q_id stringlengths 5 6 | question stringlengths 3 300 | best_answer stringlengths 15 10.1k | all_answers list | num_answers int64 1 208 | top_answers list | num_top_answers int64 0 110 | orig stringlengths 13 310 | target stringlengths 23 10.1k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1zupru | How did horses survive with humans before horseshoes? When did horseshoes formally become a thing? | While I can only speculate with regards to the first part of your question, I can perhaps help with the latter.Basically, the practice of protecting the feet of horses was not universal even among the Greeks and Romans. Fabretti, an Italian antiquary, examined with care the representations of horses on many ancient columns and marbles, and found but one instance in which the horse appeared to be shod; and in most specimens of ancient art the iron horse-shoe is conspicuous by its absence. However, in the mosaic portraying the battle of Issus—which was unearthed at Pompeii in 1831 and which is now in the Naples Museum (go, if you ever have a chance)—is the figure of a horse whose feet appear to be shod with iron shoes similar to those in modern use. There's also an ancient Finnish incantation against the plague, quoted in Lenormant's "Chaldean Magic and Sorcery," which states: > "O Scourge depart; Plague, take thy flight. . . . I will give thee a horse with which to escape, whose shoes shall not slide on ice, nor whose feet slip on the rocks."Winckelmann, the Prussian art historian, describes an antique engraved stone representing a man holding up a horse's foot, while an assistant, kneeling, fastens on a shoe. In the works of the Roman poet Catullus occurs the simile of the iron shoe of a mule sticking in the mire. More contemporary historians relate that the Emperor Nero caused his mules to be shod with silver, while golden shoes adorned the feet of the mules belonging to the notorious Empress Poppaea.According to N. S. Shaler, iron horse-shoes were invented in the 4th century in Greece. (It's interesting how he decides on this but I won't go into that here.) But even France in the 9th century, horses were shod with iron on special occasions only. The early Britons, Saxons, and Danes do not appear to have had much knowledge of ferriery. Therefore, the modern art of shoeing horses is thought to have been generally introduced in England by the Normans under William the Conqueror. Henry de Ferrars, who accompanied that monarch, is believed to have received his surname because he was entrusted with the inspection of the farriers; and the coat-of-arms of his descendants still bears six horse-shoes. | [
"While I can only speculate with regards to the first part of your question, I can perhaps help with the latter.\n\n\nBasically, the practice of protecting the feet of horses was not universal even among the Greeks and Romans. Fabretti, an Italian antiquary, examined with care the representations of horses on many... | 2 | [
"While I can only speculate with regards to the first part of your question, I can perhaps help with the latter.\n\n\nBasically, the practice of protecting the feet of horses was not universal even among the Greeks and Romans. Fabretti, an Italian antiquary, examined with care the representations of horses on many... | 2 | question: How did horses survive with humans before horseshoes? When did horseshoes formally become a thing? | answer: While I can only speculate with regards to the first part of your question, I can perhaps help with the latter.Basically, the practice of protecting the feet of horses was not universal even among the Greeks and Romans. Fabretti, an Italian antiquary, examined with care the representations of horses on many ancient columns and marbles, and found but one instance in which the horse appeared to be shod; and in most specimens of ancient art the iron horse-shoe is conspicuous by its absence. However, in the mosaic portraying the battle of Issus—which was unearthed at Pompeii in 1831 and which is now in the Naples Museum (go, if you ever have a chance)—is the figure of a horse whose feet appear to be shod with iron shoes similar to those in modern use. There's also an ancient Finnish incantation against the plague, quoted in Lenormant's "Chaldean Magic and Sorcery," which states: > "O Scourge depart; Plague, take thy flight. . . . I will give thee a horse with which to escape, whose shoes shall not slide on ice, nor whose feet slip on the rocks."Winckelmann, the Prussian art historian, describes an antique engraved stone representing a man holding up a horse's foot, while an assistant, kneeling, fastens on a shoe. In the works of the Roman poet Catullus occurs the simile of the iron shoe of a mule sticking in the mire. More contemporary historians relate that the Emperor Nero caused his mules to be shod with silver, while golden shoes adorned the feet of the mules belonging to the notorious Empress Poppaea.According to N. S. Shaler, iron horse-shoes were invented in the 4th century in Greece. (It's interesting how he decides on this but I won't go into that here.) But even France in the 9th century, horses were shod with iron on special occasions only. The early Britons, Saxons, and Danes do not appear to have had much knowledge of ferriery. Therefore, the modern art of shoeing horses is thought to have been generally introduced in England by the Normans under William the Conqueror. Henry de Ferrars, who accompanied that monarch, is believed to have received his surname because he was entrusted with the inspection of the farriers; and the coat-of-arms of his descendants still bears six horse-shoes. |
2kdote | [uk] how would a political party go from having no influence whatsoever to eventually winning a general election? | They would need to appeal to voters and get votes, win some constituencies and be recognized as being able to handle a real government.Canada's NDP latched onto big issues of the day to get their initial supporters. Haven't won a government yet, but are the official opposition. | [
"They would need to appeal to voters and get votes, win some constituencies and be recognized as being able to handle a real government.\n\nCanada's NDP latched onto big issues of the day to get their initial supporters. Haven't won a government yet, but are the official opposition. ",
"In essence, they need to d... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: [uk] how would a political party go from having no influence whatsoever to eventually winning a general election? | answer: They would need to appeal to voters and get votes, win some constituencies and be recognized as being able to handle a real government.Canada's NDP latched onto big issues of the day to get their initial supporters. Haven't won a government yet, but are the official opposition. |
2sd0ql | why is it that europeans explored the world more than anyone else on other continents? | You're ignoring the Polynesians, who spread from Malaysia to South America, colonized every habitable island in the Pacific, by 1300AD, before Europeans knew anything about anything. Really, the reason that Europeans did most of the exploring was that Europeans had some advanced technology in firearms that few other cultures worldwide had.They were the first major Rennaisance-era culture to discover the Americas (the Polynesians were more tribal in nature, each island was it's own "nation" though they shared one culture). Nobody else was really trying at the time because it wasn't known that the continent existed, so a atlantic-pacific crossing was thought to be suicide (Columbus didn't have any new ideas, he was bad at math). European nations at the time were extremely nationalistic and had strong rivalries. As soon as it was known that there were new lands, they started expanding there so that they could pull ahead of their rivals. Since Spain started doing it, and they started getting gold and slaves from New Spain, the other nations had to do the same to keep up. | [
"You're ignoring the Polynesians, who spread from Malaysia to South America, colonized every habitable island in the Pacific, by 1300AD, before Europeans knew anything about anything. \n\nReally, the reason that Europeans did most of the exploring was that Europeans had some advanced technology in firearms that few... | 2 | [
"You're ignoring the Polynesians, who spread from Malaysia to South America, colonized every habitable island in the Pacific, by 1300AD, before Europeans knew anything about anything. \n\nReally, the reason that Europeans did most of the exploring was that Europeans had some advanced technology in firearms that few... | 1 | question: why is it that europeans explored the world more than anyone else on other continents? | answer: You're ignoring the Polynesians, who spread from Malaysia to South America, colonized every habitable island in the Pacific, by 1300AD, before Europeans knew anything about anything. Really, the reason that Europeans did most of the exploring was that Europeans had some advanced technology in firearms that few other cultures worldwide had.They were the first major Rennaisance-era culture to discover the Americas (the Polynesians were more tribal in nature, each island was it's own "nation" though they shared one culture). Nobody else was really trying at the time because it wasn't known that the continent existed, so a atlantic-pacific crossing was thought to be suicide (Columbus didn't have any new ideas, he was bad at math). European nations at the time were extremely nationalistic and had strong rivalries. As soon as it was known that there were new lands, they started expanding there so that they could pull ahead of their rivals. Since Spain started doing it, and they started getting gold and slaves from New Spain, the other nations had to do the same to keep up. |
tg0j5 | why does ron paul seem to be doing leaps and bounds better recently? | Because you're reading too much reddit. | [
"Because you're reading too much reddit.",
"It could be argued that with the recent withdrawal of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum from the race, Ron Paul stands as the alternative vote for those not keen on Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. \n\nRomney also has many detractors for various reasons (his wealth,... | 5 | [
"Because you're reading too much reddit.",
"It could be argued that with the recent withdrawal of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum from the race, Ron Paul stands as the alternative vote for those not keen on Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. \n\nRomney also has many detractors for various reasons (his wealth,... | 2 | question: why does ron paul seem to be doing leaps and bounds better recently? | answer: Because you're reading too much reddit. |
4ttx6w | why do flies have such short life-spans? | Their lifespans are only short relative to human lifespans. There's no objective way to measure "long" or "short" when you're looking at organisms' life spans; these words only mean anything in reference to something else. You could just as easily ask why humans have such long lifespans.There isn't a universal evolutionary pressure for organisms to have similar lifespans, so lifespan lengths are very diverse depending on the evolutionary strategy of the organism. One advantage of a shorter lifespan is the organism can evolve more rapidly and therefore adapt more rapidly to a changing environment. Conversely, the longer lifespan of humans allows us to develop into very complex organisms capable of high levels of intelligence and knowledge retention. | [
"Their lifespans are only short relative to human lifespans. There's no objective way to measure \"long\" or \"short\" when you're looking at organisms' life spans; these words only mean anything in reference to something else. You could just as easily ask why humans have such long lifespans.\n\nThere isn't a unive... | 1 | [
"Their lifespans are only short relative to human lifespans. There's no objective way to measure \"long\" or \"short\" when you're looking at organisms' life spans; these words only mean anything in reference to something else. You could just as easily ask why humans have such long lifespans.\n\nThere isn't a unive... | 1 | question: why do flies have such short life-spans? | answer: Their lifespans are only short relative to human lifespans. There's no objective way to measure "long" or "short" when you're looking at organisms' life spans; these words only mean anything in reference to something else. You could just as easily ask why humans have such long lifespans.There isn't a universal evolutionary pressure for organisms to have similar lifespans, so lifespan lengths are very diverse depending on the evolutionary strategy of the organism. One advantage of a shorter lifespan is the organism can evolve more rapidly and therefore adapt more rapidly to a changing environment. Conversely, the longer lifespan of humans allows us to develop into very complex organisms capable of high levels of intelligence and knowledge retention. |
ci6qt5 | what purpose do continents serve apart from broad classification? | There is not one but a few different models for the continets. Some of them are just for classification. Some are used to differentiate what is one landmass and what is another. I thing the most common models used are the geopolitical and historic political one. These differentiate between what you could roughly call cultures. | [
"There is not one but a few different models for the continets. Some of them are just for classification. Some are used to differentiate what is one landmass and what is another. I thing the most common models used are the geopolitical and historic political one. These differentiate between what you could roughly ... | 2 | [
"There is not one but a few different models for the continets. Some of them are just for classification. Some are used to differentiate what is one landmass and what is another. I thing the most common models used are the geopolitical and historic political one. These differentiate between what you could roughly ... | 1 | question: what purpose do continents serve apart from broad classification? | answer: There is not one but a few different models for the continets. Some of them are just for classification. Some are used to differentiate what is one landmass and what is another. I thing the most common models used are the geopolitical and historic political one. These differentiate between what you could roughly call cultures. |
3ky0xe | why is newly appointed labour leader, jeremy corbyn so unpopular with his own party? | In recent times both the Labour (traditionally left) and Tories (traditionally right) have taken a more central position. For Labour this all really started with Blair and "New Labour".Corbyn is on the far left, he's a socialist. Those who don't like him think he is too left wing - even calling him a radical and claim he will take them back to the 70s / 80s (which were a bad time for the party). Anyone could join the Labour party and vote for him as leader - you pay £3 to join the party and you could then vote on who became leader. Some claim that a large number of people joined after the General Election up until now just to vote. Some people even say that lots of Tory supporters joined and then voted for Corbyn as he'd do the most damage to the party, leaving the Tories in power for some time. That may be a little far fetched, but who knows. | [
"My understanding is that the current system to elect the leader allows anyone to vote who has paid dues. This is, apparently, a relatively recent development. \n\nCorbyn and his supporters supposedly used this system to flood the voting ranks with Corbyn supporters. Of course, if you are left leaning, this is a... | 3 | [
"My understanding is that the current system to elect the leader allows anyone to vote who has paid dues. This is, apparently, a relatively recent development. \n\nCorbyn and his supporters supposedly used this system to flood the voting ranks with Corbyn supporters. Of course, if you are left leaning, this is a... | 2 | question: why is newly appointed labour leader, jeremy corbyn so unpopular with his own party? | answer: In recent times both the Labour (traditionally left) and Tories (traditionally right) have taken a more central position. For Labour this all really started with Blair and "New Labour".Corbyn is on the far left, he's a socialist. Those who don't like him think he is too left wing - even calling him a radical and claim he will take them back to the 70s / 80s (which were a bad time for the party). Anyone could join the Labour party and vote for him as leader - you pay £3 to join the party and you could then vote on who became leader. Some claim that a large number of people joined after the General Election up until now just to vote. Some people even say that lots of Tory supporters joined and then voted for Corbyn as he'd do the most damage to the party, leaving the Tories in power for some time. That may be a little far fetched, but who knows. |
34d3fk | why do people like politicians announce that they'll announce something, rather than just announce it? | to build publicity. reporters aren't following them all the time. in order to get reporters to show up, the person has to announce that they're going to make a major announcement that'll make news. | [
"to build publicity. reporters aren't following them all the time. in order to get reporters to show up, the person has to announce that they're going to make a major announcement that'll make news."
] | 1 | [
"to build publicity. reporters aren't following them all the time. in order to get reporters to show up, the person has to announce that they're going to make a major announcement that'll make news."
] | 1 | question: why do people like politicians announce that they'll announce something, rather than just announce it? | answer: to build publicity. reporters aren't following them all the time. in order to get reporters to show up, the person has to announce that they're going to make a major announcement that'll make news. |
ghasc | Is there any evidence that earlier hominids had
different sense organs? Conversely, is there any
way of conjecturing whether or not descendants of
present-day h. sapiens may develop other senses? | > Since other creatures can navigate by detecting aspects of the Earth's magnetic field, for exampleI guess you mean birds et al.? well yes they do, but that required quite an amount of evolution and given that we don't see any exceptional features in any of our living cousins that we don't have, its highly unlikely (yet remotely possible) that some non-extant hominids had any sense organ of significance. Also fossil evidence doesn't show any gross difference from structures in our cousins or us, so probably not.Will we be able to evolve some new super-sense? not impossible, but entirely new "sense organs" take real long to develop (speak 10-100s of million years) and they might not do so unless there is persistent pressure to develop a way to sense some particular thing. Given physical constraints and how much humans can augment their physical senses with tools and gadgets, we might never have a need to wait millions of years to evolve a new sense, and hence we never might. | [
" > Since other creatures can navigate by detecting aspects of the Earth's magnetic field, for example\n\nI guess you mean birds et al.? well yes they do, but that required quite an amount of evolution and given that we don't see any exceptional features in any of our living cousins that we don't have, its highly u... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: Is there any evidence that earlier hominids had
different sense organs? Conversely, is there any
way of conjecturing whether or not descendants of
present-day h. sapiens may develop other senses? | answer: > Since other creatures can navigate by detecting aspects of the Earth's magnetic field, for exampleI guess you mean birds et al.? well yes they do, but that required quite an amount of evolution and given that we don't see any exceptional features in any of our living cousins that we don't have, its highly unlikely (yet remotely possible) that some non-extant hominids had any sense organ of significance. Also fossil evidence doesn't show any gross difference from structures in our cousins or us, so probably not.Will we be able to evolve some new super-sense? not impossible, but entirely new "sense organs" take real long to develop (speak 10-100s of million years) and they might not do so unless there is persistent pressure to develop a way to sense some particular thing. Given physical constraints and how much humans can augment their physical senses with tools and gadgets, we might never have a need to wait millions of years to evolve a new sense, and hence we never might. |
b8dxyd | why are illicit drugs cut with dangerous chemicals? | When you're making drugs "at home' (ie - not a professional lab), you tend to cut corners and not buy everything from the most reputable chemical suppliers. Maybe you need a strong acid, why not grab battery acid or concrete cleaner? A strong base means you use lye-based drain cleaner. A solvent has you use gasoline.Since there's no real standards or testing, these things get left in there. You then have anti-drug propaganda giving it the scariest possible description when they say what it is. | [
"When you're making drugs \"at home' (ie - not a professional lab), you tend to cut corners and not buy everything from the most reputable chemical suppliers. Maybe you need a strong acid, why not grab battery acid or concrete cleaner? A strong base means you use lye-based drain cleaner. A solvent has you use ga... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: why are illicit drugs cut with dangerous chemicals? | answer: When you're making drugs "at home' (ie - not a professional lab), you tend to cut corners and not buy everything from the most reputable chemical suppliers. Maybe you need a strong acid, why not grab battery acid or concrete cleaner? A strong base means you use lye-based drain cleaner. A solvent has you use gasoline.Since there's no real standards or testing, these things get left in there. You then have anti-drug propaganda giving it the scariest possible description when they say what it is. |
3c8d1u | I can type without looking at the keyboard, but when asked to draw a keyboard, I am completely unable to correctly label half of the letter keys. How is this possible? | Watch this: [Smarter Every Day - Backwards Brain bicycle](_URL_0_); it's the same thing. When we type, we "know" how to type, where to type, but we don't automatically understand the keyboard. You know that the "F" key is "around there", next to your left hand, or that the "J" key is next to your right hand, somewhere, because you know where to push to print an F or a J, but you don't really learn the keyboard. If you use a different keyboard from example (it's very noticeable when you go from a laptop to a desktop because of the shape of the keys), you won't be able at first to type as fast as you used to. Because you learned to type with your keyboard, you didn't learn to type with "a" keyboard. | [
"Watch this: [Smarter Every Day - Backwards Brain bicycle](_URL_0_); it's the same thing. \n \nWhen we type, we \"know\" how to type, where to type, but we don't automatically understand the keyboard. You know that the \"F\" key is \"around there\", next to your left hand, or that the \"J\" key is next to your ri... | 28 | [
"Watch this: [Smarter Every Day - Backwards Brain bicycle](_URL_0_); it's the same thing. \n \nWhen we type, we \"know\" how to type, where to type, but we don't automatically understand the keyboard. You know that the \"F\" key is \"around there\", next to your left hand, or that the \"J\" key is next to your ri... | 11 | question: I can type without looking at the keyboard, but when asked to draw a keyboard, I am completely unable to correctly label half of the letter keys. How is this possible? | answer: Watch this: [Smarter Every Day - Backwards Brain bicycle](_URL_0_); it's the same thing. When we type, we "know" how to type, where to type, but we don't automatically understand the keyboard. You know that the "F" key is "around there", next to your left hand, or that the "J" key is next to your right hand, somewhere, because you know where to push to print an F or a J, but you don't really learn the keyboard. If you use a different keyboard from example (it's very noticeable when you go from a laptop to a desktop because of the shape of the keys), you won't be able at first to type as fast as you used to. Because you learned to type with your keyboard, you didn't learn to type with "a" keyboard. |
300lnn | What is the processing speed of our brains? | Cells are covered in a lipid bilayer, which is not conductive like most metals. Instead, neuronal conductance relies on voltage-gated ion channels for propagation of electrochemical impulses. There is no traveling of electrons along a neuron like you would expect in metal and thus impulses travel much slower than the "speed of electricity."First, there is the issue of how fast axons conduct action potentials. This can range anywhere from [0.5 m/s to 120 m/s](_URL_1_), depending on thickness of the axon and mylenation. Thicker axons conduct faster and mylenated axons conduct faster (due to [saltatory conduction](_URL_3_)). For more information, you can read the classic studies by [Hodgkin and Huxley](_URL_5_) on the squid giant axon.Next, you have to consider the time for the information to jump from neuron to neuron. Most connections in the brain are [chemical synapses](_URL_4_) and can take up to 1-2 ms to go from one neuron to another. Some synapses are [electrical](_URL_6_) and are very fast (~200 microseconds), though these are more rare.One further variable is the distance between structures that you're interested. This distance is both in terms of absolute distance and number of synapses. This is important if you're considering the processing of information. And this is also the most nebulous variable. We can talk about how fast an impulse can travel along an axon, but that doesn't address information processing. Information is processed in [neural circuits](_URL_2_), which aren't completely serial. There are feedback and feed-forward loops. There are small-scale networks (e.g., within a brain area) and large-scale networks (between brain areas). The simplest example of processing stimuli from sensation to behavior is [simple detection](_URL_0_.) (reporting the presence of a stimulus). Detection of auditory stimuli are quite fast (140-160 ms) while visual detection is a bit slower (180-200 ms). While these times seem very fast, consider all the processing that must be required (considering how fast our neurons conduct and transmit information). We still don't know exactly what goes on in the brain within neural networks for even these simple processes.**TL;DR: our brains don't have a "processing speed."** | [
"Cells are covered in a lipid bilayer, which is not conductive like most metals. Instead, neuronal conductance relies on voltage-gated ion channels for propagation of electrochemical impulses. There is no traveling of electrons along a neuron like you would expect in metal and thus impulses travel much slower than ... | 2 | [
"Cells are covered in a lipid bilayer, which is not conductive like most metals. Instead, neuronal conductance relies on voltage-gated ion channels for propagation of electrochemical impulses. There is no traveling of electrons along a neuron like you would expect in metal and thus impulses travel much slower than ... | 1 | question: What is the processing speed of our brains? | answer: Cells are covered in a lipid bilayer, which is not conductive like most metals. Instead, neuronal conductance relies on voltage-gated ion channels for propagation of electrochemical impulses. There is no traveling of electrons along a neuron like you would expect in metal and thus impulses travel much slower than the "speed of electricity."First, there is the issue of how fast axons conduct action potentials. This can range anywhere from [0.5 m/s to 120 m/s](_URL_1_), depending on thickness of the axon and mylenation. Thicker axons conduct faster and mylenated axons conduct faster (due to [saltatory conduction](_URL_3_)). For more information, you can read the classic studies by [Hodgkin and Huxley](_URL_5_) on the squid giant axon.Next, you have to consider the time for the information to jump from neuron to neuron. Most connections in the brain are [chemical synapses](_URL_4_) and can take up to 1-2 ms to go from one neuron to another. Some synapses are [electrical](_URL_6_) and are very fast (~200 microseconds), though these are more rare.One further variable is the distance between structures that you're interested. This distance is both in terms of absolute distance and number of synapses. This is important if you're considering the processing of information. And this is also the most nebulous variable. We can talk about how fast an impulse can travel along an axon, but that doesn't address information processing. Information is processed in [neural circuits](_URL_2_), which aren't completely serial. There are feedback and feed-forward loops. There are small-scale networks (e.g., within a brain area) and large-scale networks (between brain areas). The simplest example of processing stimuli from sensation to behavior is [simple detection](_URL_0_.) (reporting the presence of a stimulus). Detection of auditory stimuli are quite fast (140-160 ms) while visual detection is a bit slower (180-200 ms). While these times seem very fast, consider all the processing that must be required (considering how fast our neurons conduct and transmit information). We still don't know exactly what goes on in the brain within neural networks for even these simple processes.**TL;DR: our brains don't have a "processing speed."** |
2bez16 | what happens to a wasp when i hit it with raid? | You must have hit the wasp with RAID 0, which is why it worked so fast. RAID 1 was still effective on the beetle, it just didn't have the same level of performance (but was safer for you, incidentally). ...I'm so sorry. | [
"You must have hit the wasp with RAID 0, which is why it worked so fast. RAID 1 was still effective on the beetle, it just didn't have the same level of performance (but was safer for you, incidentally). \n\n...I'm so sorry.",
"Insecticides are neurotoxins, they're the insect equivalent of satin of VX. They work ... | 2 | [
"You must have hit the wasp with RAID 0, which is why it worked so fast. RAID 1 was still effective on the beetle, it just didn't have the same level of performance (but was safer for you, incidentally). \n\n...I'm so sorry.",
"Insecticides are neurotoxins, they're the insect equivalent of satin of VX. They work ... | 2 | question: what happens to a wasp when i hit it with raid? | answer: You must have hit the wasp with RAID 0, which is why it worked so fast. RAID 1 was still effective on the beetle, it just didn't have the same level of performance (but was safer for you, incidentally). ...I'm so sorry. |
2foajl | what nation was the first to allow black men to serve in the military? | Remember that it is actuelly relativly few nations that have had laws against black people serving in the military. There is no periode in history where black people haven't served somewhere in the world. | [
"Remember that it is actuelly relativly few nations that have had laws against black people serving in the military. There is no periode in history where black people haven't served somewhere in the world."
] | 1 | [
"Remember that it is actuelly relativly few nations that have had laws against black people serving in the military. There is no periode in history where black people haven't served somewhere in the world."
] | 1 | question: what nation was the first to allow black men to serve in the military? | answer: Remember that it is actuelly relativly few nations that have had laws against black people serving in the military. There is no periode in history where black people haven't served somewhere in the world. |
2wxzca | Need to settle a 2nd Amendment argument. Could someone store a cannon in their barn in 1790? | According to the [FAQ on owning cannons](_URL_1_), yes you could. See this response in particular:* [When the Second Amendment was ratified, did the "right to bear arms" include the right of private citizens to own a cannon or any other weapon of war?](_URL_0_) | [
"According to the [FAQ on owning cannons](_URL_1_), yes you could. See this response in particular:\n\n* [When the Second Amendment was ratified, did the \"right to bear arms\" include the right of private citizens to own a cannon or any other weapon of war?](_URL_0_)\n"
] | 1 | [] | 0 | question: Need to settle a 2nd Amendment argument. Could someone store a cannon in their barn in 1790? | answer: According to the [FAQ on owning cannons](_URL_1_), yes you could. See this response in particular:* [When the Second Amendment was ratified, did the "right to bear arms" include the right of private citizens to own a cannon or any other weapon of war?](_URL_0_) |
12nmwr | If a car used a generator to power an electric motor, would it be more fuel efficient than an engine? | That's what the [Chevy Volt](_URL_1_) does. Also, [diesel-electric locomotives](_URL_0_) have a combustion engine driving a generator driving electric motors.The premise is that an internal combustion engine is not very efficient at low loads. If you have good enough generators, batteries and motors, it may be worth your while to design a car with a smaller engine that runs at peak efficiency to charge a battery, then use the battery to drive the motor at whatever power you desire. This way, you can run the engine at full efficiency, turn it off, then restart it when the battery runs low. | [
"That's what the [Chevy Volt](_URL_1_) does. Also, [diesel-electric locomotives](_URL_0_) have a combustion engine driving a generator driving electric motors.\n\nThe premise is that an internal combustion engine is not very efficient at low loads. If you have good enough generators, batteries and motors, it may be... | 1 | [
"That's what the [Chevy Volt](_URL_1_) does. Also, [diesel-electric locomotives](_URL_0_) have a combustion engine driving a generator driving electric motors.\n\nThe premise is that an internal combustion engine is not very efficient at low loads. If you have good enough generators, batteries and motors, it may be... | 1 | question: If a car used a generator to power an electric motor, would it be more fuel efficient than an engine? | answer: That's what the [Chevy Volt](_URL_1_) does. Also, [diesel-electric locomotives](_URL_0_) have a combustion engine driving a generator driving electric motors.The premise is that an internal combustion engine is not very efficient at low loads. If you have good enough generators, batteries and motors, it may be worth your while to design a car with a smaller engine that runs at peak efficiency to charge a battery, then use the battery to drive the motor at whatever power you desire. This way, you can run the engine at full efficiency, turn it off, then restart it when the battery runs low. |
2iiymy | would anything outrageous happen if an electron was forced into the nucleus of an atom? | > Would anything outrageous happen if an electron was forced into the nucleus of an atom?Not really. It's called [electron capture](_URL_0_), and it happens all the time. It causes a proton to change to a neutron, and an electron neutrino is emitted. This is actually the primary method of radioactive decay for many isotopes. | [
" > Would anything outrageous happen if an electron was forced into the nucleus of an atom?\n\nNot really. It's called [electron capture](_URL_0_), and it happens all the time. It causes a proton to change to a neutron, and an electron neutrino is emitted. This is actually the primary method of radioactive decay... | 1 | [
" > Would anything outrageous happen if an electron was forced into the nucleus of an atom?\n\nNot really. It's called [electron capture](_URL_0_), and it happens all the time. It causes a proton to change to a neutron, and an electron neutrino is emitted. This is actually the primary method of radioactive decay... | 1 | question: would anything outrageous happen if an electron was forced into the nucleus of an atom? | answer: > Would anything outrageous happen if an electron was forced into the nucleus of an atom?Not really. It's called [electron capture](_URL_0_), and it happens all the time. It causes a proton to change to a neutron, and an electron neutrino is emitted. This is actually the primary method of radioactive decay for many isotopes. |
6nh1c1 | why are trucks that carry gas/other liquids shaped like a cylinder instead of a rectangle like most trucks | A rounded container is much stronger. corners of a rectangular box create a weak spot where pressure could cause a rupture, but a rounded surface inside lets the pressure spread evenly around the surface. | [
"A rounded container is much stronger. corners of a rectangular box create a weak spot where pressure could cause a rupture, but a rounded surface inside lets the pressure spread evenly around the surface."
] | 1 | [
"A rounded container is much stronger. corners of a rectangular box create a weak spot where pressure could cause a rupture, but a rounded surface inside lets the pressure spread evenly around the surface."
] | 1 | question: why are trucks that carry gas/other liquids shaped like a cylinder instead of a rectangle like most trucks | answer: A rounded container is much stronger. corners of a rectangular box create a weak spot where pressure could cause a rupture, but a rounded surface inside lets the pressure spread evenly around the surface. |
5r3yfh | by mining asteroids could we ever acquire enough extra mass to alter the orbit of the earth? | Technically yes, but it would have to be an incredibly massive amount. Odds are by the time it becomes a real problem, we'd have an equivalent amount of mass working outside the earth as spaceships and orbital factories. | [
"Technically yes, but it would have to be an incredibly massive amount. Odds are by the time it becomes a real problem, we'd have an equivalent amount of mass working outside the earth as spaceships and orbital factories. ",
"The mass of the earth varies by a couple tens of thousands of pounds every year. The... | 2 | [
"Technically yes, but it would have to be an incredibly massive amount. Odds are by the time it becomes a real problem, we'd have an equivalent amount of mass working outside the earth as spaceships and orbital factories. "
] | 1 | question: by mining asteroids could we ever acquire enough extra mass to alter the orbit of the earth? | answer: Technically yes, but it would have to be an incredibly massive amount. Odds are by the time it becomes a real problem, we'd have an equivalent amount of mass working outside the earth as spaceships and orbital factories. |
1kv3ul | assuming unlimited monetary resources, is there an upper limit to the size of a synthetic diamond that one could create? | there's a star BPM 37093. the stellar core is a diamond 4,000km in diameter. | [
"Well how big can you make a press, and containment box? I think scaling up the equipment would do what you are asking. But from what I have seen the presses are already huge and the only produce a one inch block with industrial grade diamonds. \n\nHow ever, an ex of mine was a jeweler. They sold lab grown stones o... | 4 | [] | 0 | question: assuming unlimited monetary resources, is there an upper limit to the size of a synthetic diamond that one could create? | answer: there's a star BPM 37093. the stellar core is a diamond 4,000km in diameter. |
3vyk2e | why do younger people seem to prefer instructional videos over text, even when there are few visuals required? | Even if we accept your assertion that the most reliable information is via youtube, that only tells us about the content creators, not the content consumers. And I believe that in many cases, the content creators choose video over audio because it's easier, flashier, and less subject to academic criticism (spelling, grammar, organization). Nevertheless, I believe your premise is true, even though I can't point to anything that proves it. In the particular case of gaming, it's often easier to show how to do something than to explain it clearly. It's the picture-worth-a-thousand-words phenomenon. That doesn't explain it in general. We know that different people have different learning styles, but less about how they develop them. It's possible that with more A/V instruction available (particularly at younger ages), that people simply become more adept at learning that way. But another possibility is that text, while very effective in hard copy, loses its advantages on screen. | [
"Even if we accept your assertion that the most reliable information is via youtube, that only tells us about the content creators, not the content consumers. And I believe that in many cases, the content creators choose video over audio because it's easier, flashier, and less subject to academic criticism (spelli... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: why do younger people seem to prefer instructional videos over text, even when there are few visuals required? | answer: Even if we accept your assertion that the most reliable information is via youtube, that only tells us about the content creators, not the content consumers. And I believe that in many cases, the content creators choose video over audio because it's easier, flashier, and less subject to academic criticism (spelling, grammar, organization). Nevertheless, I believe your premise is true, even though I can't point to anything that proves it. In the particular case of gaming, it's often easier to show how to do something than to explain it clearly. It's the picture-worth-a-thousand-words phenomenon. That doesn't explain it in general. We know that different people have different learning styles, but less about how they develop them. It's possible that with more A/V instruction available (particularly at younger ages), that people simply become more adept at learning that way. But another possibility is that text, while very effective in hard copy, loses its advantages on screen. |
223aao | During the Black Death, were the deaths scattered across all economic groups, or were most of the victims peasants? | I'm currently taking a class on the Black Death but don't have my books on me so I'll cite my sources later. As for your question, the Black Death affected all of Europe regardless of class. As the plague can be spread through fleas as well as through the air, with one creating buboes and the other being pneumonic, no one was really safe from the reach of the plague. Furthermore, the more one came in contact with those inflicted with the illness the more likely one was to contract it. It is for this reason that so many clergy fell victim to the plague due to their close proximity to those that were sick through mass, anointing of the sick, etc. In an interesting side-note, it has been reasoned that the reason why Pope Clement VI did not contract the plague is due to the advice of his physician Guy de Chauliac. After Clement fled Avignon, Guy, who through his research had been able to distinguish between the two forms of plague, recommended that Clement not allow visitors in his chambers and that he continuously burn wood to purify the air. By not allowing visitors Clement was able to drastically decrease his exposure to plague through contact with individuals who had contracted it, while the lighting of fires most likely killed the flea population in his chambers. While you wait for print sources I would suggest you visit the Wikipedia articles below.[The Black Death](_URL_1_)[Pope Clement VI](_URL_2_)[Guy de Chauliac](_URL_0_)Here are some print sources. Please keep in mind that Kelly's book is a popular history and that he is a journalist. It should be noted that I do still think that his work is a great launching point for someone who is interested in the Black DeathThe Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time - John KellyThe Black Death: A Personal History by John HatcherThe Black Death by Rosemary HorroxThe Black Death: Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe by Robert Gottfriededit: added print sources | [
"I'm currently taking a class on the Black Death but don't have my books on me so I'll cite my sources later. As for your question, the Black Death affected all of Europe regardless of class. As the plague can be spread through fleas as well as through the air, with one creating buboes and the other being pneumonic... | 3 | [
"I'm currently taking a class on the Black Death but don't have my books on me so I'll cite my sources later. As for your question, the Black Death affected all of Europe regardless of class. As the plague can be spread through fleas as well as through the air, with one creating buboes and the other being pneumonic... | 2 | question: During the Black Death, were the deaths scattered across all economic groups, or were most of the victims peasants? | answer: I'm currently taking a class on the Black Death but don't have my books on me so I'll cite my sources later. As for your question, the Black Death affected all of Europe regardless of class. As the plague can be spread through fleas as well as through the air, with one creating buboes and the other being pneumonic, no one was really safe from the reach of the plague. Furthermore, the more one came in contact with those inflicted with the illness the more likely one was to contract it. It is for this reason that so many clergy fell victim to the plague due to their close proximity to those that were sick through mass, anointing of the sick, etc. In an interesting side-note, it has been reasoned that the reason why Pope Clement VI did not contract the plague is due to the advice of his physician Guy de Chauliac. After Clement fled Avignon, Guy, who through his research had been able to distinguish between the two forms of plague, recommended that Clement not allow visitors in his chambers and that he continuously burn wood to purify the air. By not allowing visitors Clement was able to drastically decrease his exposure to plague through contact with individuals who had contracted it, while the lighting of fires most likely killed the flea population in his chambers. While you wait for print sources I would suggest you visit the Wikipedia articles below.[The Black Death](_URL_1_)[Pope Clement VI](_URL_2_)[Guy de Chauliac](_URL_0_)Here are some print sources. Please keep in mind that Kelly's book is a popular history and that he is a journalist. It should be noted that I do still think that his work is a great launching point for someone who is interested in the Black DeathThe Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time - John KellyThe Black Death: A Personal History by John HatcherThe Black Death by Rosemary HorroxThe Black Death: Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe by Robert Gottfriededit: added print sources |
a6ua46 | why law enforcement uses polygraphs but they are not admissible in court | It is a useful tool for finding pressure points.There are two types of modern police interrogations - reid method and interrogative. Interrogative - That is basically questioning people until you catch them in lies. Knowing which questions to ask is very helpful. Reid method is basically accusing them of doing something in a manner that follows a storyline.Obviously, a trained liar has a better chance of passing a polygraph with discipline. Thing is that most criminals aren't highly trained or as sociopathic/anhedonic as is required to maintain the cool required to pass a polygraph in a simple criminal investigation. While the polygraph can be very revealing, it isn't considered admissible because of the technical arguments for guilt are easily refuted with arguments by the defense for "innocent behavior". | [
"Because even though it might not be admissible In court, it'll flag people who are worth investigating further... and when you investigate those people further, you WILL find evidence that IS admissible in court.\n\nEg: \nCop: \"Did you kill her?\" \nMurderer: \"Naw!\" \nPolygraph: \"He's lying.\" \nCop: \"So,... | 3 | [
"It is a useful tool for finding pressure points.\n\nThere are two types of modern police interrogations - reid method and interrogative. Interrogative - That is basically questioning people until you catch them in lies. Knowing which questions to ask is very helpful. Reid method is basically accusing them of doing... | 2 | question: why law enforcement uses polygraphs but they are not admissible in court | answer: It is a useful tool for finding pressure points.There are two types of modern police interrogations - reid method and interrogative. Interrogative - That is basically questioning people until you catch them in lies. Knowing which questions to ask is very helpful. Reid method is basically accusing them of doing something in a manner that follows a storyline.Obviously, a trained liar has a better chance of passing a polygraph with discipline. Thing is that most criminals aren't highly trained or as sociopathic/anhedonic as is required to maintain the cool required to pass a polygraph in a simple criminal investigation. While the polygraph can be very revealing, it isn't considered admissible because of the technical arguments for guilt are easily refuted with arguments by the defense for "innocent behavior". |
1rrykt | What are some sources of fresh water for animals during winter months or in permanently frozen areas? | Metabolic water is water that is produced during the breakdown of food. It can be a major source of water fro desert animals. Also the moisture that is directly contained by a food item is a large potential source.Different animals have different water budgets and so the details will vary from one to the next. Which ones are you interested in? | [
"You're right; if animals consumed too much snow/ice, then they'd develop hypothermia. The main source of water during the winter is transferred from the food they eat. For example, mammals that don't hibernate (i.e. ruminants like elk or deer) continue their diet of plants, be it grasses or leaves. Plants naturall... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: What are some sources of fresh water for animals during winter months or in permanently frozen areas? | answer: Metabolic water is water that is produced during the breakdown of food. It can be a major source of water fro desert animals. Also the moisture that is directly contained by a food item is a large potential source.Different animals have different water budgets and so the details will vary from one to the next. Which ones are you interested in? |
kmm9w | how does religious confession work? | There are two sides to this story … but the fact is, they both have the same ending.In canon law — that is, the law that governs the actions of priests while they carry out their duties to the Church — what you're referring to is called *the seal of the confessional.* The seal of the confessional is *absolutely inviolable.* That means that whatever is disclosed to a priest during the sacrament of confession cannot be disclosed to anyone, under any circumstances, no exceptions, period, end of paragraph.So say you have a penitent — that is, a person doing the confessing — who during the sacrament confesses to his priest that he, just to pick an example, has murdered his wife. Under canon law, the priest is absolutely forbidden from disclosing that statement to *anyone,* including civil law enforcement. This prohibition also extends to anyone who rightly or wrongly overhears the confession, such as a translator or just some random somebody who happens to be walking by the confessional.The priest, upon hearing such a confession, may urge the penitent to turn himself in to the secular authority, but he may not make that a condition of absolution. In other words, the priest cannot withhold absolution from a penitent who confesses his crime before God but not before the civil authority.There are some exceptions, but they're very narrow in scope. For example, if a penitent confesses that he *intends* to commit a murder, the priest can go to his bishop and seek absolution for violating the seal of the confessional in order to save the life of an innocent. But such an absolution would generally not be sought, nor granted if sought, if the topic were a crime that *had been* committed. It's one thing to break the seal of the confessional to save a life, but another thing entirely to do so merely in the name of civil justice.So that's the canon law side of things. The *civil* side of things, as a rule, respects canon law in this matter. A priest cannot be compelled to testify about what goes on in the confessional, nor can a priest be held personally liable for failing to report what goes on in the confessional to the civil authorities. Furthermore, there is precedent in criminal law for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained from within the confessional no matter what the means. There was a famous case that I can't recall the details of right now in which an attorney on one side or the other of some criminal case sought to admit an audio recording made within a confessional. The recording was *not* admitted, and in fact it was seized by the court and destroyed. If I remember correctly, the ruling cited both the fourth *and* the first amendments, but again, I'm groggy on the details.The long story made short is that the state has a vested interest in what crimes you, as an individual *have* committed or *intend* to commit, but *no interest whatsoever* in what goes on between you and your God. The Church does not invite the state into the confessional, and the state does not try to find a way in. | [
"There are two sides to this story … but the fact is, they both have the same ending.\n\nIn canon law — that is, the law that governs the actions of priests while they carry out their duties to the Church — what you're referring to is called *the seal of the confessional.* The seal of the confessional is *absolutel... | 4 | [
"There are two sides to this story … but the fact is, they both have the same ending.\n\nIn canon law — that is, the law that governs the actions of priests while they carry out their duties to the Church — what you're referring to is called *the seal of the confessional.* The seal of the confessional is *absolutel... | 2 | question: how does religious confession work? | answer: There are two sides to this story … but the fact is, they both have the same ending.In canon law — that is, the law that governs the actions of priests while they carry out their duties to the Church — what you're referring to is called *the seal of the confessional.* The seal of the confessional is *absolutely inviolable.* That means that whatever is disclosed to a priest during the sacrament of confession cannot be disclosed to anyone, under any circumstances, no exceptions, period, end of paragraph.So say you have a penitent — that is, a person doing the confessing — who during the sacrament confesses to his priest that he, just to pick an example, has murdered his wife. Under canon law, the priest is absolutely forbidden from disclosing that statement to *anyone,* including civil law enforcement. This prohibition also extends to anyone who rightly or wrongly overhears the confession, such as a translator or just some random somebody who happens to be walking by the confessional.The priest, upon hearing such a confession, may urge the penitent to turn himself in to the secular authority, but he may not make that a condition of absolution. In other words, the priest cannot withhold absolution from a penitent who confesses his crime before God but not before the civil authority.There are some exceptions, but they're very narrow in scope. For example, if a penitent confesses that he *intends* to commit a murder, the priest can go to his bishop and seek absolution for violating the seal of the confessional in order to save the life of an innocent. But such an absolution would generally not be sought, nor granted if sought, if the topic were a crime that *had been* committed. It's one thing to break the seal of the confessional to save a life, but another thing entirely to do so merely in the name of civil justice.So that's the canon law side of things. The *civil* side of things, as a rule, respects canon law in this matter. A priest cannot be compelled to testify about what goes on in the confessional, nor can a priest be held personally liable for failing to report what goes on in the confessional to the civil authorities. Furthermore, there is precedent in criminal law for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained from within the confessional no matter what the means. There was a famous case that I can't recall the details of right now in which an attorney on one side or the other of some criminal case sought to admit an audio recording made within a confessional. The recording was *not* admitted, and in fact it was seized by the court and destroyed. If I remember correctly, the ruling cited both the fourth *and* the first amendments, but again, I'm groggy on the details.The long story made short is that the state has a vested interest in what crimes you, as an individual *have* committed or *intend* to commit, but *no interest whatsoever* in what goes on between you and your God. The Church does not invite the state into the confessional, and the state does not try to find a way in. |
2io1cc | If approximately half of all pregnancies are unplanned and many women drink alcohol, how are there not more cases of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? | Well, given that at least 1 in 9 women drink during pregnancy (survey only asked for last month), but only 1 in around 500 women don't know they're pregnant by 20 weeks, I don't know that the unknown factor is really as big of an issue as you might think. [REF1](_URL_1_) [REF2](_URL_2_) That said, that's a lot more drinkers than the prevalence of FAS, which occurs around 1 per 1000 births, so the question is still a good one. Even when looking at pregnant women who drink 5+ drinks per week (1 in 30) and the whole spectrum of alcohol related disorders (FASD, 1 per 100), there's still a sizable disparity.There's a pretty comprehensive review [here](_URL_0_), but I'll summarize the main points of why it's so variable.* Drinking behaviors - probably kind of obvious, but just because two people both drink doesn't mean they drink with equal frequency. The more frequent and the longer the duration (through the pregnancy) of drinking, the greater the risk of FASD. In addition, binge drinking is more dangerous than normal drinking.* Mother's physical characteristics - smaller women have an increased risk of FASD, which could be due to biology (storage capacity, etc) or poor nutrition.* Childbearing variables - the age of the mother and the number of pregnancies are also correlated; the more pregnancies, the greater the risk of FASD.* Time of drinking - drinking during certain windows of fetal development, especially neurological development, may be more damaging than drinking at other times.* Metabolism - some people have mutant protective versions of the alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme which allow them to safely drink higher quantities of alcohol; this protective effect transfers to the child also.There are other effects correlated (smoking, socioeconomic status), but the above are the primary correlations. | [
"Well, given that at least 1 in 9 women drink during pregnancy (survey only asked for last month), but only 1 in around 500 women don't know they're pregnant by 20 weeks, I don't know that the unknown factor is really as big of an issue as you might think. [REF1](_URL_1_) [REF2](_URL_2_) That said, that's a lot mor... | 2 | [
"Well, given that at least 1 in 9 women drink during pregnancy (survey only asked for last month), but only 1 in around 500 women don't know they're pregnant by 20 weeks, I don't know that the unknown factor is really as big of an issue as you might think. [REF1](_URL_1_) [REF2](_URL_2_) That said, that's a lot mor... | 1 | question: If approximately half of all pregnancies are unplanned and many women drink alcohol, how are there not more cases of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? | answer: Well, given that at least 1 in 9 women drink during pregnancy (survey only asked for last month), but only 1 in around 500 women don't know they're pregnant by 20 weeks, I don't know that the unknown factor is really as big of an issue as you might think. [REF1](_URL_1_) [REF2](_URL_2_) That said, that's a lot more drinkers than the prevalence of FAS, which occurs around 1 per 1000 births, so the question is still a good one. Even when looking at pregnant women who drink 5+ drinks per week (1 in 30) and the whole spectrum of alcohol related disorders (FASD, 1 per 100), there's still a sizable disparity.There's a pretty comprehensive review [here](_URL_0_), but I'll summarize the main points of why it's so variable.* Drinking behaviors - probably kind of obvious, but just because two people both drink doesn't mean they drink with equal frequency. The more frequent and the longer the duration (through the pregnancy) of drinking, the greater the risk of FASD. In addition, binge drinking is more dangerous than normal drinking.* Mother's physical characteristics - smaller women have an increased risk of FASD, which could be due to biology (storage capacity, etc) or poor nutrition.* Childbearing variables - the age of the mother and the number of pregnancies are also correlated; the more pregnancies, the greater the risk of FASD.* Time of drinking - drinking during certain windows of fetal development, especially neurological development, may be more damaging than drinking at other times.* Metabolism - some people have mutant protective versions of the alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme which allow them to safely drink higher quantities of alcohol; this protective effect transfers to the child also.There are other effects correlated (smoking, socioeconomic status), but the above are the primary correlations. |
8l5dbx | how are super-rare antiques valuated? | Honestly if there isn't a prior sale of a similar item in simialr condition to appriase it next to, than a super\-rare antiquie like the never been sold before, one\-of\-a\-kind piece you described would literally be priceless. And it would sell for whatever price someone would be willing to pay for it. Art/antiquities appraisals work by comparison to known prior sales of similar items. | [
"Honestly if there isn't a prior sale of a similar item in simialr condition to appriase it next to, than a super\\-rare antiquie like the never been sold before, one\\-of\\-a\\-kind piece you described would literally be priceless. And it would sell for whatever price someone would be willing to pay for it. \n\nAr... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: how are super-rare antiques valuated? | answer: Honestly if there isn't a prior sale of a similar item in simialr condition to appriase it next to, than a super\-rare antiquie like the never been sold before, one\-of\-a\-kind piece you described would literally be priceless. And it would sell for whatever price someone would be willing to pay for it. Art/antiquities appraisals work by comparison to known prior sales of similar items. |
1ac83d | Do deaf sufferers of schizophrenia have an equivalent of auditory hallucinations? | People with schizophrenia hallucinate using all of their senses. Deaf people hallucinate just the same, except for sound. So they see, smell, taste and feel hallucinations instead. | [
"There's great book by Oliver Sacks called hallucinations. In it he talks about many occurrences of deaf people having auditory hallucinations and blind people having visual hallucinations. I can't remember the names of the syndromes but it does seem to happen. Not sure about with schizophrenics though.",
"People... | 2 | [
"There's great book by Oliver Sacks called hallucinations. In it he talks about many occurrences of deaf people having auditory hallucinations and blind people having visual hallucinations. I can't remember the names of the syndromes but it does seem to happen. Not sure about with schizophrenics though.",
"People... | 2 | question: Do deaf sufferers of schizophrenia have an equivalent of auditory hallucinations? | answer: People with schizophrenia hallucinate using all of their senses. Deaf people hallucinate just the same, except for sound. So they see, smell, taste and feel hallucinations instead. |
1tv5yi | what is the healthcare system like in countries like america, canada, sweeden, denmark, austrailia, etc? and how does obamacare compare? | Denmark has a public health care system. We pay through our taxes and everyone can use ambulances, hospitals and doctors without paying anything but taxes.Everyone is entitled to help, not only the rich. | [
"Australia has both a public and a private health care system. All citizens and permanent residents get access to Medicare which is the public health care system. People who want can also pay for private health care. Private health care basically gets you quicker access to elective surgeries (non emergency surge... | 18 | [
"Australia has both a public and a private health care system. All citizens and permanent residents get access to Medicare which is the public health care system. People who want can also pay for private health care. Private health care basically gets you quicker access to elective surgeries (non emergency surge... | 11 | question: what is the healthcare system like in countries like america, canada, sweeden, denmark, austrailia, etc? and how does obamacare compare? | answer: Denmark has a public health care system. We pay through our taxes and everyone can use ambulances, hospitals and doctors without paying anything but taxes.Everyone is entitled to help, not only the rich. |
346md0 | why is it so difficult for people to agree on the best ways to work out and eat properly? | Having just completed a report in an undergraduate biology class on different diets (not claiming any expertise here), there is just no set-in-stone way that will work for everybody. Yes, there are general guidelines that can be followed, but when it comes down to different beliefs (paleo vs. food pyramid, crossfit vs. muscle-specific training), there are competing studies that offer up very different results. My conclusion, eating and exercise habits need to be tailored to the individual. This requires the person to experiment a little and ultimately determine the best lifestyle for them, because to be frank, there really just isn't that "100% right" way to eat or exercise that can be applied to EVERY person. | [
"Because we don't know the BEST way to do it, as we really just don't know the human body that well.\n\nWhat we do have is a whole lot of decent ways to stay healthy, a handful of good ways, and a whole lot of things to avoid doing. ",
"Having just completed a report in an undergraduate biology class on different... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: why is it so difficult for people to agree on the best ways to work out and eat properly? | answer: Having just completed a report in an undergraduate biology class on different diets (not claiming any expertise here), there is just no set-in-stone way that will work for everybody. Yes, there are general guidelines that can be followed, but when it comes down to different beliefs (paleo vs. food pyramid, crossfit vs. muscle-specific training), there are competing studies that offer up very different results. My conclusion, eating and exercise habits need to be tailored to the individual. This requires the person to experiment a little and ultimately determine the best lifestyle for them, because to be frank, there really just isn't that "100% right" way to eat or exercise that can be applied to EVERY person. |
4o5z62 | How was the Economic Situation in The Post-War Soviet Union | Don't you know? You just [accused a former Soviet citizen](_URL_0_) of not knowing anything about it because they contradicted your viewpoint. I assume you must know a lot about this already to be able to tell him that his experiences are wrong? | [
"Don't you know? You just [accused a former Soviet citizen](_URL_0_) of not knowing anything about it because they contradicted your viewpoint. I assume you must know a lot about this already to be able to tell him that his experiences are wrong?"
] | 1 | [] | 0 | question: How was the Economic Situation in The Post-War Soviet Union | answer: Don't you know? You just [accused a former Soviet citizen](_URL_0_) of not knowing anything about it because they contradicted your viewpoint. I assume you must know a lot about this already to be able to tell him that his experiences are wrong? |
1cfnkc | Was the controversy over dams primarily environmental or were there other issues that people had? | It depends on the dam and when it was built; I will focus on the US and a tiny corner of Canada. Hetch Hetcy was the first dam I can think of that got any real environmental resistance in the US, primarily from John Muir. Other resistance factors were water rights and use - after the dam who will have more water and who may have less. In the east, the private landowners owned good bottom land that was flooded by the TVA. The land owners and farmers were compensated through eminent domain, but a cash payment may not suffice for loosing the family farm during the depression. Dams still face opposition from landowners in their current operation. Dam operation may cause shore levels to vary dramatically through the year or years. This can erode shorelines, reducing the a landowner's property on pretty much an annual basis. Other dams were built out of sausage, such as the ones on the Missouri. Here there were numerous political, administrative, and economic factors that had to jostle for how and where the dams were going to be built as well as what pork (irrigation projects) would accompany them. Also, there was administrative wrangling between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. In this case the main losers were the Native American Tribes (Three Affiliated Tribe) who owned and farmed the good bottom land. Also, relevant during the golden age of dams 70-100 years ago, were a host of factors that supported the building of dams. Dams meant electricity, industry, and progress - See Great Falls, MT the Electric City whose dam ran copper smelters and turned on the lights while the region was still dark. From the beginning, dams would help run factories and textile mills. Dams meant flood control, cutting out the high spring and early summer flows left houses standing, livestock alive, and people breathing. Dams meant irrigation. With a lot of these dams the Bureau of Reclamation would develop extensive ditches and canals to supply farmers in the area with cheap, subsidized water which would turn unproductive dry land into agricultural bonanzas. Municipal water was an additional consideration. Dams meant navigation. Often forgotten now (and sometimes a complete bust on places like the Missouri) barges and river boats were and are an important stream of commerce and vehicle for transporting large goods and commodities. Cutting out the high and low flows allow barges to move along the river for more months of the year. In some cases, such as the Columbia River Treaty dams, dams meant money. The US literally sends Canada a check every year for the dams they have on the Columbia in BC which arguably keep Portland from flooding. More important now, dams mean recreation - people like to powerboat, sail, catch fish, and have fun on reservoirs. People also like the idea of a nice lakefront vacation home. Above all, dams meant jobs during the New Deal. Roosevelt put scores of unemployed to work constructing concrete and earthen monstrosities across the nation. So, with the exception of Hetch Hetchy and a few outliers, environmental opposition and fisheries are the exception rather than the norm. In the 70s, like with the rest of the modern environmental movement, you begin to see opposition to the construction of new dams. A good example of this is *TVA v. Hill* in which the Snail Darter and the Endangered Species Act held up the Tellico dam for years. With the ESA help up a number of other new dams. More importantly, dams build under the Federal Power Act have to be relicensed by FERC every 50 years. Because of this, dams owners and operators have to consider a myriad of factors and sit down with a bunch of stake holders regarding the continued operation (and sometimes ownership) of the dam. These can get heated - such as on the Klamath River. These can also be vehicles for resolution - See the Catawba River. Regardless, it forces dams to address issues that it would otherwise not, allowing opposition to have their concerns aired and problems addressed. So, the newest trends in the dam opposition game are fish (oxygenation of the water, fish ladders, restoration of species), indigenous/treaty fishing rights (PacNW and Columbia River Basin where Williams Treaty tribes have made some real gains), decommissioning (plenty of dams are defunct, failed, or otherwise unneeded), water use (just about all of them) and ownership (Badin Dam on the Yadkin, Kerr Dam on the Flathead). This is balanced by the fact that dams are renewable (and green depending on who you talk to) energy. Advocates and generators are attempting add hydroelectric to state renewable energy portfolios. I won't go any further as to not run afoul of the 20 year rule, but I hope this covers some of the issues. | [
"It depends on the dam and when it was built; I will focus on the US and a tiny corner of Canada. Hetch Hetcy was the first dam I can think of that got any real environmental resistance in the US, primarily from John Muir. Other resistance factors were water rights and use - after the dam who will have more water a... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: Was the controversy over dams primarily environmental or were there other issues that people had? | answer: It depends on the dam and when it was built; I will focus on the US and a tiny corner of Canada. Hetch Hetcy was the first dam I can think of that got any real environmental resistance in the US, primarily from John Muir. Other resistance factors were water rights and use - after the dam who will have more water and who may have less. In the east, the private landowners owned good bottom land that was flooded by the TVA. The land owners and farmers were compensated through eminent domain, but a cash payment may not suffice for loosing the family farm during the depression. Dams still face opposition from landowners in their current operation. Dam operation may cause shore levels to vary dramatically through the year or years. This can erode shorelines, reducing the a landowner's property on pretty much an annual basis. Other dams were built out of sausage, such as the ones on the Missouri. Here there were numerous political, administrative, and economic factors that had to jostle for how and where the dams were going to be built as well as what pork (irrigation projects) would accompany them. Also, there was administrative wrangling between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. In this case the main losers were the Native American Tribes (Three Affiliated Tribe) who owned and farmed the good bottom land. Also, relevant during the golden age of dams 70-100 years ago, were a host of factors that supported the building of dams. Dams meant electricity, industry, and progress - See Great Falls, MT the Electric City whose dam ran copper smelters and turned on the lights while the region was still dark. From the beginning, dams would help run factories and textile mills. Dams meant flood control, cutting out the high spring and early summer flows left houses standing, livestock alive, and people breathing. Dams meant irrigation. With a lot of these dams the Bureau of Reclamation would develop extensive ditches and canals to supply farmers in the area with cheap, subsidized water which would turn unproductive dry land into agricultural bonanzas. Municipal water was an additional consideration. Dams meant navigation. Often forgotten now (and sometimes a complete bust on places like the Missouri) barges and river boats were and are an important stream of commerce and vehicle for transporting large goods and commodities. Cutting out the high and low flows allow barges to move along the river for more months of the year. In some cases, such as the Columbia River Treaty dams, dams meant money. The US literally sends Canada a check every year for the dams they have on the Columbia in BC which arguably keep Portland from flooding. More important now, dams mean recreation - people like to powerboat, sail, catch fish, and have fun on reservoirs. People also like the idea of a nice lakefront vacation home. Above all, dams meant jobs during the New Deal. Roosevelt put scores of unemployed to work constructing concrete and earthen monstrosities across the nation. So, with the exception of Hetch Hetchy and a few outliers, environmental opposition and fisheries are the exception rather than the norm. In the 70s, like with the rest of the modern environmental movement, you begin to see opposition to the construction of new dams. A good example of this is *TVA v. Hill* in which the Snail Darter and the Endangered Species Act held up the Tellico dam for years. With the ESA help up a number of other new dams. More importantly, dams build under the Federal Power Act have to be relicensed by FERC every 50 years. Because of this, dams owners and operators have to consider a myriad of factors and sit down with a bunch of stake holders regarding the continued operation (and sometimes ownership) of the dam. These can get heated - such as on the Klamath River. These can also be vehicles for resolution - See the Catawba River. Regardless, it forces dams to address issues that it would otherwise not, allowing opposition to have their concerns aired and problems addressed. So, the newest trends in the dam opposition game are fish (oxygenation of the water, fish ladders, restoration of species), indigenous/treaty fishing rights (PacNW and Columbia River Basin where Williams Treaty tribes have made some real gains), decommissioning (plenty of dams are defunct, failed, or otherwise unneeded), water use (just about all of them) and ownership (Badin Dam on the Yadkin, Kerr Dam on the Flathead). This is balanced by the fact that dams are renewable (and green depending on who you talk to) energy. Advocates and generators are attempting add hydroelectric to state renewable energy portfolios. I won't go any further as to not run afoul of the 20 year rule, but I hope this covers some of the issues. |
smir0 | What is actually happening when you get dizzy from say spinning in a chair? Is there a quick way to nullify these effects? | Med student here.When you spin, the liquor in the semicircular canals begin moving after a certain delay because of their specific density. Even when you have already stopped spinning, the liquor is still moving/spinning. This causes the dizziness because the information which come from your eyes and muscles (that you are actually NOT moving/spinning anymore) do not match with the information which come from your N. vestibulocochlearis (the VIII cranial nerve a.k.a. auditory vestibular nerve; responsible for transmitting sound and equilibrium/balance). This leads to a misinformation according to your brain. Your brain is like: "lol wtf is going on". Nausea can result from that.I though don't know whether there's a way to stop the dizziness instantly. I don't think that it exists. | [
"Med student here.\n\nWhen you spin, the liquor in the semicircular canals begin moving after a certain delay because of their specific density. Even when you have already stopped spinning, the liquor is still moving/spinning. This causes the dizziness because the information which come from your eyes and muscles (... | 3 | [
"Med student here.\n\nWhen you spin, the liquor in the semicircular canals begin moving after a certain delay because of their specific density. Even when you have already stopped spinning, the liquor is still moving/spinning. This causes the dizziness because the information which come from your eyes and muscles (... | 1 | question: What is actually happening when you get dizzy from say spinning in a chair? Is there a quick way to nullify these effects? | answer: Med student here.When you spin, the liquor in the semicircular canals begin moving after a certain delay because of their specific density. Even when you have already stopped spinning, the liquor is still moving/spinning. This causes the dizziness because the information which come from your eyes and muscles (that you are actually NOT moving/spinning anymore) do not match with the information which come from your N. vestibulocochlearis (the VIII cranial nerve a.k.a. auditory vestibular nerve; responsible for transmitting sound and equilibrium/balance). This leads to a misinformation according to your brain. Your brain is like: "lol wtf is going on". Nausea can result from that.I though don't know whether there's a way to stop the dizziness instantly. I don't think that it exists. |
41fj4s | How did fighter pilots of the second world war confirm their kills in a 1v1 dogfight? | Excellent question! In the US Army Air Forces, after flying a mission in which they claimed to have shot down enemy aircraft, a pilot would be debriefed with the rest of their squadron. After the debriefing, they would file an Encounter Report in which they detailed the circumstances of the shoot-down and gave specific evidence. An Encounter Report also usually required a different pilot to give supporting evidence to confirm the pilot's claim. After submitting the report, the pilot's report and gun camera film was reviewed, and the kill(s) were either awarded as destroyed, probably destroyed, or damaged. In the case of a 1v1 dogfight like you mention, the supporting statement was nullified, so the only thing to go off of was the pilot's personal account and the plane's gun camera film. A particularly hair-raising example in my last source below.A typical Encounter Report read something like this: > CONFIDENTIAL > SIXTY THIRD FIGHTER SQUADRON > AAF STATION F-150 > A.P.O. 558 U.S. ARMY > Personal Combat Report > VIII Air Force F.C. No. 1443A > 2nd Lt. Samuel K. Batson > a. Combat > b. 23 December 1944 > c. 63rd Fighter Squadron, 56th Fighter Group > d. 1145-1215 > e. NW of Koblenz [Germany] > f. CAVU [ceiling and visibility unlimited] > g. Fw 190 > h. One Fw 190 destroyed > i. > I was flying Daily Red 2 [*Red* was the callsign of the 63rd FS; In late 1943 fighter groups expanded in size from 75 to 108 aircraft and each squadron was divided into 2 groups; *Daily* was the call sign of the 63rd's A Group; Lt. Batson was flying the 2nd plane in a flight of 4] on Lt. Trumble's wing with Lt. Daniel and Lt. Hoffman as number 3 and 4 men. We were at 27,000 feet NW of Koblenz when the group made contact with e/a [enemy aircraft] and we were all ordered to drop our tanks. My leader then started orbiting to the left and we continued turning down to 18,000 feet, where there were many P-47s and Fw 190s making it very hard to distinguish friendly from enemy. We started an attack on an Fw 190 and he broke in my direction. I turned sharply to the left and was able to get behind him at a fairly long range. As I started to close he made a sharp climbing turn to the right, where at this point, I fixed him in my K-14 sight and began firing, the range being approximately 800 yards. He continued his climbing turn and I kept firing but i did not observe any strikes until he had almost completed his turn, and I had closed to approximately 400 yards. I then saw strikes all over his airplane and his engine caught on fire. I then broke off the attack and watched him go in a gentle spiral earthward, completely on fire by this time. I watched him go all the way down, hit the ground and explode, setting the surrounding woods on fire. I did not see the pilot bale [sic] out. > I claim this Fw 190 destroyed. > j. A/C No. 44-19960 [_URL_4_] > Ammo fired - 891 rds. A.P.I. [armor piercing incendiary] > SAMUEL K. BATSON > 2nd Lt., Air Corps > SUPPORTING STATEMENT > I was leading Daily Red flight with Lt. Batson on my wing. I was firing at an Fw 190 when another 190 came down at us from 9 o'clock and high. He overshot our flight and Lt. Batson opened fire on him. I saw many strikes on the e/a and it burst into flames. > PERSHING B. TRUMBLE > 1st Lt., Air CorpsSources:56th Fighter Group_URL_1_56th Fighter Group combat reports from the archives of M. Williams_URL_0_354th Fighter Group_URL_2_404th Fighter Group, and an interesting account of a 1v4 dogfight_URL_3_ | [
"Excellent question! In the US Army Air Forces, after flying a mission in which they claimed to have shot down enemy aircraft, a pilot would be debriefed with the rest of their squadron. After the debriefing, they would file an Encounter Report in which they detailed the circumstances of the shoot-down and gave spe... | 2 | [
"Excellent question! In the US Army Air Forces, after flying a mission in which they claimed to have shot down enemy aircraft, a pilot would be debriefed with the rest of their squadron. After the debriefing, they would file an Encounter Report in which they detailed the circumstances of the shoot-down and gave spe... | 1 | question: How did fighter pilots of the second world war confirm their kills in a 1v1 dogfight? | answer: Excellent question! In the US Army Air Forces, after flying a mission in which they claimed to have shot down enemy aircraft, a pilot would be debriefed with the rest of their squadron. After the debriefing, they would file an Encounter Report in which they detailed the circumstances of the shoot-down and gave specific evidence. An Encounter Report also usually required a different pilot to give supporting evidence to confirm the pilot's claim. After submitting the report, the pilot's report and gun camera film was reviewed, and the kill(s) were either awarded as destroyed, probably destroyed, or damaged. In the case of a 1v1 dogfight like you mention, the supporting statement was nullified, so the only thing to go off of was the pilot's personal account and the plane's gun camera film. A particularly hair-raising example in my last source below.A typical Encounter Report read something like this: > CONFIDENTIAL > SIXTY THIRD FIGHTER SQUADRON > AAF STATION F-150 > A.P.O. 558 U.S. ARMY > Personal Combat Report > VIII Air Force F.C. No. 1443A > 2nd Lt. Samuel K. Batson > a. Combat > b. 23 December 1944 > c. 63rd Fighter Squadron, 56th Fighter Group > d. 1145-1215 > e. NW of Koblenz [Germany] > f. CAVU [ceiling and visibility unlimited] > g. Fw 190 > h. One Fw 190 destroyed > i. > I was flying Daily Red 2 [*Red* was the callsign of the 63rd FS; In late 1943 fighter groups expanded in size from 75 to 108 aircraft and each squadron was divided into 2 groups; *Daily* was the call sign of the 63rd's A Group; Lt. Batson was flying the 2nd plane in a flight of 4] on Lt. Trumble's wing with Lt. Daniel and Lt. Hoffman as number 3 and 4 men. We were at 27,000 feet NW of Koblenz when the group made contact with e/a [enemy aircraft] and we were all ordered to drop our tanks. My leader then started orbiting to the left and we continued turning down to 18,000 feet, where there were many P-47s and Fw 190s making it very hard to distinguish friendly from enemy. We started an attack on an Fw 190 and he broke in my direction. I turned sharply to the left and was able to get behind him at a fairly long range. As I started to close he made a sharp climbing turn to the right, where at this point, I fixed him in my K-14 sight and began firing, the range being approximately 800 yards. He continued his climbing turn and I kept firing but i did not observe any strikes until he had almost completed his turn, and I had closed to approximately 400 yards. I then saw strikes all over his airplane and his engine caught on fire. I then broke off the attack and watched him go in a gentle spiral earthward, completely on fire by this time. I watched him go all the way down, hit the ground and explode, setting the surrounding woods on fire. I did not see the pilot bale [sic] out. > I claim this Fw 190 destroyed. > j. A/C No. 44-19960 [_URL_4_] > Ammo fired - 891 rds. A.P.I. [armor piercing incendiary] > SAMUEL K. BATSON > 2nd Lt., Air Corps > SUPPORTING STATEMENT > I was leading Daily Red flight with Lt. Batson on my wing. I was firing at an Fw 190 when another 190 came down at us from 9 o'clock and high. He overshot our flight and Lt. Batson opened fire on him. I saw many strikes on the e/a and it burst into flames. > PERSHING B. TRUMBLE > 1st Lt., Air CorpsSources:56th Fighter Group_URL_1_56th Fighter Group combat reports from the archives of M. Williams_URL_0_354th Fighter Group_URL_2_404th Fighter Group, and an interesting account of a 1v4 dogfight_URL_3_ |
1dkypv | why does the natural logarithm and the number 'e' occur so often in nature? | This is how I look at it:**e**Take $1 and put it in a bank at 100% simple annual interest. After a year, $2, if the bank calculates the interest at the end of 1 year. But if you want the interest *compounded* monthly, you get a better return. What about interest calculated *daily* - even better right? How about every second, or, at "infinitesimally small increments"? Then after a year you get $2.718281828... or "$e".So when "growth" happens step-wise/digitally/**discretely** over a given interval of time, 1 grows to 2 at a 100% growth rate. It "doubles".And when "growth" happens smoothly/**continuously** over that same interval, 1 grows to 2.718281828.... at a 100% growth rate. It... "e-doubles"."Doubling", or **a simple ratio of doubling**, occurs everywhere in nature, because that is what life does - grows and dies by "whole units" of individuals/things. 1 branch of the tree becomes 2 branches, 16 cells divide into 32 cells. Or a family of 2 become 3, or 4, or 5 or 6...If you zoom out of any such discrete process of growth, taking more and more discreet intervals, you approach what looks like a *continuous* process of growth. A population growth curve, for example, zoomed out, looks exponential and smooth, you can't see the individual growth steps.This is why I think you can find "e" as a **common factor** to all different types of *continuous* growth rates.P.S. I would love for someone else to chime in with the "natural log"! | [
"A lot of it relates to the reason it is used for things like growth models. Take compound interest, where the value of an investment is related to its current size, the interest rate, and the number of compounding intervals. If you shorten the compounding period until it is infinitely small (that is to say, it i... | 3 | [
"This is how I look at it:\n\n**e**\n\nTake $1 and put it in a bank at 100% simple annual interest. After a year, $2, if the bank calculates the interest at the end of 1 year. But if you want the interest *compounded* monthly, you get a better return. What about interest calculated *daily* - even better right? How ... | 1 | question: why does the natural logarithm and the number 'e' occur so often in nature? | answer: This is how I look at it:**e**Take $1 and put it in a bank at 100% simple annual interest. After a year, $2, if the bank calculates the interest at the end of 1 year. But if you want the interest *compounded* monthly, you get a better return. What about interest calculated *daily* - even better right? How about every second, or, at "infinitesimally small increments"? Then after a year you get $2.718281828... or "$e".So when "growth" happens step-wise/digitally/**discretely** over a given interval of time, 1 grows to 2 at a 100% growth rate. It "doubles".And when "growth" happens smoothly/**continuously** over that same interval, 1 grows to 2.718281828.... at a 100% growth rate. It... "e-doubles"."Doubling", or **a simple ratio of doubling**, occurs everywhere in nature, because that is what life does - grows and dies by "whole units" of individuals/things. 1 branch of the tree becomes 2 branches, 16 cells divide into 32 cells. Or a family of 2 become 3, or 4, or 5 or 6...If you zoom out of any such discrete process of growth, taking more and more discreet intervals, you approach what looks like a *continuous* process of growth. A population growth curve, for example, zoomed out, looks exponential and smooth, you can't see the individual growth steps.This is why I think you can find "e" as a **common factor** to all different types of *continuous* growth rates.P.S. I would love for someone else to chime in with the "natural log"! |
n5g68 | If a large airplane (747 or so) lost all power, would it actually be able to glide, or would it just crash? | > In line with their planned diversion to Winnipeg, the pilots were already descending through 35,000 feet (11,000 m) when the second engine shut down. They immediately searched their emergency checklist for the section on flying the aircraft with both engines out, only to find that no such section existed._URL_0_ | [
"Losing Power in All Engines\n\nThe pilots don't have much choice if they lose power in all engines. They're for sure going to have to land the plane. But don't panic (and your pilots won't be panicking either). Statistically you have a very good chance of surviving such a situation.\n\nIf a plane loses all power... | 4 | [
"Losing Power in All Engines\n\nThe pilots don't have much choice if they lose power in all engines. They're for sure going to have to land the plane. But don't panic (and your pilots won't be panicking either). Statistically you have a very good chance of surviving such a situation.\n\nIf a plane loses all power... | 4 | question: If a large airplane (747 or so) lost all power, would it actually be able to glide, or would it just crash? | answer: > In line with their planned diversion to Winnipeg, the pilots were already descending through 35,000 feet (11,000 m) when the second engine shut down. They immediately searched their emergency checklist for the section on flying the aircraft with both engines out, only to find that no such section existed._URL_0_ |
23n36i | why exactly is netflix opposing the comcast/twc merger? | Because Comcast is known to throttle streaming services (they limit how fast your connection is artificially) which is how Netflix makes most of their money nowadays. Add in the fact that almost every city in the US has Comcast or TWC and nothing else for cable services, that means that Most cities will now not be able to stream Netflix at the speed that they're used to. | [
"Because Comcast is known to throttle streaming services (they limit how fast your connection is artificially) which is how Netflix makes most of their money nowadays. Add in the fact that almost every city in the US has Comcast or TWC and nothing else for cable services, that means that Most cities will now not b... | 2 | [
"Because Comcast is known to throttle streaming services (they limit how fast your connection is artificially) which is how Netflix makes most of their money nowadays. Add in the fact that almost every city in the US has Comcast or TWC and nothing else for cable services, that means that Most cities will now not b... | 1 | question: why exactly is netflix opposing the comcast/twc merger? | answer: Because Comcast is known to throttle streaming services (they limit how fast your connection is artificially) which is how Netflix makes most of their money nowadays. Add in the fact that almost every city in the US has Comcast or TWC and nothing else for cable services, that means that Most cities will now not be able to stream Netflix at the speed that they're used to. |
isb45 | /r/AskScience, please give me websites I can look at to learn more about science in general | IANAS and I'm sure at least one will quickly tell me how wrong I am, but I think wikipedia is absolutely fantastic for this purpose | [
"You're probably better off with books than with websites.",
"IANAS and I'm sure at least one will quickly tell me how wrong I am, but I think wikipedia is absolutely fantastic for this purpose"
] | 2 | [
"IANAS and I'm sure at least one will quickly tell me how wrong I am, but I think wikipedia is absolutely fantastic for this purpose"
] | 1 | question: /r/AskScience, please give me websites I can look at to learn more about science in general | answer: IANAS and I'm sure at least one will quickly tell me how wrong I am, but I think wikipedia is absolutely fantastic for this purpose |
5mmrz3 | What makes an element an element? (I dont mean the simple explanation of the # of protons) more in text section. | "Element" is just a word, and it refers to a family of nuclides all with the same Z. It's an artificial classification put forth by human beings. Chemists put protons on a pedestal because Z determines the number of electrons, and the electrons basically govern all of chemistry. Nuclear physicists don't really have a reason to treat protons as if they're more important than neutrons. In fact, we often treat them as if they're the same thing. The reason why everything isn't just hydrogen is that the nuclear force exists, and it holds together many bound nuclei and nuclear resonances. There are astrophysical processes and cosmological events where nuclear reactions can occur and non-trivial nuclei can be produced. | [
"\"Element\" is just a word, and it refers to a family of nuclides all with the same Z. It's an artificial classification put forth by human beings. Chemists put protons on a pedestal because Z determines the number of electrons, and the electrons basically govern all of chemistry. Nuclear physicists don't really h... | 3 | [
"\"Element\" is just a word, and it refers to a family of nuclides all with the same Z. It's an artificial classification put forth by human beings. Chemists put protons on a pedestal because Z determines the number of electrons, and the electrons basically govern all of chemistry. Nuclear physicists don't really h... | 3 | question: What makes an element an element? (I dont mean the simple explanation of the # of protons) more in text section. | answer: "Element" is just a word, and it refers to a family of nuclides all with the same Z. It's an artificial classification put forth by human beings. Chemists put protons on a pedestal because Z determines the number of electrons, and the electrons basically govern all of chemistry. Nuclear physicists don't really have a reason to treat protons as if they're more important than neutrons. In fact, we often treat them as if they're the same thing. The reason why everything isn't just hydrogen is that the nuclear force exists, and it holds together many bound nuclei and nuclear resonances. There are astrophysical processes and cosmological events where nuclear reactions can occur and non-trivial nuclei can be produced. |
8cn6qy | what happens to a human inside a nuclear explosion? | If you are within the blast radius and unsheltered then you vaporize. It is an enormous amount of heat and pressure. To be fair this can happen with any sufficiently strong bomb, the danger of a nuclear explosion (other than size of the bomb) is the radiation that follows it. That is a much slower process.But yes if you are within the blast radius and have line of sight with the bomb you will be hit with a massive pressure and heat wave that will likely vaporize you where you stand. | [
"If you are within the blast radius and unsheltered then you vaporize. It is an enormous amount of heat and pressure. To be fair this can happen with any sufficiently strong bomb, the danger of a nuclear explosion (other than size of the bomb) is the radiation that follows it. That is a much slower process.\n\nBut ... | 1 | [
"If you are within the blast radius and unsheltered then you vaporize. It is an enormous amount of heat and pressure. To be fair this can happen with any sufficiently strong bomb, the danger of a nuclear explosion (other than size of the bomb) is the radiation that follows it. That is a much slower process.\n\nBut ... | 1 | question: what happens to a human inside a nuclear explosion? | answer: If you are within the blast radius and unsheltered then you vaporize. It is an enormous amount of heat and pressure. To be fair this can happen with any sufficiently strong bomb, the danger of a nuclear explosion (other than size of the bomb) is the radiation that follows it. That is a much slower process.But yes if you are within the blast radius and have line of sight with the bomb you will be hit with a massive pressure and heat wave that will likely vaporize you where you stand. |
3q1mpd | i got a new and fast smartphone, but why are many mobile websites so f#$%ing slow? loading takes forever and trying to scroll wants me to through my phone away. | Either your connection is slow, or the sites you're visiting are shit. Mobile sites are relatively new, and a lot of people who make them still have no idea what they're doing. | [
"Either your connection is slow, or the sites you're visiting are shit. Mobile sites are relatively new, and a lot of people who make them still have no idea what they're doing.",
"I suspect its part of the plan to generate more revenue from accidental clicks. They do that bullshit where you think its loaded, st... | 3 | [
"Either your connection is slow, or the sites you're visiting are shit. Mobile sites are relatively new, and a lot of people who make them still have no idea what they're doing.",
"I suspect its part of the plan to generate more revenue from accidental clicks. They do that bullshit where you think its loaded, st... | 2 | question: i got a new and fast smartphone, but why are many mobile websites so f#$%ing slow? loading takes forever and trying to scroll wants me to through my phone away. | answer: Either your connection is slow, or the sites you're visiting are shit. Mobile sites are relatively new, and a lot of people who make them still have no idea what they're doing. |
ujwmp | Is the Indo-European migration theory wrong? | I know that the migration and conquest theory has been soundly rejected. Previously, the accepted theory was 'Indus civilization creates nice state, Indo-Europeans turn up and conquer it all, albeit without destroying everything because settled states turn up again shortly afterwards'. Archaeological evidence, along with climate data, instead suggests that there was a brief arid period in Northern India that caused the Indus civilization to themselves migrate south-east to greener pastures, but not completely because some urban centres were not abandoned.But I hadn't heard that Indo-European migration had been ruled out at all, because as you say the linguistic links between sanskrit and the other Indo-European languages are irrefutable. We have had someone post on the R1a1 haplogroup yesterday who I feel can give you a better answer on that subject.It would be nice to know what they believe disproves the migration of Indo-Europeans, which would allow us to offer specific criticism. | [
"I know that the migration and conquest theory has been soundly rejected. Previously, the accepted theory was 'Indus civilization creates nice state, Indo-Europeans turn up and conquer it all, albeit without destroying everything because settled states turn up again shortly afterwards'. Archaeological evidence, alo... | 3 | [
"I know that the migration and conquest theory has been soundly rejected. Previously, the accepted theory was 'Indus civilization creates nice state, Indo-Europeans turn up and conquer it all, albeit without destroying everything because settled states turn up again shortly afterwards'. Archaeological evidence, alo... | 3 | question: Is the Indo-European migration theory wrong? | answer: I know that the migration and conquest theory has been soundly rejected. Previously, the accepted theory was 'Indus civilization creates nice state, Indo-Europeans turn up and conquer it all, albeit without destroying everything because settled states turn up again shortly afterwards'. Archaeological evidence, along with climate data, instead suggests that there was a brief arid period in Northern India that caused the Indus civilization to themselves migrate south-east to greener pastures, but not completely because some urban centres were not abandoned.But I hadn't heard that Indo-European migration had been ruled out at all, because as you say the linguistic links between sanskrit and the other Indo-European languages are irrefutable. We have had someone post on the R1a1 haplogroup yesterday who I feel can give you a better answer on that subject.It would be nice to know what they believe disproves the migration of Indo-Europeans, which would allow us to offer specific criticism. |
jdsxq | the brony phenomenon (brony- young adult males that watch my little pony: friendship is magic | My Little Pony has always been a show for little girls. Because little girls aren't too critical, they were able to get away with the show being not very good.The most recent version of My Little Pony isn't like that. The Executive Producer, Lauren Faust, has worked on other shows for kids, like the Powerpuff Girls and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. The reason I bring this up is because while they could have gotten away with making those shows bad (they are for kids, after all), they ended up being very good.The same has happened with My Little Pony. Thanks to Faust's input, the show has become a *really good one*. Unfortunately, because it's a show for little girls AND used to be terrible, people refuse to give FiM a shot. Now, the show's not for everyone, but the writing and animation is at least good enough to not warrant "HAHA MY LITTLE PONY IS FOR LITTLE GIRLS" if you happen to admit you like it. A lot of people will never understand that.The question isn't "Why do people watch it?", it's "Why don't you?".If you're willing to give it a shot, head over to [/r/mylittlepony](_URL_0_) and ask where you should start (the pilot episodes aren't a very good representation of what the show's like. You can watch them in order if you like, but try not to disregard it entirely until you've seen a few episodes).[](/b16 "sup bronies") | [
"I had heard about this show yesterday when I was omegle on spy mode, and the question asked was who was your favorite pony on this show. Needless to say I was shocked that the other stranger gave an answer almost instantaneously, and when I googled his answer Fluttershy, it was actually on the show. I need an expl... | 20 | [
"It's hard to explain to people that have never seen it/have never had a proper childhood.\n\nIt's made by the same people that made the shows the younger ones grew up with (Powerpuff Girls, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends) and it's genuinely funny without being girly or crude or most of the things shows today ... | 12 | question: the brony phenomenon (brony- young adult males that watch my little pony: friendship is magic | answer: My Little Pony has always been a show for little girls. Because little girls aren't too critical, they were able to get away with the show being not very good.The most recent version of My Little Pony isn't like that. The Executive Producer, Lauren Faust, has worked on other shows for kids, like the Powerpuff Girls and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. The reason I bring this up is because while they could have gotten away with making those shows bad (they are for kids, after all), they ended up being very good.The same has happened with My Little Pony. Thanks to Faust's input, the show has become a *really good one*. Unfortunately, because it's a show for little girls AND used to be terrible, people refuse to give FiM a shot. Now, the show's not for everyone, but the writing and animation is at least good enough to not warrant "HAHA MY LITTLE PONY IS FOR LITTLE GIRLS" if you happen to admit you like it. A lot of people will never understand that.The question isn't "Why do people watch it?", it's "Why don't you?".If you're willing to give it a shot, head over to [/r/mylittlepony](_URL_0_) and ask where you should start (the pilot episodes aren't a very good representation of what the show's like. You can watch them in order if you like, but try not to disregard it entirely until you've seen a few episodes).[](/b16 "sup bronies") |
al3j09 | How were relations between Poland and Lithuania after both became independent in the aftermath of WW1? Were there any movements that advocated for the reunion of the two? | In short, relations between Poland and Lithuania in the 1918-1939 period were not good, going so far as to say bad.The two newly independent states really had border disputes that were largely unresolved, with the biggest concern being the status of Vilnius (or Wilno, as is known in Polish). Now the capital of Lithuania, it was occupied by Poland during the entire period, though the Lithuanians consistently advocated for its “return,” regarding their de facto capital, Kaunas, as a temporary solution.It is worth noting that ethnically speaking Vilnius was not an ethnically Lithuanian city; I will have to confirm the numbers, but it was mainly Jewish and Polish, with Lithuanians a very distant third, or possibly fourth (Belarusians and/or Russians may have been up there). This was an argument the Poles used to keep control of the city, in that it was hardly Lithuanian so there was no reason under the logic of the era (national self-determination) to give it to Lithuania. That Jozef Pilsudski, the de facto leader of Poland during much of this era, was born near Vilnius is arguably also a factor in the dispute. Regardless, the aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920 confirmed that the city would remain within Poland.The result was that neither side established diplomatic relations during this era, with neither side willing to concede on the Vilnius question. The idea of unifying the two states was thus inconceivable, and would not really be resolved until the post-Soviet era, when the disputes were finally settled.I have some reading material I can add, I just don’t have it handy right now. Once I get home I’ll edit this post with those.Edit:As promised, some sources to consider:* Jerzy Borzęcki, *The Soviet-Polish Peace of 1921 and the Creation of Interwar Europe* (2008)* Norman Davies, *God's Playground: A History of Poland, Vol. 2: 1795 to the Present*, Revised Edition (2005)* Timothy Snyder, *The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999* (2004)* Theodore R. Weeks (2006) "A Multi-ethnic City in Transition: Vilnius's StormyDecade, 1939-1949", *Eurasian Geography and Economics*, 47:2, 153-175 (Apparently he has a book on Vilnius, *Vilnius between Nations, 1795–2000* (2015), which I'm sure incorporates this article; however I haven't read it and cannot vouch for its reliability)* And I don't like to link directly Wikipedia for stuff, but the article on the [1920 Polish-Lithuanian War](_URL_0_) is pretty good, and includes Lithuanian-language sources, which I can't read at all. | [
"In short, relations between Poland and Lithuania in the 1918-1939 period were not good, going so far as to say bad.\n\nThe two newly independent states really had border disputes that were largely unresolved, with the biggest concern being the status of Vilnius (or Wilno, as is known in Polish). Now the capital of... | 1 | [
"In short, relations between Poland and Lithuania in the 1918-1939 period were not good, going so far as to say bad.\n\nThe two newly independent states really had border disputes that were largely unresolved, with the biggest concern being the status of Vilnius (or Wilno, as is known in Polish). Now the capital of... | 1 | question: How were relations between Poland and Lithuania after both became independent in the aftermath of WW1? Were there any movements that advocated for the reunion of the two? | answer: In short, relations between Poland and Lithuania in the 1918-1939 period were not good, going so far as to say bad.The two newly independent states really had border disputes that were largely unresolved, with the biggest concern being the status of Vilnius (or Wilno, as is known in Polish). Now the capital of Lithuania, it was occupied by Poland during the entire period, though the Lithuanians consistently advocated for its “return,” regarding their de facto capital, Kaunas, as a temporary solution.It is worth noting that ethnically speaking Vilnius was not an ethnically Lithuanian city; I will have to confirm the numbers, but it was mainly Jewish and Polish, with Lithuanians a very distant third, or possibly fourth (Belarusians and/or Russians may have been up there). This was an argument the Poles used to keep control of the city, in that it was hardly Lithuanian so there was no reason under the logic of the era (national self-determination) to give it to Lithuania. That Jozef Pilsudski, the de facto leader of Poland during much of this era, was born near Vilnius is arguably also a factor in the dispute. Regardless, the aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920 confirmed that the city would remain within Poland.The result was that neither side established diplomatic relations during this era, with neither side willing to concede on the Vilnius question. The idea of unifying the two states was thus inconceivable, and would not really be resolved until the post-Soviet era, when the disputes were finally settled.I have some reading material I can add, I just don’t have it handy right now. Once I get home I’ll edit this post with those.Edit:As promised, some sources to consider:* Jerzy Borzęcki, *The Soviet-Polish Peace of 1921 and the Creation of Interwar Europe* (2008)* Norman Davies, *God's Playground: A History of Poland, Vol. 2: 1795 to the Present*, Revised Edition (2005)* Timothy Snyder, *The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999* (2004)* Theodore R. Weeks (2006) "A Multi-ethnic City in Transition: Vilnius's StormyDecade, 1939-1949", *Eurasian Geography and Economics*, 47:2, 153-175 (Apparently he has a book on Vilnius, *Vilnius between Nations, 1795–2000* (2015), which I'm sure incorporates this article; however I haven't read it and cannot vouch for its reliability)* And I don't like to link directly Wikipedia for stuff, but the article on the [1920 Polish-Lithuanian War](_URL_0_) is pretty good, and includes Lithuanian-language sources, which I can't read at all. |
3xe5z9 | how a car jack works? how can it withold that much weight over long periods of time? | Once compressive force is place on something which will hold it then it is basically in place forever. Maybe you are used to movies where things slipping make for good drama.The magic of car jacks is that they use the principal of the lever to enable you to pick up a large weight by hand. hydraulic jacks do it by pumping hydraulic fluid to get a mechanical advantage. If you go under a vehicle never trust the jack to do the holding. Put blocks under the vehicle to keep it off you. I had a patient once who had to go through dialysis because of a failed car jack. Dialysis was painful those days. He pulled a knife on a nurse. The nurses refused to treat him for a life threatening condition. | [
"Once compressive force is place on something which will hold it then it is basically in place forever. Maybe you are used to movies where things slipping make for good drama.\n\nThe magic of car jacks is that they use the principal of the lever to enable you to pick up a large weight by hand. hydraulic jacks do it... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: how a car jack works? how can it withold that much weight over long periods of time? | answer: Once compressive force is place on something which will hold it then it is basically in place forever. Maybe you are used to movies where things slipping make for good drama.The magic of car jacks is that they use the principal of the lever to enable you to pick up a large weight by hand. hydraulic jacks do it by pumping hydraulic fluid to get a mechanical advantage. If you go under a vehicle never trust the jack to do the holding. Put blocks under the vehicle to keep it off you. I had a patient once who had to go through dialysis because of a failed car jack. Dialysis was painful those days. He pulled a knife on a nurse. The nurses refused to treat him for a life threatening condition. |
6026he | what are the psychological benefits of having a crush on someone you've never met ie why do they happen? | Having crushes developed when people rarely met others outside their clan/tribe/whatever. Technology has tricked our brains into thinking it knows people we've never met (you can see extreme examples of this in obsessive fans). So, when someone appeals to you and your brain thinks it knows them, a crush can develop. | [
"Safe distance to experience/practice/work out romantic feelings. One of my high school students wrote an astute essay on how her boy-band crushes did just that.",
"Having crushes developed when people rarely met others outside their clan/tribe/whatever. Technology has tricked our brains into thinking it knows p... | 3 | [
"Safe distance to experience/practice/work out romantic feelings. One of my high school students wrote an astute essay on how her boy-band crushes did just that.",
"Having crushes developed when people rarely met others outside their clan/tribe/whatever. Technology has tricked our brains into thinking it knows p... | 3 | question: what are the psychological benefits of having a crush on someone you've never met ie why do they happen? | answer: Having crushes developed when people rarely met others outside their clan/tribe/whatever. Technology has tricked our brains into thinking it knows people we've never met (you can see extreme examples of this in obsessive fans). So, when someone appeals to you and your brain thinks it knows them, a crush can develop. |
8b8ayy | why breathing out doesn’t work when we’re choking ? | Ever drink a beverage with a straw that has solid chunks of stuff like fruit or bobas in it? If it's an extremely tight fit, it takes a LOT of force to blow or suck the object through. If there's air gaps around the object in the straw, it's much easier to pull it through.In short, if something's wedged in your airway, if you exhale sharply, the vast majority of the air will flow through any gap between the object and the side of the airway. It might be enough to dislodge it, but it might not.Additionally, if you start choking if you don't have full lungs, there's no way to inhale air to breathe out deeply. You're stuck with what you have in your lungs at the moment. The less air, the more force it takes to generate the same amount of pressure. | [
"Ever drink a beverage with a straw that has solid chunks of stuff like fruit or bobas in it? If it's an extremely tight fit, it takes a LOT of force to blow or suck the object through. If there's air gaps around the object in the straw, it's much easier to pull it through.\n\nIn short, if something's wedged in you... | 3 | [
"Ever drink a beverage with a straw that has solid chunks of stuff like fruit or bobas in it? If it's an extremely tight fit, it takes a LOT of force to blow or suck the object through. If there's air gaps around the object in the straw, it's much easier to pull it through.\n\nIn short, if something's wedged in you... | 1 | question: why breathing out doesn’t work when we’re choking ? | answer: Ever drink a beverage with a straw that has solid chunks of stuff like fruit or bobas in it? If it's an extremely tight fit, it takes a LOT of force to blow or suck the object through. If there's air gaps around the object in the straw, it's much easier to pull it through.In short, if something's wedged in your airway, if you exhale sharply, the vast majority of the air will flow through any gap between the object and the side of the airway. It might be enough to dislodge it, but it might not.Additionally, if you start choking if you don't have full lungs, there's no way to inhale air to breathe out deeply. You're stuck with what you have in your lungs at the moment. The less air, the more force it takes to generate the same amount of pressure. |
5d94do | why is the us the only country, apart from liberia and burma, not to have adopted the international system of units? | The short answer about this is that the US *has* officially adopted it. But nobody wants to use it. There's no public will to actually change everything over to standard units, so that doesn't happen. But if you talk to scientists, or medical personnel, they will tell you that they use metric at work. | [
"Because that is not something that can be dictated as a country. The Federal government can adopt it for the purposes of the Federal government. Currently the Federal government is \"bilingual\" and you will see both imperial and metric units on labeled goods and such things as fall under the authority of the Fede... | 59 | [
"Because that is not something that can be dictated as a country. The Federal government can adopt it for the purposes of the Federal government. Currently the Federal government is \"bilingual\" and you will see both imperial and metric units on labeled goods and such things as fall under the authority of the Fede... | 37 | question: why is the us the only country, apart from liberia and burma, not to have adopted the international system of units? | answer: The short answer about this is that the US *has* officially adopted it. But nobody wants to use it. There's no public will to actually change everything over to standard units, so that doesn't happen. But if you talk to scientists, or medical personnel, they will tell you that they use metric at work. |
1ufnge | In medieval Europe, did anyone sell land and just the land? No familial/noble politics or servitude or military assistance involved. | Yes, frequently, but not always for cash. It's a myth of the middle ages that all land across Europe was tied to manorialism or to feudal relationships. Even the Burgundians found in George Duby's pioneering, massively influential thesis *La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise (1952)* have later been found by other historians to have more diverse relationships than the reductionist feudal structure Duby unearthed.The *allod* is the term used when describing land held free and clear of feudal ties, and the *allod* is found across Europe throughout the middle ages. In my area of specialization, southern France (Occitania), we find that 90% of lands up to the beginning of the 12th century were allod ^1 . Furthermore, it's clear that relationships between the petty and higher Occitan nobles in the 12th and 13th century were often based on personal allegiances but not chartered commitments of land (*fief*) nor commitments of knights ^2 .Another example is something coming under the broad term *benefice*. An example of a *benefice* would be uncleared lands held by a church or abbey which were then given to another party (perhaps a petty noble, or even at times a peasant) under special terms. The receiving party would commit to clearing and tilling the lands within 5 years in exchange for receiving 50% of it in *allod*, and the other 50% retained by the church ^3 .^1 Archibald Ross, *The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society 718-1050* (U Texas, 1965) is a massive, comprehensive survey of primary sources of Occitan land ownership.^2 Fredric L. Cheyette, *Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadours* (Cornell U, 2001) wherein Cheyette examines cartularies of lands between Toulouse and the Rhone to discover some astoundingly non-feudal relations and then nests them in the contexts of relationships described in Troubadour poetry to stunning effect.^3 See *Ross* again | [
"Yes, frequently, but not always for cash. \n\nIt's a myth of the middle ages that all land across Europe was tied to manorialism or to feudal relationships. Even the Burgundians found in George Duby's pioneering, massively influential thesis *La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise (1952)* hav... | 1 | [
"Yes, frequently, but not always for cash. \n\nIt's a myth of the middle ages that all land across Europe was tied to manorialism or to feudal relationships. Even the Burgundians found in George Duby's pioneering, massively influential thesis *La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise (1952)* hav... | 1 | question: In medieval Europe, did anyone sell land and just the land? No familial/noble politics or servitude or military assistance involved. | answer: Yes, frequently, but not always for cash. It's a myth of the middle ages that all land across Europe was tied to manorialism or to feudal relationships. Even the Burgundians found in George Duby's pioneering, massively influential thesis *La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise (1952)* have later been found by other historians to have more diverse relationships than the reductionist feudal structure Duby unearthed.The *allod* is the term used when describing land held free and clear of feudal ties, and the *allod* is found across Europe throughout the middle ages. In my area of specialization, southern France (Occitania), we find that 90% of lands up to the beginning of the 12th century were allod ^1 . Furthermore, it's clear that relationships between the petty and higher Occitan nobles in the 12th and 13th century were often based on personal allegiances but not chartered commitments of land (*fief*) nor commitments of knights ^2 .Another example is something coming under the broad term *benefice*. An example of a *benefice* would be uncleared lands held by a church or abbey which were then given to another party (perhaps a petty noble, or even at times a peasant) under special terms. The receiving party would commit to clearing and tilling the lands within 5 years in exchange for receiving 50% of it in *allod*, and the other 50% retained by the church ^3 .^1 Archibald Ross, *The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society 718-1050* (U Texas, 1965) is a massive, comprehensive survey of primary sources of Occitan land ownership.^2 Fredric L. Cheyette, *Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadours* (Cornell U, 2001) wherein Cheyette examines cartularies of lands between Toulouse and the Rhone to discover some astoundingly non-feudal relations and then nests them in the contexts of relationships described in Troubadour poetry to stunning effect.^3 See *Ross* again |
38v4vr | why this unremarkable video has over 100 million views | > Comments disabledCould probably be from the hate, or to hide up the buying views/subscribers. When you buy views/subscribers you get comments on your videos advertising the same service. | [
" > Comments disabled\n\nCould probably be from the hate, or to hide up the buying views/subscribers. When you buy views/subscribers you get comments on your videos advertising the same service."
] | 1 | [] | 0 | question: why this unremarkable video has over 100 million views | answer: > Comments disabledCould probably be from the hate, or to hide up the buying views/subscribers. When you buy views/subscribers you get comments on your videos advertising the same service. |
5mdqhe | if a nuclear missile is launched, why can't someone just shoot it down while it is still high in the air? | Conceptually that is possible. However most of the time when we talk about "nuclear missiles" we are referring to the concept of an "ICBM" or intercontinental ballistic missile.That type of missile fires between continents which means that its most vulnerable time, when it it is first launching, happens deep inside the territory of the nation which is performing the launch. Other people can't shoot it down because it is over the horizon from where they are and nothing they have could get there fast enough even if they could see it.Other stages of the flight are even harder to interrupt. The main cruise of the missile happens in space, a near-orbit curve that can lob the missile halfway around the planet. It doesn't even need engines at this point (hence the "ballistic" part) and it is difficult to even spot the object much less get to it.Finally it enters the atmosphere over the target *screaming fast*. Modern missiles can come in at about 7 kilometers per second, which means transitioning from space until they impact their target would take less than 15 seconds. If you want to shoot it down you have to get something to it, and 15 seconds isn't long enough to take a decent dump in your pants much less hit it with a rocket. | [
"Conceptually that is possible. However most of the time when we talk about \"nuclear missiles\" we are referring to the concept of an \"ICBM\" or intercontinental ballistic missile.\n\nThat type of missile fires between continents which means that its most vulnerable time, when it it is first launching, happens de... | 6 | [
"Conceptually that is possible. However most of the time when we talk about \"nuclear missiles\" we are referring to the concept of an \"ICBM\" or intercontinental ballistic missile.\n\nThat type of missile fires between continents which means that its most vulnerable time, when it it is first launching, happens de... | 1 | question: if a nuclear missile is launched, why can't someone just shoot it down while it is still high in the air? | answer: Conceptually that is possible. However most of the time when we talk about "nuclear missiles" we are referring to the concept of an "ICBM" or intercontinental ballistic missile.That type of missile fires between continents which means that its most vulnerable time, when it it is first launching, happens deep inside the territory of the nation which is performing the launch. Other people can't shoot it down because it is over the horizon from where they are and nothing they have could get there fast enough even if they could see it.Other stages of the flight are even harder to interrupt. The main cruise of the missile happens in space, a near-orbit curve that can lob the missile halfway around the planet. It doesn't even need engines at this point (hence the "ballistic" part) and it is difficult to even spot the object much less get to it.Finally it enters the atmosphere over the target *screaming fast*. Modern missiles can come in at about 7 kilometers per second, which means transitioning from space until they impact their target would take less than 15 seconds. If you want to shoot it down you have to get something to it, and 15 seconds isn't long enough to take a decent dump in your pants much less hit it with a rocket. |
5kggms | What has made solar energy so much more expensive in the past, and what developments are most important to further reduce the cost in the future? | A large reduction in the cost came from the price of the active material used in the cells. The industry has traditionally been dominated by silicon panels and creating high quality crystalline silicon had been a pretty expensive process. What happened in recent years is summarized [in this chart](_URL_4_). As the production volume spiked, the the price of panels based on c-Si eventually plummeted. This relationship is sometimes called [Swanson's Law](_URL_1_). In fact, prices have dropped so much that now the silicon only accounts for less than half the price of typical modules. As for what may reduce the price even further, that gets more speculative. A key short-term goal is to cut down on soft costs associated with installing and maintaining the cells. These costs are often lumped together as balance of system (BOS) costs. Here again, a key factor that can reduce these costs is the scale and maturity of the industry. For example, Germany which has been at this game longer already than the US has significantly lower BOS costs (e.g. see [this article](_URL_5_)). edit: To move further out in the long term, things get even more speculative. It is possible that eventually that a new kind of [thin film PV technology](_URL_2_) will complement or supplant silicon PV. The advantage of such cells is that they could be flexible and more lightweight than silicon panels. These benefits in turn could potentially cut down on material and installation costs yet further. For example, so-called [perovskite PV cells](_URL_0_) have shown promise in recent years in terms of efficiency, although stability remains a major concern. In addition to the active material itself, storage is still a huge stumbling block for solar energy to gain an increasingly larger share of the grid. Better and cheaper storage is key to deliver a steady supply to the grid in spite of daily and seasonal fluctuations in how much light we get from the Sun [e.g. shown here for Golden, Co.](_URL_3_) | [
"A large reduction in the cost came from the price of the active material used in the cells. The industry has traditionally been dominated by silicon panels and creating high quality crystalline silicon had been a pretty expensive process. What happened in recent years is summarized [in this chart](_URL_4_). As the... | 31 | [
"A large reduction in the cost came from the price of the active material used in the cells. The industry has traditionally been dominated by silicon panels and creating high quality crystalline silicon had been a pretty expensive process. What happened in recent years is summarized [in this chart](_URL_4_). As the... | 12 | question: What has made solar energy so much more expensive in the past, and what developments are most important to further reduce the cost in the future? | answer: A large reduction in the cost came from the price of the active material used in the cells. The industry has traditionally been dominated by silicon panels and creating high quality crystalline silicon had been a pretty expensive process. What happened in recent years is summarized [in this chart](_URL_4_). As the production volume spiked, the the price of panels based on c-Si eventually plummeted. This relationship is sometimes called [Swanson's Law](_URL_1_). In fact, prices have dropped so much that now the silicon only accounts for less than half the price of typical modules. As for what may reduce the price even further, that gets more speculative. A key short-term goal is to cut down on soft costs associated with installing and maintaining the cells. These costs are often lumped together as balance of system (BOS) costs. Here again, a key factor that can reduce these costs is the scale and maturity of the industry. For example, Germany which has been at this game longer already than the US has significantly lower BOS costs (e.g. see [this article](_URL_5_)). edit: To move further out in the long term, things get even more speculative. It is possible that eventually that a new kind of [thin film PV technology](_URL_2_) will complement or supplant silicon PV. The advantage of such cells is that they could be flexible and more lightweight than silicon panels. These benefits in turn could potentially cut down on material and installation costs yet further. For example, so-called [perovskite PV cells](_URL_0_) have shown promise in recent years in terms of efficiency, although stability remains a major concern. In addition to the active material itself, storage is still a huge stumbling block for solar energy to gain an increasingly larger share of the grid. Better and cheaper storage is key to deliver a steady supply to the grid in spite of daily and seasonal fluctuations in how much light we get from the Sun [e.g. shown here for Golden, Co.](_URL_3_) |
1jo5e3 | how come that electric trains work with a single overhead wire? | Usually on such systems, the output runs through the rails. So, AC comes in through the wire, activates the windings on the traction motors, and then exits through the metal wheels to the rails. The rails themselves are usually welded or bolted together, so a continuous circuit can be made.Another option is to have a "third rail" in between the two drive rails, that carries the AC. But the ground point is still the outer rails. | [
"The rails are the other pole.",
"Usually on such systems, the output runs through the rails. \n\nSo, AC comes in through the wire, activates the windings on the traction motors, and then exits through the metal wheels to the rails. The rails themselves are usually welded or bolted together, so a continuous circu... | 4 | [
"Usually on such systems, the output runs through the rails. \n\nSo, AC comes in through the wire, activates the windings on the traction motors, and then exits through the metal wheels to the rails. The rails themselves are usually welded or bolted together, so a continuous circuit can be made.\n\nAnother option i... | 1 | question: how come that electric trains work with a single overhead wire? | answer: Usually on such systems, the output runs through the rails. So, AC comes in through the wire, activates the windings on the traction motors, and then exits through the metal wheels to the rails. The rails themselves are usually welded or bolted together, so a continuous circuit can be made.Another option is to have a "third rail" in between the two drive rails, that carries the AC. But the ground point is still the outer rails. |
7qw5lh | "It belongs in a museum!" is a well-known phrase from Indiana Jones. In reality, are museums the best places to keep artefacts of archaeological significance? How did public museums become the de facto place to store such artifacts? | In regards to your first question, the reasons fall into two groups: for the good of the object, and to facilitate learning from that object.1) Museums are the best place for them for the same reason it's better to hire an electrician than to wire your house yourself. You might do it right, but do you really want to take the risk of setting your home on fire if you don't need to? Collections care & management is a complex job and it's incredibly easy to mess things up. Once you do? You might be able to minimize the appearance of damage, but you'll never be able to undo it.I'm going to be veering into natural history with my examples because that's my area of expertise, but a collections manager who works with artifacts would come up with a comparable list.There are *a lot* of things you have to learn to be a collections manager. The breadth of topics you need to consider in order to keep things preserved as long as possible and restore/repair them when needed is astounding. And the more material types you have to work with, the more complex it gets.What's the climate like in your collections room? Average, minimum, and maximum temperatures? How rapidly does it fluctuate? Same for relative humidity. What's the optimum temperature and relative humidity for the materials making this specific object? What will keep them from warping or cracking? Which minerals and fossils will experience a chemical reaction that slowly eats them away and is nigh-impossible to stop (and expensive to even try) if their environment is too humid or it fluctuates too much? Which ones will disappear if exposed to air? What's the safe range if you don't have enough funding to have good climate control in your collections? What about safety? Did you know that some old photographs can "spontaneously" combust? Do you know how to keep that from happening? Which minerals are hazardous and how do you create a boundary between you and them? Was that old taxidermied animal preserved with arsenic? If you don't have firsthand knowledge, do you know how to tell?Do you know which minerals you can't store next to each other because sometimes they interact and one comes out looking worse for the wear? Are your cabinets and drawers earthquake-secured if you live in a tectonically active area? Can you shell out for those pricey fireproof cabinets? How's the glass on your display cabinet? Did you think about making sure it's treated to prevent both UVA and UVB from entering and making your pigments fade or plastics become brittle? What kind of containers and labels are you using? Are they acid-free so they don't corrode your objects? Is your orpiment inside the right type of plastic container that will prevent leaching? Did you remember to keep its label outside its bag so the label doesn't get eaten over time? Speaking of labels, have you kept yours appropriately labelled? Included all the information, right? Doesn't matter how good your memory is, right it all down immediately* because I promise you, you will forget something important about it eventually. How's your pest control? You don't have cockroaches, do you? 'Cause they'll eat labels. So will silverfish. And your objects themselves if they're made of old paper. Hope you don't get moths eating those priceless old garments.I could go on, but I'll stop there 'cause if you've managed to stay focused, your head's probably spinning. But check out [this website](_URL_0_), which is a great resource for even experience museum professionals. The "Resources" tab is particularly relevant here.EDITED TO ADD: If you have your own personal collection, please do check out this site! I hate to see people's faces fall when they realize their personal treasures have fallen afoul of easily avoidable degradation. A couple quick tips: The biggest source of object damage is physical damage due to handler error. So be gentle, use drawers that have auto-stops on them (or pull the drawer beneath out halfway before opening the drawer you're interested in to catch it in case it falls), and learn how to build supports for very fragile objects. If your precious objects include books and you experience a flood, the first thing you need to do is freeze your books. That will halt a very fast and unfixable damage process while you triage the rest. They can stay frozen while you fix everything else. When you're trying to decide where to store things in your home but don't have space in your general living area, a general rule of thumb is that attics are awful (huge temperature and humidity fluctuations) and basements are better (more stable environment, like a cave) so long as things are elevated off the floor in case it floods. And most things should be kept away from windows since they introduce both environmental fluctuations and light. Cool, dark, and stable is the way to go.2) You're an avid collector and have a huge collection? Awesome, passionate people are amazing fonts of knowledge and resources! ....You did keep a detailed database so its searchable, right? (The answer to that is almost always no, but oh so wonderful when it's yes). Are you able to set up a website so people can search it to do research? Complete with helpful pictures and full keystroke data? How likely is someone to know about your collection? Oh, you don't want visitors to come study your important one-of-a-kind fossil? But we know it's a new species and you have the only one we know about. Oh, you don't care. Okay, then. Or, alternatively, you're happy to have visiting researchers, but it's going to be harder to coordinate visits with you than it would be to coordinate with a collections manager who's always there during work hours because it's their job. And you probably don't have a good photography station, do you?Part two, unlike part one, has a bit of controversy surrounding it. On the one hand, what's the point of preserving something if it's not used? Is it better to keep something in a drawer at a museum where it isn't being accessed by researchers? Or is it better that it belong to someone who gets enjoyment out of having it? There are camps of people who say everything belongs in a museum and camps who say nothing does, but most lie on the continuum between. I personally ask myself, "How rare is it? How likely is it to provide new information? Do we already have a large enough sample in dedicated institutes?"...questions like that. It's easier to answer the first and third questions, though still not always straightforward. "Rare" is a relative metric. What's considered a "good sample size" has changed over time. The second question is hard to peg down because we might think something has given us all the data it can, but then something like genetic testing gets invented and suddenly we're finding new species in collections that were misidentified as something else because they're cryptic. There's a balance that needs to be struck between possession in public institutes and possession by private individuals. Everyone has a different idea of where the fulcrum lies. There's also the problem of low funding for museums, and mismanagement when politicians and businesspersons occupying the administrative seats decide to not listen to the museum professionals working beneath them. If the life is being strangled out of museum, many of their objects are going to be sitting in dusty old corners, not even looked at for years. In an ideal world, that would not be the case, but it's an unfortunate fact right now. There are pushes being made to bring those specimens to the public's attention in new ways, such as those that make use of digital tools not available in the past (particularly social media), but it's still a situation of not enough workers, not enough money, and too much to do.EDITED to add some arguments for the existence of private collections, since I forgot to include them: Amateur enthusiasts are a source for many amazing posthumous collection donations to public institutes. Every collection like that is one that the museum wouldn't have gotten otherwise (particularly if it was collected at great personal expense, then donated to a museum with little to no funding for acquisitions). Even if a person doesn't have an amazing collection, a small middling-quality one can still spark a lifelong love for a subject that they go on to infect others with (which is part of the point of a museum to begin with). | [
"In regards to your first question, the reasons fall into two groups: for the good of the object, and to facilitate learning from that object.\n\n1) Museums are the best place for them for the same reason it's better to hire an electrician than to wire your house yourself. You might do it right, but do you really w... | 2 | [
"In regards to your first question, the reasons fall into two groups: for the good of the object, and to facilitate learning from that object.\n\n1) Museums are the best place for them for the same reason it's better to hire an electrician than to wire your house yourself. You might do it right, but do you really w... | 2 | question: "It belongs in a museum!" is a well-known phrase from Indiana Jones. In reality, are museums the best places to keep artefacts of archaeological significance? How did public museums become the de facto place to store such artifacts? | answer: In regards to your first question, the reasons fall into two groups: for the good of the object, and to facilitate learning from that object.1) Museums are the best place for them for the same reason it's better to hire an electrician than to wire your house yourself. You might do it right, but do you really want to take the risk of setting your home on fire if you don't need to? Collections care & management is a complex job and it's incredibly easy to mess things up. Once you do? You might be able to minimize the appearance of damage, but you'll never be able to undo it.I'm going to be veering into natural history with my examples because that's my area of expertise, but a collections manager who works with artifacts would come up with a comparable list.There are *a lot* of things you have to learn to be a collections manager. The breadth of topics you need to consider in order to keep things preserved as long as possible and restore/repair them when needed is astounding. And the more material types you have to work with, the more complex it gets.What's the climate like in your collections room? Average, minimum, and maximum temperatures? How rapidly does it fluctuate? Same for relative humidity. What's the optimum temperature and relative humidity for the materials making this specific object? What will keep them from warping or cracking? Which minerals and fossils will experience a chemical reaction that slowly eats them away and is nigh-impossible to stop (and expensive to even try) if their environment is too humid or it fluctuates too much? Which ones will disappear if exposed to air? What's the safe range if you don't have enough funding to have good climate control in your collections? What about safety? Did you know that some old photographs can "spontaneously" combust? Do you know how to keep that from happening? Which minerals are hazardous and how do you create a boundary between you and them? Was that old taxidermied animal preserved with arsenic? If you don't have firsthand knowledge, do you know how to tell?Do you know which minerals you can't store next to each other because sometimes they interact and one comes out looking worse for the wear? Are your cabinets and drawers earthquake-secured if you live in a tectonically active area? Can you shell out for those pricey fireproof cabinets? How's the glass on your display cabinet? Did you think about making sure it's treated to prevent both UVA and UVB from entering and making your pigments fade or plastics become brittle? What kind of containers and labels are you using? Are they acid-free so they don't corrode your objects? Is your orpiment inside the right type of plastic container that will prevent leaching? Did you remember to keep its label outside its bag so the label doesn't get eaten over time? Speaking of labels, have you kept yours appropriately labelled? Included all the information, right? Doesn't matter how good your memory is, right it all down immediately* because I promise you, you will forget something important about it eventually. How's your pest control? You don't have cockroaches, do you? 'Cause they'll eat labels. So will silverfish. And your objects themselves if they're made of old paper. Hope you don't get moths eating those priceless old garments.I could go on, but I'll stop there 'cause if you've managed to stay focused, your head's probably spinning. But check out [this website](_URL_0_), which is a great resource for even experience museum professionals. The "Resources" tab is particularly relevant here.EDITED TO ADD: If you have your own personal collection, please do check out this site! I hate to see people's faces fall when they realize their personal treasures have fallen afoul of easily avoidable degradation. A couple quick tips: The biggest source of object damage is physical damage due to handler error. So be gentle, use drawers that have auto-stops on them (or pull the drawer beneath out halfway before opening the drawer you're interested in to catch it in case it falls), and learn how to build supports for very fragile objects. If your precious objects include books and you experience a flood, the first thing you need to do is freeze your books. That will halt a very fast and unfixable damage process while you triage the rest. They can stay frozen while you fix everything else. When you're trying to decide where to store things in your home but don't have space in your general living area, a general rule of thumb is that attics are awful (huge temperature and humidity fluctuations) and basements are better (more stable environment, like a cave) so long as things are elevated off the floor in case it floods. And most things should be kept away from windows since they introduce both environmental fluctuations and light. Cool, dark, and stable is the way to go.2) You're an avid collector and have a huge collection? Awesome, passionate people are amazing fonts of knowledge and resources! ....You did keep a detailed database so its searchable, right? (The answer to that is almost always no, but oh so wonderful when it's yes). Are you able to set up a website so people can search it to do research? Complete with helpful pictures and full keystroke data? How likely is someone to know about your collection? Oh, you don't want visitors to come study your important one-of-a-kind fossil? But we know it's a new species and you have the only one we know about. Oh, you don't care. Okay, then. Or, alternatively, you're happy to have visiting researchers, but it's going to be harder to coordinate visits with you than it would be to coordinate with a collections manager who's always there during work hours because it's their job. And you probably don't have a good photography station, do you?Part two, unlike part one, has a bit of controversy surrounding it. On the one hand, what's the point of preserving something if it's not used? Is it better to keep something in a drawer at a museum where it isn't being accessed by researchers? Or is it better that it belong to someone who gets enjoyment out of having it? There are camps of people who say everything belongs in a museum and camps who say nothing does, but most lie on the continuum between. I personally ask myself, "How rare is it? How likely is it to provide new information? Do we already have a large enough sample in dedicated institutes?"...questions like that. It's easier to answer the first and third questions, though still not always straightforward. "Rare" is a relative metric. What's considered a "good sample size" has changed over time. The second question is hard to peg down because we might think something has given us all the data it can, but then something like genetic testing gets invented and suddenly we're finding new species in collections that were misidentified as something else because they're cryptic. There's a balance that needs to be struck between possession in public institutes and possession by private individuals. Everyone has a different idea of where the fulcrum lies. There's also the problem of low funding for museums, and mismanagement when politicians and businesspersons occupying the administrative seats decide to not listen to the museum professionals working beneath them. If the life is being strangled out of museum, many of their objects are going to be sitting in dusty old corners, not even looked at for years. In an ideal world, that would not be the case, but it's an unfortunate fact right now. There are pushes being made to bring those specimens to the public's attention in new ways, such as those that make use of digital tools not available in the past (particularly social media), but it's still a situation of not enough workers, not enough money, and too much to do.EDITED to add some arguments for the existence of private collections, since I forgot to include them: Amateur enthusiasts are a source for many amazing posthumous collection donations to public institutes. Every collection like that is one that the museum wouldn't have gotten otherwise (particularly if it was collected at great personal expense, then donated to a museum with little to no funding for acquisitions). Even if a person doesn't have an amazing collection, a small middling-quality one can still spark a lifelong love for a subject that they go on to infect others with (which is part of the point of a museum to begin with). |
28choz | Why did Russia aid Ethiopia in the First Italo-Abyssinian War? | Many countries sought to send military missions to study not only modern fighting, but also fighting in different cultures, different terrain and different climates. Sweden and Turkey also had no interests in the region after ww1, yet both sent military missions during the 20s and 30s to Ethiopia.What was in it for Russia? Experience fighting in mountainous terrain in a hot country where the locals were a semi-feudalistic society. It is quite similar to their own recent excperience against the Circassians in the Caucasus, held value for potential fighting in the eastern parts of the Ottoman Empire, Persia and Afghanistan (all of which seemed like likely places for the next war for Imperial Russia in the 1880s).But mostly, Russian arms companies could sell arms to Ethiopia though the Russian military mission.The Ethiopians bought about 30 000 Berdan rifles (military surplus as the Russians were replacing them with Mosin-Nagants) and about 50 63,5mm M1883 mountain guns from the Russians. | [
"Many countries sought to send military missions to study not only modern fighting, but also fighting in different cultures, different terrain and different climates. Sweden and Turkey also had no interests in the region after ww1, yet both sent military missions during the 20s and 30s to Ethiopia.\n\nWhat was in i... | 1 | [
"Many countries sought to send military missions to study not only modern fighting, but also fighting in different cultures, different terrain and different climates. Sweden and Turkey also had no interests in the region after ww1, yet both sent military missions during the 20s and 30s to Ethiopia.\n\nWhat was in i... | 1 | question: Why did Russia aid Ethiopia in the First Italo-Abyssinian War? | answer: Many countries sought to send military missions to study not only modern fighting, but also fighting in different cultures, different terrain and different climates. Sweden and Turkey also had no interests in the region after ww1, yet both sent military missions during the 20s and 30s to Ethiopia.What was in it for Russia? Experience fighting in mountainous terrain in a hot country where the locals were a semi-feudalistic society. It is quite similar to their own recent excperience against the Circassians in the Caucasus, held value for potential fighting in the eastern parts of the Ottoman Empire, Persia and Afghanistan (all of which seemed like likely places for the next war for Imperial Russia in the 1880s).But mostly, Russian arms companies could sell arms to Ethiopia though the Russian military mission.The Ethiopians bought about 30 000 Berdan rifles (military surplus as the Russians were replacing them with Mosin-Nagants) and about 50 63,5mm M1883 mountain guns from the Russians. |
flul08 | what happens when you've had a disease and you've got immunity are you still a carrier? | In most cases, if you're immune, you'll eliminate the germs from your system. But this is not true for every disease. Chicken pox, for instance, stays in the body forever. And sometimes people become carriers for diseases that normally don't act that way. Mary Mallon, known to history as Typhoid Mary, carried bacteria in her gallbladder that made other people sick, but she never got sick herself. Typhoid normally doesn't do that. | [
"In most cases, if you're immune, you'll eliminate the germs from your system. But this is not true for every disease. Chicken pox, for instance, stays in the body forever. And sometimes people become carriers for diseases that normally don't act that way. Mary Mallon, known to history as Typhoid Mary, carried ... | 8 | [
"In most cases, if you're immune, you'll eliminate the germs from your system. But this is not true for every disease. Chicken pox, for instance, stays in the body forever. And sometimes people become carriers for diseases that normally don't act that way. Mary Mallon, known to history as Typhoid Mary, carried ... | 4 | question: what happens when you've had a disease and you've got immunity are you still a carrier? | answer: In most cases, if you're immune, you'll eliminate the germs from your system. But this is not true for every disease. Chicken pox, for instance, stays in the body forever. And sometimes people become carriers for diseases that normally don't act that way. Mary Mallon, known to history as Typhoid Mary, carried bacteria in her gallbladder that made other people sick, but she never got sick herself. Typhoid normally doesn't do that. |
5bazft | how do websites like g2a, sell games at cheaper prices and still make money? | Fraud. Stolen credit cards are used to buy the keys, the keys get sold to third party websites who sell them to consumers. | [
"Fraud. Stolen credit cards are used to buy the keys, the keys get sold to third party websites who sell them to consumers.",
"G2A works as a marketplace, allowing users to sell and buy game keys.\n\nG2A sells games at steep discounts, allowing high volume, and buys game keys for a small amount. They also take... | 3 | [
"Fraud. Stolen credit cards are used to buy the keys, the keys get sold to third party websites who sell them to consumers."
] | 1 | question: how do websites like g2a, sell games at cheaper prices and still make money? | answer: Fraud. Stolen credit cards are used to buy the keys, the keys get sold to third party websites who sell them to consumers. |
pqovd | What is the biochemical process behind "feeling nervous"? | You're right about the adrenaline. Although "feeling nervous" is not exactly the same as a fear response, it is very similar to the fight or flight response in that your brain feels that you are in a potentially compromising situation. When you recall a memory of a particularly uncomfortable situation for example, a reflex pathway is activated in the brain that releases a number of hormones. Although the stereotypical "nervous feeling" (wave of chills over the entire body, increased heart rate, anxious feeling) is mostly from the release of adrenaline. | [
"You're right about the adrenaline. Although \"feeling nervous\" is not exactly the same as a fear response, it is very similar to the fight or flight response in that your brain feels that you are in a potentially compromising situation. When you recall a memory of a particularly uncomfortable situation for examp... | 3 | [] | 0 | question: What is the biochemical process behind "feeling nervous"? | answer: You're right about the adrenaline. Although "feeling nervous" is not exactly the same as a fear response, it is very similar to the fight or flight response in that your brain feels that you are in a potentially compromising situation. When you recall a memory of a particularly uncomfortable situation for example, a reflex pathway is activated in the brain that releases a number of hormones. Although the stereotypical "nervous feeling" (wave of chills over the entire body, increased heart rate, anxious feeling) is mostly from the release of adrenaline. |
18l0lg | What happened to a Roman slave if his master was killed or exiled? | He was still technically a Slave ( Property) and given as property to the heir in a will. It would take a manumission ceremony in public for the slave to be free. He wasn't killed as far as I know like you would find in other more ancient civilizations. Once a Slave in the roman sense you were a Slave for life for the most part. Originally in the early republic slaves had no legal protections, but gradually they got more rights and had at least a chance at becoming a freedmen. | [
"He was still technically a Slave ( Property) and given as property to the heir in a will. It would take a manumission ceremony in public for the slave to be free. He wasn't killed as far as I know like you would find in other more ancient civilizations. Once a Slave in the roman sense you were a Slave for life for... | 3 | [
"He was still technically a Slave ( Property) and given as property to the heir in a will. It would take a manumission ceremony in public for the slave to be free. He wasn't killed as far as I know like you would find in other more ancient civilizations. Once a Slave in the roman sense you were a Slave for life for... | 3 | question: What happened to a Roman slave if his master was killed or exiled? | answer: He was still technically a Slave ( Property) and given as property to the heir in a will. It would take a manumission ceremony in public for the slave to be free. He wasn't killed as far as I know like you would find in other more ancient civilizations. Once a Slave in the roman sense you were a Slave for life for the most part. Originally in the early republic slaves had no legal protections, but gradually they got more rights and had at least a chance at becoming a freedmen. |
snu9u | What would our solar system look like from 2 light years away? | Small. Jupiter would have an apparent magnitude of approximately 21 with an angular separation of 8 arcseconds. It would require a very sensitive instrument to see it at all. The sun would still be visible at an apparent magnitude of -1.23, that is close to how bright Jupiter is in the night sky. | [
"Small. Jupiter would have an apparent magnitude of approximately 21 with an angular separation of 8 arcseconds. It would require a very sensitive instrument to see it at all. The sun would still be visible at an apparent magnitude of -1.23, that is close to how bright Jupiter is in the night sky.",
"The solar sy... | 2 | [
"Small. Jupiter would have an apparent magnitude of approximately 21 with an angular separation of 8 arcseconds. It would require a very sensitive instrument to see it at all. The sun would still be visible at an apparent magnitude of -1.23, that is close to how bright Jupiter is in the night sky.",
"The solar sy... | 2 | question: What would our solar system look like from 2 light years away? | answer: Small. Jupiter would have an apparent magnitude of approximately 21 with an angular separation of 8 arcseconds. It would require a very sensitive instrument to see it at all. The sun would still be visible at an apparent magnitude of -1.23, that is close to how bright Jupiter is in the night sky. |
66rcmw | How entangled particles(electrons/photons) are created? And does any natural process is cosmos yield entangled particles? | Lots of physical processes lead to entangled particles, for example decays. When a particle decays, angular momentum must be conserved. So you can have entanglement in the spin states of the decay products, for example. | [
"Lots of physical processes lead to entangled particles, for example decays. When a particle decays, angular momentum must be conserved. So you can have entanglement in the spin states of the decay products, for example."
] | 1 | [
"Lots of physical processes lead to entangled particles, for example decays. When a particle decays, angular momentum must be conserved. So you can have entanglement in the spin states of the decay products, for example."
] | 1 | question: How entangled particles(electrons/photons) are created? And does any natural process is cosmos yield entangled particles? | answer: Lots of physical processes lead to entangled particles, for example decays. When a particle decays, angular momentum must be conserved. So you can have entanglement in the spin states of the decay products, for example. |
1j08h3 | Working on writing a post-WWII film and had a question about surplus aircraft... | Many planes were lined up in what we might call a boneyard today and left to be sold for scrap or parts. One of the most popular things to do was to take the Allison engines from a P-38 or the Rolls Royce Merlin engine from a P-51 and use it to make a speedboat, drag racer, or some other such form of ridiculousness powered by an aircraft engine. For a really sad picture, [here's a field full of B-17s waiting to be scrapped](_URL_0_). For a movie which shows something like this in a contemporary setting, check out *The Best Years of Our Lives*, which won Best Picture in 1946. A USAAF veteran goes to one of these yards to sit in his old type of plane at one point. | [
"Many planes were lined up in what we might call a boneyard today and left to be sold for scrap or parts. One of the most popular things to do was to take the Allison engines from a P-38 or the Rolls Royce Merlin engine from a P-51 and use it to make a speedboat, drag racer, or some other such form of ridiculousnes... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: Working on writing a post-WWII film and had a question about surplus aircraft... | answer: Many planes were lined up in what we might call a boneyard today and left to be sold for scrap or parts. One of the most popular things to do was to take the Allison engines from a P-38 or the Rolls Royce Merlin engine from a P-51 and use it to make a speedboat, drag racer, or some other such form of ridiculousness powered by an aircraft engine. For a really sad picture, [here's a field full of B-17s waiting to be scrapped](_URL_0_). For a movie which shows something like this in a contemporary setting, check out *The Best Years of Our Lives*, which won Best Picture in 1946. A USAAF veteran goes to one of these yards to sit in his old type of plane at one point. |
2i8ja2 | what would we see from an explosion in space? | You don't get fireballs with explosions in space, but you still get the shockwave with the bonus of a lot less gravity so it doesn't slow down.If a space ship exploded, the fire part would be gone as soon as the oxygen was. Meanwhile, the ship would blow apart with all the little bits flying away in all directions, not slowing down until they hit something or get captured by the gravity of something else.I don't know enough about C4 to answer that one, but if the explosion required atmosphere oxygen, then it wouldn't blow up. Otherwise, it would behave a lot like the exploding spaceship. | [
"You don't get fireballs with explosions in space, but you still get the shockwave with the bonus of a lot less gravity so it doesn't slow down.\n\nIf a space ship exploded, the fire part would be gone as soon as the oxygen was. Meanwhile, the ship would blow apart with all the little bits flying away in all direct... | 3 | [
"You don't get fireballs with explosions in space, but you still get the shockwave with the bonus of a lot less gravity so it doesn't slow down.\n\nIf a space ship exploded, the fire part would be gone as soon as the oxygen was. Meanwhile, the ship would blow apart with all the little bits flying away in all direct... | 1 | question: what would we see from an explosion in space? | answer: You don't get fireballs with explosions in space, but you still get the shockwave with the bonus of a lot less gravity so it doesn't slow down.If a space ship exploded, the fire part would be gone as soon as the oxygen was. Meanwhile, the ship would blow apart with all the little bits flying away in all directions, not slowing down until they hit something or get captured by the gravity of something else.I don't know enough about C4 to answer that one, but if the explosion required atmosphere oxygen, then it wouldn't blow up. Otherwise, it would behave a lot like the exploding spaceship. |
1x7lrz | how when lifting weights, i lift until i don't have the strength, then 60 seconds later it's back. | Its called Momentary Muscle Failure. As your lifting weights, your cells use up its energy and oxygen. When you take the 60s break, your blood gets oxygen back to your muscle cells | [
"Its called Momentary Muscle Failure. As your lifting weights, your cells use up its energy and oxygen. When you take the 60s break, your blood gets oxygen back to your muscle cells",
"Your muscles are an extension of what you do with your lungs... Run on a treadmill at 10 or 12 speel or higher for however long y... | 2 | [
"Its called Momentary Muscle Failure. As your lifting weights, your cells use up its energy and oxygen. When you take the 60s break, your blood gets oxygen back to your muscle cells"
] | 1 | question: how when lifting weights, i lift until i don't have the strength, then 60 seconds later it's back. | answer: Its called Momentary Muscle Failure. As your lifting weights, your cells use up its energy and oxygen. When you take the 60s break, your blood gets oxygen back to your muscle cells |
6pk9cf | why do american cargo trucks have the engine sticking out in front of the driver whereas european trucks have the engine below the driver? | US laws have maximum trailer restrictions, EU has total length restrictions so it makes sense to have as short of a prime mover as possible so you can have a longer trailer. | [
"European trucks tend to have to get into smaller spaces inside older cities built before cars were invented. The engine below trucks otherwise known as *cab-over* are shorter and allow the drivers to maneuver better in tight spaces. ",
"The regulations for the maximum length includes the truck in the EU, so to ... | 3 | [
"European trucks tend to have to get into smaller spaces inside older cities built before cars were invented. The engine below trucks otherwise known as *cab-over* are shorter and allow the drivers to maneuver better in tight spaces. ",
"The regulations for the maximum length includes the truck in the EU, so to ... | 3 | question: why do american cargo trucks have the engine sticking out in front of the driver whereas european trucks have the engine below the driver? | answer: US laws have maximum trailer restrictions, EU has total length restrictions so it makes sense to have as short of a prime mover as possible so you can have a longer trailer. |
6auusu | what are the methods blood pressure can be measured without a sphygmomanometer? | You can perforate one artery and see how high the blood squirts.Now, seriously, that doctor just made it up. | [
"You can perforate one artery and see how high the blood squirts.\n\nNow, seriously, that doctor just made it up.",
"Arterial line monitoring, is often used for constant blood pressure monitoring... Except you typically only see it used in ICUs and theatre, not so much at the dentist (also you'd probably have not... | 2 | [
"You can perforate one artery and see how high the blood squirts.\n\nNow, seriously, that doctor just made it up."
] | 1 | question: what are the methods blood pressure can be measured without a sphygmomanometer? | answer: You can perforate one artery and see how high the blood squirts.Now, seriously, that doctor just made it up. |
zdnyw | Is there any science to the concept of 'Race' considering our current knowledge of genetics? | Once you start paying attention to genetics, any racial categories you might construct will have absolutely no relationship to the racial categories everyone is familiar with. Most of the 'races' you'd construct will be in Africa, all made up of people that would commonly be called 'black' in the US or Canada. That's the problem with basing racial categories entirely on superficial traits like skin colour. Any system that classifies Australian Aborigines and the Masai is being the same race has some very serious issues. | [
"\"Races\" are generally socio-political. There is no genetic marker that defines your race. Color of your skin, shape of your bones, thickness of your hair, sure, but that isn't enough for someone to determine your race by. ",
"Once you start paying attention to genetics, any racial categories you might construc... | 2 | [
"Once you start paying attention to genetics, any racial categories you might construct will have absolutely no relationship to the racial categories everyone is familiar with. Most of the 'races' you'd construct will be in Africa, all made up of people that would commonly be called 'black' in the US or Canada. \n... | 1 | question: Is there any science to the concept of 'Race' considering our current knowledge of genetics? | answer: Once you start paying attention to genetics, any racial categories you might construct will have absolutely no relationship to the racial categories everyone is familiar with. Most of the 'races' you'd construct will be in Africa, all made up of people that would commonly be called 'black' in the US or Canada. That's the problem with basing racial categories entirely on superficial traits like skin colour. Any system that classifies Australian Aborigines and the Masai is being the same race has some very serious issues. |
6cqwv4 | is body language cultural, genetic, inherited and/or something else? | I would say 50/50. Laugh and clap seems to ve innate actions, while some gestures (Like the "yes" movement up and down with the head VS the "no movement) are cultural. For example the military salute isn't something innate, it's social construct to express order, loyalty and discipline even in a sarcastic way. But I don't believe early humans do this, in fact its said the gesture come from Medieval times when a knight had to put off his eyes' protection to see his interlocutor with a similar movement. And then... well, we adopted it. | [
"I would say 50/50. Laugh and clap seems to ve innate actions, while some gestures (Like the \"yes\" movement up and down with the head VS the \"no movement) are cultural.\n\n For example the military salute isn't something innate, it's social construct to express order, loyalty and discipline even in a sarcastic w... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: is body language cultural, genetic, inherited and/or something else? | answer: I would say 50/50. Laugh and clap seems to ve innate actions, while some gestures (Like the "yes" movement up and down with the head VS the "no movement) are cultural. For example the military salute isn't something innate, it's social construct to express order, loyalty and discipline even in a sarcastic way. But I don't believe early humans do this, in fact its said the gesture come from Medieval times when a knight had to put off his eyes' protection to see his interlocutor with a similar movement. And then... well, we adopted it. |
o2rxt | Why do tomatoes and eggs explode in the microwave? | Microwaves heat water. This produces steam. This produces pressure.Eggs and tomatoes do not have easy escape routes for the pressure.Boom. | [
"Microwaves heat the material just under the surface. Water expands as it heats up, especially once it boils. Both tomato skin and eggshell are non-porous, meaning that they won't let steam escape as it tries to expand. The result is that pressure builds up inside the tomato/egg until the skin/shell can't contain i... | 3 | [
"Microwaves heat the material just under the surface. Water expands as it heats up, especially once it boils. Both tomato skin and eggshell are non-porous, meaning that they won't let steam escape as it tries to expand. The result is that pressure builds up inside the tomato/egg until the skin/shell can't contain i... | 3 | question: Why do tomatoes and eggs explode in the microwave? | answer: Microwaves heat water. This produces steam. This produces pressure.Eggs and tomatoes do not have easy escape routes for the pressure.Boom. |
9qcogy | If hitler was arrested what crimes would he be charged for? | *Borrowing from a previous answer I have written, with some minor addendum*So obviously, we can't *know* what would happen, but as has been noted by several mods, we can say what was discussed in the event that Hitler was captured. In the tome "*What If?*", Roger Spiller's chapter, "The Führer in the Dock", focuses on this very scenario, and while he goes on to contemplate various scenarios as they may have played out, he spends much of the chapter establishing how he arrives at those conclusions, and looking at how plans progressed up until Hitler's hypothetical capture in the Spring of '45.To start with, there was considerable disagreement on just what would be done, although punishment for war crimes was essentially assumed by all - see the St. James Declaration of early 1942, which stated "*international solidarity is necessary to avoid the repression of these acts of violence simply by acts of vengeance on the part of the general public and in order to satisfy the sense of justice of the civilized world*". The Moscow Declaration of late 1943 would further solidify that sentiment, but while it directed 'minor' war criminals would be tried in "*the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those liberated countries and of the Free Governments which will be erected therein*" it continued to leave open the situation with the 'big guys', explicitly noting that "*major criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location*" would be "*punished by a joint declaration of the Governments of the Allies*"... but no agreement on what that punishment would be had yet been hammered out! It didn't even spell out whether or not they would be granted trials.Winston Churchill, contemplated several possible scenarios through the years. Early in the war, he considered exile for the high-leadership of the Party, similar to the treatment of Napoleon, placing them on a remote island (although he specifically stated he would not desecrate St. Helena by doing so). He also proposed a rather gruesome end for Mussolini at that time, proposing that he be strangled in the same manner the Romans (who Il Duce sought to emulate) had killed the Gallic leader Vercingetorix. As the war progressed though, he became more amenable to summary execution. In a meeting of the War Cabinet in 1942, he stated: > If Hitler falls into our hands we shall certainly put him to death. [He is] not a sovereign who could be said to be in [the] hands of ministers, like [the] Kaiser.Others also seemed to support a similar approach. FDR seems to have liked the very harsh proposal made by Henry Morgenthau for mass executions of Nazi "archvillains", possibly numbering in the thousands (And apparently joked [?] once or twice about mass castration of Germans to boot). Cordell Hull proposed a similar idea, executing Hitler within hours of his capture, noting: > I would take Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo and their accomplices and bring them before a drumhead court martial, and at sunrise the following morning there would occur an historic incident.In the US, calmer heads prevailed though, and in discussions on the matter in October, 1944, Henry Stimson would have none of it. He was insistent that an international tribunal of the Nazi leadership was the only method of dealing with Hitler and his ilk while remaining true to the moral justifications that the Allies gave for the war, noting "*the punishment of these men in a dignified manner will have all the greater effect upon posterity", which did in the end win Roosevelt over. Interestingly, Stalin was also in favor of trials, although it is safe to say that a trial, as envisioned by him, was little more than a rubber-stamp show trial that was already typical of him. While earlier in the war, Stalin had expressed a desire for blood, toasting to "*the quickest possible justice for all German war criminals*" at the Tehran Conference in '43 for instance, although his accompanying suggestion that this would mean 50,000 executions might have been a joke. Certainly it shocked all present, but either way, he seems to have mellowed a year later. While Churchill might still have had bloodspilling on his mind, and certainly wanted execution to be meted out as punishment in the end, it was Stalin who turned him, during their Moscow meeting in 1944, where Stalin insisted that "*There must be no executions without trial otherwise the world would say that we were afraid to try them.*"It perhaps went even further than that. When the first reports of Hitler's suicide were coming in, and Stalin heard of it, he was reportedly put out by the fact, and it seems to have been quite clear that he considered taking Hitler alive to be part of his victory, a trophy, and putting him on trial a means of displaying his achievement.To be sure, that isn't to say, of course, than anyone necessarily *wanted* to deal with a trial of Hitler. A month before Hitler's demise, Anthony Eden remarked that were a Tommy to have the opportunity to capture Adolf, "I am quite satisfied to leave the decision to the British soldier concerned". And while Stimson might have won the debate in the US Cabinet, the concerns that he had fought against, namely that giving Hitler *any* sort of platform to defend himself was dangerous, never entirely went away. It is doubtful you can find very many leaders at the time who were put out by the fact Hitler escaped trial, as his death put the nail in the coffin of a debate that not everyone saw eye to eye on.If you are interested in what such a trial might have looked like, well, I recommend you look for the book, but simply put, we can only guess. What we can say though is that while there were variances within the Allies about what to do, and some voices in the leadership would have liked nothing more than to dispose of Hitler and the Nazi leadership with "no fuss", by the last days of the war, the agreed to policy would be to put Hitler on trial for his life if captured. The charges would certainly have been the same four counts that the other principal defendents at Nuremberg had to face, as laid in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal: > Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. > The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: > (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; > (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; > (c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. > Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.These were charges which were successfully prosecuted against key figures of the Nazi hierarchy who survived, most importantly perhaps, given their proximity to Hitler, Goering (guilty on all counts), Hess (guilty on A, not guilty on B/C), as well as Martin Bormann (guilty on B and C, not guilty on A) who we know know to have been dead by then, but at the time, this being unconfirmed, was tried in absentia. There is no reason to believe Hitler would not have been found guilty on all charges, and hanged in due course, but any specifics are, again, speculative.-----*London Charter of the International Military Tribunal*. Aug 8, 1945.Spiller, Roger. "The Führer in the Dock." In *The Collected What If?: Eminent Historians Imagining What Might Have Been*, edited by Robert Cowley, 744-65. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2001.Thompson, Jonathan. "Churchill Wanted a Captured Hitler to Die 'like a Gangster' in the Electric Chair." December 31, 2005. Accessed October 10, 2016. _URL_0_.Tusa, John & Tusa, Ann. "The Nuremberg Trial", New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010. | [
"*Borrowing from a previous answer I have written, with some minor addendum*\n\nSo obviously, we can't *know* what would happen, but as has been noted by several mods, we can say what was discussed in the event that Hitler was captured. In the tome \"*What If?*\", Roger Spiller's chapter, \"The Führer in the Dock\"... | 1 | [
"*Borrowing from a previous answer I have written, with some minor addendum*\n\nSo obviously, we can't *know* what would happen, but as has been noted by several mods, we can say what was discussed in the event that Hitler was captured. In the tome \"*What If?*\", Roger Spiller's chapter, \"The Führer in the Dock\"... | 1 | question: If hitler was arrested what crimes would he be charged for? | answer: *Borrowing from a previous answer I have written, with some minor addendum*So obviously, we can't *know* what would happen, but as has been noted by several mods, we can say what was discussed in the event that Hitler was captured. In the tome "*What If?*", Roger Spiller's chapter, "The Führer in the Dock", focuses on this very scenario, and while he goes on to contemplate various scenarios as they may have played out, he spends much of the chapter establishing how he arrives at those conclusions, and looking at how plans progressed up until Hitler's hypothetical capture in the Spring of '45.To start with, there was considerable disagreement on just what would be done, although punishment for war crimes was essentially assumed by all - see the St. James Declaration of early 1942, which stated "*international solidarity is necessary to avoid the repression of these acts of violence simply by acts of vengeance on the part of the general public and in order to satisfy the sense of justice of the civilized world*". The Moscow Declaration of late 1943 would further solidify that sentiment, but while it directed 'minor' war criminals would be tried in "*the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those liberated countries and of the Free Governments which will be erected therein*" it continued to leave open the situation with the 'big guys', explicitly noting that "*major criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location*" would be "*punished by a joint declaration of the Governments of the Allies*"... but no agreement on what that punishment would be had yet been hammered out! It didn't even spell out whether or not they would be granted trials.Winston Churchill, contemplated several possible scenarios through the years. Early in the war, he considered exile for the high-leadership of the Party, similar to the treatment of Napoleon, placing them on a remote island (although he specifically stated he would not desecrate St. Helena by doing so). He also proposed a rather gruesome end for Mussolini at that time, proposing that he be strangled in the same manner the Romans (who Il Duce sought to emulate) had killed the Gallic leader Vercingetorix. As the war progressed though, he became more amenable to summary execution. In a meeting of the War Cabinet in 1942, he stated: > If Hitler falls into our hands we shall certainly put him to death. [He is] not a sovereign who could be said to be in [the] hands of ministers, like [the] Kaiser.Others also seemed to support a similar approach. FDR seems to have liked the very harsh proposal made by Henry Morgenthau for mass executions of Nazi "archvillains", possibly numbering in the thousands (And apparently joked [?] once or twice about mass castration of Germans to boot). Cordell Hull proposed a similar idea, executing Hitler within hours of his capture, noting: > I would take Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo and their accomplices and bring them before a drumhead court martial, and at sunrise the following morning there would occur an historic incident.In the US, calmer heads prevailed though, and in discussions on the matter in October, 1944, Henry Stimson would have none of it. He was insistent that an international tribunal of the Nazi leadership was the only method of dealing with Hitler and his ilk while remaining true to the moral justifications that the Allies gave for the war, noting "*the punishment of these men in a dignified manner will have all the greater effect upon posterity", which did in the end win Roosevelt over. Interestingly, Stalin was also in favor of trials, although it is safe to say that a trial, as envisioned by him, was little more than a rubber-stamp show trial that was already typical of him. While earlier in the war, Stalin had expressed a desire for blood, toasting to "*the quickest possible justice for all German war criminals*" at the Tehran Conference in '43 for instance, although his accompanying suggestion that this would mean 50,000 executions might have been a joke. Certainly it shocked all present, but either way, he seems to have mellowed a year later. While Churchill might still have had bloodspilling on his mind, and certainly wanted execution to be meted out as punishment in the end, it was Stalin who turned him, during their Moscow meeting in 1944, where Stalin insisted that "*There must be no executions without trial otherwise the world would say that we were afraid to try them.*"It perhaps went even further than that. When the first reports of Hitler's suicide were coming in, and Stalin heard of it, he was reportedly put out by the fact, and it seems to have been quite clear that he considered taking Hitler alive to be part of his victory, a trophy, and putting him on trial a means of displaying his achievement.To be sure, that isn't to say, of course, than anyone necessarily *wanted* to deal with a trial of Hitler. A month before Hitler's demise, Anthony Eden remarked that were a Tommy to have the opportunity to capture Adolf, "I am quite satisfied to leave the decision to the British soldier concerned". And while Stimson might have won the debate in the US Cabinet, the concerns that he had fought against, namely that giving Hitler *any* sort of platform to defend himself was dangerous, never entirely went away. It is doubtful you can find very many leaders at the time who were put out by the fact Hitler escaped trial, as his death put the nail in the coffin of a debate that not everyone saw eye to eye on.If you are interested in what such a trial might have looked like, well, I recommend you look for the book, but simply put, we can only guess. What we can say though is that while there were variances within the Allies about what to do, and some voices in the leadership would have liked nothing more than to dispose of Hitler and the Nazi leadership with "no fuss", by the last days of the war, the agreed to policy would be to put Hitler on trial for his life if captured. The charges would certainly have been the same four counts that the other principal defendents at Nuremberg had to face, as laid in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal: > Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. > The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: > (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; > (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; > (c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. > Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.These were charges which were successfully prosecuted against key figures of the Nazi hierarchy who survived, most importantly perhaps, given their proximity to Hitler, Goering (guilty on all counts), Hess (guilty on A, not guilty on B/C), as well as Martin Bormann (guilty on B and C, not guilty on A) who we know know to have been dead by then, but at the time, this being unconfirmed, was tried in absentia. There is no reason to believe Hitler would not have been found guilty on all charges, and hanged in due course, but any specifics are, again, speculative.-----*London Charter of the International Military Tribunal*. Aug 8, 1945.Spiller, Roger. "The Führer in the Dock." In *The Collected What If?: Eminent Historians Imagining What Might Have Been*, edited by Robert Cowley, 744-65. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2001.Thompson, Jonathan. "Churchill Wanted a Captured Hitler to Die 'like a Gangster' in the Electric Chair." December 31, 2005. Accessed October 10, 2016. _URL_0_.Tusa, John & Tusa, Ann. "The Nuremberg Trial", New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010. |
k6ok6 | Assuming the Many-Worlds theory of quantum mechanics is correct, how varied can the different universes be on a macroscopic level? | [Read this](_URL_0_), and let me know what questions you have. Essentially, if you're making your decisions based on quantum measurements, then perhaps. I don't know the level of "quantum measurements" that occur in the brain (I also don't think there's a consensus on this issue, but it seems that a lot of people lean towards minimal/none). | [
"[Read this](_URL_0_), and let me know what questions you have. Essentially, if you're making your decisions based on quantum measurements, then perhaps. I don't know the level of \"quantum measurements\" that occur in the brain (I also don't think there's a consensus on this issue, but it seems that a lot of peopl... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: Assuming the Many-Worlds theory of quantum mechanics is correct, how varied can the different universes be on a macroscopic level? | answer: [Read this](_URL_0_), and let me know what questions you have. Essentially, if you're making your decisions based on quantum measurements, then perhaps. I don't know the level of "quantum measurements" that occur in the brain (I also don't think there's a consensus on this issue, but it seems that a lot of people lean towards minimal/none). |
50bb1i | Why were so many UN and US prisoners killed by China and North Korea during the Korean War? | Look at the Korean War in two parts - pre-China and post-China.Pre-China, the North Koreans were quite vicious. They did execute prisoners that had been captured and bound. They were fighting a war that was both fast and political. The speed meant that they weren't ready to house prisoners, so they had no other choice than to kill them. The politics of the situation was also a precursor to what would come later in North Korea - loads of propaganda.Post-China is a different story. The Chinese were much more humane towards prisoners. They didn't execute people who surrendered, at least not as an official policy. During battles, there are records of isolated incidents of this happening, but it was low level officers, not general officers, making those decisions.The biggest problem was simply that the Chinese were overwhelmed. They had just finished fighting a civil war, they were poor and poorly equipped, and it was winter. UN troops were also poorly equipped, many of them fighting in North Korea in October and November in summer uniforms. The majority of soldiers who died in Chinese captivity died from hunger and weather, factors that the Chinese had little to no control over given that they were trying to feed and clothe their soldiers at the same time.For more information, any decent book on the Korean War will mention this. The two that jump out at me are *Scorched Earth, Black Snow* by Andrew Salmon, a book about UK/Commonwealth soldiers in the war, and *The Coldest Winter* by David Halberstam, about the US in the war. They don't discuss POW camps in detail, but they do mention the factors I've brought up.**Edit**/u/henry_fords_ghost said > this seems to suggest suggesting that military expediency justifies killing Prisoners of War.I'm not saying that military expediency justifies killing prisoners of war. I am saying that North Korean soldiers did kill POWs, in part, for that reason however. As I'll mention below, the available evidence suggests that these were not systematic killings ordered by the General Staff, but the actions of front line soldiers with little training and little choice other than to let the POWs go. The South had NOT collapsed as predicted and the northern soldiers could not afford to leave people behind to guard the prisoners./u/GTFErinyes said: > I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that North Korea killed prisoners out of strategic need. While some cases were out of circumstances, like the notion that North Korea's most recent military experience was with/against the Japanese - who were notorious for how they treated POWs - and thus weren't as privy to Western/international regulations on the treatment of POWs, we cannot ignore that North Korea also systemically implemented a lot of policies towards POWs that were barbaric and designed to advance their own agenda.T.R. Fehrenbach, in his book *This Kind of War* pointed out that there is no evidence that the North Korean leadership knew of or sanctioned the shooting of prisoners in the early part of the war. In Roy Appleman's book, *South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu*, he cites an order from the North Korean General Staff to all officers that said killing of POW's was strictly prohibited. The order came down on July 28th, after reports of massacres began to appear. After this order, a few more incidents occurred during the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter, but for the most part, these incidents stopped. | [
"Look at the Korean War in two parts - pre-China and post-China.\n\nPre-China, the North Koreans were quite vicious. They did execute prisoners that had been captured and bound. They were fighting a war that was both fast and political. The speed meant that they weren't ready to house prisoners, so they had no othe... | 2 | [
"Look at the Korean War in two parts - pre-China and post-China.\n\nPre-China, the North Koreans were quite vicious. They did execute prisoners that had been captured and bound. They were fighting a war that was both fast and political. The speed meant that they weren't ready to house prisoners, so they had no othe... | 1 | question: Why were so many UN and US prisoners killed by China and North Korea during the Korean War? | answer: Look at the Korean War in two parts - pre-China and post-China.Pre-China, the North Koreans were quite vicious. They did execute prisoners that had been captured and bound. They were fighting a war that was both fast and political. The speed meant that they weren't ready to house prisoners, so they had no other choice than to kill them. The politics of the situation was also a precursor to what would come later in North Korea - loads of propaganda.Post-China is a different story. The Chinese were much more humane towards prisoners. They didn't execute people who surrendered, at least not as an official policy. During battles, there are records of isolated incidents of this happening, but it was low level officers, not general officers, making those decisions.The biggest problem was simply that the Chinese were overwhelmed. They had just finished fighting a civil war, they were poor and poorly equipped, and it was winter. UN troops were also poorly equipped, many of them fighting in North Korea in October and November in summer uniforms. The majority of soldiers who died in Chinese captivity died from hunger and weather, factors that the Chinese had little to no control over given that they were trying to feed and clothe their soldiers at the same time.For more information, any decent book on the Korean War will mention this. The two that jump out at me are *Scorched Earth, Black Snow* by Andrew Salmon, a book about UK/Commonwealth soldiers in the war, and *The Coldest Winter* by David Halberstam, about the US in the war. They don't discuss POW camps in detail, but they do mention the factors I've brought up.**Edit**/u/henry_fords_ghost said > this seems to suggest suggesting that military expediency justifies killing Prisoners of War.I'm not saying that military expediency justifies killing prisoners of war. I am saying that North Korean soldiers did kill POWs, in part, for that reason however. As I'll mention below, the available evidence suggests that these were not systematic killings ordered by the General Staff, but the actions of front line soldiers with little training and little choice other than to let the POWs go. The South had NOT collapsed as predicted and the northern soldiers could not afford to leave people behind to guard the prisoners./u/GTFErinyes said: > I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that North Korea killed prisoners out of strategic need. While some cases were out of circumstances, like the notion that North Korea's most recent military experience was with/against the Japanese - who were notorious for how they treated POWs - and thus weren't as privy to Western/international regulations on the treatment of POWs, we cannot ignore that North Korea also systemically implemented a lot of policies towards POWs that were barbaric and designed to advance their own agenda.T.R. Fehrenbach, in his book *This Kind of War* pointed out that there is no evidence that the North Korean leadership knew of or sanctioned the shooting of prisoners in the early part of the war. In Roy Appleman's book, *South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu*, he cites an order from the North Korean General Staff to all officers that said killing of POW's was strictly prohibited. The order came down on July 28th, after reports of massacres began to appear. After this order, a few more incidents occurred during the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter, but for the most part, these incidents stopped. |
3pw2y9 | why/how can states simply ignore the supreme court's rulings? | Alabama had laws on the books banning interracial marriage until the 2000's, but it didn't really matter since those laws weren't actually enforced. It could be a similar situation with those states where they recognize that they can't do it but don't want to bother actually repealing the law.Another possibility is that they want to keep them on the books in case a later Supreme Court overturns the ruling. | [
"Alabama had laws on the books banning interracial marriage until the 2000's, but it didn't really matter since those laws weren't actually enforced. It could be a similar situation with those states where they recognize that they can't do it but don't want to bother actually repealing the law.\n\nAnother possibili... | 4 | [
"Alabama had laws on the books banning interracial marriage until the 2000's, but it didn't really matter since those laws weren't actually enforced. It could be a similar situation with those states where they recognize that they can't do it but don't want to bother actually repealing the law.\n\nAnother possibili... | 2 | question: why/how can states simply ignore the supreme court's rulings? | answer: Alabama had laws on the books banning interracial marriage until the 2000's, but it didn't really matter since those laws weren't actually enforced. It could be a similar situation with those states where they recognize that they can't do it but don't want to bother actually repealing the law.Another possibility is that they want to keep them on the books in case a later Supreme Court overturns the ruling. |
3esg2l | The Cold War was a time of incredible technological achievement. How did that directly impact ideas of national defense for both NATO and the Warsaw Pact? | I've forwarded your question to a colleague who is a specialist in this area. I too am very interested to know more. | [
"I've forwarded your question to a colleague who is a specialist in this area. I too am very interested to know more. "
] | 1 | [] | 0 | question: The Cold War was a time of incredible technological achievement. How did that directly impact ideas of national defense for both NATO and the Warsaw Pact? | answer: I've forwarded your question to a colleague who is a specialist in this area. I too am very interested to know more. |
45jyod | why do we get "addicted" to speed when driving fast? | When you're cruisin' down the highway, stuff is flying past at a constant speed. You don't have to worry about much aside from a random deer or person jumping out in front of you at the last possible second. But that almost never happens.Acceleration feels good, but that's over now. You are now acclimated to driving 120 km/h.Oh look! Now you're coming up to a town/city and need to slow down. Stuff is now moving by slower. Slow enough that you have to start paying attention more to your surroundings. Paying attention requires mental effort, neck muscle movement, and a constant readiness to put your foot on the brake.In this way, "highway speeds" are simply "low mental effort" speeds. While slower speeds require a lot more mental effort. You aren't "addicted" per se, you just enjoy the lack of effort and relative lack of mental obstacles of the highway. | [
"When you're cruisin' down the highway, stuff is flying past at a constant speed. You don't have to worry about much aside from a random deer or person jumping out in front of you at the last possible second. But that almost never happens.\n\nAcceleration feels good, but that's over now. You are now acclimated to d... | 1 | [
"When you're cruisin' down the highway, stuff is flying past at a constant speed. You don't have to worry about much aside from a random deer or person jumping out in front of you at the last possible second. But that almost never happens.\n\nAcceleration feels good, but that's over now. You are now acclimated to d... | 1 | question: why do we get "addicted" to speed when driving fast? | answer: When you're cruisin' down the highway, stuff is flying past at a constant speed. You don't have to worry about much aside from a random deer or person jumping out in front of you at the last possible second. But that almost never happens.Acceleration feels good, but that's over now. You are now acclimated to driving 120 km/h.Oh look! Now you're coming up to a town/city and need to slow down. Stuff is now moving by slower. Slow enough that you have to start paying attention more to your surroundings. Paying attention requires mental effort, neck muscle movement, and a constant readiness to put your foot on the brake.In this way, "highway speeds" are simply "low mental effort" speeds. While slower speeds require a lot more mental effort. You aren't "addicted" per se, you just enjoy the lack of effort and relative lack of mental obstacles of the highway. |
39apoe | How did Singapore go from a "third world" country to a "first world" country in one generation? | Singapore sits on one the most important waterways in the world. The straits of Singapore and Malacca control trade through Asia to the Suez Canal and eventually Europe. By the time of independence it already had the third highest per capita income in Asia. The state led drive for industrialization and the establishment of Singapore as a major financial center. This included a major education initiative and making English the national language. Additionally the government promoted FDI, and encouraged entrepreneurship. A big part too is the general lack of corruption, lee Kuan yews government was never corrupt. A good climate for business helped as well. Ease of doing business in the country let the economy prosper. It's embrace of free market capitalism coupled with responsible government let the country ascend to being one of the wealthiest countries on earth | [
"Singapore sits on one the most important waterways in the world. The straits of Singapore and Malacca control trade through Asia to the Suez Canal and eventually Europe. By the time of independence it already had the third highest per capita income in Asia. The state led drive for industrialization and the establi... | 4 | [
"Singapore sits on one the most important waterways in the world. The straits of Singapore and Malacca control trade through Asia to the Suez Canal and eventually Europe. By the time of independence it already had the third highest per capita income in Asia. The state led drive for industrialization and the establi... | 4 | question: How did Singapore go from a "third world" country to a "first world" country in one generation? | answer: Singapore sits on one the most important waterways in the world. The straits of Singapore and Malacca control trade through Asia to the Suez Canal and eventually Europe. By the time of independence it already had the third highest per capita income in Asia. The state led drive for industrialization and the establishment of Singapore as a major financial center. This included a major education initiative and making English the national language. Additionally the government promoted FDI, and encouraged entrepreneurship. A big part too is the general lack of corruption, lee Kuan yews government was never corrupt. A good climate for business helped as well. Ease of doing business in the country let the economy prosper. It's embrace of free market capitalism coupled with responsible government let the country ascend to being one of the wealthiest countries on earth |
2qs5tb | In the early to mid 1800s, how common was it for Americans to be of mixed European and Native American ancestry? | I am extremely hesitant to attempt an answer to this question at all because of the extreme complexity, ambiguity, and modern relevance inherent in it. Different people, including myself, will give radically different answers to this question depending on their own inherent biases and cultural background. Compounding the problem is the sheer number of different cases that were handled and treated by various societies in the Americas. If we ignore those of mixed Indian-African heritage, we may broadly categorize people of mixed heritage into Indian-American (often considered either White or Indian depending on social factors), French-Indian (Métis), and Spanish-Indian (Castas). Each of these groups were treated specially, particularly in regions where they were common. However, I want to stress that each of these groups has been the subject of numerous books and intense study. In the particular case of the castas, I must note that there remains a vibrant and active discussion on the integration of Mestizos and other mixed-heritage Mexicans into the United States. In spite of how complex this debate is, we do have a wonderful fixed date for the beginning of this integration: The ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The end of the Mexican-American war necessitated the integration of the former Mexican citizens into wider US society. This process was marred by conflict from the start. From even before the end of the war, there had been vigorous debate as to the potential status of Mexicans in the conquered territories. I give some background on this debate and sources in [this post](_URL_0_). In the end, the Mexican system was too distinct from the American system to be integrated. One of the most important distinctions to note in the Mexican political landscape was the breakdown of the Spanish caste system with Mexican independence. This breakdown was especially evident in the far-flung northern reaches later annexed by the US and was consolidated in the Plan of Iguala, which guaranteed legal equality for all Mexicans and established the independence of Mexico. The US had no such institutionalized ideals and in practice the newly naturalized Mexican-Americans were disenfranchised within wider US society. Rather than responding to new racial orders in the annexed territories the US imposed the racial systems of their older territories. These were characterized by a delineation between "white" and "indian", with little distinction for the broad range in between. This hierarchy was necessarily extended to incorporate the largest population of Mestizos as a single group that was not quite "white", but was above "indian". Mestizos who fell into this group quickly learned to emphasize their European heritage. The former Mexican Indians who could not plausibly claim near European heritage quickly lost all claims to their land in short order. In California's constitution, the right to vote was restricted to the "White Male citizen" and "White Male citizen of Mexico". When the Arizona Organic act was passed in 1863, the California voting requirements were incorporated into its territorial constitution. While all of that is an [extremely] brief overview of mixed-race enfranchisement for one group, the broad strokes are similar for other groups. The concept of "whiteness" was integral to 19th century racial hierarchies. Those groups that did not fit these conceptions (including slavic, irish, jewish, indians, and sometimes even italians) were subject to disenfranchisement. But many or most of the ethnic groups in the US were mixed race. For one extreme example, most of the Eastern Native American tribes possessed a majority of members with at least some European heritage. It's important to note that US racial hierarchies were not entirely based on this lineage, but rather on ambiguous racial classifications that often did not line up with heritage. ^1 "Chicano Indianism: A Historical Account of Racial Repression in the United States"Martha Menchaca*American Ethnologist *Vol. 20, No. 3 (Aug., 1993) , pp. 583-603For a more in-depth introduction to the latin american racial systems, I vaguely recommend *Race and ethnicity in Latin America*. That subject is enormously complex so any introduction is necessarily flawed. Nevertheless, this is a decent place to start. | [
"I am extremely hesitant to attempt an answer to this question at all because of the extreme complexity, ambiguity, and modern relevance inherent in it. Different people, including myself, will give radically different answers to this question depending on their own inherent biases and cultural background. Compoun... | 1 | [
"I am extremely hesitant to attempt an answer to this question at all because of the extreme complexity, ambiguity, and modern relevance inherent in it. Different people, including myself, will give radically different answers to this question depending on their own inherent biases and cultural background. Compoun... | 1 | question: In the early to mid 1800s, how common was it for Americans to be of mixed European and Native American ancestry? | answer: I am extremely hesitant to attempt an answer to this question at all because of the extreme complexity, ambiguity, and modern relevance inherent in it. Different people, including myself, will give radically different answers to this question depending on their own inherent biases and cultural background. Compounding the problem is the sheer number of different cases that were handled and treated by various societies in the Americas. If we ignore those of mixed Indian-African heritage, we may broadly categorize people of mixed heritage into Indian-American (often considered either White or Indian depending on social factors), French-Indian (Métis), and Spanish-Indian (Castas). Each of these groups were treated specially, particularly in regions where they were common. However, I want to stress that each of these groups has been the subject of numerous books and intense study. In the particular case of the castas, I must note that there remains a vibrant and active discussion on the integration of Mestizos and other mixed-heritage Mexicans into the United States. In spite of how complex this debate is, we do have a wonderful fixed date for the beginning of this integration: The ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The end of the Mexican-American war necessitated the integration of the former Mexican citizens into wider US society. This process was marred by conflict from the start. From even before the end of the war, there had been vigorous debate as to the potential status of Mexicans in the conquered territories. I give some background on this debate and sources in [this post](_URL_0_). In the end, the Mexican system was too distinct from the American system to be integrated. One of the most important distinctions to note in the Mexican political landscape was the breakdown of the Spanish caste system with Mexican independence. This breakdown was especially evident in the far-flung northern reaches later annexed by the US and was consolidated in the Plan of Iguala, which guaranteed legal equality for all Mexicans and established the independence of Mexico. The US had no such institutionalized ideals and in practice the newly naturalized Mexican-Americans were disenfranchised within wider US society. Rather than responding to new racial orders in the annexed territories the US imposed the racial systems of their older territories. These were characterized by a delineation between "white" and "indian", with little distinction for the broad range in between. This hierarchy was necessarily extended to incorporate the largest population of Mestizos as a single group that was not quite "white", but was above "indian". Mestizos who fell into this group quickly learned to emphasize their European heritage. The former Mexican Indians who could not plausibly claim near European heritage quickly lost all claims to their land in short order. In California's constitution, the right to vote was restricted to the "White Male citizen" and "White Male citizen of Mexico". When the Arizona Organic act was passed in 1863, the California voting requirements were incorporated into its territorial constitution. While all of that is an [extremely] brief overview of mixed-race enfranchisement for one group, the broad strokes are similar for other groups. The concept of "whiteness" was integral to 19th century racial hierarchies. Those groups that did not fit these conceptions (including slavic, irish, jewish, indians, and sometimes even italians) were subject to disenfranchisement. But many or most of the ethnic groups in the US were mixed race. For one extreme example, most of the Eastern Native American tribes possessed a majority of members with at least some European heritage. It's important to note that US racial hierarchies were not entirely based on this lineage, but rather on ambiguous racial classifications that often did not line up with heritage. ^1 "Chicano Indianism: A Historical Account of Racial Repression in the United States"Martha Menchaca*American Ethnologist *Vol. 20, No. 3 (Aug., 1993) , pp. 583-603For a more in-depth introduction to the latin american racial systems, I vaguely recommend *Race and ethnicity in Latin America*. That subject is enormously complex so any introduction is necessarily flawed. Nevertheless, this is a decent place to start. |
51emid | Is there a correlation between childhood bedwetting and later stage pyschological and developmental problems? | At the time, enuresis may be associated with increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity (I'm getting mixed reports on that point.) Still, most children who wet the bed have no other psychiatric problems. Bedwetting, particularly in children who were previously dry, can be associated with significant stressors, which would predispose to other problems. For the most part, it's a common physiologic problem that responds well to behavioral training (e.g. alarm systems.) The most common psychologic issue is low self-esteem, which improves with treatment.The infamous Macdonald triad suggests that firestarting, cruelty to animals, and bedwetting are linked to later violent behavior, but the evidence was never any good and the entire concept has been seriously questioned. (Dr. Macdonald himself basically offered it as an observation, from a small group, that he didn't think was predictive.) One possibility is that parental mistreatment could be an issue--particularly in the past, shaming or punishment were common responses to bedwetting.Sources:Synopsis of Psychiatry, Kaplan & Sadock, 11th edition_URL_0_ | [
"At the time, enuresis may be associated with increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity (I'm getting mixed reports on that point.) Still, most children who wet the bed have no other psychiatric problems. Bedwetting, particularly in children who were previously dry, can be associated with significant stressors, whic... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: Is there a correlation between childhood bedwetting and later stage pyschological and developmental problems? | answer: At the time, enuresis may be associated with increased risk of psychiatric comorbidity (I'm getting mixed reports on that point.) Still, most children who wet the bed have no other psychiatric problems. Bedwetting, particularly in children who were previously dry, can be associated with significant stressors, which would predispose to other problems. For the most part, it's a common physiologic problem that responds well to behavioral training (e.g. alarm systems.) The most common psychologic issue is low self-esteem, which improves with treatment.The infamous Macdonald triad suggests that firestarting, cruelty to animals, and bedwetting are linked to later violent behavior, but the evidence was never any good and the entire concept has been seriously questioned. (Dr. Macdonald himself basically offered it as an observation, from a small group, that he didn't think was predictive.) One possibility is that parental mistreatment could be an issue--particularly in the past, shaming or punishment were common responses to bedwetting.Sources:Synopsis of Psychiatry, Kaplan & Sadock, 11th edition_URL_0_ |
4tuvzs | How do astronauts and spacecraft protect against the radiation of the Van Allen Radiation Belts? | By traveling through them very quickly! On Apollo missions, the astronauts spent less than an hour passing through the belts and used trajectories specifically designed (in part by Dr. Van Allen himself) to minimize exposure. For other spacecraft like satellites and the ISS, we usually either put them in orbit below the inner belt or between the inner and outer belts. Some still have to be shielded because electronics are very sensitive to radiation and I know that some satellites use thin sheets of aluminum, which is a surprisingly effective material against lower energy radiation, but I don't know if other satellites have heavier shields or not. | [
"By traveling through them very quickly! On Apollo missions, the astronauts spent less than an hour passing through the belts and used trajectories specifically designed (in part by Dr. Van Allen himself) to minimize exposure. \n\nFor other spacecraft like satellites and the ISS, we usually either put them in orbit... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: How do astronauts and spacecraft protect against the radiation of the Van Allen Radiation Belts? | answer: By traveling through them very quickly! On Apollo missions, the astronauts spent less than an hour passing through the belts and used trajectories specifically designed (in part by Dr. Van Allen himself) to minimize exposure. For other spacecraft like satellites and the ISS, we usually either put them in orbit below the inner belt or between the inner and outer belts. Some still have to be shielded because electronics are very sensitive to radiation and I know that some satellites use thin sheets of aluminum, which is a surprisingly effective material against lower energy radiation, but I don't know if other satellites have heavier shields or not. |
d6pg7w | Does the moon have a fine line where the light side and the dark side meet? Or does it gradually get darker? | So unlike the Earth, the Moon has obviously no atmosphere. While you might expect that the lack of atmosphere produces a sharper boundary between day and night, there is still a quite fuzzy boundary. There are two reasons for this:- First of all, as you get closer to the boundary, the sunlight hits the surface at a decreasing angle. This means that if you consider a "column" or light, this will be spread out of a far larger surface area as you approach the boundary. Due to this effect, the light side will slowly get darker as you approach the boundary.- Secondly, the Sun is not a perfect point source. If you are in the middle of the light side of the Moon, you see the entire Sun, whereas from the boundary, you only see half (as the other half is below the horizon). This means that there is a small region where only part of the Sun is visible, and the local brightness will be proportional to how much surface of the Sun is visible. | [
"So unlike the Earth, the Moon has obviously no atmosphere. While you might expect that the lack of atmosphere produces a sharper boundary between day and night, there is still a quite fuzzy boundary. There are two reasons for this:\n\n- First of all, as you get closer to the boundary, the sunlight hits the surface... | 2 | [
"So unlike the Earth, the Moon has obviously no atmosphere. While you might expect that the lack of atmosphere produces a sharper boundary between day and night, there is still a quite fuzzy boundary. There are two reasons for this:\n\n- First of all, as you get closer to the boundary, the sunlight hits the surface... | 2 | question: Does the moon have a fine line where the light side and the dark side meet? Or does it gradually get darker? | answer: So unlike the Earth, the Moon has obviously no atmosphere. While you might expect that the lack of atmosphere produces a sharper boundary between day and night, there is still a quite fuzzy boundary. There are two reasons for this:- First of all, as you get closer to the boundary, the sunlight hits the surface at a decreasing angle. This means that if you consider a "column" or light, this will be spread out of a far larger surface area as you approach the boundary. Due to this effect, the light side will slowly get darker as you approach the boundary.- Secondly, the Sun is not a perfect point source. If you are in the middle of the light side of the Moon, you see the entire Sun, whereas from the boundary, you only see half (as the other half is below the horizon). This means that there is a small region where only part of the Sun is visible, and the local brightness will be proportional to how much surface of the Sun is visible. |
cixmqf | why are some websites/articles always the first to come up when using a search engine when there are so many others? | There are factors that go into this. Some of them are Recency, total amount of people that searched something similar and ended up clicking on that, where your ip says you are from, and most important, whether or not someone paid to make that happen. | [
"There are factors that go into this. Some of them are Recency, total amount of people that searched something similar and ended up clicking on that, where your ip says you are from, and most important, whether or not someone paid to make that happen.",
"Each search engine builds a secret algorithm for deciding t... | 3 | [
"There are factors that go into this. Some of them are Recency, total amount of people that searched something similar and ended up clicking on that, where your ip says you are from, and most important, whether or not someone paid to make that happen."
] | 1 | question: why are some websites/articles always the first to come up when using a search engine when there are so many others? | answer: There are factors that go into this. Some of them are Recency, total amount of people that searched something similar and ended up clicking on that, where your ip says you are from, and most important, whether or not someone paid to make that happen. |
6gb1yx | why when you miss somebody can you physically feel it in your chest? | It's called *heartache.*_URL_2__URL_0__URL_4__URL_5__URL_3__URL_1_ | [
"It's called *heartache.*\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_5_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_1_"
] | 1 | [] | 0 | question: why when you miss somebody can you physically feel it in your chest? | answer: It's called *heartache.*_URL_2__URL_0__URL_4__URL_5__URL_3__URL_1_ |
2ikx3p | How long can a human live? | What do you mean by ideal conditions though? Everything you do ages you, even completely "natural" healthy foods might have trace amounts of carcinogens that can slowly build up in your body and cause cancer. There are so many unknown environmental factors that are affecting your body that it is impossible to say what an ideal condition is..But if you want to rephrase your question as "if we start trying to extend human lifespan by any means possible, theoretically how long can we live?" it becomes interesting. Not because we know an answer, but because we're all trying to find that out.Any person who throws out a number here, no matter how qualified he/she is, is speculating. Which is fine as long as they agree to it. So let me speculate based on my understanding of how our body and systems work. I would say that if we keep current research pacing we can figure out ways to extend human lifespan to several hundreds of years. Why do I think that? For that lets look at the four most important ways people die in their old age: 1. Cancer: We understand cancer, at least better than we understand other things in this list. We haven't cured it, but we're making great strides in many types of cancer and are also figuring out its intricacies in more and more detail. I'd say that anywhere between 20-50 years from now, most cancers would become manageable diseases, if not completely abolished through efficient early detection. 2. Neuro-degenerative diseases: Things like Alzheimers are diseases we are only now beginning to understand, so I'd say I can't put an easy number on when we can conquer them. But at least to me, the factors that cause these diseases (protein aggregation, prion science, etc) are not complete blackboxes and can be fully understood given enough time and effort. 3. Metabolic disorders: Think diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc. These are a tough nut to crack now, perhaps mainly because a generation or two of doctors and scientists underestimated the complexity and intricacy of these disorders. This can be conquered too, given the time.4. General tissue damage due to ageing / organ failure: As we age parts of our body just give in and fail mainly because the tissue ages. I'm not a full expert in this field and haven't dwelt too deeply in its literature, but from what I see, I'd say that there are two solutions to this problem: prevent this ageing from happening to begin with and replacing organs as they fail or slow down. Replacing organs as you might have noticed is becoming more and more simple and practical nowadays, so we can naturally expect that to only become better. But I'm more interested in research that suggests we can just prevent tissue damage due to ageing. Research into calorie restriction and related fields show at least to me that tissues in our body age only because it somewhat solves their purpose (shorter generation times are somewhat of a good thing evolutionarily) or because they just don't care. And this applies not just to tissue damage but for all the other disorders too. There's a reason these things start to happen after your reproductive age because your body has been evolutionarily designed to not care about itself much after that. Time and again examples in nature (starting from naked mole rates, to worms that can suddenly live 10x longer to stave off droughts) show that we all have systems that could be exploited to prevent all these age-related problems to a great extent. Does it mean we WILL be able to live significantly longer in the future? I'm not sure. But I see no evidence to prove that its not a possibility at all. Until then I'm going to bet that it IS possible, since there is so much evidence supporting that argument.An interested related note is the company Calico, which has been funded by Google and is headed by the guy who headed Genentech, the biggest biotech company out there. Their aim is to just extend human lifespan. I'm not vouching their methods (they are starting to look less appealing by the day for sure) but I just wanted to point out that research into this exact question has become quite mainstream just in the past few years so keep your fingers crossed! | [
"What do you mean by ideal conditions though? Everything you do ages you, even completely \"natural\" healthy foods might have trace amounts of carcinogens that can slowly build up in your body and cause cancer. There are so many unknown environmental factors that are affecting your body that it is impossible to sa... | 3 | [
"What do you mean by ideal conditions though? Everything you do ages you, even completely \"natural\" healthy foods might have trace amounts of carcinogens that can slowly build up in your body and cause cancer. There are so many unknown environmental factors that are affecting your body that it is impossible to sa... | 2 | question: How long can a human live? | answer: What do you mean by ideal conditions though? Everything you do ages you, even completely "natural" healthy foods might have trace amounts of carcinogens that can slowly build up in your body and cause cancer. There are so many unknown environmental factors that are affecting your body that it is impossible to say what an ideal condition is..But if you want to rephrase your question as "if we start trying to extend human lifespan by any means possible, theoretically how long can we live?" it becomes interesting. Not because we know an answer, but because we're all trying to find that out.Any person who throws out a number here, no matter how qualified he/she is, is speculating. Which is fine as long as they agree to it. So let me speculate based on my understanding of how our body and systems work. I would say that if we keep current research pacing we can figure out ways to extend human lifespan to several hundreds of years. Why do I think that? For that lets look at the four most important ways people die in their old age: 1. Cancer: We understand cancer, at least better than we understand other things in this list. We haven't cured it, but we're making great strides in many types of cancer and are also figuring out its intricacies in more and more detail. I'd say that anywhere between 20-50 years from now, most cancers would become manageable diseases, if not completely abolished through efficient early detection. 2. Neuro-degenerative diseases: Things like Alzheimers are diseases we are only now beginning to understand, so I'd say I can't put an easy number on when we can conquer them. But at least to me, the factors that cause these diseases (protein aggregation, prion science, etc) are not complete blackboxes and can be fully understood given enough time and effort. 3. Metabolic disorders: Think diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, etc. These are a tough nut to crack now, perhaps mainly because a generation or two of doctors and scientists underestimated the complexity and intricacy of these disorders. This can be conquered too, given the time.4. General tissue damage due to ageing / organ failure: As we age parts of our body just give in and fail mainly because the tissue ages. I'm not a full expert in this field and haven't dwelt too deeply in its literature, but from what I see, I'd say that there are two solutions to this problem: prevent this ageing from happening to begin with and replacing organs as they fail or slow down. Replacing organs as you might have noticed is becoming more and more simple and practical nowadays, so we can naturally expect that to only become better. But I'm more interested in research that suggests we can just prevent tissue damage due to ageing. Research into calorie restriction and related fields show at least to me that tissues in our body age only because it somewhat solves their purpose (shorter generation times are somewhat of a good thing evolutionarily) or because they just don't care. And this applies not just to tissue damage but for all the other disorders too. There's a reason these things start to happen after your reproductive age because your body has been evolutionarily designed to not care about itself much after that. Time and again examples in nature (starting from naked mole rates, to worms that can suddenly live 10x longer to stave off droughts) show that we all have systems that could be exploited to prevent all these age-related problems to a great extent. Does it mean we WILL be able to live significantly longer in the future? I'm not sure. But I see no evidence to prove that its not a possibility at all. Until then I'm going to bet that it IS possible, since there is so much evidence supporting that argument.An interested related note is the company Calico, which has been funded by Google and is headed by the guy who headed Genentech, the biggest biotech company out there. Their aim is to just extend human lifespan. I'm not vouching their methods (they are starting to look less appealing by the day for sure) but I just wanted to point out that research into this exact question has become quite mainstream just in the past few years so keep your fingers crossed! |
q46z1 | How chaotic, if at all, was the process of writing a letter or sending a message to someone in a different country in the 19th century and earlier? | Here's a tidbit from getting mail back from the exploration expeditions in the late 1700s and early 1800s back from, say, Africa, or at least Mungo Park did this when he set out looking for the Niger and many others under Joseph Banks did the same. On the back of these letters, they'd say that whoever delivered this back to London can draw a credit of five pounds. Five pounds at the time is enough to feed a whole family for a year in some of these parts, so the letters effectively became sort of like currency, traded away for value until it reached the Europeans on the coast, and then traded back to London for redemption on the credit. | [
"Here's a tidbit from getting mail back from the exploration expeditions in the late 1700s and early 1800s back from, say, Africa, or at least Mungo Park did this when he set out looking for the Niger and many others under Joseph Banks did the same. On the back of these letters, they'd say that whoever delivered th... | 1 | [
"Here's a tidbit from getting mail back from the exploration expeditions in the late 1700s and early 1800s back from, say, Africa, or at least Mungo Park did this when he set out looking for the Niger and many others under Joseph Banks did the same. On the back of these letters, they'd say that whoever delivered th... | 1 | question: How chaotic, if at all, was the process of writing a letter or sending a message to someone in a different country in the 19th century and earlier? | answer: Here's a tidbit from getting mail back from the exploration expeditions in the late 1700s and early 1800s back from, say, Africa, or at least Mungo Park did this when he set out looking for the Niger and many others under Joseph Banks did the same. On the back of these letters, they'd say that whoever delivered this back to London can draw a credit of five pounds. Five pounds at the time is enough to feed a whole family for a year in some of these parts, so the letters effectively became sort of like currency, traded away for value until it reached the Europeans on the coast, and then traded back to London for redemption on the credit. |
5dmhck | glass and ice. | 1) your house is warm, and hence the glass is warmed as well. Frost won't form on a warm surface, since the ice would just melt. your car sits outside all night and the glass cools down, allowing ice to form on it.2) your house windows CAN condensate and freeze on the inside if it is cold enough outside, IF they are single pain. Most home windows today are dual or triple pane, where it's multiple sheets of glass with a gas barrier between them. that gas between acts as an insulator, so the outside window can be cool and the inside window can be warm, preventing condensation and making them more energy efficient. | [
"1) your house is warm, and hence the glass is warmed as well. Frost won't form on a warm surface, since the ice would just melt. your car sits outside all night and the glass cools down, allowing ice to form on it.\n\n2) your house windows CAN condensate and freeze on the inside if it is cold enough outside, I... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: glass and ice. | answer: 1) your house is warm, and hence the glass is warmed as well. Frost won't form on a warm surface, since the ice would just melt. your car sits outside all night and the glass cools down, allowing ice to form on it.2) your house windows CAN condensate and freeze on the inside if it is cold enough outside, IF they are single pain. Most home windows today are dual or triple pane, where it's multiple sheets of glass with a gas barrier between them. that gas between acts as an insulator, so the outside window can be cool and the inside window can be warm, preventing condensation and making them more energy efficient. |
30xtrc | Are all alpha-Aminoacids part of Protein? | There are 21 to 23 proteinogenic amino acids coded for by genes, and they all happen to be alpha-amino acids. There are many other kinds of amino acids, some of which can still find their way onto proteins. Beta-alanine, a beta-amino acid, is made from uracil via 3-ureidopropionic acid. Phosphopantetheine and coenzyme A are made from beta-alanine (among other things). Phosphopantethine can be added onto certain proteins as a prosthetic group, which is called post-translational modification. Coenzyme A interacts with proteins in a non-covalent way, making it a cofactor. It's used for all kind of things.Another unusual amino acid is delta-aminolevulinic acid, a delta-amino acid, which is used by animals and fungi to synthesize porphyrin, which is used to make heme for blood, and other strange things like vitamin B12. The line between prosthetic group and cofactor is kind of fuzzy, and I don't know what heme or B12 are. | [
"There are 21 to 23 proteinogenic amino acids coded for by genes, and they all happen to be alpha-amino acids. There are many other kinds of amino acids, some of which can still find their way onto proteins. Beta-alanine, a beta-amino acid, is made from uracil via 3-ureidopropionic acid. Phosphopantetheine and coen... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: Are all alpha-Aminoacids part of Protein? | answer: There are 21 to 23 proteinogenic amino acids coded for by genes, and they all happen to be alpha-amino acids. There are many other kinds of amino acids, some of which can still find their way onto proteins. Beta-alanine, a beta-amino acid, is made from uracil via 3-ureidopropionic acid. Phosphopantetheine and coenzyme A are made from beta-alanine (among other things). Phosphopantethine can be added onto certain proteins as a prosthetic group, which is called post-translational modification. Coenzyme A interacts with proteins in a non-covalent way, making it a cofactor. It's used for all kind of things.Another unusual amino acid is delta-aminolevulinic acid, a delta-amino acid, which is used by animals and fungi to synthesize porphyrin, which is used to make heme for blood, and other strange things like vitamin B12. The line between prosthetic group and cofactor is kind of fuzzy, and I don't know what heme or B12 are. |
igs67 | Where is energy stored in the human body for short term use? | The body stores a polymerized form of glucose called [glycogen](_URL_0_) in the liver and the muscles. When the blood glucose level drops, the glycogen can be broken down into glucose and used. | [
"Individual cells produce ATP (usable energy for our bodies) from glucose (obviously from what we ingest) in the mitochondria. My understanding is that this is a continual process, and the difference between running for 45 minutes at a constant jog and standing still for 45 minutes isn't that enormous for our bodie... | 4 | [
"Individual cells produce ATP (usable energy for our bodies) from glucose (obviously from what we ingest) in the mitochondria. My understanding is that this is a continual process, and the difference between running for 45 minutes at a constant jog and standing still for 45 minutes isn't that enormous for our bodie... | 2 | question: Where is energy stored in the human body for short term use? | answer: The body stores a polymerized form of glucose called [glycogen](_URL_0_) in the liver and the muscles. When the blood glucose level drops, the glycogen can be broken down into glucose and used. |
5jv7ca | I once heard anecdotally that dishes like casseroles became popular in America during the Great Depression due to how cheap they were to make. Is this true? Also, are their any other foods that became popular due to the financial constraints of the era that are still common today? | In many ways, a lot of local cuisine is inspired by financial necessity - after all, the local speciality is usually something very available in the area, and so cheap because of supply and demand.I'm researching the Victorians atm, and [these](_URL_0_) [books](_URL_1_) tell me that stews, casseroles and soups were extremely common at the time because meat was very expensive, so most people who could afford meat could only afford small amounts and not the best cuts. These dishes make tough cuts of meat palatable and can be bulked out with cheaper ingredients, and many of the dishes popular at the time are still enjoyed today: Irish stew, Lancashire hotpot, and the classic British beef stew with suet dumplings.Potatoes also became much more widely eaten in the Victorian era due to the Corn Laws, which made bread much more expensive, and also because potatoes were a cheap crop to produce, providing plenty of storable food and growing in poor soil. We still use a lot of Victorian potato recipes, and they are often linked to the regional cuisine of the areas that were most impoverished - and thus, needed to rely on potatoes - at the time. This is especially true of recipes that substitute potatoes for a more expensive ingredient, such as Scottish potato scones, Lancashire butter pie, boxty, potato bread.These are just some examples, and the ones I have references for. I've certainly heard of a lot of other dishes that they developed from economic necessity; cajun cuisine is something I hear this about a lot. But I don't have references for that. | [
"In many ways, a lot of local cuisine is inspired by financial necessity - after all, the local speciality is usually something very available in the area, and so cheap because of supply and demand.\n\nI'm researching the Victorians atm, and [these](_URL_0_) [books](_URL_1_) tell me that stews, casseroles and soups... | 2 | [
"In many ways, a lot of local cuisine is inspired by financial necessity - after all, the local speciality is usually something very available in the area, and so cheap because of supply and demand.\n\nI'm researching the Victorians atm, and [these](_URL_0_) [books](_URL_1_) tell me that stews, casseroles and soups... | 2 | question: I once heard anecdotally that dishes like casseroles became popular in America during the Great Depression due to how cheap they were to make. Is this true? Also, are their any other foods that became popular due to the financial constraints of the era that are still common today? | answer: In many ways, a lot of local cuisine is inspired by financial necessity - after all, the local speciality is usually something very available in the area, and so cheap because of supply and demand.I'm researching the Victorians atm, and [these](_URL_0_) [books](_URL_1_) tell me that stews, casseroles and soups were extremely common at the time because meat was very expensive, so most people who could afford meat could only afford small amounts and not the best cuts. These dishes make tough cuts of meat palatable and can be bulked out with cheaper ingredients, and many of the dishes popular at the time are still enjoyed today: Irish stew, Lancashire hotpot, and the classic British beef stew with suet dumplings.Potatoes also became much more widely eaten in the Victorian era due to the Corn Laws, which made bread much more expensive, and also because potatoes were a cheap crop to produce, providing plenty of storable food and growing in poor soil. We still use a lot of Victorian potato recipes, and they are often linked to the regional cuisine of the areas that were most impoverished - and thus, needed to rely on potatoes - at the time. This is especially true of recipes that substitute potatoes for a more expensive ingredient, such as Scottish potato scones, Lancashire butter pie, boxty, potato bread.These are just some examples, and the ones I have references for. I've certainly heard of a lot of other dishes that they developed from economic necessity; cajun cuisine is something I hear this about a lot. But I don't have references for that. |
cthup0 | What was the basis of statehood in medieval Europe? | If we are speaking about the period 800-1200, i.e. Middle High Ages, with an unspecified territory within Christian Europe, then the statement is more or less correct (although partially due to its vagueness). Many European states in that period were patrimonial monarchies, meaning that in theory, the entire state was owned by either the king himself or shared by king and limited number of aristocrats (depending on the specifics of the beneficium) and was passed on upon the sovereign's successors. What is crucial here, is that the state was technically a private property of the king and could have been passed upon anyone else, whether a single person or multiple descendants, much like the private company can be ceded by the owner to any chosen person(s). Of course, given that crown was usually passed to a child of the king,this somewhat limited the possibilities, but it was perfectly possible that the successor was raised in another country (for example, if sovereign's spouse was a foreigner and children were educated in their country of origin). It was also common for the kings to make agreements with other rulers so that in the event of the childless death, the country became the property of a designated beneficiary, usually a relative, so that the land remained within a single family, although the beneficiary could have been a ruler of a completely different country.For example, king Casimir III of Poland (1370) made such an agreement with Louis I of Hungary who was a son of Hungarian king Carol Robert (himself a son of Charles Martel of House Anjou, ruler of Salerno) and Elisabeth, sister of Casimir III. In other words, in case of childless death of Casimir III, Poland was to be ruled by a king of Hungarian-French-Polish-Austrian origin. King Casimir indeed died without issue and Louis I became the king of Poland, and after his death he was succeded by Jadwiga, daughter of Louis I and Elisabeth, daughter of Stefan II Kotromanic, ban of Bosnia. To make things more ethnically complex, Jadwiga was betrothed in futuro (she was 5 then, her fiancee was 8) to Wilhelm Habsburg, an Austrian prince. This did not fell through and Jadwiga eventually married Lithuanian grand duke (or king, depending on your take on the issue of foreign recognition) Jogaila who eventually became iure uxoris king of Poland and a founder of a new dynasty.Modern concept of ethnicity existed, of course, but it was not associated with nationhood as closely as it started to be in the modern era, mainly due to the fact that 'the people', majority off whom were peasants with little to no political power had very little to say in the political matters and thus could not have been an actual sovereign, as it is a norm in modern democratic republics. This meant that the medieval countries were often naturally multinational and multicultural - it didn't matter what language one spoke or what culture or nation they associated with, as long as they were respecting royal authority and local customs, they were considered royal subjects.There is one important caveat though, because as most people in the medieval monarchies were not even aware of the ethnicity of their rulers (they weren't meeting them personally), the origins of the prospective monarch could have been very important for the upper echelons of nobility, for whom the royal marriages and agreements could have meant very real political repercussions. In the aforementioned example, it was the nobility that actively advocated the marriage of queen Jadwiga with Jogaila, seeing the prospect of alliance with Lithuania, a powerful ally against Teutonic Order more desirable than giving the Polish crown to Habsburgs who, focused on their Austrian and Hungarian politics could have treated Poland instrumentally much to the chagrin of the Polish nobility. But again, it was not the ethnicity of the rulers (candidature of the Masovian prince Siemowit IV was not even treated seriously) but rather the policy of the foreign royal families and their ramification for the Polish kingdom that became the crux of the decision. | [
"If we are speaking about the period 800-1200, i.e. Middle High Ages, with an unspecified territory within Christian Europe, then the statement is more or less correct (although partially due to its vagueness). Many European states in that period were patrimonial monarchies, meaning that in theory, the entire state... | 1 | [
"If we are speaking about the period 800-1200, i.e. Middle High Ages, with an unspecified territory within Christian Europe, then the statement is more or less correct (although partially due to its vagueness). Many European states in that period were patrimonial monarchies, meaning that in theory, the entire state... | 1 | question: What was the basis of statehood in medieval Europe? | answer: If we are speaking about the period 800-1200, i.e. Middle High Ages, with an unspecified territory within Christian Europe, then the statement is more or less correct (although partially due to its vagueness). Many European states in that period were patrimonial monarchies, meaning that in theory, the entire state was owned by either the king himself or shared by king and limited number of aristocrats (depending on the specifics of the beneficium) and was passed on upon the sovereign's successors. What is crucial here, is that the state was technically a private property of the king and could have been passed upon anyone else, whether a single person or multiple descendants, much like the private company can be ceded by the owner to any chosen person(s). Of course, given that crown was usually passed to a child of the king,this somewhat limited the possibilities, but it was perfectly possible that the successor was raised in another country (for example, if sovereign's spouse was a foreigner and children were educated in their country of origin). It was also common for the kings to make agreements with other rulers so that in the event of the childless death, the country became the property of a designated beneficiary, usually a relative, so that the land remained within a single family, although the beneficiary could have been a ruler of a completely different country.For example, king Casimir III of Poland (1370) made such an agreement with Louis I of Hungary who was a son of Hungarian king Carol Robert (himself a son of Charles Martel of House Anjou, ruler of Salerno) and Elisabeth, sister of Casimir III. In other words, in case of childless death of Casimir III, Poland was to be ruled by a king of Hungarian-French-Polish-Austrian origin. King Casimir indeed died without issue and Louis I became the king of Poland, and after his death he was succeded by Jadwiga, daughter of Louis I and Elisabeth, daughter of Stefan II Kotromanic, ban of Bosnia. To make things more ethnically complex, Jadwiga was betrothed in futuro (she was 5 then, her fiancee was 8) to Wilhelm Habsburg, an Austrian prince. This did not fell through and Jadwiga eventually married Lithuanian grand duke (or king, depending on your take on the issue of foreign recognition) Jogaila who eventually became iure uxoris king of Poland and a founder of a new dynasty.Modern concept of ethnicity existed, of course, but it was not associated with nationhood as closely as it started to be in the modern era, mainly due to the fact that 'the people', majority off whom were peasants with little to no political power had very little to say in the political matters and thus could not have been an actual sovereign, as it is a norm in modern democratic republics. This meant that the medieval countries were often naturally multinational and multicultural - it didn't matter what language one spoke or what culture or nation they associated with, as long as they were respecting royal authority and local customs, they were considered royal subjects.There is one important caveat though, because as most people in the medieval monarchies were not even aware of the ethnicity of their rulers (they weren't meeting them personally), the origins of the prospective monarch could have been very important for the upper echelons of nobility, for whom the royal marriages and agreements could have meant very real political repercussions. In the aforementioned example, it was the nobility that actively advocated the marriage of queen Jadwiga with Jogaila, seeing the prospect of alliance with Lithuania, a powerful ally against Teutonic Order more desirable than giving the Polish crown to Habsburgs who, focused on their Austrian and Hungarian politics could have treated Poland instrumentally much to the chagrin of the Polish nobility. But again, it was not the ethnicity of the rulers (candidature of the Masovian prince Siemowit IV was not even treated seriously) but rather the policy of the foreign royal families and their ramification for the Polish kingdom that became the crux of the decision. |
4g1gso | In world War 2, why was so much of the Pacific fleet docked on Hawaii, and not spread out or at sea? | Essentially it was just timing. Generally the Battleline would spend part of each week at sea conducting drills by squadrons.However the schedule left all 3 in Pearl that weekend. That also meant their attached escorts of cruisers and destroyers were also at home. However while large portions were in Port large portions of the Scouting Force were not. 2 carrier task forces were at sea with another in the yards on the West Coast.As for why with such high tension the fleet was kept in Port, it was with doctrine.War Plan Orange did not call for any rash immediate counter attacks. It called for the fleet to concentrate at Pearl to begun raids on the Mandated in force after about 10 days or two weeks. Once Japanese focus and location was known.Thus the fleet was seen as safe in Port. Theoretically no Japanese fleet could surprise it or confront them before ready. Though that was obviously proven false by the shift in strategy brought by Japan. | [
"Essentially it was just timing. Generally the Battleline would spend part of each week at sea conducting drills by squadrons.\n\nHowever the schedule left all 3 in Pearl that weekend. That also meant their attached escorts of cruisers and destroyers were also at home. \n\nHowever while large portions were in Port ... | 1 | [] | 0 | question: In world War 2, why was so much of the Pacific fleet docked on Hawaii, and not spread out or at sea? | answer: Essentially it was just timing. Generally the Battleline would spend part of each week at sea conducting drills by squadrons.However the schedule left all 3 in Pearl that weekend. That also meant their attached escorts of cruisers and destroyers were also at home. However while large portions were in Port large portions of the Scouting Force were not. 2 carrier task forces were at sea with another in the yards on the West Coast.As for why with such high tension the fleet was kept in Port, it was with doctrine.War Plan Orange did not call for any rash immediate counter attacks. It called for the fleet to concentrate at Pearl to begun raids on the Mandated in force after about 10 days or two weeks. Once Japanese focus and location was known.Thus the fleet was seen as safe in Port. Theoretically no Japanese fleet could surprise it or confront them before ready. Though that was obviously proven false by the shift in strategy brought by Japan. |
whwo5 | is there a reason land masses seem to get thinner towards their southern portions? | I think this can best be explained by looking at the plate boundaries, in particular the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is more-or-less North-South trending. The eastern side of the Pacific is the same. This is what has defined the shape of continents in part. The real reason that it appears this way is most likely coincidence, and a slight cognitive bias! | [
"I think this can best be explained by looking at the plate boundaries, in particular the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is more-or-less North-South trending. The eastern side of the Pacific is the same. This is what has defined the shape of continents in part. \nThe real reason that it appears this way is most likely c... | 12 | [
"I think this can best be explained by looking at the plate boundaries, in particular the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is more-or-less North-South trending. The eastern side of the Pacific is the same. This is what has defined the shape of continents in part. \nThe real reason that it appears this way is most likely c... | 7 | question: is there a reason land masses seem to get thinner towards their southern portions? | answer: I think this can best be explained by looking at the plate boundaries, in particular the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is more-or-less North-South trending. The eastern side of the Pacific is the same. This is what has defined the shape of continents in part. The real reason that it appears this way is most likely coincidence, and a slight cognitive bias! |
xodk0 | What is happening medically when I get red-eye/dry eye when smoking cannabis? Also, is there any effect on my ocular health if I'm wearing my contacts when I experience red eye? | cannabis lowers intraocular pressure causing the blood vessels in your eye to engorge with blood. | [
"cannabis lowers intraocular pressure causing the blood vessels in your eye to engorge with blood."
] | 1 | [
"cannabis lowers intraocular pressure causing the blood vessels in your eye to engorge with blood."
] | 1 | question: What is happening medically when I get red-eye/dry eye when smoking cannabis? Also, is there any effect on my ocular health if I'm wearing my contacts when I experience red eye? | answer: cannabis lowers intraocular pressure causing the blood vessels in your eye to engorge with blood. |
849z66 | why are some rocket engines only able to turn on and off a specific number of times? | Assuming you're referring to liquid engines, because solids can only be ignited once:It largely depends on the propellants used and the engine design. Some propellants need an external ignition source that can only be provided on the launch pad, or some other consumable that once it's used, means the engines can't be ignited again. That's largely a design choice determined by what the engine is supposed to do. If it's a first stage or a booster, it only needs to ignite once and the stage is jettisoned after the propellant is used. There's no reason to add extra weight and complexity by provided more ignitions than will ever be used. Take the J-2 for example. That was the engine used on the S-IV B of the Saturn V. It ignited twice - once to finish the burn into an Earth parking orbit, and once again for the burn to the moon. It had 2 and only 2 containers of pressurized gas meant to start the ignition because it only ever needed to light 2 times.Some other engines using what's called hypergolic fuels can be ignited potentially an unlimited amount of times (not all are designed to, but many are). Hypergolic fuels ignite on contact with each other, so there's no need to any other ignition source. As long as there's fuel and some mechanism to combine the fuels in the combustion chamber, they'll always ignite. The only limiting factor there is the rated burn time of the engine itself. | [
"Assuming you're referring to liquid engines, because solids can only be ignited once:\n\nIt largely depends on the propellants used and the engine design. Some propellants need an external ignition source that can only be provided on the launch pad, or some other consumable that once it's used, means the engines c... | 1 | [
"Assuming you're referring to liquid engines, because solids can only be ignited once:\n\nIt largely depends on the propellants used and the engine design. Some propellants need an external ignition source that can only be provided on the launch pad, or some other consumable that once it's used, means the engines c... | 1 | question: why are some rocket engines only able to turn on and off a specific number of times? | answer: Assuming you're referring to liquid engines, because solids can only be ignited once:It largely depends on the propellants used and the engine design. Some propellants need an external ignition source that can only be provided on the launch pad, or some other consumable that once it's used, means the engines can't be ignited again. That's largely a design choice determined by what the engine is supposed to do. If it's a first stage or a booster, it only needs to ignite once and the stage is jettisoned after the propellant is used. There's no reason to add extra weight and complexity by provided more ignitions than will ever be used. Take the J-2 for example. That was the engine used on the S-IV B of the Saturn V. It ignited twice - once to finish the burn into an Earth parking orbit, and once again for the burn to the moon. It had 2 and only 2 containers of pressurized gas meant to start the ignition because it only ever needed to light 2 times.Some other engines using what's called hypergolic fuels can be ignited potentially an unlimited amount of times (not all are designed to, but many are). Hypergolic fuels ignite on contact with each other, so there's no need to any other ignition source. As long as there's fuel and some mechanism to combine the fuels in the combustion chamber, they'll always ignite. The only limiting factor there is the rated burn time of the engine itself. |
26q0y7 | Why did Hitler so grossly underestimate the Soviet Union's war capability? | There were a number of reasons why Hitler and the Oberkommando of the Wehrmacht had underestimated Soviet troop strength and capabilities before the 22nd of June in 1941. First of all were the failures of intelligence to accurately produce a realistic estimate of enemy troop strength and their ability to recover said losses. The Germans were aware of the size of the red army in general terms and that they would in theory be outnumbered, but they had a lack of respect for the capabilities of Soviet troops. Finally the Germans did not account for the soviets relocating major factories and centers of industry from central and southern Russia to the East of the Urals - beyond the range of both ground forces and the Luftwaffe.Intelligence reports before the start of Operation Barbarossa in June of 1941 failed to account for the size and scale of the massive rearmament process and military reforms that had been ordered following the debacle of the Winter War with the Finns in 1939 and 1940. Even though the Soviets were eventually able to prevail over the Finns, the conflict showed serious flaws in Red Army training and tactics. Intelligence failed to account for large tank formations and the emergence of newer tank models like the KV2 and T34's that were just beginning to come off production lines around that time period. These newer tanks models were a cut far above older T-26 lighter tanks that at that point were prone to malfunctions and obsolete to German tank models. Even with close to 28,000 tanks at the start of the invasion - many of these would be destroyed, disabled, or captured by the end of the year. Seeming to confirm that the German commanders and intel officers were correct in their assumption of Soviet Tank capability - disregarding the tremendous difficulty with which German units were having in knocking out T34 models and KV2's that lighter german tanks and anti tanks guns couldn't hope to penetrate. The Soviet tankers nicknamed the lighter German anti tanks guns like the Pak 36 "The Door knocker" due to its poor performance against their tanks. Soviet aircraft production was heavy but the were heavily reliant on obsolete or inferior aircraft like the Il16 and LaGG 3 (nicknamed the *Guaranteed Varnished Coffin* by its pilots due to its acronym, wooden construction, and poor performance), Soviet aircraft production would eventually see great examples of design and performance like the Yak 3, 7, and 9 - along with the Lavochkin La5, Ilyushin Il2 Sturmovik, and other mass produced designs. The soviets lost up to 97% of their air strength after the end of 1941 and had to completely retrain their newer batches of pilots on brand new machines that had little testing. Soviet pilots would not be able to rival the skill, tactics, or competence of German pilots until very late in the war when they began to have more confidence in their ability - along with the introduction of comparable fighter aircraft. This was also not accounted for as the Germans did not consider the ability with which the Soviets would have to produce the massive amounts of aircraft the were able to muster over the war. Germany also did not account for Lend-Lease American aircraft like the Bell P39 Airocobra, A20 Boston, P62 Kingcobra, P40 Hawk, B25 Mitchell and others. Lend lease would also provide tens of thousands of quality trucks and Willy's Jeeps that gave the Russians much greater mobility and reliability in their mobile forces.Even though intelligence had dropped the ball early on German commanders were confident that they could over come the superior number of obsolete and unreliable soviet tanks that they were knocking out and capturing by the thousands in 1941.German commanders and Hitler personally going into Barbarossa had a clear contempt for the average Soviet soldier in regards to his fighting ability and morale. They believed - with some credence - that the normal Red Army soldier and the entire command structure (Hitler famously remarked that "one need only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure would come crumbling down") would collapse under the onslaught of the assembled invasion force of close to 2 and a half million men - the largest ever deployed in the history of warfare. After the Red army's abysmal performance in the winter war against the Finns, this seemed to confirm to the Germans that this was indeed the case - the Red Army was in such a perilous state of affairs that they could not hope to stand to the might of a Blitzkrieg attack on their motherland. They did not count on the fact that major reforms to increase military effectiveness and a willingness of Stalin to reinstate former disgraced military commanders like Konstantin Rokossovsky, among others, after the purges of 1937 and 1938 when events transpired against him. Formerly taboo tactics of Deep Battle and driving penetrations by newly formed Tank armies would form the basis of a reinvigorated Red Army with competent and motivated commanders. Stalin lacked the ideological shame Hitler had in his actions and was willing to listen to the advice of his commanders or reinstate those that had previously fallen out of favor. Red Army soldiers put up tremendous resistance to German advances and attacks that caused ever increasing amounts of casualties that the Germans could not adequately replace. The Germans did not count on the specialty the Soviets had in defending against attack, "every village into a fortress" as was remarked. Dug in emplacements underneath houses, earthen bunkers, determined fighters that would fight on long past the point at which other European armies would have surrendered all typified German underestimation of Red Army skill and resolve - no matter the amount of prisoners they took or divisions they destroyed. This resolve became the most famous at Stalingrad, in which the 62nd Army under Chuikov was able to pin down and survive the onslaught of the 6th Army under Friedrich Paulus long enough to allow massive reserves to cut off and surround them, thus turning the tide of the entire Eastern Front.Finally the Germans thought once they captured the Soviet industrial and agricultural heartland of Ukraine that the industrial capacity to make war would cease for the Soviet Union. What the Germans did not count on was the ruthlessness with which Stalin relocated thousands of factories from their original locations to beyond the Ural mountains - along with most of their workers. Even though these facilities had to endure terrible conditions early on, some production lines were brought online even before the roofs had been built, with snowflakes falling on fully operational tank production lines. Even with the Germans capturing the Ukraine early on in the war after the resounding successes at Kiev, Odessa, and the Crimea - with Erich Von Manstein pulling off some of the most impressive tactical feats of the 20th century - the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union would endure. By 1943 Soviet tank, aircraft, and gun production had surpassed or even doubled anything the Germans could even hope to muster from their own economy; from factories and industrial facilities beyond the range of their bombers. Soviet war production was able to far surpass the limits of German industrial might by their relocation of factories - something that was never accounted for in the German invasion of the Soviet Union.So an underestimation of forces by German intelligence, a lack of respect or admission of Russian fighting ability and resolve, and the relocation of major industries beyond the reach of the German military all accounted for the survival of Soviet war making capacity. These failures contributed directly to the failure of operation Barbarossa, Blue, and Citadel to turn the tide against the Red Army. German war production and reserves simply couldn't keep up with the fanatical defense that the Soviets displayed in blunting the advance of the Wehrmacht. They made grave errors in underestimating the capabilities and ideological will that drove the Russian people around Stalin rather than against him (though they didn't have much choice to begin with)Sources: Richard J. Evans "Third Reich at War" - Anthony Beevor "Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege", various documentaries and textbooks | [
"There were a number of reasons why Hitler and the Oberkommando of the Wehrmacht had underestimated Soviet troop strength and capabilities before the 22nd of June in 1941. First of all were the failures of intelligence to accurately produce a realistic estimate of enemy troop strength and their ability to recover s... | 1 | [
"There were a number of reasons why Hitler and the Oberkommando of the Wehrmacht had underestimated Soviet troop strength and capabilities before the 22nd of June in 1941. First of all were the failures of intelligence to accurately produce a realistic estimate of enemy troop strength and their ability to recover s... | 1 | question: Why did Hitler so grossly underestimate the Soviet Union's war capability? | answer: There were a number of reasons why Hitler and the Oberkommando of the Wehrmacht had underestimated Soviet troop strength and capabilities before the 22nd of June in 1941. First of all were the failures of intelligence to accurately produce a realistic estimate of enemy troop strength and their ability to recover said losses. The Germans were aware of the size of the red army in general terms and that they would in theory be outnumbered, but they had a lack of respect for the capabilities of Soviet troops. Finally the Germans did not account for the soviets relocating major factories and centers of industry from central and southern Russia to the East of the Urals - beyond the range of both ground forces and the Luftwaffe.Intelligence reports before the start of Operation Barbarossa in June of 1941 failed to account for the size and scale of the massive rearmament process and military reforms that had been ordered following the debacle of the Winter War with the Finns in 1939 and 1940. Even though the Soviets were eventually able to prevail over the Finns, the conflict showed serious flaws in Red Army training and tactics. Intelligence failed to account for large tank formations and the emergence of newer tank models like the KV2 and T34's that were just beginning to come off production lines around that time period. These newer tanks models were a cut far above older T-26 lighter tanks that at that point were prone to malfunctions and obsolete to German tank models. Even with close to 28,000 tanks at the start of the invasion - many of these would be destroyed, disabled, or captured by the end of the year. Seeming to confirm that the German commanders and intel officers were correct in their assumption of Soviet Tank capability - disregarding the tremendous difficulty with which German units were having in knocking out T34 models and KV2's that lighter german tanks and anti tanks guns couldn't hope to penetrate. The Soviet tankers nicknamed the lighter German anti tanks guns like the Pak 36 "The Door knocker" due to its poor performance against their tanks. Soviet aircraft production was heavy but the were heavily reliant on obsolete or inferior aircraft like the Il16 and LaGG 3 (nicknamed the *Guaranteed Varnished Coffin* by its pilots due to its acronym, wooden construction, and poor performance), Soviet aircraft production would eventually see great examples of design and performance like the Yak 3, 7, and 9 - along with the Lavochkin La5, Ilyushin Il2 Sturmovik, and other mass produced designs. The soviets lost up to 97% of their air strength after the end of 1941 and had to completely retrain their newer batches of pilots on brand new machines that had little testing. Soviet pilots would not be able to rival the skill, tactics, or competence of German pilots until very late in the war when they began to have more confidence in their ability - along with the introduction of comparable fighter aircraft. This was also not accounted for as the Germans did not consider the ability with which the Soviets would have to produce the massive amounts of aircraft the were able to muster over the war. Germany also did not account for Lend-Lease American aircraft like the Bell P39 Airocobra, A20 Boston, P62 Kingcobra, P40 Hawk, B25 Mitchell and others. Lend lease would also provide tens of thousands of quality trucks and Willy's Jeeps that gave the Russians much greater mobility and reliability in their mobile forces.Even though intelligence had dropped the ball early on German commanders were confident that they could over come the superior number of obsolete and unreliable soviet tanks that they were knocking out and capturing by the thousands in 1941.German commanders and Hitler personally going into Barbarossa had a clear contempt for the average Soviet soldier in regards to his fighting ability and morale. They believed - with some credence - that the normal Red Army soldier and the entire command structure (Hitler famously remarked that "one need only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure would come crumbling down") would collapse under the onslaught of the assembled invasion force of close to 2 and a half million men - the largest ever deployed in the history of warfare. After the Red army's abysmal performance in the winter war against the Finns, this seemed to confirm to the Germans that this was indeed the case - the Red Army was in such a perilous state of affairs that they could not hope to stand to the might of a Blitzkrieg attack on their motherland. They did not count on the fact that major reforms to increase military effectiveness and a willingness of Stalin to reinstate former disgraced military commanders like Konstantin Rokossovsky, among others, after the purges of 1937 and 1938 when events transpired against him. Formerly taboo tactics of Deep Battle and driving penetrations by newly formed Tank armies would form the basis of a reinvigorated Red Army with competent and motivated commanders. Stalin lacked the ideological shame Hitler had in his actions and was willing to listen to the advice of his commanders or reinstate those that had previously fallen out of favor. Red Army soldiers put up tremendous resistance to German advances and attacks that caused ever increasing amounts of casualties that the Germans could not adequately replace. The Germans did not count on the specialty the Soviets had in defending against attack, "every village into a fortress" as was remarked. Dug in emplacements underneath houses, earthen bunkers, determined fighters that would fight on long past the point at which other European armies would have surrendered all typified German underestimation of Red Army skill and resolve - no matter the amount of prisoners they took or divisions they destroyed. This resolve became the most famous at Stalingrad, in which the 62nd Army under Chuikov was able to pin down and survive the onslaught of the 6th Army under Friedrich Paulus long enough to allow massive reserves to cut off and surround them, thus turning the tide of the entire Eastern Front.Finally the Germans thought once they captured the Soviet industrial and agricultural heartland of Ukraine that the industrial capacity to make war would cease for the Soviet Union. What the Germans did not count on was the ruthlessness with which Stalin relocated thousands of factories from their original locations to beyond the Ural mountains - along with most of their workers. Even though these facilities had to endure terrible conditions early on, some production lines were brought online even before the roofs had been built, with snowflakes falling on fully operational tank production lines. Even with the Germans capturing the Ukraine early on in the war after the resounding successes at Kiev, Odessa, and the Crimea - with Erich Von Manstein pulling off some of the most impressive tactical feats of the 20th century - the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union would endure. By 1943 Soviet tank, aircraft, and gun production had surpassed or even doubled anything the Germans could even hope to muster from their own economy; from factories and industrial facilities beyond the range of their bombers. Soviet war production was able to far surpass the limits of German industrial might by their relocation of factories - something that was never accounted for in the German invasion of the Soviet Union.So an underestimation of forces by German intelligence, a lack of respect or admission of Russian fighting ability and resolve, and the relocation of major industries beyond the reach of the German military all accounted for the survival of Soviet war making capacity. These failures contributed directly to the failure of operation Barbarossa, Blue, and Citadel to turn the tide against the Red Army. German war production and reserves simply couldn't keep up with the fanatical defense that the Soviets displayed in blunting the advance of the Wehrmacht. They made grave errors in underestimating the capabilities and ideological will that drove the Russian people around Stalin rather than against him (though they didn't have much choice to begin with)Sources: Richard J. Evans "Third Reich at War" - Anthony Beevor "Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege", various documentaries and textbooks |
6wlw1v | what effect does opening a dam have on areas that are under heavy flooding? ex: houston | There are different kinds of dams, but generally speaking dams have a spillway, and they usually have floodgates as well. Spillways and floodgates are used to manage the water behind the dam in emergency situations, because you don't want the dam to fill up so much that water comes over the crest of the dam. So the dams near Houston are very full because of the hurricane, and the Army Corps will be opening floodgates on two of the dams. The impact on the downstream area will be that there will be more water than is already present, because more water is being released. But the alternative is if you don't release the water, maybe the dam overtops, maybe the dam fails - and that's a catastrophe that would kill people and destroy tons of property. With a controlled release they can warn people. | [
"There are different kinds of dams, but generally speaking dams have a spillway, and they usually have floodgates as well. Spillways and floodgates are used to manage the water behind the dam in emergency situations, because you don't want the dam to fill up so much that water comes over the crest of the dam. \n\nS... | 2 | [] | 0 | question: what effect does opening a dam have on areas that are under heavy flooding? ex: houston | answer: There are different kinds of dams, but generally speaking dams have a spillway, and they usually have floodgates as well. Spillways and floodgates are used to manage the water behind the dam in emergency situations, because you don't want the dam to fill up so much that water comes over the crest of the dam. So the dams near Houston are very full because of the hurricane, and the Army Corps will be opening floodgates on two of the dams. The impact on the downstream area will be that there will be more water than is already present, because more water is being released. But the alternative is if you don't release the water, maybe the dam overtops, maybe the dam fails - and that's a catastrophe that would kill people and destroy tons of property. With a controlled release they can warn people. |
iu02q | Why does 5 hour energy contain 8000%+ vitamin B? | Since it is water-soluble, it just gets flushed out in your urine pretty quick. The whole process takes about... 5 hours! Which makes me wonder what kind of trickery those "6 hour power" guys are up to.Fat-soluble vitamins *can* accumulate. Too much of them can lead to [hypervitaminosis](_URL_0_) | [
"Since it is water-soluble, it just gets flushed out in your urine pretty quick. The whole process takes about... 5 hours! Which makes me wonder what kind of trickery those \"6 hour power\" guys are up to.\n\nFat-soluble vitamins *can* accumulate. Too much of them can lead to [hypervitaminosis](_URL_0_)",
"In ... | 11 | [
"Since it is water-soluble, it just gets flushed out in your urine pretty quick. The whole process takes about... 5 hours! Which makes me wonder what kind of trickery those \"6 hour power\" guys are up to.\n\nFat-soluble vitamins *can* accumulate. Too much of them can lead to [hypervitaminosis](_URL_0_)",
"In ... | 8 | question: Why does 5 hour energy contain 8000%+ vitamin B? | answer: Since it is water-soluble, it just gets flushed out in your urine pretty quick. The whole process takes about... 5 hours! Which makes me wonder what kind of trickery those "6 hour power" guys are up to.Fat-soluble vitamins *can* accumulate. Too much of them can lead to [hypervitaminosis](_URL_0_) |
c1mjkf | How/why was King Henry II of England a vassal of King Louis VII of France. How did this work in practice? | The Angevin Empire was not a country in the way that we view countries today. The modern notion of a country didn't begin until after the medieval era had ended.It's easier to understand the organisation of medieval kingdoms if you view them as companies instead of countries, and view the feudal system as a monetary system instead of as a military hierarchy. Henry II held various separate titles such as Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou, King of England. You can think of these as separate jobs. Which happened to be held by the same person, and he was paid for performing these jobs by being given land.During the medieval era there was only a limited amount of money in circulation, and kings did not have the money to pay their soldiers. So Kings did not pay their Barons in money, but instead paid them with land. The Barons then paid their soldiers with land.The system of paying people in land wasn't restricted to the military, civilian institutions such as monasteries were also paid in land. Originally the land wasn't given permanently but would only be given to someone so long as they performed the job they were hired to perform. However since people rarely changed jobs, and jobs tended to be hereditary by this point in the middle ages, the vassals essentially held the land as if it was their own land instead of the land of the king. Henry II's ancestors had been given land in France in exchange for serving the King of France, and he held that land in France so long as he promised to continue serving the King of France. He was King of England in his own right irrelevant to any service he made to the King of France. The Kingdom of England was never a vassal to the Kingdom of France, the King of England just happened to be someone who also held titles that were vassal to the Kingdom of France.Henry II ruled over England separately from France and the laws of England and the laws of France were separate from one another, and in France there could be a significant amount of variation in the law from one area to another. A merchant in England importing goods from Anjou would need to pay customs duties on what he imported. Economically the fact that they were ruled by the same people didn't matter.As for military matters, legally speaking since these titles were separate from one another them being held by the same person should not have made a difference. However in practice during medieval times royalty and aristocracy rarely followed the law if it couldn't be backed with force, so the French King was worried that Henry II would expand his power in France, and possibly overthrow him, so he wanted to limit Henrys' power, prevent him from taking more land and take his land away from him.So Henry needed to stay in France so he could prevent rebellions by his own vassals in France, and so he could respond if the French King tried to take his land away from him.As for what happened in Toulouse, Henry II was married to Eleanor the Duchess of Aquitaine. Eleanor had a claim to Toulouse because she was a descendant of William IV Count of Toulouse and according to the law should be the Countess of Toulouse, however her family had not controlled Toulouse since 1094. Henry II wanted to retake Toulouse and expand his power Louis VII wanted to prevent him from doing this so he defended Toulouse against Henry. Henry didn't want to go to war with Louis, so he didn't attack Toulouse. | [
"The Angevin Empire was not a country in the way that we view countries today. The modern notion of a country didn't begin until after the medieval era had ended.\n\nIt's easier to understand the organisation of medieval kingdoms if you view them as companies instead of countries, and view the feudal system as a mo... | 1 | [
"The Angevin Empire was not a country in the way that we view countries today. The modern notion of a country didn't begin until after the medieval era had ended.\n\nIt's easier to understand the organisation of medieval kingdoms if you view them as companies instead of countries, and view the feudal system as a mo... | 1 | question: How/why was King Henry II of England a vassal of King Louis VII of France. How did this work in practice? | answer: The Angevin Empire was not a country in the way that we view countries today. The modern notion of a country didn't begin until after the medieval era had ended.It's easier to understand the organisation of medieval kingdoms if you view them as companies instead of countries, and view the feudal system as a monetary system instead of as a military hierarchy. Henry II held various separate titles such as Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou, King of England. You can think of these as separate jobs. Which happened to be held by the same person, and he was paid for performing these jobs by being given land.During the medieval era there was only a limited amount of money in circulation, and kings did not have the money to pay their soldiers. So Kings did not pay their Barons in money, but instead paid them with land. The Barons then paid their soldiers with land.The system of paying people in land wasn't restricted to the military, civilian institutions such as monasteries were also paid in land. Originally the land wasn't given permanently but would only be given to someone so long as they performed the job they were hired to perform. However since people rarely changed jobs, and jobs tended to be hereditary by this point in the middle ages, the vassals essentially held the land as if it was their own land instead of the land of the king. Henry II's ancestors had been given land in France in exchange for serving the King of France, and he held that land in France so long as he promised to continue serving the King of France. He was King of England in his own right irrelevant to any service he made to the King of France. The Kingdom of England was never a vassal to the Kingdom of France, the King of England just happened to be someone who also held titles that were vassal to the Kingdom of France.Henry II ruled over England separately from France and the laws of England and the laws of France were separate from one another, and in France there could be a significant amount of variation in the law from one area to another. A merchant in England importing goods from Anjou would need to pay customs duties on what he imported. Economically the fact that they were ruled by the same people didn't matter.As for military matters, legally speaking since these titles were separate from one another them being held by the same person should not have made a difference. However in practice during medieval times royalty and aristocracy rarely followed the law if it couldn't be backed with force, so the French King was worried that Henry II would expand his power in France, and possibly overthrow him, so he wanted to limit Henrys' power, prevent him from taking more land and take his land away from him.So Henry needed to stay in France so he could prevent rebellions by his own vassals in France, and so he could respond if the French King tried to take his land away from him.As for what happened in Toulouse, Henry II was married to Eleanor the Duchess of Aquitaine. Eleanor had a claim to Toulouse because she was a descendant of William IV Count of Toulouse and according to the law should be the Countess of Toulouse, however her family had not controlled Toulouse since 1094. Henry II wanted to retake Toulouse and expand his power Louis VII wanted to prevent him from doing this so he defended Toulouse against Henry. Henry didn't want to go to war with Louis, so he didn't attack Toulouse. |
7uiec0 | Some Ming Emperor were tolerant and supportive of Islam. How did they reconcile this with the Mandate of Heaven? | For some clarification, why do you think tolerance of Islam wouldn't be compatible with the Mandate of Heaven? The Mandate of Heaven was, by and large, a tool for establishing legitimacy for rulers. The Tang and Song were also tolerant of Islam (although the Tang did have some real difficulties with Buddhism). I'm a bit confused as to why you think they are incompatible? | [
"For some clarification, why do you think tolerance of Islam wouldn't be compatible with the Mandate of Heaven? The Mandate of Heaven was, by and large, a tool for establishing legitimacy for rulers. The Tang and Song were also tolerant of Islam (although the Tang did have some real difficulties with Buddhism). I'm... | 2 | [
"For some clarification, why do you think tolerance of Islam wouldn't be compatible with the Mandate of Heaven? The Mandate of Heaven was, by and large, a tool for establishing legitimacy for rulers. The Tang and Song were also tolerant of Islam (although the Tang did have some real difficulties with Buddhism). I'm... | 2 | question: Some Ming Emperor were tolerant and supportive of Islam. How did they reconcile this with the Mandate of Heaven? | answer: For some clarification, why do you think tolerance of Islam wouldn't be compatible with the Mandate of Heaven? The Mandate of Heaven was, by and large, a tool for establishing legitimacy for rulers. The Tang and Song were also tolerant of Islam (although the Tang did have some real difficulties with Buddhism). I'm a bit confused as to why you think they are incompatible? |
6d3c1o | why does the government give tax incentives to married people and those with kids, but no incentives for single and childless people? | It is generally believed that people having kids is helpful to a society. It creates the next generation of consumers/taxpayers, for example. Having kids is also generally costly. The idea of tax benefits for people who have kids is that it represents an offset of the cost to the individual of having the kids, giving them a slightly larger share of the wider societal benefit of having kids that they can't individually capture. Marriage is similar, though more debatable and less direct. There are many who argue that marriages, especially stable ones that produce kids, tend to create "stronger" or better ordered societies. However, at least in the U.S. so far as I know, most of the tax "benefits" of marriage tend to be more about the weirdness of people having combined incomes---more an after effect then a genuine "incentive." | [
"Think about it for a bit. You are increasing your purchasing costs, incentivizing family creation, and single people tend to have a higher available income if they are doing any sort of financial planning.",
"The other posters aren't wrong, but the answer is ultimately, \"Because the lobby for those breaks exce... | 12 | [
"The other posters aren't wrong, but the answer is ultimately, \"Because the lobby for those breaks exceeds the lobby against.\"",
"You really don't get an objective benefit on taxes for being married. You just file differently. Sometimes that benefits families sometimes it doesn't. The government does this becau... | 8 | question: why does the government give tax incentives to married people and those with kids, but no incentives for single and childless people? | answer: It is generally believed that people having kids is helpful to a society. It creates the next generation of consumers/taxpayers, for example. Having kids is also generally costly. The idea of tax benefits for people who have kids is that it represents an offset of the cost to the individual of having the kids, giving them a slightly larger share of the wider societal benefit of having kids that they can't individually capture. Marriage is similar, though more debatable and less direct. There are many who argue that marriages, especially stable ones that produce kids, tend to create "stronger" or better ordered societies. However, at least in the U.S. so far as I know, most of the tax "benefits" of marriage tend to be more about the weirdness of people having combined incomes---more an after effect then a genuine "incentive." |
to4ed | If a layman were to solve one of the big "unsolved" mathematical problems, what would the process be? | It's the same process.Write paper, get published.No one actually cares enough to look at which university you're submitting from, and some journals are double blinded so no one will know.Your "Dad" should also look at some existing papers to see how they should be written, and ideally learn latex as well. It would make his life much easier. Edit: If he's worried about people stealing his idea, he should put a preprint on arvix _URL_0_ and then everyone will know when he wrote down the idea. | [
"It's the same process.\n\nWrite paper, get published.\n\nNo one actually cares enough to look at which university you're submitting from, and some journals are double blinded so no one will know.\n\nYour \"Dad\" should also look at some existing papers to see how they should be written, and ideally learn latex as ... | 2 | [
"It's the same process.\n\nWrite paper, get published.\n\nNo one actually cares enough to look at which university you're submitting from, and some journals are double blinded so no one will know.\n\nYour \"Dad\" should also look at some existing papers to see how they should be written, and ideally learn latex as ... | 1 | question: If a layman were to solve one of the big "unsolved" mathematical problems, what would the process be? | answer: It's the same process.Write paper, get published.No one actually cares enough to look at which university you're submitting from, and some journals are double blinded so no one will know.Your "Dad" should also look at some existing papers to see how they should be written, and ideally learn latex as well. It would make his life much easier. Edit: If he's worried about people stealing his idea, he should put a preprint on arvix _URL_0_ and then everyone will know when he wrote down the idea. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.