning The Republican led Congress vote after vote the last few years.\n\nIf you guys want better benefits for Veterans quit voting Republican. ",
"I suspect that it is because refugees do not have the types of problems that cause chronic homelessness such as mental health and addiction issues. Refugees are normal people holding taking care of themselves until they are forced to leave by violence. ",
"For one thing, it isn't true. I am a refugee caseworker. Even for people who assisted US forces in Iraq, resettlement takes years; to say nothing of random people who are fleeing. The US, given its size, the number of refugees, and resources available, takes in very few, even compared to countries in Europe, to say nothing of states in the ME.\n\nAs far as I know, once they are in the US there is really no guarantee of housing after the first 1-2 months.",
"It's an election year and there are much more pandering mileage in refugees than the VA. \nWhy? Vets already know the VA is a total administrative disaster and the politicians know real change takes time. Time to reform isn't sexy and it doesn't make for a powerful slogan or attack ad. Painting others as Racists or xenophobes is quick, painless, usually specious and utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. ",
"10k is nothing. Germany is much smaller (the size of Idaho) but has 90 million people, and are taking in many many times that much. ",
"I don't care logical reasons any of you put out there. It's all bullshit. Theres no fucking reason in this world that soldiers are good enough to defend their country but not good enough to get proper medical attention, medication, and a home. I'm honestly all for refugees coming to my country (America). Especially women and children. However, our soldiers deserve to be put first. And I believe it's truly a slap in the face to those soldiers. These brave men and women didn't start these wars. They don't necessarily even believe in the reasons that they're in war to begin with. But they bravely volunteer and get treated like shit when they get home. ",
"Simply putting homeless in homes won't solve the homeless issue. You have to remember that most homeless also have mental illnesses that prevent them from getting employment. Or even caring about upkeep of the house and the neighborhood or themselves. ",
"Why not house everyone? \n\nOh right cause there's some part of being assholes we still find intriguing.",
"I'm not even sure why you felt the need to add \"veteran\" to homeless\n\nIsn't \"why can we house refugees but we can house the homeless?\" An interesting enough question?\n\nAs if only homeless VETERANS matter?\n\nI don't like giving special treatment for profession. ",
"You get more karma from helping refugees since they are trendy right now. Homeless veterans are not cool.",
"It's not that taking in refugees is easy but rather housing the vets is difficult. Most often, these vets suffer from disorders that are root cause of why they are homeless in the first place. Be it drug addiction or mental health (PTSD, schizophrenia, etc). Helping this population then becomes extraordinarily difficult and is not an issue that money alone can solve. ",
"What does being a veteran have to do with it?\nAren't most homeless people in need of housing?\n\nThe point you're trying to prove with your question is biased in itself.",
"If they join our military, they, too, will come out neglected with PTSD and have a high chance of becoming homeless. ",
"It's 10,000 refugees. That's nothing.\n\nThere are a minimum of 60,000 homeless people just in NYC. And that's the minimum, taken as a census in CITY shelters(not including privately run shelters or people actually on the street) during the summer months. I wouldn't be surprised if you told me the actual population was 3x that.\n\nIt's easy because 10k people is a drop in the bucket. The population of homeless veterans far outstrips that. Not saying we shouldn't do something about that too. It's not a zero sum game. It's easier with 10k because we both know where they are and it's a hot button issue.",
"I just want to point out that \"refugees or homeless\" is a false dichotomy that anti-immigration / xenophobic entities are using to appeal to emotion in people who normally wouldn't be anti-immigrant or xenophobes. This has been going on for some time in Europe among extreme nationalistic parties and recently also popped up among my American Facebook friends feeds. ",
"I believe it's because the refugees weren't responsible for the situation they are in. The veterans on the other side (all the ones after Vietnam) voluntary enlisted and are therefore responsible for their own situation. ",
"Beyond the logistical and policy aspects, it's because liberal authoritarians that impose their wishes upon others have a mental disorder that causes then to be concerned with everything and everyone else but their own due to a self-loathing complex. It's, ironically, very much narcissistic, i.e., \"see what a good person **I** am because **I** did XYZ because **I** see **myself** as a progressive, which **I** have been trained to believe is of the highest order and shows how much better **I** am\". \n\nAlthough these people may do things with a claim of being out of the goodness of their heart, it's really primarily about making themselves feel better about themselves due to a self-esteem deficiency. It's primarily a manifestation of a rift or shallow parental relationships and the social fabric they exist in. It's very much related to other compulsive behaviors like in situations where parents neglect their kids but are very involved in all other things and people's lives, or even hoarding pets or things. In both cases there is a compulsion to do something so, in their mind, they will be perceived as great, something they have no capacity to generate themselves due to the aforementioned low-self-esteem and to fill that void, but which makes them ignore real priorities around them. It's really pretty classic narcissism. It's the same reason that people are obsessed with the welfare of pets in general or their pet specifically, yet ignore larger issues around them. ",
"The #1 reason homeless people are homeless is because they have bad problems. Whether it's drug abuse, alcoholism, or mental illness... so they really can't take care of themselves.\n\nRefugees, on the other hand, are regular people who are just on the run.",
"We haven't actually taken in 10,000. Only 2,000 so far. 10,000 is a plan over multiple years. By comparison there are 500,000 homeless veterans and like 100,000 are helped by the VA in a given year. So its obviously the numbers. Your question really isn't worded very fairly.",
"Mental illness, many homeless people suffer from it, not just the veterans. Often they are not able to maintain a home or a job even with adequate support. \n\nRefugees on the other hand may be highly motivated to make a new start.",
"In a nutshell, because a large portion of homeless people (both vet and non-vet) have mental health and/or substance abuse issues that end up undermining efforts to help them. Refugees generally don't have those issues.",
"personally i think anyone who has served their country should have the option of free housing for life. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://nchv.org/index.php/news/media/background_and_statistics/#faq"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/walked-aly-hits-out-at-isis-over-paris-attacks-calls-them-weak/news-story/e884afd6dd7781d6f7a105b321ca5d2d"
],
[
"h... | |
1e8ehz | How did the long wars of the Medieval period last as long as they did? | I know that, for example, the 100 Years War was a series of conflicts, but still.
How do kingdoms with fairly rudimentary economies continue to raise and supply armies in the field for a century? At one point a good chunk of France including Paris is under foreign control and they're still raising armies to fight the English.
Obviously they were pushing their finances to the limits and on the brink of ruin at any given time, but I still can't quite wrap my head around it, both from the financial aspect and morale aspect (of both the nobility and peasantry).
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e8ehz/how_did_the_long_wars_of_the_medieval_period_last/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9xub1w"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > How do kingdoms with fairly rudimentary economies continue to raise and supply armies in the field for a century?\n\nIn short, they didn't. With the exception of the crusades, medieval wars were relatively short campaigns, decided after one or two years of fighting. The crusades are a different story. The participants went voluntarily and paid for themselves most often. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5m9ogd | Why wasn't Isaac Newton persecuted by the church after he wrote the Principia, like Galileo was | Was it because the Anglican church was more favorable to science than the Catholic Church, or were there other factors involved? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5m9ogd/why_wasnt_isaac_newton_persecuted_by_the_church/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc21t4n",
"dc22zmq"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"At the time the *Principia* was published, British intellectual culture was reasonably tolerant of some degree of religious dissent. The 1689 Toleration Act (two years after the first edition of the Principia was published) legalised most nonconformist religious practices. Even within the Anglican Church, heterodox doctrines were being discussed relatively openly. Anglican ministers like Samuel Clarke (a close friend of Newton) were openly challenging the Thirty-Nine Articles (the core doctrines of the Church), often in their attempt to integrate Newtonian natural philosophy into the discipline.\n\nAt the same time, Newton went to great lengths to protect himself from persecution. When Wiliam Whiston - one of Newton's closest friends, and his successor at Cambridge - started associating Newtonianism with his own heretical form of Christianity, Newton publicly denounced him. He contrived to get Whiston excluded from the Royal Society, and criticised his work in Parliament. \n\nUnlike Galileo, Newton was very happy to keep quiet to win the support of the Establishment. Where he knew his views would be controversial, Newton deliberately phrased them tentatively. And he withdrew one of his more controversial writings from publication (Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture) at the last minute, likely because of a fear of persecution.",
"For one, keep in mind that Galileo's persecution was not solely caused by his scientific work; it was a lot more personal and political. However, for the sake of the question, lets ignore that caveat and answer the question anyway.\n\nFirstly, in the case of Newton, the content of his scientific discoveries did not conflict with church doctrine. It was largely theoretical work which only served to vastly improve the understanding of already existing and uncontroversial ideas (gravity, nature of light, laws of motion, calculus), whereas Galileo was an experimental scientist whose discoveries were in direct conflict with the authority of the church (i.e. heliocentrism).\n\nSecondly, Newton's theory of gravity was actually immensely useful for religion because it proved the existence of God's continuous presence in the world. Think about it this way: if gravity is a force that is imparted to the center of objects, even when at a significant distance of each other and through a vacuum, then it cannot be the result of mechanical causes (i.e. touching and pushing of atoms). If it cannot be caused mechanically, there is no natural way of causing gravity. Therefore, it must be the direct action of God in nature, which keeps the universe in harmony instead of letting it reduce into chaos.\nThis theological side of Newton's work was taken up almost immediately after he published his Principia, and not to Newton's dislike. In fact, in correspondence between Newton and Richard Bentley, Newton is quite pleased to see his work being used for theology and is more than happy to help Bentley in forming his \"Newtonian Theology\".\n\nThirdly, religious climate in late-17th century Britain was definitely different from early-17th century Italy. There were quite a few controversial atheists and freethinkers in Britain, and though they certainly weren't well-liked, they didn't go as far as to prosecute them. There was much more tolerance to different religions and the church was a lot less powerful than in Italy.\n\nFourthly, Newton was less open about his deviations from doctrine. Whereas Galileo was very eager to argue for his dissenting views on religion, Newton kept his head down when it came to controversial opinions. For instance, Newton rejected the doctrine of the trinity, which would have raised a few eyebrows in England.\n\nSources:\nBrooke, John Hedley. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.\n\nBrooke, John Hedley. \"Religious Belief and the Content of the Sciences.\" Osiris 16 (2001): 3-28.\n\nGascoigne, John. “From Bentley to the Victorians: The Rise and Fall of British Newtonian Natural Theology.” Science in Context 2, no. 2 (1988): 219-256.\n\nGillespie, Neal C. \"Natural History, Natural Theology, and Social Order: John Ray and the 'Newtonian Ideology'.” Journal of the History of Biology 20, no. 1 (1987): 1-49.\n\nHenry, John. “’Pray do not Ascribe that Notion to Me’: God and Newton's Gravity.” In The Books of Nature and Scripture, edited by James E. Force and Richord H. Popkin, 123-47. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.\n\nJacob, Margareth. The Newtonians and the English Revolution 1689-1720. Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1976."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1ahys0 | I just saw War Horse. To what extent were horses used in WW1? | Also what are the odds of a horse surviving the war. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ahys0/i_just_saw_war_horse_to_what_extent_were_horses/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8xlz68",
"c8xmvj3"
],
"score": [
33,
5
],
"text": [
"Extensively. None of the belligerants were heavily motorised and all relied on horses to haul artillery, ammunition, food, wounded and every other manner material required to fight the war.\n\nCombat wise, the use of war horses on the Western Front fizzled out when trench warfare set in. Offensives were still planned with cavalry in mind to exploit breakthroughs but none of these eventuated until 1917/1918. The Estaern Front isn't my area of expertise but from what I know, the war was much more fluid so I imagine cavalry would have played a larger part than it did in the west.\n\nIn the Middle East, horses played a huge part. The Australian Lighthorse played a major part in defeating the Ottoman Empire which also used cavalry. You may have heard of the Charge of Beersheba, one of the last major cavalry charges in history. While lighthorsemen weren't intended to fight from horseback, it happened on occasion.\n\nAs for survival rates, it depends what the horse was used for. Cavalry horses had a better chance of survival than those used for moving material. Shell fire, machine gun fire, aerial bombing, malnutrition, overwork was a major killer of horses. Many more that survived were euthanised by the veterinary corps. I was reading a book recently that had figures for the number of horses killed during the war, I'll try and find it but don't hold your breath *Desert Boys* by Peter Rees detailed the final moments the men of the Australian Lighthorse had with their mounts before they were led away and shot by the vets, I'm not ashamed to say I cried like a baby while reading it. Many soldiers said that this was a preferable fate for their horses who would have instead been sold to local Arabs and possibly/probably mistreated. An interesting tidbit, of all the horses sent overseas for the Australian Army, only one returned, the horse belonging to General William Bridges, commander of Australian forces at Gallipoli, who was killed by a sniper. His horse was shipped back to Australia and drew his coffin at his funeral.",
"[Here](_URL_1_) are a couple of [links](_URL_0_) about contributions to the war in the form of horses. The first is a CBC story mostly about one horse in particular: a mare named Morning Glory, who was shipped from Quebec to France in 1915, outlived the Colonel who took her as his personal mount, and was returned to Canada in 1918 as a hero (which was extremely unusual).\n\nThe article states an estimate from a Department of Defense historian that Canada sent over 130,000 horses to Europe for use in the war, and that a quarter of them were killed every year.\n\nI can't personally vouch for the accuracy of the second site, but it claims that over a million horses and mules were being/had been used by the British and Commonwealth forces alone by the end of the war, with a quarter million dying on the Western Front. \n\nIt wasn't only the fighting that proved a risk to the horses. The second link I provided lists various hazards such as inadequate shelter, leading to death from exposure, overcrowding leading to disease, and a lack of provisions. I also remember an anecdote from a History class I took a few years ago (sorry, no formal source - can someone help me out?) that many horses never made it past the docks when they landed in Europe after their Transatlantic voyages. Horses that could not be brought under control within a few minutes - after weeks in close quarters at sea, and with huge crowds and the sound of weapons fire surrounding them - were just shot immediately, because it was thought it would take too much time and too many resources to make them battle-ready.\n\nFor a good (if terribly sad) sort of emotional resource on the literary side, I recommend the novel *The Wars* by Timothy Findley, which discusses the war in general, but also the relationships between the men and horses there.\n\nEdit: Corrected the honourable Mr. Findley's name. Thanks /u/ploughhorse!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/forgottenarmy.htm",
"http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/11/08/f-war-horse-harry-baker-langan.html"
]
] | |
36huao | Does a helium tank get heavier the emptier it gets? | I know that it would get progressively less massive, but would it weigh more on a standard scale as it got empty? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/36huao/does_a_helium_tank_get_heavier_the_emptier_it_gets/ | {
"a_id": [
"cre2vq8",
"cre4v2j"
],
"score": [
8,
13
],
"text": [
"If you mean empty by filling in atmospheric air, then yes, it's possible.\nBut! Actual mass is proportional to the particles inside, so if the pressure inside was significantly bigger that the 1 Atm pressure outside, it can actually be lighter when you let it out. \nWiki: \"Helium gas cylinders have the highest pressures possible when full, around 1000 atmospheres.\" \nSo He seems to be 4g/mol, air around 29g/mol, but in a tank you can have up to 1000 times more per volume.",
"Nah, as you pressurize the helium, it converts from a less dense gas into a more dense liquid. Helium liquid is not lighter than air, therefore it has weight to it. So a full helium tank would be heavier than an empty helium tank.\n\nNow a partially filled tank, one that has gaseous helium in it but no liquid, technically would be lighter, but we are splitting hairs at this point :D"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
2wf2p1 | Are there any cases of organisms evolving from land dwelling into water dwelling? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2wf2p1/are_there_any_cases_of_organisms_evolving_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"coqjkk4",
"coqle1n"
],
"score": [
14,
5
],
"text": [
"Cetaceans: whales, dolphins, and porpoises.",
"Plants evolved on land. Any true plant that lives in the water evolved this secondarily. The same is true of insects. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
53bhk1 | Brandenburg was completely ravaged during the 30 Years War, but came out of it with a big army and their claims on Prussia and Pomerania honoured. How did this happen? | From what I know Brandenburg is an unfertile stretch of land with no natural barriers. During the war their land was plundered by Swedes, Imperials and other Germans. But then the Great Elector comes along and suddenly they have 20.000 fighting men and are a prized ally, which results in their claims being honoured and even having Poland give away sovereignty over East-Prussia.
What caused this turn-around? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/53bhk1/brandenburg_was_completely_ravaged_during_the_30/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7rzlin"
],
"score": [
96
],
"text": [
"After inheriting the throne in 1640, the Frederick William had only a few thousand mercenaries and refugees from other armies at his disposal because of the stingy grants from the Estates. The mercenaries under his payroll terrorized the land they were supposed to defend and were, surprise, incompetent as a fighting force.\nFrederick rid the army of incompetent foreign mercenaries and Colonels who terrorized citizens for personal gain, this process taking roughly a year; Frederick won the gratitude of the Estates for rectifying the military anarchy. However, Frederick was left with only 2,500 men. Taking advantage of the Estates' gratitude, the Elector built up his army to 8,000 men by 1648.\n\nAfter the war, the Estates, wary of the Elector's power, demanded army reductions over the course of 30 years as they have done in the past. Wanting to continue his policy of military expansionism, Frederick, through political schemes and conceits, eventually built an army large enough to defy his opponents. The most important was a compromise in 1653 with the Brandenburg Estates. Junkers (land-owning nobility) were granted a large array of privileges: the Junker's fiefs were now exclusively owned by themselves, they were recognized as the only class allowed to acquire estates, and privileges shakily extorted from previous Electors, such as dominion over their peasants' lives and exemption of taxation, were officially confirmed. These privileges were exchanged for a grant of 530,000 talers, payable over 6 years. This grant allowed Frederick William to maintain a force of ~5,000 men, a small foundation to quickly build on. Frederick would eventually be able to coerce the Estates into his will; the fact that no general meetings of the Estates were held after 1653 demonstrates the Estates' waning power.\n\nIn 1655, Sweden invaded Poland (The 2nd Northern War). Frederick reasoned the war could serve as a threat (which Brandenburg joined in 1657), and began recruiting forces in Brandenburg and the principalities on the lower Rhine and beckoned the East Prussian militia. The Estates objected to contributing funds to anything besides defending their own provinces. However, already equipped with a decent size army, Frederick swept the protests aside and imposed steep new taxes to pay for new recruits.\n\n8,000 men under arms by September, 1655.\n\n22,000 by June, 1656.\n\n27,000 when the Treaty of Olivia (1660) ended hostilities.\n\nAfter this war, there were reductions to the army, but never as drastic as before. Between 1660 and 1672, Frederick kept a standing army between 7,000 and 12,000 men - no longer did Brandenburg have to build its army from scratch at the outbreak of war. Frederick died in 1688 with an army of ~30,000.\n\nSource:\n\nCraig, Gordon A. *The Politics of the Prussian Army: 1640-1945.* New York: Oxford U, 1964. Print.\n\nEdits: Some edits were made to make for easier reading.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
qs220 | why war is bad for the economy | I've heard people talk about the "broken window fallacy". What is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qs220/eli5_why_war_is_bad_for_the_economy/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3zzqgq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"War is good if the government buys your stuff. See these charts for [Boeing](_URL_1_), [BAE](_URL_2_), [Lockheed Martin](_URL_0_), all of which get tons of money from the US government to build weapons. The Iraq War kicked off in 2003, you can see that it was very profitable, at least until 2008 when the markets started to realize that the banks had artificially inflated all their numbers.\n\nEvery dollar spent on tanks, bombs and bullets is a dollar that is not spent on health care, bridges, roads, education, parks, or nuclear fusion. \n\nAnd not to mention, every dollar the government spends is supposed to come out of the taxpayers' pockets. When they eventually take your dollars, you can't spend them on beanie babies or pogs or slap bracelets. So the government takes the people's money, uses it to buy bombs, and uses the bombs to kills brown people. God Bless America!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1331508115777&chddm=991576&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:LMT&&fct=big",
"https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maxim... | |
5ku6xr | Why did British colonists view miscegenation with natives so much more negatively than Portuguese colonists did? | The /r/AskHistorians podcast episode (#50, the first one on Zimbabwe) mentions that in southern Africa, the Portuguese approved of--and even encouraged--interracial marriage because it would promote stability. The British took a very different attitude, which eventually grew into full apartheid.
But surely the British wanted stability too. So what explains the different attitudes toward racial mixing? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ku6xr/why_did_british_colonists_view_miscegenation_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbqwqce"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"This answer is maybe a bit tangential to you question, as it focused on Brazil (and the European and African population thereof), but I hope it helps!\n\nA significant portion of modern Brazil's population is mixed race, usually European descended and African descended. When the Portuguese settled Brazil, it was primarily single men who colonized the area and not, as in English colonized sections of North American, families. As a result, European men married and had children with native and African slave women.\n\n This practice of intermarriage was justified (really after the fact, in the late 19th-early 20th centuries; originally it was done out of necessity) via the concept of racial whitening, known in Brazil as Branqueamento. Essentially what branqueamiento did was assert genetic Darwinism: white genes were superior to black or native genes, and thus, over time, the black genes would stop being passed on, resulting in progressively whiter children over generations. This idea of racial relations was fundamentally different from that of the English and the Americans, first out of necessity and then out of racial \"science.\" These are two of the reasons why Brazil's population is significantly mixed-race compared to the US, which, for most of its history, was colonized by families and which developed a different set of scientific racial stereotypes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
6nv3il | Why was it so much easier prior to World War 2 to invade other countries without risking your economy collapsing or severe economic embargoes? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6nv3il/why_was_it_so_much_easier_prior_to_world_war_2_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkdo1pa",
"dke6i0a"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text": [
"World War 2 was the result of a centuries-long process: the escalating cost of warfare in both men and material. This is usually brought up by historians in relation to [the military revolution] (_URL_0_) of the renaissance, but remained a trend that continued until World War 2 and arguably until the present day. \n\nIt was *relatively* inexpensive and uncomplicated to invade a country and establish dominion over it in the european middle ages because armies were small, lived off the land for the most part, and could get rid of the sources of local legitimacy by destroying local families. William the Conquerer, for example, divested the Anglo-Saxon ruling class of England over the course of his reign and replaced them with a strong Norman class. He only brought approximately 10,000 men for the invasion of England. Compare this to the battle of pavia, early in the period I'm about to go over, where Charles V brought around 23,000 men to a single battle against the French, or the later battle of Kunesdorf where the Russians brought 60,000 men. At one point in the 1650s, the Spanish had 300,000 men on their military payroll. More people, of course, meant more expenses.\n\nHow did this happen?\n\nTo simplify a very complicated theory, investment in new technologies gave countries better battlefield effectiveness, encouraging further spending on new tech. At the same time, states in Europe gained the ability to tax their subjects more effectively and thus pay for this expensive tech. At the same time, new technologies and tactics such as gunpowder and pike formations gave infantry much more effectiveness. This made the focus of warfare in Europe shift from relatively small cavalry-focused armies to larger infantry focused ones. More people meant greater costs. This coincided with a population boom in the 16-1700s, resulting in even greater reserves of manpower to pull from. The end result of this was a massive increase in the size of armies, creating further costs and further burdens on the civilian population who had to provide the army's upkeep. This also coincided with the development of sophisticated supply chains and the reduction of armies' reliance on plundering the countryside, putting additional burdens on the country that began an invasion.\n\nThis trend continued throughout the 1700s, but gained a massive boost with the French Revolution. The Levee en Masse, the policy of mass conscription used by the French, pulled much greater proportions of fighting-age men to the front lines than any European polity had done before (since the dissolution of the Roman Empire, anyhow). This was the first time a European state had millions of men in their army, giving the French army a decisive advantage for a time. The other European states had to adapt to this by recruiting even more men and thus paying even more. Society began to be fundamentally restructured to support the war effort. Further population booms appeared later, creating even more available manpower\n\nBefore we get to the further escalation of this doctrine lets discuss colonization. Plenty of african polities, for example, were invaded by European powers in the late 1800s. This did not generally result in economic deprivation, however. African states did not have the technological and demographic developments that the Europeans did, keeping their armies small, inexpensive, and mostly low-tech. Invading European armies were able to be small and relatively inexpensive compared to the armies that would be used in Europe because a few hundred Europeans could beat a William-the-Conquerer-sized army of Africans in pitched battle. This is opposed to europe, where hundreds of thousands of high-tech soldiers would oppose any would-be conqueror. \n\nWorld War I resulted in even further economy-destroying developments in warfare as countries supported millions of troops and financed further weapon technology. Each country borrowed massive sums to pay for it all. Rationing was introduced. The imposition of debt on Germany after the war collapsed its economy for years. \n\nWW2 further escalated the amount society was willing to give for war. Factories were requisitioned, rationing was reintroduced, conscription was used. Society was fundamentally shaped by the war effort. This was because, of course, if a country didn't take these drastic steps, it would be beaten by the country that did. A medieval kingdom would have neither the inclination nor the administrative ability to do this, but as a result of centuries of escalating warfare, modern nations would.\n\nLess troops are generally involved in wars after WW2, but this is mainly because high-tech, high development powers largely haven't gone to war with each other. It's still not necessarily an economy-breaker to invade a low-tech country as a high-tech one. Even the massive moneypit of the Vietnam War didn't collapse the US economy, and that was a worst-case scenario. It's invading a fellow high tech country that would be extremely expensive, as total war requires incredibly large amounts of men and incredibly large amounts of material, to the point of society being restructured to provide for the war effort. This is the type of economic collapse the question mentions, and it's due to the escalation of war and state power as discussed above. \n\nAs for embargoes, these are mainly a tool to avoid these costs while still influencing other nations. Embargoes are often used by powerful countries on nations that invade others to avoid destabilizing the status quo and to serve the recently-developed ideals of self-determination and human rights. These ideals were far less powerful before the late 1800s, and had less influence on leaders of polities. It's also important to mention that trade was far less globalized before World War I, and an embargo would not necessarily have been as effective. The power and reach of any imposing country would also be less prevalent before WW2, when two global superpowers could effectively influence any nation in the world at any given time. Just for example, I doubt that if Portugal opposed Mughal expansion into India they would embargo them, and if they did I doubt it would be very effective. They would not feel the inclination to help the countries being subjected and their power is not great enough that an embargo would make a difference.\n\nFinally, I should note that the question itself is somewhat flawed. It was not, in all instances, easier prior to WW2 to invade other countries without risking one's economy collapsing, or even embargoes. The Japanese, after all, risked both with the invasion of Manchuria and China in the 1930s. King Leopold of Belgium was forced by diplomatic pressure to give up the Congo to his nation's government. It was not always so easy.\n\nTL;DR:\nIncreases in certain countries' technology, manpower, and state power escalated warfare's cost and national involvement over centuries to make it inconceivably expensive by WW2 when fighting another developed power. In addition, a variety of factors made invading other countries less diplomatically acceptable and more-easily affected by embargoes.\n\nSources\n-Renaissance France at War: Armies, Culture and Society, C.1480-1560\n-The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy",
"To tack onto the excellent answer above, there's a distinct difference between the world economy pre-WII and the world economy today. \n\nThe premise of your question is a little flawed; pre-WWII wars still would tax a country's reserves and economy just to maintain an army, or especially a navy, but you're right in that things are more risky now. Prior to world war 2 (and still for a time after it), the developed countries (i.e. Europe and Japan) were overwhelmingly Mercantilist. Much of the mercantilist system was intrinsically tied to colonialism, for a couple obvious reasons: mercantilism was about having a 'sphere of influence' to specifically feed raw resources and capital back to the colonial master without having to rely on another developed country. In short, the british or French empires used their colonies and military might to edge other rivals OUT of whole sectors of the world, specifically to deny them access to markets while simultaneously guaranteeing it for themselves. The world economy was not really free like it is today; British companies wouldn't be competing with, say, French ones or Chinese ones (in broad strokes, but you get the gist)\n\nThis system was lambasted by pioneers in economics such as Adam Smith and by writers such as Johnathan Swift. It was, after all, based on accruing wealth to the colonial center and stressing autarky, which in turn would ensure wars would just expand needlessly without sufficient monetary incentive to avoid them. Errr, that's a rough sentence. Don't mean to get into philosophy, but the gist of what I'm saying is that a colonial Empire like Britain enjoyed economic dominance in its sphere, and that meant it didn't rely on importing goods from other developed countries. \n\nThe USA, in contrast to a lot of European powers, had its own thoughts about the world economy, likely driven by its own industrialization. In 1944 the major European allies held the Bretton Woods conference to try and figure out the post-war order, at least in economic terms, and the USA championed an agreement on open markets. \n\nThis THOUGHT, open markets, contributed to the highly interwoven world economy you find today, where the USA and China are held together by one's need for raw materials and the other's need for a marketplace to sell things to. Britain, without its colonies and thus its extraction, can still enjoy the luxuries and commodities of the world because of the principle of free trade. The World Trade Organization, founded in 1995, can probably be thought of as the pinnacle of the anti-Mercantilist order that dominated pre-WWII. The WTO ensures that developed nations are adhering to open markets and fair trade practices, making them tightly more interdependent, and as a consequence of this (very much intended by the people who first pushed for it) war between developed countries is much, much costlier. \n\nAfter all, there's just more at risk in shutting off imports. The interdependence of economies makes it so. Depriving your own people of German goods or depriving your own industries of cheap Vietnamese semiconductors is an excellent way to breed resentment among the masses and also crash your own domestic industries unintentionally. Similarly, if other countries refuse YOUR exports, then your industries aren't making any profit like they used to, since the free market incentivized them to innovate, and then with innovation they produce more than the domestic market can consume. That's an oversimplification but you can look at the case of agribusiness in the USA or the petrostate tendencies of the Russian Federation to see what I mean...they need to export to maintain profits. \n\nThis was a weird post, but I don't want to bore you in theory so I hope I didn't and I'll just stop here. Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, has a few chapters on this subject specifically talking about the European economic order, you can also try a very light academic text called U.S. Trade Policy: Balancing Economic Dreams and Political Realities by Rothgeb. It's a light touch but it'll go into far more historical detail about the changes in the int'l economy. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-16.htm"
],
[]
] | ||
41f716 | the heisenberg uncertainty principle and how it affects the development of teleportation. | Title | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41f716/eli5_the_heisenberg_uncertainty_principle_and_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz1ukrf",
"cz1ule2",
"cz1xlov"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The Uncertainty principle is a principle which states that the velocity and position of a subatomic particle cannot be known at the same time. This is due to properties of wave functions and fourier transformations that is out of scope for ELI5.\n\nIt has nothing to do with the development of teleportation because that is impossible. Nothing can travel faster than light.",
"I don't know what teleportation has to do with this, but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that there is an inverse relationship between your knowledge of an electron's position and its velocity.\n\nIn other words, there are two things you can know about any given electron at any given time; where it is, and how fast its moving. Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the more confident you are about where it is, the less you know about how fast its moving, and the more you know about how fast its moving, the less you know about where it is. You cannot be absolutely confident of both at the same time. ",
"The connection to sci-fi style teleportation is that in order for a device to \"beam\" you anywhere, it must be able to reconstruct the structures of the body, all the way down to the positions of every atom and even every electron. Misplacing electrons would interrupt existing, ongoing chemical reactions and start unpredictable new ones. That would kill any living thing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
vqvjc | How did ancient fortified cities handle sewage and guard against plague and fire? | Were there any other threats to their well-being that could not be handled by military force? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vqvjc/how_did_ancient_fortified_cities_handle_sewage/ | {
"a_id": [
"c56vttj"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Sewage: throw it in a hole or ditch or into the street, or even better, a river. This was sufficient until population increases in the C19th led to overcrowding and made sewers necessary. London only started building sewers in 1859, after cholera epidemics and The Great Stink; and with a population of around 2.5 million, London was obviously much larger than any ancient city.\n\nPlague: There wasn't much that could be done; there was little understanding about the causes, much less of how to prevent the spread of disease. Quarantine was used, but in most cases a city simply had no choice but to ride out the epidemic. Plague would probably result in large migration from the city, however, despite the risk of spreading infection."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
16m2bm | I'm an average English person in the 1300s, how much do I know about the world? | How knowledgeable would the average English person of the Medieval era be about current affairs, what the world looked like, where countries where etc? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16m2bm/im_an_average_english_person_in_the_1300s_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7xa87y",
"c7xaskq",
"c7xatel",
"c7xbd5d",
"c7xbtbu",
"c7xcbs4",
"c7xdhy9",
"c7xdwj2",
"c7xg2s8"
],
"score": [
63,
306,
33,
9,
146,
5,
3,
5,
10
],
"text": [
"Define average. An average person would have been living out on the farms. Do you mean average city dweller? They would have \"known\" much more (in our sense) than a farmer.\n\nAn average farmer would likely have been aware of a good amount of local botany--though he would not have used that term. May have known some astronomy, etc, from simply observation. Would have known how to run a farm, animals lifecycles--basically he would have known everything that was important to running a farm or subsistence agriculture during his time.",
"It depends on what you count as 'average'. Unless you are a serf who were limited to how far they could travel (perhaps a few miles from the manor unless special dispensation), freemen and everyone in the social classes above them could move quite a bit.\n\nCurrent affairs? It depends if there's a war on. That tended to bring people from all over the kingdom: e.g: Edward III's war with France in 1346, or the siege of Calais a year later - that brought 30,000 Englishmen to France. If you survive, you bring the information back home with you.\nOther methods of information exchange include the links between the clergy and the Pope, pilgrimages across Europe, court letters (which were circulated), sailors, and merchants travelling to the Low Countries and beyond. Edward III entertained the son of the 'king of India'. That is going to filter down to the ordinary person at some point, just not necessarily quickly. If you read Chaucer, he expects (or assumes) his audience to be aware of or at least understand places like Syria, Russia, Turkey, Portugal, as well as the places closer to England such as Brittany or Spain. Nobody knows what's going on outside of Christendom (yet) and it's full of speculation and factually incorrect information.\n\nMap-wise people are aware of the earth being a globe but that doesn't really mean anything until Columbus shows that it means you can travel east to go west. It was assumed that you could travel westwards from Spain to reach India in a few days, but this is a *theological* understanding, not a geographical one. The earth is full of dangerous places full of [sciopods](_URL_0_), [cynocephlapods](_URL_1_), or the [Blemmyae](_URL_2_), where people boil the sick and eat them, where dragons co-exist with elephants. It's also full misconceptions about geography- India is synonymous with Asia, Sri Lanka has two summers and two winters. \n\nSo your access to material was somewhat contingent on what class you were and who you mixed with.\n\nEdit: accidentally a word here and there.\n\nEdit 2: to save the mods more hassle.",
"I've often wondered about this. Would they know who the leaders of other countries are? Would they be aware of the pyramids? If I'm an average dude in a hot place do I know snow exists? ",
"Presumably an average person would have known at least a basic (and I mean very basic) geography of the Middle East from church? Likely their imaginations would have run wild about what the places were like in their own times (especially if they knew the holy lands were controlled by non-Christians). Thoughts?",
"_URL_0_\n\nThis article actually hits your nail *right* on its head. It concerns a peasant (former soldier) who killed a man, but then got his liege-lord to intercede with *his* liege-lord to intercede with Simon de Monfort, de facto ruler of England, so as to get himself pardoned.",
"Well if you read a book like [Montaillou](_URL_0_) by Emmanuel le Roy Ladurie you will see that these normal people in the 1300 hundreds were quite well informed about the world and had a varied viwe on the world. this is ofc southern france, but the time periode at least fits. a real good read if you are curious about common folks in the 1300´s\n\n",
"While not necessarily focused only on England, this is a great source for 14th Century Western European history: _URL_0_",
"How many people in these times had even seen a map, I'm curious?\n\nParticularly a map that covers more than the horizon's area.\n\nFor instance when did average English people begin to have a mental shape of Britain, as opposed to vague abstraction?",
"1300s in England is an interesting time to ask this question because there is the Peasant's Revolt in 1381, which raises really interesting questions about how people communicated and organized. It's one thing to be unhappy about taxation; it's quite another to be able to get a large number of people to march on the capital to complain about it. \n\nWe know from Chaucer that people who have wider experience of the world (travellers and pilgrims, for example), are likely to come back and tell stories about their experiences, but we also know from the same source that these people are generally regarded as unreliable (Chaucer says pilgrims' backpacks are full of lies). So that raises an interesting question about how you know someone who has an unusual experience is a liar.\n\nBoth of these situations seem to rely on word of mouth, which of course is something there is no textual record of. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopod_(creature\\)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blemmyes_(legendary_creatures\\)"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/month/fm-09-2010.html"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.co.uk/Montai... | |
48p7d5 | why are more area codes introduced to regions? how can they be running out of phone numbers? | Our area is introducing a second area code, for the reason that we are "running out of phone numbers". However by my calculation there are 282,475,249 possible 7 digit phone number combinations (7^10 ) which is close to the population of the United States (~318,900,000 people). How can we be running out of phone numbers in such a small area if the number of possible phone numbers is so close to the population of the ENTIRE U.S.? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48p7d5/eli5why_are_more_area_codes_introduced_to_regions/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0letjr",
"d0lhv8k",
"d0lisuh"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Your math is wrong it's 10^7, not 7^10.\n\n10^7 is just 10 million. Also, a few of these numbers are not valid - so it's actually several million but not quite 10 million possibilities.\n\nWhen you count home phones, mobile phones, pagers, and business phones, it's easy to see how the number of phone numbers in a region is larger than its population. Also, they like to assign a new area code before they actually run out based on anticipated demand so that there's a long transition period.\n",
"As others have stated, your math is incorrect, there are only 10,000,000 possible numbers. But that gets reduced even further:\n\nPhone numbers can't start with 0 or 1, so there's 2 million numbers right there that are completely invalid. 200-0000 is the first possible valid phone number. Anything beginning with 555 is invalid, so remove 10,000 more numbers from the pool of valid numbers. Now, any x11 prefix is invalid too. Those are reserved for information, 911, etc. 80,000 more numbers out of the pool. So an area code only has fewer than 8 million possible valid numbers.\n\nNow it gets more complicated. Numbers have historically been assigned to carriers in blocks of 10,000 - basically, a telecom company owns a prefix. With number portability, this line has been blurred somewhat, my phone number is an AT & T owned prefix because they were my first cellular carrier, but I'm on T-Mobile. But, nonetheless, a smaller local carrier might own a block of 10,000 numbers, say with the 321 prefix, but only be using 2,000 of them. In the meantime, Verizon is quickly running out of free numbers in the dozens of blocks they own in an area code. They can't assign numbers out of the 321 prefix because they don't own it. So an area code could be running out of numbers when major carriers can't get any more free blocks, even if there are some free numbers in it.\n\nNow, you have landlines, mobile phones, business lines (some offices may have hundreds, if not thousands of incoming numbers in an area code). Tablets and other devices on a cellular network have a phone number assigned too even though the number can't be used for anything. Between my cell phone, LTE iPad, office phone, and home security system which uses the cellular network as a backup, I'm using 4 phone numbers. Suddenly, the 7 million valid numbers in an area code doesn't go very far in a large metro area.",
"\"Area Codes\" used to select the controlling switch group.\n\nSo listen to old movies. \"Operator I'd like Klondike-362.\" That word \"Klondike\" was the name of the telephone office (typically it's street name or neighborhood name).\n\nThe ability to direct-dial the phone was invented by a guy named [Strowger](_URL_0_) a mortitian that was getting robbed blind of business because the wife of his direct competitor was the local telephone operator. Whenever anybody called regarding a pesky corpse and just asked for \"a mortician\" she would route the call to her husband instead of Strowger. And sometimes she'd \"accidentally\" redirect people who were calling Strowger specifically with a corpse in mind.\n\nSo he invented the Strowger Switch, that let the caller dial the number themselves with no nosy operator needed for local phone calls.\n\nAfter that, the system was expanded to let you dial \"other prefixes\". So the telephone system needed to have rules to be able to tell whether you were dialing a local number. So those prefixes got numbers.\n\nThis is why your phone has letters over the numbers. Klondike-394 became \"KL-0394\" and so you needed to have a way to find \"K\" and \"L\" on your phone.\n\nThen the idea of being able to dial \"the city\", e.g. \"the area\" was added when they went from 2+4 dialing to 3+4 for \"local calls\" (e.g. 6-digit to 7-digit dialing) they made some rules.\n\nNo prefix (the 3 in the 3+4) could have a zero or one in the second position. That was reserved for \"area codes\" in the U.S. So by the second digit the telephone system could tell if you were dialing a local number or not. But they added the \"dial 1 for self service, or 0 for operator assisted long distance\" because people were dialing long distance numbers, and getting charged for long distance calls, \"by accident\".\n\nSo 619-555-1234 is area, prefix, and number. And 555 was set aside for testing dialing, as were some other prefixes for things like \"Ring back\".\n\nSo the first two sets of three numbers have a _lot_ of restrictions coded into them because telephone switching was \"very mechanical\". The connection was being set up \"as you dialed\" even as late as the seventies. And you'd get various feedback sounds/events if you farked up. \"Fast Busy\", \"Slow Busy\", \"Denial Tone\". Lots of people didn't know the difference but a skilled operator could know exactly why dialing failed.\n\nThen the rules of information exchange were radically altered. Telephone switches could communicate even when no call was taking place. Suddenly you didn't have to build a whole new building just because you'd already hooked up 9999 phones to the old building. The \"prefix\" stopped being a real number representing a discrete location. So \"3+4 digit dialing\" became \"7 digit dialing\" and you could get any seven digits anywhere in your area code (for full \"3+7\" addressing).\n\nThen AT & T was broken up and MCI came along and tried to undersell AT & T by renting wires from AT & T in bulk and re-selling the time to \"their subscribers\". And then it was wild-west everywhere. Calling cards and service provider prefixes making you dial 800-numbers before you dialed the 3+7 destination number.\n\nBut as technology got even better _lots_ of that stuff became pointless.\n\nSo right now you just have \"10 digit dialing\". And if you are old enough your \"area code\" is \"wherever you lived in about 2005.\"\n\nCell phones and cell phone providers \"opted out\" of the \"long distance\" market. They were making their money by the six-second block of time, far in excess of the money to be gained by charging for long distance calls.\n\nThen \"number portability\" came along, and you didn't have to give up your number to switch providers.\n\nSo now days \"most\" phone numbers are just 10 digits that look up you. And most of those code and prefix bits just go to a provider. And if you first got your number via AT & T, but now use sprint, AT & T gets contacted and the phone is forwarded to Sprint automagically. And the phones call you a lot cause the provider to cache and remember that from last time and don't even have to ask AT & T unless they forget.\n\nSo now days, all those reserved numbers, like 2 through 9 in the second digit of the area code\" are no longer needed and you are starting to see new \"area codes\" that don't match the old dialing plans.\n\nBut even with all that, every phone you have, and tablet... if it has cellular connectivity for any reason (data, voice, sms, etc) it has a phone number.\n\nThere are 250 million people in the U.S. and many of those people have two or more devices. So technically we are getting strapped for numbers.\n\nUnder the old system there was only about 10^^6^^ numbers once you deleted all the illegal combinations.\n\nSo just like IPv4, the old assumptions of size and number of addresses needed were very generous for the age those assumptions were made, but will run out sooner than you think.\n\nIn the not-to distant future we are going to need to add a couple digits somewhere. Likely at about 4th from the right, or all the way at the right. and having two or three zeros there will be an \"old school\" status symbol."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almon_Brown_Strowger"
]
] | |
17v268 | What do we know about european history before ancient greece? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17v268/what_do_we_know_about_european_history_before/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8940ke"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"It depends on whether you're going to be strict about your interpretation of history versus prehistory - before Herodotus you have very few (if any) written accounts that I know of about Europe, and even then, H. limits his account to a misguided attempt to source the Danube (\"Ister,\" which he places somewhere in Spain). He does give us the name \"Celts\" though. (Herodotus *The Histories* trans. Waterfield, R. 1998, 2:33)\n\n\nArchaeology can tell us more than you'd think! Albeit, prehistorically, there's no way of putting names to people, places or events beyond garbled folk memories that passed into Classic times, but we can reconstruct how people lived, trade links, different cultural styles and other physical things.\n\n\nTake the Amesbury Archer - a fairly elaborate burial found near Stonehenge, dating to the Neolithic/Bronze Age crossover. He had a fair few copper objects on his person, including knives, metalworking tools, and also barbed and tanged flint arrowheads (hence the name). It's theorised that this person was a sort of wandering smith. Isotopic analysis on his teeth shows that he came from the Alps, showing trade links between southern Britain and Central Europe as early as 2300BC. (Fitzpatrick, A.P. 2003. \"The Amesbury Archer\" in *Current Archaeology* 184, pp 146–152) \n\n\nAs an aside, he also had a limp, which always made me think of how the smith Gods like Haephestus, Vulcan and Gobhniu all shared that trait.\n\nIf you want to be *really* picky about it being written history, then I suppose we know a fair bit about Mycenae, but it depends whether you count that as true Ancient Greece or not! \n\nTL;DR No written history, lots of archaeology. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
bgjgti | Why does it seem like throughout Ancient history, tribes were continually pushing out (North, West, and South) from Eastern Europe or the Steppes? | In the 100s BC, Germanic tribes were pushing in to Gaul enough that it gave Rome pretext for invasion. Germanic tribes also went north, supplanting the natives in Scandinavia.
In the 4th and 5th century, Goths and Lombards and Vandals moved West, leading to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The 5th century also saw the push by the Huns (perhaps causing the former?).
Around the 7th century, the Avars, the 12th century the Mongols.
Not to mention the continual invasions in to Anatolia of steppe tribes/peoples.
Was the birthrate lower in the Roman Republic/Empire? Is the Steppe particularly fertile? Am I basing this question off of an incomplete understanding? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bgjgti/why_does_it_seem_like_throughout_ancient_history/ | {
"a_id": [
"ellvn26"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This is a good question with no possible good answer. In each case, the variables were different, and we should add to this the hypothesized \"migration\" of the Proto-Indo-Europeans into Europe, from some homeland variously located in the western Russia forested steppe or perhaps from Anatolia. Nobody really knows exactly how it happened, but the linguistic data demands a \"homeland\" of some sort. If that is the case, and just for simplicity we say for now that it was the western Russian steppe, then we know they did not just go to the West: the went south, into Iran, and East into India and even the deserts of western China. They had really scary new weapons at their disposal: the wheel, the horse, the metal plow, cruel social stratification, and the knowledge of how to weave wool into cloth.\n\nYou mentioned the Germanic invasions of the late 2nd century BCE. No ancient author seems to know why exactly the Cimbri \"migrated,\" or from where, and we can these days safely put aside Poseidonius' assertion that they left Jutland because the sea was flooding in. Overpopulation, as you guess, could have been a contributor, but there isn't enough evidence to say for sure. Caesar gives us a relatively thorough account of another such migration, of the Gallic Helvetii in 58 BCE, and even then we do not really get a clear understanding of why exactly they decide to pack up their entire civilization and risk the ire of their neighbors, Roman and Gallic, to seek a new land. Caesar reports that they got sick and tired of being harassed by the Germans to their east.\n\nHarassment was probably the reason for the mass confusion of Eastern Europe at the end of antiquity. As you guess, I think most scholars uneasily accept the Huns to be the bogeyman which sent everything in their path fleeing westwards. Post antique movements into Europe had their own inputs. The point is: there is no one unifying impetus for it all. The viewpoint which makes it seem uncanny springs from a Eurocentric point of view (all these pushy others appearing from the lands beyond rising sun). If we shift the view to, say the Volgue, or the Kyrgistan, we get a very different idea of the same events."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
o63iz | Does the CMB show us anything beyond our observable universe? | Or is the Observable universe the only thing we have information on? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o63iz/does_the_cmb_show_us_anything_beyond_our/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3eo4we",
"c3ep4k6"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"not really, no. the CMB is just about at the very limit of what can constitute our observable universe. There are some theories some are trying to test that some of the patterns in the CMB could possibly be correlated with out-of-universe things, but I personally don't give it much stock.",
"I don't know about all of this past-universe stuff -- but what I can say is that CMB is absolutely without a doubt the best tool we have to ~~see~~ observe things at the extreme limits of the observable universe.\n\nCMB observations can take advantage of something called the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect in order to survey galaxy clusters in a way that is completely Z-independent.\nI believe this is the only observational technique to do so, and is a big part in being able to determine things like cosmological constants for baryon density of the Universe.\n\nSimply, the way this works is that hot gases in galaxy clusters with inverse-compton scatter incoming CMB radiation, leaving either bright spots or holes in the CMB that stand out pretty harshly to it's ordinarily obscenely homogeneity. For lower-Z clusters this tool is extremely helpful in director other observational surveys regarding where to look, but for high-Z clusters it can be the only method of estimating the size and character of those galaxy clusters. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
1wudro | if your mouth has more germs than your anus, why is it easier for you to get sick from putting your mouth on someone's anus rather than kissing them? | Are there germs on the butthole that are just more potent? If so, what are they? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wudro/eli5_if_your_mouth_has_more_germs_than_your_anus/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf5g1jp",
"cf5g53d"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because \"number of germs\" is not in any way a good indicator of how likely you are to get sick. Your body contains many many billions of bacteria, most of which are actually beneficial to your body. In this specific case, E. coli (a gut bacteria) is responsible for the sickness. Early in your life, one strain of E. coli colonizes your body; your immune system will ignore that strain. But someone *else's* strain will make you sick.",
"Bacteria in your mouth are largely either neutral or beneficial to your health. Probiotic bacteria are helpful in breaking down food. Other bacteria are in there to help protect gum health. The baddies in your mouth typically lead to gum decay, cavities, or bad breath - not things we enjoy, but also not something that will make us sick.\n\nBacteria in your anus are also important. Lots of probiotics there, too. However, there are also bacteria in the gut that are sometimes transported out the bunghole and aren't meant for ingestion. Fecal coliform is the perfect example. Know how sick *E. Coli* usually makes people? This guy is the same family, but it lives in your gut. \n\nThings that live in your gut should usually stay there. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
91r79p | why does one foot grow smaller than the other? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/91r79p/eli5_why_does_one_foot_grow_smaller_than_the_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"e303kck"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Despite the general look of it, the body isn't fully symmetric on the outside. It's also not symmetric on the inside at all."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
5nj5gw | compass/navigation experts | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nj5gw/eli5_compassnavigation_experts/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcbuuww",
"dcbv016"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you are lost a compass will not help you out on its own. A compass will only tell you the direction you are facing and not the direction you should be heading in. To be able to navigate with a compass you also need a map and you need to know your position. On a map you can figure out what direction you want to walk in and follow that direction on the compass. If you place the compass on the map along the path you want to take you can move the inner compass or a marker so it points to North on the map. Then you put away the map and turn around so the needle points towards the marker that you set. Look ahead and pick something in the distance straight ahead. Then put away the compass and walk to it. Get the compass again and find the next marker in the distance to walk towards.\n\nFor the distance you can count your steps or find out how long you need to walk the distance. However both these only give you an estimate. When you plot the course you need to make sure you get to a place you will recognize like a road, a river, a lake, a mountain, etc. When you reach this you know how far you have gone and know where you are on the map.\n\nNavigating to the stars is quite difficult. The basics of it is that you can find the north star or the southern cross. These stars are always in the north or south respectively and you can then use them instead of a compass. The rest of the stars including the Sun are constantly moving in the sky so you can not navigate over long distances using them as a guide.",
"Let's first of all imagine you know where you are.\n\nAs you say, if you just \"head north\", the chances are that your steps won't take you exactly north, and you'll end up a little bit to the left or to the right of where you think you are. Also, you might calculate that it will take an hour to get where you're going, but if you go a little faster or slower than you planned, it might take more or less time.\n\nSo now let's imagine that the place you're going is a village, and the village is on a river. If you're a little left or a little right of where you ought to be, you'll still hit the river. It might take a little more or a little less time than you expected, but it won't take 30 minutes if you planned for it to take 60 minutes. So if you hit a river at around about 60 minutes, you can be pretty sure it's the right river.\n\nBut what if you hit the river and can't see the village - do you turn left or right? Simple - when you're planning, you deliberately head to the left of the village. That way, when you hit the river, you can be pretty certain that turning right and following the river will take you to the village.\n\nSource: these are some of the techniques we use to navigate when flying an aircraft the traditional way (i.e. if you're not using any navigation aids). We don't do it quite this way, because we have a better view from the air than you have from the ground, but many of the techniques I've described here are still useful when navigating an aircraft. I've got lots of experience of navigating aircraft this way, but I've never done any kind of orienteering or navigating on the ground, so I'm assuming that's similar but I may be wrong."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
46ygrz | When did Gold become a standard backer of currency, and why? | If I recall correctly, the British Empire began the tradition, mainly because it benefited them economically. What exact time period did they begin doing this, and was there a certain event or driving force that brought about this policy? There has to be reason other than gold being shiny and people being fond of treasure, right?
If the reason that gold became a backer of currency is simply that people value treasure, then at what point in history did this valuation occur, and why? If I am correct, gold has no major practical uses.
Also, were there previous societies (Rome, China, etc.) that valued gold similarly (or other materials)? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/46ygrz/when_did_gold_become_a_standard_backer_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"d08ttyv",
"d090g7r"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your question, I think, has an incorrect supposition, in that gold \"became a backer\" of other currency. Gold has been used as money and currency since coinage was invented, and before that it was used in trade both in \"raw\" form and in the form of finished products. Gold does not tarnish or rust or \"rot\" like other metals, and is extremely ductile, and thus easily worked and drawn out. It is valuable for these properties as well as its relative scarcity.\n\nThe trend throughout modern history has been first to replace gold as currency with banknotes, as gold was at times considered \"cumbersome\", both for the practical reasons of carrying and storing it and also because the supply of gold cannot be inflated at will. At first, these notes were pegged to metals in order to represent claims to the physical money that people were accustomed to (hence the term backing), but more recently these notes exist simply as fiat paper. That said, gold is still money, even though it is rarely used as currency at present.\n\nValuations for gold were historically rather stable and based on its scarcity relative to silver, which was a much more common currency. This ratio was for millennia in the range of 12 or 15:1 by weight. Alexander's shipments of spoil from his campaign in the East altered the ratio with an influx of gold into the West. At later times, the ratios were set by government fixing. This could cause problems, for example, if other entities had different valuations or if large deposits of either metal were discovered. More recently the ratio has fluctuated much more wildly.",
"Gold and silver have alternated and often co-existed as monetary standards for perhaps 27 centuries, gold often being preferred for state reserves or large-scale trade (presumably in part because you needed only around a tenth of the weight), silver or other metals (copper and alloys) for everyday use (you could make lower-denomination coins). Europeans have tended to prefer gold when they could get their hands on it, Asians silver, perhaps because it's more useful. \n\nThat worked fine when Europe found itself with a windfall of tens of thousands of tons of silver in the centuries after 1492 (in fact starting three decades earlier with strikes in central Europe), using it to oil the wheels of commerce and pay for exotic imports from the east. In the 16th-19th centuries most of Europe effectively operated a bimetallic standard, with both silver and gold coins whose relative value varied with that of the two metals. \n\nSir Isaac Newton is commonly credited with establishing the modern gold standard by setting the golden Guinea at 21 silver shillings in 1717, overvaluing gold and driving silver out of circulation to be shipped abroad or melted down: in fact he seems rather to have failed to correct a half-century-old mismatch between the two units, whether by accident or design (\"If things be let alone till silver money be a little scarcer, the Gold will fall of itself,\" he wrote). \n\nFortunately for Britain, gold became a good deal more readily available in the 18th century thanks to gold finds in Brazil and the special relationship with Portugal, and the country officially moved to gold in 1816. The US and Europe followed between the 1870s and 1890s, a move often seen as connected with the period's severe price depression: this time discoveries in South Africa, the Yukon and Alaska came to the rescue. \n\nSuspended in most of Europe in 1914 and restored in modified form in the 1920s, the standard outlived its usefulness in another still deeper Depression this time with no Klondike in sight, being abandoned successively by the major players in 1931-36. While currencies resumed their link to gold after WW2 there would be no return to fixed rates, with devaluations aplenty until the agony was finally ended in the early 1970s. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
wznn0 | how do languages without alphabets organize long lists (ex. names)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wznn0/eli5_how_do_languages_without_alphabets_organize/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5hvq72",
"c5hw23i"
],
"score": [
13,
6
],
"text": [
"In Chinese, different characters require a different number of strokes to write properly. There is a \"correct\" order to write characters and a set number of lines you can use as a stroke. Think of it as using Tetris blocks to build a single word.\n\nLists are organised according to how many strokes it takes. If there are a same number, then the simpler one goes first usually. Students are taught this notably when learning how to use a dictionary. ",
"should note that some languages that don't use the roman alphabet do still have their own alphabets, with their own alphabetical order.\n\nKorean [Hangul](_URL_1_) and Indian [Devanagari](_URL_0_) are good examples, but a lot of people look at it and assume its hieroglyphic or something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul"
]
] | ||
6iieee | how do people work on huge programming projects | My first thought would be like a game engine, how does a group of people coordinate that, do they spend hours a day in group meetings?
Also just games in general with pre existing engines, like Blizzard employs like hundreds of programmers and stuff and they all work together to get their respective projects done | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iieee/eli5how_do_people_work_on_huge_programming/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj6hd9r",
"dj6hphw",
"dj6ijb1",
"dj6imfm"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"They break the tasks up into chunks which can be manipulated independently. The basic idea is to have \"objects\" that take certain kinds of input and give certain kinds of output, so interacting with it doesn't require knowledge of the internal workings. Then one team can work on an object without meeting with anyone else.",
"They use version control systems like git to track/merge changes (think like Dropbox for code). At large companies there is also usually a system whereby code can be \"checked out\" so more than one person isnt working on the same thing at the same time.",
"When the project is beginning there will be plenty of meetings. The first task is to figure out exactly what it is that we're building. Once we have our grasp on that, we can start to break out the monumental task of \"writing the software\" into much smaller pieces.\n\nLet's go with your example of a game. Some still huge (but still far more granular than \"the game\") tasks might be \"model the characters,\" \"layout the maps,\" and \"build the user interface and overlays\". Each team might be assigned one of these tasks.\n\nDevelopers working on a team will each take an even smaller chunk of work from their team's task. Maybe modeling a single character, building a single map or designing the menu for a specific activity.\n\nThere might be several developers working on some of these smaller tasks at the same time. This is where version control comes in. Basically it's like Dropbox, except it's written to identify differences in code and discern which changes should and shouldn't be made. This allows us to be working in the same file, both save it at the same time, and not worry (usually) about overwriting one another's work.\n\nIn short, it is definitely a lot of planning and coordination, but at the end of the day it's not a whole lot different than a group project in school.",
" > do they spend hours a day in group meetings?\n\nThere are tons of meetings, yes. Usually not every day, but some of the project managers I work with *are* constantly on the phone coordinating with others.\n\nSoftware development is its own huge thing. You have multiple people doing multiple jobs. You have a project manager or architect who divides up the system into smaller chunks. You have business analysts who translate customer specs into actual requirements. You have coders who actually do the coding. And a whole bunch of people in between. \n\nUltimately, though, it boils down to this: there's a big 'ol software blueprint out there that's used for the project. People are assigned individual parts of that blueprint to build, and then get stuck together to make the final product.\n\nIt's a fairly effective system, and it does in fact allow up to hundreds of programmers to work together on a single project."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2c5lzy | WW2 German Security Regiments, specifically 286th Security Regiment before and during Op. Bagration | Hello, I've been trying to find some information on the 286th Security Regiment, and German security regiments in general.
Generally I've been trying to figure out what their TO & E looked like and what an average security regiment would be doing on the Eastern Front during 1944/45.
Specifically I would like to know information about the 286th Security Regiment during Bagration. All I was able to find out so far was that it was a part of the 4th Army East of Orsha. At this time it consisted of:
Grenadier Regiment 638 (French volunteers that would eventually be folded into SS Charlemagne)
Infantry Regiment 61
Infantry Regiment 122
Infantry Regiment 354
II./ Artillery Regiment 213
Alarm Battalion 704 (Most likely not in existence)
Signals Battalion 825
Reiterhundertschaft 286 (Apparently a small cavalry company)
Although I;m not sure what kind of equipment each of these units would have. I wouldn't imagine they would be equipped like a normal Infantry Division or Grenadier Division, but I could be wrong.
The 286th was destroyed during Bagration with most of the rest of the 4th Army, although 400 men from Grenadier Regiment 638 held a crossing at the Bryobransk or Berezina river (possibly the city of Borisov on the Berezina) with the support of five Tiger tanks and Stuka dive bombers later in the battle. Different sources mention Bryobransk and Berezina, but they all agree on the Tigers and Stukas. I wasn't able to find Bryobransk river, but I thought it might be talking about Borisov which would put it on the Berezina.
Unfortunately this is all the information I've been able to find. Security Divisions aren't quite as cool as most everything else and information seems pretty scarce. At least as far as their organization down to Company level and combat experience. There is quite a bit of info regarding their participation in the killings of civilians. However, that isn't information that I am interested in. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2c5lzy/ww2_german_security_regiments_specifically_286th/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjcb3pw"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I take that you mean the 286. Sicherungs-division (Security Division), not regiment?\n\nThe division was created on the 15th of March 1941 and was a rear area security division. It guarded rail and road junctions, important infrastructure and industries and conducted extremely brutal anti-partisan operations.\n\nBy the time of Operation Bagration, the division had absorbed;\n\nGrenadier-Regiment 638 (French volunteers).\n\nSicherungs-Regimenter 44, 78, z.b.V. 631, z.b.V. 632 and 931.\n\nIm Februar 1944 unterstanden der Division zusätzlich das französische Grenadier-Regiment 638, die Sicherungs-Regimenter 44, 78, z.b.V. 631, z.b.V. 632 und 931.\n\nBy Operation Bagration, it was under command of Generalleutnant Hans Oschmann."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
777vni | what’s the fundamental difference between a cpu and a npu? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/777vni/eli5_whats_the_fundamental_difference_between_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dojrkrm"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Software developer here,\n\nA CPU has a fixed set of operations it can perform - there's physical circuitry for adding integers, for multiplying integers, for loading and storing, for shifting binary bits, etc. Each operation is enumerated, and a sequence of these enumerations is what we call a program. Data is read into and out of the CPU through a physical input/output interface called a register, which the CPU can have many - some serve a specific purpose, some just for instructions, some for different types of data, some are output only. Many CPUs have memory on the chip, what we call cache. And many have multiple \"cores\", or clusters of these circuits, so you effectively get multiple CPUs on a single chip.\n\nAn NPU is *nothing like that*. They *don't have* fixed sets of operations, you don't feed it a sequence of instructions. It doesn't have something like registers, though it does have input and output mechanisms. It doesn't have cache, and it doesn't access memory the same way a CPU does. A CPU and GPU are designed for high levels of precision when it comes to decimal numbers, using 32, 64, 128, and in some cases 256 bits. When simulating neural nets, the notion of *data* or *values* kind of goes out the door; common designs use 16 or 8 bits, and IBM has a prototype that doesn't store numeric values at all - their notion of data are well timed electrical pulses, harkening back to delay-line memory of the 50s and 60s.\n\nProgramming for these things consists of describing how the simulated neurons interconnect to form a network. There may be *some* ability to dictate how they operate, and some ability to observe their state, but really it's just give the network some input and read off the output. The purpose for these new class of processor is that they're really starting to see practical application, and you can run more neurons on one of these dedicated pieces of hardware than you can simulate in software on the worlds most powerful super computers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
4ashi8 | How is Li-Fi faster than Wi-Fi if radio waves and light travel at the same speed? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4ashi8/how_is_lifi_faster_than_wifi_if_radio_waves_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d13cwix",
"d13d25b",
"d13deyw"
],
"score": [
14,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"The light waves don't travel faster than radio waves. Light is much higher in frequency. Therefore higher bandwidth modulation can be used therefore higher data rates. Also you don't have to worry about too much interference frog neighbour's systems (inside your house or apartment) since the light waves would be confined to your house. ",
"You are confusing data rate and delay. The signals will arrive at the same time, but the amount of data they carry can be different.\n\nIn general Li-Fi has a much wider bandwidth it can use due to how directional it is. Bandwidth directly determines the maximum signalling rate before [ISI](_URL_0_) occurs. Think of 0 and 1, the quicker we must switch between the two, the higher the frequency. The higher the frequency the larger the bandwidth we would need.\n\nSo Li-Fi with a generally higher bandwidth (and less noise), can switch 0 and 1s faster than Wi-Fi. Therefore the signals arrive at the same time, but Li-Fi has more 0s and 1s, then Wi-Fi, resulting in a faster network.\n\n\n\n",
"The capacity to carry data is greater with higher frequencies, all else being equal. Light has a higher frequency than radio waves, so light has a greater capacity for data in a given time frame. \nThink of a light switch you can only turn on and back off once every second. How long would it take you to send '[Hello World!](_URL_0_)' in Morse code? It would take about a minute or longer! Now consider sending the same message where you could turn the switch on and back off a thousand times a second- how long would it take to send the message? Much less than a second! Most WiFi is at 2.4GHz (2.4 *Billion* on-off cycles in a second), but even the lowest frequency light is 430THz (430 *Trillion* on-off cycles in a second), which is well over a thousand times more cycles in a second. This difference in frequency is what allows more information to be sent in a certain amount of time by light."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersymbol_interference"
],
[
"http://morsecode.scphillips.com/translator.html"
]
] | ||
57mg4w | What was the reaction of Henry VII and his court to the news of the New World? | Was there any recorded commentary? Were there any early plans to colonize, or was that not in the interests of England at the time? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57mg4w/what_was_the_reaction_of_henry_vii_and_his_court/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8tb4w8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"*I can offer a partial answer to this question but I readily defer to other historians for whom this area is their primary expertise.*\n\nHenry VII was originally unwilling to support an expedition west in search of a new sea route to markets in the east. He had met with Christopher Columbus' younger brother Bartolomeo in 1489 and had apparently been unimpressed with his condition and proposal. Long after the fact, Sir Francis Bacon recorded in the early 1620s that Bartolomeo had been captured by pirates on his journey to England and had arrived at court in a state that did not well serve his cause. \"And it so fortuned that he was taken by pirates at sea, by which accidental implement he was long here he came to the King; so long that before he had received a capitulation with the King for his brother the enterprise by him was achieved, and so the West-Indies by providence were then reserved for the crown of Castilia.\" Sir Francis Bacon, *The History of the Reign of Henry VII* (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), 157\n\nThere does appear to be evidence that English ships had nonetheless been searching west even before the first successful voyage of Christopher. The Spanish envoy Pedro de Ayala in a letter to his king stated in 1498, \"Merchants of Bristol have for the last seven years annually sent out ships in search of the island of Brazil and the seven cities.\" Bergenroth, *Calendar* I. 177, no. 210.\n\nFollowing Christopher's first successful voyage to the New World in 1492 and his safe return the following year Henry VII changed his mind regarding the potential possibilities for trade via the west and chose to give his support to the Genoese explorer John Cabot. In exchange for a trading monopoly to all lands discovered he would license Cabot and five ships to undertake such an expedition. However it is important to note that the King did not financially support Cabot in this endeavour. The King issued him letters patent in 1496 but it was left to Cabot and his partners to finance the expedition themselves. It appears that Cabot decided to assign a portion of his rights by charter to his backers and was effectively \"mortgaging his future.\" Evan Jones, \"The Matthew of Bristol and the Financiers of John Cabot's 1497 Voyage to North America\" *English Historical Review* Vol. 121, No. 492 (Jun., 2006), pp. 781\n\nThankfully for Cabot he successfully crossed the Atlantic for the first time in 1497 under English banners. He returned that year for an audience with the King and was celebrated at court for his achievements. He received a substantial sum and was assigned a pension to support him in future endeavours. For decades thereafter Bristol would become a centre for financing and supporting expeditions of this kind to the the New World in pursuit of new routes to Orient. David Harris Sacks, *The Widening Gate: Bristol and the Atlantic Economy, 1450-1700* (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 51. \n\nThe King would continue to support other expeditions to the west from Bristol until the end of his reign. \n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2me45r | During the Bush War, the Rhodesian Light Infantry earned a reputation for being perhaps the best counter-insurgency force in the world. Was this reputation deserved? How did they achieve such incredible results? | Because conflict in the 21st century is all about asymmetrical warfare involving stateless combatants (and occasionally containing only stateless combatants) I was wondering what lessons we (NATO, UNSC etc) can learn from the Bush war, and whether we can tailor these approaches to peacekeeping style operations. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2me45r/during_the_bush_war_the_rhodesian_light_infantry/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm3f3hx",
"cm3fspw"
],
"score": [
8,
7
],
"text": [
"I've previously written an answer to a similar question [here](_URL_0_).\n\nNeedless to say, they worked very well as a *military* force but as a counter-insurgency force, they were actually downright awful. Unfortunately, the post-Bush War literature (often written by the RLI themselves) were quite happy to overlook this and if you browse the many armchair military forums around the web, you will see an almost insane amount of praise for the RLI - very much like how they praise the Waffen-SS.",
"What incredible results? The Lancaster House Agreement and the rapid transition of Rhodesia to Zimbabwe? I don't mean to bite your head off but this is an important matter that really speaks to the heart of your question: the Ian Smith government *lost* the war and failed to keep any of its political objectives in the aftermath, obviously their counter-insurgency strategy wasn't effective overall. It's much more instructive to look at the *political* reasons Rhodesian UDI failed than to lost cause the valiance or tactical proficiency of the Rhodesian armed forces. \n\nWhy, despite unquestioned conventional military superiority, was the UDI government forced to surrender? The short answer is international isolation, which produced a situation where the nationalist guerillas could base themselves in safe zones of neighboring countries and import Communist bloc military aid to their heart's content. The Rhodesian government had to mess around with sanctions busting and face continual difficulties in supply, to say nothing of the morale eroding exclusion from international sporting events. This political context creates an atmosphere of inevitability; when the rebels can operate across borders it's not possible to defeat them permanently by military means. The nationalists merely need to wait, and keep fighting, until their beleaguered opponents lose their resolve and the whole weight of international opinion comes down on the side of majority rule.\n\nIf there's one lesson counter-insurgents should learn from the Rhodesian Bush War it's the overriding importance of political factors. Counter-insurgents need to internalize what insurgents understand, what is the very foundation of the theory of guerilla warfare: that war is a continuation of politics that exists to achieve political aims. Political aims that are themselves impossible cannot be achieved militarily. When UDI was declared in 1965 the aim of white minority might not be quite impossible but it's pretty close to it, we are well into the era of decolonization and [the erosion of British backing for its white colonial project.](_URL_0_). \n\nIt's an interesting counter-factual that if instead of UDI the white Rhodesians had pursued a more subtle program of white supremacy they might have maintained their power longer. Imagine that instead of blowing up relations with the U.K. and world by declaring UDI on the principle of white supremacy Ian Smith's government in the early 60s had paid lip service to equality while keeping land ownership and other prerogatives stacked in favor of whites. I think there are some other colonial contexts, British East Africa or Caribbean colonies, that suggest this would have been a much longer lasting way of maintaining white minority interests against rising nationalist claims."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hmgrd/why_was_the_war_in_rhodesia_rhodesian_bush_war/cku03c1"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_of_Change_%28speech%29"
]
] | |
1irtuw | How close can we fly a spacecraft to the Sun? Any reason to send a craft right at the Sun? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1irtuw/how_close_can_we_fly_a_spacecraft_to_the_sun_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb7ftdq",
"cb7g8tf",
"cb7mkds",
"cb7mrlm",
"cb7n2zb"
],
"score": [
10,
132,
9,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"In principle, we can launch a spacecraft that will impact the sun, but I don't see why it would be worth the expense of doing so.\n\nIf we were going to get a probe close to the sun, we'd likely use gravity assists to do the hard part of the work. This means it would take a long time to get the probe where it's going, the probe's perihelion can be as low as we wish, and it's aphelion would at minimum be close to mercury's orbit.\n\nAs for building a probe that can survive being close to the sun, the side of the probe facing the sun would need to be shiny and thermally conductive. Perhaps a gold coated sheet of tungsten or silver, connected to radiators in the shade of the craft by heat pipes. The side in the shade should be as black as possible to increase emissivity, and be shaped in a cone that closely matches the shadow of the reflective part. ",
"Generally, studying the sun from a heliocentric orbit at 1AU (by either launching the spacecraft into it's own orbit, or by placing it at one of the Lagrangian Points of stability, such as L1 or L2) is all that's needed to get a decent look at our star. \n\nThis is what SOHO does - it sits at L1 (which is between the Earth and the sun, much closer to Earth) and follows Earth in its orbit. Launched in December 95, it's been operating well past its 2 year life expectancy, going into its 18th year. It's been a remarkably successful spacecraft. \n\nWe don't even have to orbit the sun to observe it. The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) actually observes the sun from a geosynchronous Earth orbit. Likewise, ESA has an observatory attached to the ISS called SOLAR which observes the sun, and that's in LEO!\n\nThe STEREO space craft are cool, too. There's 2 of them, probe A and B, and they both orbit the sun at roughly 1AU, but probe A is orbiting ahead of the Earth, and it continues to get farther ahead everyday, and probe B is trailing the Earth, and getting more distant and farther behind Each day. What this means is that when the probes are on opposite sides of the sun for example, we can observe the entire sun at once. Not just a half of it. \n\nThe reason we choose to orbit so distantly from the sun is due to a few reasons. Firstly, it doesn't require nearly as much delta-v to launch the craft into GEO or a solar orbit than it does to fly close to the sun, which is pretty hard to do as the sun constantly tugs you in as you fall deeper into its gravity well, so you need to make tons of Earth, Venus & Mercury gravity assists to slow you down so you don't go too fast. It took the MESSENGER spacecraft 6.5 years to arrive at orbit around Mercury, during which time it completed 1 Earth flyby, 2 Venus flybys and 3 Mercury Flybys. If you want to go even closer to the sun, you have to be super careful. \n\nAnd that brings me on to my second point. Even at Mercury-like distances from the sun, 0.3-0.46AU, the sun is getting rather strong, and solar flares and other magnetic storms can easily interfere with spacecraft we send there. You have to doubly radiation-harden all the electronics and equipment, and make damn sure you don't point any sensors directly at the sun, because they'll be ruined instantly. MESSENGER itself has a 2m by 2.5m sunshade to protect itself.\n\nAnd you want to get even closer?! Okay. Well, we just might. Solar Probe Plus is launching in 2018, and is going to fly within 5,900,000km of the suns surface. That's 8.5 solar radii, or 0.034AU, to observe the suns corona in exquisite detail. That's super close. It'll beceome the fastest traveling spacecraft ever with respect to the sun, flying around at 200km/s. It requires a reinforced carbon-carbon heatshield, and has a special liquid cooled solar array which will be used when really close to the sun. Here, the solar intensity is 520 times as strong as it is in Earth orbit. It'll require 7 Venus gravity assists to get there too. \n\nI hazard we could probably get closer if we wanted to, but why bother if you're a simple solar-observing spacecraft? It's much easier and cheaper to just build your instruments and optics larger so you can see the sun better at farther distances than it is to design heatshields, super rad-hardened systems, and use half-decade-long gravity assists to get where you want to go. \n",
"As a follow up question, how realistic is the spaceship in \"Sunshine?\"",
"As much as I hate to say it NASA and any other space agency is there to do legitimate research with tangible results rather than doing something just because it would be cool. This is why there have not been any more missions to the moon or to the sun along with what Echologic already mentioned.",
"I would think some tests of relativity could be conducted closer to the sun. We've already tried Gravity Probe B (_URL_0_ and _URL_1_ ) so I think there would be some great benefit to better observe and model the bending and time differences in a closer solar orbit. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://einstein.stanford.edu/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B"
]
] | ||
39a2zu | is there any way for super-large companies to actually fail? what would have to happen for google, microsoft, apple and the likes to actually disappear? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39a2zu/eli5_is_there_any_way_for_superlarge_companies_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs1n4fs",
"cs1obyz",
"cs1r8ce",
"cs1r9e0",
"cs1sn2k",
"cs1t5k1",
"cs1tjpi",
"cs1tqkf",
"cs1u479",
"cs1uoos",
"cs1v1x7",
"cs1vcwc",
"cs1wzrq",
"cs1y0bn",
"cs1y7ah",
"cs1ycto",
"cs1yd9z",
"cs1zfux",
"cs20aa1",
"cs20dfh",
"cs21i74"
],
"score": [
69,
52,
4,
982,
81,
25,
98,
25,
9,
6,
17,
40,
20,
3,
5,
6,
2,
2,
9,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. When a large company fails, usually it gets bought cheaply by a bigger company that wants to keep the name, the buildings, the technology, or other parts, but fire most of the staff. ",
"Cook the books. Nortel was \"growing\" for quite some time and then it was revealed they were counting sales today they **might** close next quarter.\n\nNot saying that's happening at them but in theory it could happen. Nobody thought Nortel was a fraud at the time ....",
"Super large companies can definitely fail. It all starts with losing money (versus profit). If they lose money consistently (e.g. quarter after quarter), they burn through any existing cash reserves and need to begin to sell off their assets to raise money to fund continuing operations. They will also borrow money via loans or bonds and seek investment (selling/issuing more stock).\n\nAt some point, the company is saddled with too much debt for continued operations to make sense given perceived market opportunities. The company then either goes bankrupt or sells their operations and assets to another entity.",
"Kodak is a great example. They were not some flash in the pan, and they did not just get folded into another company, they rode the horse straight into hell.\n\nSo this huge company based around film and optics. They were a great employer, did a lot of stuff that sounds like Apple would do it, hired the best talent, thought creatively, etc. etc. etc.\n\nBut then the market changed. At first no one really thought digital cameras would matter much, they were very expensive and had questionable quality. So Kodak ignored them. Then digital got cheaper and better. Kodak ignored it. Then consumers started to realize the crazy benefits of digital over film and started jumping ship in a big way.\n\nKodak tried to change gears. They spent a ton of money trying to make products to print digital photos (in stores, at home, from special digital cameras). They tried to make digital photo frames.\n\nThe problem was that they were a huge company and huge companies need huge products. Its not that any of their ideas were necessarily bad ones, its just the market was shrinking. People were not going to spend hundreds of dollars on film/development any more. Today in your life you might print one or two hundred photos at the total cost of 20 bucks, but no more will you have to drop serious money on photography.\n\nAnd so the layoffs started (and layoffs are expensive because of severance pay laws), and then lawyers got involved, and pretty soon the once cutting edge company was nothing but liabilities and tears.",
"Have you ever owned a Compaq computer? Or heard of E. F. Hutton? caesaroctavion mentions Enron, but there was also Woolworths, Pan Am, Standard Oil, Pullman, and of course, another accounting firm like Enron called Arthur Anderson (85,000 jobs gone overnight!)\n\nSome were bad management, some were bought out, and some, like Enron and Anderson, were because of criminal activity. ",
"If you want some old school examples, Sears Roebuck was arguably the most ubiquitous company in America for many decades. Now they are largely irrelevant. A & P (grocery chain) used to be the biggest by far in the country, now they've gone through multiple bankruptcies. \nCompanies that see massive success tend to hold on to the practices that made them successful, even long after those practices become outmoded. Some companies (Ball aluminum cans) can successfully reinvent themselves, sometimes many times and last over a century, but eventually they place the wrong bet on the future. \nEventually Walmart, Google, and whatever other company you can think of, will become a memory. ",
"For a modern example? Look at Sears. Sears was a huge retailer - the kind of place where you could go to outfit every room of your house. Now? Who the hell goes to Sears. I have friends who've said, \"Oh, are they still a thing?\"\n\n Best Buy (etc.) came and ate up the electronics market. Amazon came and ate up the market for (basically) anything I think I need but don't need it today (or can't be bothered to get off my ass to go get.) Sears stayed out of the online arena. Everything they do and have reeks of a bygone era. If you need a shitty drill, low quality jeans, or want to feel depressed in a sub-par electronics showroom, Sears is your place. They're trying like hell to turn the ship around, but (like was made with the Kodak example) huge companies need huge cash workhorses. I, like so many of my generation, am happy to wait 2 days for my (same price yet higher quality) drill to arrive by UPS instead of driving across town and dumping money in Craftsman nonsense. \n\nTL;DR: Sears (like Kodak already mentioned) is on the way to failure because as the market and consumers changed, they did not. ",
"GM failed. Took a massive government cash injection and legal chicanery to get some liabilities off the books ",
"Probably the most common reason a large company will fail is because they become complacent. As has been mentioned, Kodak is a perfect example of this. They simply failed to adapt to a changing market (film to digital). The company believed film was the ultimate best photography media so strongly because for so long it simply was. This became a cultural belief in Kodak's management and staff and because of this they lagged massively to adapt to a digital medium. \n\nSome other instances exist where directors/managers are a result of the companies failure. This does sound near impossible in companies so large that can simply get 'the best' managers but in reality it is not so clear cut. the effectiveness of a manager is influenced by their company, meaning a good manager leading a company that isn't suited to them can fail. Carly Fiorina's stint at HP is a good example of this. She was considered a highly effective manager at AT & T in their sales department, but when she took over at HP everything turned bad. Her authoritarian management style did not suit the family based business at all. Also, being the first female in upper management did have some resistance from workers (notice this is the fault of the company's culture, not the manager) which lead to conflict. \n\nFailure due to culture such as Kodak will more likely be catastrophic than failure due to management such as HP because culture is much harder to change than simply replacing managers. In the case of HP, they are now a competitive technology company whereas Kodak is struggling to remain afloat",
"Nokia is a good example of a large companie that failed. When it happens it happens fast normally due to changes in trend or technology. ",
"I recommend [this book](_URL_0_). It is basically a list of failures with possible explanations of why they happened.\n\nMicrosoft for instance, the author argues, is the only software company that was in the top 10 software companies 20 years ago as well as today, because they have not made a single catastrophic decision yet. It's quite an interesting book, talks about botched mergers, lack of vision, missed opportunities (e.g. Netscape deciding to rewrite their browser from scratch, thereby losing 2 years in the market place, while Internet Explorer ate their lunch), etc.",
"History says yes - meet the East India Company. It was founded in the early 17th Century to manage trade between Britain and the islands of the Indian Ocean. The British government gave it all sorts of powers to ensure the trade was profitable - including being able to raise its own taxes, mint coins, possess a 200,000 man army and forming governments. In exchange it poured money into the Treasury as well as ensuring an endless supply of cotton, silk, dyes, tea and opium to the growing Empire.\n\nBy the mid 18th Century the EIC was running - you better be sitting down - India. Yep, the country was effectively a private franchise; as was a good part of Imperial China.\n\nThe EIC's mismanagement was directly responsible for a huge famine in Bengal during 1770 that killed about a third of the population, whilst its private armies fuelled a rebellion in the Indian Army in 1857. Elsewhere, its demands to be able to sell opium into the Chinese market - in direct contravention of Imperial Law - meant that Britain ended up in not one, but two Opium Wars during which the greatest military power of the era ransacked large parts of China and expropriated large amounts of property and land. This has poisoned Anglo-Chinese relations for about 150 years.\n\nThe EIC became so much of an embarressment in Britain that it was gradually legislated out of existence during the late 18th and early 19th Century. The Indian Mutiny was the final straw and India was brought directly into the Empire in 1858. With that, the company sort of hung on until 1873 when it was dissolved.\n\nAnd if you thought the EIC was big, its older rival, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) would nowadays be worth in excess of $7 TRILLION.",
"Blockbuster disappeared pretty quickly, at one point a blockbuster card was the second most held card in the US besides you SS card. They had stores all across the country and a massive consumer database, poof! \n\nEdit:good read on the topic if you are interested \n\n_URL_0_",
"To answer the 2nd question, what would happen for Google, Microsoft, Apple actually disappear:\n\nThe reason why they might disappear is because a better product or company comes up and usurps their position. Consumers will simply switch to the new attractive company, and there will be job losses at the old dominant firm and job gains in the new one. Overall, the economy should benefit because the consumers are now using a better quality product (otherwise they wouldn't switch anyway), and hopefully the job lost/gained in between cancels out. ",
"There are three ways for a large company to disappear\n\n- **Fraud** - Someone up there commits a financial or regualtory fraud. e.g. include Enron, Worldcom etc. \n\n- **Decay** - Markets changed and the company couldn't adapt to the change. e.g. Compaq, Wang Labs \n\n- **Risk** - Huge risk a company took backfired. Often banks e.g. Lehman Brothers etc. \n\nDecay is the most common reason and that's why most present day tech companies are paranoid about trying to enter newer markets long before they are viable. ",
"Kodak\n\nGlobal Crossing\n\nStandard Oil\n\nWoolworths\n\nBethlehem Steel\n\nPan Am\n\nTo name a few.\n\nHow dd they fail? Several Ways, mismanagements, monopoly busting, rapid growth assuming too much rish, chsngin tastes/trends are the main causes. tah",
"Usually they just take that 20% that comes out of my paycheck, and use that to stay afloat for a while when times get hard. Must be nice.",
"Here is a story with a bit of a personal note.\n\nI used to work for a company that made industrial fabric products. We eventually got into the business of making those arched fabric over steel buildings (quonset style). \n\nWe did pretty well with them, but our market was just western Canada. \n\nOur biggest competitor was another Canadian company called Cover-All. Their American branch was called Summit Structures.\n\nAt their peak, Cover-All had annual sales over $100 Million. (10-20 times bigger than our building division).\n\nAnyway, one of the buildings that they sold was used as a practice facility for the Dallas Cowboys. [Then one day, it collapsed in a storm and injured some people](_URL_0_). \n\nAfter the investigation, it was ruled that the collapse was due to negligent engineering rather than a flaw in the materials or installation etc. There was talk that a micro-cell created winds that were beyond the design capacity, but the investigation concluded that the wind wasn't that bad and that it was a faulty design.\n\nThis meant that all of the similar Cover-All buildings could potentially be unsafe...which meant that anyone who owned on could sue them.\n\nAfter the verdict, the company went into receivership and was practically shut down within a few months. \n\nAt this point, the company that I worked for, swooped in a 'bought the assets' of what had been Cover-All. They didn't buy the company, because then they would have been liable for all those buildings. The company ceased to exist and we just took over their facilities and inventory etc. \n\nOf course, it was a big undertaking and there were plenty of hurdles to getting the company up and running. We obviously fixed the design issues...and implemented better accounting and control practices etc. \n\nAnd that's how a $100 Million dollar company failed because of a single incident.",
"One word. Motorola. \n\nUltimately, through time and consistently poor management and inability to adapt to new markets, any large company can fail, by first becoming a smaller company.\n\nMotorola was founded in the 30s, and became a large powerhouse in radio and television manufacturing, and branched into communications in a big way - the radios for the moon landings were Motorola transmitters and receivers, for example.\n\nIn the 60s and 70s, through heavy investment in integrated circuits and electronic components, and that branched into a whole new divison of the company, the Semiconductor PRoducts Sector (SPS). \n\nIn the 80s Motorola really invested heavily in cell phone technology and continued to expand their IC business.\n\nBy the 90s, Motorola was the first in a lot of things - Iridium (the first satellite based cell phone network), infrastructure for cell tech in China, hundreds of cell phone patents, the development of the first consumer desktop RISC CPU (the PowerPC era), yadda yadda yadda. I mean, literally, Motorola was the ONLY investor in cell infrastructure in CHINA. HOW CAN YOU FUCK UP SUCH A SWEET DEAL?! 1 billion potential customers, zero competition. Welcome to Motorola.\n\none would THINK that by the turn of the century, Motorola would be the primary controller of the cell phone market. However, with the rise of other phone competitors like Nokia, Samsung, etc. And with Apple entering the market with the iPhone, Motorola got broadsided a LOT, and due to their large size, was unable to really make new changes in their phone lineup fast enough to remain competitive. And since they had spun off or divested the bulk of their government contracted sectors and semi-conductur industries, choosing to focus in on the cell phone industry, they ended up having all their ducks in one row, and then screwing the pooch.\n\nBy the late 2000s, Motorola was a shell of what it had once been, and when Google bought out half of it, it was more of a patent grab than anything. Motorola I think still exists in name, but it is nowhere near the company that had 80% of the cell phone market and over 50K employees, like was in the 90s.\n\nSource: my dad worked at Motorola for 32 years, retiring in 2003.",
"Apple did fail. In the late 90s they were out of cash, having just purchased Next, gambling on something called \"OS X\" for their next computers, but which would be too late to save the company.\n\nWhile we don't know the full details of what happened, Bill Gates, swooped in and decided to save them, by investing $150 million in them. Microsoft needed to make it look like there was competition, and if Apple failed, it would underscore the conclusion that DOJ made that Microsoft was a monopoly, and Apple failing would just prove that they were a destructive monopoly. We also know that Gil Amelio was ousted and Steve Jobs was made the CEO of Apple (even though he was already CEO of Pixar).\n\nAlso the Apple after this point, was a completely different company from the Apple before it. Or at least, the kinds of products they made were completely different. The Apple we know today is a true phoenix rising from the ashes of its previous death; a death that didn't happen only because of a serendipitous side effect of another big companies troubles.",
"Lots of very big companies go belly up. Many are/were even in fields where they should have thrived:\n\nNokia\n \nPalm\n \nBlackberry\n \nAtari\n \nWorldcom\n \nEnron\n \nBear Stearns\n \nLehman Brothers\n\n \nAnd this is just a few recent ones. Hell even General Motors went under a few years ago and would not exist if it weren't for a massive bailout from everyone's favorite uncle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Search-Stupidity-Twenty-Marketing-Disasters/dp/1590597214/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433950725&sr=1-1&keywords=in+search+of+stupidity"
],
[],
[
"https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-i-did-it-blockbusters-f... | ||
9ojdu3 | how is something simply 'deleted' when using something like a camera or phone? | I'm out of the loop with technical computer-y stuff, so I was wondering what happens to the stuff that I stored? Does it all get compressed to a byte? What happens to the video and photo stored? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ojdu3/eli5_how_is_something_simply_deleted_when_using/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7uid99",
"e7uinb9",
"e7ujplv"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically your computer/device marks that space as unused. When it needs to save something new then it overwrites any space marked that way. So it is still there, a bunch of tiny on or off (1 or 0) switches until they are rearranged for something new.",
"You mean what happens to a video or photo when you hit delete? Your device simply changes the first letter of the file's name to a special character. That makes the file not only disappears from the list, but also tell your camera or phone that it can write over the space currently occupied by that file. That means that after hitting delete, if you don't take a picture or video, you can successfully retrieve back your deleted file. Once you take a new picture or video, there is no guarantee left",
"Building off the other comments. Most of the time, like everyone else said, your device just marks that memory as available, so if it needs more memory it knows it can just write over whatever is there. That's all fine and dandy, but the data is still there, and that can also be a problem. Say you have personal information on a hard drive, and you want to throw it out. You can delete that information, but, even though the hard drive has marked it as open, all that information is still there and someone could recover it fairly easily if they got your hard drive. So there are some more extreme measures you could take. \n\nOne is to just actually go in and overwrite the data, usually as just a bunch of 0s. So instead of just putting a marker that says it doesn't need to preserve data there, it'll actually take the time to go in and change every bit to a 0, so now even if someone got the hard drive there shouldn't be any actual data stored on it at all. \n\nEven this isn't enough sometimes though. Sometimes you wanna be extra careful, like say if you worked in the government or a company that needed to make sure it's files were secure. It's possible after use whatever memory you have doesn't work perfectly anymore. It might not be able to overwrite all of the data itself, but with the right hardware you could still read that information. If you were really concerned about this you could degauss the drive. This basically blasts it with a really strong magnetic field to wipe out the data completely. Or you could just smash it. \n\nThat might sound like overkill, but there are groups that make money by finding old government hard drives that weren't properly wiped and basically blackmailing their old owners for their data."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2hlqvs | If you stood on the axis of the Earth's rotation would you be spinning as fast as the Earth? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2hlqvs/if_you_stood_on_the_axis_of_the_earths_rotation/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckttx6r",
"cktu2oz"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, you would make 1 revolution in 24 hours.",
"If you stand still on the Earth's axis of rotation, you will rotate at the speed of the Earth (one full turn per day). Further away from the axis, your motion will trace out a complete circle around the axis over the course of a day, which will be larger in size the further you are from it. Rotational speeds get faster as you approach the equator, topping out at [1675 km/h](_URL_0_): the Earth’s circumference at the equator is 40,075 km, and it takes 23.93 hours to complete a full turn. You normally don't feel this motion, since your surroundings are rotating too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.universetoday.com/26623/how-fast-does-the-earth-rotate/"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.