prompt stringlengths 57 5.45k | chosen stringlengths 83 5.88k | rejected stringlengths 81 5.9k | chosen_score int64 -18 9.62k | rejected_score int64 -32 706 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human: So, if lenses work by bending light, and gravity can also bend light, could a gravitational lense be possible? Or for that matter, a cosmic gravitational telescope constructed out of black holes?
Assistant: |
Human: So, if lenses work by bending light, and gravity can also bend light, could a gravitational lense be possible? Or for that matter, a cosmic gravitational telescope constructed out of black holes?
Assistant: Yes. The "gravitational lens" you are talking about is called a gravitational lens. |
Human: So, if lenses work by bending light, and gravity can also bend light, could a gravitational lense be possible? Or for that matter, a cosmic gravitational telescope constructed out of black holes?
Assistant: One example I find fascinating is the Lynx quasar, APM08279+5255. In addition to be phenomenally bright in its own right, it is the gravitational lensing that brings its magnitude to 15.2, in range of larger amateur telescopes. With its light leaving >12 billion years ago, that means an amateur with decent equipment (and great sky conditions) can see an object that up until just a few years ago was the most distant known object. | 4 | 1 |
Human: So, if lenses work by bending light, and gravity can also bend light, could a gravitational lense be possible? Or for that matter, a cosmic gravitational telescope constructed out of black holes?
Assistant: |
Human: So, if lenses work by bending light, and gravity can also bend light, could a gravitational lense be possible? Or for that matter, a cosmic gravitational telescope constructed out of black holes?
Assistant: Interestingly enough, ARS published an article on this a few minutes ago, discussing Hubble using galaxies as gravitational lenses. The article states that, using this method, Hubble may have found the oldest, farthest away object yet observed. Link |
Human: So, if lenses work by bending light, and gravity can also bend light, could a gravitational lense be possible? Or for that matter, a cosmic gravitational telescope constructed out of black holes?
Assistant: One example I find fascinating is the Lynx quasar, APM08279+5255. In addition to be phenomenally bright in its own right, it is the gravitational lensing that brings its magnitude to 15.2, in range of larger amateur telescopes. With its light leaving >12 billion years ago, that means an amateur with decent equipment (and great sky conditions) can see an object that up until just a few years ago was the most distant known object. | 2 | 1 |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: A photon does not require mass to be affected by gravity as the source of gravity is not mass, it is energy and momentum, which a photon definitely has. MinutePhysics has a great video explaining this and some other common physics misconceptions. |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: The mass of the black hole warps space-time so much that, inside the event horizon, all paths into the future lead back towards the center of the black hole. The photon cannot escape because it travels in space-time into the future (as always) but the path it takes leads inwards. Literally you can't get there from here. Note that this means that even the mythical spaceship that can go faster than light cannot escape. To escape you have to be able to go backwards in the time dimension. | 118 | 48 |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: A photon does not require mass to be affected by gravity as the source of gravity is not mass, it is energy and momentum, which a photon definitely has. MinutePhysics has a great video explaining this and some other common physics misconceptions. |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: Around black holes space itself is distorted extremely and bends all the way into the black hole. Since light waves (photons) traverses through the medium of space, time fabric will also take the path of the curvature of the space-time fabric. | 118 | 8 |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: The mass of the black hole warps space-time so much that, inside the event horizon, all paths into the future lead back towards the center of the black hole. The photon cannot escape because it travels in space-time into the future (as always) but the path it takes leads inwards. Literally you can't get there from here. Note that this means that even the mythical spaceship that can go faster than light cannot escape. To escape you have to be able to go backwards in the time dimension. |
Human: If photons have no mass, why does a black hole trap them? Do black holes not only have huge gravitational pulls but also energy pulls? Please explain.
Assistant: Around black holes space itself is distorted extremely and bends all the way into the black hole. Since light waves (photons) traverses through the medium of space, time fabric will also take the path of the curvature of the space-time fabric. | 48 | 8 |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: Salt. I'm only saying salt because I know it lowers the freezing point of ice, so my logic tells me that it should lower the boiling point too but I may be wrong |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: Antifreeze | -17 | -18 |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: Salt. I'm only saying salt because I know it lowers the freezing point of ice, so my logic tells me that it should lower the boiling point too but I may be wrong |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: Or you could add salt. | -17 | -32 |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: Antifreeze |
Human: Is there anything you can add to water to lower it's boiling point?
Assistant: Or you could add salt. | -18 | -32 |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: We assume that the universe we can't see is the same as the universe we can see. We can make this assumption because the universe we can see is the same everywhere, and there's no reason to think it's different anywhere else. So we can measure what we can see, and extrapolate to what we can't. |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: we can't know for sure. But when we extrapolate the measurements of our observable universe, it seems very likely to be the case. | 7 | 3 |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: We assume that the universe we can't see is the same as the universe we can see. We can make this assumption because the universe we can see is the same everywhere, and there's no reason to think it's different anywhere else. So we can measure what we can see, and extrapolate to what we can't. |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: If you have an hour, you should watch this. Lawrence Krauss explains it pretty well, imo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo | 7 | 2 |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: we can't know for sure. But when we extrapolate the measurements of our observable universe, it seems very likely to be the case. |
Human: How can we tell that the universe is flat and infinite if we can't be affected by anything outside the observable universe? I understand that our observations tell us that the universe is flat, and that this implies that the universe is either infinite, or that it extends very, very far beyond the observable universe. But if nothing outside the observable universe can affect anything inside, how can matter outside the observable universe have an effect on the curvature inside? Isn't the flatness of the universe information from outside the part we can observe?
Assistant: If you have an hour, you should watch this. Lawrence Krauss explains it pretty well, imo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo | 3 | 2 |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: I don't know for sure, but I think not. Survival takes priority over immediate reproduction, which I think makes sense long term. For example, women's reproductive functions tend to shut down under stress and bad nutrition. |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: Not that I know of but the reproductive organs are very interesting from a evolutionary point of view. For instance, the testicles are of course pretty much a mans most important organ from an evolutionary point of view, and yet they are left hanging and exposed due to a requirement for being at a particular temperature. This means that evolution has not been able to solve the problem of creating viable sperm at normal body temperature. | 13 | 5 |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: I don't know for sure, but I think not. Survival takes priority over immediate reproduction, which I think makes sense long term. For example, women's reproductive functions tend to shut down under stress and bad nutrition. |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: Please, explain how telepathy makes sense, evolutionary or otherwise. | 13 | 1 |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: Not that I know of but the reproductive organs are very interesting from a evolutionary point of view. For instance, the testicles are of course pretty much a mans most important organ from an evolutionary point of view, and yet they are left hanging and exposed due to a requirement for being at a particular temperature. This means that evolution has not been able to solve the problem of creating viable sperm at normal body temperature. |
Human: Does the human body heal reproductive organs with more priority than anything else? If a man or a woman takes damage down south, damage which could temporarily pose as a physical barrier to intercourse, does the body heal it faster or with more priority than anything else? If there is a hierarchy of priority, what is it and what is it called? My question extends to the immune system as well I suppose. It seems to make evolutionary sense. But then, so does telepathy ;)
Assistant: Please, explain how telepathy makes sense, evolutionary or otherwise. | 5 | 1 |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: Some people claim that artificial sweeteners are not healthy. But the evidence is not clear and uncontroversial. Far from it. If you want to stay on the safe side, sucralose ("splenda") and stevia seem to generate the least amount of bad rumors. Aspartame and saccharine seem to generate the most bad press. If you want to stay on the *very* safe side, drink unsweetened drinks. Plain green tea is awesome and as healthy as it gets. |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: They aren't bad for you. Just like tobacco wasn't bad for you. Just like benzene wasn't bad for you. Just like saccharine wasn't bad for you. Just like red food dye wasn't bad for you. Just like Olestra wasn't bad for you... | 2 | -2 |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: Some people claim that artificial sweeteners are not healthy. But the evidence is not clear and uncontroversial. Far from it. If you want to stay on the safe side, sucralose ("splenda") and stevia seem to generate the least amount of bad rumors. Aspartame and saccharine seem to generate the most bad press. If you want to stay on the *very* safe side, drink unsweetened drinks. Plain green tea is awesome and as healthy as it gets. |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: aspartame. | 2 | -6 |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: They aren't bad for you. Just like tobacco wasn't bad for you. Just like benzene wasn't bad for you. Just like saccharine wasn't bad for you. Just like red food dye wasn't bad for you. Just like Olestra wasn't bad for you... |
Human: Why are diet sodas bad for you? Is it the sodium?
Assistant: aspartame. | -2 | -6 |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: I can't comment on the archaeology side, but the U-Th dating of cave carbonates is an incredibly well established science and Dirk Hoffmann really does know what he's doing with it. The dates are of carbonate precipitated on top of the art by subsequent flows - that's pretty unambigously younger than the art itself. |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: Not an answer but a point in regards to the right answer; the single most consistent thing human's do is declare themselves special and better/different from all other animals. Time and time again this gets knocked back and we just find another point where we are better or different - only humans use tools, whoops no; ok, only humans can think about the future; whoops no; ok - and on we go. If all the evidence points to the art being produced by neanderthals then probably they were. | 44 | 18 |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: I can't comment on the archaeology side, but the U-Th dating of cave carbonates is an incredibly well established science and Dirk Hoffmann really does know what he's doing with it. The dates are of carbonate precipitated on top of the art by subsequent flows - that's pretty unambigously younger than the art itself. |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: The short answer is that we simply don't know yet. we *do* know that they made jewelry and art, seem to have made and used boats, figured out different types of glue, made cord and clothing, etc and were generally extremely intelligent, so it's absolutely within the realm of possibility that they made cave art as well, but we don't have definitive proof it it yet. | 44 | 14 |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: I can't comment on the archaeology side, but the U-Th dating of cave carbonates is an incredibly well established science and Dirk Hoffmann really does know what he's doing with it. The dates are of carbonate precipitated on top of the art by subsequent flows - that's pretty unambigously younger than the art itself. |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: Even by reading the Wiki article about U-Th dating and then googling how old shells on beaches are (up to 40,000 years) since the method measures the age of the shell and not when the holes were made or shells used for mixing colors, it's even pretty clear to me that this can't be a reliable method to get an accurate age | 44 | 10 |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: Not an answer but a point in regards to the right answer; the single most consistent thing human's do is declare themselves special and better/different from all other animals. Time and time again this gets knocked back and we just find another point where we are better or different - only humans use tools, whoops no; ok, only humans can think about the future; whoops no; ok - and on we go. If all the evidence points to the art being produced by neanderthals then probably they were. |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: The short answer is that we simply don't know yet. we *do* know that they made jewelry and art, seem to have made and used boats, figured out different types of glue, made cord and clothing, etc and were generally extremely intelligent, so it's absolutely within the realm of possibility that they made cave art as well, but we don't have definitive proof it it yet. | 18 | 14 |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: Not an answer but a point in regards to the right answer; the single most consistent thing human's do is declare themselves special and better/different from all other animals. Time and time again this gets knocked back and we just find another point where we are better or different - only humans use tools, whoops no; ok, only humans can think about the future; whoops no; ok - and on we go. If all the evidence points to the art being produced by neanderthals then probably they were. |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: Even by reading the Wiki article about U-Th dating and then googling how old shells on beaches are (up to 40,000 years) since the method measures the age of the shell and not when the holes were made or shells used for mixing colors, it's even pretty clear to me that this can't be a reliable method to get an accurate age | 18 | 10 |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: The short answer is that we simply don't know yet. we *do* know that they made jewelry and art, seem to have made and used boats, figured out different types of glue, made cord and clothing, etc and were generally extremely intelligent, so it's absolutely within the realm of possibility that they made cave art as well, but we don't have definitive proof it it yet. |
Human: Did Neanderthals make the cave paintings ? In 2018, Dirk Hoffmann et al. published a Uranium-Thorium dating of cave art in three caves in Spain, claiming the paintings are 65k years old. This predates modern humans that arrived in europe somewhere at 40k years ago, making this the first solid evidence of Neanderthal symbolism. Paper DOI. Widely covered, EurekAlert link This of course was not universally well received. Latest critique of this: 2020, team led by Randall White responds, by questioning dating methodology. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art. DOI. Covered in ScienceNews Hoffmann responds to above ( and not for the first time ) Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1231855953541246964&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) [DOI Earlier responses to various critiques, 2018 to Slimak et al. and 2019 to Aubert et al. 2020, Edwige Pons-Branchu et al. questining the U-Th dating, and proposing a more robust framework DOI U-series dating at Nerja cave reveal open system. Questioning the Neanderthal origin of Spanish rock art covered in EurekAlert Needless to say, this seems quite controversial and far from settled. The tone in the critique and response letters is quite scathing in places, this whole thing seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers. What are the takes on this ? Are the dating methods unreliable and these paintings were indeed made more recently ? Are there any strong reasons to doubt that Neanderthals indeed painted these things ? Note that this all is in the recent evidence of Neanderthals being able to make fire, being able to create and use adhesives from birch tar, and make strings. There might be case to be made for Neanderthals being far smarter than they’ve been usually credited with.
Assistant: Even by reading the Wiki article about U-Th dating and then googling how old shells on beaches are (up to 40,000 years) since the method measures the age of the shell and not when the holes were made or shells used for mixing colors, it's even pretty clear to me that this can't be a reliable method to get an accurate age | 14 | 10 |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: The image formed by the lens is a fuzzy circle (the brightness dims as you go farther from the center), but it's projected onto a rectangular sensor or piece of film. For certain combinations of sensor size and lens, the dim edges of the image appear at the corners of the photo: this is called vignetting. |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: The shape of the lens has nothing to do with the shape of the image. Take a round lens and set it up to make an image on a screen. Now cover most of he lens with black tape leaving just a narrow pie shape uncovered, the only difference you see in the image is that it is darker because the lens is not collecting as much light. | 3 | 1 |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: The image formed by the lens is a fuzzy circle (the brightness dims as you go farther from the center), but it's projected onto a rectangular sensor or piece of film. For certain combinations of sensor size and lens, the dim edges of the image appear at the corners of the photo: this is called vignetting. |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: Might want to think about the sun (which appears as a round light source) creates square/rectangular shapes on the floor: they take the shape of the opening. The image is circular, as you would expect, but the film or sensor is placed in the center of the circle. In large format photography, it was important to know if a given lens had sufficient covering power to expose the whole sheet of film. A lens that covered 4x5 film might not cover 5x7 or 8x10. | 3 | 0 |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: The shape of the lens has nothing to do with the shape of the image. Take a round lens and set it up to make an image on a screen. Now cover most of he lens with black tape leaving just a narrow pie shape uncovered, the only difference you see in the image is that it is darker because the lens is not collecting as much light. |
Human: If lenses are circular why do they take rectangle pictures?
Assistant: Might want to think about the sun (which appears as a round light source) creates square/rectangular shapes on the floor: they take the shape of the opening. The image is circular, as you would expect, but the film or sensor is placed in the center of the circle. In large format photography, it was important to know if a given lens had sufficient covering power to expose the whole sheet of film. A lens that covered 4x5 film might not cover 5x7 or 8x10. | 1 | 0 |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: There was an episode of Mythbusters where Adam dressed up as Jamie (they made a Jamie mask as well) & it was able to fool Jamie's dog. We learned that smell is not the only way that dogs recognize things/people. |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: The tone of someone's voice, whether or not they make eye contact, the physical size or height of a person can make a dog react a lot more apprehensively or 'respectfully'. It is interesting to observe their very obvious perceptions of people. | 21 | 8 |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: There was an episode of Mythbusters where Adam dressed up as Jamie (they made a Jamie mask as well) & it was able to fool Jamie's dog. We learned that smell is not the only way that dogs recognize things/people. |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: Her dog is responding to her behaviour and body language. If the dog acts differently with her than with her dad, it's because she acts differently with the dog than her dad does. | 21 | 1 |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: The tone of someone's voice, whether or not they make eye contact, the physical size or height of a person can make a dog react a lot more apprehensively or 'respectfully'. It is interesting to observe their very obvious perceptions of people. |
Human: How much can animals (specifically dogs) tell about humans based on our appearance? My girlfriend has a 9 month old dog that just wants to play all day, and by play I mean rough-housing, but he seems to respect her dad more, acting calmer, and he doesn't act out at all with her mom, who is in a wheelchair. This got me wondering whether or not he is capable of differentiating us based on age, physical health, among other things.
Assistant: Her dog is responding to her behaviour and body language. If the dog acts differently with her than with her dad, it's because she acts differently with the dog than her dad does. | 8 | 1 |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: We have a real life example. North Korea. When a friend of mine’s cousin got out, she was baffled by the fact that their weren’t pictures of the president everywhere and that the U.S. wasn’t a crumbling ruin. |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: It is possible. However, the party would have to be industrially murdering its own people to maintain the illusion. | 25 | 12 |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: We have a real life example. North Korea. When a friend of mine’s cousin got out, she was baffled by the fact that their weren’t pictures of the president everywhere and that the U.S. wasn’t a crumbling ruin. |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: The appendix is strange, because it seems to write after the superstates and comments upon them as superstates. If the appendix is to be believed to be true (and I believe it is - if there is a reason for the Party to write such a document, it escapes me) then no, this isn't true. | 25 | 11 |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: It is possible. However, the party would have to be industrially murdering its own people to maintain the illusion. |
Human: [1984] Is there much to support the fan theory that the rest of the world isn't a dystopic ruin and in fact airstrip one is the outlier as an information censored nation, and the rest of the world is relatively normal?
Assistant: The appendix is strange, because it seems to write after the superstates and comments upon them as superstates. If the appendix is to be believed to be true (and I believe it is - if there is a reason for the Party to write such a document, it escapes me) then no, this isn't true. | 12 | 11 |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: No one has stated the obvious… his character probably just likes playing Blackjack, nothing to do with how easy it is to get caught. Personally I’d play Texas Holdem |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: Couldn't he also have just walked around the slot machines until he saw one that would have a good payout? I haven't seen the movie, but from what everyone else is saying this seems like it would be the easiest | 58 | 18 |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: No one has stated the obvious… his character probably just likes playing Blackjack, nothing to do with how easy it is to get caught. Personally I’d play Texas Holdem |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: Dont we get the impression that je plays a few diffrent games when he picks the winning slot machine too? | 58 | 9 |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: Couldn't he also have just walked around the slot machines until he saw one that would have a good payout? I haven't seen the movie, but from what everyone else is saying this seems like it would be the easiest |
Human: [Next] Why play blackjack? In the Nicholas Cage movie next, he can see the future up to 3 minutes right. He uses this to win money at blackjack which eventually gets him caught even though he plays pretty conservatively right. But why blackjack, the one they monitor like crazy. Like you could sit and play roulette for an hour and win a little then lose it, you could even do some monster bets throughout the night and intentionally lose if you know what's coming. All you would have to do is make sure you hit one huge number and then walk and it would appear to any one watching as a lucky hit at the end of a bad streak. You could do this with any game in the casino and attract no attention at all. You would know if a slot would payout and just catch a good one. But really you could make enough playing roulette to not have to go back all year with ease.
Assistant: Dont we get the impression that je plays a few diffrent games when he picks the winning slot machine too? | 18 | 9 |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: I read all the answers and it is conclusive that clark is just a typical kryptonian. So it makes me wonder, if all kryptonians become like superman under a yellow sun for some time, and considering that they had an interstellar civilization, why tue hell did they not colonize a planet that orbits a yellow sun? It doesnt have to be earth. Are yellow suns so rare that they couldnt find one before the destruction of their homeworld? |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: Depends on the writer. John Byrne had the Kryptonians doing Dune style breeding programs, and Kal's generation was the product of 100 000 years of eugenics iirc. | 64 | 21 |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: I read all the answers and it is conclusive that clark is just a typical kryptonian. So it makes me wonder, if all kryptonians become like superman under a yellow sun for some time, and considering that they had an interstellar civilization, why tue hell did they not colonize a planet that orbits a yellow sun? It doesnt have to be earth. Are yellow suns so rare that they couldnt find one before the destruction of their homeworld? |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: Sort of. He is a biologically a typical Kryoptonian. However he is for the foreseeable future the only 100% Kryoptonian to have been living under a yellow sun his entire life. Which makes him more powerful than one who had arrived later in life. If another was born and raised under a yellow sun they would be equally as powerful. | 64 | 17 |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: Depends on the writer. John Byrne had the Kryptonians doing Dune style breeding programs, and Kal's generation was the product of 100 000 years of eugenics iirc. |
Human: [DC] Is superman a normal Kryptonian? If all of the Kryptonians came to earth would they all have the same strength. With the yellow sun and less harmful atmosphere would all of their powers be increased the same amount.
Assistant: Sort of. He is a biologically a typical Kryoptonian. However he is for the foreseeable future the only 100% Kryoptonian to have been living under a yellow sun his entire life. Which makes him more powerful than one who had arrived later in life. If another was born and raised under a yellow sun they would be equally as powerful. | 21 | 17 |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: He spent a lot of time (like thousands of years) training in the bargain with Dormammu.Between deaths and rewinds he perfected all his techniques,spells and casts.He had to have immeasurable willpower to force an interdimensional entity to surrender to his request. That is why I respect Doctor Strange the most,he endured millenia of horrible deaths just to protect Earth |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: He isn't even Sorcerer Supreme yet, I don't think? He isn't given the title at the end of his movie and I don't believe he was called such in either Avengers film. He technically does have the most experience since the ancient one though, but only because he pulled a sneaky and used the Time Stone against Dormammu. | 531 | 58 |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: He spent a lot of time (like thousands of years) training in the bargain with Dormammu.Between deaths and rewinds he perfected all his techniques,spells and casts.He had to have immeasurable willpower to force an interdimensional entity to surrender to his request. That is why I respect Doctor Strange the most,he endured millenia of horrible deaths just to protect Earth |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: Basically he has a genius level intelligence (similar to Tony Stark) which meant he could learn quickly and retain most (if not all) of what he learned, this combined with the hours upon hours of study he did under the instruction of the previous Sorcerer Supreme meant that he excelled at everything he did exactly like how he became a top tier surgeon just with more sparkles *Edit spelling error | 531 | 23 |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: He isn't even Sorcerer Supreme yet, I don't think? He isn't given the title at the end of his movie and I don't believe he was called such in either Avengers film. He technically does have the most experience since the ancient one though, but only because he pulled a sneaky and used the Time Stone against Dormammu. |
Human: [MCU] Why was Doctor Strange considered the master of his craft and madeSorcerer Supreme considering that he had the least experience among all the sorcerers that had ever existed?
Assistant: Basically he has a genius level intelligence (similar to Tony Stark) which meant he could learn quickly and retain most (if not all) of what he learned, this combined with the hours upon hours of study he did under the instruction of the previous Sorcerer Supreme meant that he excelled at everything he did exactly like how he became a top tier surgeon just with more sparkles *Edit spelling error | 58 | 23 |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: "I only have space for your head in my ship." \*ignites darksaber* "What's your counteroffer?" |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: I think the point of him getting the ship is to signify that he is going away from bounty hunting now. He has a bigger calling, which in case you don't know is the dark saber meaning he is mand'a'lor. | 11 | 8 |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: "I only have space for your head in my ship." \*ignites darksaber* "What's your counteroffer?" |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: It's good if he wants to do some spinning. That's a neat trick. | 11 | 2 |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: I think the point of him getting the ship is to signify that he is going away from bounty hunting now. He has a bigger calling, which in case you don't know is the dark saber meaning he is mand'a'lor. |
Human: [Star Wars / The Boba Fett Show] Spoiler question about spaceship... Isn't a naboo fighter wildly impractical for Mando's line of work? It has no sleeping quarters, prisoner holding cell, or bathroom area.
Assistant: It's good if he wants to do some spinning. That's a neat trick. | 8 | 2 |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: If you live in a major city and have any type of crime issues you 100% know your DA. Ask anyone in Philadelphia who the current DA is and not only will they tell you who, but they won't be the least bit shy to tell you how much they hate or love him generally. When you have crime and violence at the high levels that Gotham does, the DA is hand in glove with the Mayor and Police Commissioner. Batman has it right with that because that's who the people look to for their solutions. |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: It's already not too uncommon for a District Attorney to be known, not common, but certainly not unheard of, especially if there was recently an election or the like. But what really makes Dent a big deal is that he's spearheading a huge legal case against the rampant organized crime in Gohtam and winning. Gotham is finally seeing real change and a real chance to dismantle its rampant organized crime. And Dent is the man leading all of that so his popularity is spiking up in particular because of that. | 46 | 14 |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: If you live in a major city and have any type of crime issues you 100% know your DA. Ask anyone in Philadelphia who the current DA is and not only will they tell you who, but they won't be the least bit shy to tell you how much they hate or love him generally. When you have crime and violence at the high levels that Gotham does, the DA is hand in glove with the Mayor and Police Commissioner. Batman has it right with that because that's who the people look to for their solutions. |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: I'm an attorney and I know our local DA personally. Now I'm obviously an outlier, but it's an election year and there are signs everywhere right now. I think DA, especially in a larger city, is a pretty high profile position. And it's not necessarily that the people care that much. But *Bruce* really cares. Whether his opinion on the general Gotham public is correct or not, we don't know. They might not give a crap, but Bruce thinks they do. | 46 | 6 |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: It's already not too uncommon for a District Attorney to be known, not common, but certainly not unheard of, especially if there was recently an election or the like. But what really makes Dent a big deal is that he's spearheading a huge legal case against the rampant organized crime in Gohtam and winning. Gotham is finally seeing real change and a real chance to dismantle its rampant organized crime. And Dent is the man leading all of that so his popularity is spiking up in particular because of that. |
Human: [The Dark Knight Trilogy] Why do the people of Gotham care so much about their District Attorney? I get that he did a lot of great work before losing his mind, but how many people can actually name their city’s DA without looking it up (unless they’re in public office themselves)? And how would the revelation that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes cause all of his work to be undone?
Assistant: I'm an attorney and I know our local DA personally. Now I'm obviously an outlier, but it's an election year and there are signs everywhere right now. I think DA, especially in a larger city, is a pretty high profile position. And it's not necessarily that the people care that much. But *Bruce* really cares. Whether his opinion on the general Gotham public is correct or not, we don't know. They might not give a crap, but Bruce thinks they do. | 14 | 6 |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: In a world filled with super villains, a stramge amount of mega rich individuals, and mega rich super villains... The public is probably simply relieved that Bruce ISN'T a Lex Luthor style villain himself. |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: Honest question from a dummy: Is Wayne Entetprises a public company? | 7 | 3 |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: In a world filled with super villains, a stramge amount of mega rich individuals, and mega rich super villains... The public is probably simply relieved that Bruce ISN'T a Lex Luthor style villain himself. |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: Hey, I don't think anyone's going to complain about the rich finally actually helping out. | 7 | 1 |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: Honest question from a dummy: Is Wayne Entetprises a public company? |
Human: [DC Comics] No way finds it weird that the Wayne Industry donates millions of dollars to Batman and the justice league? Public companies have to disclose their financial statements every quarter, how no one picks on Brune pocketing millions toward justice league. If he disclose the destination of the money then they should pick on there being a connection, and if he launders the money then they should think he is evading taxes. Not even the Joker is crazy enough to mess with the IRS
Assistant: Hey, I don't think anyone's going to complain about the rich finally actually helping out. | 3 | 1 |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: Is the Hulk thing really them fucking up? In basically any fictional universe "punt the problem in to space where it can't hurt anyone" is a 10/10 plan. Hulk is unkillable is *so many* different ways, so he needs to be removed not killed. They had no way or knowing or expecting him to come back, really their only mistake was throwing him in to space and not some random alternative dimension that's ten foot squared and then destroying the equipment used to open the gateway. |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: Even people who could be considered "objectively good" fuck things up when they think they know what's best for everyone else. | 33 | 23 |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: Is the Hulk thing really them fucking up? In basically any fictional universe "punt the problem in to space where it can't hurt anyone" is a 10/10 plan. Hulk is unkillable is *so many* different ways, so he needs to be removed not killed. They had no way or knowing or expecting him to come back, really their only mistake was throwing him in to space and not some random alternative dimension that's ten foot squared and then destroying the equipment used to open the gateway. |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: Because secrecy is bad. It doesn't matter if the intentions start out good, compromises are always made to keep the secret. Combine that with the fundamental worldview that people are bad and can't be trusted (including other heroes) and you have a toxic decision making process. It doesn't really matter if the individuals in the Illuminati have good intentions it's the system that's broken. See also: Capitalism, Cops. | 33 | 13 |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: Even people who could be considered "objectively good" fuck things up when they think they know what's best for everyone else. |
Human: [Marvel] Why does the Illuminati more often than not end up either creating or exacerbating problems rather than solve them? They're supposed to be among the greatest heroes and greatest minds in the Marvel universe, including Iron Man, Mr. Fantastic, Dr. Strange, Charles Xavier, Black Panther, Black Bolt, and Namor. However, they almost always end up making problems worse rather than better, such as kicking Hulk off of Earth only for him to come back seeking bitter vengeance, or even detaining opponents to the Superhuman Registration Act in the Negative Zone, which goes against everything Charles Xavier had dedicated his whole life to. So why are these heroes so poo r at actually making anything better but so great at making things worse?
Assistant: Because secrecy is bad. It doesn't matter if the intentions start out good, compromises are always made to keep the secret. Combine that with the fundamental worldview that people are bad and can't be trusted (including other heroes) and you have a toxic decision making process. It doesn't really matter if the individuals in the Illuminati have good intentions it's the system that's broken. See also: Capitalism, Cops. | 23 | 13 |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: In the comics Wong was born in Nepal but is a descendant of Chinese immigrants. In the MCU we don't know his actual origin, but since Kamar-Taj accepts recruits from all over the world there's little reason to believe Wong is a native of Nepal. |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: Do we have any indication that Wong was born in Nepal? I would assume he was born in China, and found the Masters of the Mystic Arts later in life, not unlike Strange himself. | 54 | 28 |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: In the comics Wong was born in Nepal but is a descendant of Chinese immigrants. In the MCU we don't know his actual origin, but since Kamar-Taj accepts recruits from all over the world there's little reason to believe Wong is a native of Nepal. |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: Wong or one of his ancestors probably immigrated from China | 54 | 11 |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: Do we have any indication that Wong was born in Nepal? I would assume he was born in China, and found the Masters of the Mystic Arts later in life, not unlike Strange himself. |
Human: [MCU]Why does Wong have a Chinese name if he’s Nepalese?
Assistant: Wong or one of his ancestors probably immigrated from China | 28 | 11 |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: Look at Pablo Escobar. He didn't have to be a ninja badass, and he owned everything around him. |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: The Hutts are long-lived and, as such, play the long game. And, hell, centuries of interest adds up nicely. | 7 | 2 |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: Look at Pablo Escobar. He didn't have to be a ninja badass, and he owned everything around him. |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: They have connections to spice and it's cliche for reason that if you control a beings drugs you control them entirely. | 7 | 1 |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: The Hutts are long-lived and, as such, play the long game. And, hell, centuries of interest adds up nicely. |
Human: [Star Wars] how are the hutts so rich despite being large slow moving slugs?
Assistant: They have connections to spice and it's cliche for reason that if you control a beings drugs you control them entirely. | 2 | 1 |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: In Marvel, there are a lot more villains turned hero. In the comics, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and Nighthawk were all bad guys before switching. Even if they weren't evil, Luke Cage was a mercenary, Moon Knight is insane, Jessica Jones is Jessica Jones. And don't get started on the Civil Wars... |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: I don't think it is generally more or less accepted in either universe. It's pretty much a case by case scenario that varies more according to the specific characters involved than the universe they're in. | 17 | 9 |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: In Marvel, there are a lot more villains turned hero. In the comics, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and Nighthawk were all bad guys before switching. Even if they weren't evil, Luke Cage was a mercenary, Moon Knight is insane, Jessica Jones is Jessica Jones. And don't get started on the Civil Wars... |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: Because everyone thinks batman is their friend when he has none except for Superman who thinks Bruce being able to stop him if he goes all evil again is a good thing. As for marvel the person I can think of who has plans to stop other heros is Nick fury maybe but his plan is usually just make Steve do it | 17 | 5 |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: I don't think it is generally more or less accepted in either universe. It's pretty much a case by case scenario that varies more according to the specific characters involved than the universe they're in. |
Human: [Marvel/DC] why is the concept of preparing contingency plans for fighting fellow superheroes seemingly more accepted in the Marvel Universe than in the DCU?
Assistant: Because everyone thinks batman is their friend when he has none except for Superman who thinks Bruce being able to stop him if he goes all evil again is a good thing. As for marvel the person I can think of who has plans to stop other heros is Nick fury maybe but his plan is usually just make Steve do it | 9 | 5 |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: 1. He’s got a lot more stored solar power than most Kryptonians, and his body is just naturally used to using it. 2. Superman is MORE than powerful, he is precise. He’s honed his strength into delicate strikes, his speed into elegant dash’s, and his power into a pinpoint accurate tool. The average Kryptonian wouldn’t use X-ray vision to locate a persons nervous system and target it with pressure points, or give someone a lobotomy with a glance. He just knows strength is only useful when regulated. |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: Kryptonians are like Sayians in the sense that they’re all (potentially) powerful and more powerful than the average species, but Kal-El is like Goku. He’s just the best of them. His training his lifestyle and his unwavering commitment to being a hero and saving the day push him past his limits every time he is confronted with a new obstacle | 8 | 5 |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: 1. He’s got a lot more stored solar power than most Kryptonians, and his body is just naturally used to using it. 2. Superman is MORE than powerful, he is precise. He’s honed his strength into delicate strikes, his speed into elegant dash’s, and his power into a pinpoint accurate tool. The average Kryptonian wouldn’t use X-ray vision to locate a persons nervous system and target it with pressure points, or give someone a lobotomy with a glance. He just knows strength is only useful when regulated. |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: Clark isn't a normal Kryptonian. He's spent his entire life on earth absorbing yellow solar radiation, and he's had additional training on top of his already potent abilities. He's basically to Kryptonians what a Navy SEAL would be to us normal civilians. | 8 | 4 |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: Kryptonians are like Sayians in the sense that they’re all (potentially) powerful and more powerful than the average species, but Kal-El is like Goku. He’s just the best of them. His training his lifestyle and his unwavering commitment to being a hero and saving the day push him past his limits every time he is confronted with a new obstacle |
Human: [DC] Why is superman seemingly soooo much more powerful than nearly all other kryptonians even in groups? He seems to just be able to overpower things that even a powered kryptonian shouldn't be able to
Assistant: Clark isn't a normal Kryptonian. He's spent his entire life on earth absorbing yellow solar radiation, and he's had additional training on top of his already potent abilities. He's basically to Kryptonians what a Navy SEAL would be to us normal civilians. | 5 | 4 |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: Point of order, there's no way he's a billionaire. |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: Taking down the Salamanca cartel. After that, the rest goes to Funko pops, and Pogs. Also, Beanie Babies. | 8 | 5 |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: Point of order, there's no way he's a billionaire. |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: Make enough money to run away with his boyfriend and never be found. | 8 | 3 |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: Taking down the Salamanca cartel. After that, the rest goes to Funko pops, and Pogs. Also, Beanie Babies. |
Human: [Breaking Bad/ Better Call Saul] What did Gus Fring plan on doing with his vast wealth? Even though he’s presumably a billionaire, he shown as living a humble life that wouldn’t draw attention to his empire. He drives an unremarkable car, lives in a nice, but not palatial mansion in an affordable city like Albuquerque, and spends his days doing janitorial work in his restaurant. What’s the point of making so much money and growing his drug empire if he can’t spend any of the money?
Assistant: Make enough money to run away with his boyfriend and never be found. | 5 | 3 |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: I honestly thought he meant that he was in Harlem for five months. |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Apparently the MCU timeline is all kinds of effed up anyway, supposedly there's some new timeline issues that Spider-Man: Homecoming introduced, I don't know because I haven't seen it yet, but people have been saying so. Just blame it on Dr. Strange and the Eye of Agamotto. | 84 | 49 |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: I honestly thought he meant that he was in Harlem for five months. |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Hells kitchen and Harlem are on opposite sides of New York city | 84 | 19 |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: I honestly thought he meant that he was in Harlem for five months. |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Maybe he went away for a while? I sort of got the impression that he took off to do some wandering after Jessica Jones ended. | 84 | 7 |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Apparently the MCU timeline is all kinds of effed up anyway, supposedly there's some new timeline issues that Spider-Man: Homecoming introduced, I don't know because I haven't seen it yet, but people have been saying so. Just blame it on Dr. Strange and the Eye of Agamotto. |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Hells kitchen and Harlem are on opposite sides of New York city | 49 | 19 |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Apparently the MCU timeline is all kinds of effed up anyway, supposedly there's some new timeline issues that Spider-Man: Homecoming introduced, I don't know because I haven't seen it yet, but people have been saying so. Just blame it on Dr. Strange and the Eye of Agamotto. |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Maybe he went away for a while? I sort of got the impression that he took off to do some wandering after Jessica Jones ended. | 49 | 7 |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Hells kitchen and Harlem are on opposite sides of New York city |
Human: [Luke Cage][MCU] Luke Cage owned a Harley and a bar when he was with Jessica Jones. According to him, he had only been in New York 5 months when he was sweeping up at a barber shop. What gives?
Assistant: Maybe he went away for a while? I sort of got the impression that he took off to do some wandering after Jessica Jones ended. | 19 | 7 |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: How can Cap allow certain events to occur, like Bucky killing the Starks, or not tell Peggy that HYDRA has compromised SHIELD? I can’t imagine that a goody-two shoes like him would just sit back and let these things happen. |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: I like to think he lived as a different person and hide his identity. This doesn't change anything since shield was already being created as we've seen in their time travel scene. Cap goes back when he becomes old. Peggy gets alzheimer's so she wont remember main timeline cap. | 6 | 1 |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: How can Cap allow certain events to occur, like Bucky killing the Starks, or not tell Peggy that HYDRA has compromised SHIELD? I can’t imagine that a goody-two shoes like him would just sit back and let these things happen. |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: He wasn't in a different timeline, he was in the same timeline at an earlier point in time. He just let his younger self do everything we saw from *Avengers* through to *Endgame*. | 6 | 0 |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: I like to think he lived as a different person and hide his identity. This doesn't change anything since shield was already being created as we've seen in their time travel scene. Cap goes back when he becomes old. Peggy gets alzheimer's so she wont remember main timeline cap. |
Human: [MCU] When cap decided to stay behind in another timeline to live out his life with Peggy, what did he do about the cap from that timeline who was frozen in the artic? Cap would know where his alternate timeline self was. Would he let shield know so the poor capsicle could be unfrosted then instead of 80 years in the future? Or would he let him rot in ice because he wanted peggy all to himself? When he did get thawed out, would people realize there were two captain americas walking around?
Assistant: He wasn't in a different timeline, he was in the same timeline at an earlier point in time. He just let his younger self do everything we saw from *Avengers* through to *Endgame*. | 1 | 0 |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: In *Splinter of the Mind's Eye,* Luke reduces his light sabre blade to roughly X-Acto knife size to, if memory serves, cut through a small locking mechanism. |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: Yes, there are a lot of ways to manipulate the effects of a lightsaber, usually with a variety of crystals. | 3 | 2 |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: In *Splinter of the Mind's Eye,* Luke reduces his light sabre blade to roughly X-Acto knife size to, if memory serves, cut through a small locking mechanism. |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: Didnt Vaders used to be able to change length abit | 3 | 1 |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: Yes, there are a lot of ways to manipulate the effects of a lightsaber, usually with a variety of crystals. |
Human: [Star Wars] Is a lightsaber's length a controllable variable? For instance could a Jedi/Sith create a saber with a blade the length of their body or longer?
Assistant: Didnt Vaders used to be able to change length abit | 2 | 1 |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: Age is slightly meaningless in a society with multiple species with multiple different lifespans. What is a ripe old age for some species is barely out of diapers for others. Basically, are you a child? That's the question. Are you a child that can be raised, or are you an adult? Age limits don't work when you can have a 50 year old baby. An 18 year old human is probably not a child. So they won't be raised. If you're not a human, check with your own species' biology. |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: Just because you don’t need adoption, that doesn’t mean you can’t join them. That usually requires you to impress them with your valor in some way. | 9 | 3 |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: Age is slightly meaningless in a society with multiple species with multiple different lifespans. What is a ripe old age for some species is barely out of diapers for others. Basically, are you a child? That's the question. Are you a child that can be raised, or are you an adult? Age limits don't work when you can have a 50 year old baby. An 18 year old human is probably not a child. So they won't be raised. If you're not a human, check with your own species' biology. |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: In season 1 the child is 50 years old, so I guess you're good | 9 | 2 |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: Just because you don’t need adoption, that doesn’t mean you can’t join them. That usually requires you to impress them with your valor in some way. |
Human: [Star Wars/Mandalorian] I've heard Mandalorians sometimes adopt and raise orphans of the societies they raided. But...how old do you have to be exactly? Like Im 18, and I lived with my parents (I was gonna get my own place, honest) until the Mandos came, raided my village and killed almost everyone including my parents. I tried stabbing one with a knife, but she laughed, batted it aside, smacked me upside the head and tossed me in the back of a transport. Am I gonna be raised by these people or am I gonna be sold to some Hutt?
Assistant: In season 1 the child is 50 years old, so I guess you're good | 3 | 2 |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: Magic is not about logic, but about symbolism and the metaphysical properties of certain places. The One Ring was "born" in Mount Doom, so it's the only place it can "die" aswell. If you remove the lava it stops being part of Mt. Doom and therefore stops to have this magical connection to the Ring. |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: If Mt. Doom lava can melt an ancient artifact like the One Ring, what other object could possibly hold it? | 115 | 47 |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: Magic is not about logic, but about symbolism and the metaphysical properties of certain places. The One Ring was "born" in Mount Doom, so it's the only place it can "die" aswell. If you remove the lava it stops being part of Mt. Doom and therefore stops to have this magical connection to the Ring. |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: How would he keep a cup of lava heated? | 115 | 22 |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: If Mt. Doom lava can melt an ancient artifact like the One Ring, what other object could possibly hold it? |
Human: [Lord of the Rings]If Eldrond took a cup of lava with him and kept it heated for a few thousand years until he had a chance to toss the ring into it, would that work?
Assistant: How would he keep a cup of lava heated? | 47 | 22 |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: The result of the dome going over the city would be Pawnee trapped under a dome. |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: I'm fairly certain a community as stupid as that one would die in under a day. Probably enough rioting. For one thing, they would never work together to solve the problem, they would just blame everything on Leslie, and, if that fails, blame it on the next person that seems like could do anything. | 14 | 5 |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: The result of the dome going over the city would be Pawnee trapped under a dome. |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: What is Under the Dome? | 14 | 2 |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: I'm fairly certain a community as stupid as that one would die in under a day. Probably enough rioting. For one thing, they would never work together to solve the problem, they would just blame everything on Leslie, and, if that fails, blame it on the next person that seems like could do anything. |
Human: [Under The Dome/Parks and Recreation] What if the Dome went over Pawnee? What if "The Dome" (from the TV series, meaning air and rain can still get in) went over Pawnee, Indiana on an "average" day? Assume that nobody (with the possible exception of Ron Swanson, since he's paranoid enough to be ready for any event) knew it was coming and the situation there was more or less like it is in the current P&R season.
Assistant: What is Under the Dome? | 5 | 2 |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: Iceman. He's easily an Omega level mutant. When Emma Frost was able to use his abilities she was way more powerful than Bobby himself has ever shown. |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: Teen Gohan | 8 | 4 |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: Iceman. He's easily an Omega level mutant. When Emma Frost was able to use his abilities she was way more powerful than Bobby himself has ever shown. |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: Dennis from Save the World (Fortnite). Dude’s fear that he’s just a lowly fry cook is so intense that the otherworldly Storm manifests a dark imposter based on those feelings. With help he eventually overcomes it and becomes a proper ninja. | 8 | 2 |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: Teen Gohan |
Human: [General] Which heroes/villains underestimate themselves? Like think they are weaker or useless than they actually are.
Assistant: Dennis from Save the World (Fortnite). Dude’s fear that he’s just a lowly fry cook is so intense that the otherworldly Storm manifests a dark imposter based on those feelings. With help he eventually overcomes it and becomes a proper ninja. | 4 | 2 |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: I believe Rick knows God exists, but doesn't find Him worthy of respect by creating a world which he despises and that makes him constantly depressed |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: He believes in God-like creatures. Not one God, but many beings worshipped as gods. Following that logic, their counterparts must also exist. | 5 | 3 |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: I believe Rick knows God exists, but doesn't find Him worthy of respect by creating a world which he despises and that makes him constantly depressed |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: Because he is the God | 5 | 2 |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: He believes in God-like creatures. Not one God, but many beings worshipped as gods. Following that logic, their counterparts must also exist. |
Human: [Rick and Morty] Why does Rick refuse to believe in God but has not problem accepting Mr. Needful as the literal Devil
Assistant: Because he is the God | 3 | 2 |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: Well, medical technologies are clearly more advanced in FNV. Stimpaks can heal crippled limbs in an instant (probably longer lore-wise but still very fast), and Doctor's Bags can fully heal limbs in the same amount of time, even when used by a player with little to no medical skills at all. Imagine what someone with enough training to be known as a doctor can do! |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: It’s possible that Stimpaks are used to accelerate the healing process. | 91 | 70 |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: Well, medical technologies are clearly more advanced in FNV. Stimpaks can heal crippled limbs in an instant (probably longer lore-wise but still very fast), and Doctor's Bags can fully heal limbs in the same amount of time, even when used by a player with little to no medical skills at all. Imagine what someone with enough training to be known as a doctor can do! |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: I honestly think it's a case of, "he's just built different." Also, given how we don't really know how other characters canonically perceive him, he or she could very well be a little *off*, and our perception of the world and events is just seamlessly skewed. You could also chalk it up to people in the Fallout universe just being a bit more resilient to the effects of trauma | 91 | 39 |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: It’s possible that Stimpaks are used to accelerate the healing process. |
Human: [Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head? Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery. Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.
Assistant: I honestly think it's a case of, "he's just built different." Also, given how we don't really know how other characters canonically perceive him, he or she could very well be a little *off*, and our perception of the world and events is just seamlessly skewed. You could also chalk it up to people in the Fallout universe just being a bit more resilient to the effects of trauma | 70 | 39 |
Human: [Star Wars] Say there's a pair of Sith, where the master is crazy powerful, and the apprentice just sucks by comparison. But: the apprentice is great at poisoning, and kills the master like Pai Mei. Aren't the Sith getting weaker if they often kill each other in cheap ways like this?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] Say there's a pair of Sith, where the master is crazy powerful, and the apprentice just sucks by comparison. But: the apprentice is great at poisoning, and kills the master like Pai Mei. Aren't the Sith getting weaker if they often kill each other in cheap ways like this?
Assistant: The Sith have a sort of "the ends justify the means" approach to the concept of strength. It's a bit of a conceit for them since each of them wants to justify their own victory over their former master, so even if they did so underhandedly, they declare the winner (themselves) the mightier. |
Human: [Star Wars] Say there's a pair of Sith, where the master is crazy powerful, and the apprentice just sucks by comparison. But: the apprentice is great at poisoning, and kills the master like Pai Mei. Aren't the Sith getting weaker if they often kill each other in cheap ways like this?
Assistant: Might Makes Right is central to Sith philosophy. If the master could not protect himself then he was no master. | 5 | 4 |
Human: [Star Wars] Say there's a pair of Sith, where the master is crazy powerful, and the apprentice just sucks by comparison. But: the apprentice is great at poisoning, and kills the master like Pai Mei. Aren't the Sith getting weaker if they often kill each other in cheap ways like this?
Assistant: |
Human: [Star Wars] Say there's a pair of Sith, where the master is crazy powerful, and the apprentice just sucks by comparison. But: the apprentice is great at poisoning, and kills the master like Pai Mei. Aren't the Sith getting weaker if they often kill each other in cheap ways like this?
Assistant: The Sith have a sort of "the ends justify the means" approach to the concept of strength. It's a bit of a conceit for them since each of them wants to justify their own victory over their former master, so even if they did so underhandedly, they declare the winner (themselves) the mightier. |
Human: [Star Wars] Say there's a pair of Sith, where the master is crazy powerful, and the apprentice just sucks by comparison. But: the apprentice is great at poisoning, and kills the master like Pai Mei. Aren't the Sith getting weaker if they often kill each other in cheap ways like this?
Assistant: Shots fired /u/IAmTheWolverine2 | 5 | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.