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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
nlihv | somali pirates. how is it an industry and why can't it be stopped in the gulf of aden? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nlihv/somali_pirates_how_is_it_an_industry_and_why_cant/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3a10ut",
"c3a17ex",
"c3a1f7k",
"c3a1k5p",
"c3a3ved",
"c3a10ut",
"c3a17ex",
"c3a1f7k",
"c3a1k5p",
"c3a3ved"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A combination of overfishing and dumping of toxic waste has made it very hard to earn a living by fishing the Gulf of Aden. So you have a bunch of Somalis with boats and no jobs, whose home country is in the middle of a civil war; it only makes sense that they would turn to piracy.\n\nIt can't be stopped because, until they actually attack someone, poor Somali pirates don't look different from any other poor Somalis in a boat.",
"The Somali pirates are more of an economic problem than anything else. What they do is grab a ship hold it to ransom, collect the money and let it go. It is money that they want. They're not in it because they like killing and raping or anything like that. Killing their \"clients\" is bad business.\n\nThe ransom is priced such that it is still cheaper to send shipping through the gulf and to pay the ransom every now and then, than it is to sail a different course. The ransom is also priced such that it is much cheaper than trying to patrol and secure the whole gulf using warships and planes etc.\n\nBasically they are a pain in the ass, but a tolerable pain in the ass at that.\n\nNPR's Planet Money show did a good story on them a few years ago.\n",
"Imagine you've got three or four cop cars, in an enormous city that among other things is home to ten thousand starving people and a whole bunch of unprotected delivery trucks.\n\nThe people who want to rob the delivery trucks know that there's only enough cops to catch a few of them, and the ones that don't are going to make a decent bundle of money.\n\n",
"why can't it be stopped? you've got thousands of kilometers of waters to protect, hundreds of ships passing through, and the \"pirates\" can disguise in with local fishermen",
"If you're an American,imagine California, and then some.\nOr, imagine Thailand; or Spain, or most of France. \n\nHow many people would it take to make that area safe? That, essentially, is why it can't be stopped.\n\nWhy do people do it? Well, in keeping with ELI5 traditions, you have two choices. Make your bed, or go outside and play, well, pirates. \n\nWhich choice would *you* make? \n\n ",
"A combination of overfishing and dumping of toxic waste has made it very hard to earn a living by fishing the Gulf of Aden. So you have a bunch of Somalis with boats and no jobs, whose home country is in the middle of a civil war; it only makes sense that they would turn to piracy.\n\nIt can't be stopped because, until they actually attack someone, poor Somali pirates don't look different from any other poor Somalis in a boat.",
"The Somali pirates are more of an economic problem than anything else. What they do is grab a ship hold it to ransom, collect the money and let it go. It is money that they want. They're not in it because they like killing and raping or anything like that. Killing their \"clients\" is bad business.\n\nThe ransom is priced such that it is still cheaper to send shipping through the gulf and to pay the ransom every now and then, than it is to sail a different course. The ransom is also priced such that it is much cheaper than trying to patrol and secure the whole gulf using warships and planes etc.\n\nBasically they are a pain in the ass, but a tolerable pain in the ass at that.\n\nNPR's Planet Money show did a good story on them a few years ago.\n",
"Imagine you've got three or four cop cars, in an enormous city that among other things is home to ten thousand starving people and a whole bunch of unprotected delivery trucks.\n\nThe people who want to rob the delivery trucks know that there's only enough cops to catch a few of them, and the ones that don't are going to make a decent bundle of money.\n\n",
"why can't it be stopped? you've got thousands of kilometers of waters to protect, hundreds of ships passing through, and the \"pirates\" can disguise in with local fishermen",
"If you're an American,imagine California, and then some.\nOr, imagine Thailand; or Spain, or most of France. \n\nHow many people would it take to make that area safe? That, essentially, is why it can't be stopped.\n\nWhy do people do it? Well, in keeping with ELI5 traditions, you have two choices. Make your bed, or go outside and play, well, pirates. \n\nWhich choice would *you* make? \n\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
2ug9xm | When did it become an acceptable practice to be in debt? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ug9xm/when_did_it_become_an_acceptable_practice_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"co84ktz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"As you no doubt know, debt used to be a crime punishable by imprisonment and other measures. The first inklings of change started to happen as early industrialization took hold; to engage in industrial efforts, capital needed to be accumulated in large amounts, and the easiest way to shuffle capital around is through debt. However, you could still be imprisoned for defaulting, which made no sense because they were also held accountable for the charges accrued while holding them, while unable to work to pay off the debt. The US stopped using federal law to imprison debtors in 1833, leaving it to states to determine individual action. \n\nIn my opinion, the interesting stuff happens in the twentieth century. It is only in the time of the New Deal that, through encouraging federal rulings and financial legislature, it becomes socially acceptable, fairly common and definitely profitable (for banks) for Americans to have debt. This was in keeping with Keynesian economics, which dictated that by encouraging spending (even of borrowed money) the surplus of material goods could be used up, and America would no longer be drowning in gluts of worthless corn and other products. In World War II, revolving credit was created to help control inflation. In the postwar world is when credit (monthly, normalized debt) became standard practice for avidly consuming Americans, buying goods and products of all sorts to outfit their tidy new suburban homes (also paid for through debt.) Only in the 1970s does going into debt stop making sense as the economy tanks and stagflation sets in; at the same time, Americans are using modern credit cards widely and perpetuating an industry of money-making out of debt.\n\nLouis Hyman describes the initial 'financial revolution' really well on his opening page :\n > While personal lending had always existed, before 1917 it had never been legal to charge interest rates high enough to turn a profit and, equally important, lenders had never been able to resell their customers' debts or borrow against them. In short, personal debt had never been able to be a normal business. [...] By the end of the twentieth century, however, such petty loans to workers had become one of American capitalism's most significant products, extracted and traded as if debt were just another commodity, as real as steel.\n\nAnd also:\n > For borrowers, the fungibility of money meant that one form of debt could be paid off with another, The modern debt regime relied on this convertibility, not only to transform installment contracts into personal loans or credit card debts into home equity plans, but to turn the wages of labor into debt repayment as well. [...] For lenders, transforming capital into debt was the essence of their business.\n\nLouis Hyman, Debtor Nation: The History of America in Red Ink (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011). \n\n\nEDIT: Something Hyman doesn't dwell on but I think is well worth pondering is that the U.S. government itself paved the way for American consumer debt by example in the crucial period of World War I that he cites. Debt was acceptable, even instrumental to achieving one's goals, because the United States government was deep in it, too! As detailed in Julia Ott's study of American stock-owning practices, \n > Policymakers looked upon mass investment in federal war debt as a means of encouraging a widespread sense of identity with the war effort and the nation itself [...] even for those lacking full political rights. [... at a time when] Americans grappled with the very definition of citizenship. [...] Investment both made and manifested citizenship, as the citizen-investor assumed full membership in the polity with his or her acquisition of war debt. \n\nJulia C Ott, When Wall Street Met Main Street: The Quest for an Investors’ Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011).[Sorry to butcher it, but I didn't want to type the whole page up]"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2g26ti | Is Magma Radioactive? | How Radioactive? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2g26ti/is_magma_radioactive/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckf55hy"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"No more so than the rock it forms. ~~Grannies~~ Granites can be quite radioactive, the basalt end of the spectrum far less so ."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
a5sc81 | How did we eradicate Smallpox? | How does an entire disease get wiped out? Do all the pathogens that cause the disease go extinct? Or does everyone in the human race become immune to that disease and it no longer has any effect on us? If it's the latter case, can diseases like smallpox and polio come back through mutation? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a5sc81/how_did_we_eradicate_smallpox/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebowg3g",
"ebox7mh",
"ebp1cbt",
"ebp7bav",
"ebp8p6h",
"ebpl08c"
],
"score": [
105,
33,
3,
441,
116,
7
],
"text": [
"Smallpox basically only exists in humans, and doesn't change that quickly.\n\nSo one of the largest vaccination campaigns ever was started in an effort to eradicate the disease. As no real anti vaccine movement had started at the time, and smallpox was a horrible disease that everyone knew, and no one wanted to risk. The campaign succeeded in basically vaccinating enough people that the disease could no longer spread. \n\nAfter 10 years of no known cases emerging, WHO declared the disease extinct. (though i think some strains remain in certain laboratories )",
"[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nThe last phase in India was interesting. There were not enough vaccines for the whole country, so it was decided to inoculate all people in the radius of 20-30km when outbreak occurs. The strategy proved successful.",
"Infectious diseases, especially deadly ones, need to continually spread from person to person to survive. The currently infected people act as the reservoir of the disease. The disease can spread from person to person, but can only survive outside a person for a limited time, or sometimes not at all. \n\nImagine a deadly disease as an arsonist who cannot survive outside a building. In this analogy the buildings are people. The arsonist (disease) sets fire to (infects) the building (person). He then has to escape to another building before the current one burns down, otherwise he will die when the building is completely burnt (the infected person dies), because he cannot survive outside a building. \n\nIn order to eradicate a disease by vaccination, you need to vaccinate enough people to prevent the disease from spreading to anyone else i.e. fireproof all the surrounding buildings. This means that the disease will die when the infected people die without being able to live on by jumping to a new person. \n\nThere are some complicating factors to this with some diseases, as they may be able to live on in the soil, or within other animals like bats (rabies) and cows (TB). In these cases, you would also have to vaccinate the animals (vectors) - which does sometimes happen. In the case of the soil, this would be very difficult to eradicate. This is the reason why we cannot eradicate every disease by vaccination. \n\nIn the case of smallpox, older people have been vaccinated and younger people haven’t. We stopped vaccinating for it once it was eradicated. Yes, if smallpox somehow made a comeback (by being released from a lab) then the younger people would be susceptible. \n\nIt is considered eradicated because it no longer exists in the wild, therefore there is no way for a person to contract it anymore. ",
"Smallpox: we used a huge amount of resources to track every case and vaccinate everyone around them.\n\nPolio: there are actually two different kinds of vaccines inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and oral polio vaccine (OPV). The concept behind OPV is to infect people and spread a weakened virus in the environment to vaccinate many people who might not have contact with the health system. This sounds amazing but like you mention, a live virus has potential to mutate so in addition to wild type polio outbreaks in Afghanistan and Nigeria, you also have vaccine-derived polio outbreaks like what's happening now in Papua New Guinea and Niger. IPV is a more traditional vaccine and gives promise for eradication.\n\nRinderpest: this is an animal disease that was eradicated and was done through a combination of culling diseased animals and a huge vaccination campaign. There is some fear that laboratory samples might be accidently released.\n\nGuinea worm: this is a disease that's about to be eradicated without the use of any drugs. A huge effort by the Carter Center over the last few decades through the use of education, water filters, and insecticides has brought millions of cases a year down to a couple of dozen. There's been a bit of a set back as the human Guinea worm in Chad is now being found in dogs and South Sudan just had an outbreak in a long eliminated area. So it'll probably be another decade or so before it's fully eradicated.\n\nLymphatic filariasis: this is a mosquito-borne parasitic disease that's being controlled through mass drug administrations to kill parasites in people and clean up campaigns that involve habitat elimination and spraying for adult mosquitoes.\n\nTrachoma: a combination of education campaigns and mass drug administrations are being used to drastically reduce the burden of blinding trachoma with the eventual hope of eradication but given it's the same bacteria in the Chlamydia STD infection, there's a long ways to go.\n\nIt's doubtful that eradicated diseases will mutate from closely related diseases but opening niches could have new diseases emerge. There's also always the threat of bioterrorism which may feel distant but is a constant looming gray cloud in public health.\n\nAlso if you're interested in infectious disease news I have a sub for it: r/ID_News",
"Smallpox is a very unique disease in many ways that allowed us to make it the first eradicated disease. First is that Variola virus, the virus that caused Smallpox disease could only infect one species – humans. This is important because once a person had been infected (or vaccinated) they are immune or partially protected from repeated infection. Since it only infected humans, once you have a sufficient number of humans that were are immune (via vaccination or exposure), the virus cannot continue to infect new host and dies off. There are other zoonotic Orthopoxviruses that infect multiple species and continually pop up due to their ability to transmit among various animals and then jump back to humans. Thankfully, those infections were not as bad as Smallpox. Viruses like monkeypox virus in central Africa, cowpox virus in Europe and western Asia, and vaccinia virus in South America continually cause new disease when a non-vaccinated human is exposed to an infected animal. \n\nThe second unique aspect was that there was a readily available virus that could be used for vaccination – a variant of the vaccinia virus mentioned above. Vaccinia (and all Orthopoxviruses) are so similar that once you are infected with one of the viruses, you gain immunity to infection with all other Orthopoxviruses, including variola. This worked well since you could get “infected” (aka, vaccinated) with vaccinia and then be protected from smallpox. Vaccinia also infects multiple species so they would just grow the virus however they could (most notably calf lymph or more simply on the side of cows). There was no need to have all the modern biotechnology tools to culture virus. Vaccinia infection caused much less severe disease, so you could give it to a lot of people and not worry (too) much about side effects. \n\nIt was also important that the disease was easily identifiable. It was hard to hide the huge number of lesions that developed all over the body. Once lesions popped up, the disease could be identified and the person could seek treatment. The infected person was also not infectious (e.g., did not spread the virus) up until a few days before the lesions appeared so there was only a few days where you could have spread the virus unknowingly. This leads to the next unique aspect, the long virus incubation and use of vaccination in that time. \n\nImmunity from vaccination was sufficient that you were protected for quite some time afterwards and importantly that vaccination could still protect even if it was given to you after exposure! Once you were infected with variola, there is a long period of 1-2 weeks where you had no symptoms. As mentioned during most of that time the person didn’t spread the virus. If you were vaccinated early enough, your body would mount an immune response to the large dose of vaccine (vaccinia) which would prompt your immune system to generate antibodies which would then bind/inactivate any variola virus in the body and stop the further spread. Point is, you could be exposed and then get vaccinated and still be ok. \n\nThis leads to the last and very ingenious aspects of the eradication – the use of ring vaccination. Since there was only a few days time when a person could spread the virus unknowing, and vaccination (even after exposure) was effective at stopping spread, we simply vaccinated everyone that had been in contact with a person who had smallpox. You create a “ring” of now vaccinated people and the virus cannot spread. If you also then monitor all the people that were exposed to that person, and if any one of them shows symptoms, you then vaccinate all their contacts. It was time intensive, but because of this, you didn’t need to vaccinate everyone, you could just vaccinate the contacts and still be successful. \n\nIn short, it was a combination of many factors that allowed the eradication of smallpox. Smallpox won’t be back, and if it does somehow reappear (from the permafrost or from bioterrorism) we have newer and safer vaccines that will help solve that problem. Interestingly, it is many of these same factors that helped us eradicate Rinderpest (from cattle), but that are now working against us in eradicating polio or even attempting to eradicate something much more dangerous like Rabies. \n",
"There is an excellent book by Richard Preston called Demon in the Freezer that outlines the smallpox eradication effort as well as analyzing the issues with small pox stocks held in government labs. \n\nBriefly, smallpox does not live outside of humans for long. It doesn’t live in soil, water, or anything else. \n\nThe world health organization (WHO) spearheaded a campaign to eradicate smallpox. Essentially they would vaccinate in a large circle around known smallpox outbreaks and work their way in. Through this method of vaccination, they were able to eradicate the disease. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82go6P7DES4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
bpp79c | how did we come to the point where we have chocolate eggs for easter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bpp79c/eli5_how_did_we_come_to_the_point_where_we_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"envz692",
"enxis7l"
],
"score": [
17,
3
],
"text": [
"Because Easter is a fertility celebration -hence the eggs and bunnies (known for rampant shagging) - that was sabotaged by Christianity along with so many other 'pagan' religious events.",
"[Eostre](_URL_0_) (also known as Ostara) was originally a proto-germanic goddess of spring and fertility. Eggs are a common symbol of birth and new life and hold a strong connotation to Eostre (as do easter bunnies for being very....very fertile). These celebrations took place during the same time as the Jewish celebration of Passover (commemorating the Jewish Exodus from slavery in Egypt). Later on, Christians interpenetrated Passover as an allegory of the resurrection of Jesus, and co-opted the holiday for Christianity. This is why Easter is never a set date, but instead follows the Jewish lunar calendar - i.e. Easter is always the first Sunday after the full moon following the Spring equinox.\n\nAlso, everyone loves chocolate, so chocolate eggs > normal eggs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre"
]
] | ||
1zser2 | how do deep space satellites navigate through debris like the asteroid belt or the oort cloud? | Are they smart enough to detect and maneuver around objects in their immediate trajectory? Or unexpected objects encountered in the satellites' flight plan? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zser2/eli5how_do_deep_space_satellites_navigate_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfwiyj4",
"cfwizgz",
"cfwjs4c",
"cfwv3t7"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The chances of actually encountering an object in an asteroid field is astronomically (ha!) low. It isn't like you see in Star Wars. Objects can be separated by millions of miles. It just isn't that big of a concern, and most of the larger objects have been mapped. NASA estimates the chances of actually hitting an asteroid to be about 1 in a billion.\n\nSo far, we have not had to worry about navigating the Oort cloud.",
"Space is really, really, REALLY big. Even the Oort cloud is incredibly sparse as far as matter is concerned. You don't really have to worry about hitting anything. The odds are literally astronomical.",
"If the asteroid belt looked like the star wars model, it would be visible as a thick, solid bar of light across the sky, which would totally obscure the view of planets and stars beyond. As it is, all the dust and asteroids create a very faint fuzzy brightening of the sky known as the zodiacal light that is only just discernible with completely dark skies.",
"If you were in the asteroid belt, on average, you might be able to see only one or two other asteroids...and they would likely be a few very large asteroids a long ways away.\n\nAnd if the asteroid belt is sparse, the Oort cloud is sparser still."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
4ov3as | Why do I need to delete a usb drive before removing it from my computer? | It's probably really obvious but I haven't got a clue as to why it is necessary. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4ov3as/why_do_i_need_to_delete_a_usb_drive_before/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4ftk50"
],
"score": [
48
],
"text": [
"The \"eject\" function forces the operating system to finish all write operations to the device. Sometimes, the OS may delay writing data to a device and instead keeps it in memory. It will report the write operation (for example the saving of a file) as successful, but will only perform the actual write at a more convenient time (typically within a few seconds at most). If you'd pull out the USB drive before this happens, the data could be lost. The same happens if you pull out the USB drive while it's busy writing a large amount of data.\n\nThe eject function simply tells the OS that it should finish up with the device and then stop writing to it. This way, you prevent possible data loss."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2jwicq | Why is buoyancy a fluid-only property? | This is a dumb question, but I'm wondering why buoyancy is unique to fluids. If I bury a balloon underground it doesn't pop back up but this isn't the case if I push the balloon down a tank of water. How does the FBD differ for each case and what properties specific to fluids allows for buoyancy but not solids? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jwicq/why_is_buoyancy_a_fluidonly_property/ | {
"a_id": [
"clftrk3",
"clfuxeb",
"clfvkvw"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Interesting question, I had to stop and think about this!\n\nIn a fluid a body experiences buoyancy and is free to move upwards because the fluid can be easily deformed by the buoyant body. In a solid, even if you are experiencing buoyancy, the force is so minute it can't overcome the strength of the solid material.",
"Crazy answer time: It's not a fluid only property!\n\nIf you fill a jar high density rocks (iron balls maybe), low density rocks (pumice perhaps) and sand, then shake it, the high density rocks will sink to the bottom and the low density rocks will rise to the top.\n\nBouncy requires two things: a continuum (such as a liquid or grains of sand) and larger objects inside that continuum with a different density (such as the rocks).\n\nTo see that buoyancy take effect it must be possible for stuff to move around. Water flows easily, so the buoyant force doesn't require any outside help. But sand particles don't flow very easily. There is a static friction that must be overcome before anything moves. Shaking the particles overcomes this static friction and makes the buoyant forces more apparent.\n\nIn the free-body diagram the buoyant force from the sand would be countered by static friction (which can be very large for interlocking granules).",
"The buoyancy force is the force obtained by integrating the pressure from the fluid over the surface of the body. This results in a net upward force on the body because the pressure in a fluid increases with depth proportional to the fluid density: \n\n\nP=p*g*h at any point in the fluid, where P is pressure, p (rho) is density, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and h is the depth below the fluid surface. Note that density could be a non-constant, which would change the above equation to an integration of p*h from 0 to h, but that's not really relevant at the moment. \n\n\nWhen you integrate that equation for pressure around the entire surface of the body, you end up with a net upward force because the pressure is higher on the bottom surfaces of the body due to the fact that they're at a greater depth. \n\n\nIn order to have buoyancy, you must have a pressure distribution throughout your continuum that varies according to depth. In a solid body, there is no pressure distribution because it doesn't behave like a fluid in that way. \n\n\nThat's my quick answer. I'm going to have to make sure I'm correct about the last part - I don't think pressure (it would really be better called stress or traction for a solid body) propagates in the same way for a solid body because pressure in a fluid is omnidirectional and acts normal to any surface, whereas pressure (stress) in a body, while it DOES increase with \"depth\" due to the weight of the material (sort of), is very much not omnidirectional. \n\n\nSo anyway.... Short answer, because buoyancy is due to pressure increasing with depth, which doesn't really happen for solid bodies. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
4ciwuo | why do people love eating fast food more often than having more "natural" food? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ciwuo/eli5_why_do_people_love_eating_fast_food_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1iluyj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's generally the trifecta of convenience, affordability, and taste. None of the three are particularly spectacular, but all are good. So it's an easy option for people who don't have a lot of time to cook."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
14i8dl | how did we come up with our current system of years? | I don't mean "years" as in the earth revolving around the sun one time through. I'm asking why are we currently in the 2,012th "year"? How did they keep track of years before year 0? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14i8dl/eli5_how_did_we_come_up_with_our_current_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7dadsm",
"c7dbm08"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"It varied from place to place, but was typically measure by the reign of the current king...\"in the 12th year of King Bob, such and such occurred\". During the Roman empire, this shifted to various prominent emperors.\n\nThen in 525, a monk named Dionysius was working out the dates of Easter, but didn't want to base it off the Roman date, because that particular emperor wasn't to fond of Christians. So he made a wild ass guess at the year Jesus was supposed to have been born, and used that.\n\nHis calendar got popular, spread, and became the basis for the modern calendar.",
"What year was it when the calendar was reset?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4eiyxf | What happens if a person in a first world country is diagnosed with rabies? Are they doomed or can it be treated? | I know there's a series of injections and drugs a person can be given to prevent the virus from getting out of control, but what happens if they never get those drugs and actually start showing symptoms? How would the condition be treated once the virus is past its incubation period? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4eiyxf/what_happens_if_a_person_in_a_first_world_country/ | {
"a_id": [
"d21pkqv",
"d21q2h7",
"d21r52z"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
8
],
"text": [
"(Not a medical professional.) I thought basically (once symptoms had appeared and it was too late for the shots). You had to let the virus run it's course. And that fever (and delusions) were so strong, that \"induced coma\" was the best bet to stop loss of sanity. Last I heard only about 10 have survived, but only 1 that could be characterized as \"unharmed\". We await an expert answer . . .",
"Once a patient begins exhibiting symptoms, the survival rate is exceedingly low. It is nearly universally fatal at that point. Rabies ravages the central nervous system if post-exposure prophylaxis with immunoglobulin and vaccination is not started soon enough.",
"First, as you say, there are post-exposure rabies shots that can very effectively prevent the disease from ever starting. These include both pre-formed antibodies against the virus, as well as a standard vaccine that causes the body's own immune system to make anti-rabies antibodies. (The pre-formed antibodies fill the 7-14 day window between vaccine administration and enough antibody generation.) This is very effective, but it's not what you're asking about.\n\nIf someone is exposed to rabies, and misses these post-exposure shots, is it treatable? The answer is maybe a tiny bit yes, but almost entirely (and maybe entirely) no. \n\nUntil recently the answer would have been unambiguously no. There was no treatment for rabies following onset of symptoms; the patient inevitably died, often in excruciating pain. In the late 2000s, though, a possible treatment for rabies was suggested, the \"Milwaukee Protocol\". This basically involves putting the patient into a coma and including intensive life support systems. A tiny handful of patients have apparently recovered after this protocol. (A paper from late 2015, [Temporal evolution on MRI of successful treatment of rabies](_URL_2_), claims to have had the third rabies survivor following this treatment.)\n\nHowever, the consensus among doctors and researchers is now that the Milwaukee Protocol not only only useless, it's worse than useless. For example, [Update on rabies diagnosis and treatment](_URL_3_) says *\"The Milwaukee protocol involves induction of therapeutic coma; however, there is no clear rationale for a neuroprotective role of this therapy, many reports exist of its failures, and its use should be abandoned.\"*, [The \"Milwaukee protocol\" for treatment of human rabies is no longer valid.](_URL_4_) says *\"The so-called \"Milwaukee Protocol\" ... has been proved not beneficial ... and has resulted in severe complications\"*, and [Critical Appraisal of the Milwaukee Protocol for Rabies: This Failed Approach Should Be Abandoned](_URL_1_) says *\"None of these therapies can be substantiated in rabies or other forms of acute viral encephalitis. Serious concerns over the current protocol recommendations are warranted. The recommendations made by the Milwaukee protocol warrant serious reconsideration before any future use of this failed protocol.\"*. \n\nWhy did people survive rabies after the Milwaukee Protocol? It seems that spontaneous recovery is possible (but very, **very** unlikely) after rabies. As of 2009, seven patients were believed to have survived rabies, including some who didn't receive the Milwaukee Protocol ([Overview, prevention, and treatment of rabies](_URL_0_)). (To put this in context, that's seven patients in the past 50 years or so, while over 50,000 people *per year* die of rabies. That's not a very good survival rate.) So maybe these patients were going to survive anyway, and the Protocol was irrelevant. \n\nSo, TL;DR, it's technically possible to survive rabies post-onset, but it's not something to count on."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19792992",
"http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10125149&fileId=S0317167115003315",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25956434",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19545499",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.ni... | |
2lc846 | why were there so many insane asylums 100 years ago, but you rarely hear about them today? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lc846/eli5_why_were_there_so_many_insane_asylums_100/ | {
"a_id": [
"cltexxa",
"cltf20n",
"cltf2mf",
"cltf5gf",
"cltfgxk",
"cltfk4g",
"cltflqs",
"cltfnp9",
"cltgjj2",
"cltgum9",
"cltidnt",
"cltj0ul",
"cltkeyy",
"cltkv13",
"cltl3ai",
"cltlo4o",
"cltmb7k",
"cltn7k6",
"clto8f4",
"cltq3sh",
"cltr6lg",
"cltre5r",
"cltvmwo",
"cltxx42",
"cltzgiv",
"clu1kih",
"clu5d9v",
"clubb02"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
4,
4,
66,
2,
28,
666,
20,
45,
2,
3,
24,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd think it had something to do with people just throwing their family in mental health institutions for pretty much anything (bipolar disorder, ADD, autism, and even down syndrome) to avoid responsibility and embarrassment. Of course, this'd lead to more and more asylums.\nI'm busy, and I know there's a much better way to answer this.",
"Probably because they renamed them to mental wards in hospitals",
"We have become much better at our diagnoses and treatments for mental health, so a lot of conditions are better managed (or at least differently managed). Back in the era you're speaking of, pretty much anyone with a brain disorder was declared defective and thrown into what amounted to a prison.",
"prescription medication changed mental health. ",
"If you look at numbers, a lot of people with mental illnesses end up in prison instead. Especially those that would have ended up in an asylum do to the debilitating nature of their illness.",
"Under Reagan, most of the mental hospitals were closed. There was supposed to be support for people to live in the community via Community Mental Health centers, but these were never well funded and the funding as been steadily cut. Most of the seriously mentally ill are in prison or living in the streets.",
"So there have been huge steps forward in mental health, but also huge steps backwards. Before if someone had a mental issue the idea was to send them to a mental institution to get better. The only problem was that no one really understood the underlying causes of the diseases very well. Now to get sent to a mental institution a person has to either be a danger to themselves or to people around them due to mental illness. \n\nFunding has been another big issue. Government funding has all but stopped for things like mental hospitals, nursing homes, and other social welfare programs. Welfare itself has become such a political tagline that no one wants to talk about it. This leaves the burden of care on the patients family. Often times someone with a mental disorder has no one to take care of them because they have pushed away everyone in their life. People who suffer from diseases that are immediate and blunt like downs syndrome tend to be better off than someone with schizophrenia because the person with downs syndrome has a better support structure. Down's syndrome is manageable in most cases though. Most mental disorders go un-diagnosed and untreated. these people are not able to take care of themselves and often times end up homeless. Depending on the city the mentally ill percentage of the homeless population can be as high as 75%. \n\nThere is by no means a lesser amount of mentally ill people. While we do have better treatments for many mental illnesses that we didn't have even ten years ago, let alone 100, there is less widespread access to those treatments.",
"If you are talking about the US, its because of a process called deinstitutionalisation. Starting in the 60s a combination of factors led to the closure of many mental institutions. Books like One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and a series of scandals (such as the Kennedy lobotomy) turned the public against asylums. At the same time government funding of mental institutions was cut in half so as to cover the Social Security liability. Finally improvements of drugs meant that less people needed to be under constant care.\n\nThe effects of this can still be seen on the streets today. The biggest cause of the increase in homelessness from 60 years ago to today is the closure of mental institutions. The vast majority of homeless have some sort of mental illness, and would have been in an institution in the 1950s.\n\nEdit:\nbig typo",
"We don't call them asylums anymore, for one. So that might be why you never hear about them. But also, we've stopped using mental hospitals to the same extent we used to. It used to be practically the first response to mental illness. \"Oh you're dealing with depression or paranoia? Let's send you off to an institution for 12 months.\" Nowadays there's a lot more steps you go through before doctors would even consider putting you in a locked facility. You go to therapy, you try medication, you alter your life situation to better manage your stressors. Locked mental facilities are something like the last resort, and basically used in emergencies, when you imminently are a danger to yourself or others. When you try to kill yourself or are thinking about doing it, they'll put you on the psychiatric ward of a normal hospital for a few days, and then release you when you're safe. Long-term care (for months or years) is the real last resort for people who just aren't responding to treatment at all and/or can't take care of themselves.\n\nAlso though, we've been shutting down facilities a lot due to funding cuts, so a lot of very ill people who probably are a danger to themselves or at least can't take care of themselves will end up on the streets. Also, a lot of the mentally ill, especially the ones who can't afford treatment, will end up in jail, sometimes even without committing a crime. ",
"100 years ago a lot of people were locked up as being insane when they were really just inconvenient. Gay, promiscuous, radical, generally annoying. Locking people up for being inconvenient is much less popular these days.\n\nA lot of people with Down Syndrome or autism would have been committed, now most of those people live with their family, or in group homes. Group homes actually are asylums under some definitions, but no one calls them that.\n\nSyphilis was a big cause of insanity in days of old. Now almost no ones goes insane due to syphilis.\n\n",
"In the last 50 years we have moved most of our mentally ill from mental institutions to prisons. It's a huge problem.",
"Instead of treating individuals with their mental needs states and etc decided to lock them in prisons/jails. Asylums require too much funding and are considered a profit loss. Prisons/jails are profit gainers for county, state, and etc.",
"I worked in an insane asylum in Massachusetts for nine years, ending this year. They are no longer called insane asylums, they are called Mental Health Hospitals.\nThe main reasons for the decrease in the mental patient population are better approaches towards treatment and most importantly the medications which are now available. \nDespite the controversy surrounding these psych meds, they can be very effective for some of the patients. \nThese facilities used to be warehouses where we simply kept those individuals who suffered from mental issues indefinitely. \nNow, almost all patients have a discharge plan and most succeed in moving on to group homes or their own apartments, or back to their families.\nAnd if they are unsuccessful in the new setting, they are readmitted, and the process starts again.\nIts not a perfect system, but its better than the alternative which would be to simply warehouse them forever.\nThe majority of our patients who are successful in living productive lives can only do so because of the meds that are now available. ",
"Regan decided federal funding wasn't meant for the mentally ill. The drug war was a better idea, he left illness to be picked up by local charities.",
"They do [still exist](_URL_0_). They're just not as common anymore due to the reasons mentioned by everyone else here.",
"If you look up Pennhurst State Hospital, there was a huge exposé on this place called \"Suffer the Little Children\". It's a good representation of the reason these places were shut down.\n\nInteresting watch to say the least.",
"Actually, they are called different things now. For Austin, we have names like \"Shoal Creek\" or Austin State Hospital....",
"I see lots of American based posts but i'll give a small historical fact about Australia's asylum history.\n\nTL;DR Supposedly humane prisoner rehabilitation technique led to an abundance of mentally ill Australians 100+ years ago\n\nSo White Australia was founded as a prison colony(1788). Transportation of convicts ending i think 1880 or so. In initial years of the colonies prisoners were immediately put to work on farms and building the colonies. Once the colonies were more set( 1810's or so) up labour wasn't needed as much there was also a change in the theory of prisoner rehabilitation based around the Quakers in the US, bible reading silent meditation etc\n\nMany prisoners on arrival in Australia spent the first 18 months in a special type of prison, usually the violent criminals with very long sentences. Essentially solitary confinement. 1 prisoner to a room. 23 hours a day locked up, 1 hour a day in a slightly larger \"exercise yard on their own, always at night. On sundays prisoners were escorted into church one by one and put in cubicles so they could see the preacher but not the other prisoners. The preacher and all guards wore hoods when handling prisoners.\n\nSo new prisoners in aus spent 18 months and never talked to a soul or saw sunlight. After that they served there regular sentence as farm hands or other jobs. No wonder 20 years after this new policy was enacted each colony in Australia built their first insane asylum because there was an abundance of unstable people for some reason.",
"Because they're not called insane asylums anymore\n",
"I work in one now - but it's called a hospital.",
"Government funding and the rise of for profit prisons. ",
"They've been replaced by pharmaceutical companies.",
"They're still around... they're called \"prisons\".",
"What are you talking about? Churches are everywhere these days.\n\nBa-zing!",
"Treating mental illness is not a priority in the United States--despite the tremendous social and financial cost of failing to treat. The Los Angeles County Jail is the largest mental health care facility in the United States.\n\n_URL_0_\n ",
"We know how to treat mental illness a lot better now. Many people who would have been institutionalized 100 years ago can now live relatively normal lives within the community. People are now only admitted to mental institutions as a last resort if they are a danger to themselves or others, so although levels of mental illness have not decreased, fewer people are treated in inpatient settings for extended periods of time.",
"uncle ronny shut them down and threw the nuts out on the street",
"Because 100 years ago the insane were containable, but I guess sometime in the last 100 years someone just said \"fuck it we're all insane\" and now the world is an insane asylum."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atascadero_State_Hospital"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93581736"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4wdyao | what exactly is the rem sleep cycle and how does it work? | I seem to wake up at about 3AM which is 3 hours after I go to sleep every night to go pee. So I was just wondering why it's so consistent | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wdyao/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_rem_sleep_cycle_and_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"d669rmv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your pineal gland pumps out melatonin, which makes your body relax and \"sleep.\"\n\nBasically, it pumps it out in cycles, which usually last about 3 hours (which makes PERFECT sense given your post) and it starts with light sleep, and when it fully kicks in you get deep sleep, and then as it fades again you get lighter sleep until your pineal gland pumps out more or doesn't. \n\nYour body has a HUGE number of hormones that contribute to a biological clock (goes back to the pineal gland partially) and it is based on vitamin d imput and many other factors involving sunlight and temperature. That's why sleeping cycles (as in what time you go to sleep and wake up as opposed to REM cycles) are so easy to get into and maintain if you go to sleep at the same time a few days in a row. It's also why people without a regular sleeping cycle are so much less energetic and healthy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2ybkxf | digestion takes hours to occur however, when i eat taco bell i immediately feel like exploding the nearest toilet. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ybkxf/eli5_digestion_takes_hours_to_occur_however_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp808zv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The toilet rush is to expel the food digested hours ago not the current Taco Bell"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
eo560j | Were left-handed swordsmen in the middle ages more valuable? | I read online that it was advantageous to have them on your side when invading a fortress so they were often awarded signing bonuses when recruited. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eo560j/were_lefthanded_swordsmen_in_the_middle_ages_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"fe9dbyy"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"What we know of the historical fencing sources from the early modern period is that opinions seem to differ! (If you know fencing instructors, this is the most unsurprising thing ever)\n\nLiechtenaur (one of the earlier sources c. 1400) makes passing mention of teaching lefties to fence left-handed. \n\nThibault, writing c.1630, makes the surprisingly modern argument that left-handers were more difficult to fence because the other fencer is less used to fencing a left-hander than a right-hander.\n\nBut then you have de Viema, writing in 1639, going on an awesome rant about how everybody says lefties are more dangerous, but they're wrong, and how he fixes them into righthanders.\n\n > It has been the opinion among the vulgar that the lefty has an \n advantage over the righty in arms. The opinion has been well-received, because the vulgar teaching is (and has been) so far\nfrom reason that I find being a left-handed man better than being a\n*diestro* of the vulgar. Being a lefty is one of the greatest misfortunes that a man can have, and as I have proven in this science, the natural movements do not let us know this science. The lefty (a man we call backward) uses the movements of his defense with great profile of the body and straightness of the sword, and the\nright-handed man, by his own nature, places the sword obtuse, and\nthe body squared, with which the lefty has an advantage. But the\ndiestro that will come to know this science will easily be lord over the lefty, and thus I will give some blows so that the master can teach his disciple the mode that they have to have to play with lefties. These will be with the master taking the sword in his left hand, embodying the master, which is to provide the actions\nand postures that the lefty can make. Working it well, and giving\nto each blow the beginning and end that it deserves, he will see that\nthe same blows will serve in favor of the lefty, only that they appear\nto be done opposite; these will be the generals that we deal with.\n\n\n > I am one of the men that have abhorred lefties most in this\nworld. I am not scared that a man is left-handed, but in this I place\nthe blame on his parents for not remedying it truly, as with this it\nwill be enough in order to not be so. \n\n\n > We go such that if that a man was found left-handed, he must become right-handed, or at least be left- and right-handed. As much as it is a fault to be left-handed, it is an honor to be righthanded, and to do with two hands. If until now it has been difficult for a lefty to become a righty, in this book will be found such ease with little teaching and continuous use, that in two months he will have reason and way in order to be a righty. \n\nIn any case, since your online source didn't have a source for signing bonuses or lefties in sieges, I think it's likely just made up. It's difficult to refute as categorically never happened though, because the middle ages is a long time and we can expect different military men and fencing instructors to have different views in the same way as they did later in the Early Modern period.\n\n*Sources: Angelo, Sidney \"The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe\"*\n\n[de Viema's awesome rant is in Chapter IIII of Part Three online here in PDF, about p. 133](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://spanishsword.org/files/method.of.teaching.of.masters.translation.pdf"
]
] | |
1wxls3 | i'm from the uk; what does it mean when the papers say the us could default on their current debt? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wxls3/eli5_im_from_the_uk_what_does_it_mean_when_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf6a8yv",
"cf6ah77",
"cf6apjj"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The US government has always paid its bonds when they are due. Thus they've been a safe investment for local and foreign investors. However, if the government defaults, it means they have outstanding debts due they have been unable to pay.",
"It just means there is a political squabble over the budget and both sides are posturing. There is actually zero risk of the U.S. defaulting on its debt since the IRS collects revenue equal to about five times the cost of debt service.\n\nTo default on the debt would require a decision to do it despite having the money to pay it and despite the Constitution requiring the debt to be paid.",
"The US has a weird setup where Congress passes a budget that decides how much money will be spent on various things. Simple enough.\n\nThe US government is currently (and has been for a while) been operating under a deficit, meaning that the government spends more money than it takes in via taxes and customs and whatever else. In order to spend more money than they've collected, the US government borrows money. Basically they sell things like bonds, where an interested party can buy these bonds for a set amount, and then at some point in the future trade those bonds in to get their money back, plus some amount of extra interest. \n\nLots of people/companies/banks/countries/etc. buy these bonds from the US government. US government debt has generally been seen as a very safe investment, as the US economy is huge and very productive, so the country has lots of wealth to draw on. The US government has never missed any scheduled payments on its debt. (Not paying would be considered a default). \n\nVery little of the above has changed recently, but there's one more twist to it all. As a result of all this deficit spending, the US has a running total of national debt. Different people will argue about how much of this debt is a problem for the economy and country, but the important thing is that Congress long ago set a limit to how high that debt could get (this is called the debt ceiling). Many times in the past, as the deficit spending has continued, the total debt has approached that legal limit, and each time, Congress has voted to raise that limit. But recently, some members of Congress decided that the debt was too high, and that the government should stop spending so much money, and threatened to refuse to allow a vote to raise the debt ceiling.\n\nSo basically, the US government has a whole bunch of obligations of things it has to pay, including interest to people who have bought US government debt. If Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling and the government hit it, it would not be able to borrow more money to pay its bills. It would have no money to pay for various things, including interest payments. The government would be in default. \n\nDifferent people have different opinions on what would happen if the US government defaulted, but the vast majority of people expect that it would be pretty bad, and quite possibly catastrophic to the economy, both in the US and globally. One of the foundations of the modern global economy is that US government debt is a very safe investment, and a huge number of entities around the world have a huge amount of money invested there. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
4tawj9 | Why are cigarette filters non biodegradable? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4tawj9/why_are_cigarette_filters_non_biodegradable/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5gqa8q",
"d5hb6rt"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Most cigarette filters are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic. The white fibers you see in a cigarette filter are NOT cotton, but a plastic that can persist in the environment as long as other forms of plastic.\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"It's likely an engineering decision. When you design something like that you have to balance cost, raw material availability, effectiveness, consumer acceptance and sustainability among other things. Each of those items has tradeoffs. When filters were first designed (20-30s) cost and perceived effectiveness were probably the most important outputs, so being biodegradable wasn't important. There are some historical details at the wiki page for [cigarette filters](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigbuttbiodegradable.htm"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_filter"
]
] | ||
1065jl | why do we restrict immigration to the united states? | Why were restrictions put in place? I just moved from one US state to another and they welcomed me with open arms. Why can't we just let folks from other countries (with the exclusion of, say, criminals) who want to be US citizens immigrate like that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1065jl/eli5_why_do_we_restrict_immigration_to_the_united/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6aq88s",
"c6aqgbt"
],
"score": [
2,
12
],
"text": [
"We would quickly be overwhelmed with all of the most undesirable people to our economy. Those with few prospects in their homeland would flood in whether there were jobs here for them or not, relying on the social system to take care of them if they couldn't find work.\n\nWorst case is no worse for these folks...the scenery doesn't matter much when you're starving. Of course, for those that are already here, trying to keep the engine going, it would be disastrous.",
"Open immigration is only a problem when society is paying for social services. For example, we have public schools, hospitals that accept anyone (regardless of ability to pay), and a number of other social programs. If you allow anyone to immigrate into the US, then these people become entitled to a free education, free emergency room care, etc. and it's all paid for by US Residents (in the form of taxes, or higher ER costs, etc.).\n\nOpen immigration is *not* a problem when these services are not provided. In the early 1900s and slightly before, the US had *a lot* of immigrants coming over, and there wasn't such widespread social services. The immigrants were a source of cheap labor, which helped reduce prices for a number of goods and services."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
b7or48 | why is it simulations of deuteranopia colour blindness, which supposedly makes a person unable to see green, appears to drain all the red from an image instead? | [Example](_URL_0_) \- It appears that the red disappears from this apple | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b7or48/eli5_why_is_it_simulations_of_deuteranopia_colour/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejt7tp6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In people with normal colour vision, there are three types of cells which respond to blue, green, and red light respectively. [This graph](_URL_0_) shows where the peak of each of these types of cells lies. As you can see, there is quite a large gap between the blue and green peaks, but the green and red ones are quite close to each other and in fact overlap a lot.\n\nThe most common form of colour blindness, deuteranopia, can be split into \"true\" deuteranopia, where green-sensitive cells are entirely missing, and deuteranomaly, where green-sensitive cells just have their peak shifted so it overlaps with the red peak even more, making it hard to differentiate red and green. Deuteranomaly is actually much more common, affecting roughly 5% of men, while true deuteranopia is more like 1% ([source](_URL_1_)). However, protanopia/protanomaly, which affects the red-sensitive cells instead, can also result in red-green confusion, which is why the general term \"red-green colour blindness\" is often used to cover both.\n\nI would guess that this simulation is more specifically trying to simulate deuteranomaly, where the green- and red-sensitive cells are likely to be stimulated together by light of certain wavelengths, rather than true deuteranopia, in which case green light should only be weakly detected."
]
} | [] | [
"https://imgur.com/a/UDoFiVh"
] | [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/1416_Color_Sensitivity.jpg",
"https://www.color-blindness.com/deuteranopia-red-green-color-blindness/"
]
] | |
2qqclb | During the age of sail, what was the procedure for a reasonably sized ship to weather a hurricane? | The main thing I was thinking about is, with the helm being open to the elements, was some poor, unfortunate soul required to remain topside to steer? Or is there some mechanism to use below decks? But I'm also looking for more general procedure that they would follow in an effort to survive. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qqclb/during_the_age_of_sail_what_was_the_procedure_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn8iat6",
"cn8ieig",
"cn8pm1t",
"cn9j2rk"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Given that the age of sail spans human history up until say 1840 or so, that's a broad question :-) but generally, stay stern to the winds, either by setting a small headsail or a stern anchor; batten everything down, and pump constantly. In the northern hemisphere, if possible, try to steer south and slightly west to stay out of the path of the intense winds. ",
"For the most part there would always be crew on deck standing watch with at least one officer. If it got bad enough they would wake up the rest of the crew. Occasionally you could lash the helm fast but that meant that you would be in trouble if you had to use it suddenly. \n\nWhat would happen though would be that men aloft would be brought down to the deck for safety and sails would be reefed and brought in. \n\nYour options were usually either to run before the storm or head up into it. Running isn't a bad option but waves breaking over the stern and sudden changes could be problematic and dangerous. Heading up into the storm will be rougher but retain a larger degree of control over the ship and the helm. For both you would have a minimum of sails out, a jib or two and everything else reefed or brought in.\n\nThe goal is to not be taking the waves broadside, and ships are designed to take them on the bow. \n\nThis really hasn't changed in modern times. Even in modern ocean racing there will always be someone awake on deck in case of an emergency.\n\nTrying to find an old book that describes some of it in the context of the USN in 1812, but Ive also taught beginner sailing and raced including a few Annapolis to Bermuda trips. \n\nIf sailing just wasn't an option then yes, drop the sea anchor, leave a small headsail up, leave a skeleton crew above to keep an eye out(they would likely tie on to something) and pray. But ships and crews throughout history can be remarkable resilient and take a beating from the elements. ",
"Many good answers here, and some contradictory ones. There seems to be some disagreement about whether heaving to, or keeping the bow into the wind is better, or whether running with the wind under bare poles or a storm headsail is safer.\n\nRunning would be safer in most circumstance, as long as there was sea room to leeward. (Being caught off a lee shore in a hurricane force storm was very dangerous.) Running would be especially beneficial if your ship was in the \"safe quadrant\" (to the left of the track of the hurricane in the Northern Hemisphere - reversed in the Southern), as running before the wind would take you out of the path of the storm, and into lesser winds and calmer seas. \n\nOne preparation which might be made, if there was enough warning of the building storm, and if the crew were large enough to accomplish it safely, would be to strike the Royal and T'gallant yards, and the T'gallant masts, as this would reduce weight and windage aloft.",
" > unfortunate soul required to remain topside to steer\n\nyes, storm watch is generally 30 minutes on the helm as opposed to 4 hours, but when conditions get to that point heave to or lay a hull are the options.\n\nRunning before high winds is madness, it is incredibly difficult to maintain the helm whilst running and a gybe will destroy the rigging, I would never consider running before anything above a [force 8. At force 12](_URL_0_) the deck would be unmanned due to the inability to breath the air, it's full of sea foam by that time. \n\nA hurricane is very predictable and can be used to make a passage faster, some captians of old were notorious for making their passengers suffer mal du mer due to the penchant for skirting hurricanes to use the winds. \n\nSource, traditionally rigged sloop sailor. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html"
]
] | |
2bfvaz | why are students fresh out of highschool allowed to take out huge student loans without ever working or having credit? | I ask this because if I had the knowledge I do now from simply life experience I would not have taken out all that money. I am not using my education for anything over than having to pay 880 a month. Why can we not sue for this? I didn't know what I was doing but everyone wanted me to go to school. If I just saved that money I could own a second house. Its the worst financial advice I ever gotten. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bfvaz/eli5_why_are_students_fresh_out_of_highschool/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj4xf30",
"cj4xjxe",
"cj4ybhp",
"cj4z404"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"While frankly kind of ridiculous, the current system helps to even out the playing field. Without access to some form of financial aid, intelligent but poor individuals would be unable to get a higher education from a good university.\n\nAll that being said, our current system is completely broken because it encourages everyone to study what they love at the best university that they can get into. This is a losing game, but we are the first generation to play it, so we got the shaft. By the time my future kids start college, I have a feeling that everyone will be telling them something very different.",
"Quite frankly working and building credit are not relevant options for most students these days during the school year. In order to get into top colleges kids must dedicate hours to sports, after school clubs, and studying. I played 3 sports, was head of 4 clubs, and was VP of the student body. many nights I was up until 1 or 2 am finishing one project or another. And many people will say just don't do as much. But for a middle class student who's parents can't pay very much for college it's my job to get into the best school possible and call the loan I get, to go along with what ever scholarships I get, an investment. I'm one of the lucky people who got into one of the highly sought after schools in New England that cost +50,000 and got a large scholarship to do so. But without a student loan I would not be able to attend. I chose on a career where I will be able to pay my loans off in a reasonable amount of time. But without my loan I would be stuck at a small in-state college rather than a school where my roommates come from the best schools around the country and my professors have set up meetings between me and high profile professionals in my field of choice. I think of it as an investment for my future. Some pay off, some don't but plan on reaching for the stars while I am young and have the opportunity.",
"The loan is considered an investment by the person taking it out - but isn't it also an investment for the lender? How much in interest does the lender get?",
"Student loans never die. Even if you were to declare bankruptcy. Banks don't really have much to lose in their eyes. If you can't pay then your co-signer's credit is on the line, so chances are someone's going to pay up and their (the banks') pockets are still getting lined at the end of the day.\nAlso, what /u/padubenay said. It's seen as an investment. Sometimes it pays-off and sometimes it doesn't. Also, on what grounds would you sue them? You signed on the dotted line and took that money, promising to pay it back, and spent it on *your* future. It sucks, I know. Its really really **really** blows. But you can't sue someone for something *you* did because *you* wanted to at the time. \n\nIf you really feel like doing something about it, you should start an awareness campaign. Speak to high schools. Or create a website. Take advantage of the reach of social media. Make students aware what they are **really** getting into. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
e3sti0 | how can snake eyes see in infrared? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e3sti0/eli5_how_can_snake_eyes_see_in_infrared/ | {
"a_id": [
"f94safl",
"f94t287"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Infrared is just a slightly longer wavelength of light than red. We call it infrared because it's just a bit too long a wave for human eyes to see, but there's no reason that the \"sensors\" (the cones of the retina IIRC) in an eye could not be able to detect that wavelength, if they are just set up to do it. Turns out a snake's eye is sensitive to that wavelength, which is useful to them.",
"What snakes see infrared with their eyes. Pit vipers and boas and pythons use a separate organ to sense infrared. Called a pit organ."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
43wyx2 | Since E=mc^2, does a photon create a gravitational field ? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/43wyx2/since_emc2_does_a_photon_create_a_gravitational/ | {
"a_id": [
"czln0i5",
"czlp2w5",
"czlpf4g",
"czlyo6z",
"czlz8iy"
],
"score": [
57,
13,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In theory yes, but it's more complicated than just E=mc^2 .\n\nOne implication of this that was calculated, is if you have a ring of lasers reflecting off mirrors, with a spherical bead in the middle, the gravitational influence of the lasers will very slowly cause the bead to rotate. [Paper here](_URL_0_)\n\nStrangely enough the guy who wrote that paper is now trying to build a time machine.",
"Yes. As other people have mentioned, E=mc^2 doesn't apply directly to photons, but the basic principle at work is the same. In relativity, energy and mass are treated on equal footing, much like time and space are. Since we know that mass gravitates, this means that energy has to gravitate too.\n\nFun fact: for the first 50,000 years or so after the Big Bang, photons were the most dominant gravitational influence in the whole universe! But since their energy dilutes more quickly than the energy of matter does (since each individual photon loses energy to redshift), shortly thereafter matter became more important.",
"The gravitational field is based on something called the [stress–energy tensor](_URL_0_) which includes energy, momentum, pressure, and stress. Photons have a lot of momentum, so they result in a very different gravitational field than a particle with the same energy. But if you took two photons going in opposite directions so the momentum cancelled, then you'd have your usual gravitational field.",
"Layman here. Yes, but it's basically negligible unless you're talking about insanely high-energy photons. Check out the wiki article on a theoretical black hole created from sheer radiant energy: _URL_0_",
"While others have pointed out that E=mc^2 does not apply directly to photons, it does apply to massive objects at rest* which interact with photons. The simplest statement of the principle is: **When an object at rest emits (absorbs) light with energy E, its mass decreases (increases) by E/c^2**. \n\n*The object must be at rest so that we do not have to include kinetic energy. Since photons carry momentum, a massive body will recoil upon absorption or emission of a photon. To keep the object at rest we can restrict this example to bodies which emit or absorb two photons of equal frequency moving in opposite directions.\n\nEDIT: bold"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.phys.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/textonly/index.cgi/0146/www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/Mallett2000.pdf"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)"
],
[]
] | ||
cq1us1 | how does a person determine how much an art work is worth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cq1us1/eli5_how_does_a_person_determine_how_much_an_art/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewtcclj",
"ewtdse4"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"If you work for a city procurement department that buys art you just pull a random (ridiculously high number) out of your ass and use the taxpayers money to buy it.\nIf you are a private dealer you look at what the art is commanding on the free market pertaining to the relevance of the artist and the demand that it is generating.",
"Art dealers will look at what that work of art has previously sold for and what other works of art have been selling for. When the market is stable, the assumption would be that the work of art will sell for about what it sold for before. If the market is up by 20%, it should sell for about 20% more.\n\nOf course, if a particular artists work becomes in greater demand, that has to be factored in, as well.\n\nIf you are talking about new art work that has never sold before, then often the artist will ask for however much he thinks he can get out of the work. It's worth may be guesswork, especially if the artist is an unknown. Known artists are easier to estimate because you can compare their work with what their previous works have sold for."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
4u60mj | why are people in america more fearful for their safety now when crime is at an all time low? | From _URL_0_
> In describing anxiety among Americans, Giuliani is correct: Pew research indicates that since the early 2000s, every year a majority of Americans surveyed have felt that crime has increased since the year previous. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans think that the crime rate is increasing, up from 63 percent in 2013. But the reality is that America is getting safer. The national crime rate is about half of what it was at the peak in 1991. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u60mj/eli5_why_are_people_in_america_more_fearful_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5n4spy",
"d5n55jf",
"d5n5ats",
"d5n6l3m",
"d5npr0s"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"People are bad with numbers and statistics. If you say there is a 99% chance of something happening people will know it's likely but they won't grasp just how likely it is they'll appreciate the 1% chance more than you should. \n\nWhen it comes to something that could endanger them they are going to have an even more skewed perception of statistics because of the chance of it happening. \n\nJust watch iRobot man.",
"According to the entire conservative media machine it's still 2008. They convince themselves we're still in the midst of a world-ending recession, that money is bad and gold, ammo and paracord are good, and that the sneaky dark people who speak strange languages are coming to take their sweet, Christian children to NATO/FEMA camps where they will be re-educated by wild urban negroes to become homosexual coprophagia enthusiasts who believe in tax-and-spend big government but soon we're going to fix all thart *real fast* and it will be tremendous, believe me. We will do so much winning...I love the great people in Samoa...I don't want his endorsement...Now here's a song about taking a prostitute home followed by the Rolling Stones asking the musical question, \"You Can't Always Get What You Want.\"\n\nEDIT: In other words, the media most watched, read and listened to by most conservatives is spreading insane lies. ",
"Multiple networks on a 24 hour news cycle means that everything becomes BREAKING NEWS. That along with the discovery that it's far more profitable to keep people afraid than to keep them well-informed. ",
"Ease of media consumption and global proliferation of news stories is at an all time high. We live in a 24 hour news culture and that means there are always reports of the bad happening, as the bad is what makes for entertaining news and so it is what is reported. ",
"It's not just the raw murder rate that affects people's perceptions, but also the types of crimes that occur. If 10 husbands kill their spouse or 1 guy murders 10 people in a mall, those will have the exact same affect on the murder rate as measured in the typical X per 100K standard. However the former will be treated as isolated incidents and most people will not feel personally threatened, whereas the latter will be widely reported and have an effect far and wide. The USA has had a large string of random gun violence in the past few years which have received wide coverage, so that affects the perception of the country (and let's face it, white people - consider Giuliani's audience) more than a larger problem of gang or domestic violence incidents in the 80s and 90s."
]
} | [] | [
"http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/psychology-why-americans-afraid-low-crime-levels.html"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
29mtnf | i'm far sighted. are there reverse-blurred images that would appear clear to me? | When I take off my glasses I see everything blurred. Is there some sort of picture that could be blurred in the opposite direction so when I look at it it would appear to be clear? Even something as simple as a black line?
intent edit: I'm aware of how optics work and realize things such as glasses bend light to send the correct image to my brain. The intent was more of an artistic question. Could an image be made that would essentially look blurry (or scattered in some way) but when it is blurred would look solid?
You could take an image of a black circle, put it in photoshop, and apply a blur effect that would diffuse the edges. Save that blurry looking image. Could you take that simple blurry image of a circle and reverse the process to make it into a solid circle again? Then go a step further and make it even more...opposite of blurry. Whatever image you are left with, if you were to put it in photoshop and apply the original blur effect, it would be the original image of a black circle. Essentially if I looked at the opposite of blurry image without glasses, it would look like a solid black circle. Basically is it possible to see a solid edge without glasses?
Answer edit: random_number_string found this first link. For all you perfect vision people, the blurred version is the second link. _URL_0_ _URL_1_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29mtnf/eli5_im_far_sighted_are_there_reverseblurred/ | {
"a_id": [
"cimghdz",
"cimgpfs",
"cimhnr6",
"cimjmlw",
"cimjnue",
"cimkl5j",
"cimotn0"
],
"score": [
9,
11,
19,
10,
43,
3,
11
],
"text": [
"I hope someone answers this. It sounds incredibly interesting.",
"The blurriness comes from your eyes, not from what you're looking at, so no, I don't think so.",
"The opposite of blurring is a technique called [unsharp masking](_URL_0_) It effectively increases contrast at the edges in a photograph. Here's an [example picture](_URL_1_) with blurred text at the top and \"unblurred\" text on the bottom.\n\nSo yes, you can blur an image in the opposite direction. But the equations to unblur an image breakdown near the minimum and maximum intensity of the photograph. If you store color intensities in the range 0 to 255 then the result image would require some pixels to be below 0 and some to be above 255. You're going to lose that information.\n\nAnother caveat is that you're not really talking about the same two things when you say you \"see everything blurred\" and \"a picture is blurred\".\n\nIn order to understand this, a distinction must be made between physical images and photographs. When you look at an object you are observing light that is reflecting off of it in all directions. \n\nA camera has a lens that focuses that light into an image projected onto a digital sensor or film. The camera then transforms that light into a photograph.\n\nLike a camera, the lens in your eye focuses that light into an *image* on your retina. Your retina senses this light and a *photograph* is formed in your brain.\n\nWhen the lens in a camera (or your eye) malfunctions, the image is not focused directly on the sensor. This causes the photograph to appear blurry.\n\nCorrective glasses focus the light coming into your eye in a way that places the image correctly on your retina. They don't unblur anything. The blurring happens after the light has made it into your eyeballs. ",
"It's not possible to create a sharp edge for you with just a picture because each point on that image is spread across a large area on your retina (that's what causes the blur). Any attempt to add an edge would itself be spread across that area, and also be blurred.\n\nHowever you can might be able to make your vision sharper without a lens. Try poking a tiny hole through tinfoil with a pin and hold the pinhole up to your eye. \n\nThe pinhole reduces all the light coming in to thin lines which don't spread out, thus stay more in focus. This works for me and I'm short sighted, not sure how well it works for long sightedness tho.",
"So you want something like this [shortsightedness optical illusion](_URL_0_). but for farsightedness.",
"While you could create a lens that works on the picture instead of next to your eye, you cannot just make it work with paint or ink.\n\nI'm sorry, there is so much incomplete or misinformation on this thread.\n\nLet's step back to how the eye works, and use a piece of paper in place of the back of your eye. In this analogy, whatever shows up on the paper is exactly what you'll see.\n\nSo we start by holding a light bulb in front of the paper. The light goes in all direction, so it lights up the paper but you cannot see the lightbulb on the paper. Now, what's missing from this equation is a lens.\n\nA lens takes light that comes from one point and bends it so it all goes to a specific point. Any particular lens will work with specific lens locations and pairs of points. We'll choose a lens that will work for wherever the lightbulb, paper and lens are placed. [And vola!](_URL_0_).\n\nWell in the eye the relative locations of the paper and lens are fixed, but the objects are in different locations. To work on a variety of objects, we need to change the lens. Which is what the eye does, it bends its lens when you are looking at different points.\n\nNormally, the lens can change shape to focus everything you want to see. Unfortunately, some people's eyes can't change shape enough. What you do to fix this is add another lens which prebends the light so eye doesn't have to change its lens as much. (You can also perform eye surgery to do the same).\n\nWhile, there is no way to make a printed image that will look sharp to you (in the blurry zone), you can design a lens that is placed near the picture to correct your vision from a distance.",
" > Are there reverse-blurred images that would appear clear to me? \n\nSort of like this? Look at it, then take off your glasses and look at it.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/z5XTf5S.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/UeW4ih8.jpg"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking",
"http://imgur.com/6EBYMFp"
],
[],
[
"http://tinaculit.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/how-to-test-short-sightedness1.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reflectionprojection.jpg"
],
[
"http://adsoftheworld.com/sites... | |
3w7onf | Why did the Warsaw Pact intervene in Czechoslovakia in 1968 but not in Poland in 1980? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3w7onf/why_did_the_warsaw_pact_intervene_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxu1y57"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"There were several reasons for this, the Soviet Union went from initially tepidly in favor of intervention to firmly against intervening.\n\n1) Unlike in 1968, the Soviet Union at the time was already engaged in a war in Afghanistan which was escalating. Not only did this serve as a distraction militarily, but also politically it warned the Soviet politburo that an intervention might not be as quick and smooth as 1968. And in fact if the Polish choose to resist and the elements of the Polish army rebel it would lead to a bloody, expensive conflict.\n\n2) The Soviet economy was already strained both by the war in Afghanistan itself as well as western sanctions in response to the war. The United States warned the Soviets that sanctions would be toughened should the Soviets intervene.\n\n3) The existence of a government in Poland which could theoretically suppress the anti-government movement. Unlike in 1968 when the Czech government itself strayed from the Soviet guided version of Communism under Dubcek, the Polish government under Jaruzelski was determined to crack down on the solidarity. The possibility existed therefore for the situation to be resolved without Soviet intervention.\n\n4) The feeling by the 1980s that the Soviet Union had overextended itself in its foreign policy and that Communism itself as system was beginning to falter. The priority need was therefore to concentrate resources on the Soviet Union itself rather than on intervening to save Communism abroad.\n\nSource: Binders Blunders and Wars by David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk, Bonny Lin"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
3tct9i | how do we know the gravity of a planet without even being able to land there? | How do we know the Gravity of say Pluto? I've been asking myself this alot and thought of some ways they might've used but it would give an inaccurate number most likely. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tct9i/eli5_how_do_we_know_the_gravity_of_a_planet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx52bts"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"We can measure a planet's mass by watching how it interacts gravitationally with nearby objects. Pluto is an easy one because it has a system of tiny moons that are dominated by its gravity.\n\nWe can measure its radius with simple photography.\n\nOne you know the mass and the size, the surface gravity calculation is fairly straightforward since gravity depends solely on mass and distance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3glnnq | why do so many people cross the border illegally? as in, why is it so difficult for them to cross it legally? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3glnnq/eli5_why_do_so_many_people_cross_the_border/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctz7l6v",
"ctz8n6q"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"When entering the USA from Mexico you must show papers demonstrating that you have the right to be here. If you lack these, armed border guards will deny you entry.",
"The legal immigration system for unskilled labor in the U.S. is [literally insane.](_URL_0_) So insane that it de facto does not exist. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg"
]
] | ||
710my3 | why do we pee in to toilet bowls of water when we can save water and simply pee down a drain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/710my3/eli5_why_do_we_pee_in_to_toilet_bowls_of_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn7a59j",
"dn7b1cf",
"dn7lrh8",
"dn7spju"
],
"score": [
25,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Drains need to have a trap so that sewer gases do not enter the structure. The water in the toilet bowl is needed to cause enough pressure to force waste through that trap.",
"We do almost exactly that when we use a *waterless urinal.* These are used in high-traffic locations to save water. They aren't installed in houses due to the expense and the amount of space required, and frankly because of tradition.",
"Urinals etc also get clogged up just with piss. This a huge issue, particularly in pubs. Plumbers have a customised \"Piss Drill\" that is used to break through this sediment build up. Apparently it is one of the most awful tasks. Therefore, another reason you don't want one, or want to piss down your sink/bath hole repeatedly. ",
"1) The drain you speak of would still need a water trap to prevent sewer gases from entering your home. \n\n2) You still need to have a toilet to deal with solid waste. \n\nSo since you need both those things it is cheaper and better to just use the toilet to pee. If you have an issue with using that much water do not flush till you have peed a few times or have also defecated. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
3druqb | if whiskey takes at least two years to age, how does a distillery get started? do they have to wait for two years before releasing their own product? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3druqb/eli5_if_whiskey_takes_at_least_two_years_to_age/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct819xd",
"ct81tuj",
"ct821r8",
"ct82fud",
"ct82ofn",
"ct87zoe",
"ct8ac56",
"ct8ckhx",
"ct8cuj3"
],
"score": [
69,
6,
8,
9,
18,
2,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"A lot of distilleries are opening in my state due to recent law changes and the ones that have released whiskies have released un aged, clear, or white whiskies until they can age for a bit. Aging whisky for a few years in oak is what causes the whiskey to turn brown. Un aged whiskey is still whiskey but it is much less common. \n",
"Often times this is why it is so expensive to start a hard liquor company. The first few years profits if existent are very low. Plus doing it really right you need to buy wine barrels to use and those don't come cheap.",
"I'm not an expert by any means. But I would guess that you have to get investors to back you and take a loan. Sounds very risky but if you can get over the initial hump then \nyou're set. However most of the world renown distilleries have been around for hundreds of years so they already beat the hard startup. If anyone knows of new whiskey or whisky distilleries that are just starting out that have good product please let me know. You can always improve and I'd love to try something new ",
"Many business require you to invest time and money before you can start it. For example you need to spend a long time building a hotel before you can start selling rooms. I'm working on making dolls and many people spend years working on their prototypes and casting them before releasing anything at all. It's not so weird.",
"Many rebottle liquor from large industrial producers. Here's an interesting article: _URL_0_",
"Besides the aforementioned sourced whiskey, new distilleries will also sell liquors that require little or no aging, like vodka or white rum. ",
"Luckily moonshine is kind of a thing right now. So one thing they can do is sell moonshine while they wait for their stuff to age. (Moonshine is bottled without any aging). But wineries have this problem too. Sometimes the answer is repackaging other people's stuff.",
"I know you asked about whiskey but wineries face this same problem. My good friend growing up got around this by selling his grapes to other wineries to use in their wines. Keeping a small amount for himself to make into wine. After a while he could start selling his stuff and keeping more and more of his grapes for himself. I haven't talked to him in years so I have no idea how this worked out. I would imagine it didnt work out as the number of big name wineries moving into that area would have made it difficult ",
"Sometimes they'll repackage other distilleries' whiskeys.\n\nFor example the award winning Tennesee Whistlepig 10 year straight rye whiskey is really just Alberta Premium rye imported & bottled. The Whistlepig distillery has only been around for a couple of years."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/28/your-craft-whiskey-is-probably-from-a-factory-distillery-in-indiana.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
9mhttn | why do people with anxiety sometimes want to have something heavier on top of them. ex: weighted blankets | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9mhttn/eli5_why_do_people_with_anxiety_sometimes_want_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7eqajz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because it feels like a hug, which in turn mimics our feelings inside our mothers’ womb. Babies love to be tied into warm and fuzzy blankets for that reason. It gives a sense of security. Works without anxiety, too. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
4icn76 | What evidence is there to support the theory that inside every black hole is another universe and our universe is inside of a black hole another universe? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4icn76/what_evidence_is_there_to_support_the_theory_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2x24b5",
"d2x5au4"
],
"score": [
56,
8
],
"text": [
"None. It's just a fun idea. it relates to the idea of wormholes which I wrote more about here, \n_URL_0_",
"None whatsoever. Since we can't observe anything through the singularity, I doubt this theory is provable. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/32afe8/according_to_wikipedia_we_have_no_observational/cq9iyr4"
],
[]
] | ||
7nalt4 | what is a "magnetic wave"? | Everything I read about photons says they're a electric wave plus a magnetic wave, but nothing ever explains what that means. An electric wave seems clear enough, like it's a transferal of a packet of electric energy from one point to another. Fine. But what the hell is a magnetic wave?? Like, the object receiving the photons receives a small amount of magnetism, so iron would be attracted to it? Or the object is magnetically attracted toward the light source? Or the photon's magnetic wave itself attracts iron towards itself as it travels? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7nalt4/eli5_what_is_a_magnetic_wave/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds0dabj",
"ds0hj16"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The waves in question, carried by photons, are called electromagnetic waves. They are the same thing, fluctuations in the same field. The movement of charge produces the \"magnetic field\". Attracting metal, through ferromagnetism or its friends paramagnetism, diamagnetism, and antiferromagnetism, is more a property of those materials than of the field itself.",
"To understand what electric and magnetic waves are, you should first understand what the electric and magnetic fields are. Imagine all of the space around you is filled with little arrows that can be pointing in any direction in 3D space: up/down, left/right, forward/backward. This is what a field is. The electric field in a space is affected by electric charge. A positive charge will have the arrows all point away from it. A negative charge has them pointing inwards, [just like this](_URL_3_). A magnetic field works the same, but with magnetic things, [just like so](_URL_0_).\n\nImportantly, these two fields are coupled to each other. If there is a change in one, it will affect the other. In an electric generator, magnets move near wire, the magnet's effects on the electric field around the wire causes electricity to move through the wire. An electric motor does the exact opposite.\n\nA wave in one of these fields is just what it sounds like: a wave. It's where the vectors along some direction in space are alternately going one direction then the other [like so](_URL_1_). For a photon, that wave is moving through space, so the part that was up, then turns into a down, then back into up, that is, it's changing. Since it's changing, then there *must* be a change to the magnetic field there (we could describe it just the opposite way too). This is why we talk about it as the electromagnetic field together, because they affect each other so strongly.\n\nSo what happens is that the electric field wave and the magnetic field wave run together at a 90 degree angle to one another, [just like this](_URL_2_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-26425a6013f1ac644d7554a25fdf242f",
"http://montalk.net/emavec/EMevecfull.jpg",
"http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM151S/07-Atomic%20Structure/Spectra/WavePacketVsContinuous.jpg",
"https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2013/08/summer_sketcheskey4.... | |
1cyi2t | Why is the "Random/shuffle" function/algorithm still so bad WRT music playback? | That is to say, out of 10,000 tracks I have, be it on my computer or in my car, the shuffle function seems incredibly poor. For example, I may be listening to a song from Pearl Jam "Vitalogy" when it goes to another random track only for the next song to be another track on "Vitalogy". This happens too often to just be coincidence.
Can someone explain why this is? It certainly doesn't seem to be selecting a truly random track every time. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cyi2t/why_is_the_randomshuffle_functionalgorithm_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9l6r94",
"c9l7wm7",
"c9llv0g"
],
"score": [
7,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"This seems more like a problem with a specific piece of software. Randomly shuffling items is not as easy as some programmers think. A while ago, [some people at Microsoft made this mistake too](_URL_0_).\n\nIt's easy to combat the specific problem you're having. A naïve approach might be remember the last *N* songs that were played; when choosing the next song, you could keep picking a random song until you picked one that's not in the list. There are many possible variants to this hack, some more mathematically fair than others.\n\nStill, it is possible that this is a coincidence. The situation is perhaps even comparable to the [birthday paradox](_URL_1_). You'd really have to measure it before you can tell.",
" > This happens too often to just be coincidence.\n\nThis is most likely not true. Humans have poor intuitions when it comes to probability like this. We tend to remember the unusual events and consider them to occur more frequently than they actually do.\n\nSuppose your music player chooses the next track uniformly at random each time. (This is most likely not how it works, because if it did that, it would likely repeat the same track twice in a row eventually.) What is the probability that the next track it chooses is from the same album you were just listening to? You have 10,000 tracks, say for convenience there are 10 tracks per album, then the probability is 1/1000. That doesn't seem very high, but consider how many track changes you hear. If tracks average five minutes each, you will hear about 12 changes per hour. So the expected number of times you will hear the same album twice in a row in the next 83 hours of listening is about one.\n\nNow when you see a number like that, you probably think that once every 83 hours of listening isn't that often. This is where you make an error because expecting it to happen once in any given 83-hour period is not the same as saying it will happen once every 83 hours. It has no memory. If it happened on the last track change, you can expect it to happen again once in the next 83 hours. But if it does, it is as likely that it will happen in the first 41.5 hours of that as that it will happen in the last 41.5. It might even happen on the very next track change.\n\nThis is where cognitive biases can set in. You probably remember when this happened three times on your drive to work. You probably don't remember when you went a month without hearing it at all. On the whole, streaks like that aren't happening more often than expected, but in your memory they stand out more when they are happening than when they are not, so they seem much more frequent than they actually are.\n\nIn fact, streaks like this are so likely to happen in the long run that most shuffle functions don't choose the next track uniformly at random. See Rhymoid's comment.",
"In addition to the other responses, some media players actually have a less-than-random shuffle algorithm.\n\nFor example, Winamp (for many years the de-facto MP3 player for Windows PCs) has a \"shuffle morph rate\" buried in its preferences. Lowering it increases the chances that the next song will come from nearby in the playlist. This could be handy if you had a well-sorted playlist and wanted to segue gradually from your prog-rock collection to your movie soundtracks to your hard-core polka.\n\nIt stands to reason, then, that the software embedded in a car stereo might have a similar feature, because it's slightly desirable, but with a hard-coded morph rate, because otherwise they'd need to print an extra page in the user manual.\n\nOr, this could have been implemented accidentally and just never fixed. Early MP3 players had less than a gigabyte of storage, which was only enough to store a few albums at a decent bit-rate. Before hard-disk-based MP3 players (like the Jukebox and Ipod) appeared on the market, a shuffle algorithm that only generated random numbers between -127 and 128 would've been sufficient to shuffle your whole collection as well as a collection of that size could be shuffled, and it would've worked on any lousy little 8-bit microcontroller. Embedded software developers are loathe to fix things that aren't broken.\n\nSome people still listen to music recorded on vinyl discs because they think there's something magical about old technology. It stands to reason, too, that someone developing software for media players (including software to be embedded in car stereos etc.) might think \"that old shuffle algorithm always seemed to know what I wanted to hear - I'll just reuse it, `cos it's magic\". That much is just speculation, of course, but Winamp definitely has an adjustable shuffle.\n\nIt could also be that you've got duplicates of certain songs or albums. It happens. \"Hey dude I heard you liked Pearl Jam, so I brought you some albums I bet you don't have!\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/microsoft-ballot-screen/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox"
],
[],
[]
] | |
avhgx7 | how does anxiety physically increase the chance of mortality? | I've been reading various journal articles today regarding anxiety, depression and mortality rates. It appears to have been concluded that anxiety increases the chance of mortality by about 50%. I don't understand physically how a mental disorder has this effect. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/avhgx7/eli5_how_does_anxiety_physically_increase_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehf4ong",
"ehf6dhr"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not just mental, stress releases certain chemicals into the body that change how it behaves. Cortisol is probably the most important for health problems -- it suppresses the immune system, ramps up metabolism and generally makes your body more ready to run/fight and less receptive to repairing damage/fighting infection. It's not made to be consistently elevated in blood, but anxiety/depression tend to cause significant stress.",
"Mental stress turns into physical stress. \n\nStress makes your organs run at full speed so you can have that extra edge to survive the threat to your life. Heart races, perception perks up, you're focusing on everything and nothing all at the same time. \n\nOverclocking your system like that will start damaging your organs, basically aging them prematurely. A little casual scaring here or there is fine because your body will heal the damage. But living in an constant state of stress means the damage starts to become permanent. \n\nThat's what makes [presidents age so quickly](_URL_0_), and those with anxiety disorders die so much faster. \n\nIt's nothing specific that gets you, but your entire system is running to the limit all day every day. Once one has an actual breakdown due to a more acute medical issue, your body can't give any more to make up for the damage and starts to break down. \n\nThink of it like working in an office where 100% of the day's widgets MUST be produced for the company to not die. If everyone's working a normal 8hr day, they can up the workload to 10hrs/day to cover someone that is out sick. \n\nBut if the entire office is already crunching 14hrs/day 7 days/week, there simply isn't any more to give. When Susan gets hit by a bus, they can't produce the day's widgets and start the death cycle unless repairs are made quickly. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=president+before+and+after&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwippvLm2dzgAhVmc98KHSHdA0EQsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1307&bih=806"
]
] | |
15tpyo | Would fireworks look the same on mars? | Would the color be different, the way they look or would they look the same? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15tpyo/would_fireworks_look_the_same_on_mars/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7pq2w0",
"c7pqbbj",
"c7pwmp5"
],
"score": [
74,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"They would look the same, the colors you see are the result of a chemical reaction occurring in the materials of the firework itself. Fireworks include their own oxidant, so they would burn the same on Mars as they would on Earth or even in space.\n\nWhen they explode, they would probably spread out farther due to the decreased gravity on Mars. As far as looks go, that is likely the only difference you would notice. The report however, would sound different due to the much thinner atmosphere.",
"Yes, fireworks are self-contained explosives. They do not react with the surrounding atmosphere. The only visual difference would be if the air on mars absorbed strongly in some part of the visual spectrum, but like earth's atmosphere, this only happens over extreme distances (many miles), and since the atmosphere on mars is much less dense, you would even be able to see fireworks from further away. ",
"Mars' gravity is less than half of Earth's and the air is much thinner, so they should go quite a bit higher."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3amxuv | What are some Biblical figures, that can be historically confirmed? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3amxuv/what_are_some_biblical_figures_that_can_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cse7ena",
"csekzw1",
"csf20ib"
],
"score": [
60,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"The rulers of Babylon, mentioned in the Old Testament book of Daniel, have independent, local, primary sources that confirm they were actual historical figures. Unfortunately, the book of Exodus does not provide the name of the Pharaoh of Egypt. Nor are there any surviving Egyptian sources that confirms the Exodus story.",
"Lawrence Mykytiuk recently published [a list of 50 people](_URL_0_), a popular extension of his earlier thesis. \n\nPart of the problem of historical identification with anyone in the bible is the lack of documentation which is a problem across the ANE in general. About half the names in the bible are unknown outside the bible, although every now and then [a new confirmation](_URL_1_) pops up (in this case of the name, not the person). This is probably due to the poor levels of documentation.",
"In the deuterocanonical books of Maccabees (they're in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles), Alexander the Great [sets the story in motion](_URL_0_). \n\nHe's about as historically confirmed as you can get from that period, I think. \n\n1 Maccabees was probably written a little more than a century BCE. \n\nAlso: there are war elephants in these books. War elephants. I don't think you'll find them elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. \n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/",
"http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=4122"
],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Maccabee... | ||
ermzis | why is it when i'm having a fever, after waking up from a nights sleep my mouth feels so dry? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ermzis/eli5_why_is_it_when_im_having_a_fever_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"ff4oxub"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Probably dehydration caused by the fever.\n\nThe fever means your body's temperature is increased, your body starts sweating to protect itself from overheating, you thereby lose water. As you usually don't drink while asleep you thereby lost more water than usual resulting in dehydration."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
317gnk | why are minimum wages in the usa so much lower than other places? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/317gnk/eli5_why_are_minimum_wages_in_the_usa_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpz0kag",
"cpz0sqj",
"cpz1zh2",
"cpz5a80",
"cpz5xvl"
],
"score": [
11,
8,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Minimum wage in the US is a little complicated. There's the federal minimum wage, which no state can go under, and then each state can set a higher minimum wage if they choose. So, while the minimum wage is only $7.25 per hour in Indiana, it's $9.47 in Washington State. Outside of the UK and Canada, I don't think there are a lot of places that have a much higher minimum wage.",
"I wrote a paper on comparative politics that touched on this. I found that the US is a massive country with a large population. In order to get votes across such a large demographic you need money, a lot of it. This opens the door to corporate influence and I don't think many corporations would be in favor of increasing minimum wage.",
"Look at the McDonald index for cost of living ",
"Because freedom. If you want to work for pennies, you're free to do so.",
"Because in terms of purchasing power, it's actually not lower and in most cases better."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
21mtc5 | What is the clear liquid that forms on open wounds? | I did search for this question on this sub and found nothing. We have theorised it is white blood cells? but honestly, not a clue. Google isn't helping, can't get the search right for a specific answer..
Thanks! | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21mtc5/what_is_the_clear_liquid_that_forms_on_open_wounds/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgenayn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The clear fluid that oozes from wounds in most cases is just serum, often referred to as serosanguineous exudate. Serum is the liquid part of the blood that contains no blood cells or clotting factors. It will accumulate atop a wound when underlying blood vessels are slightly damaged, causing them to leak."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
5zt5uf | Why are the surfaces of atolls so close to the current sea level? | What causes the formation of thousands of islands rising kilometers from the seafloor to surface within a meter of Earth's current sea level?
| askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5zt5uf/why_are_the_surfaces_of_atolls_so_close_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"df1ztzp"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"There are two parts to an [atoll](_URL_0_). The majority of the bathymetry (i.e. the mass that rises above what would otherwise be the average depth of the surrounding ocean floor) is built by volcanic activity, in other words, it is an undersea volcano, but typically one that is no longer active.\n\nIf the rim of this volcano is close enough to the surface of the ocean, basically in the 'photic zone' or the portion of the oceans surface that still receives a significant amount of sunlight, the rock can begin to be colonized by corals. The height of the rim may start out close to the surface by chance, i.e. the volcano when it was active grew to the point where it was just near the surface of the ocean, or, more likely, it may have been originally emergent and after it became inactive it began to erode and [subside](_URL_1_). The organisms that build [coral reefs](_URL_2_) have somewhat restricted depth ranges in which they can live because they need to live where their food lives as they are not mobile (at least in the period of their life when they are building reefs). Similarly, they cannot live above water, so you can imagine if you have a coral colony that starts on the rim of a volcano (requiring that the rim is sufficiently close to the ocean surface to support the organisms that corals need to survive) the coral colony will grow along the rim (giving you the circular shape of an atoll) and will grow up until it hits the surface as any corals that try to grow above the surface (or are frequently exposed) will die giving you an atoll pretty much exactly at sea level. The atoll will persist as long as erosion of the atoll and subsidence of the underlying seamount does not outpace the rate at which the corals can continue to grow upwards and stay in the depth range they need to survive (otherwise the reef will 'drown'). As an aside, because of their tendency to grow to exactly sea level, corals serve as excellent recorders of sea level changes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral"
]
] | |
5kzikc | when dealing with high speed cameras, why does resolution diminish as the framerate goes up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kzikc/eli5_when_dealing_with_high_speed_cameras_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbrsegc",
"dbrsg56",
"dbrt761"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Data rate. Each frame is just a still picture and takes up a certain amount of data. As the frame rate goes up you have to be able to transmit those frames, the higher the resolution the more data it takes per frame. \n\nSo you lower the resolution in order to be able to send each frame to something that is recording it.",
"A cost hand-off, high speed isn't cheap. \n\nPhysical limitations, if you're achieving it by having 25 photoreceptors per pixel and using one of them each frame and going back to the first after 25 frames then you're using 25x more photoreceptors in the same camera than you're using at any one moment and can't fit any more in. ",
"There is a limit to the speed with which the sensor chip can send out pixel data, and further limits on the data transmission lines, and on the memory system is being transmitted into. Whichever of these handles the fewest bits per second is the limiting factor."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
dzqgv6 | Is light reflected off matter or is light absorbed and then released? | Are my curtains red because all other light is absorbed and (mostly) the red wavelengths are reflected, or does the fabric absorb the phiton and then release light of a red wavelength? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dzqgv6/is_light_reflected_off_matter_or_is_light/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8a7zac"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"It’s reflecting the red light and absorbing the other colors, this is how pigments work which are how most everyday objects get their color. If a material absorbs and then emits light it’s either fluorescent (emission is almost instantaneous) or phosphorescent (emission is delayed)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
2jsvty | Is there any relation between indigenous languages and native wildlife? | Hey all.
Out of curiosity. Is there any correlations (not sure if right world) between indigenous languages and the surrounding, native wildlife? Specifically with certain noises and sounds.
Tried google but really have no idea how to use either.
If you understand this and could give a simple answer would be great. Thanks for reading.
Edit: alright. Let's see if I can better form my query.
With onomatopoeia you have words that sound as they are defined (roughly), a noise from the environment had formed a word. So are there any patterns of surrounding noises being used in a language more so then foreign noises.
Understand this still isn't very clear and i think il give in if this is still of no help. Written word was never my strong suit. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jsvty/is_there_any_relation_between_indigenous/ | {
"a_id": [
"clet6r6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard to understand what you mean. Are you asking if certain languages share speech sounds with the non-speech sounds of wildlife in their area at a greater than chance rate?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
fhsoar | Did Ancient Peoples observe Galaxies? | I wonder if the Swastika could be a representation of Andromeda or even the Whirlpool Galaxy. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fhsoar/did_ancient_peoples_observe_galaxies/ | {
"a_id": [
"fkddyer"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There are few naked-eye visible galaxies. Other than the Milky Way, the only galaxies brighter than 6th magnitude are the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Small Magellenic Cloud, the Andromeda Galaxy, and the Triangulum Galaxy. Of these, the LMC and SMC, both nearby satellite galaxies of our own, are fuzzy patches of light, and Andromeda is a fuzzy elliptical blob. These three were known long ago (but the LMC and SMC are southern sky objects, and not known to ancient peoples in the northern hemisphere). None of the three has a naked-eye appearance appearance that would suggest a swastika.\n\nTriangulum, seen through a good telescope, has a much more visible spiral structure. However, it is much dimmer than Andromeda, towards the limits of what can be seen with the naked eye, and its spiral structure is not apparent to the naked eye.\n\nThe spiral nature of spiral galaxies was only recognised in 1845 when William Parsons observed the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) using a 72\" telescope. Earlier telescopic obsevations (e.g., when Messier discovered it in 1773 - it's too dim to be seen with the naked eye) failed to see the spiral structure. Without seeing the spiral appearance of spiral galaxies, there would be no reasons to symbolise them with a swastika."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
3r0v88 | Why don't spacesuit visors get foggy inside and prevent visibility? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3r0v88/why_dont_spacesuit_visors_get_foggy_inside_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwk9p3a",
"cwkwg89"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"A car's windshield gets foggy when it's very cold outside and warm inside. The glass cools down causing water to condense easily.\n\nIn an EVA suit this doesn't happen because there isn't such temperature difference. (You may find lots of sources about the \"temperature of space\" but that's really meaningless when the air density is practically a vacuum. What matters is the temperature of the visor.)\n\nAnyway humidity has to be controlled; that's one of the functions of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS). Generally speaking, water vapor is considered part of thermal control and called \"latent heat\" in the literature (Wiley J. Larson and Linda K. Pranke - *Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design*, ISBN 0-07-236811-X) because water releases heat when it condenses. It will normally accumulate in heat collectors, in liquid form, so it's relatively easy to collect centrifugally.\n\nThe sources I have are not specific about EVA suits, but AFAIK the suits do have a cooling system based on water loops. This will eventually cause water to condense. It is difficult, though, because air pressure is reduced to 0.3 bar, so water doesn't condense very easily. Besides, EVA suits don't have radiators, so the ultimate way of releasing heat is sublimation of ice into the vacuum of space, and losing consumables is not a good thing when a kg in orbit costs about $5000.\n\nFor those reasons there is some ongoing research to improve EVA suit technologies. [This paper](_URL_1_) proposes a better way of handling humidity.\n\nEdit: found [this](_URL_0_) NASA page confirming that humidity is collected by the cooling systems also in EVA suits.\n\n > The gas stream then travels through a heat exchanger and sublimator for removal of the humidity. The heat exchanger and sublimator also chill water that runs through the tubing in the Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment (LCGV). The humidity in the gas stream condenses out in the heat exchanger and sublimator.",
"The other answer here doesn't really answer the question you asked and is also mostly incorrect, because regardless of using water cooling on the body or not, visor fogging can and does happen. It actually ended the Gemini EVAs early because astronauts could barely see. A series of engineering fixes are now employed to mitigate the risk of this occurring.\n\na) As /u/katinla mentioned the portable life support system (PLSS) actively removes humidity from the air.\n\nb) It cycles that air at a relatively high flow rate - up to 6 ACFM (cubic feet per minute) directly over the face and helmet. This helps keep the humid air from collecting at the visor surface, and it also quickly removes the humid air from the helmet entirely and down into the body where it's sucked back up by the PLSS.\n\nc) Anti-fog materials are used. Regular dishwashing soap works actually - it's applied right before the EVA and helps reduce visor fogging. There are other more permanent anti-fog coatings out there as well that could work.\n\nAll of these things together more or less mitigate the risk that you get visor fogging during an EVA."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/suited/5emu4.html",
"http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150003483.pdf"
],
[]
] | ||
l1vp9 | If you took a new-born baby from a primitive amazon tribe and raised it in a modern society, could it be intellectually "normal"? | I guess the underlying question is, have a few hundred years of higher learning or selection affected our natural intelligence, or would a baby from a primitive society be just as functional? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l1vp9/if_you_took_a_newborn_baby_from_a_primitive/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2p3j83",
"c2p3jbo",
"c2p3orx",
"c2p462r",
"c2p3j83",
"c2p3jbo",
"c2p3orx",
"c2p462r"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
5,
4,
13,
2,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"First off, higher learning doesn't really impart any genetic intelligence. Evolution is strictly about genes, and yours aren't going to change by attending High School. It's also important to note that the differences in intelligence within groups are much higher than between groups, so you're not able to say anything reliably about the intelligence of an individual from an Amazonian tribe. You can, however, talk about average intelligence of the group.\n\nBut as far as your question, a lot of the [Flynn effect](_URL_0_) is blamed on better nutrition. The average intelligence (assuming we can agree upon a definition of intelligence) of adopted Amazonians would probably be higher than that of the tribe just because of that. Whether the Amazon tribe has the same average intelligence after controlling for the social and environmental factors is, as far as I know, unanswered.",
"Essentially yes, this is one of the basic ideas of Sociology. \n",
"Of course, it's still human. It's not like we pass on genetic memories of how to accomplish things. ",
"It is intellectually 'normal' if it is raised in the tribe or not. The underlying genetics are the same no matter where a human is born or what type of society they live in. Of course, a child raised in an amazonian tribe will have different skills than one raised in the US. They both have the same capability to learn those skills though.\nWhile nutrition can affect a growing brain chances are this doesn't result in any differences between most hunter-gatherers and modern agricultural societies. If anything the child in the amazon might receive better nutrition, especially from longer breastfeeding.",
"First off, higher learning doesn't really impart any genetic intelligence. Evolution is strictly about genes, and yours aren't going to change by attending High School. It's also important to note that the differences in intelligence within groups are much higher than between groups, so you're not able to say anything reliably about the intelligence of an individual from an Amazonian tribe. You can, however, talk about average intelligence of the group.\n\nBut as far as your question, a lot of the [Flynn effect](_URL_0_) is blamed on better nutrition. The average intelligence (assuming we can agree upon a definition of intelligence) of adopted Amazonians would probably be higher than that of the tribe just because of that. Whether the Amazon tribe has the same average intelligence after controlling for the social and environmental factors is, as far as I know, unanswered.",
"Essentially yes, this is one of the basic ideas of Sociology. \n",
"Of course, it's still human. It's not like we pass on genetic memories of how to accomplish things. ",
"It is intellectually 'normal' if it is raised in the tribe or not. The underlying genetics are the same no matter where a human is born or what type of society they live in. Of course, a child raised in an amazonian tribe will have different skills than one raised in the US. They both have the same capability to learn those skills though.\nWhile nutrition can affect a growing brain chances are this doesn't result in any differences between most hunter-gatherers and modern agricultural societies. If anything the child in the amazon might receive better nutrition, especially from longer breastfeeding."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect"
],
[],
[],
[]
] | |
3zlmjo | why does time behaves differently near black hole or at the edge of event horizon? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zlmjo/eli5why_does_time_behaves_differently_near_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyn34s2"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Time and space are not separate, they are a single thing called \"Spacetime\". Gravity doesn't suck stuff up, it actually creates a divot in spacetime that stuff falls into. So the bending of space caused by the gravity is actually bending time as well, because time and space are a single thing that make up the universe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
8j7hfm | Do other languages have a preferred way to order adjectives? | I learned recently that in English [we typically order adjectives](_URL_0_) opinion-size-physical quality-shape-age-colour-origin-material-type-purpose, and would like to learn more about it. Has it always been like this? Is it like this in other cultures? Are there theories as to why this developed? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8j7hfm/do_other_languages_have_a_preferred_way_to_order/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyyctvb"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"French is fun, because adjectives have both an order as well as a location (before *and* after the noun). \n \nIf a word is short or has one of the qualities beauty-age-goodness-size, it goes in front of the noun, otherwise it goes after the noun. \n\nAs for multi-adjective ordering, the more \"relevant\" an adjective is to the noun (which is obviously context dependant on the point being made by the speaker), the closer to the noun it is. The French equivalent of \"big beautiful dog loyal brown\" places the emphasis on beautiful and loyal. There are obviously more rules because French is a proud language of how it flows, introducing complicated structure rules.\n\nOrigin, material, and purpose usually are last because they are often expressed with preposition phrases. Quantity is always first."
]
} | [] | [
"https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/about-adjectives-and-adverbs/adjectives-order"
] | [
[]
] | |
728eh9 | how is linux more customizable than other operating systems? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/728eh9/eli5_how_is_linux_more_customizable_than_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"dngks1x",
"dngkszz",
"dngl4ep",
"dngms1e",
"dngtusy",
"dngu0c4",
"dnguo81",
"dngurm2",
"dngvmsx",
"dngwxh3",
"dngyke8",
"dngyt1o",
"dngyvp3",
"dngz9qt",
"dngzk4d",
"dnh0q9x",
"dnh0z1g",
"dnh0zfl",
"dnh1kzv",
"dnh1ph3",
"dnh2474",
"dnh29uq",
"dnh36t1",
"dnh3jaw",
"dnh3mpc",
"dnh43m5",
"dnh4oyz",
"dnh4sde",
"dnh6349",
"dnh7cge",
"dnh9su7",
"dnhb5pa",
"dnhbk9u",
"dnhfttm",
"dnhiw4x",
"dnhkod3"
],
"score": [
2707,
15,
124,
609,
83,
22,
7,
34,
41,
73,
19,
2,
2,
2,
3,
10,
97,
69,
1559,
25,
10,
5,
3,
28,
3,
2,
45,
3,
2,
2,
14,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Linux is \"Open Source\". This means that you can easily access the raw code that the OS is built out of, and edit it as you see fit. If you have relevant skills as a programmer, you can change literally everything about the operating system.\n\nIf you compare that to something more commercial like Windows or Mac OS, you don't have those options. The operating system was compiled by the manufacturer and released as a finished product. You can't even see the code, and have no option to edit it. \n\nThink of it like cakes. Buy a Linux cake and you get the cake, and the ingredient list. At any point you can easily take that recipe, tweak it to your heart's content, and make another cake. Buy an MS or Apple cake, and you just get a finished cake. ",
"Its completely open source. The source code to do whatever you want is out there and available to be modified by an end user should they want to do such a thing. If you have the source code, you can do whatever you want.",
"Because a \"Linux\" system is composed of many individual software projects, and these have all developed to play nicely with each other. Every so often someone becomes fed up with one of those projects and decides to make their own. There's multiple desktop environments, windowing systems, software libraries, etc. etc. At some point, someone has made an alternative to just about every piece. The end result is that these \"pieces\" are generally well-contained, because they keep getting ripped out and replaced.\n\nSo while on a Windows system, where the graphical environment is strongly integrated with the whole, it's not easy to use a substitute, on a Linux system, where there have been many different graphical environments, it's much easier. The design has evolved over the years to be modular by the nature of how it was developed.",
"For Windows and MacOS, one company built the entire thing as one integrated experience from the ground up. They could make everything integrated together.\n\nFor Linux and UNIX, one organization made a command-line OS. Then another built a base GUI system, X Windows. Then a third created a widget toolkit. A fourth created a desktop environment.\n\nAnd then someone else made a different kernel, which is the program that manages your hardware and determines what programs get time on your CPU and get memory and things like that, because the existing ones weren't open source so you had to pay AT & T a lot of money to alter the kernel to your needs, which we needed to do back then.\n\nAnd then someone else made copies of all the basic utilities you need to have a usable command line only OS because the existing ones weren't open source.\n\nAnd then several people created different widget toolkits because the existing ones were crud. And on top of that they built a few different desktop environments because they needed them and couldn't agree on the best way of doing things.\n\nThis created a lot of choice on how to set up your computer.\n\nSo now you've got a bunch of people who are pretty particular about how their computers should be set up, and they know their opinions differ from each other. But they don't want to duplicate tons of work by each maintaining effectively identical software that differs only by what color it is, or what key sequence saves a file, or which side of the window the close button is on. So they added theme support and rebindable keys and configuration options -- a lot more than Macs or Windows.\n\nAnd then the GNOME Desktop Environment decided that it should ruthlessly curate its configuration options, removing any that the core devs didn't find useful, and they found fewer useful with each release. Eh, it's a general trend that Linux stuff is configurable, not an iron law.",
"Your account is new and only 3 posts on it. There are a lot of trolls going to /r/linux so maybe they thought you were one. Also, both threads gave you more or less accurate answers. ",
"FYI, from what I've read online about similar communities, if you posted that Windows is a far superior operating system, the people over there would be more likely to (indirectly) answer your question than if you just asked.\n\n\nIt is a shame that you had the experience you had over there, but also not uncommon (unfortunately) from what I hear.\n\n\nWhile other people have already answered your question very well, I just wanted to add that because Linux is open source, there are many different flavors of Linux.\n\n\nSome of these different Linux versions are bare bones where you can customize what you like, and there are others that are somewhat already setup, and anything in-between. I believe there is one that mimics windows and possibly another that is similar to Mac OS (which I believe Mac OS is based off of the Linux kernel but is different enough that Apple can still make money from it).\n\n\nAll that being said, there are two, three or four main environments that Linux uses: KDE and Gnome and some others. These environments define what the user interface looks like and how to interact with it. This goes from creating keyboard shortcuts to installing applications.\n\n\nBut what really makes Linux truly customizable is that it's source code is available (it is open source). Which means anyone can make even more changes than I described earlier. And if these changes are contributed to the community and enough people like it, I suppose it can eventually be utilized in a future release of the OS and probably improved upon.\n\n\nIn fact, because of this, there are often branches of the different environment-types of Linux. This is how the multiple environments (KDE, Gnome, etc.) came about. Enough people liked each of them that instead of picking one environment, the communities kinda split up in that aspect.\n\n\nSorry for the wall of text and hopefully it is accurate. I'm still a bit of a noob when it comes to Linux but I am enjoying learning more about it. I would appreciate any correction to anything that is incorrect here, so _I_ may learn more about Linux.\n\n\nAlso, there are probably some good details on Wikipedia which, now that I mention it, I will probably go check that out again (it's been a few years since I read that page). Be fore-warned that, like anything else, that is a rabbit hole you might end up diving down when reading about this.\n\n\nGood luck!\n ",
"Most OS is like buying a house. When many people have a house, they want to live there, not knock down walls, try a different wall, or make an interior wall a fish tank. Linux builds let you break, fix, and seek answers to problems that aren't quite so encouraged in other places. ",
"Linux is Lego. Completely customizable. \n\nWindows is a concrete building you can decorate and put furniture into. ",
" > I posted the same thing at r/Linux and they were so rude about it.\n\nSounds exactly like the Linux community. \n\nDisclaimer: am part of said community.\n\nBTW I use Arch.",
"One thing I want to add that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that most settings in Linux are stored somewhere in plain text files. This means you can modify values for things that you wouldn't normally be able to on another OS, like mouse acceleration values or the colors used in your terminal window. Additionally, you can read from those settings with relative ease, something that isn't always easy on say windows. (Try to find the path to the image that is your desktop background.)\n\nAlso, check out /r/UnixPorn for some examples of people who go crazy with customization.",
"Linux isn't even an operating system. It's just a kernel, upon which many operating systems known as Linux are built. Most of them use very similar software and incorporate different package managers or desktop environments. That's why it is so customizable, because Linux actually doesn't get you much, in the pedantic sense. You have to include all the other bits that most people consider to be operating systems.\n\nAndroid uses the Linux kernel, but that's about all it has in common with desktop Linux, for example.",
"Most Linux distributions won’t prevent you from making questionable configuration choices, which in my experience is a double-edged sword. If you want your bootloader to be on a usb stick instead of an internal drive, it’ll let you do it, but it might not ask if you’re sure you want to do that or tell you the ramifications of doing so.\n\nAlso, a lot of Linux software can be configured by manually editing its configuration files; GUI configuration tends to limit you to the more sensible possibilities.",
"Same reason a custom-built PC, or a tricked out car is more customizable.\n\nYou can edit, and rebuild the entire operating system to suit your needs, provided you have the skills.\n\nYou CAN'T do that with Windows, or OSX, since you don't have the underlying code that makes up either of those systems.",
"Windows and MacOS is rather like a collection of playmobil(tm). Linux is more like a collection of Lego(tm).",
"As others have said Linux is kernal (core of the OS). On top of that is a very modular design. Various people have built different moduals that go on top of the kernal them.\n\nNow in Windows you install different programs on top of the OS, but they all have to talk to the kernal and hardware through the OS.\n\nBut Linux based operating system can have the various parts of of the OS traded out as the user pleases, and many can be removed. (You still install programs as well, but basically the whole OS in smaller programs you can trade out)\n\nInstalling a Linux distro on low powered laptop? Pick a distro built for that or assemble your own (if you want to). More powerful desktop, install a Linux OS that has more features, but requires more power.\nCan't find what you want? Grab something like Arch Linux and install just what you want.\n\nYou can see this with how Android (A Linux based OS) changed from different phone manufacturer. The GUI aka the skin your phone runs changed from manufacturer to manufacturer. Google's Nexus and Pixel lines run what some refer to as \"stock Android\" while Samsung used their Touch wiz interface.\nBut these can be somewhat changed thanks to Linux's flexibility, allowing you install different launchers to changed you \"desktop\" on your phone. All thanks to Linux's flexibility.\n\nDown side to all this is Linux doesn't hold your hand like Windows, and worse Mac, does. With Linus you can completely wide your system accidentally with s few lines in the command prompt. \n\nIt's kinda like the difference between my 2014 truck and my friends 98 Wrangler. The Jeep you can drive around with no top, no doors, no window, etc and the vehicle doesn't care.\n\nIf I foget my seatbelt my truck won't shut up.\n\nTruck is Windows, Jeep is Linux. Linux says do what you want, just don't come whining to me if you bork your system.",
"So I think to really answer this question, you have to understand what exactly computer programs are. \n\nI'm sure you're familiar with the term computer processor. On a physical level, a computer processor is composed of silicon with dopants such as phosphorous and nitrogen such that electrons and so electricity behave a certain in a well-defined fashion - the arrangement of dopants and silicon is called an electrical circuit. These circuits can do things like hold high voltage states and low voltage states, read high voltage and low voltage states and then produce other arrangements of voltage states. It doesn't have to always have to do with high and low voltage states, but much of our modern electronics involve high and low voltage states - this high and low and nothing in between is what \"digital\" refers to; as opposed to \"analog\", which is when all the states in between are also used. \n\nSo the processor holds a bunch of these electrical circuits in its silicon. Certain circuits can hold collections of high and low voltage states. If we think of high voltage as representing 1 and low voltage as representing 0, we can start seeing collections of high and low voltage states as base 2 - or binary - numbers. The term used to described the information contained by just one of these high / low voltage states is \"bit\". You may have heard of this in terms of \"32-bit operating system\" or \"64-bit operating system\". This means that the default size of information used by the operating system for certain operations are 32 of these states together, or 64 of these states together. \n\nA processor also has other circuits which can take these collections of high and low voltage states in one area of the processor and produce new high and low voltage states in the same or other areas of the processor. If we see the high and low voltage states as bits which represent numbers, these circuits perform functions such as adding together numbers or other arithmetic, as well as other operations such as reading the information contained in a certain area of the processor. The functions a processor can do is called an instruction set. \n\nThe processor keeps track of what instructions it can perform by having an associated number called an opcode. For example, I could say instruction #12 is adding this and that number, instruction number #55 is stopping an operation. At the most basic level, a computer program is a list of these instructions - this is called the machine code or machine language. Of course, when we think of a computer program it might be more like this:\n\n def hello_world():\n print(\"Hello world!\")\n\ninstead of something like this (note, opcodes are often represented in base 16 - or hexadecimal):\n\n B9 3A\n A8 FF\n DD 84\n\nThe program we saw at the top, with words we understand - that program gets turned into something like the machine language below through something called compilation. Compilation is done by a compiler, which is a computer program which can translate some human-readable input into the machine code which the computer can understand. This may seem like a chicken-or-the-egg problem - how was the first compiler written? The first compilers were written by humans in machine code. \n\nThe compiler is the basis of any programming language - such as Java or Go or Rust or Haskell or Swift or C or C++ or so on... Since a given processor might have a different instruction set from another processor, a compiler needs to be specific for a processor's architecture - so there's language-specific compilers for x86-64, or ARMv7, or MIPS, or PowerPC. A compiled machine language program for one processor architecture will almost certainly not work on another processor architecture. Also, when a program gets compiled a bunch of the human-readable information that helps a lot in understanding how the program works is lost. It is not easy to take a compiled program then \"reverse-compile\" it and try to understand what comes out. \n\nSo here's the thing - the compiler takes the human-readable code in whatever language and spits out machine language. After you get that machine language program for your specific processor architecture, do you need that human-readable code to run that program? The answer is no. \n\nThat compiled machine language program the only thing given in closed source products. Linux is open source - they make its human-readable code freely available for everybody to use. That means that if you want, you can take the Linux code and modify it then recompile it and get your own personal version of Linux. Meanwhile, for closed source software like Windows and Mac OS, you aren't going to get the source code and so making modifications are pretty much impossible or at least involves dealing with cryptic code derived from machine language that's extremely difficult to read and may only be relevant and true for whatever processor architecture you have. Meanwhile, the modifications you make to Linux can be shared with people with other processor architectures by recompiling the changes you made using compilers for different instruction sets. \n",
"You might want to work on your delivery. from /r/linux/\n\n\n*I literally asked the question above and got shit on for no reason. That tends to make a person more hostile towards those who are rude.* --Jkrollinup\n\n*Go fuck yourself* --Jkrollinup\n\n*Yes dipshit. It's a project for my computer class where each group gets a major operating system and argues why it's better. Go fuck yourself* -- Jkrollinup\n\n",
"I just checked your post history. You ignore that most people there gave you good answers. Yet you crap on the whole subreddit because of a couple people that didn't. And judging by your follow-up thread, YOU are more rude than anybody on /r/linux. ",
"I'll approach this from a different standpoint,\n\nI personally tell people frequently that I bled and sweat and cried my way into Linux. It wasn't an easy thing at first, I started around 2008 with Mandriva Linux, which I borked repeatedly due to inexperience and computer inexperience. I gave up, and returned a year later with Ubuntu linux, of which I use regularly.\n\nIt wasn't easy, I was used to being catered to by 90% of the world I knew running on windows, so finding help for Linux was harder. It didn't help that I didn't know how to search for help for linux for quite sometime either.\n\nNo Linux is not my main machine at home, but it is at work, so I get a good 50/50 out of it. (Windows at Home for games, Linux for IT work at work.)\n\nLinux is Open Source, as many here have pointed out, and it's very customizable. If you know the right code, and have the right skills, you can change it to your liking, in any way. As long as you follow the Open Source license and release the changes. (This is generally easy, as if you contribute to any open source project your changes will generally be very open to view, I'm looking at you Github.)\n\nBut onto the meat of it, Why does open source mean better for us? Me and you? Because it means that while I can edit this code, Everyone else can too. This means that even if I never do, I can use the internet to find a great deal of many people who *have*.\n\nSay, that I don't like how my desktop is laid out. (I don't like where my start button is, or I like how a Mac laptop is laid out.) I can go online find the appropriate command, and download and change it. It may take a little time to download and install, but the options are available. I can choose between quite a few: KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment, Unity, Mate, LXDE, just to name a few!\n\nThis goes for Software too. Because the internals of the Linux Family of Operating Systems are open, we get choices on almost every level, far beyond the ones that Windows gives. This is something some people love to an extreme degree, and naturally have strong opinions on the matter. \n\nLets list some examples:\n\n* My Task bar is too big, because I have a tiny laptop with a tiny screen, with linux you can look up how to make your task bar as small as you'd like, and still hold your icons. Maybe you don't want a taskbar at all, and want a Mac-like dock? Linux lets you do this.\n\n* My computer is running very very slow, windows just takes too much for it to run, I can find a version of Linux that requires much less power and will run and make my computer act brand new.\n\n* I want my computer for a very specific use: I only want it to run google chrome, nothing else ever. You can set up a computer with Linux to do just this one task, and nothing else.\n\n* I want to make [Google Deep Style images at home](_URL_1_) I did this one personally and I love it, I crank them out on one of my servers at home, and it's a fun gift to give to people from time to time who've never seen it. This one is harder though, so I'd recommend a newbie keep clear of it for a little while at least.\n\nIn my line of work, I often tell people to simply get something that you will enjoy working with. If it's a Mac, a Windows machine, or a flavor of Linux. Do what you need to be productive on your machine, but keep an open mind and try other things. You never know what you will find on another piece of Software, or Operating System that may blow your mind and change everything about how you produce whatever it is on your computer.\n\nI find myself working fairly well on any of the big three. I've poked around with BSD and may in the future make it a work machine so I can learn it more forcefully.\n\nThe last thing I can offer is this: If you are curious to learn Linux, I'll tell you the biggest three things I learned that helped me get familiar with it:\n\n1. Dive in, and don't be scared of problems. Use google to find solutions and begin to learn how things operate. In time you will find yourself getting more and more familiar with it. This is much like learning Windows for the first time, not a lot will make sense, but as you notice patterns, you will begin to understand how this works. View it as an adventure, and do a little reading before hand so you know where to start.\n\n2. Find an aspect of the OS you enjoy and play with it! I learned to love the Command line, customizing how it looks, and having it do things I used to use a mouse to do or my love of SSH which lets you control computers across your network at home, or even across the internet. Maybe yours is Games? Or perhaps it's seeing what kind of different software you can try? I learned about my favorite Linux Software [youtube-dl](_URL_0_) via [youtube-dl-gui](_URL_2_) which is a program that makes it easy to use and downloads any music you like from Soundcloud, Youtube, and many other places. It was a god-send for my music collection when I found out that youtube-dl works on sites that aren't youtube. It will even let you download just the audio from videos, so you can collect music. I do know that it's available on Windows, but I learned about it because of Linux.\n\n3. Vocabulary! Be sure to ask people about linux functions and see if they have a name you can search for. I wanted to run programs on each of my processors at once. I had no idea what this was called until I asked on the Ubuntu forums and I was told I was looking for something called Parallelization. This then let me google more effectively. This is 60% of the battle. The rest is all implementation.\n\nAnd three warnings:\n\n1. People who google are people who get answers, also take a look through /r/unixporn and subs that focus on Unix/Linux specifics like Unix coding, or linux command lines, or subs dedicated to specific distros. The Forums dedicated to specific distros, like the legendary Ubuntu forums also will offer help for even the smallest questions. Feel free to ask, and search through them, usually people have had the EXACT same problem you've had, you just have to find how they fixed it. I forced myself to use linux exclusively, it took two months and before I knew it, I wasn't thinking about how much trouble this was, I was just browsing the internet and playing games I knew could run on Linux. (And doing my IT work at home.)\n\n2. If you have an older wireless card (USB, onboard, etc.) or certain video cards, be prepared for the possibility of incompatibility or some stretching to get them functioning. Looking them up using google before you install will save heartaches. Of course you may luck out and they may just work without any sort of tinkering.\n\n3. If the distro you like offers it, RUN THE LIVE CD, which means simply that you are running Linux off the CD, or USB drive and taking it for a test drive. It is the full version of the Operating system, but temporarily, this allows you to figure out a lot of the worst problems before you make the jump.\n\nI work a lot with people who have never used a computer before, and fixing computers for people who only have used them lightly. Feel free to send questions my way if you are genuinely interested in learning Linux, I'll offer what help I can, and point out sites that I used to learn it.",
" > I posted the same thing at r/Linux and they were so rude about it.\n\nHAHAH. That's par for the course.\n\nHey, I'm a life long Linux user, developer, and fan. *However,* the Linux community is full of huge assholes who discourage newcomers just trying to learn the system. It's been like this for a long time.\n\nI'll give a legitimate answer to avoid getting deleted.\n\nLinux is highly modular. It supports loading modules at runtime. It wasn't always like this, however it was still modular at the source code level. Think of a runtime module as a DLL on windows, but assume the DLL's follow a consistent interface (like COM objects.)\n\nThe reason Linux is very modular is because it was forced to be. Linux developers work remotely from around the world in different timezones. Therefore, there was a strong need to separate the operating system functionality into modules so that developers could work on different parts of the OS without interferring with each other or creating dependencies upon each other.\n\nWindows had a different development situation. Most of their kernel developers were housed in the same building so they could interact in the real world in order to communicate and synchronize their work.",
"#I think it matters *who* you ask that question to.\n\nImagine you have a regular guy, a chef, and a master chef. \n \nLets say all 3 are told to make a cake. \n \nA regular guy may go to the Internet, get a recipe or suggestion for a cake he can make, and just go with it. Sure, he can put icing on it and choose what cake he wants. \n \nA chef may have experience with cakes and choose the best cake mix and ingredients to his knowledge. He makes a better cake than the regular guy cause he has experience, knowledge, and some skill. \n \nA master chef will not only know about cakes, but about base ingredients, oven capabilities, has sources to get the best stuff from and tools to outperform good chefs. \n \nA lot of Linux users tend to be chefs. Some are Master Chefs. \n \n#Knowing how to read, write, edit, and apply source code is a high end to master chef level of computer usage. \n \nA lot of people have been posting that Linux is \"open source\" and that every piece of it can be scrutinized and reviewed. That's like a regular guy inspecting every chicken that laid an egg for the cake, the health of the wheat grown for flour, the quality of the sugar that goes into the cake, the strength for the vanilla extract, etc. It's impossible for the layman to inspect everything on such a small level. We entrust people who specialize in certain fields to test and review each ingredient instead. \n \n#Linux is only superior to people who have the ability to manipulate it on a skillful level. Otherwise, it's pretty much like Windows, Mac, Andriod, or 3rd party proprietary on a simple level. \n \nHonestly, I wouldn't worry about people gloating that Linux is so and so. There is a sharp learning curve and a horrible level of accessibility for 3rd party products for it. Most people brag about Linux doing 1 or 2 things well like serving data. No one brags about Linux's odd lack of support for off the shelf products or it's obscure methods of management. ",
"First off, I'm sorry people over at /r/Linux were rude.\n\n\nPretend you'd like to change a meal you eat every day.\n\nMicrosoft and Apple don't share their recipes, they want to keep it secret, and you have to buy the meal as is without knowing how its made from the store pre-packaged and you just have to eat it the way it is.\n\nLinux comes along and not only shows you the entire recipe, how its made, but gives it away for free, with so many options its a bit annoying.\n\nThat's the simplest explanation I can think of.",
"Easiest way to explain the concept is to ask:\n\nWhy is making your own food more customisable than buying ready-made from the store?\n\nThe answer is of course because when you can get your hands on the ingredients you have more control, and thus can change anything you like. Note that this might not necessarily make things better, will take more effort and you might not understand or want to understand what you are doing, but you have that control.\n\nLinux 'distros' are a bit like those companies that sell you a recipe and all the ingredients to make it with instructions. They have already done some of the work and come up with a good recipe and you can use that as a starting point, but you could still change things if you wanted and knew how.\n\nNow the real question is how important is this to you.",
"I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.\nMany computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.\nLinux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.",
"To do a ELI5 explanation:\n\nImagine you want to buy a car. You can go to a dealer, and buy a well tuned car which was built and tested in a factory by the manufacturer. That would be your Window or Mac OS.\n\nNow, there's another possibility. You can go on internet and download the blueprints for a car. You have the choice to put an engine and customize it for speed, or for less noise. Then you have the option to put on top different gear boxes. Then you can choose what frame you want. And what kind of buttons to have on your steering wheel. Depending on what you want, you can end up with a race rocket or an off-road monster BUT, ... you have to do the work. \n\nIn the end, Linux was thought more like a blueprint, while Mac/Windows is sold like a finished product.",
"A big deal to me is the amount of choice you have. There's literally hundreds of distributions out there. I mostly stick to the more popular (Ubuntu, sometimes Mint) but if Ubuntu ever were to make a strange turn I don't like, I can switch to another distro literally in minutes. \n\nNow take for example Windows. I wouldn't want to be running Windows 7 because it's pretty outdated by now. But I wouldn't want to run Windows 10 because of the mandatory privacy infringements built in. There's really no choice there. ",
"OP, while you did get your answers, people weren't being rude to you at /r/Linux. You got all of your answers from them, yet two morons who commented bothered you. Infact people disagreed with them and agreed with you. Then you went ahead and called the community toxic and got disagreed with.\n\n\nYou're attacking an entire subreddit over 2 redditors. That's not okay.\n\nedit: a word.",
"Let's pretend you're buying a new car.\n\nFirst you go at the typical Microsoft car store. Their Windows model is popular; the car it has nice leather seats but a trashy wheel. When you ask the vendor if you can replace the wheel, he says \"no... our product is sold and used as a single piece. You won't find another suitable wheel anyway.\"\n\nThe fancy Apple car store sells OS X models. They're flashy, but same deal as above: you aren't supposed to replace parts you dislike. \n\nThen you go to the bazaar where the Linux and BSD crowd sells cars. There are a thousand vendors, each yelling \"CHECK OUR CARS, MADE FROM THE FINEST PARTS!\": Canonical with their Ubuntu, Red Hat with their CentOS, the Debian Foundation... there's even a guy selling \"how to build your own car from scratch\" manuals!\n\nBut when you check the cars, some models have some identical parts, and some different parts. It looks like there are two motor in all models (with Torvald's motor being the most popular), three different starters, five or six different bodyworks, ten different window models... all of those in almost infinite combinations. Heck, there's even a guy who decided to sell cars with pink rocket launchers! \n\n(There are also the ones who copied the model from someone else and did a paintjob.)\n\nWhen you ask one of the vendors on why this happens, he says: \"it's normal here. We rarely make the parts, we buy them elsewhere. Each vendor picks the ones they like the most, depending on what the car is supposed to do, then assemble the model at home and produce the cars we sell. And of course, if you dislike some part of my model, you can replace them at home, I'll give you a list of part sellers.\"\n\n________________\n\n*This* is the reason Linux is more customizable than most other systems. They're made as single pieces, while Linux is actually a bunch of spare programs made to be used together - and made to be *replaced* if that's what you want. The *Linux distributions* (Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Suse...) you see out there are like those car models on the bazaar - pre-made with certain programs instead of others, but nothing prevents you from picking new programs and switching them.\n\nFor all intents and purposes, you can replace anything in a Linux distribution with an alternative. Not just your browser or office suite; you can do it with the initialization (the \"starter\"), the desktop environment (the \"bodywork\")... you can even take Linux (the \"motor\" = kernel) out of a Linux distribution, replace it with something else and get an usable system, if that's what you want!\n\nAnd if starting from a distribution like this feels like insufficient, you can also start from scratch. Grab a Linux from Scratch manual and literally build the system from some programs you download. ",
"I'll try to explain in a non-technical way, which is what I think would have gotten me into Linux sooner if someone said it to me when I wasn't using Linux yet.\n\n- You have multiple options for desktops; which means that you can simply log out and log back into another desktop environment and you will have a completely different theme, different layout, different icons, and sometimes even different programs. \n\n- You can apply system-wide themes and icons in a few clicks. That includes fonts, titlebars, etc.\n\n- There are so many alternative software that do the same thing different. If you don't like the text editor or the file manager, you can simply install a different one by going to the software store/center and clicking \"install\" on a different one. \n\n- You can customize your desktop down to the last detail to make it suit your needs by installing addons and extensions or removing components. \n\n- The lower level of the system is open source and exposed (not security-wise, but configuration wise), so you can even change the login screen, the boot splash, and the boot theme. You can also configure hardware different by editing config files which is not really all that hard to do. \n\n- Linux caters to power users more. You can easily schedule your system to do things automatically like change the themes at 6 am and 6 pm so you can have a day and night theme or you can create a barebone desktop environment from slapping together different components and creating a boot script.\n\n- More advanced users can tweak the way window managers and drivers work to get an optimized performance and squeeze as much as they could from their hardware. By default, software is optimized for 'most' cases but it can be optimized further for specific cases. \n\nTL;DR Linux is about choice and you have so much to choose from that it's difficult _not_ to tweak your desktop to behave and look the way you expect it to. ",
"Mac OS is like driving a car with an automatic transmission.\n\nWindows is like driving a stick shift.\n\nLinux is like driving a car that you've built yourself and aren't quite done with.",
"I followed the debacle from r/linux and basically asking a question there is against the rules( there are /r/linuxquestions and /r/linux4noobs for that). It's clearly stated on the sidebar. Additionally since linux marketshare has started going up we get a lot of trolls leaking from apple and microsoft subs so the situtation is a big tense. So I'll try to answer your question here.\n\n\nLinux on it's own is not an operating system. Linux is a vital part of it(the kernel) and possibly the hardest to create from scrath, but it's not enough on it's own. The kernel takes care of speaking directly to the hardware. It includes things like thread scheduler( the part that decides which application or daemon will get cpu time and when), I/O scheduler( organizing writes and reads from the hard drive), all hardware drivers and so on. You get the idea, very low level stuff. So when you say \"I use linux\" (as a desktop OS), in reality you are using linux as the kernel, plus a ton of libraries and applications on top( consisting the userland, usually the GNU userland). The result is a full operating system. An end user rarelly interfaces directly with the kernel unless it is for something technical.\n\nThe main driving factor behind the customizability of linux is the fact that it's open source. Open source does not mean that someone makes some code and throws it in the wind, but rather uses a lincese that follows the code around. Linux( the kernel) uses [gplv2](_URL_2_), while everything else in the system uses a combination of gplv2, [gplv3](_URL_1_), or permissive like [bsd](_URL_0_). You can read more about them, because open source has played a huge role in shaping the modern IT world and it's adoption is only expected to increase. \n\nAnyway what every single one of these licenses allows is for a user to take the source code, modify it and redistribute the modified version. This has resulted in companies and people all around the world creating and sharing software that solves all kinds of problems. This ranges from alternative schedulers in the kernel( e.g. Facebook created the BFQ scheduler for their servers and due to the fact that the kernel uses gplv2 they released it to the public), to different algorithms for thread scheduling. The result are 20 years of libre software that ranges from 20 or more different desktop environments( the graphical part of the OS with all the buttons, window management, and a software suite), multiple applications that do the same thing( e.g. nautilus, thunar, pcmanfm, midnight commander, vifm for file managers, a muriad of music applications etc). Aditionally let's say I want an application to look or behave in a specific way, but there is none that is exactly how I want it. In that case I would either make a new one( usually a lot of wasted effort), or I would take the one that is closest to how I want it, modify it to add an option to do what I want it to do and push the patch upstream( to the app maintainers). Now every user of that application will get that new option. So not only we have a lot of e.g. desktops to chose from, but we also have a ton of options on each one of them. This has resulted to the creation of modular applications that users can tweak with addons and extensions to their needs.\n\nThis extends down to the more technical part of the OS, for example you can chose different file systems instead of only NTFS for windows or AFS for apple stuff depending on what you are trying to do. You can use ext4 for a stable desktop or try something more advanced like btrfs if you have a system with multiple hard drives and you care alot about data rot. Or different file system if you are running an SSD, specifically designed for SSDs instead of retrofited like NTFS( it's from Samsung, I can't recall the name). You can switch I/O schedulers depending on your workload and the type of the hard drive, you can enable/disable kconfig switches on hardware drivers and so on. \n\n\nAt some point early on this entire ecosystem became too big to be managed by each person, so distributions were created. Each one of them is supposed to cater to a different audience with different use cases. Some of them like Debian go back to the 90s. Debian for example is aimed at users who need extreme stability and are willing to sacrifice newer versions of applications or the kernel (i.e. hardware compatibility) in exchange. It's aiming at being the universal OS, that can run on any architecture people want it to run( from x86-64 to armv7, aarch64, spark, power8/9 riscv, you name it). Ubuntu takes from Debian and tries to make it more user-friendly and ready to use out of the box with minimal tweaking. It's aimed at engineers and business users, and to some extend to the mainstream public that is not afraid to open a terminal once in a while. Linux Mint takes the Ubuntu base and narrows it down to the average Joe, making sure that everything works with a nice coherent UI and no need for a terminal. Arch Linux on the other hand is a DIY distribution that allows you to select a decent amount of the parts consisting your system on your own. It's a rolling release distro meaning it doesn't have releases, but software is updated as soon as a new version rolls out upstream. Gentoo follows the same idea but to a greater extend allowing more control but at the same time you have to compile the software yourself. Fedora lies somewhere in the middle with a stable base(desktop environment, compiler and C library version) rolling applications, while it rebases every time a new kernel is released. There are plenty of distros covering every niche of the userbase, some more professional, some more community oriented. \n\n\nOf course with power comes great responsibility. You do not have to tweak every single option in the system, but if you do start tweaking you have to get ready to bork it multiple times. The choice is yours. For this reason one can chose e.g. Linux Mint to just get shit done^TM or something more advanced. There is an option for everyone.",
"Think cake. \nmmm cake.\nNow, Windows is like a store-bought cake, the whole cake, you can't really buy one slice and you don't really need 9/10s of it but it's convenient to have it if someone comes to visit. But it comes with gluten, and peanuts and hydrogenated plant oils and artificial sweeteners to offset that heavy, nausea inducing decorative layer of teeth rotting sugar paste on top. (Oh and it likes to use your network connection to call back to the store about the times you eat the cake too :p)\n\nNow Linux, Linux is that lie you tell yourself about learning to bake and making a perfect cake for yourself or your SO, friends and family. Face it, you're never going to do it but there's a whole industry built around you not doing it but being able to. In practice it's the home-made cake that someone baked for you but you tell yourself you know exactly where all the materials came from and that they are gluten/drm/capitalism/cruelty free. And you can maybe decorate the cake yourself or ruin it by digging around trying to hunt down all the almonds and replace them with hazelnuts then throwing a tantrum after the pieces won't come back together.\n",
"Sorry for the poor reception. Many of the Linux peeps forget that we all started on equal footing. Don't let the snobs tarnish the entire community. \n\nLinux is a great OS and if you have the time and desire it can be exactly what you want!",
"Not sure if it is mentioned yet, but most Linux distros (all the common ones), provide a package manager that makes it extremely easy to install software. Think of it like an app store, but everything is free.\n\nWant Firefox? Run \"apt-get firefox\" on the command line. Package manager repositories have thousands of things you can install.\n\nYou can also update all of the software installed on your computer by running \"apt-get upgrade\".\n\nThere are GUI's that run on top of package managers for people who don't like the command line.",
"I don't know who was more rude, you or the known neckbeard troglodytes at /r/linux, and I don't care. Your question is now here.\n\nI'll use anecdotal experience to explain my answer. I currently use a desktop environment called XFCE, and it is heavily customized. How did I get here?\n\nI first started using Linux with a desktop environment--DE from here on--called GNOME 2, the default in Ubuntu Hardy Heron. What I immediately liked about the desktop experience was its cohesion in terms of both UX and UI. Everything followed a community-agreed standard, so everything meshed together. If you wanted to change one facet of your desktop environment, everything else would fall in line. Window control themes, icon themes, fonts, stuff like that. Here's another thing I liked that I'll never take for granted again: apps are sorted into *categories*, by *default*!\n\nI started to dislike GNOME 2's sluggishness and some of its rigidness and undefinability in terms of its customization. All of its apps depended on each other and their own components, and there were a lot of them, they were all fairly heavy. So I switched to a different DE called XFCE. I really loved XFCE from the get go. Same customization, but more of it. The entire desktop is modular, so you can switch out pieces of it for other pieces, or drop them out entirely. They don't depend on each other, and each individual piece is light with few light dependencies.\n\nI wanted my desktop to have really snazzy visual effects, so for a while I switched the default window manager out with one called compiz, which gave me a lot of fancy animations. I eventually went back to the default window manager with something called an external compositor, which allowed customizable translucency and minimalist animations.\n\nI ended up using a netbook for a period of time, and the default experience was sub-optimal, but I set things up so that every application was always maximized, the window frame was hidden, and the window name and buttons were in the panel. I also used an in-panel dock to save more space. I achieved this by running an XFCE panel plugin that lets you run GNOME 2 panel applets, and used DockbarX and Namebar. I got tired of the dependencies that pulled, so I ported Namebar raw to XFCE panel, and made a stupid hack to shove DBX into the panel.\n\nI got tired of the fact that everything in the DE tries to start up at the same time, and you can't make things go one after another, so I made a script to do that by watching for internet connectivity as well as the appearance of certain files, processes, and window classes, and changed all my startup items to use it.\n\nI play a lot of games, and gaming used to be not so nice on DEs, doing nasty things like changing resolution and moving stuff around, so I made a script to run all my games in something called an X server--specifically, a separate one than the one that runs my DE. This also gave me alt-tab functionality in games that didn't allow it.\n\nAny controller works on my computer, and is exposed to userspace as a 360 controller, no matter what it actually is. All my games are automatically recorded. I have full control over dualshock 4 light bars. All my important files and settings are synced in real-time between all my computers. I even have a separate user with an encrypted home directory for when I need to do things more privately than Firefox's private mode, and keep persistent storage for it.\n\nI could keep going on all the little things I did to make my desktop work exactly the way I like it if I wanted to, but we'd be here forever. Windows would not let me do even 10% of what I've been able to do with Linux, and that is why I use Linux.",
"Since your question has already been aptly answered by /u/JaceTheSaltSculptor I'll just take a moment to apologise on behalf of the Linux community for the bad experience you had at /r/linux. I've been running Linux as my daily operating system both at home and at work for a few years now and naturally still find myself asking stupid questions in forums like /r/linux. One of the cornerstones of Linux's massive success is the active collaboration among all of its contributors and the fact that someone shows interest in it and is treated disrespectfully is very damaging to our community.\n\nUnfortunately, as with everything in life, there are jerks everywhere, and Linux is no exception. For anyone who's not particularly tech savvy, Linux as an ecosystem is already pretty hostile as it is, so if you have to factor in people's sarcastic replies when asking for help, it's only normal people decide it's not worth their time. Even though the general sentiment of the Linux community towards newcomers is not bad, when someone new to Linux is received with negativity, they have yet another reason to think Linux is hard, painful and only ever used by a bunch of insecure, elitist neckbeards.\n\nPlease don't let that experience drive you into thinking the whole Linux community is that way, because it definitely isn't."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/",
"http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/create-neural-paintings-deepstyle-ubuntu/",
"https://mrs0m30n3.github.io/youtube-dl-gui/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
... | ||
pwcie | Do orgasms feel the same for men and women? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pwcie/do_orgasms_feel_the_same_for_men_and_women/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3srft6",
"c3srgq9",
"c3srgtw",
"c3srj4k",
"c3srj9p",
"c3srqzq",
"c3srzbn",
"c3ssdnp",
"c3ssuow",
"c3suej1",
"c3swbqv"
],
"score": [
32,
25,
811,
25,
246,
6,
12,
50,
20,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"interesting question. . . could we extend this further? does orgasm's feel the same for animals as for humans? I mean, does the same feeling of euphoria exist in a say a dog's brain during an orgasm? \n\nmaybe a vet/animal expert can answer this. But i'm still very interested if a male/female orgasm is the same. There are a lot of posts about the difference between a womans' clitorial vs vaginal/gspot orgasm but none about the difference between male/female. ",
"Even if we can answer the \"fuction\" by such scientific observation (as StuckInCubicle points out), we're incapable of scientifically describing or explaining \"the feel\" of anything. This is a problem of minds and of qualia: _URL_0_",
"Both the male and the female body release the same chemicals during orgasm, so it's the same good-feeling, but the female orgasm lasts an average of 23 seconds whereas the male orgasm averages 6 seconds. As far as intensity goes, have you *ever* seen a man have an orgasm good enough that it made him scream in pleasure and arch his back? The female body does indeed produce more \"orgasm chemicals\" -- Prolactin (lactation hormone), Oxytocin (substance related to trust and niceness), Phenethylamine (substance related to love, can be found in chocolate), and Endorphin (related to pain regulation - opiates work on these to cause its effects.) -- in volume, which explains the more dramatic female orgasm effect. Internal and external orgasms for women feel different because the same organ is being stimulated in different ways. The clit is actually a little exposed nub of an organ that wraps fully around the vagina internally (this is why there's a g-spot and why vaginal sex feels good for her at all). The difference in orgasms is based on the sensitivity of her clitoral organ, which has a wide variety of things effecting it. For men, it's similar to having an orgasm vs. having an orgasm with prostate stimulation (in laymans terms, masturbating vs. masturbating with a vibrator against or just inside the rectum).",
"I've had a look through my physiology textbook so I might be able to shed some light on this.\n\nBasically there are four components to what is called the sexual response cycle, this occurs in both females and males during sex.\n\n* \nThe excitement phase - this includes erection and heightened sexual awareness\n* The plateau phase - this is basically the excitement phase intensified, there are also other physiological responses occurring such as increased heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate etc.\n* The orgasmic phase - this includes ejaculation and other responses that have culminated in response to the mounting stimulation\n* The resolution phase - this is basically where the body returns to its resting prearousal state.\n\nBoth guys and girls go through this cycle during sex, with females having two distinct differences from guys, the first and more obvious one is that there is no ejaculation from the female, and the other being that females don't enter what is called a \"refractory period\" after orgasm, allowing them to experience multiple orgasms if they are continually stimulated.\n\nGuys enter this period for a variable amount of time following orgasm before more stimulation can trigger another erection, therefore they aren't able to achieve multiple orgasms in the way that the ladies can.\n\nI don't know if that's answered your question fully because I'm a bit vague on the neurobiology side of things, but hopefully there's someone out there that can help with that.",
"To guide this discussion a bit: we can talk about the amount of chemicals in each person's body, as _ pH_ expertly did, but you're asking a qualitative question. Orgasms feel different between different people based on their physical/psychological status (see: why some women can't orgasm whatsoever, whereas others can get there in seconds), and the chemicals involved in the orgasm will have different effects in different people for reasons more involved than just male vs. female physiology. \n\nIn short, there's no way to truly answer your question in a qualitative sense beyond anecdote, and the quantitative in this sense doesn't shed terribly much light on the qualitative answer you're seeking.",
"There is a documentary on netflix about orgasm inc. that you can watch instantly. There has always been a lot of speculation about the female orgasm and if it has a biological reason like in males (delivery of sperm). Well Researchers have found that it does. The orgasm actually pushes the sperm to the side that is ovulating that month. Also, because the orgasm is there to push the sperm, that there is a biological reason why males should orgasm before females. So all you boys going first--you were built to go first-just make sure the lady finishes! ",
"The sensation of 'pleasure' is created by the reward centre in the brain, which is a complex network of different regions interacting with one another. The best way we currently have to quantify reward centre activity (and, thus, pleasure) is using PET/fMRI.\n\nBoth the [male](_URL_1_) and [female](_URL_0_) orgasm have been PET-/MRI-scanned respectively, though I don't think the female MRI data has been published yet. Interestingly, for males, brain activity is comparable to when users inject heroin (which makes me wanna try it :p ). [The video](_URL_2_) of the female orgasm is amazing. From someone who works with MRI data on a regular basis, I can tell you I've never seen anything close to that amount of activation.\n\nBut yeah, with regards to your question, the two are yet to be directly compared, which I'm sure will happen soon. My moneys on the females having way better orgasms (inferred from the behavioral phenotype).\n\nEDIT: More overall activation doesn't equal more pleasure, but more activation of certain reward centres has been hypothesized to represent pleasure (amount of 'liking' of activity)",
"There was a very clever study on this done in 1976. People were asked to write down a description of their orgasm, and those descriptions were then passed along to medical professionals who had to guess whether the writer was male or female. Ultimately they couldn't discern any differences; the researchers concluded that the experience of male and female orgasms are 'essentially the same'.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Quoting my psych book here:\n\"Masters and Johnson observed muscle contractions all over the body during or-\ngasm; these were accompanied by further increases in breathing, pulse, and blood\npressure rates. A woman’s arousal and orgasm facilitate conception by helping propel\nsemen from the penis, positioning the uterus to receive sperm, and drawing the\nsperm further inward. A woman’s orgasm therefore not only reinforces intercourse,\nwhich is essential to natural reproduction, it also increases retention of deposited\nsperm (Furlow & Thornhill, 1996). In the excitement of the moment, men and\nwomen are hardly aware of all this as their rhythmic genital contractions create a\npleasurable feeling of sexual release.\nThe feeling apparently is much the same for both sexes. In one study, a panel of\nexperts could not reliably distinguish between descriptions of orgasm written by\nmen and those written by women (Vance & Wagner, 1976). University of Groningen\nneuroscientist Gerg Holstege and his colleagues (2003a,b) understand why. They\ndiscovered that when men and women undergo PET scans while having orgasms, the\nsame subcortical brain regions glow.\"",
"There are some great comments and even better side discussions within this thread. There are a great deal of answers, and as I suspected even more questions asked. I thank all of you for your input and up votes on my first front page reddit submission. ;) ",
"I thought what something \"feels like\" is by definition unknowable for science"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/14/female-orgasm-recorded-brain-scans",
"http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/27/9185.full",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd8qeaKIacA"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... | ||
1dwf4j | How did the beginnings of body parts come to be naturally selected for? | At the request of a Christian friend, I was reading through [The Edge of Evolution](_URL_0_), a book that argues for intelligent design. While I don't agree with most of the novel (for logical flaws debunked by other scientists online), there was one argument that intrigued me:
How exactly were the beginnings of arms and legs exactly beneficial to organisms? Obviously, any form of an eye is superior to not having one, the taller giraffes had easier access to food, but what exactly did the beginning of a stump have that on the long run, caused the organism to be environmentally selected for and the stump-less animals to die out? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dwf4j/how_did_the_beginnings_of_body_parts_come_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9uinyk",
"c9ukax7"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The beginnings of limbs weren't stumps, they were likely fins. Information on [Tiktaalik](_URL_0_) would be relevant here. Keep in mind this is still an active area of research.",
"We weren't there, so a degree of speculation applies.\n\nSingle cell organisms would have first produced modifications of the cell wall that allowed them to take in nutrients and to move. They would have been in a fluid medium and any degree of leverage would be an aid to movement.\n\nMutli-cellular organisms would be much the same. Any flexing of the body would provide some movement (in a fluid environment). The difference is that we are now considering cells differentiating from each other rather than properties within a single cell.\n\nModern cells use chemical gradients (hormones) to signal a cell's role. One assumes that much the same mechanisms were developed in early multi-cellular organisms."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik"
],
[]
] | |
329vu0 | "Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them" Is this true? If so, what years where those? If false, when was the last year without war? | This is a commonly repeated factoid that seems to come from the 2003 book [What Every Person Should Know About War](_URL_0_) by Chris Hedges. Is it true? When, exactly, was the last year in human history where two governments were not fighting each other? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/329vu0/of_the_past_3400_years_humans_have_been_entirely/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq983hp",
"cq9umo8"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Hopefully someone will drop by to address that specific claim, but meanwhile, you may be interested in this post from the FAQ \n\n_URL_0_",
"Isn't this an unanswerable question? For much of that time we don't have any sources on what was going on in the Americas for example. While we could've had one or two years of peace in Europe and Asia (though I doubt it) we don't know what happened in the Americas. Could've been loads of wars."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/0713-1st-hedges.html"
] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j0etg/what_is_the_longest_span_of_time_the_world_has/"
],
[]
] | |
z3wi6 | Questions Related to Pyramids (Egypt, Mexico) | I just saw the [The Revelation of the Pyramids](_URL_0_). It blew my mind when they started to talk about Pi/Golden Number and Astrology. But then i read some comments on this video and I got confuse.
My questions are
1. How authentic this documentary is ?
2. Are there any possible links of Pyramids of Egypt with Mayan Civilization Pyramids ?
3. The link which this documentary has developed between Eastern Islands statues > Pyramids > Mohenjadaru civilization > Temple of Gods ... is it possible ?
Any thoughts comments on this video would be appreciated. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z3wi6/questions_related_to_pyramids_egypt_mexico/ | {
"a_id": [
"c61xh5y",
"c61bxno",
"c61e68a"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"An interesting fact about the Egyptian pyramids is that the first pyramids weren't perfect, they were step pyramids. For example, [Sneferu's pyramid](_URL_1_) at Meidum was the first attempt at a pyramid with straight sides, but it was far from perfect, as you can see. Even older is [step pyramid at Saqqara](_URL_2_), built by Djoser of the first dynasty.\n\nLack of historical education and popular culture make us think that the three famous pyramids practically appeared from nowhere; this is not the case, it was rather a very human process of architecture improvement.\n\nAnd FYI, the [Mayan pyramid of Chichen Itza](_URL_0_) was built between the 9th and 12th centuries CE, 3000 years later than the Egyptian pyramids. Nothing to do with them. (For perspective, while the Mayans were building their pyramids, European Christians were building their monasteries and copying their scriptures, and the Egyptians were ruled by Arabs and had already adopted Islam)",
"You should post concrete claims from the documentary. We're not going to watch it.\n\nTo address Pi, though, if you're building something, and you make something a yard tall, and then you make a wheel that's a yard tall, and you measure out the base with that wheel as \"500 rotations of my wheel\" then you'll get Pi falling out of the ratios all over the place, just because of Geometry. \n\nPeople made pyramids because the job inherently gets easier in one sense (fewer blocks to move) as it gets harder in another sense (gotta put them higher up). It's just a matter of how long you can afford to pay the contractors (or locals... the pyramids were likely overseen by skilled workmen and the labor done by people in the \"off season\" when they didn't have to plant or harvest). 20 years isn't too long to build a huge pyramid if you've got the entire city working on it. \n\nAncient people weren't stupid, and you can do a lot with logs and sleds and rope and a couple hundred strong men to pull things.\n\nEdit: You want your mind to be blown, read the *facts* we know about Gobekli Tepe, which would have been as ancient to the people that built Stonehenge as the people who built Stonehenge are to us.\n\n* _URL_1_\n* _URL_2_\n* _URL_0_",
"Postmodest is right; we're not going to watch it. \n\nBut I want to say this: Pyramids are built all around the world because it's the easiest way to build something that's really high. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooy2LTJoMVM&feature=player_embedded"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Castillo,_Chichen_Itza",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramid_of_sneferu_Meidum_01.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saqqara_pyramid.jpg"
],
[
"http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C... | |
49yyjg | What did the Mughals call their empire? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49yyjg/what_did_the_mughals_call_their_empire/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0w44gl"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"\"Gurkani\" or \"Gurkaniyan\", which means \"son-in-law\". A reference to the fact that Timur married a Chinggisid, which meant he was a \"son-in-law\" of sorts of Genghis Khan; legitimacy from the Chinggisid line was important in Central Asia when Timur and his descendants ruled there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2dj992 | why wi-fi uses 2.4ghz and 5ghz radio band, why not by ex. 1ghz or some very low like am radio? | I'm more confused with technical reasons, pros and cons of making choice of this two bands, rather than law and standards. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dj992/eli5_why_wifi_uses_24ghz_and_5ghz_radio_band_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjpzo39",
"cjq0py8"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Better penetration of structures, lower power requirements, smaller antennae, and higher data rates.\n\nIn addition, the electromagnetic spectrum is extremely crowded and frequencies are assigned to specific services. Check out the chart linked. You can't just go around using whatever frequency you want.\n\n_URL_0_",
"In order to use a frequency, in the US, you either need a license (some of which can be very expensive) or to use the special frequencies that are open to use (with restrictions on power). Operating an unlicensed radio station is pretty easy to triangulate and the FCC is very good at it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management"
],
[]
] | |
dln5i0 | where does the thermal energy go after dark/during winter? like, why does it get colder, shouldn't it just stay the same temperature? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dln5i0/eli5_where_does_the_thermal_energy_go_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4rzrar",
"f4s1f85",
"f4s26oq"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Energy leaves our planet in the form of infrared light that radiates out, through the atmosphere, into space.",
"The Earth is not an isolated or closed system, it's part of the larger system that is the universe\n\nThe first law of thermodynamics really only works for isolated systems",
"I think a lot of your misunderstanding comes from another simple mistake you've made; the Earth is not further away from the sun in winter. This is a common misconception, however isn't true at all. The different hemispheres are tilted towards and away from the sun as the year progresses, however the sun remains at relatively the same distance.\n\nWhen the pole is tilted away from the sun (the winter months for that hemisphere), it receives less direct sunlight, with more \"glancing off\" of the atmosphere. (This is a ***DRASTIC*** oversimplification, however serves the purpose for explanation), and during the summer months, it receives more direct sunlight (closer to 90 degree angle) and so less is lost."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | ||
axrz14 | why does it take so long to download and interpret black box info after a plane crash? | I realize it can take time to find the black box. But why isn’t there a computer program that hooks up to the BB and acts like a simulator? All the data is there. Why can’t they plug it in and watch a recreation of what happened immediately? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axrz14/eli5_why_does_it_take_so_long_to_download_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehvoi1q",
"ehw6l28",
"ehwbaha"
],
"score": [
24,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The “black box” isnt a single system, its made up of separate recording devices through the aircraft.\n\nIt doesnt record EVERYTHING, only the Time, Engine specifics and altitude, the other records cockpit voice and conversations.\n\nThe data recording systems on aircraft flights saves burst data, meaning it only starts actively storing information on systems during burst periods of input, as soon as altitude. Flight pattern. Engine function or flap position starts changing quickly, like a problem has occurred, it begins capturing the movement and data.\n\nIt doesnt record every aspect of the flight or its systems. Only those that are changed via pilot manual input basically.\n\n\nIts like trying to take a 30 second movie trailer and building the entire movie from it.\n\nEdit: spelling ",
"So much bad info in here. On commercial planes, there's 2 'black boxes' (actually painted orange, not black, but the name stuck): the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). Optionally there's a 3rd device, the Quick Access Recorder (QAR) but this is not always used. \n\nThese recorders are constant recording devices, recording up to thousands of data points. On the CVR, there are multiple high resolution audio channels in the cockpit, including each flight position and general cockpit noise. On the FDR, things are also tracking aspects of the flight, engines, attitude, etc. \n\nWhy can it take so long to read out? Because they are recovering vital data after a massive impact that usually shreds the plan to bits. The boxes have to be found first (e.g. for the recent Amazon flight, they were buried in mud, but they could also be deep in the ocean, or in supper-difficult terrain to access). Once found, they have to be very carefully preserved and shipped to properly equipped research labs (only a handful in the world). When the devices are relatively unharmed, and assuming modern solid-state digital recordings (versus the ancient tape recordings), they are usually downloaded, read, and validated within a couple of days or arrival at the lab. But then they have suffered a massive impact (e.g. over the defined 3400G limit, or 1100C fire for 30 mins), then the lab experts often have to extract individual data chips and then reconstruct data by very low-level recovery techniques.\n\nWhen you put it all together, these guys do an awesome job, and the lessons learned from the last minutes of a stricken flight make the skies safer for all of us. ",
"If they find the black box in tact they can get the data pretty fast. But interpreting it isn't that easy. There isn't enough data to build a complete simulation of what happened. And even if there were it wouldn't really be cost effective to develop a simulator program to reliably make sense of it. Easier to just parse it and reconstruct what happened manually.\n\nThere are other systems aside from black box that they recover data from. They aren't necessarily water/damage proof. I work for a company that makes engine control units. If the unit is in tact we can pull the data off of it with our normal engine maintenance software easily.\n\nBut in the past they've brought water logged ECUs to us, and we've had to spend weeks recovering the data from them. We have to pull off the memory chips then come up with some hardware/software to be able to recover the data from them. We don't have this equipment laying around because it happens so seldom.\n\nOn top of that, even if you can get all the data immediately and it seems obvious what went wrong you're still going to want to finish your investigation and account for all factors. Does the physical damage agree with the aircraft data? If the problem was an engine failure, were there other factors that led to that engine failure? You're going to want to have all the answers before you start publicizing your findings."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
fncl75 | Could Chile having the best economy in latin america be attributed to Augusto Pinochet's reign? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fncl75/could_chile_having_the_best_economy_in_latin/ | {
"a_id": [
"fm3kof9"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"This is a difficult topic because there hasn't been enough time passed to decide a definitive answer. Where one stands on the issue is likely attributed to one's political views. As I'm sure you know, Pinochet solicited the help of economist Milton Friedman and his \"Chicago Boys\" to revamp the Chilean economy. Put at its very simplest, Chile had previously freely elected Salvador Allende, a self-proclaimed Marxist, as president in 1970. Allende's Socialist platform included nationalizing large-scale industries, particularly copper mining. In addition to land reform, nationalization was part of several programs to redistribute wealth and improve the socio-economic conditions of poor Chilean citizens. These policies did provide aid for several societal issues, such as an increase in educational enrollment, increases in state expenditure in health, and decreases in malnutrition. Unfortunately it also created devastating inflation. Put at it's absolute simplest, anti-communist sentiments combined with middle-class dissatisfaction and military action resulted in a coup that installed Pinochet's US-backed military regime in 1973. \n\nThis is the reality that Pinochet, Friedman and the Chicago Boys entered into with their policies. Pinochet (and his international backers) pretty much opposed everything that Marxist Allende had put in place. This is a post about the economy so I won't even get into Operation Condor (but gosh it's exceedingly dark). Pinochet, wanting to resurrect the economy that had fallen during Allende's Socialist policies asked for the help of renowned Libertarian economic theorists. Milton Friedman and his disciples advocated deregulation, privatization and free market policies. Following these objectives, the Chicago Boys went about implementing economic reforms informed by economic liberalism. These neoliberal policies created what is referred to as \"The Chilean Miracle,\" painting Chile's economic experiment as a resounding success that reinvigorated the economy and undid many of the devastating effects of Allende's Popular Unity coalition. \n\nSeveral historians have nonetheless made clear the the Chilean working class is no better off from this Neoliberal \"Experiment.\" \"Victims of the Chilean Miracle\" is an edited volume by many leading scholars that asserts that any attempt at unionization was swiftly and painfully denied after 1973. Even after the restoration of democracy in 1988, historians argue that the Chilean government have not been able to restore the rightful living conditions of the Chilean working class. To me, Chile is a particularly terrifying example of going along with the status quo. Even after the coup, many middle-class Chileans went along with Pinochet because they were not personally disadvantaged by the new regime's policies. \n\nDoes having a great economy for investment supersede having many of your citizens living in poverty? This is the same question that the US faces. Only time will tell if Pinochet's policies were beneficial to the majority of Chileans. Historians tend to argue \"No\" but I'm sure other's will argue the opposite."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1bonj1 | How exactly was the famine in Ukraine ended? | Through my research I have come to understand that the famine was kept hidden from the public and media, people were writing fake articles to essentially satisfy the public and keep Stalin safe. Then I read about a guy named Gareth Jones, who went into Ukraine illegally and wrote articles about what he saw and what was happening. I ran into a few other names as well, people who initially started getting the word out about the Holodomor.
Here's where I run into a gap, I know what happened, and I know about the beginnings of the exposure, and then I just know of the post memorial stuff.
So what happened? Why was the famine actually stopped? Was it really because of these few people's articles? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bonj1/how_exactly_was_the_famine_in_ukraine_ended/ | {
"a_id": [
"c98t150"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"How the Holodomor ended is easy. The Soviet Union stopped exporting so much grain. The Soviet Union exported 1,730,000 tons of grain in 1933, and it exported smaller and smaller amounts of grain until 1940, when exports of grain to Germany reversed six years of declining Soviet grain exports. \n\nWhy the Politboro reversed this policy is more nuanced. As the first five year plan was finished, there was less need to import foreign machine tools and pay for technical assistance. So there was less need to earn foreign currancy. The Communist Party thought they had imposed socialism on the collective farmers and decided to stop punishing them. Stalin's second wife died during the Holodomar. The official Party Line is that she commited suicide, after she took an unauthorized trip to the Black Earth region of Russia and saw the horrors of the Holodomor, first hand. She had a big fight with Stalin hours before she died. There is no evidence that Stalin killed her himself, but the events of that evening might have convinced Stalin that his forced collectivization policies had gone to far. It certainly had more impact on Stalin than a few articles in the western press that exposed how bad the famine in the Ukraine really was. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
b38ekv | if i understand this correctly, freckles and a tan are both the result of the sun triggering the release of melanin. what determines which one it will be? also, in that case why can we get freckles on skin not exposed to sunlight, but can’t get a tan on unexposed skin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b38ekv/eli5_if_i_understand_this_correctly_freckles_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"eixvkoq",
"eiz3kdl"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Freckles are actually over active melanocytes (cells responsible for melanin production.) when you tan you are also increasing the amount of melanin you have as a whole , while freckles do not do that. The reason freckles can appear on either unexposed or exposed skin is because it is less dependent on the sun. Sometimes melanocytes just go into overdrive producing melanin.\n\nEdit: I was wrong about tanning increasing the amount of melanocytes ",
"Whether you tan or freckle is determined by genes. Some people have the freckle gene and will freckle. \n\nYou have melanocytes everywhere so you’ll develop color everywhere, which is why people freckle in areas not exposed to the sun and why people who have naturally darker skin won’t be ghostly white in areas not exposed to the sun. Sun exposure makes you darker or makes you freckle *more*. But you’ll still have a baseline of freckles and melanin in places where the sun don’t shine,"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
7nvqfe | What do we know about author of Epic of Gilgamesh? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7nvqfe/what_do_we_know_about_author_of_epic_of_gilgamesh/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds51m5f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hey there!\n\nThere is actually a great thread on the Epic of Gilgamesh over at /r/history.\n\n[Follow this link!](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/7njejb/is_the_epic_of_gilgamesh_the_oldest_story_out/"
]
] | ||
qgxnq | mao zedong's cultural revolution | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qgxnq/elifmao_zedongs_cultural_revolution/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3xk1mo"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It was essentially to secure more power for himself and destroy anti-Mao sentiments. It was also an attempt to unify the country after a couple of failed nation building campaigns (Great Leap Forward being one of the bigger failures). He stated that capitalists were becoming more powerful, and could turn China away from communism. So he instituted many policies that would denounce capitalism, intellectuals, traditionalist, or really, any person that falls under the broad category of possibly forming a coup against him.\n\nIn the end, the Cultural Revolution was yet another failure. The country was set back yet again, many academic texts were lost, many people died (particularly party members that were alleged to be \"counter-revolutionary\" and students that were sent out of the city to \"further the cause\"), and lack of social, economic and political progress."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
b859w6 | what is the difference between "frames per second" (fps) and "refresh rate" (hz)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b859w6/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_frames_per/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejvx8bx",
"ejvxezg",
"ejvxo8t",
"ejvxrna",
"ejvxxfk",
"ejwedie"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Refresh rate - how often the screen itself is refreshed. It is completely independent of frames per second since you still have refreshes even with a static image.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFPS - How many frames per second of a moving picture are displayed.",
"If you have a TV or monitor it could refresh at say 60hz so 60 times a second it refreshes the image with whatever the source tells it too, PC, DVD or Blu-ray etc.\n\nFrames per second is how many different images are being sent to the monitor or TV every second.\n\nThe two do not have to be the same so in the example of a TV refreshing 60hz the source may only send 30FPS to the TV. This causes the same frame to be refreshed twice.\n\nMostly things sync up so the TV may change and refresh 30 times a second. If it's a computer monitor they tend to match the output from the GFX source.",
"Refresh Rate is how fast the individual little cells that make up your screen can refresh, or flicker at. Refresh rate is the maximum rate at which your screen could keep up with a graphics card output.\n\nComputer or console graphics cards are designed to calculate and shove pixesl into what's known as a frame buffer. The graphics card gets texture data, model geometry, lighting, viewpoint info (i.e. what you're looking at), movement etc. from the CPU, RAM etc. and can calculate - for each pixel in the frame buffer - what colour and brightness it should be based on everything going on in the screen view. Depending on how fancy your graphics are set to, how much is going on in your game etc. will impact how fast the graphics card can update this frame buffer. Once a frame is completed, the GPU flicks a switch and tells the HDMI port to send this to your monitor. If there's too much going on in your game, your GPU is only updating the frame buffer maybe 20 or 30 times per second. \n\nSo that means if your monitor is running at 72 Hz, it will display the same frame for 2-3 updates - i.e. until the next frame is ready from the GPU. This results in only a 20-30Hz screen update. More frames per second is smoother, more lifelike. Some monitors may be able to interpolate or \"smooth\" between successive frames to make it look better. \n\nObviously if you have a really good (or multiple) GPU and you're getting 100+ fps, but only have a 60 Hz monitor, you're not getting full potential out of your rig. If thats the case, you should crank up the graphics quality of your game, why not?",
"Hertz (Hz) is a unit that means that something is happening a specific amount of times per second, so technically *x* FPS and *x* Hz are the same thing.\n\nHowever, FPS typically refers to the number of frames that an application can process per second, whereas refresh rate is the number of frames that the monitor is capable of displaying per second. They don't always match, and most monitors still operate at a fixed refresh rate. \n\nIf a monitor has a refresh rate of 60 Hz, it means that the monitor will always update the image it displays 60 times per second, regardless of whether the application can keep up or is in fact faster. If an application is too slow to compute the next frame, the monitor will simply show the same image during the next refresh cycle. If the application is too fast, then the monitor will not be able to present every frame and some computed frames will be lost.",
"The frame rate is the rate at which the graphics card can render an image, and the refresh rate is how often the screen can actually change the image. So if you have a frame rate of 120 and a refresh rate of 60, the screen will only show every second image it rendered to the screen. The other way round, if you have a refresh rate of 60 Hz and just 30 fps, the screen will repeat every image once. And if your frame rate is somewhere inbetween, say 45 fps and 60 Hz, your screen will occasionally show a half finished image, an effect known as [tearing](_URL_0_). Which is why it makes sense to enable V-Sync if you can't reliably reach 60 fps with a 60 Hz screen, which synchronizes the graphics card with the refresh rate of the screen so this doesn't happen. So instead of dropping from 60 to 45 Hz, it'll go down to 30 Hz if the scene on the screen is too demanding.",
"FPS is the number of frames that your CPU/GPU is calculating per second. Refresh rate is how fast your monitor is refreshing per second.\n\nNow you may think that FPS higher than your refresh frame is useless but the thing is that higher FPS will still reduce your input lag. So even if you have a 60 HZ monitor, you will still notice a huge difference between playing on 60 fps and 200 fps.\n\nV-sync will cut your frames to the monitor refresh rate; I suggest turning that off."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Tearing_%28simulated%29.jpg/1280px-Tearing_%28simulated%29.jpg"
],
[]
] | ||
2xm2gz | how does facebook find people that i haven't had contact with in years or minimal contact ever and suggest them as friends? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xm2gz/eli5_how_does_facebook_find_people_that_i_havent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp1alfc"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Facebook gives you the option to use your email address book to look for people you know. If someone who has your email used this option, Facebook now knows there used to be a connection between you two. This other person might not have sent you a friend request, but Facebook still knows, so it might suggest this person to you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
1nt0q7 | why does our belly get "fat" but our backs don't? | I know that there is a layer of fat under my back-skin too, but somehow it seems to amass on the frontside of my body... Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nt0q7/eli5_why_does_our_belly_get_fat_but_our_backs_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"cclqhbc",
"cclu2wj",
"cclyva6",
"ccm5kpz"
],
"score": [
68,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe that a lot of it is not actually fat under your skin, but fat around your guts that causes them to stick out. This is actually a different kind of fat. The stuff under your skin is called *subcutaneous fat,* while the stuff around your guts is called *visceral fat.* They are actually different types, and can be affected by your *hormones*- chemicals in your body that tell it what to do.\n\nStress, a lack of exercise, genetics, diabetes (too much sugar in your blood), and other factors can cause an increase in the fat around your guts relative to fat under your skin, which is why some people can be skinny and have big bellies, and others can have a lot of body fat but not have their tummies stick out so much.\n\nYour skeletal system and muscles keep it from sticking out of your back, although if you get enough fat on your body, you can get a decent amount of 'back fat' also.\n\nThe actual distribution of fat underneath your skin is, as I understand it, mostly determined by your genetics. This means that 'spot reduction'- the idea that you can lose fat in a specific area more than others say by exercising muscles near that far more- is a myth. Some people's genes make them put more of their fat in their faces or stomachs or arms or legs than others. We're all a little different in that way.\n\nSitups, for example, won't reduce your tummy fat in a larger proportion than anywhere else on your body (or at all if you don't burn more Calories/kilojoules {energy} than you eat), although they can strengthen muscles that hold it in more. And doing squats or lunges won't take off leg fat, either.\n\nSorry if I'm going a little too far in explaining some terms- they did say EXPLAINLIKEIMFIVE, but more importantly, some terms may be difficult for people whose first language is not English.",
"You might want to revisit the assumption in your question by reviewing some of the stuff on this website.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Evolution has determined that the best place to carry excess fat for a human is around their waist. \n\nThe more you get, the more its distributed other places, but that is where we can best carry the majority of it.\n\n",
"[backs dont get fat? NSFL](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/"
],
[],
[
"http://myskinnybuns.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/back-fat.jpg"
]
] | |
4i3vsj | how are specific shapes in cereal mass produced? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4i3vsj/eli5_how_are_specific_shapes_in_cereal_mass/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2uud2x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Squeezed out of a shaped hole, like toothpaste is squeezed out of a round hole. Then sliced off in bits and cooked. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
19e2sk | Is a single neuron like a sophisticated computer or more like a simple logical gateway? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/19e2sk/is_a_single_neuron_like_a_sophisticated_computer/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8n76hd",
"c8n7jkv",
"c8ngdoj"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's tricky answering these type of questions because the brain is a highly complex oscillating (it's actually called *spiking* in this case) dynamic system very much unlike a digital computer.\n\nIf anything, a single neuron (depending on type) acts as more of a [summation unit](_URL_4_) from the signal of other neurons going through a [synaptic junction](_URL_3_) with influences how much of a summation there is from that other neuron. In the brain, you might have 10,000 or more \"inputs\" in to a single neuron which may branch out to *many* other neurons. Real neurons have so much more going on than in those artificial neuron pics in that summation link above.\n\nProcessing element might be a more accurate term if you're a [connectionist](_URL_1_) like I am.\n\nThis might help you understand. Keep in mind that artificial neurons and networks are very simplified compared to what's going on in your brain.\n\n_URL_2_\n\nThe *C. elegans* nervous system and individual neuronal functions has been [completely mapped out](_URL_0_). \n\nedit clarification",
"You ask a great question, and one that would require quite sophisticated measurements of the inputs to a neuron and its outputs. My favorite study that bears on this question is by Wei r. Chen. He built a special 2-photon imaging rig fast enough to visualize the entire membrane voltage dynamics in mitral cells in the olfactory bulb. The answer is that it is really complicated, and neurons appear to have intrinsic machinery capable of performing quite sophisticated operations, although in practical reality they likely compute something more similar to simple sums and differences that are thresholded. However, simple sums and differences that are then subjected to nonlinear thresholding can be cascaded in layers of neural networks that themselves compute very complex measaures. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n ",
"It is like neither from my understanding of it. In some ways the neuron is not as powerful as a modern computer. Also some neurons function differently from other ones. I think the easiest comparison you can make is that it is more like a simple microprocessor. That single neuron can take in a lot of information but it does not do too many tasks. Different neurons will specialize to do different tasks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.sfu.ca/biology/faculty/hutter/hutterlab/research/Ce_nervous_system.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch%E2%80%93Pitts_neuron",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=McCulloch%E2%80%93Pitts&am... | ||
nzit3 | Since our oxygen comes from plants photosynthesizing the CO2, would it be possible to make a device that synthetically converts CO2 into oxygen so we can keep recycling the same air instead of carrying bulky oxygen bottles into space and underwater? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzit3/since_our_oxygen_comes_from_plants/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3d6ok1",
"c3d9g0y"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, absolutely. however this would require a lot of energy to split the two carbon=oxygen bonds and form one oxygen=oxygen bond. So instead of carrying oxygen, you would need to carry an even larger battery supply. ",
"This question is based on a false premise. The oxygen produced during photosynthesis does *not* come from CO2, it comes from H2O. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | ||
7osbgx | how do countries simulate full-scale wars? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7osbgx/eli5_how_do_countries_simulate_fullscale_wars/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsbvrmy",
"dsbx8dz",
"dsc2e9n"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They pretend to be at war for a day or two. Use fake bullets and rockets. Sometimes bigger countries also use fewer troops / guns to train for more complicated situations ",
"This is a very vague question, but we'll try to take a crack at it.\n\nFor large-scale, military-only exercises, the participating units are put on a war footing and made to perform tasks they normally would during a conflict against either imaginary/simulated enemy targets or friendly troops playing the role of enemy combatants. Indirect fire has real ammo, so they fire on imaginary targets, friendlies playing hostiles necessitate blank rounds to be used. The troops are positioned as they would during a conflict (forward camps, usually) and supplied similarly, with MREs and limited resources.\n\nFor those exercises that want to also simulate civilian operators acting in concert with military forces, those civilian units or organizations (for example, fire crews, police forces and political chains of command) are also put on the same alert as they would under a full-scale conflict and perform simulated tasks and operations similar to those they would in wartime. For fire crews, this may include buildings set on fire in a manner to simulate bomb strikes, police may train to counter enemy special operations forces, and political command chains may face similar dilemmas as those in wartime. Medical organizations may be put on high alert and perform simulated complicated or mass casualty operations.\n\nNormally, all organizations in a country won't hold war exercises (or war games) at the same time, but the results of these can be combined and/or extrapolated to provide a relatively accurate overview of the capabilities against certain levels of enemy action both in the field and on the home front.",
"Often by wargaming through systems of the sort you can buy from board game shops; just on a much more complex level and with more accurate information. Computers may be used to assist.\n\nThere is a thing called a 'command post exercise' where officers will be in a room and send orders out to virtual units, then be informed of what happens. The larger ones can have hundreds of players.\n\nThe US Naval War College has run many big ones over the years: here's some information on their site: _URL_1_\n\n[Just be careful that you don't make your RL adversary think you're not playing a game.](_URL_0_)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83",
"https://usnwc2.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/War-Gaming/Documents/RAGE/Gaming/-Global-Title-X-Series.aspx"
]
] | ||
3hxcbe | How did the tribes allied with Cortez react to his sacking of Teotihaucan? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hxcbe/how_did_the_tribes_allied_with_cortez_react_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cubeta5"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Do you perhaps mean Tenochtitlan?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
ee033w | How instrumental was the ‘ever victorious army’ in putting down the Taiping Rebellion? | For those who are curious, the Ever Victorious Army was an army that participated in fighting the Taiping Rebellion between 1860-1864. It was a Chinese force that was led by European/American officers. I have no idea if it was formed by the Qing government or grew organically from the foreign districts in Shanghai.
From what limited information I know, the army only consisted of 5,000 men at it’s peak. This seems like a drop in the bucket in the scale of Chinese warfare where the number of combatants can often exceed 100,000 men. Some sources say that it essentially won the war and others do not mention it at all. So was the ‘ever victorious army’ really as important as it is made out to be, or is this opinion the result of romanticism/a Eurocentric worldview? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ee033w/how_instrumental_was_the_ever_victorious_army_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbo81ij"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"For important context, the basics of the Ever-Victorious Army are as follows. In June 1860, in response to a recent Taiping campaign on the Lower Yangtze that would reach Shanghai in mid-August, an American mercenary named Frederick Townsend Ward obtained backing from a consortium of Shanghai bankers to form a unit called the Shanghai Foreign-Arms Corps, which initially numbered around 100 men. After an ignominious attempt to attack the Taiping-held fortified town of Songjiang, an enlarged corps of around 250 men successfully took the town in a second attempt on 16 July, but with over 60% casualties. This costly success nevertheless built Ward a reputation, one seemingly not dampened significantly by the fact that his force suffered nearly 50% casualties in an attack on another Taiping garrison town at Qingpu on 30 July, among whom was Ward, badly wounded after being shot in the face. Leaving China to convalesce, Ward returned to Shanghai in the spring of 1861 (after the initial Taiping threat had gone) and reassembled the Foreign-Arms Corps, suffering another defeat at Qingpu that also led to his temporary arrest by Western authorities, concerned that his mercenary activity – and their failure to constrain it – constituted a breach of British and American guarantees of neutrality in the Qing-Taiping conflict. \n\nThis defeat also caused him to move away from a force consisting solely of Western and Filipino mercenaries towards a composite force of Western officers and Chinese troops, latterly named the Ever-Victorious Army, which achieved its first major success against the Taiping on 10 February 1862, shortly after which formal British and French intervention against the Taiping commenced, resolving Ward's legal ambiguity. While reasonably successful when fighting in concert with British and French regulars and Qing loyalist militias, Ward was fatally wounded on 20 September. The Ever-Victorious Army went into a limbo period, with its leadership being bandied around first to his second-in-command, the fellow American Henry Burgevine, then to an interim British commander taken from the Royal Navy, then, finally, on 25 March 1863, to Charles George Gordon, a Royal Engineer. Gordon achieved reasonable success with the now formally British-backed force, but he himself was a rather irascible man whose relationship with his subordinates, his superiors, Ward's old financiers and basically anyone who wasn't British was distinctly subpar. On 6 December, General Li Hongzhang's massacre of captured Taiping commanders at Suzhou led Gordon to resign. While he resumed his leadership of the force in mid-February 1864, it continued fighting in northern Jiangxi only until May, and was disbanded in June. In mid-July, loyalist troops of Zeng Guofan's Hunan Army captured the Taiping capital of Nanjing.\n\nSo aside from the troop numbers (which I'll get to in a moment) here's another quantitative reason for why we shouldn't put too much stock in the EVA: in a war that was being fought year-round for over 160 months (from January 1851 to July 1864, if we exclude the subsequent mopping-up campaigns), the EVA was only active for, give or take, 20 months, 22 if you count the two iterations of the Foreign-Arms Corps. Also, the eastern theatre it fought in was not the one that directly brought down the Taiping: it was Zeng Guofan, advancing downriver from the west in a war of sieges and positional engagements, who captured the Taiping stronghold of Anqing and in turn the capital at Nanjing, not Li Hongzhang, fighting a mobile campaign upriver from the Yangtze delta in the east. As noted, the EVA was only really ever victorious when operating in concert with other, larger formations such as the Anhui Army of Li Hongzhang, a couple of early successes against mostly small and isolated Taiping contingents notwithstanding. From a more cynical point of view, it was a part-time auxiliary unit in a secondary theatre of the fighting.\n\nBut does that mean it was necessarily completely unimportant? Let's start with the strategic overview. A useful point of comparison might be the contemporaneous American Civil War. One way of looking at the American Civil War would be to say that the war was fought in the East but won in the West – that while all the big, important battles like Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and Cold Harbor happened in the Eastern theatre, what made Union victory possible in that theatre was the damage caused in the Western theatre to the Confederate economy. Similarly, you might argue that the Taiping Civil War was fought in the West but won in the East – that the grand coalition of Qing, militia, British, French and mercenary forces waging a mobile campaign around Shanghai both cut off the Taiping from potential resources from international trade and tied down what resources they did still have, limiting their ability to respond to Zeng Guofan.\n\nThe first problem with that – as far as the EVA is concerned – is the chronology. Arguably, by the time the EVA actually emerged as a significant fighting force in 1862, the Taiping had already lost their last practical chance of defeating Zeng Guofan without active Western support. Zeng's capture of Anqing in September 1861 cut the supply line linking Taiping forces in Anhui and Hubei to their capital at Nanjing, which led to the near-complete recapture of the two provinces in the coming months and effectively annihilating their existing economic base. So even if we do accept the idea that the war was won in the East (with Taiping troops tied down as garrisons, without the benefit of holding Shanghai), the EVA emerged after that victory had already been achieved. \n\nThe second is that the extent to which the EVA provided a unique service is, at best, questionable. It was not necessarily better at operating small arms than British and French regulars. It was not necessarily better at employing artillery (which it did have a large amount of) than Qing loyalist crews. It was not necessarily better at providing waterborne support than the British and French navies. Moreover, it was not even the only Westernised force in existence, though it certainly served as somewhat of a model for them. From the Ningbo customs office in the summer of 1863, French naval officer Prosper Giquel assembled the Franco-Chinese Corps, latterly titled the Ever-Triumphant Army, which came to number around 3000 troops. In October 1862, the somewhat enigmatic 'Ever-Secure Army', merged into the Ever-Victorious Army when it fell under Gordon's command, was assembled by Captain Roderick Dew and placed under the command of British officer James Cooke; and many others followed. From Augustus Lindley's *Ti-Ping Tien-Kwoh* (1866) (emphasis his):\n\n > At this time Gordon's force mustered, all told, about 5,000 men; Kingsley's, 1,000; Cooke's, 1,500; and the Franco-Manchoo contingents, commanded respectively by *Generals* D'Aguibelle [sic], Giquel, and Bonnefoi [sic], from 3,000 to 4,000. Subsequently other legions and artillery corps attached to the irregular Imperial troops, about 2,500 in all, were formed and commanded by *Colonels* Bailey, Howard, Rhode, & c., while the total force of trained Chinese generally maintained the relative strength here given, viz., 14,000.\n\nWhile the EVA may have served as a model for the other forces, in so doing it proved that it was not irreplaceable, and indeed at its height was probably outnumbered by its imitators – Lindley here possibly exaggerates the size of Gordon's force, which he himself estimated at no more than 3500.\n\nThe third is that the EVA, as stated before, rarely operated alone. Yes, it would sometimes fight individual engagements without outside support being directly engaged, but it was ultimately always attached to some formation or another, serving as the vanguard to a larger army that would have to detach its less effective elements for garrison duty. Ward operated, until June 1862, as a subordinate of the Jiangsu governor, and then under Li Hongzhang, as did Gordon during his time as EVA commander. While Ward sometimes (but very rarely after spring 1862) fought alone, Gordon's force was incredibly artillery-heavy (at 1 gun per 125 men (excluding siege artillery), an extraordinarily high amount by European standards), and more or less always fought within reinforcement distance of the Huai Army's main body.\n\nIn short, the EVA was, for what it was, quite effective *mano e mano*. However, in the grand scheme of things it was very much a drop in the ocean, as you suggest. Yet its did develop a reputation, for a few reasons. First, it served as a clear instance of Western officers showing the Chinese how it's done, so to speak. Second, Westerners were in it, which is more than could be said for any of the fighting in the western theatre. Thirdly, its success in the field – irrespective of its causes – was certainly real. Fourthly, its activities were eagerly reported on by China correspondents. Probably most importantly, Gordon's long-term reputation as a British national hero (especially following his death in Sudan in 1884) meant that the EVA would always receive some mention in retrospectives of 'Chinese' Gordon's career. Hence, from William McGonagall's most sublime eulogy [*General Gordon, the Hero of Khartoum*](_URL_0_):\n\n > Once when leading a storming party the soldiers drew back, \n > But he quickly observed that courage they did lack, \n > Then he calmly lighted a cigar, and turned cheerfully round, \n > And the soldiers rushed boldly on with a bound. \n\n > And they carried the position without delay, \n > And the Chinese rebels soon gave way, \n > Because God was with him during the day, \n > And with those that trust Him for ever and aye."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://web.archive.org/web/20190522092800/http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/general-gordon-the-hero-of-khartoum"
]
] | |
c3uq2e | bpa in food containers | When does it become dangerous? Do we inhale it or do we ingest it? what happens to food containers with bpa that get microwaved? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c3uq2e/eli5_bpa_in_food_containers/ | {
"a_id": [
"ertdkik",
"ertyild",
"eru4gta"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"There isn't good evidence that it is dangerous at levels coming from plastics containing food/drink. It affects the endocrine system, but it's fairly weak in that action. The EPA and the European Food Safety Authority both say it shouldn't be a problem at normal exposure, but some groups still express concern and studies trying to get more data are ongoing. BPA containing plastics leach it out more when it is warmed, so microwaving will increase leakage.",
"Knowing the nature of business and the power of Money, in this Subject, the best course is NOT to use anything that has it in it-like bottled water. I always carry an Army Canteen, with my OWN filtered water- and never a bottled water, not even for the dog;; check that espy not for the dog.",
"Picture a steel chain in your mind. Flexible, strong, super useful. A single link, however, doesn't really do all that much.\n\nPlastics are literally chemical chains. Individual molecules aren't all that remarkable, but when connected in regular patterns they have incredible properties. Specifically, when BPA is mixed with phosgene, it forms polycarbonate- strong, clear, flexible plastic.\n\nNow, if you ate pure polycarbonate, you'd be fine. Your body doesn't really recognize it and it would eventually be excreted with other waste.\n\nBut to make polycarbonate, you essentially take a bowl and mix BPA with phosgene. Unfortunately, no chemical process is 100% efficient. There's always a little leftover that doesn't end up reacting. So intermixed with the polycarbonate product are little bits of unreacted BPA, sticking to the plastic.\n\nIf that plastic is then used to make a water bottle, some of that BPA may then dissolve into the water. When food is heated in a microwave, the container gets warmed up too. This helps dislodge the BPA from the plastic and allows more of it to dissolve into your food/drink. I also think BPA is used in things like thermal paper receipts, and touching them can cause BPA to dissolve into you through your skin.\n\nThe problem is that while polycarbonate isn't that interesting to your body, BPA is.\n\nHave you taken ibuprofen before? When your body feels pain, a enzyme binds to a molecule, let's call it molecule X, and converts it into a chemical signal for the pain response. Ibuprofen looks enough like X that the enzyme tries to turn it into a signal too, but fails. So while the enzyme is wasting its time with ibuprofen, molecule X just sits around and nothing happens- no pain signal is created.\n\nBPA works the same way. Enzymes in your body called hormone receptors bind to hormones (a type of chemical signal) such as testosterone and estrogen. Obviously these enzymes are really important for development. Testosterone tells your body to do one thing, estrogen another.\n\nIf you drink water with BPA in it, your body may absorb the BPA. BPA happens to look a lot like estrogen, so it binds to those hormone receptors and your body thinks it's getting an estrogen signal, so starts to do things related to that signal.\n\nIs it dangerous? It's hard to say. We can give people more and more BPA until we notice bad things happen, but that isn't really useful. Nobody is eating pounds of BPA, so if eating a pound of BPA is toxic, it isn't that helpful to know that.\n\nThe problem is, what happens when you absorb tiny amounts of BPA over the course of years? If a few cells accidentally think they're getting an estrogen signal once, it probably doesn't do anything. But if they keep getting that response over and over and over again, does it add up? Does it matter for everyone, or just young people who haven't fully developed yet? \n\nThe ideal experiment would be to have two identical babies, feed them exactly the same food and expose them to exactly the same stuff - all BPA free, but feed only one of them a little bit of BPA as well, and see if there are any differences.\n\nObviously, we don't have 80 years to wait around and see those results, and it would be deeply unethical to experiment on babies like that, even if the experiment were possible.\n\nSo instead we have to make models that try to approximate things. The most common one is zebrafish, whose nervous systems are similar to ours. We can grow a lot of them, control their environments, and dissect their brains to study them.\n\nThere are more problems, though. How much BPA do we give them to be representative of how much BPA humans get? How does the BPA affect them and would it be the same in humans? Does it matter if the BPA comes from food or drink? etc etc etc\n\nSo ultimately, the answer is that we don't know. The plastic lobby is really powerful and they make it very hard for scientists to get funding to study this. I personally know a few people who study BPA with these models, and their lives have been turned upside down by plastic companies smearing them and attacking them.\n\nShould you be worried? Experiments in some models have shown pretty scary results if zebrafish embryos are exposed to BPA, but there haven't been enough experiments to know if that's really the fault of the BPA or if it's a design flaw in the experiment. Honestly, at this point it could truly be either, and trying to apply those results to humans would be pretty worthless.\n\n If you are a young child, have a hormone disorder, or are pregnant, it'd be something to avoid to be on the safe side. Otherwise.... do what you can if it makes you feel better. I can't say if it'll hurt you or do nothing.\n\n I personally avoid touching receipts because there is no reason to even get them most of the time, and I try to use BPA free plastic. However, if someone hands me a water bottle and I'm thirsty, I don't worry about it. In the grand scheme of things, it's more dangerous to be in the sun (skin cancer), or eat junk food (heart disease) than it is to get a little BPA exposure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
b25evn | Why and when did we associate green with "go" and red with "stop"? | Was there some delegation that decided or was it more intuitive than that? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b25evn/why_and_when_did_we_associate_green_with_go_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"eirbasz"
],
"score": [
137
],
"text": [
"This was [also asked recently on the Short Answers thread](_URL_0_). I provided an answer to it [here](_URL_0_) from a linguistic perspective."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aq6wna/short_answers_to_simple_questions_february_13_2019/egknq21/"
]
] | |
2dfruk | Should the Northeastern US expect a higher frequency of snowstorms due to global climate change? | Yesterday's weather system produced over 6" of rain in MD and over 12" of rain in some parts of NY, breaking records in both regions. Will increased frequency of high-intensity rainfall also apply in the winter months when it would be snow? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2dfruk/should_the_northeastern_us_expect_a_higher/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjp6kog",
"cjp7gun"
],
"score": [
4,
10
],
"text": [
"There are typically two schools of thought when it comes to climate impacts on severe weather, either:\n\n1) all weather events become more frequent (including more frequent storms with rain +6\" or snowfall totals +12\" for example, but also light rain events with < 0.5\" rain), or\n\n2) weather events occur with the same frequency but are more extreme in magnitude (eg. a \"severe\" snowstorm that may have been 12\" previously may now be 18\").\n\nI think the answer will show itself to be #2.\n\nBUT. The entire climate system is interconnected, and you would have to take into account ENSO, AMO, PDO, and other climate time scale oscillations as well.",
"A prediction of this sort is not easy to make, and shouldn't be made lightly. You could make theoretical arguments in favor of more snowstorms or fewer snowstorms, and **snow**storms in particular are difficult to discuss, because you often get very heavy snowfall near the point where rain changes over to snow (the rain-snow line), making a snowfall total a game of miles for where that line appears. \n \nYou can say some things in bulk, statistical sense about this sort of thing. But inferring a multidecadal trend in a phenomenon with wide variance is not anywhere approaching an exact science. I wouldn't trust what someone has to say about it unless they provide the following: (1) a robust theoretical argument for why there should be more/fewer snowstorms in the NE US in a warmed climate, (2) an observational study that observes a trend and provides an uncertainty estimate for that trend, with a statisical analysis for assigning that trend to some feature of climate change, and (3) a well-posed modeling study where parameters are altered and modeled snowfall totals are observed to agree with the theory and observational record. I don't know off the top of my head if anyone has done this analysis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] | |
4y5tlw | how far does the light from a laser pointer travel? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y5tlw/eli5_how_far_does_the_light_from_a_laser_pointer/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6l5jto",
"d6l5mq6",
"d6l5pn7",
"d6l8hxt",
"d6lcz3z",
"d6ldiwb",
"d6ldrmx",
"d6li6k6",
"d6licp5",
"d6liv3d",
"d6ljxcz",
"d6lkwy8",
"d6lkxrm",
"d6lldtm",
"d6llo0t",
"d6lq4kk",
"d6lroj8",
"d6lse4w",
"d6lsmyr",
"d6lstlq",
"d6lt4om",
"d6ltjm9",
"d6lubvp",
"d6luw39",
"d6luxs3",
"d6lv34a",
"d6lv4jq",
"d6lvcf9",
"d6lvvyt",
"d6lx79w",
"d6ly42i",
"d6lygtx",
"d6lzbfy",
"d6lznnw",
"d6m01tl",
"d6m08ca"
],
"score": [
2325,
21,
308,
4,
47,
444,
8,
3,
12,
5,
7,
16,
11,
14,
381,
20,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The photon from the laser pointer will travel infinity until something stop it. But the laser itself contains million of photons, and the further they travel, the further they are away from each other. You can test it yourself by pointing at something and walk closer, the dot become smaller but more clear, walk back away, the dot become bigger but blurry. At some point, all the photons will scatter too much to form a clearly visible dot. So if you point the pointer to the moon, it will reach but not be visible enough to see.",
"It will travel for all time until it's absorbed by something. The light will get fainter because the laser will spread out. Your ~2mm laser at 100m will be 7km wide by time it hits the moon. It's the same # of photons but spread over a much wider area so it'll appear much less bright.\n\n",
"According to [xkcd](_URL_0_), a good laser pointer has a tight enough beam to hit the moon, but the spot would be spread over most of the moon so an astronaut wouldn't notice it.",
"light travels forever until something blocks it\n\nthat's the reason you can see stars. because that's same light that's traveled over billion and billions of miles. \n\n",
"OK - not the OP here... but to jump on the original question and modify it a little, how far does the light from a laser pointer travel before it gets too distorted to recognize? For example, if I stand 25 feet away from someone who is pointing a laser pointer at my shirt, I can see it. How about if I stand 1 mile away and nothing interferes (and it is dark enough)... would I be able to see it clearly? If so, then how about 3 miles away? At what point will it not be obvious that there is a laser pointing on my shirt?",
"According to [Wikipedia](_URL_0_), the divergence on a high-quality laser beam can be less than 1 milliradian. There are a couple of tools to calculate divergence and beam diameter [online here](_URL_1_). Using the distance from the earth to the moon as 1.261e9 feet, a laser beam with divergence of 0.5 mRad would have a diameter of 11.93 miles when it got there - so no, the astronaut wouldn't see a little red dot at his feet.\n\nTL;DR: The further away you get, the bigger the light beam gets. By the time you reach the moon, a high-quality laser beam will be 12 miles across.\n\nEDIT: Forgot the ELI5 TLDR.",
"How many people pointing a laser at the moon till we can see it? O.o what if everyone on earth pointed a laser pointer at the moon at the same time?!!",
"I understand that the light from a laser will spread out over distance but what I don't understand is why it the photon has infinite energy and will go on forever \"light travels forever until something blocks it\".",
"I have a relatively powerful laser pointer and one night I called a friend who lived about 10-15 km away (as the crow flies) and pointed it at his house. It was really difficult to aim by hand but when he saw it, it was lighting a good portion of his garden. That's what he told me. I didn't see it from his perspective. If it's true, it gives you an idea about how quickly the beam diverges.\n",
"_URL_0_\n\nHopefully this article is of interest. I saw it when heading across the Thames near Greenwich one time. ",
"According to Michio Kaku a laser pointer will create a spot about 5 miles wide when aimed at the moon.\n\nThe light travels forever but it diffuses quickly to a point where it cannot be seen. Military grade lasers diffuse less and can be detected with equipment quite far making them useful for targeting.",
"[xkcd answered a similar question](_URL_0_), which I think you'll appreciate and may help answer more questions. ",
"The short answer is: No\n\nThe long answer is:\n\nAs the light from your laser pointer leaves, it will slowly spread out. So it will be come more and more spread out. On top of that, particles in the air and even the air itself will slowly but steadily absorb and scatter the laser light. \n\nYou can have someone test this out for yourself. Have a friend wave a laser point at you a block a way at night. Even if you can see the light, it is definitely harder than when it is in the same room.",
"A more accurately answerable question would be, \"How far does a photon travel from a light source?\" A laser is just a very focused set of photons concentrated to a tight point and of sufficient energy to be considered a laser. The photons still diverge from each other though and over even a short distance the beam is no longer focused enough to create a tightly defined dot or harm anything in its path. It takes a lot of calculation and a lot of energy to create a path of light with enough resistance to deviation to stay a small focused beam past probably a few meters, and in low power \"laser pointers\" you will lose definition of the dot after probably a few tens of meters. There are too many variables to use a laser pointer as an example of a light source to ask how for it travels.\n\n\nIf you look at a single photon, it will travel forever, at the speed of light in its current medium. The photon will be absorbed by objects, bent by gravity, and speed up or slow down depending on what it's traveling through - and in the case of absorption and re-emission it's technically not the same photon anymore, so passing through glass or a haze of dust for example. In a perfect situation though, light will travel on it's current trajectory forever, and it will only be affected by gravity or expansion of the universe as it's wavelength stretches.",
"I want to talk about the \"Laser Thermometer\" and clear something up.\n\nIt is actually an Infrared thermometer and the laser is only there as a means of aiming the device. The Laser does not read the temperature.",
"Here's what a 1w laser looks like from the ISS.\n\n_URL_0_",
"One night I was camping in the middle of nowhere with some friends. One of these friends had a cheap laser pointer and some night vision goggles. There was a mountain maybe 10 miles away. We could shine the laser on the mountain, and we couldn't see it with the naked eye, but put on those night vision goggles and with the amplification of light, it was like shining a flashlight on something from ten feet away. It was a fairly large mountain, and the dot of light on it was huge. So, yeah, the light spreads a lot, but it gets there. ",
"The light photons (particles of light) will travel an infinite distance at the same speed (of course in certain mediums it can travel slower or faster), given theres nothing blocking it, or the light slowly scattering, techniqually a few particles of light will hit the moon, but because of the large distance and large amount of blockers, such as the sky (all the particles of air in the sky, reflect a given amount of light particles) not a 100% of that light particles get there, and on top of that since light is also a wave, it scatters slowly apart from the source, this causing the light to even further become weaker, you can't see the light, but some sensors that are sensitive enough can detect the few that get there. ",
"Subsequent ELI5: Could someone in an airplane point a laser pointer into my living room and theoretically use it to play with my cat? How far can a laser pointer point before it doesn't point like a pointer anymore?",
"The light will keep going - until it hits something. \n\nThe light from your laser pointer would reach distant galaxies if you pointed it up to the sky on a clear night. But, no one outside of a few hundred yards is going to see it. By the time it reaches distant galaxies, it will just be a stray photon here and there. Far, far, far too faint to see.",
"Your thermometer only uses a laser to show where you're pointing it, the laser isn't involved in the temperature measurement process at all.\n\nThe \"temp gun\" has a sensor that detects the (infrared) heat emitted by whatever you're pointing it at. \n\n\n(Other people covered your actual question, I figured I'd add this information)",
"Light will travel until it is absorbed, so if you were to aim at the moon it would essentially reach it in just above one second, but you wouldn't see a red dot even if you were next to it because of the scattering of the laser. \n \nIf you've tried pointing lasers at night at something fairly distant (100-200m) you'd see the dot appear much bigger in diameter _and_ fainter, because of all the scatter. For an astronaut on the moon to see your laser you would have to have a very powerful low-scatter laser, which focuses light incredibly well (and if the Earth's air wasn't disrupting and refracting the laser's photons).",
"I took a few astronomy classes at my college over the summer and we talked about lasers. Basically if you have any regular laser that's legal strength for regular people to own, the light emitted probably wont make it through the atmosphere. This is just because of the amount of dust in the atmosphere. There isn't much if you look at one part but when you are looking through miles and miles of small dust it starts to add up. Laser tend to become larger the farther they go and when the light spreads out it becomes much dimmer. If you shine a regular red laser pen at you wall its usually a couple millimeters wide but if you shine it across football field it will double in size. You could imagine shining it thousands of miles into space it wouldn't be visible even if our atmosphere was clear of debris and dust. But then we have very powerful lasers used for doing exactly what you said, pointing to the moon. There are a few spots on the moon the have little mirrors on them and certain labs have lasers that they point at the tiny mirrors to get a read about the moon ever-changing distance from earth. Im not sure but i think that these dont enlarge very much like normal laser pens.\n\nsorry if im totally wrong this is what i was told in school a few months ago",
"Ok, besides the obvious answer \"Would it hit the moon? -- Yes, if it was a good enough laser!\" There is another point to make. The moon is traveling at 2,228mph relative to the earth. So trying to see the laser would be like trying to see a bullet that flew past you. Totally impossible. ",
"Random question. Which radio station?",
"Moslty likely that laser only travels about 1/100 of the distance to the moon after that the photons are so far scattered apart that you really wouldn't see anything past that now a really atrong laser like the one nasa uses to shoot at the moon and measure the distance from us to the moon is extremely powerful and has less scattering then a typical handheld red laser",
"The 'beam' from a laser pointer, or any laser for that matter isn't perfect, it does diffuse and the cheaper ones diffuse visibly if you just shine them across the street. A hand held laser pointer might be able to hit the moon, but the dot would be miles wide and the light would be lost among other nearby sources. Over longer distances it would get so diffuse that it wouldn't even register.\n\nThis is to say nothing of the atmosphere, just passing through air which we can't visibly discern still has a diffusing effect and traveling through the depth of the earth's atmosphere is likely to cause some pretty severe diffusion of any visible spectrum beam. ",
"The photons would spread so far apart with standard lasers. Gaussian beam shapes and whatnot. ",
"This was on EITM was it not?",
"Light travels infinitely but it also scatters the further away from the source it gets. Best example of this is the flashlight. The average wouldn't light the ground on the moon just as a flashlight wouldn't light the ground after a few feet. Though if conditions are right, you could see the light source. If you were across a large pond, you'll see the flashlight but it wouldn't light up the area around you. Don't think the astronaut would see the laser as it would be hidden by city lights and the fact that it would be too small for our eyes. Though could be wrong.",
"When I [built my 1.8W](_URL_0_) laser pointer, the thinking at the time was the diode and driver I was useing should send it 8-14 miles, depending on atmospheric conditions, before it dissipated to an unrecognizable blob.\n\nYou can see the blue beam next to a fairly bright green one [here](_URL_1_), and keep in mind that I can set stuff on fire from ~6 feet away with the blue one (eye protection is a must).\n\n**EDIT TO ADD**\n\nThe one I built used a blue light diode, which, while bright, is nothing compared to a green one. This has to do with the ability of our eyes to see some colors much better than others. A comparably powerful (based on mW) red laser vs a green one will show how much more easily we can see the green. In the image above, for example, that green is rated at 10mW (standard laser pointers are 5mW) and you can see the green light as a solid beam at night without any fog or other heavy sediment in the air. It's great for stargazing. The blue one, OTOH, is also visible, but truly requires care and protection because you can go blind in an instant if it hits a bug or a raindrop and reflects back into your unprotected eye.",
"Well a 1 Watt laser is visible from the ISS, if that helps. \n_URL_0_",
"It goes very fast. Faster than you can imagine. So fast you could never see it unless you were going as fast as it is, which is impossible because nothing else can go that fast. REALLY fast.",
"I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm willing to give it a shot.\n\nI'm tempted to say that the light will travel forever, but that's perhaps not the case. Perhaps most of the light will get scattered by the atmosphere and absorbed by atoms/molecules, these will emit one or more photons. If, for the sake of argument, we count these new photons as a continuation of the laser beam, then the laser beam will continue forever as the photons are absorbed and emitted until the end of the universe. If, on the other hand, we treat the absorption of the photons as the end of the laser beam, then all of the photons that were emitted from the laser beam will probably get absorbed sooner or later by something, thus spelling the end of said laser beam. There isn't much matter in space to absorb photons; on the other hand, there's an awful lot of space. It should be possible to calculate the odds of whether there are any \"original\" photons after a certain amount of distance, taking all of these things into account.",
"The short answer is forever, the beam will travel forever, but will it be detected when it gets where its going?\n\nLaser beams slowly spread out as they travel, based on their initial width when they were \"collimated\" or when we made all the light rays parallel. They spread out because of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle essentially and we get a spread out beam after our laser travels some distance.\n\nHere's my crazy ranting calculations on the subject:\n\n\nIn a 1mW red laser pointer. Assuming zero bandwidth.\n\nThere would be N = 10^(-3) W/ (( 3x10^(8) m/s/6.328x10^(-7) m)x7x10^(-34) Js) photons/second coming out the end of the laser.\n\nBear in mind im doing this on my phone in a bathroom and approximating but should be:\n\n N/sec = 10^(-3) /(5x10^(14) x6.5x10^(-34) ) \n = 10^(-3)/(3.25 x 10^(-19) ) \n = 3000 x 10^(12) photons/sec\n \n =3000 trillion photons/second\n\n\nI really want to go check those numbers, seems way too high.\n\n\nUpdate:\n\nWell i tried it in matlab and it says it's 3183.4 Trillion photons/second.\n\n\nGuess i nailed it\n\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nOkay so now we know there are 3 quadrillion photons coming out this laser at 1mW.\n\nLets amp this laser up, we want it to go much further into space so we pump this thing until it hits 10 Watts of power.\n\n\n3.184x10^(19) photons per second!, we have to decide how wide this stream of photons is when it starts its journey.\n\n\nWe will use a dfb laser diode (distributed feedback) which will give us that narrow peak we wanted. We'd want to launch this thing from singlemode optical fibre with a collimating element at the end because the cone that usually pours out of the end of a fibre kinda ruins the concentrated beam we are after.\n\n\n(Continued on my pc in on minute)\n\n\nAssuming the collimating optic was somehow in the fibre to avoid any initial beam spread before we straighten up the beam.\nLight in an optical fibre travels in modes, not all together in the centre of the fibre.\nWhen I look at my old optical fibre notes im seeing for a fibre with core of 20microns, the fundamental (Gaussian) mode will leak into the cladding to become about 28microns across.\n\nBut let's assume we guide this fibre really well (and interestingly) and all the 10 W of red light comes through evenly distributed across a diameter of 20 microns.\n\nSo our irradiance outside the fibre (no 4% reflection at the end from Fresnel because we are clever and use anti-reflect coatings) is\n\n 10 W / pi *(10^-5)^2 or 32 GigaWatts/m^2\n\nsweet, let's beam that baby into space.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nNow it's easier for me to assume the beam travels as a Gaussian distribution from this point even though I said evenly distributed earlier, so that's what ill be using to figure out how weak this beam is after say.. 1 light year.\n\n(continued in a minute)\n\n\nSo I've checked my laser beam notes and it turns out that Gaussian beams, once we check in with the uncertainty principle, give us angular spread, related to the width of the beam, let's hope having a really small beam didn't ruin us!.\n\nthe radius of the beam w0 after a distance z is equal to [this equation](_URL_0_)\n\nso let's plug the values in and see how wide the beam is once it passes the sun.\n\nEdit: corrected some errors from before\n\nSo once our beam travels the distance to the sun, 149.6 million kilometres we have moved from having a beam 20 microns across to one that is ... oh my..\n\n 6 million metres across.\n\nGiving us an irradiance of \n\n 8.764 x 10^-14 W/m^2\n\nor\n\n 0.08 picoWatts/m^2\n\nthat's not detectable, at all.\n\n\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLet's do our calculation for the 1mW laser pointer then.\n\n\nMaking all the assumptions of no wavelength bandwidth, just a single wavelength coming out the end. I'm measuring a dot on a piece of paper right now brb.\n\n\n our starting beam radius is 1mm.\n\n The irradiance of the beam is then 318.3 W/m^2\n\nBy the time the beam passes the distance between us and the Sun, the width of our beam will be:\n\n 60 kilometres across\n\nwith an irradiance of\n\n 876 picoWatts/m^2\n \n\nwe did better anyway, still pretty weak, and we aren't even anywhere close to leaving our own solar system yet and of course we ignored absorptions by the atmosphere and all that.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAccording to our research here today, we will need to make a very, very powerful beam that is parallel (collimated) when it is very wide.\n\nMy notes also say that high frequency (lower wavelength) beams don't spread as much as lower frequency (longer wavelength) beams.\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nOur friend Randall Munroe at XKCD, writer of \"What If?\" used thousands of National Ignition Facilities to light up the moon, we don't need that high of a power, so we'll just take one, and expand to 1 kilometre across with a giant lens across the sky. \n\n\nNIF can generate 500 TerraWatts, which is awesome and terrifying\n\nWe aren't using red anymore, we are using a much higher energy photon, ultraviolet at 350nm (half our previous wavelength at 632.8nm). This should improve the amount of spreading we see in the result.\n\nSo our irradiance is:\n\n 5x10^(14) / (pi*(0.5*10^3 )^2 )\n = 637 million W/m^2\n\n\nAfter travelling past the sun, the beam has only doubled to ~2km across so the irradiance is then:\n\n 5x10^(14) / (pi*(10^3 )^2 )\n = 160 million W/m^2\n\nWe're doing so much better, easily detectable here.\n\nLet's go the nearest star, according to google, the nearest star is 4.35 light years or 9.46 Terrakilometres away (strange unit) or 9.46 x 10^15 metres away.\n\nhow wide is our beam when it gets there?\n\n 2 billion metres across\n\nIrradiance?\n\n 35.821 picoWatts/m^2\n\nWe did pretty well, maybe aliens are pretty close by and actually have super sensitive detectors on board to get this beam detected.\n\nBut It's looking bleak.",
"I'm a chemist who's been working in a laser lab for about 8 months, so this is all new to me still and I work with lasers a bit more powerful/dangerous than typical laser pointers. \n\nMy understanding is that your average laser pointer has a collimating lens, intended to focus the beam \"at infinity\" so ideally the beam would go directly straight and maintain it's size and shape, in practice it would still diverge (spread out and weaken) over distance and would weaken depending on the initial power. This is also disrupted by anything it's going through which would scatter the beam. This is why typically you can see only where the beam impacts (say, a laser pointed at a wall) and not the beam itself. But throw say, dry ice into the beampath and you would see the trail. So the distance traveled would depend on the power I would think."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimated_light",
"http://www.pseudonomen.com/lasers/calculators/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thegreenwichmeridian.org/tgm/articles.php?article=14"
],
[],
[
"https://what-if.xkcd.c... | ||
318uvk | Prior to contact with Europeans during the Age of Discovery, were firearms known in India and Africa? | Supposedly knowledge of firearms and gunpowder were transmitted along the Silk Road from China to Europe. Did it spread along the trade routes to India and Africa as well? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/318uvk/prior_to_contact_with_europeans_during_the_age_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpzrd91"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
" Yes they were. Gunpowder was adopted by the Arabs early on and since they had conquered North Africa it spread throughout that region.\n\nIndia was much closer to the Chinese who most likely came up with gunpowder in the first place, and either got access to it themselves through trading or something, or when they got conquered by the Mongols. (The Mongols are also one way gunpowder might have been introduced to Europe).\n\nCertainly both India and the Muslim world were familiar with gunpowder by the 14th, mid-14th centuries. Now for the rest of Africa it gets murky for me, perhaps someone can illustrate me, certainly several regions like the Ghana Empire or the Mali Empire had contact with Muslim traders and slavers and religious proselytizers so they at least knew of guns, and most likely had access to some amount of them, but other more isolated, less developed areas, I'd assume they didn't learn of the existence of such things until centuries later.\n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | |
4mn98t | What were the major influences of Danish on the Norwegian language? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4mn98t/what_were_the_major_influences_of_danish_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3x3ier"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The different German languages and dialects. Germany(back then only as a cultural enitity) being a large power and a neighbour to Denmark naturally influenced the Danish languages up until the 20th century when English became more dominant. German was in the Scandinavian area the lingua franca, and the language of the elites and thus a large influence.\nThe largest influence on the Norwegian language was Danish, since they often shared a king or Norway being a subject to Denmark. THis means that German played a role in the development of the Norweigan language. Also, there are two Norwegian languages. Bokmål and Nynorsk. Bokmål is the most commonly spoken and is a mix of old Norwegian and Danish. Nynorsk is a modern attempt to recreate the \"true\" Norwegian language.\n\nIt should however be noted that Danish and German already have a lot of similarities since they are both Germanic languages.\n\nFollow-up questions are welcomed! I can recommend some literature aswell if you want."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] | ||
2eshwk | why can't i buy gas and sell it later? | This was in an episode of its always sunny, and they do it horribly wrong. But lets say you can buy it straight from a distributor, hold on to it for a year or two, and then sell it to a gas station. What's stopping you from making a profit? (Gas prices increase faster than inflation.) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eshwk/eli5_why_cant_i_buy_gas_and_sell_it_later/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck2i7fv",
"ck2i8xn",
"ck2i9we"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gasoline doesn't last that long, for one. \n\nYou can buy gasoline *futures* (paying now for gas later) but it's a poor way to invest money. There are better ways to invest. ",
"Considering the amount of equipment you need to safely store gas and or have it all evaporate away or blow you into kingdom come. NO.\n\nBUT, what you can do is purchase petroleum futures, essentially, making money by betting that gas prices will increase X number of months down the line. It's a simple investment transaction, but you need to go through an investment company and you have to pay taxes on it tho.",
"1. gasoline is a regulated material - you can't store much of it.\n2. you'd have to have a license to sell it.\n3. you'd have to be able to sell it at a cheaper price than the wholesale price the station pays for it. You'd have bought it at retail and then sold it below wholesale. It'd have to have gone up in price a lot.\n4. it degrades over time. it \"goes bad\".\n\nif you believe in this business idea, I'd suggest you buy stock in gas companies - they are going to be much better at this business than you are.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] | |
2gg0p1 | why is the scottish independence referendum positioned as neck and neck in the polls, whereas the bookmakers odds suggest the opposite? | Bookmakers (here in England at least) currently have 3/1 for YES, and 1/4 for NO. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gg0p1/eli5_why_is_the_scottish_independence_referendum/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckir983",
"ckirec3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Sorry to ELI5 your ELI5, but just for those who have never stepped into a bookies... \n\nIf I bet £10 each on yes and no, do I understand right that a \"no\" result would get me £2.50, and a \"yes\" would get me £30?\n\nIf so, that's a pretty sizable difference.",
"I expect that the odds are down to a significant number of people betting the outcome will be 'No'. Odds aren't just calculated by looking at what will *probably* happen, but also by the amount of money already taken in by people betting. If the odds were, say, both even (which is what the polls suggest), and a disproportionate number of people bet on 'no', then if 'no' is the outcome, the bookmaker will lose out significantly. By stacking these odds, they can encourage people to bet the other way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.