q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
301
| selftext
stringlengths 0
39.2k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 3
values | url
stringlengths 4
132
| answers
dict | title_urls
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
43838a | is it feasible to build a modern computer from scratch? | I am talking you, the elements and whatever god or gods you may or may not believe in. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43838a/eli5_is_it_feasible_to_build_a_modern_computer/ | {
"a_id": [
"czg7p7o",
"czg7ptd",
"czgfock"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"No, it's not. Especially since different parts of a modern computer require many different fields of knowledge to build. Chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, software engineering. You'd also have to know several programming languages including C++, C#, HTML, PHP, and probably some Lua and Java.",
"No.\n\nYou'd have to build multiple generations of computers from scratch to get caught up. Design & manufacture of modern CPUs is highly dependent upon the existence of slightly-less-modern computers.\n\nIt would take you hundreds, if not thousands, of lifetimes to catch up.",
"I assume you're talking about a modern consumer computer (the kind for emails and such).\n\nYou: Even if you already knew everything you needed to know, building a modern chip fabrication machine literally from scratch (i.e. from raw materials & hand-crafted tools to churning out a Pentium CPU) would take a single person a colossal amount of time. Singlehandedly building the machines that help build the machines that help build the machines that help build the machines that help build the machines that let you build a modern computer would almost certainly not be possible within a single human lifetime.\n\nThe elements: It's nearly impossible for \"the elements\" to randomly create an iMac from a pile of dirt with the right composition. It's not literally, absolutely impossible, though. \n\nWhat god or gods you may and may believe in: Sure,why not? You can give god(s) any powers you want."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9rncs7 | why do human eyelids follow the iris when looking down but there's no eyelid to follow when looking up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rncs7/eli5_why_do_human_eyelids_follow_the_iris_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8icqq7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because your eyelids aren’t the same. You have a hood and the bottom one. The hood is far more mobile. The bottom one *does* follow your eyes up, just not as much. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3yb92a | how do windows registry cleaners decide what to remove? | What is considered a useless entry? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yb92a/eli5_how_do_windows_registry_cleaners_decide_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cybzyju"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Some basic things right off the bat are references to .dll files that are no longer there. For example if you uninstalled a program and the registry had entries pointing towards a now removed .dll file that's considered useless. Another one would be having an entry that references a filetype that the cleaner determines is no longer used by your system. So if you had something like Audacity and your registry kept track of what program to use to open their filetype, then you uninstalled Audacity, but the registry entry to open that file was still there, your cleaner would want to get rid of that.\n\nI can't really remember what some of the other basic ones are, but I do know that a lot of cleaners have loose parameters as to what they should delete so they can *outperform* their competitors by removing more *garbage* from the system. This is why it's important to always backup your registry even if you don't think anything could go wrong.\n\nOne more thing a lot of people speculate as to whether a registry cleaner actually speeds up anything and if it's worth the risk for your average end user. Either way do your research and make backups."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
24ts07 | How much more technologically advanced were 15th-century Europeans compared to the height of the Roman Empire? | Subtext: When would the industrial revolution, with its associated inventions, have come to pass if the Roman Empire -- in an alternate timeline -- had been a more stable entity? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24ts07/how_much_more_technologically_advanced_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"chas23w"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"The Europeans were actually quite a bit more advanced than the late Romans.\n\nThe horse collar and the associated harness allowed for heavy plows and the tilling of land that had not been able to produce as much grain as previously. Farmers could plow deeper and seed the soil in a way that protected the seeds against the frost better, and land further north became more productive.\n\nThe introduction of the scythe to replace the sickle also made it possible not only to harvest more crops (it seems farmers started to use the scythe for harvesting crops towards the end of the medieval era) but also to scythe hay to keep livestock over winter much forther nort, and to keep more livestock alive. Dairy and dairy-based products become more common during this era as a result.\n\nThe horizontal loom allowed for more effective weaving and gave birth to the English-Flemish wool industry.\n\nThe invention of the windmill, to drain land, irrigate or mill allowed deeper mines, easier milling away from streams or the usage of humans or animals in a treadmill.\n\nThe introduction of optics - both for early telescopes and for glasses during this era allowed the study of astronomy and for learned men to read and work for longer.\n\nNavigation became easier - the invention of the compass and quadrant and the introduction of larger vessels built with cravell technique (such as the carrack/nau or the caravel) and multiple masts with multiple sails all allowed more extensive trade over longer distances.\n\nBy the 14th century, rudimentary cannons had been introduced, complication fortification construction and revolutionising warfare. The stirrup and the medieval saddle had made medieval cavalry far more dangerous than its Roman counterparts ever were.\n\nThis is just a small excerpt on things in which medieval Europe was more advanced than the Roman Empire.\n\nAs for the industrial revolution, it is my experience and pet theory that the industrial revolution does not happen, or is severely retarded in places where large landowners hold the economical and political power. To them, slavery or serfdom is profitable and preferable and they have little incentive to invest in labour-saving machinery, tools or factories, thus providing neither the market nor the investment needed for an industrial revolution."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5mf1iw | Did the Jews try to remake a kingdom/state in between the diaspora and 1948? | "Hey those Roman guys are gone. Let's take back our home." | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5mf1iw/did_the_jews_try_to_remake_a_kingdomstate_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc5y9rr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"First of all, modern Zionism began in the late 1800s/early 1900s, not 1948. But beyond that nitpicking, the answer is mostly no.\n\nAfter the series of failed revolts against the Romans, desire among Jews for political independence by-and-large faded. There were, at various times, movements of Jews to migrate to Israel, but these were based on a (largely religious) desire to *live* in the Holy Land, not to obtain political control of it. The idea of nationalism didn't really exist yet, and political independence for Jews in the Holy Land tended to be linked to religious conceptions of the messianic era, not an actionable political idea.\n\nAt any rate, just because the Romans were gone didn't mean that things were ripe for re-asserting independence. Over the centuries many other powers controlled the area. While there were perhaps times of a relative power vacuum, they weren't the norm. More importantly, the actual Jewish population in the area was fairly small, so it would be difficult for Jews to actually assert their independence, when they were a minority."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5rmpwz | what is a band and when does a band go from being a band to being an orchestra? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rmpwz/eli5_what_is_a_band_and_when_does_a_band_go_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd8fmvl"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"\nUsually, a band does not have stringed instruments. \n\nA band would consist of brass instruments, like trumpets and trombones, and woodwind instruments such as flutes, saxophones and clarinets. \n\nOrchestras are primarily made up of stringed instruments, such as violin, viola and cello. Brass and woodwinds are also sometimes included in an orchestra.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5lzq4h | why do wedding dresses turn yellow after a period of time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lzq4h/eli5_why_do_wedding_dresses_turn_yellow_after_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbznaop"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Many white things turn yellow over time. Generally it's the result of sunlight or oxidation. White cotton generally gets its white color from being bleached and washed with fabric whiteners.\n\nFabric whiteners and brighteners are temporary dyes that add a slight blueish tint to the wash. Modern ones use optical brighteners _URL_0_\n\nIn the old days people used Reckitt’s Blue, which was a blue bar of soap, which was scrapped and the flakes added the wash. It coated clothes in a blue powder that made yellowish clothes look white at least until the powder fell off from wear.\n\nEdit: minerals like iron in the water, makeup and sweat also make white clothes turn yellowish."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener"
]
] |
||
7o0gzn | why is there so much room in food packaging? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7o0gzn/eli5_why_is_there_so_much_room_in_food_packaging/ | {
"a_id": [
"ds5wazr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"To avoid crushing your food. The packaging can be squished a bit until the pressurized air can support whatever is crushing it.\n\nIf your chip bag was 100% chips it would be 1/3 crumbs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
40vsgp | What were the main differences between the "Young Ottoman" and "Young Turk" movements? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40vsgp/what_were_the_main_differences_between_the_young/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyxppcy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Both started out as pan-Ottoman movements seeking to preserve the state through representative government involving all of its constituent peoples. But whereas the Young Ottomans came to see Islam as the basis of a core identity for the empire - uniting as it did Turks and Arabs to the south - the Young Turks increasingly (and especially after their return to power in 1913) saw a Turkish national identity as the future, alienating even Muslim non-Turks but prefiguring the secular nationalism of the later Republic. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
54r3og | during a police interrogation, can you actually get away with not saying anything until you're provided with a lawyer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54r3og/eli5_during_a_police_interrogation_can_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8475b2",
"d8479n1",
"d847a0l",
"d847a1m",
"d847dvx",
"d847nrq",
"d849b8u",
"d849fie",
"d849syj",
"d84a4cs",
"d84aszu",
"d84bjv7",
"d84bubu",
"d84fhk5",
"d84gds8",
"d84gfk1",
"d84gw8x",
"d84gxjx",
"d84hvct",
"d84hw65",
"d84i0hk",
"d84ibqf",
"d84jjtn",
"d84kv9p",
"d84l6uc",
"d84ljqi",
"d84m6tn",
"d84pvp8",
"d84rwrm",
"d84rxn1",
"d84symn",
"d84t31m",
"d84tjyh",
"d84tl6p",
"d84tpdh",
"d84vxn6",
"d84wf1t",
"d84x2of",
"d84xdut",
"d84xwo1",
"d84y9fq",
"d84zqrj",
"d850isj",
"d851f1j",
"d85352y",
"d853gus",
"d854aql",
"d856sl7",
"d8595cx",
"d85a6tj",
"d85ax7p",
"d85c4hu",
"d85f2bk",
"d85fzwg",
"d85gnl7",
"d85ik6c",
"d85j2vj",
"d85ltyo"
],
"score": [
15,
23,
1528,
33,
191,
8,
7,
3,
10,
120,
28,
61,
15,
2,
4,
5,
8,
4,
93,
15,
3,
4,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
6,
9,
32,
3,
23,
5,
3,
6,
3,
2,
8,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
4,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The fifth amendment allows for you to not incriminate yourself. The sixth amendment gives you right to council",
"The amendment that protects that is the 5th. What's really happening is that the person is choosing to remain silent until their attorney is present so that the attorney can help them choose what to say.\n\nCops aren't quite as useless during that time as they show in TV, they could try to persuade or trick the person into saying things without an attorney present, but most of the time it's easier and faster to just get them their attorney. ",
"Depends on where you live, but I assume you are talking about the United States.\n\nIn the US, the sixth amendment to the constitution says the following:\n\n > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.\n\nBrewer v. Williams (1979) held that once adversarial proceedings have begun against a defendant, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him. \n\nSo basically, yes, it works like it does on TV. At least, it does in the States.\n\nNow, in practical matters, the police are allowed to lie to you. There's nothing stopping them from trying to convince you that you don't need a lawyer. You could say to them something like \"I think I need a lawyer,\" and they could say something like \"Why do you need a lawyer? Lawyers are for bad guys. You aren't a bad guy, are you? We just want to get a bit of information\"",
"Not exactly. The police are prohibited from asking you questions at that point, and if they do ask you questions anyway, they can't use the information they gain from those questions against you. \n\nBut, there are gray areas. For example, the cops might keep talking to each other, and if you respond argue that you implicitly revoked your request. \n\nIf you are interested in the strategies cops use and their legal context, I really cannot recommend this video enough: _URL_0_",
"Legally, you can get away without saying anything regardless of whether you have a lawyer or not. You never have to talk to the police.\n\nIf you request a lawyer, the police have to stop asking you questions about the underlying case until you have a lawyer present. They can still hold you and generally make small talk, but the interrogation is supposed to stop.\n\nRealistically, this is what happens most of the time. Sometimes police may say that someone never requested a lawyer or purposefully miss a request, but that usually ends up hurting their case because if they get caught any evidence they obtained will be suppressed.\n\nEdit: Since it has caused confusion, I simply meant there's no law requiring you to answer police beyond basic identifying information. I wasn't trying to comment on the admissibility of your silence as evidence. Your silence can be admitted as evidence against you if you voluntarily talk to police or are read your Miranda rights and then don't affirmatively invoke the right to remain silent. If you are arrested, the best thing you can do for your legal case is say \"I'm invoking my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer\" and nothing else (until you get your lawyer).\n",
"Yes. Don't say anything. The most information you're ever required to give (depending on your state's Stop & Identify statute) is your name and date of birth.\n\nSource: Am attorney.",
"You don't have to talk to the police whether or not you have a lawyer. In fact it's in your best interest not to, because they are trying to build a case against you, not help you. The police rely on the ignorance of the accused who don't know they don't have to talk, along with people who think they can bullshit somebody who does interrogations for a living.",
"Immediately say, I want my counsel. Close your eyes and take a nap till the attorney arrives.",
"_URL_0_\n\nWhat you need to know, from a law professor and a cop. \n\nShort answer: do not, under any circumstances, speak to the police. ",
"In theory? Absolutely. No government actor may compel you to say anything that might incriminate you, and in practice, this means that the only thing you are ever *required* to say to the police is your name, address, etc.--and even that isn't necessarily a universal requirement. \n\nIn practice? Well. . . maybe. In the long run, the police are actually subject to surprisingly tight limits on what they'll be able to do if they intend to prosecute you. But in the short run? It's just you and them in that box, and guess which one of you has all the power? \n\nHint: **not you**.\n\nThe police aren't *supposed* to beat the crap out of you for not cooperating. The police aren't *supposed* to let you sit in an interrogation room for 24 hours without letting you go to the bathroom. The police aren't *supposed* to just let you rot in holding with no notice to the outside world until you talk. The police aren't *supposed* to deliberately lie to you about your constitutional rights. \n\nI think we can all recognize that if a police officer decided he wanted to do any of those things. . . he probably could. He'd probably face some kind of negative consequences down the road, the most likely being that any criminal case he was trying to make against you would get thrown out or at least rendered much more difficult for the prosecution to win. He could even potentially face a civil rights lawsuit, exposing both him and his department to civil liability. It's even *just* possible that he could face employment sanctions, though police unions are pretty good at deflecting that sort of thing. But all of those remedies are down the road. The fact of the matter is that in the moment, when you're the one sitting in the police station being questioned, there is *nothing* you can do to enforce your rights, including the right to remain silent. \n\nSo, in very practical terms, while the police generally can't *make* you talk--even if they were to torture you, you could theoretically say nothing--they very much *can* make your life *incredibly* unpleasant if you don't. And though the law strongly disapproves of such tactics, the only remedies become available long after the situation has resolved itself one way or the other. \n\nEDIT: Lest anyone think I'm painting too stark and depressing a picture here, remember that the very same thing could be said about why the person sitting next to you on the bus doesn't whip out a knife and open your jugular. If they decided to do that, and caught you by surprise, you're dead. End of story. Ultimately, there is nothing *physically preventing* people from doing all kinds of unbelievably heinous stuff. But, for whatever reason (and believe me, there are a *lot* of reasons), *most* people act more-or-less decently *most* of the time. And ultimately, society is basically what happens when we start expecting people to do that. So no, there's nothing to physically prevent the police from torturing suspects in their custody. . . but that's no different from any other situation, when it comes right down to it. The laws of the legal system aren't like the laws of physics: people break them all the time.",
"You need to remove the idea that police are 'helpful' in any way or form once theyre conducting a case/investigation on **you**. This is important, because all cops arent bad and yes they are humans too, but its their job to put whomever behind bars or write tickets. \n \nThere's also a time and a place to say you want a lawyer present and that is actually *after* you have been detained/arrested. Not while youre being stopped for some traffic ticket. Merely refusing to give your name is enough reason for a cop to take you in, so dont just immediately start being a dick for no reason but at the same time dont incriminate yourself by saying you have drugs in the car or something. When dealing with police you need to be very careful about what you say but at the same time be courteous. ",
"Officer here. \n\nYes. Officers/detectives would have to stop questioning you immediately, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would change your status. You would almost certainly remain in custody and be booked. We tend not to place people in \"custody\" without probable cause to arrest.\n\nI'd also like to point out that despite what you see in movies, police are not lawfully required to read you miranda rights following an arrest. This doesn't negate the arrest. \n\nIn fact, 95% of arrests will not involve miranda rights because it is a patrol officer who has no interest in talking to you or questioning you further. \n\nEven IF, an officer violates miranda, and questions you about the crime without advising you of your rights, that only excludes statements that you made following your arrest. All the other evidence gathered and probable cause can still be used against you in court, provided it was not a \"fruit of the poisonous tree\" and obtained from information provided during the unlawful questioning. \n\nFurther, if an officer is not questioning you about the offense, and you make a statement of guilt or culpability, it can still be used against you as an \"excited utterance\".\n\nSay for instance I arrest you for robbery. I have three eyewitnesses who pointed you out on the scene and I recovered a gun from you following a terry frisk. As I'm transporting you to jail, I ask \"Is there anyone you want me to call to come pick up your car?\" And you respond with \"My wife, man she's going to kill me when she finds out I robbed that guy.\" That statement would be an excited utterance and permissable. ",
"In the UK, the caution we give when we arrest someone is - \n\n\"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.\"\n\nSo basically, you don't have to say anything until court. However, if you're asked during interview why you did something and don't answer, it can be mentioned in court that you had the chance to give your reasoning in a previous interview. If you were asked then, why didn't you give the answer you're giving now? That can affect how the court sees you in terms of your integrity and how they judge you.\n\nWhen booked into custody, you're told that you have the right to a lawyer. If you don't have access to a lawyer, one will be provided for you. You can refuse this if for any reason you don't want one.",
"In america, you're never under any obligation to talk to the police. You don't even need to ask for a lawyer. You have a 5th amendment right against being compelled to testify against yourself. Otherwise known as \"the right to remain silent\"",
"There are many details, some of which other commenters here have gotten correct and some of which they have gotten wrong. There are also debatable issues. The takeaway for you is this, though:\n\nIf you are stopped, tell the police your name. From that point on, the only word out of your mouth is \"lawyer.\" If you try to expand that to \"Get me a lawyer\" or \"I want a lawyer,\" the police might hear you say \"I think I want a lawyer\" which has very different implications. So don't expand it. Say \"lawyer.\" Say \"lawyer\" and nothing but \"lawyer.\" If that is the only word you say, then there is nothing the police can legally do. They don't have to get you a lawyer right away, but they also cannot get information from you. Say the word \"lawyer\" and then shut up.",
"Yes, don't talk to cops. You are innocent until proven guilty. If you talk to a cop, now you have given them a straw man (your alibi) to attack, vs actually proving you were at the scene of the crime. This is how innocent people get locked up. They have nothing to hide so they have no reason not to talk to the cops. Suddenly their alibi doesn't check out and now they're a suspect and convicted.\n\n40 minutes on why you shouldn't talk to cops.\n_URL_0_",
"In the UK, you are offered a solicitor BEFORE questioning unless you explicitly state to the desk Sgt that you don't want one. If you get mid-interview and ask for one you will be provided one and the interview will be terminated before speaking again. I conducted hundreds of criminal interviews and the only time I ever thought 'Oh shit' when they asked for a solicitor was when I first started CID. Otherwise most of them keep their mouths shut during the interview and will only ever speak when they have noticed a glaringly obvious thing. PM me if you want to ask anything. \n\nEdit: To clarify in the UK you wouldn't have the situation where you say \"I ain't saying nuffink till my lawyer comes\" because you wouldn't ask questions to a crook when he already asked for one. ",
"You have the right to remain silent, BECAUSE anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law.\n\nIn short: yes, you can. They can hoot and holler and make it seem like your days are numbered all they like - but if you feel as though you're 100% innocent, and you want to speak with your lawyer first, then remain silent.",
"Short answer: yes. You can sit there and stare at the ceiling and never make eye contact. It's your Constitutional right to take a nap in the interrogation room. \n\nPersonal advice: As a military police officer, if you're ever ever ever ever EVER brought in for any sort of questioning- whether you have a rock solid alibi, you know nothing about the crime, you witnessed the crime, or you ate Cheerios near the crime scene back in 4th grade- ALWAYS exercise your Constitutional right to have an attorney present and keep your mouth shut until your lawyer gets there. \n\nCops, detectives, and anyone performing the questioning/interrogation will do ANYTHING to get you to say what they want to hear. They most likely have an idea painted in their mind of what went down, and are trying to get that story told. They can legally lie to you, give you food/drink, and deceive you pretty much any way they see fit in order for you to get you to say what they want you to say. \n\nJust say you want a lawyer present, and then keep your mouth shut until the lawyer arrives. That is your best course of action, and frankly, it would be stupid to not have one there. It may cost you a little time on the front end, but it could end up saving you from spending that time in a prison cell and the some.\n\nTl;dr: ALWAYS HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT WHEN BEING QUESTIONED BY THE POLICE. IT IS YOUR RIGHT AS A FREE AMERICAN.",
"I had a lawyer once tell me, \"if you're ever arrested, put my business card between your lips and keep your mouth shut.\"",
"Always been amused when I'm informed of my right to remain silent then when I choose to observe such right am told I will be in more trouble for not talking or things will become worse.",
"Legally, yes. Also it's what you SHOULD do.\n\nAnything you say can and will be used *against* you.\n\nYour testimony to the police cannot be used to help defend you. Say \"I wish to exercise my right to remain silent, and request an attorney.\" Then stfu.",
"Here's something that never occurred to me. My partner is a New Zealand citizen and I'm American. If we were in the States and both ended up beng accused of something what is the basis for her legal protection? The constitution only protects citizens, doesn't it? Sorry f it seems like a dumb question, but reading the previous comments got me thinking.",
"What a lot of people are citing here is this [video](_URL_0_), which is a very good explanation of what you're really asking. Also, I think everyone should watch it, especially if you live in the US.",
"With the caveat that Courts can weasel around things for police to an extreme degree, yes. It's the sixth Amendment, and a case interpreting it.\n\nOnce this right is invoked, the police are no longer allowed to speak to you without your attorney present-it is specifically designed to end the interrogation. \n\nThis only applies to individuals who have been charged with a crime, and is not the same thing as a person's Miranda rights (which have different rules).\n\nThere is no requirement to ever speak to the police, however, so they are about as helpless as this in almost any case.",
"I am a Detective in the U.S. and can speak for myself and other Detective's from my Agency. \n\nIf someone is in custody and are not free to leave, we will advise them of their rights per Miranda. If someone states that they want a lawyer, then the interrogation/interview is over. \n\nIt really is that simple. ",
"You don't have to say a word to the cops.\n\nYou still have to comply with orders. Walk over here, hands behind your back, etc. But you have the right to remain silent in all circumstances. Even in court, you can plead the 5th",
"I was taught by my brother. Identify yourself and when asked a question your only response should be \"lawyer\". For example:\n\nPO \"Would you like some water?\"\n\nYou \"lawyer\"\n\nPO \"Is the sky blue?\"\n\nYou \"lawyer\"\n\nSo on and so forth. Now it's important to stress that you will get fucked with by the police. Games aside, you keep saying your favorite word.",
"YES!! (assuming you are in the United States).\n\nIf you ever, ever, ever, ever find yourself being interrogated by the police, under absolutely no circumstance should you say anything other than \"I would like a lawyer\", it doesn't matter how innocent you are.\n\nPolice can, and have been known to, falsify statements or take statements out of context during an interview that are later used against someone in a court of law. Don't say a single word to the police without a lawyer present. Further, don't fall for any common police interrogation tactics, either. If they tell you it makes you look guilty, just remember that it's better to look guilty on the streets than innoncent in a jail cell. If they haven't actually arrested you, they may only detain you for a few hours (actual time varies from state to state), so don't fall for \"Well the lawyer can't get here until tomorrow so you'll have to wait in a holding cell overnight.\" They can't legally hold you without making an arrest.",
"Once had.a cop at a traffic stop say \"mind if I search your car?\" I said \"yes.\" He proceeded to begin reaching into my car shining a flashlight. I said \"Stop. To clarify, yes, I do mind if you search my vehicle.\" He stoppee, and seemed frustrated his word game didn't work. \n\nFor clarification, he was going to attempt to search whether I answered \"yes\" or \"no\" to his question if \"I minded\" him searching my car.",
"See this YouTube by a lawyer. It's awesome. There is also a part two with a detective. _URL_0_\n",
"Never talk to cops without a lawyer present. The only exceptions to this are: Fuck you, there are no exceptions. Ask if you're free to go VERY politely. If they say no, ask what you're being charged with while obeying commands...again VERY politely. Once charged invoke the 5th amendment and demand a lawyer over and over to every question they ask no matter what it is. Never deviate from this no matter how much of a pig piece of shit they are by trying to incriminate you for using your Rights, which is nearly all of them.\n\nTheir job is to meet an unofficial quota of enforcement, which means currying a certain amount of revenue in citations, or throwing a certain number of people, innocent or guilty, into concrete boxes in a given period of time.\n\nThe rich, powerful and their fellow enforcers are nearly immune to the laws they pretend to value. Resist.",
"to all the responses, I am confused. why do police want to get innocent people in trouble by manipulating them to talk about singing they did not do.",
"It was ruled semi recently that you can't simply stay silent, you have to evoke your fifth amendment right by saying something along the lines of \"I wish to evoke my right to the fifth amendment.\" Although that may only be in court rooms idk",
"My grandfather was an NYPD homicide detective and his advice to me was \"Never trust a cop\". He also told me to always invoke my right not to speak to police and ask for a lawyer immediately. His point was that the average citizen is incapable of protecting their rights in the face of a trained detective.",
"Cop here: \n\nIf you are in a room we can't ask you anything and most departments will not allow us to stay in the room/pressure you once you've asked for a lawyer. \n\n",
"_URL_0_. \n\nNot a lawyer, but...\n\nNote point two, further down, the right to refuse to say anything.\n\nNow, this is Massachusetts. Also, interrogation implies you've been arrested. There is some precedence for denying Miranda depending on the circumstances of the crime/event, i.e. Terrorist attack. \n\nBut it's hard to compel a citizen to speak, I would believe, unless encouragement is used (that could reverse a conviction).",
"Former cop here. First off, being a public servant is not what it once was. The entire climate has shifted in the last 20 years for the worse. That being said, even the most innocuous statement made by a suspect, even in a traffic stop, can be used against you and to the advantage of the prosecution. Remember, police and prosecutors are VERY good with knowing the law. The average citizen...not so much. So if you're ever brought in for questioning or accused of a crime it will behoove you to have an attorney present and with you, on your side. There's many ways to incriminate yourself without even knowing it. Defense lawyers are in tune with this. ",
"Ask yourself, \"What do I have to gain from talking to police?\" The answer is nothing. You are not going to talk yourself out of trouble. Even an honest person will be tripped up by making a statement and having a faulty recall later. You risk nothing by keeping shut. If you are charged with anything, give your attorney a blank slate to work with. Let your first statement be on the witness stand if possible. Do not risk incriminating yourself or making a prior inconsistent statement that can be challenged in court.",
"I am an American and I have told my kids that no matter the situation, if they are questioned about their involvement in a crime, except the obvious like a speeding ticket, ask for an attorney and shut up. Even if they are 100% innocent. You never discuss any potentially illegal activity with a police officer unless you had nothing to do with it. ",
"Let's say I get arrested, and I am now being interrogated. I decide the wisest thing to do is to plead the 5th, and request a lawyer. Is there any ways possible that a police officer or detective can pretend to be a lawyer in order to get information out of me? It seems like police are allowed to say anything to you to get information, and that would be something I worry about.",
"I was advised of my rights got put in contact with legal council and his advice was say nothing. I probably would ha e if he hadn't then started talking about family guy and king of the hill ",
"Yes, on my state the laws might vary. I was in court a couple weeks ago, the officer I had tried to ask me questions, I wasn't all there and barely comprehensible but that was one of the things I did say he left me alone and started questioning staff around him, doctors and nurses. Who did answer his questions but was later asked by his superiors to get a warrant, I'm not sure how HEPA works in these cases but I know he didn't put things the doctors said in my favor, only what affected my case negatively. My case went good as for the legality of some of those things it might be questionable, but if you're not sure always use your rights to your advantage most officers want an arrest and have to justify it, it's usually never in your favor to talk. I'm not saying officers are bad, but if they're investigating you or questioning you get an attorney, things always go smoother that way and you don't burn yourself with your own words.",
"Yes. The police WILL lie. Don't believe a word they say and dont say a word other than, I'd like to call my lawyer.",
"During any police questioning, the best thing you can do, is not say a word. If you want a lawyer, clearly state you wish to speak to a lawyer. Do not answer any followup questions, or engage in conversation of any kind. Even if you think it to be totally separate, do not say a word. Period, end of story. \n\nDo not talk to anyone else if you are being held. Cop or not. The next conversations you should have are with your lawyer and only your lawyer. \n\nSo to answer your question. Yes you can. No matter what the police say to you, you have the ABSOLUTE right to stay silent and should ALWAYS avail yourself of that right.",
"Basically yes, but unlike TV or movies, they do not need to read you your rights upon arrest. It must be done before interview or interrogation. In the shows where they slam the guy on the hood and start with the \"you have the right to remain silent\" total bullshit. At that point if they start talking in the back of the car and later claim they weren't read thier rights, we'll the cop didn't ask any questions. It's considered a spontaneous statement. Most cops will advise them of their rights if they start to talk to cover their ass.",
"It depends on the state/country you're in. As a general rule the only things you have to do is confirm your identity and current address, everything else should be answered with \"no comment\". The police aren't your friends they see you as a means for a promotion. \nOver here there's no clear cut interview termination if you ask for a lawyer, just politely refuse to answer their questions. They will tell you if you're being charged with an actual crime.",
"It should be noted that in some U.S. states a person can be detained long enough to verify their identity. If one is in one of those states it's probably worth identifying one's self if asked.",
"Okay, a related question.\n\nI'm in the US of A. I'm in the lower middle class income (or upper-lower class). I can't afford to keep a lawer on retainer. I need a court-appointed attorney. Can I have one before they try to interrogate me, or do I have to stay in jail until my arrainment?",
"Canadian here that was detained. You actually never have to say anything. Even with the presence of a lawyer. Lawyers always reinforce to just shut your mouth, by talking you can only add evidence not take it away.",
"In the U.K.one if the first things they say to you upon arrest is \"you have the right to remain silent. You have the right you a lawyer.\"\n\nAlso... NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE!\n\nHere, you legally only need to say your name and address. Do this, nothing more.\n\n",
"I highly recommend watching this. It is 45 mins but worth it. A law professor and a polices investigators thoughts on talking to the police. \n_URL_0_",
"Absolutely, you don't have to say a fucking word if you don't want to. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to (must have been dozen upon dozens) who talked themselves into jail. You have the right to remain silent, use it. Cops are not your friend in an adversarial setting.",
"Warning: Police are **master manipulators**. They've done this before. You haven't. Even if you've found yourself chained to a steel table in jail multiple times in your life, the police still have done this hundreds more times than you. Even the first time an investigator goes into interview, he's coming in with years of professional training just for this purpose.\n\nYou will not succeed at psyching out or duping the police. They will talk you into a corner. You will feel the pressure, and you will cave and you will talk.\n\nAs a man who has been jailed for things he's done wrong, and for things he *didn't* do, I say from experience, Keep Your Mouth Shut.\n\nEnjoy the company of the voice inside your head. The sound of a cop's voice should cause you to recoil deeper into your own thoughts. Humans are social creatures, and law enforcement knows how to exploit that. Sitting in a steel room for an hour will affect you more than you imagine. It's so very easy to talk. Just Shut Up.",
"To be clear: If you don't say anything, you likely won't be provided with a lawyer.\n\nBe clear, speak up, demand a lawyer and say nothing else.",
"With that said, how many people would recommend having own lawyer on retainer? And at what point is one able to call their lawyer? Are they required to let you call lawyer within let's say one hour of arrival but can let you sit pleading the fifth for 59 minutes while they keep asking you questions? ",
"Is this true in Canada too?",
"You can refuse the entire interrogation. Story time! Cops came knocking at like 10am looking for me. Someone had done some burglaries on drug dealers. I answer the door, told them to fuck off. They offered super nicely to take me to the station, ask me some questions. Told them to fuck off. Over the next month police seemed to be everywhere. Pulled over for everything. Caught drinking in public. Detectives dropping off business cards, telling me it's a matter of time. Unmarked cars outside my house. They threatened to mess up my dad's job. Eventually they just gave up. I never answered a question and never got interviewed. I was the one who did the burglaries."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=%23&ved=0ahUKEwib_qLR-6_PAhWC7oMKHYgoBkoQxa8BCBswAA&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/i8z7NC5sgik"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/20/mass-high-court-black-men-may-have-legitimate-reason-to-flee-police"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
crcimx | The Maginot line | Hi ! I would like to know what were the reason why the French didn’t constructed the maginot line at the Belgium border , therefore letting the north undefended by French troops while only half of the French borders was protected . I already know it’s a matter of diplomacy with Belgium but my history teachers wasn’t able to answer why a working agreement with Belgium wasn’t achieved to defend the 2 country . Thanx in advance for the answer ( sorry if there is a problem in my question , first post here and English is not my first language ) | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/crcimx/the_maginot_line/ | {
"a_id": [
"exibils"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[This answer](_URL_0_) by /u/kieslowskifan explains that the French really wanted to build the line along the Belgium\\german border and planned to pay for their construction. The plan was that Belgium fortifications and natural terrain would delay the Germans long enough for French forces to join up with Belgium forces and drive invaders out.\n\nThe reason that France did not build fortifications along the french \\Belgium border was that if Belgium fortified their border with Germany then the French fortifications would be a waste of resources. Also the costs of building and maintaining forts were a major factor along with overestimating the natural defences delaying german forces long enough for the French to reinforce the Belgiums."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/62qp4p/why_didnt_france_heavily_fortify_the_belgian/"
]
] |
|
25jmj3 | Painting a roof white vs. solar panels? | A few years ago someone (a scientist, I think) suggested we all paint the roofs of our houses and buildings the color white in order to reflect sunlight back off of the earth (the way our ice does now). Apparently this scientist though this could alleviate or slow down global warming.
However, roofs also would seem to be a mostly ideal place to put solar panels, which I assume could help slow down global warming if done on a large enough scale.
So I guess my questions are: Are white-colored solar panels an efficient and viable idea? Or do solar panels have to be black to work best? If they aren't a good idea, which would be the more effective option to slow down climate change: More white roofs or more solar panels? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/25jmj3/painting_a_roof_white_vs_solar_panels/ | {
"a_id": [
"chi4m1c",
"chiu36i"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Solar panels look black because they're absorbing photons from the sun: that's how they work. A reflective (or white) solar panel wouldn't be worth making because it would bounce off the very things it needs in order to do its job.\n\nThe term you want to research is \"albedo\", which is the reflectivity of a planet. Ice has a high albedo, higher than traditional roofing materials. By painting every roof white, we could offset the loss of ice a little bit, since white is more reflective than black or brown. I seriously doubt that there are enough houses on the planet to make a very big difference here. You would need to whitewash a country the size of Australia (or, ahem, Greenland) to make an appreciable difference.\n\nHowever, by reducing CO₂ emissions, models predict that we won't be as screwed over as the \"business as usual\" (you can look this term up too) scenario. Even though solar panels are black, absorbing sunlight and heat, they're absorbing these things in the process of converting to electricity. Right now, we get most of our electricity by chemically converting stored CO₂ into gaseous CO₂ (by burning coal). If every house were to use their roof to generate electricity, it would mean a tremendous reduction of coal burning, which would keep a bunch of CO₂ in the ground.\n\nEdit: oh. This was in a pop-science book and has [been covered elsewhere](_URL_0_)",
"Another reason highly reflective roofs are a good idea is because instead of the heat energy from the sun being absorbed by dark roofing materials, thereby adding additional cooling load to the building, this energy is instead reflected back toward space. So not only is the solar energy being reflected back toward space, but the building is having to use less energy to cool the building during summer months. This is the reason many utility companies offer rebates for highly reflective roofing materials. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/ask-pablo-do-solar-panels-actually-contribute-to-climate-change.html"
],
[]
] |
|
4dm1oh | How similar was the technology between the Franco-Prussian war and World War I? | The difference in the way the wars were fought was huge - one was a war which took a year and cost 1,000,000 casualties, another took four and a single took 1,000,000 casualties. However, the technologies (except for the machine gun) used at the beginning of the war appear to be fairly similar. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4dm1oh/how_similar_was_the_technology_between_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1s92tv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > However, the technologies (except for the machine gun) used at the beginning of the war appear to be fairly similar.\n\nNothing could be further from the truth; the Franco-Prussian War was fought using muzzle and breech-loaded artillery pieces, without recoil systems. from the 1890s onwards, artillery pieces began to appear with recoil systems, mostly hydraulic based, that allowed for a far higher rate of more accurate fire. In the case of the French 75mm Mle 1897, it could fire 15 75mm rounds per minute.\n\nRifles were magazine fed, and utilized smokeless powder which gave bullets a higher velocity, longer range, and flatter trajectory. Throw in machine guns, and weapons technology was far more deadly in 1914 than it was in 1871.\n\nNow add in wireless communiations, motorized transport and aircraft, and it's clear that 1914 was a different kind of warfare than that waged in 1870-71. The armies of 1914 were far larger than those of 1870-71, so that also must be factored in. The Second Industrial Revolution had changed the way war was fought."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
294qmp | why can sports teams, sports channels on tv, or sporting news on the internet reveal the exact details of sports players' injuries if hipaa exists? | I thought there existed patient-doctor confidentiality? Why don't you see players suing journalists, teams, websites, newspapers, etc. over violations of HIPAA? Are they exempt for some reason? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/294qmp/eli5_why_can_sports_teams_sports_channels_on_tv/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciheowi",
"ciheue7",
"cihguvi"
],
"score": [
23,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"HIPAA only restricts certain types of organizations from revealing health information (basically healthcare providers and insurers, plus their agents). The Hospital---without a release from the patient---couldn't say much of anything about a famous person's injury or treatment, but the coach or the team can. It is also almost certainly part of any athlete's contract that they consent to share health information with the team, probably with only a limited expectation of privacy in return, if any. ",
"It was said already: Consent. If the player decides not to give consent, the team can't say anything. Contracts that the player signs to be on a team might already include the fact that the team can provide medical information",
"Gambling is big business and point spreads need to be accurate. An injured star would affect the point spread. In the past the people running the sports betting were not people to be trifled with. Well, they probably still shouldn't be trifled with...\n\nAlso, it gives the people who report on the sport something to talk about on TV which generates Ad revenue.\n\nAlso, not all teams doctors are actually doctors and don't follow HIPAA guidelines.\n\nThere is at least one college football team that I know of that doesn't release an injury report because it is expected and not mandatory."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2132j4 | the protective qualities of charcoal | Activated charcoal can be used to help those who have ingested harmful substances. Suits embedded with charcoal are used to protect against chemical/biological agents in the military. Putting charcoal under the soil of a potted plant can keep fungus and other undesirable pests from growing - so what is it about charcoal that makes it protective? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2132j4/eli5_the_protective_qualities_of_charcoal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg94u63"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It is extremely porous and has a large capacity for adsorption, meaning substances (often organic macromolecules in the situations you describe) can stick to its surface and be bound up. Its doesnt have as high a capacity as some other materials, but is cheap and can be made with varying pore sizes to suit the substance(s) being targeted. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4rs74b | Chinese laborers were used to help build the first transcontinental railroad but how did Chinese laborers get to the frontier if they were departing from Asia? | My question is since it would be the shortest trip to arrive in California (although I am not sure how possible it would have been) from China did Chinese immigrants typically arrive on the east coast and just take the train westward? Did they go through Mexico? or how did they get workers arriving from Asian countries to the frontier? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4rs74b/chinese_laborers_were_used_to_help_build_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d53t62f"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Chinese migrant labor in the US railroad industry was more or less pioneered by the Central Pacific Railroad, which was a corporation in practice based in Sacramento CA, and building one end of the transcontinental railroad heading east. Until the trans-continental railroad was complete Chinese railroad laborers were in effect a California only phenomenon. Most of them came directly from China by ship across the Pacific to Sacramento, and then the Central Pacific moved them by rail to the work sites in the Sierra or further east. Shipping goods and people across the Pacific had been done for centuries by the 1860s.\n\nThe reason the Central Pacific decided to employ Chinese labor and in effect recruit in China was because of a labor shortage on the west coast specifically. East Coast Americans or Europeans who took the long boat or boat and rail (across the Central American isthmus) were able to easily find work in mining or agriculture and would demand a premium in order to work on the railroad, and frequently struck for better wages. Chinese immigrants had fewer options because of rather intense racial prejudice in California. The eastern and midwestern railroads generally did not employ Chinese labor before the trans-continental railroad was complete, since they had greater access to laborers from Europe or the US east coast."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2n09me | what happens if you're traveling faster than the speed of sound in a jet and you try to talk? | Would be any different if you where traveling the same speed outside of the jet and tried to talk? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n09me/eli5_what_happens_if_youre_traveling_faster_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm95mlm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Inside the jet? Nothing interesting. The air around you is not moving any more than it normally would. If you're outside the jet at supersonic speeds, you have bigger issues than hearing your own voice."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2i17i3 | why is bronze never used in cook-ware? | I don't think I've ever even *heard* of bronze being used for things other than statues, weapons, and armor. Cookware, tools, and other more mundane objects always seem to be made of either copper or iron. Why? When bronze was invented why didn't people make tools and cookware out of it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i17i3/eli5_why_is_bronze_never_used_in_cookware/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckxva6s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Copper makes fine cookware, and the additional hardness offered by a bronze alloy isn't really needed for the application."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6b45w2 | What actually pushes our feces through our large intestines? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6b45w2/what_actually_pushes_our_feces_through_our_large/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhjmgkw",
"dhjrqlr",
"dhjze6u",
"dhk3egs",
"dhk5g6d",
"dhkabgu",
"dhkec5d",
"dhkenst"
],
"score": [
1881,
118,
11,
8,
4,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes it is one big muscle. The entire tube that is your GI tract has smooth muscle around it from your esophagus all the way to your anus. Once food gets into your intestines (large or small) there is something known as peristalsis (this happens elsewhere too, but let's focus on just the intestines). Wikipedia has a great [simplified image](_URL_0_) of what it looks like. Basically a point in the tube contracts while the point ahead of it relaxes which allows material inside the tube to move forward.",
"While similar to peristalsis, the large intestine (colon) does not propagate contents the same way as the small intestine. It uses what are termed \"mass movements\", or bulk flow. See here for more information: _URL_0_",
"Peristalsis. There are different layers of epithelium and muscles in our large intestinal wall and the two particular layers are the longitudinal and circular muscle. Within them there are two different neuron plexus: submucosal and myenteric plexus, one help with secretion and one help with movement. \nWhen the food bolus/chyme reaches your large intestine, that mechanical triggering (having food brush up your LI) the neuronal plexus to send signals your brain and your GI, the brain and your GI then tells your muscles to move. Brain: PNS, GI: ENS (That itself is a whole another lecture)\nRemember the two layer of muscles I talked about (longitudinal and circular)? Circular muscle is closer to the bolus than longitudinal muscle (don't forget they're layers). So Circular muscle contract and longitudinal relaxes to push the food forward near the oral surface while circular relaxes and longitudinal contract to hold the LI open on the aboral side. It is through these that generate the peristalsis movement which propel the food forward!",
"Peristalsis. You have smooth muscle all along your intestinal tract from your esophagus to your anus. Imagine trying to push an object down the length of a knee-high sock by squeezing the outside of the sock and forcing the object downward. This is how your smooth muscle contracts to force food through your intestinal tract.",
"I'm a visual learner so maybe this will help you, too. \n\n[Check out a cross section of the intestine](_URL_0_). That pink layer is smooth muscle, mostly under involuntary control. Both the small and large intestine have this layer. \n\nThis is similar to how blood is shuttled through arteries. [Notice the media layer, which is made up of smooth muscle.](_URL_1_)",
"You've already got some good answers, so I'm going to throw something in because you mentioned gravity. That is a logical thing to think, and before we knew what was going on inside us, that was a widely accepted idea. To the point where people would swallow large quantities of mercury in order to try and move constipation. That did not work at all, and often ended up killing them.",
"Your GI tract has a nervous system all of its own! It probably predates the enlarged ganglion we call a \"brain\" by a considerable period of geologic time. Stuff that is ingested is pushed along the tube within your middle from mouth to anus by a neural plexus and ganglia that rhythmically squeeze the contents in a pattern that moves things along from mouth to anus. You are not aware of this process unless something goes wrong, we call it \"autonomic\" but it is independent of the 'brain' and predates the brain in an evolutionary sense. Some unfortunate persons have a GI tract that does not perform the action of peristalsis normally, and they will suffer from symptoms that vary from mild to fatal. \n\nSo bow down to the ancient gut nervous system, it serves you every time you eat or drink and expect to get a benefit from that action -- but if it is nonfunctional in some way, may the Lord have Mercy upon your suffering soul!\n",
"Bill_Tampa has a solid answer. I will add the gastro-colic reflex. Once you volitionally swallow something, either solid or liquid, it starts a neural response of squeezing (peristalsis) all the way down to the anus. It is not instantaneous like when your leg jerk when your knee it hit with a rubber hammer, but it does happen within half an hour more or less.\n\nAnd that is why you have to poop after you eat breakfast."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Peristalsis.gif"
],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1411356/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://web.mit.edu/3.082/www/team1_f02/pictures/serosa.jpg",
"http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4fqoeB57m1rq3lp6o1_500.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ikwpd | How do worker bees evolve if they aren't the ones reproducing? | Just curious--how do worker bees develop positive adaptations for their survival when the drones are the ones that reproduce, and have a significantly different environment and life than a worker bee? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ikwpd/how_do_worker_bees_evolve_if_they_arent_the_ones/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb5h0fc",
"cb5h6jh",
"cb5haz2",
"cb5uehl"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Queens evolve. Since all worker bees are daughters of the queen, the more fit the queen is, the more fit her workers will be and the more likely it is she will reproduce. ",
"This is interesting...\n\nSince the reproducing bees don'thave the life the worker bees do, the evolutionary pressue is a different one.\n\nWell I guess if the workers get a beneficial trait just by chance, the whole colony would prosper. The other way around, if the worker bees get a worse trait for their evolutionary niche, the colony will vanish.\n\n\nSo maybe it is more of an indirect-feedback-evolution.\n\nThe workers don't mate, but since they keep the colony alive, their fitness influences the survival or loss of a specific trait.",
"It's no more or less indirect than any other mutation on non-germ line cells in other organisms. A mutation that leads to the production of melanin in skin, for example, doesn't affect any of the reproductive cells - but we still treat it as fairly normal. That mutation affects the _organism_, not the individual cells or organs independently of each other.\n\nThe key is looking at the _colony_ as an organism.",
"The most important thing to remember is that in any living system, it isn't *necessarily* the individual which is under selection pressure, it is the genes themselves. It's therefore useful to think of how genes are passed along in bees.\n\nWhilst not literally true, it might be a helpful analogy to think of the entire bee colony as a single reproducing organism. In this analogy, the queen is equivalent to the reproductive organs, and the workers are equivalent to the rest of the body. Just in the same way that genes for human organs are passed on through the sexual organs, the genes that code for specific traits in workers will be passed on through the queen. \n\nPerhaps the most important concept is that the queen has worker bee genes, it's just she doesn't use them.\n\nNow consider that the workers' capacity to do their job effectively directly influences the reproductive fitness of the queen. Workers which have developed an adaptation will provide their queen with better reproductive fitness, and will be able to outcompete other colonies. Since this adaptation will have come from the genes which the queen carries, she will pass on these adaptive advantages to future colonies."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
lxqw2 | Does Earth's magnetic field have 'hotspots' or areas/lines with greater magnetic fields? | I was just wondering if we knew whether there were hotspots pertaining to the magnetic field around Earth. Do they move? It doesn't make sense that there would be a constant homogenous field, but rather a fluxing moving field, but I have no idea. Any thoughts? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lxqw2/does_earths_magnetic_field_have_hotspots_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2wfj5g",
"c2wfj5g"
],
"score": [
8,
8
],
"text": [
"You can see from this contour map where the field is strongest and weakest.\n\n_URL_0_",
"You can see from this contour map where the field is strongest and weakest.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/WMM2010_F_MERC.pdf"
],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/WMM2010_F_MERC.pdf"
]
] |
|
4p0bap | why are people who watch cartoons looked down upon for being childish? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p0bap/eli5_why_are_people_who_watch_cartoons_looked/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4gzarv",
"d4gzexm",
"d4h0hha",
"d4h15x3",
"d4h1lof"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
9,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Historically, most cartoons were made for children. Not everyone knows that there are now many animated films made for adults, so they get confused and imagine you're watching a children's show.",
"Your friends are idiots but it's because in the US, animated TV and movies are generally children's movies. In Japan there is lots of animated content for all ages, so they may be confused and think your watching kids movies and crying your eyes out. \n\nTotoro is a great movie but it *is* also a kid's movie. RWBY has it's fair share of \"juvenile\" humor and Gravity Falls, while super-fucking-deep is on Disney Channel. Reason to look down on you? No, but I can see why they might think you watch a lot of kid's stuff.\n\nNow if you said Princess Mononoke and they said *that* was for kids.... they are nuts. ",
"People like to feel superior. It's just ignorance, arrogance or both. \n\nPeople reacted the same way in the 80's and 90's when you were an adult who played video games. Until every teenage girl in the known universe got addicted to Farmville. \n\nIt's still all too common with Anime and Japanese media. You have a copy of Princess Mononoke on your shelf and suddenly you're an Otaku. \n\nDid this person watch Toy Story? Did they like it? Then then can suck it. ",
"Because most cartoons are made for children, or have content that people, as a culture, have defined as being immature or childish.\n\nAlso important is the attitude that the viewer takes towards the shows they're watching. An adult might watch whatever show, and then forget about it and move on with their lives. There aren't a lot of bedroom posters, figurines, etc. for Law and Order, or the news, or Breaking Bad. Adults who are notorious for watching cartoons tend to end up being Bronies, or anime fans with figurines that look like naked 8 year old girls, or the asian equivalent of superman with lasers and flight. Etc. \n\nThe silent majority who enjoy things like Archer, or Bob's Burgers get lumped in because the others are the ones that people see and can readily identify and \"label\" as \"adult people who watch cartoons\"",
"Because watching a speedy car go in a circle is the adult thing to do, not get involved in a deep story with character development."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1hqoio | why the japanese empire invaded small islands during ww2 and didn't have a larger mainland campaign | Watching The Pacific by HBO and wondering why the small islands were so important over larger islands or mainland accumulation. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hqoio/eli5_why_the_japanese_empire_invaded_small/ | {
"a_id": [
"cawxbez",
"cawxf8u",
"cawxzws",
"cax571i",
"cax7of7",
"caxdag4"
],
"score": [
17,
10,
4,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You only hear about the island battles because that is were they fought Americans, and thus the only part of WW2 that is \"important\".\nThere were many battles fought on the mainland especially in China.",
"[This is what the pacific region looks like](_URL_0_). Notice all those tiny islands on the right side of the map like Wake and Iwo Jima? The ones that are so tiny you can only see their name.\n\nNow look at the scale at the bottom left of the map. The pacific is a huge region of open ocean, dotted by teeny tiny islands hundreds if not thousands of miles apart. It's also far away from any friendly allied ground.\n\nWhen you look at the pacific as a theater of war, all those tiny islands are strategic gold. You need those to establish your air strips and supply bases among other things. Air superiority is a wonderful thing but aircraft only have a limited action radius. The distance from Dover (England) to the German border is less than 250 miles. Compare that to the distances on that map of the pacific and you'll quickly realize why those tiny islands are so valuable to anyone trying to wage a war.\n\nIf they allies wanted a mainland foothold, they first needed to secure those islands. Both to make sure they had a good supply line and to deny those same islands to the enemy.\n\nFun detail. A lot of those islands had small, primitive human cultures who never had any contact with the outside world until some of the most technologically advanced civilizations started waging the biggest war the world had ever seen on their doorstep. Flooding their islands with modern food, clothes, medicine, weapons and more. After the war, the remoteness of these islands meant that all involved parties withdrew again leaving this bounty (and no explanation) behind for the locals. Who promptly constructed almost religion like cults called [cargo cults](_URL_1_).",
"The goal was to secure petroleum from Indonesia with outlying naval bases.\n\nThe land war in Manchuria didn't meet much resistance and Indochina fell pretty easily.\n\nAs always, Thailand cleverly sided with the victors …",
"It really depends on the point of view you're looking at the war from. For Japan, the war started at least in 1937 (the second Sino-Japanese War), and by that point they had taken Manchuria and Korea, and were fighting battles in mainland China regularly. \n\nWhen it came to war with the US, The Japanese knew that the US would win in a full out war, so they designed the attack on Pearl Harbor to be so shocking that the US would just negotiate an end to the oil embargo on Japan. But the opposite happened and the US went into full attack mode. \n\nThe Japanese used many of the smaller island battles as a possible chance for the last big, bloody battle that would finally get the US to negotiate an end to the war. But FDR had put into place a policy of unconditional surrender - meaning there was never going to be any negotiation, no matter how bloody the battles got.\n\nLike u/TheSecretMe said, the islands were strategic gold. Once the US took Saipan, the war was essentially over - it gave the US an airbase that was close enough for the B29 to bomb regularly.",
"They did have a large mainland campaign. It was called China.",
"As others have pointed out Japan had huge mainland operations. On average about 3/4 of the Japanese army was operating in mainland Asia, mostly China.\n\nThere were two reasons for this. First Japan was primarily worried about their traditional enemies China and Russia. So they kept the bulk of their forces positioned against them. In fact the whole point of the pacific campaign was to grab resources and create defensive depth so they could win the war with China. Second Japan never had enough sea transport to fully supply more than 10 divisions at a time. So they ended up with small forces, starving under supplied forces, forces relying on local supplies, or all the above."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/US_landings.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Pacific_cults_of_World_War_II"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ah8mo8 | What was the usual treatment for cardiac arrest before CPR and defibrillation? | In the days before CPR and defibrillation, what was the usual treatment if someone suddenly went into cardiac arrest? Let's say that they are already in hospital, or that a doctor happens to be nearby. Was there any particular kind of pre-CPR technique that would have been used on the patient, or would they have been considered absolutely unsavable? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ah8mo8/what_was_the_usual_treatment_for_cardiac_arrest/ | {
"a_id": [
"eedokpg"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"I'm going to limit my answer is scope, so I want to be really specific about terminology because I THINK I know what you're asking. The phrase \"cardiac arrest\" can cause a lot of confusion, and even major media outlets mess it up a lot (for example, calling it \"heart failure\" which certainly sounds like it would be a synonym but is a completely different phenomenon). Cardiac arrest means a sudden loss of heart function, no matter what the cause. This is a medical emergency, and if not addressed will naturally cause death. If I'm working on the wards and one of my patients goes into a cardiac arrest, I would follow the AHA Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) algorithm. You can take a look at it here ([_URL_0_](_URL_0_)). I am required to undergo training in this algorithm, including \"mock codes\" every two years, as is every other doctor and nurse who provides patient care in the hospital.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nCardiac arrest can be caused by different things -- but it's an emergency, and you worry about the exact causes later. If you'll look at the algorithm you'll see that the major branch point is whether the patient has a shockable rhythm (VT/Vfib), or has pulse electrical activity or asystole, Despite what you see on TV, you CANNOT shock asystole back. So what you're talking about -- defibrillation and CPR -- refers to only a specific type of cardiac arrest, the VFib/VT arrest, which is what I'm going to talk about.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSo before I go any further, I'll give a brief historical overview. What constitutes death has been an ongoing debate starting in the late 18th century, and continuing to this day. 18th and 19th century physicians recognized a condition called \"suspended animation\" -- a death-like state from which a patient could be revive. There were widespread beliefs that drowning victims could be revived from suspended animation by a tobacco smoke enema, and famously emergency smoke enema kits were near rivers in many cities (I was reading a few days ago about a charitable society in 1790s Philadelphia that supplied them). That cessation of heart as a primary cause of death (aka cardiac arrest) existed was not truly recognized until the mid 1800s, associated with \"coronary thrombosis\" (an MI, or heart attack).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBy the late 19th century, physiologists had largely characterized the electrical conduction system of the heart (the His-Purkinje system). In 1901, Willem Eintoven invented the first prototype of an electrocardiogram (EKG in German -- see here for an early diagram: [_URL_1_](_URL_4_)) which for the first time allowed a direct tracing to be make of the heart's electrical activity. Rapidly doctors described the EKG essentially in the terms we used today (P waves, QRS complex, T waves -- though the first EKGs ran right to left which is confusing as I'm looking at them now). By 1910, Lewis and Gallavardin had shown that both ventricular tachycardia and ventricular preceded cardiac arrest and were \"terminal rhythms\". Smith then did a number of dog experiments (poor doggos), which confirmed these findings -- prior to cardiac arrest, the heart would be into V Fib or VT.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nDoctors naturally postulated that if there were a way to TREAT V Fib or VT, they could likely save the patient's lives (many of these studies were focused on people with structural heart disease, especially heart failure, who tended to go into V Fib, but also VT). By the late 1920s, there was decent evidence that quinidine could stop VT (today we know that it's a class I antiarrythmic), and a study in 1950 found that quinidine given via IV could stop an arrythmia. Armbrust and Levine considered quinidine to be the standard of care, despite the unpleasant side effects: \"The fact that the patient becomes nauseated, dizzy, weak, or develops diarrhea or ringing of the ears should not discourage the physician from persisting with this therapy, when the alternative is likely to be a fatal termination.\" Procainamide and IV lidocaine started to be used in the 1950s and 1960s, largely with the same effects as quinidine, with fewer side effects (also class I antiarrythmics).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWhich, of course, leads to the development of defibrillation and closed-chest cardiac massage (AKA CPR, based on the previous technique of opening a patient's chest and actually squeezing the heart, still done in penetrating chest trauma in emergency departments, and intraoperatively). By the late 1950s, defibrillation had been experimentally done (and later cardioversion), and by the 1960s, coronary care units were being developed with constant telemetry monitoring and \"crash carts\" to immediately defibrillate a patient (as well as give IV antiarrytmics) in an attempt to resuscitate them. But I've gone on long enough.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSo, the **TL;DR**: prior to the invention of defibrillation and CPR, if a patient went into cardiac arrest from an unstable arrhythmia (VT or V Fib), the doctor would give intravenous quinidine or procainamide. If an EKG showed pulseless electric activity or asytole, however, this would have been synonymous with death.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nHope that answers your question!\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEDIT: Just for fun: V Fib: [_URL_2_](_URL_2_); VT: [_URL_3_](_URL_3_)\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.acls-pals-bls.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ACLS-adult-cardiac-arrest-algorithm.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem\\_Einthoven#/media/File:Willem\\_Einthoven\\_ECG.jpg",
"https://pcs12.azureedge.net/ekgtracings/5.gif",
"https://media.chemotherapyadvisor.com/images/dsm/ch4594.fig1.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Einthoven#/media/File:Willem_Einthoven_ECG.jpg"
]
] |
|
3rty6v | why don't more cell carriers enable wifi calling and texting? | It would save some load off of their cell towers.
It's definitely possible because I know US T-Mobile did it | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rty6v/eli5_why_dont_more_cell_carriers_enable_wifi/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwraseo",
"cwrlon0"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't want to spend money that will make their telecoms towers obsolete. They'd still have to maintain them, but then having WiFi calling as well is just move investment for little benefit. What they gain in WiFi calling usage, they'd lose in cell tower usage. Essentially, what's the point?",
"I would love an answer to this. Just now realized it's not a feature for all carriers. I need it as I need my phone to work from home and my connection at home is nonexistent. My wifi is great though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6pso4u | Why didn't Reagan uphold the Monroe Doctrine during the Falkland Islands War? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6pso4u/why_didnt_reagan_uphold_the_monroe_doctrine/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkrwkcm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nThis thread from a couple of years ago seems to have the most in-depth answer that I found, by /u/tayaravaknin"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30izkc/why_didnt_the_usa_apply_the_monroe_doctrine/?st=J5LS68MR&sh=a58789c4"
]
] |
||
45cfl7 | Is there any relation between the gravity field and the higgs field? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/45cfl7/is_there_any_relation_between_the_gravity_field/ | {
"a_id": [
"czwws2w",
"czwyx2f"
],
"score": [
12,
23
],
"text": [
"No. Presumably you think there is some connection because gravity has to do with mass and the higgs field has to do with mass. But this connection is superficial. Gravity couples to stress-energy and doesn't have anything specifically to do with mass; it just happens that if you confine a lot of energy in a small amount of space, that such systems behave as if they have mass (via E=mc^2 ), and the higgs field is just one way of confining a lot of energy in a small amount of space (just as the strong force confines the energy quarks and as a result is responsible for nearly all of the mass of atoms, not the higgs field). I think the best way to get some intuition for this is to imagine a massless mirror box that contains a photon of some energy E=hv (the Planck relation). Because the photon is confined by the mirrors, the system as a whole has an average rest frame, and therefore the system has an effective mass given by E/c^2 = hv/c^2 . What is the meaning of inertial mass? It tells you how much acceleration to expect when subject to a given force, via F=ma. Does the mirror box have this property? Yes. To see this, calculate the reaction force when you try to accelerate the mirror box. You will find that the photon exerts more radiation pressure on the front of the box than the back (for an acceleration vector pointed toward the back) due to doppler shift, and that the box therefore has as time-averaged inertia. When you do the calculation you will find that F/a = m = E/c^2 exactly as expected. The point is that the mechanism by which energy is confined (and therefore has mass, by E=mc^2 ) has nothing directly to do with gravity (be it the higgs mechanism, the strong force, or any system with potential energy stored in the field). ",
"This is a very common misconception. People see \"things with lots of mass strongly interact with gravity\" and \"the higgs field give the fundamental particles mass\" and associate mass with mass and assume they are related.\n\nThe higgs has very little to do with gravity. Of the 4 forces: gravity, electromagnetism, weak-nuclear, strong-nuclear the higgs is most associated with the weak force (technically the electro-weak force, the combined version of electromagnetism + weak)\n\nIn fact, the mass of things like stars and planets has very little to do with the higgs at all. Stars and planets are made out of atoms, and atoms have MOST of their mass not due to the masses of the quarks and elecrons, but of the binding energy of the quarks to each other.\n\nA proton is almost 1000 MeV but the quarks are just a few MeV each. Most of the mass comes from the energy of binding the quarks together to make a proton. Since E=mc^2 for particles without momentum, the rest mass of the proton is mostly due to the energy of binding the proton together!\n\nSo the mass of a star has very little to do with the higgs field, and therefore the gravitaional field from the star is not really related to the higgs.\n\nHowever, on some level ALL of the forces are related somehow, as everything is interacting. Even photons interact with gravity. However there is no deep or direct relationship between gravity and the higgs, at least not more so than anything else is related to gravity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3reo7u | Why can't we recycle artificial light energy using a strategy similar to solar panel technology? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3reo7u/why_cant_we_recycle_artificial_light_energy_using/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwo1iqj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"We can, but the efficiency is terrible. Solar powered calculators used to be a common thing, and they were being powered by the overhead fluorescents. Unfortunately that's about the limit of the energy you can extract in that way: something tiny and very low powered, largely because the light source itself is relatively low powered. Between the two, there's not really much point considering the cost to extract anything significant back out. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
77h5k0 | why doesnt food caught in your teeth for days make you sick from bacteria? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/77h5k0/eli5why_doesnt_food_caught_in_your_teeth_for_days/ | {
"a_id": [
"dolt0v3",
"dolvb0c"
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text": [
"It can, especially people with heart disease. Son who had heart surgery has to take penicillin before going to the dentist every time.",
"There are a lot of bacteria in the mouth that are commonly referred to as the HACEK group. Two main ones to concern yourself with are Eikenella if you get bit by a human or Cardiobacterium if you get a tooth pulled, have severely rotting teeth or become unable to fight off infection (if you are getting treated for cancer) because it can cause heart damage. \n\nBut, specific to the revolving door of hundreds of types of different species of bacteria that may be ingested or stuck at any given moment..it is dependent on many variables. Three main things you would look for in that stuck foreign body would be is there one predominant bacteria beating out everything else? Are they creating toxins? Are they organisms consistently considered pathogenic?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6k8idf | How much influence, if any, did car companies have on the conception, planning, and construction of U.S. interstates? | Saw something that said they were pretty influential, but from a not great source. Either way it got me interested. Were they pretty involved? Or no? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6k8idf/how_much_influence_if_any_did_car_companies_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"djk8lfa"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I've never heard of any involvement at all by auto companies. What source suggested there was?\n\nSuperhighways were the response of the highway engineering profession to the problems of growing auto traffic and the appalling crash rate when autos were used on the streets and roads laid out in previous centuries. The concept of a limited-access, grade-separated, multilane facility was demonstrated in the 1930s with short urban stretches in and near New York City and Chicago's Lake Shore Drive. Several similar facilities were in place around the country by 1940, when the Pennsylvania Turnpike demonstrated the demand for cross-country superhighways as well. By 1957, about 1.5 percent of \"federal-aid\" and toll highways were already superhighways; today—though the statistics are not strictly comparable—about 19 percent are.\n\nPlanning for such facilities continued through the war years, and state highway departments began building as soon after the war as they could, using whatever funds they could scrape together. In several states, toll financing provided the way to get such highways built. A federal-aid financing program for a new network of superhighways took three years of congressional wrangling [discussed in this previous thread](_URL_0_) before finally resulting in the 1956 Interstate program.\n\nAs the Interstate program became law, Ford put out a widely distributed booklet, \"Freedom of the American Road,\" that touted the safety and efficiency of the new highways. From the date, it seems unlikely to have appeared in time to influence congressional debate. Undoubtedly General Motors and the insurance industry did similar public relations booklets and films, but I've never heard them mentioned in discussions of the legislation.\n\nI like Earl Swift’s *The Big Roads* as the most readable history of the Interstates, but Mark Rose's *Interstate: Express Highway Politics 1939-1989* is the more scholarly source on the congressional machinations. A more recent book by Joseph DiMento and Cliff Ellis, *Changing Lanes: Visions and Histories of Urban Freeways,* recounts the history of how traffic engineers and city planners wrangled with this new force reshaping the city.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6678ql/dwight_eisenhower_is_usually_described_as_a/"
]
] |
|
a9mtdu | What is different about the human digestive system that makes us need to cook meat? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a9mtdu/what_is_different_about_the_human_digestive/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecn1ikp",
"ecn1v0v",
"ecn22cz"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"We don't need to. People can and do eat raw meat. \n\nBut cooking food generally makes it easier to digest (true for animals as well as people!) and we are also more inclined to avoid possible diseases much more than animals are. ",
"The human body complex digestive system is quite resistant to raw meat, since we can still digest them. But cooking, not only makes the meat better, eliminates almost all of the viruses, bacteria and possible infections that are resting in the meat, preventing serious diseases ",
"Eating uncooked meat increases the risk of foodborne illness. Modern meat processing methods DRAMATICALLY increase the risk of dangerous bacterial contamination necessitating proper food hygiene. Certain species of animal are particularly prone to bacterial and/or parasitic contamination further necessitating enhanced caution. \n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3b68n7 | Are humans alone in getting sick while pregnant? Why do we get sick if other animals don't? | Getting sick while pregnant seems like a pretty bad idea when it comes to survival of the species, I am thinking specifically about before modern medicine. If food was scarce and a pregnant woman already needs more than an average adult human to keep the fetus healthy, throwing it back up seems like a waste. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3b68n7/are_humans_alone_in_getting_sick_while_pregnant/ | {
"a_id": [
"csjcehr",
"csjcx5e",
"csjdbqe",
"csjh7ws",
"csjigr5",
"csk2576"
],
"score": [
70,
26,
60,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Not enough research has been done into other animals experiencing morning sickness, but it's possible that they can.\n\nMorning sickness in human beings is potentially a mechanism to protect the mother and embryo, expelling toxins consumed in foods humans eat.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSo in theory, if an animal was on the same diet as a human it may also experience the same sort of morning sickness.",
"Women with morning sickness have lower rates of miscarriages:\n\nA paper from 2014: \n_URL_0_\n\nOne speculation is, that morning sickness in first trimester is protection for the embryo at its most critical part of development, as any damage to the embryo would snowball. The sickness vanishes when the fetus is more developed and their energy consumption starts to make a difference (if the fetus is bean sized it obviously doesn't need much).\n\nA blog from 2008: \"Morning Sickness is an Adaptation, not a … Sickness\"\n_URL_1_\n\n > There are lots of things that typical adult humans can eat without causing harm that can do bad things to a fetus, especially during the first several weeks of development when organs are forming. Many plant products, for instance, are suspect. ... The most pathogen-containing foods (historically, as in, pre-refrigerator) are those that tend to induce nausea in these women. Morning sickness is found more often in societies with risky foods as part of their day to day diet.\n\n\n\n ",
"Keep in mind that evolution only selects against heritable traits that are *sufficiently bad* to affect survivability of the gene.\n\nHumans live in communities that protect the sick and (perhaps especially) the pregnant, so a person (perhaps especially a woman who may be pregnant) is unlikely to starve from throwing up a bit.\n\nMorning sickness is likely a result of hormone changes, which are more important in early pregnancy than keeping all the food down.\n\n/u/ralf_ cites research that indicates it may even be directly beneficial to the mother or child.\n\nClearly, then, morning sickness is not strongly selected against. ",
"Follow-up question: I'm a woman in the 26th week of my second pregnancy, still with such debilitating morning sickness that I am unable to hold down food or fluids of any kind without daily medication. My first pregnancy, the vomiting only lasted 16 weeks, and this time it doesn't look like it's going to budge. So my question is:\n\n*If morning sickness is indicative of healthier pregnancies, or is a mechanism that humans have developed to protect the mother in early pregnancy (as indicated in /u/ralf's comment up above), then why does it continue so far into pregnancy for some women? Have there been any links found between severe morning sickness and health of pregnancies, or a relationship between length of morning sickness experienced and health of pregnancy or fetus?* ",
"I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of evolutionary adaptations that \"show up\" during pregnancies, because that is such a critical time for small things that might affect the reproductive success of the offspring. Basically, little problems in pregnancy can lead to much bigger problems for the child.\n\nSo things that normally wouldn't matter from an evolutionary perspective when not pregnant (having too much X in your system, for example), could become important when you are pregnant.\n\nThis really ties in well with the fact that pregnant women are hypersensitive to tastes, smells and sounds, etc.... because those traits have been selected to ensure the health of the child. Avoiding spoiled foods, for example, or getting morning sickness (which is thought may expel toxins, or otherwise serve as an indicator that \"you shouldn't have eaten that thing last night\").\n",
"follow-up question: why does a woman's vagina (often) have to tear to get the baby out. This is a serious question, I am pregnant and every time sometimes says \"child birth is the most natural thing you can do, it's amazing how your body knows what to do and can handle it\"...except for the perineal tears. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10858967"
],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623814000975#MMCvFirst",
"http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/06/28/morning-sickness-is-an-adaptat/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fabhkn | if the different human races only interbreed with themselves, is it possible to make new species of humans? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fabhkn/eli5_if_the_different_human_races_only_interbreed/ | {
"a_id": [
"fiwy1tx",
"fix16co",
"fix1750"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, for the simple reason we are one species. What you might get is evolution and eventual speciation due to gene mutation, but that's as likely to happen in any sub-population.",
"Theoretically yes. In fact, generating new species becomes more likely the more you divide breeding pools. \n\nLet's leave aside the cultural idea of \"race,\" which is not a particularly useful biological concept. Let's say you're an all-powerful dictator who separates humans randomly into 2 groups. You declare that people may only reproduce with others in their group, and their children must reproduce within the group as well and so-on. \n\nOver time (a long period of time), each group will develop its own unique set of mutations that it propagates through reproduction, and they will never share these mutations by interbreeding. Eventually, you might find that people in the first group are so different from people in the second group that they couldn't reproduce even if they wanted to. That's when you've created a new species.\n\nThis is a high-level view of how speciation works in the wild. Except instead of a dictator, breeding pools are separated by physical barriers that are difficult to cross, like mountains or oceans. All that said, it's unlikely that humans will ever speciate again because modern society exposes us all to roughly the same evolutionary incentives. It doesn't matter if a certain kind of food or threat is more common in specific parts of the world. We will use travel, trade, and technology to even things out.",
"If you take *any* grouping of organisms and isolate them from the general population, over time evolution could possibly cause speciation to occur.\n\nHow long this takes (if it takes place at all) will depend heavily on the selective pressures that are in place that affect reproduction.\n\nEven if you isolate two groups reproductively, if the selective pressures are the same, then you can expect them to follow mostly the same evolutionary path, barring random genetic fluctuations.\n\nAnd while it is possible for even purely random fluctuations and mutations to result in speciation, it would take an extraordinarily long time for there to be any meaningful divergence. Even the most isolated uncontacted tribes, that probably haven't intermingled with outside populations for thousands (perhaps dozens or hundreds of thousands) of years, are still homo sapiens sapiens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3qb4e4 | The French invaded England before and after the War of Roses, why did they not take advantage of the tumultuous period during the WotR and invade England? | The French invaded during the Second Baron's War in the 13th century, and during the Italian Wars of the 16th century. Why did they not invade during the War of the Roses, which seems like it would have been the best time. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qb4e4/the_french_invaded_england_before_and_after_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwdvlgu"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"[This answer covers some of the main themes pretty well!](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kw75g/why_didnt_scotland_or_france_invade_england/"
]
] |
|
lp7xe | why the fuck does my printer never do what i want it to? why doesn't my computer communicate with my printer as well as my other external devices? | Eg: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lp7xe/eli5_why_the_fuck_does_my_printer_never_do_what_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2uhpyv",
"c2uirda",
"c2uisy8",
"c2uj0o3",
"c2uj29h",
"c2uj4wj",
"c2uj88g",
"c2ujkm1",
"c2ujlft",
"c2ujmag",
"c2ujmh4",
"c2uk72c",
"c2ukhco",
"c2ulag5",
"c2ulwtq",
"c2ulyqf",
"c2um95v",
"c2uhpyv",
"c2uirda",
"c2uisy8",
"c2uj0o3",
"c2uj29h",
"c2uj4wj",
"c2uj88g",
"c2ujkm1",
"c2ujlft",
"c2ujmag",
"c2ujmh4",
"c2uk72c",
"c2ukhco",
"c2ulag5",
"c2ulwtq",
"c2ulyqf",
"c2um95v"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
22,
33,
126,
9,
7,
2,
4,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
22,
33,
126,
9,
7,
2,
4,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Lots of settings and things going on, and they're all made super cheap these days.",
"Ink is where the money's at. There is little quality control when it comes to printers. They are made cheaply by third-world country laborers.",
"I just bit the bullet and bought a commercial lazer for 300. been working fine for 5 years now. only downside is toner is 100 bucks. fuck you hp. ",
"My highest-voted submission was about this. Thousands of responses. Consensus: they're just shit.",
"Drivers are problematic. Companies often abandon support sooner than customers would want, which often means you're trying to print with a print driver that was written for an OS older than your own. Try getting a 15 year old device to print from Windows 7 64-bit, for example. Printing subsystems are notoriously finicky, and having your OS have to pretend it's working in a 32 bit environment, or that it's running XP adds the the likelihood of incompatibility.\n\nExtra software is even more problematic. Most consumer-grade printers come with a host of utilities, such as ink level monitors, \"enhanced\" printer drivers with supposedly more user-friendly output, software to help you buy ink the second you're out, special software to compose CD labels, etc. This software is usually supported for even less a period of time than the drivers for the hardware.\n\nHardware is problematic, particularly ink-based hardware. Ink can dry out and clog the pathways down which it travels.\n\nHardware is cheap. Almost all inexpensive consumer-grade printers are made to sell ink, not printers. Corners are cut, and hardware is rarely made to be any more reliable than what it takes to get it beyond its manufacturer warranty.\n\nThere is no business advantage in making a consumer grade printer that lasts 20 years, because customers will simply not vote with their dollars and punish them for it. For every customer a major manufacturer loses due to quality, it gains another from someone deciding that they will never buy some other manufacturer's product again. Currently, there are no companies that I know of making consumer-grade printers which have decided to make money on both the printer and the ink, which would allow them to price the ink more reasonably, and lower the total cost of ownership.\n\nInk, ink, ink. Another result of the economy of scale in consumer-grade printers being ink-based is that the quantity of ink per cartridge is reduced, the manufacturer often reports ink outage well before the fact to encourage early ink-buying, and consumers who take the manufacturers at their word often end up throwing away enough ink to get them through many more pages.\n\nHardware is infrequently used. This is related to ink, particularly. The best thing you can usually do for an ink-based printer is to use it regularly. The worst case scenario is often people who only print two or three times a year, particularly with photograph-quality printing.",
"There actually is no good reason. Yes, there are different 'languages' that a computer uses to speak to printers, but we have created and use so many new ones all the time, there's no real excuse for it.\n\nThere are also a lot of settings with a printer, but designers have worked on way more complex systems and made them simple and very easy to use. Especially since we do almost the exact same things almost all the time.\n\nWhat's very likely happening is that because the technology is so well understood, contracts are won by whoever bids the lowest and can undercut competitors resulting in a ton of corner cutting to get fat $200-400+ margins on printers (I mean they're always on sale or given out freely with cereal nowadays). I would then say it's actually politics and not programmer/design difficulty that result in terrible interfaces for printer companies like HP.\n\nThere's money to be made for someone to go out, somehow wrestle the various printer company's protocols, and then write a unifying easy to use single stop solution. The problem is that all the printer companies will probably resist.",
"As far as HP printers are concerned, the gents who engineer the hardware never talk to the gents who engineer the software. This is supposedly true with everyone. ",
"ELI5: Why do people ask this question every hour?",
"I use an HP Printer with whatever driver comes with Ubuntu (HP-lip I assume).\n\nPlugged it in, within 3 seconds it was ready to go. It reports ink levels, I can run cleaning programs, and I can choose the print quality from draft to best.\n\nAs long as it's plugged in, it works at least as well as, say, my external eSATA hard drive.",
"_URL_0_\nWatch this documentary to learn why, they exactly use printers as one of the example.\n\n",
"Join us at[ r/printers](_URL_0_) brother.",
"TLDR; printers have always fucking sucked, even before the manufacturers lit on to their 'great idea' of \"sell printers cheap, make it up on ink\".",
"Sometimes it's due to stupid production decisions that the consumer is never supposed to know about.\n\nOnce I bought a Kodak printer for college. The ink was cheap and it worked pretty well for an inkjet. Then suddenly it stopped printing black. My mother and I called tech support after running all the diagnostics and they said the print head was clogged and it was a common problem. They offered to replace it for free, and did. After a bit of prying on the phone (the tech support guy tried to dumb it down for her and didn't want to tell her any details) - she had to tell him that she works in a development and production department at a tech-based company as well (she does) to get a straight answer. Apparently they had designed the print heads for a certain type of ink, then at the last minute switched the black ink they sold to a cheaper alternative with larger pigments. Those pigments turned out to cause a major print head clogging problem.\n\nSometimes your troubles are just the result of someone's stupid decision to save money in manufacturing. They should have either kept the more expensive ink or waited to release the things until they had redesigned the print head. But they decided it would be less trouble to field tech support calls and replace the print heads for people who complained. Sigh...",
"The same reason a CD burner is faultier than an iPod: More moving parts means more that can go wrong.",
"I hate printers. In fact I have the touch of death for printers made by Lexmark, any Lexmark printer I touch dies within 30 days.\n\nOwned two Lexmark printers, both of them died one month after I touched them.\n\nWorked at a Walmart the lady said go get that paper out of the printer for me I saw it was lexmark I warned her of my lexmark touch of death. She said that was silly they have had that printer forever and its always been good. I say It will break in a month, I touch it to get the paper out of it. One month later I walk into her office shes fiddling with the printer I say \"whats wrong\" she replies \"its broken\" I tell her \"Told you so.\" I was never allowed to touch their printers again.",
"\"ELI5: Why the fuck does my printer...\"\n\nWhat kind of language is that for a 5 year old?\nAnswer me young man!",
"That's a brilliant question! I was just looking for printers on Amazon and couldn't help but notice almost zero printers that had more than 3 out of 5 stars. If Automobiles were as reliable as inkjet printers, I'm pretty sure the entire world would be unemployed.",
"Lots of settings and things going on, and they're all made super cheap these days.",
"Ink is where the money's at. There is little quality control when it comes to printers. They are made cheaply by third-world country laborers.",
"I just bit the bullet and bought a commercial lazer for 300. been working fine for 5 years now. only downside is toner is 100 bucks. fuck you hp. ",
"My highest-voted submission was about this. Thousands of responses. Consensus: they're just shit.",
"Drivers are problematic. Companies often abandon support sooner than customers would want, which often means you're trying to print with a print driver that was written for an OS older than your own. Try getting a 15 year old device to print from Windows 7 64-bit, for example. Printing subsystems are notoriously finicky, and having your OS have to pretend it's working in a 32 bit environment, or that it's running XP adds the the likelihood of incompatibility.\n\nExtra software is even more problematic. Most consumer-grade printers come with a host of utilities, such as ink level monitors, \"enhanced\" printer drivers with supposedly more user-friendly output, software to help you buy ink the second you're out, special software to compose CD labels, etc. This software is usually supported for even less a period of time than the drivers for the hardware.\n\nHardware is problematic, particularly ink-based hardware. Ink can dry out and clog the pathways down which it travels.\n\nHardware is cheap. Almost all inexpensive consumer-grade printers are made to sell ink, not printers. Corners are cut, and hardware is rarely made to be any more reliable than what it takes to get it beyond its manufacturer warranty.\n\nThere is no business advantage in making a consumer grade printer that lasts 20 years, because customers will simply not vote with their dollars and punish them for it. For every customer a major manufacturer loses due to quality, it gains another from someone deciding that they will never buy some other manufacturer's product again. Currently, there are no companies that I know of making consumer-grade printers which have decided to make money on both the printer and the ink, which would allow them to price the ink more reasonably, and lower the total cost of ownership.\n\nInk, ink, ink. Another result of the economy of scale in consumer-grade printers being ink-based is that the quantity of ink per cartridge is reduced, the manufacturer often reports ink outage well before the fact to encourage early ink-buying, and consumers who take the manufacturers at their word often end up throwing away enough ink to get them through many more pages.\n\nHardware is infrequently used. This is related to ink, particularly. The best thing you can usually do for an ink-based printer is to use it regularly. The worst case scenario is often people who only print two or three times a year, particularly with photograph-quality printing.",
"There actually is no good reason. Yes, there are different 'languages' that a computer uses to speak to printers, but we have created and use so many new ones all the time, there's no real excuse for it.\n\nThere are also a lot of settings with a printer, but designers have worked on way more complex systems and made them simple and very easy to use. Especially since we do almost the exact same things almost all the time.\n\nWhat's very likely happening is that because the technology is so well understood, contracts are won by whoever bids the lowest and can undercut competitors resulting in a ton of corner cutting to get fat $200-400+ margins on printers (I mean they're always on sale or given out freely with cereal nowadays). I would then say it's actually politics and not programmer/design difficulty that result in terrible interfaces for printer companies like HP.\n\nThere's money to be made for someone to go out, somehow wrestle the various printer company's protocols, and then write a unifying easy to use single stop solution. The problem is that all the printer companies will probably resist.",
"As far as HP printers are concerned, the gents who engineer the hardware never talk to the gents who engineer the software. This is supposedly true with everyone. ",
"ELI5: Why do people ask this question every hour?",
"I use an HP Printer with whatever driver comes with Ubuntu (HP-lip I assume).\n\nPlugged it in, within 3 seconds it was ready to go. It reports ink levels, I can run cleaning programs, and I can choose the print quality from draft to best.\n\nAs long as it's plugged in, it works at least as well as, say, my external eSATA hard drive.",
"_URL_0_\nWatch this documentary to learn why, they exactly use printers as one of the example.\n\n",
"Join us at[ r/printers](_URL_0_) brother.",
"TLDR; printers have always fucking sucked, even before the manufacturers lit on to their 'great idea' of \"sell printers cheap, make it up on ink\".",
"Sometimes it's due to stupid production decisions that the consumer is never supposed to know about.\n\nOnce I bought a Kodak printer for college. The ink was cheap and it worked pretty well for an inkjet. Then suddenly it stopped printing black. My mother and I called tech support after running all the diagnostics and they said the print head was clogged and it was a common problem. They offered to replace it for free, and did. After a bit of prying on the phone (the tech support guy tried to dumb it down for her and didn't want to tell her any details) - she had to tell him that she works in a development and production department at a tech-based company as well (she does) to get a straight answer. Apparently they had designed the print heads for a certain type of ink, then at the last minute switched the black ink they sold to a cheaper alternative with larger pigments. Those pigments turned out to cause a major print head clogging problem.\n\nSometimes your troubles are just the result of someone's stupid decision to save money in manufacturing. They should have either kept the more expensive ink or waited to release the things until they had redesigned the print head. But they decided it would be less trouble to field tech support calls and replace the print heads for people who complained. Sigh...",
"The same reason a CD burner is faultier than an iPod: More moving parts means more that can go wrong.",
"I hate printers. In fact I have the touch of death for printers made by Lexmark, any Lexmark printer I touch dies within 30 days.\n\nOwned two Lexmark printers, both of them died one month after I touched them.\n\nWorked at a Walmart the lady said go get that paper out of the printer for me I saw it was lexmark I warned her of my lexmark touch of death. She said that was silly they have had that printer forever and its always been good. I say It will break in a month, I touch it to get the paper out of it. One month later I walk into her office shes fiddling with the printer I say \"whats wrong\" she replies \"its broken\" I tell her \"Told you so.\" I was never allowed to touch their printers again.",
"\"ELI5: Why the fuck does my printer...\"\n\nWhat kind of language is that for a 5 year old?\nAnswer me young man!",
"That's a brilliant question! I was just looking for printers on Amazon and couldn't help but notice almost zero printers that had more than 3 out of 5 stars. If Automobiles were as reliable as inkjet printers, I'm pretty sure the entire world would be unemployed."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQGtucrJ8hM"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DCwN28y8o"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/printers"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DCwN28y8o"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/printers"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4heizl | Were there any exceptions to the fact that ancient cities were usually built on or near a water source? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4heizl/were_there_any_exceptions_to_the_fact_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2pbtvm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Depends a bit on what you mean by a water source. Ancient settlements in Yemen were able to support themselves based on the collection of monsoon rains in mountain valley dams, cisterns, and underground aqueduct systems. The Marib dam is one such example and is thousands of years old. It's my understanding that these areas would not otherwise have had any significant local water source like a permanent river or natural aquifer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
tgjrn | Why do they have different types of mountains in Asia? | You know those ones that looks like jungle covered cones that rise out of the ocean? How come we don't have those anywhere else in the world? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tgjrn/why_do_they_have_different_types_of_mountains_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4mexed"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They are made of limestone. I think the mountains you speak of are part of the group of geological features known as Karst Topography. There are other places in the world with Karst landscapes, but the areas you are talking about are Older/subjected to far more moisture and subsequently look a bit different than similar geology in other locations. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karst"
]
] |
|
3nr213 | how the weather in california just flipped flop from scorching heat last week to cool? and why are so many people getting sick by this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nr213/eli5_how_the_weather_in_california_just_flipped/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvqj5ss"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Weather dynamics, a heat front or cold front (generally high pressure low pressure areas) flow. In some days the air (generally from the south) is pushed up higher, making more warm air in the area, if the low pressure front (colder area) is more present, it will be cold.\n\nGenerally a constant temperature change is pretty annoying as we cant adjust ourselves to the weather, making it pretty exhausting"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4jk1a4 | Why did sails go from square in the ancient era to mostly lateen in the medieval then back to multiple square sails in the age of sail? | I've been big on naval history and have a deep fascination with ships for years now. The question above pretty much outlines it: why did vessels go from square sales to lateen sales to square again?
Thanks guys! | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4jk1a4/why_did_sails_go_from_square_in_the_ancient_era/ | {
"a_id": [
"d37dvd6",
"d37pvmu"
],
"score": [
18,
5
],
"text": [
"Well, first off, I would say that this isn't an entirely clear-cut process; there were ships using square sails when lateens were prevalent, and vice versa, and the \"classic\" full sail rig we think of developing around the time of the Napoleonic wars incorporated fore-and-aft sails. *HMS Victory* was launched in 1765 and as built had a mizen course with a [long lateen-style yard](_URL_3_). \n\nAs far as we know, both the classical-era Mediterranean galley and the ships of the era in northern Europe carried a square sail. That's most likely because the sail was meant to provide power, but the ship's oars allowed it to move without the sail, so sail power for traveling upwind was less of a consideration than it would be as ships got bigger. It's also fairly simple to make and rig a square sail, in terms of both the cloth-making and also the tackle for the mast and yard. \n\nIn terms of the \"progression\" of sail rigs, the lateen rig seems to have entered the Mediterranean around the [late second/early third century](_URL_2_). The advantage of the lateen is that it allows for the ship to work upwind more easily, as the triangular sail can be braced around more forward. The disadvantage is that it takes either a large crew or a great deal of time to tack or wear with a lateen, as you have to pass the yard entirely around the mast to do so (unless the boat is extremely small or you're in very light airs). \n\nMoving forward substantially in time, we see the lateen rig exit the Mediterranean and be used in western ships around the time of the Portuguese voyages of exploration, when the caravel and carrack style ships appeared. The [caravel](_URL_0_) was generally smaller than the carrack, and could carry either a square or lateen rig, and the carrack was generally larger and would generally mix the rig, with square sails forward for driving force and lateen sails aft. Some carracks could be quite large -- Henry VIII's [large ships were carracks](_URL_1_) -- but nearly all of them lacked what we'd later call a \"made mast,\" that is one comprised of several sticks above one another. The *Mary Rose* pictured above has only topmasts, for example. \n\nAs the carrack style developed into the galleon, you started to see a more or less standard large ship type with usually four masts, usually at least two lateen rigged. The classic galleon, though, was a very large ship with very many men on it, and they could afford the manpower to work four lateen sails (two courses and two topsails). \n\nIf you're talking about the earliest version of the \"standard\" square rig of the Napoleonic period, the fluyt is probably the first ship to have it, where you have two entirely square-rigged masts and a lateen on the mizen. This was a sail plan that provided good driving force but maneuverability with the fore-and-aft jibs and the mizen lateen, and didn't cost too much in manpower (that is, it could be handled by a merchant crew). The Dutch ships' sail plan and hull form was copied by other designers, and gave rise to the \"classic\" man of war plan, with additional masts (royals and above) added, and the lateen being supplemented by staysails and multiple jibs. The gaff spanker replaced the lateen course by the latter part of the 18th century, although as we saw above ships retained the lateen yard, vestigially, even late in the century. \n\n**Edit**: I can't spel gud ",
"Some clarification on terminology: square sails are so called not because they have a square shape, but because their neutral position is square, i.e. perpendicular, to the length of the ship.\n\nA lateen sail is a type of fore-and-aft sail, whose default alignment is along the length of the ship. Other types of fore-and-aft sails are the gaff rig and the Bermuda rig.\n\nThere are multiple tradeoffs in these types of sails, but historically many sailing ships with multiple sails have had a combination of both.\n\nThe first thing is what route the ship is intended to run. Ships that travel along the trade winds doing trans-oceanic shipping will primarily be going downwind so they don't need fore-and-aft sails as much and downwind performance is more important. \n\nShips that run along the coastline, eg shipping or fishing need fore-and-aft sails because the winds are more variable, and because if the wind is blowing toward the coast you need to be able to point into the wind to avoid getting shipwrecked, or get anywhere really.\n\nThis is part of the reason why lateen sails are emphasized in the story of Portugese exploration of the African coast - since they were proceeding along the coast they needed that ability. But for instance in the pacific islands and the Indian Ocean a lot of exploration was done with square sails.\n\nIn the 19th century two important American sailing ship types were the clipper, which was a square-rigged trans-oceanic shipping vessel, and the schooner, which had fore-and-aft sails and did shipping and fishing along the coastlines.\n\nAnother tradeoff is manpower. /u/jschooltiger points out that a lateen sail can be difficult to tack, but other fore-and-aft sails do not have that problem. In particular, a bark rig, which has square sails on the first few masts and a fore-and-aft sail on the rearmost mast, is said to have gained prevalence because it required a smaller crew than a ship with square sails on all the masts (called a full-rigged or ship-rigged vessel).\n\nHowever, one problem with fore-and-aft sails is that they are asymmetrical when going downwind. This makes them dangerous because a wind shift can cause them to swing violently to the other side. For this reason, square sails have sometimes been preferred in long range shipping even if technically a fore-and-aft sail might provide better performance.\n\nAnother issue is that a square rigged mast will usually have multiple smaller sails, while a fore-and-aft sail on the same mast will be bigger. This can make it more difficult to control and reducing sail in a downwind scenario can be impossible, because the ship must head to wind to relieve the load on the sail, and turning a ship around in heavy seas can sink the ship. \n\nAnother consideration is that before synthetic materials, both lines (I.e. ropes) and sails themselves were weaker. So the very large fore-and-aft rigged yachts that we see today would have been more technically challenging before the 1950s when such materials became available. Modern pleasure boats are also generally derived from a tradition of racing yachts which has also influenced the rigging styles we see in sailing today.\n\nI'm sure there are other things I've left out, but the point is that it's not a straightforward evolution as typically presented in basic narratives of European exploration."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.theportugalnews.com/uploads/news/1150-24.jpg",
"http://www.archaeology.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Geoff-Hunts-painting-of-the-Mary-rose-under-sail-Geoff-Hunt-The-Mary-Rose-Trust.jpg",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fs8qr/",
"http://www.hms-victory.com/sites/all/modules/nmrn_bones/img/poi_1-1-7.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
3an3h5 | does a popcorn kernel have the same nutrients as a piece of popcorn? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3an3h5/eli5_does_a_popcorn_kernel_have_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"cse535z",
"cse56p9"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I was watching an episode of Good Eats on Netflix last night, and based on the way they spoke about it, I think the answer would be yes. They were explaining how popping came about because it was the only way they could access the nutrients inside back in the day. They're possibly less potent, but I'd imagine they'll still be there. ",
"I would assume the nutrition to be similar. I know that when vegetables are boiled, fried, or baked they lose nutritional value because the heat alters the chemical composition. The same nutrients are still present, but not in the same quantity. Since popcorn is a starch, I assume some changes occur under heat, but not as much as more complex vegetables."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
sri4m | Was the creation of the modern state of Israel a one-of-a-kind event in modern history? | What I mean is that over a relatively short amount of time, there a mass migration of Jews to Palestine who had the sole intention of creating a state, then they successfully created that state.
Have there been any other group of people in modern history that have been able to do that? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sri4m/was_the_creation_of_the_modern_state_of_israel_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4gcv0u",
"c4gdre2"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"The only 2 that immediately come to mind is Armenia and maybe Greece.\n\nArmenia was created in a relatively short amount of time but I do not believe there was any sort of mass migration, or at least that I know of. \n\nI only say Greece because it was under Ottoman rule for so long and after breaking away there was mass population shifts of Greeks into Greece and Muslims out.",
"The creation of Pakistan from India. Heavy migration of Muslims from all over India to the western part of the subcontinent. To the extent that many of the local rulers (nawwabs) lost their riches and power in favor of the new state.\n\nThe whole process, from inception to actual independence is about 7 years, I think."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
lwt6j | Do lisps exist outside of English? | Or rather, do languages that do not have any dental sounds like θ have lisps? Why or why not? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lwt6j/do_lisps_exist_outside_of_english/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2w81fn",
"c2w81fn"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Well, [Castilian Spanish](_URL_0_) is the most exceptional example of lisp. So, yes indeed.",
"Well, [Castilian Spanish](_URL_0_) is the most exceptional example of lisp. So, yes indeed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://spanish.about.com/cs/qa/a/q_lisp.htm"
],
[
"http://spanish.about.com/cs/qa/a/q_lisp.htm"
]
] |
|
1envzj | How did the introduction of guns affect Japanese (samurai) culture? Were firearms accepted or shunned? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1envzj/how_did_the_introduction_of_guns_affect_japanese/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca228au",
"ca26koq"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Hello there!\nA little Japan firearm background:\n\nFirearms were brought over from China as early as the 13th century but the application and use of these weapons in armies were scarce at best. The 15th and 16th century saw the arrival of European firearms which were much more advanced than their earlier Chinese counterparts. The Sengoku period (1467 to 1573) was a period of war between feudal states in Japan that fought for control of the nation and due to the widespread warfare, matchlocks were widely used among the feuding armies. The Sakoku period (mid-1660's to 1853) resulted in firearm production grinding to a halt and the use of such weapons declining due to the country turning to a very strict isolationist policy. \n\nI have studied about samurai culture, read extensively into their rise and fall and have been fascinated with the way samurai devote themselves to the mastery of their katana sword in 'the way of the warrior', in Japanese, 'bushido'. With all this in mind, the best word I can use to describe the implementation of *European* firearms and matchlocks in Japan is this: devastating. \n\nFirearms not only gave a minimally trained person the capability of killing a veteran samurai in one shot, but combined with others could devastate an entire unit of samurai that have spent their entire lives studying, practicing and ultimately perfecting their martial art. Matchlock troops were much cheaper and far easier to train. This means it was cheaper and a lot easier to replace a dead *ashigaru* (foot soldier) than a samurai. \n\nMultiply that scenario hundreds of times and you'll see how the reluctant adaption of firearms took hold in modern Japan in the mid and late 19th century. Despite the fall of the samurai their teachings and way of life survives in books and pop culture today. \n\nThis answer has a lot of missing information due to summarizing but if you have any other questions I'd be happy to answer them.\n",
"One particular battle of note in this case is the Battle of Nagashino in 1575. In this battle, Oda Nobunaga used his arquebusiers to great effect and decimated the Takeda cavalry, which was, up to that point, one of the most feared fighting forces in all of Japan. It is often considered a turning point in warfare in Japan, as it showed decisively that foot soldiers with guns could defeat highly trained samurai."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2580cm | what would happen if i ate nothing but nuts? | I know when I eat nuts, I shit a lot of the undigested pieces right out and I like it a lot. So what would happen if I ate nothing but nuts and water forever? Would I literally shit nuts? How long could one live on such a diet? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2580cm/eli5_what_would_happen_if_i_ate_nothing_but_nuts/ | {
"a_id": [
"chekqdp",
"chel7uq",
"chelfij"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You wouldn't live very well. The body needs a balanced diet. You'd have very little to no calcium, protein, iron or some required vitamins. You wouldn't die in a week or anything but your health would get worse over time.",
"You'd get rickets and scurvy for lack of A and C vitamins. Nuts are high in fat and protein with decent carbs. Add berries and you might be OK.\n\nEdit: also depends on the nuts. Almonds have calcium, cashews have iron. Peanuts are a bit lame. Have a sardine or leafy thing once in a while.",
"There are several types of protein called essential amino acids which humans need to survive and cannot produce on their own. While animal proteins like meat, eggs and dairy provide all of them, very few plant sources contain them all. Soy and quinoa are the only two I can think of that do.\n\nWithout getting all your essential aminos, you'd likely die in a matter of weeks or months."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8dlj4c | How bad was Britain's situation in 1940 when Churchill took over? | Put differently, how screwed was Britain in 1940 before the Battle of Britain had been won? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8dlj4c/how_bad_was_britains_situation_in_1940_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxpkc9r"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If we assume a time period approximate to June 18th, 'Britain's finest hour', then certainly, Britain's position was not an enviable one, but defeat was not a foregone conclusion. In the eyes of the world at least, especially the US, Britain's survival seemed dependent on its ability to resist the inexorable German invasion. After all, the panzers had rolled across Western Europe in little over a month, Operation *Sealion* was surely mere weeks away? Such viewpoints were popularised largely by propaganda, though not at all helped in the popular narrative by speeches such as [this](_URL_0_).\n\nThe Netherlands, France, Belgium and Luxembourg had all capitulated, with the French armistice coming into effect by June 16th. At home, the British Army, now with returned units from France and newly raised units, consisted of around 22 divisions at roughly half strength, with more still mobilizing. These units lacked much of their light and heavy artillery, motor transport and critically, ammunition \\- much of it having been left behind. It is estimated \\(generously\\), that Britain possessed around 500 tanks at this time, most of them in the light to medium 'cruiser' variety, and around 800 medium to heavy artillery pieces. The Local Defence Volunteers had been founded in early May and by June consisted of around 1.5 million volunteers whom, like their professional counterparts, were woefully under equipped, but in good morale.\n\nIn the naval theatre, the loss of the French navy and their Atlantic bases was a body blow to the Royal Navy. Prien's U\\-Boats now had access to the Atlantic, and enjoyed their first 'happy time', sinking around 270 ships before October. The loss of 10 destroyers in the Norwegian and French campaigns, and a further 10 in the Atlantic compromised an effective naval response to invasion, and to policing its convoys \\(though this was remedied by the Destroyers for Bases Agreement\\). Compounded with the Italian entry into the war, the RN was now stretched in its commitments from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. In the Mediterranean it had to guard British possessions from Gibraltar to Palestine, as well as support Greece and the army in Egypt from a modern and effective *Regia Marina*.\n\nThis being said, the Royal Navy still effectively dwarfed both the *Kriegsmarine* and the *Regia Marina.* For any effective invasion operation to be undertaken, Germany would need clear naval superiority, something which it could not accomplish against the Royal Navy's Home Fleet. The *Kriegsmarine* had lost 3 cruisers and 10 destroyers in the Norwegian campaign, which would have provided the bulk of any invasion fleet. While the Royal Navy had taken similar losses, these were easily absorbed and were soon to be rapidly replaced with a massive expansion program begun in 1938. German naval losses had also disenfranchised Hitler to the need for a large surface fleet, and despite Prien's objections, the *Kriegsmarine*'s surface units, including its precious battleships, would lose their limelight to the u\\-boats.\n\nDespite the desperation that would be seen in the Battle of Britain, Britain remained strong in its air assets. The loss of 106 aircraft covering the Dunkirk evacuation was quickly replaced with Britain's steadily increasing industrial output. Around 750 single\\-seat fighter aircraft were available to Fighter Command at this time, the majority the sturdy Hawker Hurricane, but the remainder being the superb Supermarine Spitfire. Most concerning however were the losses in pilots. Most RAF pilots lacked the experience of their Luftwaffe counterparts, being quickly trained, though their officers had often seen action over France, and were helped by significant contributions of pilots from the Commonwealth and other Allies. Fuel stocks had been expanded in the prelude to hostilities, as had the number of airfields. The RAF's Dowding System \\- of Chain Home Radar stations and a hierarchy of reporting stations, providing undoubtedly the finest air\\-interception system in the world at the time.\n\nOverall, Britain's defending forces both navally and aeronautically were well equipped to deal with German invasion, but limited in any offensive operations, while the British army was nowhere near equipped to handle a German attack until at least the following year. However, opposing German forces are often over\\-exaggerated in their ability to affect an invasion or destroy Britain's supply lines.\n\nThe Luftwaffe's air forces ranged against the UK consisted of around 2500 aircraft; 800 single\\-engine and 300 twin\\-engine fighters, 1000 medium bombers and 300 dive\\-bombers. Germain air\\-crews gained valuable experience in the Spanish civil\\-war, as well as over France and the Low Countries. Their primary aircraft consisted of the capable Dornier Do17 and Heinkel HE111 medium bombers, and the excellent Messerschmidt Me\\-109. These fighters would however, be substantially hindered by their short operational range, possessing perhaps 20 minutes worth of fuel for operations over Britain. The early successes enjoyed by the Luftwaffe were largely the result of it being a 'tactical' air force, designed for operations in support of the army. Certainly the stunned allied troops in Belgium could attest to its awesome capacity as aerial artillery, however the need for deep\\-strikes against British industrial centres and distant RAF airfields revealed key weaknesses in the Luftwaffe's capacity for strategic operation. Moreover, the Luftwaffe's hitherto poor record against warships precluded it from effectively disrupting RN operations, and would mean in any amphibious operation, it would remain dangerously overstretched.\n\nThe requirements to be placed on the German Army for any attempt at crossing the channel were also far in excess of its capabilities. Army High Command \\(OKW\\) had originally called for a landing of 40 divisions, which was ultimately revised to a still unrealistic 9 divisions. \\(By comparison, the Normandy landings consisted of 8\\). No doubt the German Army, with its emphasis on mobility and armoured penetration, and fighting a vastly under\\-equipped British Army, would have been able to secure substantial bridgeheads had it been landed, however it is likely that its Blitzkrieg style assault may well have faltered upon encountering as dense an urban area as London. London of course, the largest city in the world at this time, would have made dangerous ground for tanks, and German infantry would be slowed by extensive house\\-to\\-house operations against a familiar and fanatical defender. German airborne forces were recognised as a significant risk by British High Command, especially following the daring assaults on Eben Emael and Rotterdam. However the saturation of LDV units across the countryside would have hindered attempts at airborne link\\-ups, or at the very least, forbade paratroopers any hope of landing stealthily.\n\nPerhaps the most critical factor in determining the success of an invasion however, was the ability of the *Kriegsmarine* to first transport and then supply such a force. As detailed above, the surface escorts of the German navy were no where near numerous enough to support an amphibious landing, especially not one conducted in the face of the Home fleet, which would be forced to 'unerringly commit its naval forces'. Despite Admiral Donitz's guarantees of being able to keep the RN at bay, a mass, albeit piecemeal, assault by the RNs largest units, as well as the 500 or MTBs hidden along the south coast, would likely result in slaughter of the hapless embarked infantry, and the marooning of any that had disembarked. Not only this, but the *Kriegsmarine* was desperately lacking amphibious craft, especially for an operation of such magnitude. The 2,400 requisitioned barges from Dutch and Belgian canals were woefully inadequate for a channel crossing, and the specialised craft far too few in number. Donitz would be forced to settle for his protracted u\\-boat campaign to force Britain from the war.\n\nTo conclude then, Britain's position in June 1940 was poor. The Royal Navy was overstretched, its air force was small, and the army desperately poorly equipped. It stood no chance of waging an offensive war in Western Europe without substantial help. However, the commonly held views that invasion was imminent \\(that it was saved by the 'divine providence of the few'\\) and Britain was completely vulnerable to it, are misconceptions. The weaknesses of the Home Fleet and the RAF, and the capabilities of their German counterparts to adequately support an invasion are grossly over exaggerated. While the u\\-boat campaign would ultimately evolve to become a very significant threat, arguably the greatest the country has faced, in June 1940 Britain was certainly very far from 'screwed'.\n\n^(Please be kind this is my first response on this) ^(sub)^(.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-hour/we-shall-never-surrender/"
]
] |
|
1lolr4 | Question regarding recent earthquake in Japan and how energy from quakes spread | [Image](_URL_0_) from Yahoo! Weather on the 9:18am (local time) quake. Can anyone explain why or how the islands closer to the epicenter have such a low rating on the Japanese seismic scale (which measures by amount of shaking) while areas in Kanto and Tohoku, which look to be 200+ kilometers away, had more shaking?
Just curious since most quakes we have had off the Tohoku coast generally had a strong correlation between distance from the epicenter and amount of shaking. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lolr4/question_regarding_recent_earthquake_in_japan_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc1d1ys"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Ground motion is controlled by earthquake magnitude, distance, and site effects. Site effects include local geology (soft sediments shake more than hard rock), topography (hills can experience seismic resonance, amplifying ground motion), and subsurface structure (a sharp boundary between hard and soft material can also cause resonance).\n\nCould be that smaller islands have more hard rock at the surface, whereas the main islands have more soft sediment. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/c6zIjzk.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
6q8bpr | how if most insects die during winter, how can their populations not be hurt when spring comes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6q8bpr/eli5_how_if_most_insects_die_during_winter_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkvcoz6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"insects reproduce in huge amounts. one female usually capable of laying hundreds of eggs. when one of those eggs produces a female and it matures, it can do the same thing. so their populations start small, but after hitting a certain point they just explode.\n\nA good example is bed bugs, because ive just been dealing with that hell. For the first 50 days or so after a pregnant female shows up, you won't even know there's a problem because of how few there are. By the time day 100 rolls, you have thousands.\n\nSo its all about reaching that point that allows the population to explode, and a single pregnant female is enough to do it. they seem to suddenly burst out of nowhere in huge amounts, but really they just stay hidden as long as they are vulnerable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2e0886 | why have asian-americans flourished, while african-americans remain under-educated & impoverished? both were slaves here at one point, and both were heavily discriminated against throughout us history. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e0886/eli5_why_have_asianamericans_flourished_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjusime",
"cjusjk8",
"cjuslfi",
"cjuslwm",
"cjuss8y",
"cjusszf",
"cjuszr4",
"cjut6xw",
"cjute7m",
"cjutlx2",
"cjutnas",
"cjutnvi",
"cjutqlu",
"cjutqxl",
"cjutt1d",
"cjutxt8",
"cjutza6",
"cjuu3kp",
"cjuu6ds",
"cjuuf24",
"cjuugws",
"cjuuhsc",
"cjuujpq",
"cjuukir",
"cjuumjc",
"cjuunpa",
"cjuuqgg",
"cjuuqxh",
"cjuuw4r",
"cjuuxco",
"cjuuxzi",
"cjuuy5v",
"cjuv2fi",
"cjuv2t0",
"cjuva2m",
"cjuvjnc",
"cjuvlbf",
"cjuvm98",
"cjuvq0w",
"cjuvueh",
"cjuvxt8",
"cjuvyw9",
"cjuw5cp",
"cjuw6qg",
"cjuwa7k",
"cjuwhhg",
"cjuwnxy",
"cjuwphw",
"cjux2pr",
"cjuyeiw",
"cjuyyos",
"cjwn02u"
],
"score": [
4,
315,
12,
10,
11,
18,
4,
32,
3,
6,
6,
8,
2,
79,
6,
2,
275,
51,
127,
2,
4,
62,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
6,
3,
4,
2,
15,
16,
10,
2,
2,
5,
8,
2,
2,
31,
2,
2,
6,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I would hazard to guess that it has a lot to do with cultural differences. Black people were vocal and actively promoted their equality, whilst Asians quietly stuck together. The first group were a target for the ruling whites, while the second flew under the radar. This allowed the Asians to accumulate things like wealth and educations, while African Americans were embroiled in a struggle that was weighted against them, and still is, to some degree.\n\n",
"i'd like to point out, not all asian americans flourished. the ones you are seeing in the top of the sciences and engineering sectors are the ones that immigrated out of China on highly competed positions to be foreign exchange students and workers. the ones you are seeing as flourishing are the new generation of asian immigrants. the \"old\" generation living in chinatowns and opening up restaurants and gift shops are IMO stagnant.\n\nit's also the same reason why \"all indian doctors are Patel's\" because those people are the creme de la creme that have made it out of their originating country.",
"I don't think asians were slaves like africans were slaves. \n\nAfrican americans were subjected to slavery, and sharecropping, and Jim Crow laws. They have more of a distrust of anything this country does to them.",
"My guess would it largely has to do with work ethic/motivation. Asian parents who came to the country with essentially nothing, started businesses, & worked for the primary purpose of providing opportunity for their children to succeed with whatever means they could. They push them to work harder in school, and really don't give them any other option but to perform at a top level or face discipline. Criticize them all you want for being over-baring, but its hard to deny that its been an effective way to overcome social & economic barriers. ",
"While it is true that asians that came here early met with slave like conditions... by enlarge they weren't actually slaves. Remember the Irish were treated in a simillar fashion. \nAfrican Americans came from actual slavery. Familly units were broken up routinely. They had no wealth whatsoever as they were property. The (mostly Chinese) Asian immigrants could actually amass wealth, and maintaine family and social relations. I'm not saying that any immigrants had it easy coming here, but comparing the Asian experience to the African experience (remember that most of the Asians that came here did so voluntarily) is a complete nonsequiter.",
"Asian immigrants are largely more recent while African communities tend to be a result of the much earlier slave trade. Being a slave put them vastly behind in resources and opportunities even after liberation, so they had fewer chances for advancement; the lack of wealth spans generations since they were unable to pass on opportunities or resources to their children. Breaking out of this cycle is possible, but difficult and requires some luck. \n\nMore recent immigrants (in both Asian and African groups) tend to be both self selected (legally immigrating to the US is expensive enough that only people with a reasonable chance at success try) and filtered (the US does not issue visas to everyone that asks), so they naturally have more resources and are in a better position to succeed.",
"I do not agree with most of the answers here. I think it has little to do with Africans having more \"primitive\" cultures vs the Asian countries. These replies are purely speculative and don't belong here.\n But while we are guessing at the answers, could it have something to do with the fact that the black slaves had their cultures completely dismantled and \"squashed\" out and have had to recover culturally whereas Asians were able to retain more of their traditions and culture? Maybe that's a small factor.",
"Asians seem to outperform everyone because: \nA) exchange students are the top in their class in asia (and/or wealthy). That's how they got accepted into the program to begin with. \nB) education and being successful is an extremely important cultural aspect in Asia, so children of immigrants put much more effort into their work than your average \"american\" student will because their parents impose that mind set on them.",
"A better example would be the Irish. About 500k were shipped to the Americas as slaves. They were less healthy and phyiscally strong then African slaves, and as a result were actually cheaper and treated worse.",
"Many Asian-Americans have very close knit family communities, and put a lot of pressure on their children to be successful. While a lot of African Americans have family problems and stuff. I know this can sound a bit stereotypical but it's part of the reason. Also, more Asians chose to came here and were sadly treated poorly, while a lot of Africans were sold off into slavery by other tribes and some were kidnapped etc. ",
"CTRL-F \"genetics\"... enjoy fireworks.",
"Cultural differences, mainly. The stereotypes of the math loving chinese kid and the basketball loving black kid aren't exactly made up from thin air. Education has long been heavily emphasised in asian communities, where education has been associated with \"whiteness\" in black communities and therefore seen as a negative. but don't take my word for it: _URL_0_",
"Black culture makes it cool to be a gangster, cool to not be educated, makes them think that the \"white man\" is keeping them down, and makes them slaves to food stamps, the welfare check, and Section 8 housing.\n\nBack when we had segregation, the black community had to make their own businesses, and actually be successful. Even though we had massive amounts of racism, the back people were actually more well off then, then are now. In the 50's the black communities had a lower crime rate than the white neighborhoods.\n\nMost Asian ethnicities on the other hand, have cultures that support each other.",
"The biggest problem with questions like these is that over the course of centuries, countless factors have amassed that contribute to the answer that can not be explained by a single post on reddit.",
"Asian Americans got to keep their culture. They immigrated to the US through choice.\n\nAfrican slaves obviously did not. They came to this country through violence and every attempt was made to eradicate their culture and break their spirit; it shouldn't be a surprise that it worked.\n",
"African immigrants actually have the highest level of academic achievement in the US, exceeding all immigrant groups and the US population in general. This is true of first and second generation black Americans as well. [Source](_URL_0_).\n\nThis group are more comparable to Asian-Americans because Asian-Americans are largely a recent immigrant group. According to the 2012 census there are 19 million Asian-Americans but in 1950 there were only 321,000.",
"Alright I'll give this a shot. I'm an Asian American, family coming here over 30 years ago as poor refugees after a civil war. I've interned and worked at various Asian American organizations in America and studied Asian American Studies in college. \n\n\nFirst, you are right in that you're making a broad generalization. Not all APIAs are in the situation you speak of. Same with Black Americans. In fact, the broad generalization of Asians being rich and smart is called the \"Asian American Model Minority Myth\". The stereotype paints a picture of smart, educated, assimilated, and rich Asians in America that have \"made it\" and suggests the Asian race doesn't need a hand out or help. It also suggests the question \"if Asians can do it, why can't Latinos/Blacks/Natives/West Virginians/Purple people do it too?\" This is a problem in that it's suggesting a few things. 1: Asians are inherently smart and that it's tied to race. 2: Overlooks the Asian Americans that struggle, especially groups that are refugees (Vietnamese, Cambodians, Lao, Hmong, Karen, etc.) 3: Suggests that other races aren't up to par as this \"model minority\" group.\n\n\nSecondly, understand that the APIA racial category in America is vastly diverse. This is an important factor. You have very rich, highly education APIAs, and also very poor ones that are on welfare. You have Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, Polynesians, Samoans, Thais, etc. \n\n\nThird, because of that diversity, you have different socio-economic levels within the racial category. And the reasons behind this, which you are asking, is vast. Some reasons are:\n\n\n* Socio-economic mobility in America is tied to the family or individual's socio-economic status in the old country. For example, many military officials, government officials, politicians, etc. from the former S. Vietnam fled here from their country to escape persecution. These are families that were exposed to many things that would help any family in upward mobility, namely, some English skills, standardized education (some even had P.hDs from France or the US), and money. Compare that to a super poor, illiterate farm family fleeing the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and you have two vastly different families that will develop differently in the States. \n\n\n* US immigration policy has always been hard for Asians. The Chinese exclusion act of 188X (on my phone, forgot) was the first (and maybe only?) US law excluding a specific race from immigrating to the US. So for the longest time, until about the 1960s, Asian immigration was capped. This is somewhat important in that this is why the APIA population is small (3.4% of the population).\n\n\n* Some Asian Americans have been here for a very, very long time and have been able to acquire more and more in each generation. The Japanese are an example of this. They mainly came over 100 years ago. As generations are born in the states, they assimilate and take on more opportunities. During WWII, Japanese American men comprised of several military units that fought valiantly in Europe. They then came back, went to school, and became successful. Daniel Inouye is a good example of this. There are dozens of Japanese American politicians who are 3-4th generation. They're success lies in the fact that their families have been established in America for generations. Vice versa may apply. If your family is poor, there a chance your kids will be poor, and being poor may continue for generations. \n\n\n* As another posted suggested, rich Asians come here and succeed in numbers that rival Asian Americans. My University had a huge ass Korean and Chinese international student population. They made up 50% or so of the \"Asian\" student population. These guys were filthy fuckin rich. I saw one drive around in a Mercedes SUV that had diplomatic plates. Often, Americans can't tell them from Asian Americans and assume we're all the same.\n\n\nThere's other stuff. I'm on my phone and I'm tired of typing. I don't think I specifically answered your questions, since I'm not knowledgable on African American Studies, but I tried giving my insight. ",
"I was a student of John McWhorter @ UCB, who studied this very problem. His research concluded that it very much was cultural, and that victimhood and the romanticization of ghetto culture measurably hurt the performance of black youth in schools. As if to prove his point, he presented at a black community townhouse, and was very vocally condemned for daring to ask them to stop the obsession with reparations, discrimination, etc. and focus on self-improvement. He wasn't denying all that, he was just pointing out that type of thinking is what perpetuated poverty. Very sad. ",
"This is something referred to as \"model minority\" status, and it has a lot to do with how whites interact with the different cultures.\n\nYou may recall the \"#CancelColbert\" debacle on Twitter several months back. In all the hullaballoo, the thing that was forgotten and overlooked is that it is, quite often, considered significantly more socially acceptable to mock Asians. Think of the little-dicked stereotype running around the \"Hangover\" movies. Think of how \"How I Met Your Mother\" did an entire episode wearing yellowface, thirty years after we caught on to blackface being a terrible idea. Think of all the \"ching-chong-ping-pong\" talk that people feel perfectly okay engaging in.\n\nWhites treat Asians like a favored pet while not giving them true racial equality- we let them have this perverse sort of \"almost-as-good-as-white\" status, and pat them on the back for their good behavior, when what we're really doing is using them as a club to beat on other minorities.\n\nIt's no coincidence that the term \"model minority\" was coined in the mid-60s, just when black Americans were coming to terms with their ill-treatment and were finally angry enough to do something about it. The asians were quiet, they kept their heads down, they never complained about their ill-treatment or the jokes we make at their expense. They never point out that not all of them are good at math, or that not all of them know how to use chopsticks. They suffer these indignities silently... and they never go away or get any better. When someone points it out we treat them like a buzzkill.\n\nWe use asian-americans as a truncheon to abuse blacks and hispanics who aren't willing to settle for that kind of second-class status. We point to the asians and say that if they'd simply focus on individual achievement then there'd be no problem, that there's no reason to get so angry.\n\nBut no matter how successful a black man is, he'll always be seen as a black man first. He could be a millionaire, a businessman, an athlete, and he could sill be viewed as a thug and shot by the first cop that doesn't know who he is.\n\nAsians have to endure the stereotype of being quiet and deferential, which is certainly safer when you're dealing with the cops, but it's no less small-minded, racist, and untrue.",
"gosh, i can't think of any non-racist sounding explanations.\n",
"The basic fact is you are looking at history in the wrong way. Asian Americans and black Americans have faced vastly different circumstances in society and to attempt in any way to compare the two groups' position in society as they not only have different historical experiences but also deal with different types of present day discrimination and stereotyping. \n\nIf you want to look at a simple reason why there seems to be such an economic disparity between the two groups is to simply look at their origins. The vast majority of black Americans in the US were brought over with the slave trade to work in plantations and did so until the Civil War. Following the Civil War however, the majority of the black population was essentially partially re-subjected to work as sharecroppers and other unequal economic arrangements in the South while those in the North faced systematic workplace discrimination. It wasn't until the 1970s/80s that black Americans had a decent chance at competing in the workplace, and even now they still face institutional disadvantages. \n\nThe vast majority of Asian Americans however were never \"slaves\". While many did face disadvantages in the US, the underwent voluntary immigration and because of that they general had some sort of source of financial support that they could use to start a business, work within the local immigrant community, or something along those lines. The average Asian immigrant who arrived on the shores of America was already vastly more well off than the average African slave who did the same. As a result over time Asians who have voluntarily immigrated have been able to build a a broader base of wealth, allowing them to send their children to better schools etc. \n\nAs a result, the disadvantages of minorities manifest themselves in different ways, while black Americans may be more likely to be in poverty or involved in crime, Asian Americans deal with issues like having the [lowest per capita rates of achieving managerial promotion](_URL_0_). ",
"The culture feeds on itself. Back then, African Americans could not go to school or they could only go to shitty all-black schools, so you ended up with culture that is built by a group of really poor, uneducated people. It is hard to succeed if you are born into this culture. Whites born in a trailer park have a hard time advancing in society too.\n\nMost Asian Americans immigrated to the U.S. at a later time when minorities were more accepted. And there is also a selection bias where only the Asians that are willing to abandon their old life to seek a new one are probably ones that are most willing to take risk and work hard. Lazy people would not attempt a change so drastic. That work ethic gets passed onto their children.\n\nThis same effect can be seen in African immigrants today, although most people have not realized it yet. African immigrants are pretty much performing at the same level as Asians in terms of academics (in stuff like percentage of that will get a college degree or graduate degree, etc). African immigrants typically do not identify with African American culture and they have their own communities, but they have largely gone under the radar. Again, there is a selection bias in the types of Africans that would immigrate to the U.S., and those that do raise their kids in a culture where education is very important. Wikipedia has some more information on this group: _URL_0_",
"Asians were never slaves i the U.S.\n\nAsians generally are self-selected immigrants and such people generally do better. West Indian Blacks who move to the U.S. do very well.\n\nThere is long term deep wide spread pervasive institutional racism against Blacks. Asians experience no such thing.\n",
"Asians were not slaves. They weren't bought and sold and their offspring were not sold either. That being said, the culture of responsibility in the average Asian family is better so they flourish. The value of education, improvement and family harmony are better exhibited by the Asians. Partly the black community is responsible for its own problems. Don't hear \"Hey chink\" coming from too many Asians. ",
"segregation, separate but equal and things like that made sure blacks were kept downtrodden and weren't given the same opportunities as the other races for centuries. there's only so much initiative you could show before getting disappointed and giving up. all these made it such that you didn't even have role models of your own race to look up to. \n\nand racism is very different from other classist discrimination in that you can do it on people's appearances. that made social mobility very difficult.\n\ntheir society, aspirations, and family structures have been systematically dismantled. it's going to take a while to get them back on a level footing. ",
"Its also worth noting that among the successful Asians, and I use that phrase very loosely, a disproportionate amount are of the lightskinned variety. You know, the big three, Japan China Korea. A lot of the poorer Asians are often from, say, Vietnam or Cambodia, and have roots to refugees from their respective wars.\n\nI think there's a huge disparity between not necessarily races (though there definitely is a disgusting amount!) But between those who had the luxury of choosing to be here (immigrants chosen for wealth, academics, other utility) versus forced (fleeing war, slavery, etc).\n\nThe ones who chose to come here had a much better starting advantage and probably it was easier to start the snowballing of their wealth. The ones who were forced, well, they didn't have much to begin with and unless you can get to a critical mass of opportunity and success, it's really hard to climb out of that hole. And it's not like there's all that much out there to help you really get out of it if you're one of those kids. There's enough to get the far right of the bell curve a chance and enough to complain that poor people don't seize their opportunities and are lazy, when in fact there's just simply not enough of anything to go around. And when that's the case, those poor people forced to be here are the ones that get shafted first.\n\nObviously this isn't true for everything or anywhere near an absolute truth, nor does it even closely account for every factor, so add two dashes of salt.",
"Couple of responses are really good here. EDIT: HOLYSHIT! I posted this before reading some of the other responses. Good lord.. I believe wiki has the correct answer and I've posted it here.\n \nYes, the high achieving Asian immigrants (I'm Indian does that count?) mostly often enter the country via higher education programs in STEM. essentially, smart folks from India/China/Korea where ever else come to the US and thrive. No surprises there. They make up the so called the Model Minority category\n\nHowever, here is a piece of information that is mostly overlooked. African immigrants are basically in the same category. Immigrants from Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya etc. come to the US is basically the same route as Indians or Chinese people and end up doing just as well as them. America as a society seems to designate all people of any amount of african decent with the blanket term 'African American'. \n\nHere is an excerpt from Wiki:\nAfrican immigrants to the U.S. are among the most educated groups in the United States. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is more than double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans.[15] According to the 2000 Census, the rate of college diploma acquisition is highest among Egyptian Americans at 59.7 percent, followed closely by Nigerian Americans at 58.6 percent.[16][17]\n\n\nAs a point of fact, Wiki seems to be actually calling out an \"Invisible\" model minority with regards to African immigrants. That should answer your question most comprehensively \n_URL_0_\n\nTL;DR: The Africans are doing just as awesome as the \"asians\" you just dont see it.\n",
"Another recent example is with Hispanics in the US. The only thing I've ever been able to really break it down to, in very simple terms, is Asians and Hispanics have either strong work ethics or a strong will to overcome adversity. While there are decades old socio-economic reasons why all these groups have been repressed, I see much better family structures in Asian and Hispanic communities that you don't find as often in black communities. Having a strong support group at home has a huge impact on your future opportunities.\n\nFurther, I would argue, stereotypes hold truth (though not always applicable in individual instances) as Asians seem to pride themselves on educational excellence and drive while Hispanics as hard workers. There are no positive stereotypes for African Americans, yet many negative.\n\nWhen you see on TV riots in Ferguson and LA or look at areas like Detroit and parts of Chicago, you don't see Asians or Whites or Hispanics, you see African Americans (mostly) and this further separates them from the rest of us and further reinforces the negative stereotypes about their communities. Looked at this way, where is the insentive to help these communities when they appear to not want to help themselves?\n\nOh, and Al Sharpton and Company. They've done everything they can for decades to prolong the race war between blacks and whites. When even the leaders of your community don't have your best interests at heart, how do you win?\n",
"The saddest thing about racism is that regardless of culture or location, people with darker skin are almost universally discriminated worse than those who are lighter.\n\nWhether it is northern Indians looking down on their darker southern counterparts, Chinese and their attitudes towards people from South East Asia, even to Africa itself where the animosity between darker skinned Hutus and the lighter Tutsis boiled into horrific genocide, colourism is not only prolific but identical in attitudes worldwide.\n\n_URL_0_",
"People always want to make this about some kind of magic cultural thing, but it has a lot to do with federal law. Legally immigrating to the U.S. is really difficult, and generally requires a lot in the way of resources, education, and drive (or else family connections.) The typical Asian-American's story involves coming to America recently (especially from 1965 on, when quotas were dramatically loosened on Asian immigration.) The average African-American's ancestors came to America as slaves, and gained freedom with no money.\n\nSpeaking of federal law: Housing policy made it virtually impossible for many African-Americans to obtain home loans, thus frequently confining them to renting at high prices in inner cities. Asian-Americans were able to buy homes in the suburbs. Guess who got hit harder by urban decay and crime.\n\nProving the point, recent African immigrants have dramatically higher educational attainment than native white Americans, comparable to Asian-Americans.\n\nTL;DR: Immigrants are not a representative slice of anything, and most Asians came to America late enough to have a better chance.",
"Dont forget jews, and irish, and to a lesser extent italians and germans and indians, they were all disadvantaged too. Its mostly just blacks among minorities that cant make it.",
"I'm speaking purely anecdotally here, but my parents immigrated from India in the mid-80s. My dad had maybe twenty dollars to his name and had to work several oddjobs: pumping gas, used car sales, and yes, liquor store managing. I grew up knowing my dad worked most of the time just to support us.\n\nMy sister and I were born here in California and raised with the understanding that we *must* succeed in school so we won't struggle financially like our parents did. They immigrated not to better their own lives, but to provide better lives for future generations. I have opportunities my parents couldn't imagine, so I have to take advantage of that by not squandering the education that they worked so hard to fund. They paid for my tuition so I don't have to worry about whether or not I can afford to graduate; I couldn't afford *not to*.\n\nMy parents' view of success is that they can provide for their children, who are expected to surpass them. My entire family, and almost every Indian-American family we know, operates this way. This may be why education and career are so emphasized to us, and why our parents are seen as pushy and overbearing to outsiders (and even to those of is raised in this culture).",
"1. Because you're generalizing. \n\n2. Because you are comparing American slavery of Asians to American slavery of Africans -- which is ridiculous. \n\n3. You may not know this but black people we're whipped for being able to read -- for centuries in america. \n\nYou may want to consider the culture of the Africans who willingly came to America.\n\n",
"I believe this has a lot to do with their family/culture. I have one black friend whose parents immigrated to the United States from Nigeria in Africa. He is studying medicine in college right now and he is pretty smart and well behaved. I don't know his family too well but from what I can tell they're doing as well as any white family I know. Their parents are together and their children are hard working members of society. They put a lot of priority on his education and he is on his way towards success because of it.\n\nHowever there is another black friend I know whose family has been in America for a really long time(probably been here since slavery). His father ditched him when his mom was pregnant and he can be pretty ignorant and violent at times. He got this one girl pregnant and immediately ditched her as well and now she's raising a child by herself.\n\nMy first friend grew up with a supportive family that raised him right and put a lot of effort towards his education. He turned out alright but my second friend grew up with an absent father and his mother struggled to raise him but she did the best she could. I'd argue that the reason why Asian-Americans are doing better than African-Americans is that Asian-American families tend to put a lot of value on family unity and education while a lot of African-Americans don't. The difference can be seen in African immigrants who tend to do much better than African-Americans.\n\nI have another friend who is an elementary school teacher and she tells me that her Asian students tend to do better than her black students due to the fact that the Asian parents put a lot of effort into teaching their children how to read and do math and other things when at home while most of her black students have parents that do not try to get their children to study at home and expect the school system to take care of everything and because of that these 4th graders are reading at a 2nd grade level and such.\n\nNow why African-American families tend to not be unified? I don't know the real answer to that. It may be the war on drugs putting their fathers in prison starting a cycle of absent fathers or it may be something else. However there is a significant difference between African-American families and families of African immigrants.",
"The ELI5 answer is that cultures that emphasize education are always more productive and involved in their civic communities. ie better off.\n\nThe long answer would take a few Ph.Ds to understand.",
"ARE. The word you are looking for is ARE.",
"\"Because black people are actively and consciously inferior to Asian people.\" - every top post in this thread. \n\nThis might be the most vile thread I've read in a long time. It's beyond just offensive, it's actively dangerous. People are going to believe this shit. Vote based on this ignorance. I'm so depressed. I feel so sorry for all the minorities who have to suffer because these stereotypes are believed to be ontologically true. ",
"This is a complicated question. I'll give a high level answer and provide a couple of examples that have been shared with me when I asked this question:\n\nThe are institutional factors that have to do with discrimination in housing and the way some of the drug laws have been set up. For housing you can use [Chicago](_URL_1_) as an example. Housing and real estate are one of the main ways which generational wealth is accumulated. Without fair housing it's very difficult to move out of poverty because school funding is tied to property taxes etc. This housing discrimination is also a huge factor, because it prevents people from mixing/interacting together which perpetuates stereotypes etc. Another factor is the war on drugs for example look at the penalties for crack vs coke (crack is the mostly black coke is mostly white) they are essentially the same drug but one carries a much steeper penalty.\n\nEconomically, and I feel an under reported factor, is that for the first 245 (1620-1865) years of america white people were able to generate wealth off the back of free labor and were able to claim land for themselves. If you think about this for a second, and look at america as a startup, from the predevelopment phase to almost 100 years after launch america had free labor that literally got no return on their investment and no equity on the upside while the \"employers\" were able to bring in revenue generated by slaves via infrastructure development, production etc and invest that money elsewhere. Not to mention that people were living in conditions that we would consider unacceptable for animals. People were actively prevented from reading books acquiring knowledge etc... Think how happy you would be today if your dog tried to pick up a book and read black people were considered worse than that!\n\nThen in the period after slavery black people didn't have equal rights with white people until the year 1968 (think about that for a bit from 1856 to 1968 only 46 years ago black people weren't considered equal to white people). So essentially black people have only been considered equal to white people for only 20% of the time the US has officially been around (1776 slavery started around 1620). Prior to that they were considered property (aka animals) for 250 years and for a 100 years they were considered below whites etc. So for only 50 out of 450 years have black people in america had the same rights as white people.\n\nThere is also a lot of research now on what slavery actually did to black peoples concept of what a family is and made familial bonds a lot weaker as people for 250 years would be sold and families ripped apart.\n\nThere is also a lot of research now on whether or not humans are naturally inclined to treat people with darker skin worse (especially in times of economic hardship) and it's showing that there may be some natural bias involved. [A study showed that hard times could make people more racist](_URL_0_)\n\nAdditionally as some other people have pointed out there are problems within the black community of people being focused on street life etc. This to me comes from a lack of exposure and could be fixed simply if we ensured that all schools had the same level of funding, redistricting of schools and getting rid of gerrymandering.\n\nLastly my personal opinion is that the explosion of media has been hugely negative to african americans because until recently most of the images you see of african americans are in very confined roles etc so the images that everyone sees are of them mostly as drug dealers rappers etc which then reinforces and perpetuates these stereotypes (just my thoughts on the matter, again not trying to make excuses, but trying to give some background).\n\n**tl:dr Black people have only been considered equal to whites in the US for the last 46 years which is only 11% of the time they have been in america. Additionally there were some questionable and intentionally harmful policies that have prevented them from advancing in the 5 decades**",
"I'd like to point out that \"Asian-American\" is a huge umbrella term that includes peoples of South Asian, Southeast Asian, Pacific Islands and East Asian origin. Many ethnic communities within the Asian-American and Pacific Islander category are also impoverished and under-educated. In fact, [the Asian-American and Pacific Islander communities are the fastest growing poverty populations in the United States since the recession.](_URL_0_)",
"**TL;DR: duty + persistence + honor + self sacrifice = gain**\n\nAs a ethnically-Japanese American, descended from totally uneducated plantation workers in early-1900's Hawaii, I have something to add. To give you an idea, my mom was born and raised in a village in 1930's Hawaii with no running water, and from a family that eeked out a living in the dirt. If you want to see the type of lifestyle in a decent-stylized movie then rent [Picture Bride](_URL_2_).\n\nI know that each sub-culture group has its own way of dealing with oppression, deep pain, loss, and injustice; we also tend to turn our struggles into heroics. I'm most familiar with it as [gaman](_URL_0_) which was an ever-present concept in my family's culture. It's the idea that you will withstand any and all pain with dignity and forward movement in your *family's* life (Note: not just your own selfish life).\n\nGaman is summed up by my great-grandmother's often-used statement \"There's nothing else to be done\" as she returned to her virtually slave-like existence while working in the fields during the day and then taking care of 8 kids+husband at night. The extreme persistence has even been showcased in popular culture by the [442nd regiment in WWII](_URL_1_).\n\nThere's also something else in our culture which is a whole-hearted and selfless attitude for the next person in line. In modern Jap culture, it comes across as extreme politeness. Not to say that it doesn't mask a huge wealth of poor or perverted behavior though. Also, if you aren't willing to give stuff up for the family then you can be an outcast.\n\nMy great-grandmother worked like a dog so her daughters/sons could have families and farm land of their own. That was her goal and she made sure everyone knew it.\n\nMy grandmother and her siblings made it known that their goal was to do whatever it took to get their kids to college.... and they did it. They worked as janitors, lived like peasants, and eventually sent their kids to the big city Honolulu to go to school. I am sure that my grandparents didn't understand what 'education' was but knew that all of the plantation managers and politicians went to college.\n\nMy mom graduated from nursing school in 1961; in fact all 5 kids went to college. And when she raised me, one day, she told me that she was 'giving all her hope to me'. She actually used those words when I was 15 or so. She told me it was my responsibility to live not for myself but for the family and community. It is a little frowned-on in my family to just 'go for the money' in a career. And, yes, a few in the family or not well-off but I think they are decently happy.\n\n**Regarding regret, injustice, and calls for justice from past transgressions:**\n\nI can't think of any one subject of injustice that my family has kept alive in day-to-day conversation. It's not that they forgive the WWII internment acts.... it's more that there was nothing to be done now about it so 'let it go'. When I hear other non-Asian families talking about stuff from the far past (generations ago), I respectfully listen but the anger I hear in their words doesn't resonate with me as much as I wonder if it should. Am I not empathetic? Am I just not understanding the depth of their injuries? In my family we don't really talk about the deepest pains and tend to spare the younger generations much of the details. Probably seems dysfunctional but as my g-grandomother said \"There's nothing else to be done...\"... so move on.",
"It's a culture problem. But you can't say that. People assume culture = race, so if you call out a culture problem, you're a racist. You can't even call out behavior of black people. Even if you call a white and black person out for the same problem, you'll be accused of being a racist for doing so to the black person when their skin color has nothing to do with the behavior you're calling out.\n\nSelf-victimization and refusal to take any criticism without turning it into the race card means that you don't grow from the criticisms of others. It's a lot like how you can't debate a creationist because they will say all your evidence is BS. Insert the requisite \"not all black people...\" here, but that's not the issue. The problem is that there are certain cultural sensibilities that are the *rule* rather than the *exception*.\n\nMy wife and I both worked in a 90% black school for quite some time. Trying hard at anything but sports was practically disallowed in the community. Black kids are ostracized by their piers and community for trying too hard. If you're making effort, you are \"acting white\" and that's not acceptable. I saw so many poor, black kids try to rise above it and absolutely get demolished socially by their community because it simply wasn't acceptable.\n\nEven black faculty, most of which had graduated from that school and were returning to make a difference were demonized by some parts of the community for being \"uppity.\" This isn't white people talking about black people. This is black people talking about black people. They complain about how those people were just trying to act like their were better with their \"fancy college degrees.\"\n\nMy wife now works at a mostly white, affluent school. This is a school where literally someone came to town yesterday and asked to speak to the principal. \"I've done my research and this is the best school in the area. Where do I have to live to put my kids in this school.\" The school also got their standardized test grades yesterday. Black kids 56% passing in science. Asian kids... 100%. White kids.... 95%. Even among the socioeconomically disadvantaged, the scores were 76%. Literally, poor white kids did better than not poor black kids. BTW... the Asian population at the school was significantly higher than the black population and still 100% where the black kids couldn't cut it.\n\nWe looked at the scores at my wife's previous school. This is a school with like 5% white kids. You'd think that if the school is so atrocious overall, that the white kids wouldn't be able to do well in a school that is mostly black and has an overall passing rate of 46%. Wrong. White kids had an 84% passing rate in a 90% black school where the black passing rate was 37%. Once again, the < 1% Asian... 100%. And this is a school that was 95% socioeconomically disadvantaged. The white kids are poorer than the black kids. Basically there was a white flight several years ago and the only white people left in that town are very poor. Yet they still more than doubled the passing rate per capita of the black kids.\n\nSo sometimes it's not just poverty. There are just social attitudes toward education in the black communities. Parents are way less involved and many are actively mistrustful of teachers in general and white teachers in specific. In the 90% black school, the biggest problem was racism... black against Latino. Don't even get me started on how hateful black parents were to Latino faculty.\n\nBut once again, you can't criticize behaviors and attitudes because that will get you labeled a racist. Reddit is the worst about this. If you have a problem with something stereotypically black, you're a racist. If you think anything is stereotypically black, you're a racist. I just wish we could have a conversation about behavior and culture without people pulling the race card.\n\nNot all cultures are equally valid. It's not a popular opinion, but it's true. For example, if you think cutting of women's clits is acceptable and an important part of your culture, I don't think that's okay. Sure, that's an extreme example, but people like to bask in the PC idea that all cultures are equally valid. They aren't. And if part of your culture causes you to be willfully ignorant and anti-education... I don't think that's okay. And black people are far from the only cultural group that I see with those stances. People have those ideas for different reasons (I'm thinking, old, white, religious, conservative people).\n\nSure, poverty may exacerbate the situation, but I think the root cause is due to culture and the fact that you can't call a spade a spade without being labeled a racist. If you can't criticize bad decisions and behavior, then the group making them and doing them are never going to be held to account. If you think you have the answers, you don't try to look for them any more. If you're answer is \"white oppression\" and never \"anti-intellectual culture\" you'll never try to fix it.\n\nIf you want to see more people make the conclusion about culture, \"acting white\" and the uproar it causes, look into the work of Nigerian-American anthropologist John Ogbu. People wanted to know why there was a disparity, he moved in and basically lived with people to look deeply into it. When his conclusion blamed the black families rather than the white teachers, they refused to accept it or make changes.\n\nSadly, I've had good friends who are victims of this mentality. Thy are so ostracized for acting white. They basically have to choose to abandon their black community to \"act white\" in a world where there are *real* racists who legitimately will judge them purely on the color of their skin. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't and it sucks. \n\n\nNOTE: I live in the south. Race issues, by all accounts, are quite different down here. Just because you've never seen the types of race issues I've seen doesn't mean they don't exist or that I'm being hyperbolic. It probably just means you have less perspective as a result of either knowing relatively few black people, large black communities, or your self-selected exposure has you only dealing with the outliers. I've just seen way too many incredulous posters on reddit who simply can't accept that it can be as bad as what I've seen most of my life.\n\nTL;DR - Because large swaths of black culture are unwilling to examine their own behavior and instead want to blame the system. Meanwhile, they tear down black people who try to achieve for \"acting white\"\n\nEDIT: Also, the answers that will be most upvoted are the \"acceptable\" answers. The ones that tell us we can't making any speculation because that would be overgeneralizing. The ones that only mention the outlying examples and try to be as politically correct as possible. Nobody wants to address the problem because they are either gunshy or have just been trained to never address the issue due to PCness.\n",
"There are a lot of successful black folks... whove fled the hood and assimilated in american society...\n\nThe hood is a lose lose scenario. you can think of the hood as a separte country with its own economics dialects etc... \n\nSo while other minorities have fled their countries n attained the american dream... you can think of those born into the hood as not ever leaving their \"country\" to begin with... they are like foreigners in their own country... and getting out is slim...\n",
"All the top comments have said \"Well basically we're not as great as you think\" or \"there's still a lot of discrimination and people on welfare\" or \"it wasn't always so great\", but that wasn't the question. The question was why aren't Asians and Asian Americans treated or regarded in a similar way as black people *today*?",
"If you want truth you've come to the wrong place to ask this question. If you have a gut feeling based on common sense, maybe just go with it? The top comment here is some nonsense about the best and brightest Asians being the ones to emigrate to America. This is patently false. Most of them were very very poor, so poor that poverty in America is like Club Med by comparison. Many were fleeing death and oppression in their home countries, such as Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s and 1980s. Rich Chinese weren't coming here to work on the railroad or in the factories, they were poor, and after a generation they became business owners and doctors.\n\nII've been living in Vietnam the past few years. I see kids who barely have enough food to eat go to school/work all day/night 6 days a week, and on Sunday they may be studying English or helping their parents. The sacrifices they will make to have a shot to learn English and improve their lot in life from $50 a month in salary to $100 put Americans to shame. There was a kid outside my apartment sleeping on the sidewalk under a mosquito net on a dirty busy street with a huge bushel of fruit he was trying to unload all day every day for about a week. That's dedication. You think poor black kids in America will do that? You really believe the reason they don't is because the white man is holding them down?\n\nRacial groups in America are where they are because of the culture and heritage they choose to embrace. While this Vietnamese kid sleeps on the sidewalk, works all day, and dreams of the chance to get U.S. citizenship and get a whopping 7 bucks an hour working 3 jobs at Walmart Costco and Target, a lot of poor people in America study hip hop, hate school, smoke weed all day every day until they hold a conversation like a tree stump, embrace gangsta life, and don't give a damn about improving their lot in life unless it involves hustling. They get to learn English for free and they don't even want to. You want to see a black man who went on the great things from a very poor background with close ties to slavery, look up Clarence Thomas. Read his life story from the time he was a child. If this was more typical of black culture in America, you'd see many, many more successful black people than you do.\n\nThis is the truth, I think it's pretty ELI5, but it's also going to upset people here and get downvoted to oblivion because it doesn't match the politically correct victim mentality Reddit party line, and it doesn't match the propaganda being pushed in schools/universities/movies/media. You'll have about as much success getting this truth out as you would getting Americans to accept Communists in the 50's or Rooskies in the 80s. Look at the schools and the shit Americans are fed from generation to generation and you'll be able to figure out a lot of truth for yourself about the world. Every generation thinks they are the ones that finally know the truth, they are the ones that finally aren't being herded like sheep by their schools and their \"news\" and their TV. If you find a lot of people agreeing with you, chances are you are doing exactly what the powers that be expect you to. You are the McCarthy of today, except you think you love people instead of hating people.\n\nHere's a TLDR: Stereotypes and common sense have a better chance of being true than the long-winded feel good social activist garbage people will use to explain these amazing tried and true coincidences. Until people face the truth, they aren't going anywhere. If you're going to spread bullshit, you can do better than \"it's because all the rich and smart Asian people come to America while all the rest stay in Asia.\" When you make upa bullshit excuse for a real problem, that problem doesn't get solved, and you're actually hurting people more than helping.",
"Well so we're Irish Americans. Th eyes lived in the same houses as African American slaves. Why African American names sound Irish. ",
"Two points to consider...\n\n1) African immigrants [do just as well](_URL_0_) in America as most immigrants populations do. Most African American were not immigrants, in the traditional sense. In fact, the two demographics that have the worst economic stats in America are: African Americans and American Indians. Interestingly enough, the vast majority in these two groups did not choose to be part of a capitalistic society.\n\n2) Asian American are [6-7 years older](_URL_1_) than Black Americans when they have their kids...this is of major consequence, one that is not discussed enough.",
"Value systems. The fact is, you can take a randomly chosen school from the worst part of Detroit or Chicago, take out all those black kids, and replace them with a randomly picked bunch of Japanese school kids, and viola! best performing school in the district. You can't address a problem that you don't acknowledge, and we don't help by talking about how they've been held back. We all face obstacles, socio/economic, but the only one who can overcome my problems is me.",
"Everyone is talking about different countries on different continents. OP is asking about Asian-Americans and African-Americans. What is the reason for the differences IN America. ",
"If you're reading this then you know why. You know you know why too. ",
"I'm a black male that grew up in the inner city Chicago, and moved to a better suburban area for high school.\n\nIn my experience parent(s) play a major role in the success of African Americans. If you have a strong parent(s) that to mold the child and instill values then that child will typically be successful.\n\nGangs are a major factor in the inner city for African American males. This is especially true if the only parent is female and has to work long hours, two jobs, or just isn't around to be a strong influence. In these areas, the choice is typically either to join these groups or constantly be ridiculed or bothered. A lot of times, these gangs sell themselves as family or seem to have a lot of money which will appealing.\n\nEven in situations where gangs, drugs, and violence are avoided there maybe an unfortunate station where someone on the right path is killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.\n\nIn addition to all of the factors stated above, it typically isn't the cool thing to be educated in African American community. I can't tell you how many times I was called college boy, or be told I was speaking white because I'm not using slang and trying to better myself. ",
"Read white liberals and black rednecks by Sowell. ",
"This is well predicted by [group differences in IQ](_URL_1_) and other standardized tests. Asians *on average* do slightly better than whites, who do better than blacks. It also turns out that the [same pattern holds for economic performance](_URL_0_). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyYG81MN8jE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/rethinking-the-achievement-gap-lessons-from-the-african-diaspora/2012/09/04/eebc5214-f362-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_blog.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_ceiling#Under_representation_of_Asian_Americans"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority#Invisible_Model_Minority:_Africans"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority#Invisible_Model_Minority:_Africans"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://time.com/2850595/race-economy/",
"http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/May-2014/The-Long-Shadow-of-Housing-Discrimination-in-Chicago/"
],
[
"http://nationalcapacd.org/spotlight-asian-american-and-pacific-islander-poverty-demographic-profile"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaman_\\(term\\)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_\\(United_States\\)",
"http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/picture_bride/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/black_immigrants_an_invisible.html",
"http://blacktistics.com/?p=503"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Group_differences"
]
] |
||
7jwfwi | how are cuttlefish so good at camouflage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7jwfwi/eli5_how_are_cuttlefish_so_good_at_camouflage/ | {
"a_id": [
"dr9pj0y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Cuttlefish have special cells in their skin that contain little sacs of dark pigments. They can squeeze these sacs down very small, so you can't see them and the cuttlefish appears white, or they can spread these sacs out flat, so the cuttlefish appears dark.\n\nWhat's really cool about cuttlefish is they can control, almost cell-by-cell, which cells appear white and which appear dark. By darkening some cells but keeping others white, they can make patterns across their bodies that let them camouflage themselves."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
11zyh8 | British Naval Forces in the 19-20th C | Specifically about Britain here but I know Britain had the largest navy by a long way by the end of the 19th Century, but I was wondering how large it actually was | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11zyh8/british_naval_forces_in_the_1920th_c/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6qzcr7",
"c6r1ahn",
"c6r1f1l"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Well, if you want to know in 1900, Google Books has something for you:\n\n[Jane's Fighting Ships (Cosmopolitan Naval Annual), 1900](_URL_0_). It's immediately contemporary. Granted, it will not have perfect information, what with a lot of things being under construction or even secret. So you'll need some other reference volume that is not necessarily free, and perhaps compile your own statistics, to gain perfect knowledge--but that's what naval aficionados and young militarists would consult at the time. Its information on foreign navies (non-British) was however prone to flubs because of their secrecy before Jane.\n\nAs far as British naval power itself, Paul Kennedy's *Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery* will give you the contours of the policies that animated the RN. Go there for the intellectual matter.",
"Not sure where you could find something similar for other world navies, but [here's a chart](_URL_0_) detailing the U.S. Navy's force levels from 1887 to the present.",
"The size of the fleet fluctuated, rising significantly during war time and shrinking during peace. It also varied significantly over the time period because of the change in technology. \n\nThe standard policy just before WWI was to maintain a fleet the size of the next 2 fleets combined. That started to become impractical. By the Washington Naval Treaty (1922) the U.S. fleet was limited to the same capital ship tonnage as the British but was still a bit smaller. During WWII the U.S. passed the British and never looked back.\n\n\nHere are some sources with numbers: \n\nNumber of British Ships of the line during the Napoleonic era (not Ships of the line are only the big ships not everything on the fleet).\n1808-09: 113\n1811: 107\n1813: 102\n1814: 99\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_ (see chart at bottom)\n\n\nIn 1939 they had the largest fleet: 15 large battleships, 15 heavy cruisers, 46 light cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 181 destroyers and 59 submarines.\n\nToday:\n_URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=C2RCxi8jZwYC"
],
[
"http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_naval_arms_race",
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8049674/Navy-to-reduce-to-smallest-size-ever-to-save-carriers.html",
"http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/navy.htm"
]
] |
|
8e7ni0 | [Medicine] What prevents limbs from always being re-attached? | I was watching a television program the other day. A woman was in a terrible car accident and her arms was basically ripped off. (barely hanging on at the shoulder.) They interviewed the doctor and asked if the they were going to attempt to re-attach the arm and he said he didn't know yet, they would have to see.
What factors might prevent re-attachment? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8e7ni0/medicine_what_prevents_limbs_from_always_being/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxugztg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Lots of factors weigh in when considering replantation. \n\nIt might be too late. Tissue/organs are viable only for a certain period after their blood supply is cut off. \nIt might be too damaged during injury for reattachment. \nDamage - even though it looks minimal - might have occurred to anatomically important regions, without which reconstruction might not be possible. \nParts might not have been adequately salvaged or preserved prior to surgery. \nTissue might have even been contaminated. \nPatient might have medical problems that could complicate the surgery and recovery. \nNot all centers have the specialized surgeons and tools to do these surgeries. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
11pspt | the concept of having multiple massive non-profits gunning for the same cause. what do they have against consolidating all their resources and possibly doing more together than they ever could separately? | The best known example I can think of is the Susan G Komen for the cure and AVON Breast Cancer foundations, who actually went to court against each other for the slogan "for the cure".
_URL_0_ and _URL_1_ are another two I can think of. And there are plenty more.
Even local non-profits. Do we really need a dozen different agencies in the same county catering to support services for foster youth? Why not merge into some kind of co-op to cut on administrative/overhead costs and better serve the clientele? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11pspt/eli5_the_concept_of_having_multiple_massive/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6ojlvc",
"c6okeeq",
"c6okhdl",
"c6okscj",
"c6ol7ln",
"c6orlag",
"c6ow5bn"
],
"score": [
8,
12,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of the time there is disagreement about exactly how to best serve the community. For example, some non-profits prefer to give money directly to the poor or researchers, while others want to focus on lobbying the government to change policies or give out more grants.",
"competition can make both sides work faster, and ideally they are taking different approaches to the problem. ",
"for another perspective, it might be because they are greedy and want their own money somehow.\n\nand I know you said non profits, but just because they manage to qualify as 'non-profit' doesn't mean they don't get *something* in return.",
"people like to have their own charity, it's a pride thing. and a tax thing.",
"the administrators and boards who might make the decision to merge also stand to lose their sense of power and maybe even their jobs in staff considilations.",
"Honestly, I think its because even in non-profits there are people sitting at the top with big salaries. I've often times had the same feeling as you because my own self has been involved with a charity (as a volunteer) that gets gamed by another charity that has almost an identical cause. For what I see it as, charities should be happy that there are other charities with similar missions because the ultimate goal should really just be helping the people in need -- not competing for which organization gets the credit. ",
"1. They often have slightly different missions...Catholic Charities and UNICEF both want to feed starving children, but they are going to disagree when it comes to population control.\n2. The people who run charities are professionals who do so to earn a living...they are not interested in making themselves obsolete.\n3. A lot of charities are linked to corporations, who are interested in the PR benefits as well as doing good work...merging with another charity loses out on the PR."
]
} | [] | [
"Water.org",
"waterislife.com"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ygvf5 | how can people be put under anesthesia for emergency surgery but for general surgery they say you will aspirate and die if you eat anything 24 hours prior to being put under? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ygvf5/eli5_how_can_people_be_put_under_anesthesia_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp9dhxh",
"cp9difa",
"cp9dl6c",
"cp9dt4m",
"cp9gcqo",
"cp9l9k4",
"cp9sgv7",
"cp9zjwp"
],
"score": [
454,
2,
27,
5,
9,
2,
9,
6
],
"text": [
"Aspiration is relatively rare, but given the damage it can cause, and that the only downside is that you miss a meal, people are warned not to eat before surgery. But if you need emergency surgery, well, you need emergency surgery. In that case, the benefits outweigh the increased risk of aspiration.",
"Anesthesia makes you sick, and if you vomit when not able to control yourself you will choke on it. Emergency situations don't remove the risk, they just outweigh it.",
"The risk is that you'll vomit, so if you know in advance that you'll be in surgery they ask you to not eat anything that day. (The odds that you'll die from the vomit are not tremendously high but it's a compelling reason to give to patients).\n\nIf you need emergency surgery then by definition they can't afford to wait for your stomach to empty. The risks from vomiting are less than the risk from delaying the operation.",
"Also as another way of reducing this risk they stuff a tube up (or down) your nose and vacuum out your stomach the whole time. So there isn't really anything to throw up. ",
"Sometimes emergency surgeries don't occur immediately either. When I had appendicitis, I got checked into the hospital on a Sunday around 7 pm and didn't have the surgery until 10 am, Monday. In some cases, they prefer to wait for a regularly scheduled surgeon to take care of a procedure instead of calling them in at 11 pm. And this also allowed me to fast for over 12 hours.",
"Emergency vs. elective surgery is risk vs. benefit. Emergency surgery, by definitlion, has to be performed. Elective surgery does not, and can wait for optimal conditions.",
"I was a former paramedic and current Army Reserve medic. When I intubate someone in an emergency situation, they usually vomit/aspirate food as we all eat pretty regularly. In scheduled surgery they like to take this factor out of the equation. ",
"It's never 24h without food for surgery. Generally speaking is 6h without solid food or 4h without a significant amount of liquids by mouth. There is new data to suggest it can be less time, i.e. liquids up to 2h before surgery. The above decreases the risk of aspiration and its an easy thing we can control. In emergency surgery i.e. trauma, its not something you can control and the option of waiting the above mentioned time limit isnt usually possible. In which case, anesthesia intubates using some tricks to minimize aspiration and then sticks down an NG tube to decompress the stomach."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cj1t11 | The 12 apostles. Are the names we have for them their real names? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cj1t11/the_12_apostles_are_the_names_we_have_for_them/ | {
"a_id": [
"evbip07"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"What do you mean by \"real names\"? Peter's name in Aramaic is rendered as כֵּיפָא (Kepha), in Greek as Πέτρος (Petros), in Latin as Petrus, etc (all having the rough meaning of \"rock\" or perhaps \"jewel\"). Ignoring translation, his original name was said to have been Simon/Simeon, until Jesus gave him the name Peter (Mark 3:16, etc)\n\nSome of the names differ between the Gospels, too. One is identified as Thaddaeus in Matthew, but as Judas ( \"not Iscariot\") in John, and as Jude in Luke. Bartholomew is identified as Bartholemew in every gospel except John, where he is Nathanael.\n\nThis isn't even to get into the debate about the historicity of the disciples themselves."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3l0w6i | Is there a strong case for arguing that Mallory and Irvine might have summited Mt. Everest in 1924? | .. Making them the first people to do so before the 1953 achievement of Hillary and Norgay. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l0w6i/is_there_a_strong_case_for_arguing_that_mallory/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv2bimq"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There is indeed a fairly strong case. Mallory's body was found a few years ago in a position and in a condition which people have suggested shows that he was on his descent. The last time that they were seen alive, they were very close to the summit and there's certainly no reason to think that they didn't reach it. This isn't a brilliant source, but it gives the basics quite well.\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://surviving-history.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/a-corpse-of-everest-deadly-final-hours.html"
]
] |
|
13tebk | If air is denser at colder temperatures, does that mean that fire burns better at lower temperatures? | If a flame has access to larger amounts of cold, dense air, wouldn't it burn better than if it was in a much warmer environment? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13tebk/if_air_is_denser_at_colder_temperatures_does_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7707p4",
"c772hl2",
"c772mqv"
],
"score": [
2,
24,
6
],
"text": [
"What is happening during burning: the oxygen molecules in air hit the burning material and react.\n\nBecause there is an energy barrier to such reaction, there is different ignite temperatures for different materials. \n\nAt higher temperature, the molecules of the burning material has a thermal energy which aids oxidation (i.e., both the probability of undergoing a reaction per collision, and the frequency of collision increases with temperature). \n\nCombining with the air density effect you talked about, I would speculate that there is an optimal burning temperature for different materials.",
"It would depend on the specifics of the flame, because there are two different factors at play. Denser air would provide more oxygen to the fuel, enabling the fuel to burn more quickly, but colder air would lower the temperature of the flame, reducing the average energy of collisions. There are definitely instances in which cooling the feed air is advantageous (the intercooler in a turbocharged IC engine, for example, as mentioned elsewhere).",
"You're not going to see extremely strong temperature effects within the range that humans would call hot or cold. In terms of weather, we generally think of -20C as freeze your nuts off cold and 35C as swelteringly hot. Represented in Kelvin scale you go from 253K to 308K which is only a 22% increase in air density given constant pressure. \n\nStill, 22% more oxygen is going to somewhat accelerate a flame. In comparison to combustion temperatures, 253K to 308K represent similar temperatures compared to the adiabatic flame temperature for wood at around 2200K so I don't think there will be a significant difference in reaching activation energy. Further away from the flame I think you could get stronger convection effects with the higher temperature differential between partially cooled gases and the ambient atmosphere. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
rzc2s | Does headphone use have an adverse affect on one's ability to hear? | I know that it is dependent on the volume of the headphones, but I am wondering if basic headphone use has a detrimental effect on hearing, assuming the volume is at a healthy level in itself (i.e. not looking for damage from the volume of the music playing). Do different types of headphones have different effects? Do the vibrations of the headphones have anything to do with this? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rzc2s/does_headphone_use_have_an_adverse_affect_on_ones/ | {
"a_id": [
"c49unuv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Hearing damage comes from exposure to loud sounds; the louder the sound, the less exposure is needed to cause damage. But that's not the whole story.\n\nThe problem with headphones is that they don't give you the 'bodily experience' that live music or even full-range loudspeakers provide: only your ears get the soundwaves but the rest of the body is not being subject to the air pressure variations of the soundwaves (mainly bass), so there's a tendency to play louder on headphones than one would play on a regular stereo.\n\nAnother point to keep in mind: even if you keep your headphones at an apparently 'safe' level, the detrimental effect depends on the overall time spent under that volume; so while one hour of listening at 94dB(A) is considered the limit of daily exposure before hearing damage may occur, if you listen to eight hours at 85dB(A) the same level of damage happens.\n\nA third point, and very important: our auditory system was not designed to be exposed to constant excitation round-the-clock, so even if you set the volume to a 'sedate' 76dB(A), if you spend the whole day with this kind of auditory stimuli you are bound on the long term to get stress, loss of attention, sleep disorders and other undesirable reactions of your body to this excessive input of sensory information. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1pjli7 | For how much longer will the North star be well aligned with Earth's rotational axis? | I know its not perfectly aligned at the moment, but its pretty damn close. I assume that as a stellar object it is moving relative to the Earth at some speed and, one day, it may be pretty useless as a guide of North. I'm just wondering what kind of order of magnitude that time period may be. How many years / millennia / eons has it already been well aligned? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1pjli7/for_how_much_longer_will_the_north_star_be_well/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd31r8g",
"cd320du",
"cd44a15"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, a much more major effect than the motions of stars is the [Earth's axial precession](_URL_0_), which causes the rotational axis to change over time - the article quotes a period of 26,000 years.\n\nAs for the proper motion of Polaris, it is currently 3/4 of a degree away from the pole. At its current rate of motion, it moves one degree every 78,000 years. However, it has been referred to as the \"pole star\" since it was 3 or 4 degrees away from the actual pole (due to precession), so that suggests that it would still be a good estimate for the pole star (on the occasions that the rotational axis aligns with it) for another 200,000 years or so. Even then, it's motion is not perpendicular to the path of the axial precession, so it may still be acceptably close to the rotational axis for even longer, due to it lining up with the rotational axis when that precesses to a different position on the sky than what it is today.",
"It depends how you define well aligned.\n\nRight now, Earth is pivoting like a top in a process called precession. It takes Earth 26,000 years to do a complete wobble. Which means a one degree shift takes 72 years. \n\n In Around 1000 years, Gamma Cephei will become the pole star. That doesn't mean the pole will point at Cephei, just that it will be closer to it than to Polaris.",
"I recently spent some time adding code to my own HTML5 astronomy app to reproduce (with some degree of success) the 'precession circle' diagrams I had noticed on Wikipedia and other places \n\ne.g. _URL_0_\n\nI took special notice that the predicted 'closest approach' of Polaris to the NCP (north celestial pole) is around February 2102. However, the precession rate is changing slightly so the closer we get the more accurate the equations can be worked out:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nAs has been stated, Polaris is currently 3/4 of a degree away from the NCP, but in 2102 it is will slightly less than 1/2 of a degree."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Changing_pole_stars"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Precession_S.gif",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star#Historical"
]
] |
|
ikeu7 | Do you get the same neurological benefits from listening as you do from reading? | I have been wondering this, and I couldn't find a good answer...
If you were to listen to a book read to you, would you get the same neurological benefits as reading the same text? Assuming it's not abridged or changed at all.
| askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ikeu7/do_you_get_the_same_neurological_benefits_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"c24gjyd",
"c24v9t0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What exactly are these neurological benefits that you're talking about?",
"So to answer your question... No.\n\nReading information goes from the optic nerve through a series of relay centers to the visual cortex. It then gets passed into a \"stream\" which is a series of areas from the visual cortex in the occipital region to the temporal lobe where much of word meaning, context, and synthax seems to be stored. These areas are connected in many ways to parts of the parietal and frontal lobes in addition to other areas of the temporal lobe. Thus we can take understanding and value from the words we read. Ultimately the areas seem to end up processing and synthesizing it all in the pre-frontal cortex and then get filed away in memory structures. As you can see, it's a whole brain workout!\n\nWhen we just hear something it goes from your ears to auditory relay stations and then through many of the same areas except everything in that \"stream\" we talked about. Instead it goes to Wernicke's area and then spreads to the rest of your brain in a very similar manner to the visual information.\n\nThe big difference seems to be that at every stop along the way, our brain makes tons of side connections in addition to the main path, so ultimately, visual stimuli of words is more likely to be retained, understood, and processed because it has so many more connections that reinforce it's meaning.\n\nCheers!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
65w4qj | why are male beauty pageants significantly less famous than women's such as miss universe? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65w4qj/eli5_why_are_male_beauty_pageants_significantly/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgdlyyx",
"dgdlzwk",
"dgdq6sy"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Warning: possible bro-science. Due to testosterone, men are more attracted to visuals. Women are attracted to emotions. Pageants are primarily a visual display, and men rather prefer to see women.",
"Across the human species, men are more visual in their attraction to mates than women are. Staring at a bunch of female hotties is something that appeals more strongly to a bunch of males than the other way around. \n",
"The cultural norm has been that women attract mates with their appearance, and men attract mates with they abilities.\n\nWe should note that beauty pageants have been in a serious decline in recent decades. Miss America used to be a must-see event, people would talk about it like they would the Academy Awards and the media would cover her throughout the year like she was royalty. These days it barely makes the news unless there is some controversy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5lkk0z | why do we need to tightly regulate blood ph. what are the physiological consequences of a low/high hydrogen ion concentration? | Is it merely osmolality change that causes the adverse consequences? And what are the adverse consequences? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lkk0z/eli5_why_do_we_need_to_tightly_regulate_blood_ph/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbwnuko"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"pH is tightly regulated due to its effect on denaturing proteins..... It's consequences are broad ranging from affecting the haem oxygen dissociation curve, the carriage of co2, the generation of super oxides in neutrophils etc.\n\nThe exact relationship between pH and concentration of h, however, is widely debated.\n\nYou can find out more on _URL_0_\n\nGreat site\nSource icu registrar"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"www.derangedphysiology.com"
]
] |
|
3ef042 | how did this guy only get convicted on 9 of 11 charges when they found all the bodies in his house? | I was reading this article( _URL_0_) from TIL and was curious how he didn't get convicted of all 11. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ef042/eli5_how_did_this_guy_only_get_convicted_on_9_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctebb05"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"he was convicted of 82 of the 84 total counts against him. he was convicted of all 11 counts of murder."
]
} | [] | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Sowell"
] | [
[]
] |
|
2i7gh3 | why is an ipad cheaper than an iphone? | I mean, it's basically just a huge iPhone with the only exception that you can't call, but that's no problem seeing as you can have a $20 phone for calling and a $470 iPad, and **STILL** be cheaper off than buying an $1000 iPhone.
So why is this?
edit: Well, in my country the most expensive iPhone without a contract is the iPhone 6 Plus with 128 GB storage space. It costs $1,253. The most expensive iPad is the iPad Air with 128 GB storage space, it costs $1,090. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i7gh3/eli5_why_is_an_ipad_cheaper_than_an_iphone/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckzk61m",
"ckzk9ld",
"ckzmy1f",
"ckzo6qi"
],
"score": [
17,
6,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"the smaller and lighter hardware in the phones is more expensive. battery is a good example",
"Because the iphone price is set as an incentive to get a contract/subsidized price. They don't really expect people to pay full retail but if they do, all the better. ",
"Two reasons. \n\n1) In the microelectronics industry, component cost is inversely proportional to size. The smaller and more integrated something is, the more expensive it is.\n\n2) Demand. More people want an Iphone than an Ipad, so Apple can successfully charge more for it. The Average Sales Price has little to do with the actual unit cost and much more to do with what someone is willing to pay for it. ",
"Capitalism. The price for your product is as much as people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay more for a phone than for a tablet, and therefore they can drive the prices higher.\n\nHowever, it's also true (and it's been said higher too) that miniaturization is expensive, and making efficient and tiny components for a phone is more expensive than the big components for a tablet. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3f76wf | what does nicotine do to your body to make you feel the way it does | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f76wf/eli5_what_does_nicotine_do_to_your_body_to_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctlxvvg",
"ctlyf4w"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"So nerves in your body are activates by chemicals binding to certain proteins called \"receptors\". There is an entire class of receptors called \"nicotinic\" receptors, named so because nicotine binds to these receptors. That is not to say that nicotine is used in your body to \"activate\" these receptors, it's just that nicotine binds to these receptors and causes its invariably complex effects.",
"I was always curious as to why I needed to poop after having a smoke. \n\nIt would appear that nicotine relaxes your muscles. My advice, smoke on the toilet "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7zct4j | Can the Reconquista be described as a genocide? | Would it be appropriate to term the Christian conquest of Iberia and the policies (the Inquisition for example) taken by the Spanish and Portuguese kingdoms during this time as genocide? I may be looking at this anachronistically but modern Spain has very few Muslim or Jewish people living in it at all whereas my understanding of Moorish Spain was that it had a fairly diverse population and it seems as though this difference in population demographics is the direct result of policies and actions that were undertaken with the intention of having exactly that effect.
The United Nations defines genocide in the following manner:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
_URL_0_ | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7zct4j/can_the_reconquista_be_described_as_a_genocide/ | {
"a_id": [
"dunmd6s",
"duodn9s"
],
"score": [
23,
2
],
"text": [
"The modern ethnic and religious makeup of Spain (and Portugal) has little to do with the Reconquista but rather with the events that happened once it was over. Those Jews who would not convert were expelled from Spain in 1492 and the Muslims were forced to convert in the early 1500s. For more details you may want to start with this [thread] (_URL_1_) where /u/drylaw talks on the events of 1492 and later and I give some earlier context.\n\nBut all of this happened once the Reconquista was over, in a period I don't really feel comfortable talking about as it's outside the scope of my studies. (Paging /u/Itsalrightwithme and linking to this [thread] (_URL_0_) for more details).\n\nNow, **during** the Reconquista things were pretty different from what you seem to imagine. Both Christian and Moorish kingdoms were fairly diverse, with Muslims and notably Jews occupying positions of high authority in Christian states, for example. To quote Francisco Márquez Villanueva, medieval Christian (and Muslim) polities in the peninsula exhibited 'a *de facto* tolerance that had nothing to do with the modern concept of liberalism, but rather with the practical necessity of group cooperation to avoid ethnic violence and chaos' [1].\n\nTo put things into context, here's a very brief outline of how the situation changed over time. A handful of Arabs and Berbers arriving into the peninsula in the early 700s had to deal with a large Christian and Jewish population that was allowed to continue practicing their religion in return for the payment of a special tax, the *jizya*, that was seen as the price of their status as *dhimmi*, protected minorities (majorities, really). Over the course of the next centuries there was a slow process of opportunistic conversion and acculturation that led to a sizeable part of the population converting to Islam and switching to Arabic. This was sped up, from the 1080s onward, by the arrival of the Almoravids and the Almohads, fanatical Islamic sects turned into warring empires, from Morocco and beyond. Who actually entered the peninsula in direct response to Christians finally starting to take over the divided Muslim polities. The arrival of the Almoravids caused, among other things, a mass exodus of Andalusi Jews into Christian kingdoms of the north and to Provence (and, incidentally, to the emergence of the medieval Kabbalah as we know it). \n\nNow the Christian kingdoms in the North were largely Muslim-free for the first few centuries until the Caliphate fell in the early 1000s and they could finally start their southward expansion. We are not exactly clear on the earlier stages of that expansion. There were, however, isolated incidents of mass violence like the slaughter of the local population at the capture of Barbastro in 1064, perpetrated by Aquitanian and Burgundian troops. But then again, we know about this exactly because it was an exceptional thing, done by outsiders, whereas Iberians on both sides of the religious divide were much more accommodating of each other, as often allying against common enemies of both faiths as fighting each other. (Note that we're talking about the times when the idea of crusades and religious warfare emerges in Christian Europe).\n\nHowever, in the 1080s, once Christian finally start taking over cities and large areas with a sizeable population that is mostly Muslim by that time, there are no mass killings or expulsions. Here's a lengthy [writeup] (_URL_2_) of the early stages of that process that I did earlier. If I may quote myself, rather than try and conquer by force, Christian rulers now negotiate surrender. And they have to make sure the local populace stays in place and continues to produce. So Muslims who were offered and accepted clemency and surrendered peacefully would become King's Moors (or Mudejars, as we call them now), a protected group who kept their Sharia law, institutions and the use of their Friday mosque (at least for the first year after the surrender). They were relocated outside of the capital cities, though, oftentimes settling in 'Saracene neighbourhoods' right outside the castle. Note that even if both Muslims and Jews lived in separate neighbourhoods, the *aljamas*, *juderías* or *morerías*, depending on the local usage, not everybody did so. We do know of people living among the Christian newcomers. \n\nAnyway, starting in the late 1000s, free Muslims were the bulk of the population in the Christian Iberian kingdoms. Some did emigrate to Muslim-ruled lands or converted over time, much like the Christian and Jewish minorities had done in Al Andalus. But most stayed Muslim (or Jewish). There was a wave of anti-Jewish pogroms that swept the peninsula in 1391 but all in all Jews enjoyed better conditions in Iberia that they did anywhere else in Christian Europe at the time. Reading late 1300s French sources at times gives you an idea in France they thought everyone in Iberia was a Jew anyway, slimy pests who only come to Paris to steal things from decent Christian folks. \n\nAnyway, for several centuries until the Reconquista was finally over in 1492 Christian kingdoms in the peninsula had sizeable Muslim and Jewish population. As Villanueva puts it, whereas the rest of Western Europe saw itself as a society divided into three orders or *estates* (those who fight, those who pray and those who do all the manual work), Christian Iberia may be seen as a society divided into three religions, *laws* in the parlance of the times, 'in which each group assumed, loosely, a different socioeconomic function. With the Christians fully devoted to arms, the Mudejars took on industrial tasks and the most productive agricultural jobs (irrigated crops), and the Jews assumed responsibility for scientific learning, administration and the economy' (*Ibid.*, P. 40). In particular, Iberian Muslims dominated arts and crafts, with local Christian rulers and prelates often adopting some trappings of the Andalusi civilisation that was still seen as [culturally and artistically superior] \n(_URL_3_) long after Al Andalus ceased to be a military or economic power to reckon with.\n\nThings did change once the Reconquista was finally over in 1492. But for the period you're interested in the answer is no. There was no intent to destroy a religious group that was clearly seen as a constituent part of the society. \n \n[1]F. Márquez Villanueva, *On the Concept of Mudejarism*, in: *The Conversos and Moriscos in Late Medieval Spain and Beyond. Vol. 1, Departures and Change*, ed. Kevin Ingram. Leiden, Boston, 2009. P. 15. It is a shortish article that I recommend to anyone looking for a good introduction to the subject. You can read it via Google books. \n",
"Thanks for the in depth answers! I thought I might have been approaching it anachronistically but I wasn't sure and didn't know enough about the demographics of medieval Iberia to make a call definitively. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html"
] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5lx21v/what_happened_to_the_muslims_in_spain_after_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vrvw5/after_the_reconquista_how_likely_was_it_for/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5idk95/were_there_muslim_minorities_in_the_christian/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5gdg8c/theres_a_rich_heritage_of_arabic_architecture_in/"
],
[]
] |
|
453p2r | why do lots of places only accept a passport or a driving license as identification when some adults don't have either? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/453p2r/eli5_why_do_lots_of_places_only_accept_a_passport/ | {
"a_id": [
"czuxagl",
"czuxctl",
"czuxcz3",
"czuxee1",
"czuxgbp",
"czuy42j",
"czuy61g",
"czuzu5j",
"czv00of",
"czverh1"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
3,
27,
4,
13,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Typically places will accept a state issued photo id. The drivers license is the best/most accessible example of that, but you can get a normal state id card which is equitable. So you can use that if you don't drive. You should have *some* form of id, so they're reasonable asking for it usually. ",
"Because the ID is only as good as the issuing authority. Does a work ID qualify? Unless you know how the company properly identified the person to give them that ID, you can't be sure how they authenticated the person is who they claim to be.\n\n",
"The actual requirement is a \"government issued picture identification\" of which drivers license and passports are the most typically used. You can get a picture identification card at the DMV, court house, or tax collector's office in most states. ",
"The majority of citizens either one or both. Almost all immigrants and foreigners will have a passport. The people that have neither are small and those places will usually find some way to accommodate them (social security card, state ID, military ID, etc, etc.)",
"Generally, the legal risk of selling to the wrong person is much higher than the risk of alienating the few customers that don't have either of these things. \n\nFor example, alcohol. Serving to someone that's under age in Texas can get you thousands of dollars in fines, and can get the business tens of thousands in fines or even a potential loss of liquor license, which pretty much shuts down the business.\n\nCompare this to the risk of pissing off a customer that doesn't have the time or money to get a government issued ID, which costs like $25. That person is never going to be your best customer, so there isn't a whole lot of incentive to make a risky exception for them.",
"Legal precedent has made these the only defensible forms of ID when you're charged with selling to a minor. If you sell to someone who has a reasonably realistic fake government issued ID you're okay. However, if you sell to someone with a fake school ID or something along those lines, you're still in trouble.",
"When they say \"driver's license\" what they almost always actually mean is \"state issued identification card\". Since so many adults in the United States have a driver's license it's just become common to ask for that as a standard form of government-issued I.D. \n\nIf you don't have a driver's license you can, and should probably get a state I.D. card.",
"I used to work in a cell phone store. We had a sketchy sub-dealer who would fax us IDs for new accounts. The corporation was very clear on what qualified as an ID: state licence, passport, military ID, firearms licence.\n\nThe sub-dealer sent a fax with two cards from homeless shelters with the applicant's name. One of them said, in big letters, \"THIS IS NOT AN ID\". Nope. My boss had a little talk with the sub-dealer.",
"In most cases, there is no legal requirement that a private business accept a particular form of identification. There may be things they can *not* accept (for example, perhaps it is required to be government-issued to meet their regulatory burden), but they are free to decline a perfectly valid form of identification.\n\nOn the other hand, wrongly accepting invalid IDs can cause the business to be slapped by a massive fine. So for them, it pays to be cautious--if they only accept the most common forms of ID they will be familiar with, the risk of wrongfully accepting a fake is greatly reduced. It's not every day that someone in Alabama sees an Alaskan state ID card; a store clerk for example will probably not be familiar with its security features. Though the ID may be quite valid, the store might rather turn down the one Alaskan customer than risk thousands of dollars in fines.\n\nKeep in mind that the real origin of these policies is regulatory burden and stiff fines--the business would probably be happy to have you as a customer if not for those worries.",
"I actually know someone whose only forms of ID are her social security card and birth certificate. She was a runaway at 15 and never got a state ID, and didn't bring her birth documents (as many runaways don't.) She had to go through the necessary channels to get a new birth certificate (surprisingly easy) and whatnot, but still hasn't gotten a state ID (she's not a licensed driver.) We keep bugging her to get on it, but so far, she's actually had zero problems carrying around her birth certificate as a form of ID, other than some weird looks from cashiers, because most people probably haven't seen one in decades. \n\nSo a birth certificate works in most regular cases if you don't mind the cashier remembering you as the weirdo who won't go get an ID. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3tdxfa | is it bad for me if i crack my neck by snapping it backwards? | For example i look at the ceiling quickly and push my chin up. This causes a large popping noise and relieves a lot of tension. Is this harmful or more harmful than a side to side neck crack? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tdxfa/eli5_is_it_bad_for_me_if_i_crack_my_neck_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx5lvhl",
"cx5pzkb"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Any kind of fast, jerking/wrenching motion has the potential to cause pain and/or damage. Slow neck rotations are far safer. ",
"I crack my neck all the time. The popping sound you hear is from gas escaping the space. You should be safe but if your unlucky then any sorts of unlucky things can happen. \n\n1) You have Vit. D deficiency? Weak bones mean you could crack something in your cervical spinal segments. \n\n2) You could have a nerve pinch that causes constant pain. Or worse you could sever one of your spinal arteries causing you to bleed internally. \n\nBut most likely what will happen? You will crack your neck and feel great. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
a2nv3n | why don’t animals break bones as easily as humans | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2nv3n/eli5_why_dont_animals_break_bones_as_easily_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"eazsuqb",
"eazt9s6",
"eaztamd",
"eaztdrb"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
16,
6
],
"text": [
"Animals still break bones \"easily\". I'm a hunter and pretty often have to put down a deer with a badly broken leg\n",
"Animals rarely get into car crashes.\n\nBeing serious here, lot fewer situations in daily life that an animal can be in that breaks a leg. ",
"They break bones just as easily.\n\nIt's just that they will just die because they are now disabled (so they become prey and can't feed themselves) instead of getting it attended by doctor which pusts cast on it and carrying on like human would.",
"probably because they don’t engage in the same variety of high-risk activities that humans do.\n\nI’m sure if animals used cars, bikes, skateboards and trampolines as much as humans do, their break rate would be much higher"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
91g27l | why does vinegar + aluminum foil clean stainless steel? | A short while ago I bought my first stainless steel pan and managed to burn it on my first use. I let it sit with water and dish soap, scrubbed it, boiled water and vinegar in it, added vinegar and baking soda, scrubbed it some more.. nothing worked. While the burnt bits were removed, the pan was still stained with some dark spots and it looked bad.
Then I googled some more and read that adding a water and vinegar solution with a piece of aluminum foil would remove stains from the pan. I was a bit skeptical, but I tried it out and lo and behold, it was like a miracle was happening in front of my eyes. Within 30 seconds or so, all the stains were gone and the pan looked like new. That got me thinking.. why did it work? Did the burns actually go away? Were they merely covered by a layer of aluminum? Is it toxic in any way?
Could someone explain what happened? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/91g27l/eli5_why_does_vinegar_aluminum_foil_clean/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2xucsb",
"e2xy7ys",
"e2xz7c3",
"e2y1g5b",
"e2y24jz",
"e2y3lic",
"e2y3s5l",
"e2y50qd",
"e2y9c9m",
"e2ybfuk",
"e2ydmdy",
"e2yfxqw",
"e2ytkcm",
"e2z9rik",
"e30bikf"
],
"score": [
1675,
23,
48,
12,
8,
2,
2066,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Galvanic corrosion. When one metal (stainless) is connected to a less noble metal (aluminum) through an electrolyte (vinegar), the less noble metal gives up electrons and corrodes. ~~You basically plated your pan with aluminum.~~ EDIT: This is incorrect. Didn't have my coffee this morning. You need to apply a current for electroplating to happen, and aluminum is too active to be plated. This is likely just the acidity of the vinegar removing oxides from the stainless.\n\nPlease stop spamming my inbox now lol.",
"And how can I get aluminum clean? I have some aluminum parts on my stove. Once threw them in our dishwasher which made it totally worse.. tried baking soda and boiling them in soap. Still have black/dark spots.",
"If the spots are oxidized steel then it's possible what's happening is the same as what happens in a thermite reaction just VERY slowed down. Electrons from the aluminum move through the electrolyte (vinegar) and into the oxidized steel (iron) which causes it to return to its original state. This is essentially a battery where the aluminum is the anode and the pan is the cathode. ",
"Dude, vinegar and baking soda neutralize each other. In the right ratio, you as well use pure water.\n\nJust use vinegar. It gets off anything that's burnt on.",
"If you had simply put boiling white vinegar in the pan and let it sit it would have removed the stains. YouTube vinegar steel etching",
"Question: does doing this help for cast iron?",
"Here's how I look at it, considering that this reddit tells me to explain it like you're five.\n\nLet's start with your stainless steel pan. Stainless steel is an alloy - basically a mishmash of metals and other substances, the end material having characteristics superior to individual components. This being considered, your stainless steel pan is mostly going to be iron mixed with carbon, but the main star here is iron (Fe).\n\nSimple reaction of fire with steel wool, which is typically stainless steel, produces a rusty material which are basically oxides of iron, or iron combined with oxygen in different proportions. This combination is possible because of the high temperature.\n\nSince you used your pan to cook, this is possibly what you see on the pan, oxides of iron that have stuck to the surface.\n\nLets move to the aluminum foil and vinegar. Vinegar is considered an acid, albeit very weak in a sense that is not dangerous to handle. The vinegar is a good environment for what is going to happen next.\n\nSo now you have everything together, the aluminum and your pan, all in your vinegar solution. The vinegar starts to slightly dissolve the scorch (iron oxides) on the pan and so you have iron ions swimming around. This starts of a reaction known as a reduction-oxidation reaction or simply a redox reaction. The aluminum foil dissolves slightly to give aluminum ions, and the iron ions from before become solid again. In a few words \"The aluminum displaces the iron from the vinegar solution\" Why does it do this? Because aluminum is more reactive than iron and so wants to be dissolved in that sea of vinegar more than iron. Fortunately, there is a guide for this difference in reactivity known as the activity series for metals, where you will find aluminum above iron in the series (more reactive)\n\nBecause of this reaction, see that the pan looks as new again. The pan is simply cleaned, no new coating is applied. The scorch is only superficial, so only some of the outer portion of the pan is removed. We're talking at the atomic level here. The fundamentals of this lie in the understanding of redox reactions and basic electrochemistry.",
"Deglazing is great for stainless. Heat up the pan, and then run it under water. Let the reaction do its work. When the bubbling stops, you can repeat, OR what I do is (wearing kitchen gloves) I use steel wool and scrub the few spots that are left. ",
"Probably what you have there is carbonized food stuff and polymerized oil essentially. The BEST way to clean stainless steel pots and pans is with oven cleaner. It's essentially a strong lye solution. Buy some easy off. Make sure you glove up and ventilate the area. Spray your pan down with the oven cleaner and tie it up in a big black trash bag. Let it sit for a day and then scrub. Repeat as necessary. I do this once a month in restaurants to keep the pans looking brand new. ",
"Simple chemistry. Aluminium is more reactive than steel. If you add some acid, the corrosion transfers from the steel to the aluminium. I can go into a more complex explanation involving electronegativity and half equations if you want but that wouldn't really be ELI5ing it. \n\nYou can also polish silver like this - just put the silver on a piece of foil in a glass dish, pour in baking soda, vinegar and a little boiling water and the black bits will turn silver again. \n\nThis can all be explained by looking at the reactivity series of metals. Metals can be ordered from most to least reactive. A more reactive metal is more able to react with other compounds than a less reactive one.",
"The aluminum foil is an abrasive. It's harder than the burnt bits but not as hard as stainless steel, so it can scratch through the burnt bits without damaging the steel. \n\n_URL_0_",
"You made a battery. Acid and two different metals results in a battery, which produces an electric potential. This basically accelerated corrosion from acid by running a current through it.",
"This is known as a single-displacement reaction. Essentially, when you burn your pan, you're forming a layer of various metal oxides on the pan (namely, iron). When you put the vinegar in, it starts dissolving the oxides (vinegar is a dilute form of acetic acid, a weak acid); however, the amount of oxides actually dissolved is relatively miniscule, and the solution is eventually completely saturated with dissolved iron oxide. This means the first reaction is in **equilibrium**. By adding the aluminium foil, however, the aluminium displaces the iron from the iron oxide to form aluminium oxide and iron atoms. This means a decrease in iron oxide in solution; the equilibrium is disturbed. In order to regain equilibrium, more iron oxide is dissolved into the vinegar. This cycle continues until there is virtually no iron oxide left on your pan, and your pan is rust-free! ",
"What exactly did you do? Clean the pan by scrubbing with foil? Or was it just sitting in the pan not doing anything?",
"Holy crap. I just tried this and cleaned a pan that has been uncleanable for a few weeks.\n\nNote: You have to scrub with the foil. You don't just let it set there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratch_hardness"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8y3e1x | why cant our brains correct/adapt to poor eyesight without the use of glasses? | From reading an earlier post about the upside down goggles, which take X long to readjust to seeing "properly" again, would it be possible to regain good eyesight given enough time without glasses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8y3e1x/eli5_why_cant_our_brains_correctadapt_to_poor/ | {
"a_id": [
"e27tg49",
"e27tk2d",
"e27tk3q",
"e288ij1",
"e28mte3"
],
"score": [
15,
6,
3,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Your brain can't process unfocused images that it receives into focused images, it can only interpret them. So your brain won't adjust to poor eyesight by figuring out how to sharpen your vision, it'll adapt by making it easier for you to understand what you're seeing, even if it's blurry. This won't overcome things like being unable to read fine print at a distance, but you will be able to recognize things that someone who just took their glasses off a minute ago wouldn't.\n\n**Edit:** fixed typo",
"No, because the images produced by the eyes aren’t flawed in predictable or reversible ways. \n\nPoorly-focused vision is like light hitting a white wall. You can’t use that to determine where light came from (whether it’s from a lightbulb, or another object lit by a bulb) because the whole wall is just lit up white.\n\nOnly by focusing light can you produce an image that is affected by what direction the light came from. That lets you use vision, or a camera, to see and understand what’s around you.\n\nIn very real ways (you can actually show this mathematically) there is *less meaningful information* in poorly-focused vision, and no amount of adaptation can extract more from it.\n\nPeople can certainly learn to function better without glasses (even blind people can learn to function without any sight) but this isn’t because their vision is getting better. ",
"Correcting upside down vision is a \"learned\" thing. Our brains naturally understand how to orient an image to make it face up. It cannot physically alter the shape of the eyes however. This is \"hard coded\" into your DNA. The cells will continue to grow in a misshapen way as the instructions on how to grow tell it to.",
"Many people don't know they need glasses till they get tested. A lot of people who wear glasses will tell stories of how the first time they wore them they suddenly realised that everything had been out of focus before but they just thought it was normal until they saw something different. So without glasses you don't \"Gain good eyesight\" you just adjust to your limited vision.\n\nThere is even an extremely rare condition where completely blind people are convinced that they can see\n_URL_0_",
"For the same reason CSI can't _actually_ just click \"enhance\" on a blurry video and get a clear image from a couple of pixels...the information simply isn't there. An upside down image has the same amount of information as a right side up one, it's just flipped around in a simple way. A fuzzy image is lacking information compared to a clear one. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrome"
],
[]
] |
|
2fynga | what would happen if you were going the same exact speed as a shock wave from a large explosion would you hear the explosion the whole time while traveling with the wave? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fynga/eli5_what_would_happen_if_you_were_going_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckdz0fo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"No, because noise is changes in pressure. If you were going exactly the same speed as the wave, you'd be in a consistent high- or low-pressure area."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8bqy1q | Why does a full water cooler dispense water slower than one with only a little bit of water in it? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8bqy1q/why_does_a_full_water_cooler_dispense_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx94mso"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"After an amount of water has left the water cooler, there is a pressure difference between atmosphere and the head of the container causing favourable air bubble formation at the tap. For a given surface tension (T), bubble pressure (Pb) and pressure at the bottom of the dispenser (ρgh), a stable bubble radius (r) can be found. This is given by the Laplace equation relating the pressure difference across the curved bubble surface with the radius of the bubble:\n\n > Pb - ρgh = 2T/r \n\nAs the pressure at the bottom of the dispenser (ρgh) increases, with increasing water height (h), the size of the stable bubble (r) must increase to satisfy the above relation - larger bubbles are required to form when more water is present in the cooler.\n\n**In more detail:** The pressure inside the bubble (Pb) is equal to the pressure at the bottom of the dispenser (ρgh) plus addition pressure due to surface tension effects 'squeezing' the bubble (2T/r) providing us with the above relationship. Because our bubble pressure is constant (atmospheric pressure), as the pressure at the bottom of the dispenser increases with water height, the bubble must get larger to reduce the effect surface tension has on the bubble pressure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2ovcht | Is the four-leaf clover basically a random mutation (like albinism), or is it a species on it's own? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ovcht/is_the_fourleaf_clover_basically_a_random/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmrzk6v"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It is debated whether the fourth leaflet is caused genetically or environmentally. Its relative rarity (1 in 10,000 clovers) suggests a possible recessive gene appearing at a low frequency. Alternatively, four-leaf clovers could be caused by somatic mutation or a developmental error of environmental causes. They could also be caused by the interaction of several genes that happen to segregate in the individual plant. \nResearchers from the University of Georgia have reported finding the gene that turns ordinary three-leaf clovers into the coveted four-leaf types. Masked by the three-leaf gene and strongly influenced by environmental condition, molecular markers now make it possible to detect the presence of the gene for four-leaves and for breeders to work with it. The results of the study, which also located two other leaf traits in the white-clover genome, were reported in the July/August 2010 edition of Crop Science, published by the Crop Science Society of America.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-leaf_clover#Cause"
]
] |
||
1olihy | Can some one explain to me some of the factors that are hindering increasing the storage capacity of modern batteries? | I asked a few weeks ago but to no avail. What I'm looking for is a basic explanation of what would be required in creating a new generation of battery Tech. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1olihy/can_some_one_explain_to_me_some_of_the_factors/ | {
"a_id": [
"cctmt70"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The limiting factors are the usual limiting factors in any technological space (i.e. Why don't we have flying cars?)\n\nRight now lithium-ion batteries are the commercially dominant energy storage technology. \n\nHere are the requirements a battery needs to have to establish dominance.\n\nThe materials and processes must be inexpensive.\nThe materials must be plentiful, or easily manufactured from plentiful materials.\nThe battery must be able to discharge energy in accordance to the demands, (i.e. a certain amount of current, a certain amount of voltage, etc. You can have high voltage low current batteries, but that's not of much use.)\nThe battery must be able to store equal or more energy than current technology.\nThe battery must be efficient.\nThe size of the battery must be relatively small.\nThe battery can not rapidly lose charge.\nThe battery needs to be able to be stored and used safely (i.e. does not explode, can take a certain amount of impact, does not cause massive damage.)\nThe battery's by product must be able to have minimal environmental impact.\nThe battery much be able to operate in a variety of environments (hot, cold, high pressure, low pressure, etc.)\n\nWe have many materials and process that meet some of those but not all of those. Some things is a matter of storage, etc. \n\nSo why aren't we hearing about the next generation of battery, the reason for this is everyone wants to have the next generation of battery. A lot of money, and politics goes into this space. So as soon as you 'hear' about a potential new battery, it's immediately smashed down by the competition. \n\nIn my humble opinion, you will see 1 to 2 major refinements of Lithium-Ion batteries over the next 5 years and Lithium-Ion will eventually be replaced with Lithium-Air Batteries, and those will have a couple more major refinements. 10 years from now, who knows. But Lithium is in high abundance, is cheap, meets application demands, and is relatively safe. Things like graphene, or a nano-constructed materials will probably come next."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2gxz1h | what gives art its value? | Whats stopping me from painting a blue square and selling it for thousands? obviously i'd get zilch but proper artists can get away with it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gxz1h/eli5_what_gives_art_its_value/ | {
"a_id": [
"cknj0ze",
"cknjbza",
"cknjcao",
"cknowte"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
19,
3
],
"text": [
"Quality, story associated with the work, notoriety of the work and the artist. Hitlers art was worthless, so he killed a couple people and tried taking over the world and boom his art becomes valuable. The Mona Lisa wasn't worth shit. It gets stolen and recovered and boom it is valuable. Also a lot of the value is subjective. I was on a cruise and there was a contest for a Picasso. The huy asked me the price of the painting. If I was right I would win it. I told him $3. He looked at me like I was nuts. He said it was worth over 10K. I said I'd give him $3. I think that piece of shit is still sailing around on that boat.",
"While the quality of the art plays a factor in the value of the art itself, The back story of the art also plays a very important role in it's valuation.\n\nLike /u/idamnedit mentioned,\n\n > Hitlers art was worthless, so he killed a couple people and tried taking over the world and boom his art becomes valuable. The Mona Lisa wasn't worth shit. It gets stolen and recovered and boom it is valuable.\n\nHere's a simple thought game. If someone like you or I made \"a blue square\" and tried to sell it, It's quite obvious that we won't get anything meaningful. One the other hand, if someone famous, someone who isn't generally associated with art, someone like Bill Gates paints \"a blue square\" and sells it off for charity, there will be people queued up to buy it.\n\nIt's simple supply and demand. Paintings made by ordinary people like you or I is a dime a dozen whereas paintings that are rare and exclusive perhaps due to it's back story or due to the artist who made is much more valuable.",
"We give art its value. \n\nIts primary value is in what the art says. In 1917, an art museum was running a promotion in which they advertised that they would accept any form of art in their museum. Duchamp challenged this notion by submitting a urinal, signing it, and submitting it as a piece. The museum tried to protest against it, but Duchamp maintained that it was 'art', as there was no other criteria by which they defined art. \n\nIt's now classified under 'Dadaism', which basically means that nonsense can be in itself an art form. Humans have a tendency to assign meaning to things even if they are nonsensical, which is what the art form draws on. \n\nThe art in itself doesn't have to make sense, but we can pull meaning from it simply from the context in which it is being displayed. \n\nThat's why people who go to museums try to stare at the art until they can figure out what it means to them; it draws on the context of the situation (i.e being displayed in a building specifically designed to display things of explicit and implicit meaning) to provide its value. \n\n'Conventional' art like paintings of people or places also carry meaning, but in a different way; it's about the presentation, perspective, or detail involved in a specific scene. 'Abstract' art bases its meaning on drawing your attention to things you might not have considered, which is why it's harder for most people to understand. ",
"For me, art has been always related to freedom. Every art piece is a moment of freedom for its artist. Thats why artists do it. Kandinski called it \"interior needing.\"\n\nSome art pieces have the power to free us as humans, to talk for all of us as evolving animals.\n\nSome grand artists like Picasso, Malevich (White square on white ) had helped the world to be more open-minded. Is like visual phililosophy.\n\n You can't see it if you don't want to. Has nothing to do with beauty. Its about registering our existance and searching for a meaning.\n\nEven the modern art haters, your life is marked by those artist in a collateral way despite your eyes are so small to see it.\n\n(Sorry for the spell!, no time to check it)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d1wxny | why are mouthguards for top teeth not bottom? | Why do they make mouthguards for teeth and especially nighttime grinding guards only for top teeth? Why not bottom teeth instead? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1wxny/eli5_why_are_mouthguards_for_top_teeth_not_bottom/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezru974"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In terms of mouthguards for sport it's because the top teeth are in most people in front of the bottom teeth, so they're the ones likely to be hit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6igqi2 | why do people in war zones, poor areas, extreme oppressing countries do make babies knowing there is no healthy future for their families? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6igqi2/eli5_why_do_people_in_war_zones_poor_areas/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj634wr",
"dj63641",
"dj63slk",
"dj6a1hg"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Religious beliefs, lack of access to birth control, replenishment of population being killed, hope that conflict will end soon. In many cultures, children are critically important to having enough labor for tending fields, etc. so as bad off as they are, they'd be even worse off without children to help. Also, some counties have programs giving grain/food to school children, so they may be a source of food for the family in that regard.",
"In poor regions, much of the population usually works in agriculture. Having a child, since ancient times, has been a way to get help on the farm and around the house without actually having to pay anybody. \n\nThey also may not have access to contraception, or education on how it works. \n\nAlso, poor people still want to enjoy life. What is the most fun two people can have with no money? Bingo.",
"Though the main reason is lack of education and awareness, I would say lack of 'alternate entertainment' sources plays a big part. I've seen this happening in villages in India. Same family which a generation ago had 5-6 kids, now has 1-2. Why? Because with advent of high speed (relatively speaking) accessible internet on cheap mobiles, people have more avenues to pass time than before",
"I believe that when the chances of offspring reaching breeding age are lower, instinct drives us to have more offspring, in order to increase the chances of continuing the genetic line."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1h6ql2 | Why is it that occasionally, when my sinuses are congested from allergies, they'll magically clear up for a minute or two, and then go back to being congested again? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1h6ql2/why_is_it_that_occasionally_when_my_sinuses_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cardre0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Airflow through your nostrils is asymmetric. You body regulates the airflow through them by changing the size of nasal venous sinusoids.\n\nIn simpler terms, you only breathe through one nostril at a time. It switches about every 2 hours or so. It may be difficult to notice. There's about a 20% difference in resistance between the two nostrils.\n\nThis cycle becomes greatly exaggerated during infection. You may be describing the sensation of your body is redirecting the airflow.\n\n[Here is a graph showing how nasal resistance in a person can vary during sickness and health.](_URL_0_)\n\nThe nasal cycle is thought to allow for your body to maintain the structures of the nostrils which would otherwise be susceptible to drying out. Another theory suggests it is a mechanism for allowing immune defenses to enter the nostrils.\n\nThe nasal cycle is present in about 3/4ths of adults. The name 'nasal cycle' may be misleading since there isn't ever absolute blockage of either side.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://i.imgur.com/gPFJaJT.jpg"
]
] |
||
3p2xkx | why does steve jobs get so much more love than bill gates? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p2xkx/eli5why_does_steve_jobs_get_so_much_more_love/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw2pfae",
"cw2pome"
],
"score": [
11,
15
],
"text": [
"Because he's dead...\n\nNot many hailed Jobs as \"God\" while he was alive. Only after his death were there Movies, Books, and countless other things written/said about him.\n\nI'm sure when Bill Gates passes away, a movie will come out about him, and we'll all come to realize what a wonderful & sometimes terrible person Gates has been.\n\n\"You don't know what you got till it's gone\"",
"Bill Gates built up a reputation as a vicious businessman in the 90s. It wasn't until stepping down from MSFT that the philanthropy became a serious thing for him. Since he wasn't really in the spotlight at the time, people just remember Evil Bill.\n\nJobs is remembered for his positive public persona, turning AAPL from a dying tech company into one of the biggest companies in the world, taking credit for all the user-friendliness of Apple products & his turtlenecks. How can you hate a dead guy in a turtleneck?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
tgk0y | What threat does glacial melting pose to the gulf stream? | As in, if global warming were to go out of control, and the glaciers in antarctica melt, would the flow of water disturb the gulf stream to any large extent, and if so, what would the consequences be? I heard that it would plunge northern Europe into an ice age, but what credibility does this theory actually have?
Thanks in advance. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tgk0y/what_threat_does_glacial_melting_pose_to_the_gulf/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4mh3m3"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The Gulf Stream primarily exists because of the action of winds blowing across the subtropical Atlantic. A good (but small) map of the surface currents is [here](_URL_0_). Unfortunately, many people are taught this [image](_URL_1_) of ocean circulation which both dramatically simplifies the Thermohaline Circulation and makes it appear that the Gulf Stream primarily exists as a limb of this circulation.\n\nThe freshwater input from melting polar ice will certainly effect the global thermohaline circulation by decreasing the formation of deep waters at high latitude. But since most of the Gulf Stream transport (80-90%) is due to the wind and not thermohaline effects, The Gulf Stream itself will persist but perhaps with a slightly weaker transport."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/illustrations/lecture26/gyre.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermohaline_Circulation_2.png"
]
] |
|
cmbsio | why do medicines that are supposed to be taken every x hours not effective if it is taken too early or too late? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cmbsio/eli5_why_do_medicines_that_are_supposed_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"ew16cgs",
"ew16ftx",
"ew16sr1",
"ew2lbnz"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you take them too early you still have the earlier dose in higher concentration in your system and can potentially reach an overdose level for the drug (particularly if you are at max safe dosages to begin with). If you take them too early you can have the levels in your system drop below useful levels and that dip makes it less effective.",
"Drugs do their thing at a certain range of concentration within the body. Sometimes that range is wide, sometimes narrow, but the body gradually clears it out at a normally predictable rate.\n\nTo keep the medicine in the desired range of concentration it needs to be taken regularly and on schedule; too late and it can drop too low in the body and too early and it can go too high in concentration. Each has different results but neither is the desired outcome.",
"Taking them at the proscribed timing is when the medication is \"most effective\". It's seldom \"not effective\" when taken at other times, just not as effective as your doctor had planned. The side effects may be greater as well, as dosing is often a trade-off between effect and side-effect.",
"You Take 10 molecules of Drug A at 6 am,Drug A has A half Life of 12 hours meaning by 6 pm the amount of Drug A in your blood will be 5 molecules..Now to kill a certain Pathogen,Suppose we need 10 molecules of Drug A..if we give 8 or 9 molecules it won't be effective and giving 20 will produce side effects..So your doctor will prescribe you to take the second dose of Drug A at 6pm so the concentration of Drug A remains constant and not too high to produce toxicity and not low enough to render it ineffective..\nI've Explained it as simply as I could,Sorry for Grammar (Not A Native speaker)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ycddr | My dad and I found these amazing mushrooms near my house. Can anyone identify them? | [here](_URL_0_) These popped up over a few days and then were gone. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ycddr/my_dad_and_i_found_these_amazing_mushrooms_near/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5ui7e3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I agree with Wingfinger.\n\nI would also suggest that you give some information about where you are (at elast what country/region).\n\nUnfortunately, without a picture of gills (the underside of the cap), a definitive identification may be difficult if not impossible. From the top it looks like a field mushroom. There's several similar poisonous varieties though, usually identified by gill colour and bruising behaviour."
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/a/3wexh"
] | [
[]
] |
|
epucg8 | why do cars look so much bigger from the inside? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/epucg8/eli5_why_do_cars_look_so_much_bigger_from_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"felud1e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The farther away things are, the smaller they appear. The car is around you, so it appears much bigger than the road, which is farther away. It isn't a huge difference, but enough to mess with your perspective."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ch0zs2 | Immediately after World War Two, when the USA was the only atomic power, did any American officials consider a preemptive war on the USSR to prevent them from acquiring the bomb? | In Bertrand Russell's ["The Bomb and Civilization" (1945)](_URL_0_), Russell calls for the creation of an international authority to hold control over all the world's atomic bombs to prevent a potentially apocalyptic war. However, he admits this is optimistic and that neither the US nor the USSR (once they got it) would voluntarily disarm. He then theorizes that the next best alternative to ensure world peace may be for the US to essentially establish a global empire, forcibly disarm all other nations, and declare war on any nations that resisted.
> If America were more imperialistic there would be another possibility, less Utopian and less desirable, but still preferable to the total obliteration of civilized life. It would be possible for Americans to use their position of temporary superiority to insist upon disarmament, not only in Germany and Japan, but everywhere except in the United States, or at any rate in every country not prepared to enter into a close military alliance with the United States, involving compulsory sharing of military secrets. During the next few years, this policy could be enforced; if one or two wars were necessary, they would be brief, and would soon end in decisive American victory. In this way a new League of Nations could be formed under American leadership, and the peace of the world could be securely established. But I fear that respect for international justice will prevent Washington from adopting this policy.
Did any high-ranking American officials hold this view? Was there ever any effort to push Harry Truman or Congress into starting a preemptive war with the Soviet Union before they could develop their own bomb? Did the Soviets see this as a real possibility? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ch0zs2/immediately_after_world_war_two_when_the_usa_was/ | {
"a_id": [
"eunudko"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Nobody prominent that I know of. Why not? Several reasons:\n\n* The US nuclear arsenal was not very large during the period of American monopoly. The USAF thought the US would need on the order of 500 nuclear weapons to take out the entire USSR with nukes along. The US didn't have that number until 1950 or so. So without a lot of nukes, a war against the USSR looks more like WWII than some kind of one-sided WWIII. Sure, a few nukes would be used, but the USSR would respond with massive conventional forces, probably take Europe, and the whole thing would be ugly and bloody. And you still need to get the nukes to your targets deep in the USSR — which wouldn't be a straightforward thing at all. \n\n* Along those lines, one might note that neither the US public nor the Western European public had any intense appetite for another European war at that point. The European democracies were still recovering and rebuilding. The US public was happy to have some peace (short-lived as it would be). This would have been political suicide nationally and internationally — US allies would have likely regarded the US as being tyrannical. Add to the fact that the US would need to use foreign bases as jumping off points for any attacks — nuclear and otherwise — in this period (the US lacked intercontinental striking power at this point; its nuclear deterrent, even well into the 1950s, was based almost entirely on foreign bases) means that even if the US officials _had_ wanted this, it wouldn't have flown without active support by European nations. \n\n* Lastly, it cannot really be understated how \"head in the sand\" US officials were about the prospects of a Soviet bomb. They had made the estimate that it would take the Soviets 5 years to get a bomb in 1945. In 1946, they thought it would be... 5 years. In 1947... 5 years. In 1948... 5 year. In 1949... 5 years. So when the Soviets _did_ set off a bomb, they were \"5 years early.\" The US had almost no policy in place to deal with a Soviet bomb; it wasn't until 1949 that the US even started trying to detect whether they had tested one, and that was done with great reluctance. I just bring this all up to note that the idea that the US policymakers really accepted that the Soviets were going to get a bomb, and soon, is false. What is interesting about this is they had every reason to suspect the Soviets could do it, and probably _were_ doing it (they scuttled all ban-the-bomb discussions in the UN, for example), but preferred to believe they weren't doing it, and the lack of hard intelligence on the USSR made this fiction easy to maintain, until they detected the test. \n\nAll of which is to say: while there may have been a few outside voices who thought this was a good idea, there were major systematic conditions pushing against it, and ultimately the US policymakers didn't take the possibility of a Soviet bomb as seriously as they arguably ought to have. The idea that they would mobilize that possibility into a deeply difficulty and bloody war, one that would have been dramatically unpopular at home and abroad, is kind of implausible. \n\nOne could imagine the US policymakers taking a totally different position and trying to sell the public on it, I suppose — very hawkish, much more mobilization, much more aggressive, far more anti-Soviet — but that was definitely not the path of least resistance. And it's unlikely they would have gotten much if any European buy-in, given how the Western Europeans would really lose out in that scenario (while the continental US would probably be unscathed).\n\nInstead, during the time of US monopoly, the major policymaking battles were about whether the US could slash its military back to peacetime levels, and avoid further significant entanglements abroad. All of that changed after the detection of the Soviet test, of course. But it can be easy to overlook how dramatically different the \"consensus view\" of US politics pre-1949 and post-1949. \n\nThere isn't one book that covers all of the above but Michael Gordin's _Red Cloud at Dawn_ gives great context for the monopoly period and the way in which the detection of the first Soviet test punctured that bubble.\n\nThe more interesting period in a way is the early 1950s, _after_ the Soviets had demonstrated a nuclear capability but _before_ they had many weapons and lacked the means to deliver them on the USA (they could probably deliver a handful to Western European capitals, which is a form of deterrence, but not quite the same thing), and after [the US had started deploying nukes in Europe and Asia](_URL_0_). That still would have taken political will that was lacking, and European cooperation that was lacking, but you do get some people in that time period who said, essentially, if war is going to come, why not start it now, while we have the upper hand?"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/bombCivilization.htm"
] | [
[
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/US-nuclear-bomber-deployments-1945-1958.jpg"
]
] |
|
28kfmp | why can i go a whole weekend day barely eating, but on any given workday (i sit at a desk) i have extreme cravings to snack all day? | I can wake up around 9am on a weekend, not eat until 2pm, then barely get hungry again until 8ish. When I get to work Mon-Fri I want to chow down nearly all day long and often can't resist the urge. Is it a chemical in my brain trying to comfort myself with endorphins because work sucks? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28kfmp/eli5why_can_i_go_a_whole_weekend_day_barely/ | {
"a_id": [
"cibr1lv",
"cibr4us",
"cibrx73",
"cibtjr9",
"cibtu7o",
"cibudco",
"cibv2or"
],
"score": [
38,
9,
3,
2,
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"While at work I interpret most feelings as hungry. Bored? Have a banana. Stumped? Crackers. Cold? Ooh, is that cake?!?",
"yup something like that. boredom and unpleasant emotions and hunger are best buds",
"There are other places this happens as well. Uncomfortable at a party? Find your way to the snack table, or find some hor d'oeuvres.",
"So from the comments, and personal experience, you're bored. Currently dealing with this issue as we speak. I am trying to lose some weight but when I come to work I just want food. At home, when I am focused on other things I am not as hungry. Especially those dang candy bowls they put out.",
"It does depend a bit on when you first eat, and I assume you eat breakfast before you go to work on weekdays. When you sleep, all your brain function is run by stores of energy through your liver. When you wake up and don't eat, you don't shift to running from the nutrients you ingested, you're still on liver function. That's why you won't get hungry if you don't eat breakfast, but it's bad for your body to run on just your liver for extended periods of time. That's why they say that breakfast is the most important meal of the day.\n\nLet me see if I can find where I read that, I'm trying to explain it off the top of my head.\n\nEdit: [Here is where I learned about it here on Reddit](_URL_0_) and [here's an internet article explaining it a bit.](_URL_1_)",
"Dehydration can play a role in this. Offices with lots of electronics, computers, air conditioning, etc. will tend to dry out the air, which can cause you to lose water faster. Many people [mistake the sensation of thirst for hunger](_URL_0_) and thus end up snacking to satisfy the craving.\n\nSource: Chronically dehydrated person in an extremely dry office learning to drink more water.",
"Try this: get a couple big cups of water and some of that Mio flavoring (or I use the free cranberry apple tea they provide at work), and just always have water available. When you finish one cup, go fill it up, but keep two in case (it happens) you don't want to or can't leave the desk. Using this trick, and logging my 16 oz cups of water per day, I consume an average of 7 of them. (112 oz) just at work. It can really help to knock out the cravings.\n\nAnother trick is keeping almonds at your desk. But only measure out 10-15 of them and then put them away. Chase them with some water and it will knock out cravings after about 10 minutes, for only about 100 low carb calories!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24y0pb/eli5_if_i_dont_eat_breakfast_i_dont_even_get/chbsagz",
"http://www.livestrong.com/article/520183-glucose-homeostasis-the-liver/"
],
[
"http://www.livestrong.com/article/510463-how-body-mistakes-hunger-for-thirst/"
],
[]
] |
|
3l3nql | Is it possible to "overdose" from salt or sugar? | Or any other kind of daily intake. | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3l3nql/is_it_possible_to_overdose_from_salt_or_sugar/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv3fij4"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Anything you can take into your body has some dosage that will be lethal. For some substances, like arsenic or morphine, that dosage is relatively small. For other substances, like water, the dosage is relatively large compared with human body mass--but recently, you can read about sadly regular occurrences of athletes, for example, consuming too much water and suffering severe health issues or dying as a result.\n\n[Here is a table](_URL_0_) showing the LD50, the lethal dose for 50% of those who experience it, for a number of substances, including table salt and sugar. For the average human, a lethal dose of table salt would be almost a kilogram according to this chart. If one infers from rat studies, a lethal dose of sugar would be about 2.5 kilograms. If it were possible to suddenly take these amounts into the body, they would be lethal. However, in almost ever situation, if one tried to sit down and consume these amounts, the body would protect through nausea and vomiting. Unlike water, it would take an extreme or unusual situation to overdose on these things.\n\nIf by \"overdose\" you also include chronic or acute negative effects that aren't as severe, though, that happens all the time. Too much salt, sugar, or any other substance that is important in moderation can stress the excretory system that is trying to regulate it if consumed in excess, and can have a negative effect on other systems too--e.g., both salt and sugar could dehydrate the body by drawing more water into the digestive system, salt can upset ionic balances that are important to the circulatory and nervous systems, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://whs.rocklinusd.org/documents/Science/Lethal_Dose_Table.pdf"
]
] |
|
7q2w4u | how can a choke hold knock you out in 5 seconds when most people can hold their breath for at least 30 seconds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7q2w4u/eli5_how_can_a_choke_hold_knock_you_out_in_5/ | {
"a_id": [
"dslzdz0",
"dslzekm"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I’m sure there’s a more educated answer coming, but my understanding is being in a chokehold is also cutting off blood circulation, not just restricting oxygen.",
"When you hold your breath you're still getting blood to the brain, but a proper choke hold cuts off blood to the brain. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
9cxfn5 | how do pcs/consoles read disks/cds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9cxfn5/eli5_how_do_pcsconsoles_read_diskscds/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5dv7iq",
"e5dycd7",
"e5eoc1v"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The reflective surface of a cd is basically a clear flat coating over a series of seriously tiny bumps and divots. There's a tiny laser in the computer that shines on the disk, right through the clear protective layer, and reads whether it's over a bump or divot.\n\nThe computer rotates the disk and moves the laser inwards or outwards to have the laser over any part of the disc it wants, so it can \"read\" it.\n\n\nBasically think of an old school record player, but with the needle being a distance sensing laser",
"The mechanics of a disk drive and a CD are quite different, and there are many variations of disk drives:\n\n1. Pre \"solid state\" drives, the data was stored on magnetic \"platters\" which were spun at fast rates and then a reader \"head\" would be moved to correct position on the spinning platter to locate the sector that held the desired data. Here is a picture of a platter with the arm in the foreground that holds the reader head - works kinda like a record player arm and stylus. _URL_0_\n\n2. Solid state drives store on microchips - no moving parts, pure electronics. This is like the memory card in your phone or camera, just higher performance and larger.\n\n3. CDs are \"optical\". They work much like the disk drives in that they spin and an arm is moved to proper location to read the information. However, unlike the magnetic storage of the disks, the CD has a physical characteristic that is then read by \"looking\" with a laser. The laser can see a bump for 1 or a trough for 0...on the face of a ring of the CD.",
"Good answers here but one correction: CDs don't follow a \"pit for 1, land for 0\" scheme. Instead, the laser detects when it goes over a transition from a pit (divot) to a land (bump), each time it goes over one of those transitions is a 1, otherwise it is 0. So let's say we take 2 bytes (16 binary digits) of the track and lay it out straight, and there is one transition about in the middle, so the first half is a pit and the second is a land. That would read as 0000000100000000, not 0000000011111111. If there is a transition say after every 3 bits, it would be 0001000100010001, not 0000111100001111.\n\nThere are also some rules in the encoding that there *must* be a transition after so long in a pit or land, as part of its eight-to-fourteen modulation (where it takes 14 bits to represent 8 bits), which is used in a coding scheme which gives the disc some error correction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.petervis.com/gallery/hard/Hard%20Drive%20Recovery/Hard%20Drive%20Recovery%20Platter%20Transplant/hard-disk-platter-exchanger-tool.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
2edegl | how the windows .exe file works | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2edegl/eli5_how_the_windows_exe_file_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjyeenn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"What are you asking exactly?\n\n.exe files are binary files, they contain instructions that can directly be understood by your CPU. When you click on one, windows load it into memory and then your CPU start executing each instructions one by one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3nifcg | how is it possible to withdraw money from any atm using any bank card? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nifcg/eli5_how_is_it_possible_to_withdraw_money_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvod9j4",
"cvodbkr"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The ATM sends every money request to its bank. If it's a card from that bank, it tells the ATM whether or not the transaction is approved. If the card is from another bank, it sends that request to the other bank for approval. This all happens in a matter of seconds.",
"Pretty much the same way you can ask me this question even though I'm probably thousands of miles away from you: They just ask the bank over a network. Or in the case of mobile offline ATMs they just assume you are good to take out < 100 dollars and then when the thing syncs up when they bring the atm to the central office and your bank gets the message you took out 100 dollars but only had 50 your bank just gets mad at you and puts a bunch of fees and tells you you owe the difference. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
dugy8d | why can’t we stop a receding hairline? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dugy8d/eli5_why_cant_we_stop_a_receding_hairline/ | {
"a_id": [
"f75whwc",
"f75yye4",
"f760ryx",
"f765i35",
"f766jci",
"f768t9s",
"f76obej",
"f76smwi",
"f76uckw",
"f779l91",
"f77aud4",
"f77j9bf",
"f77lt32",
"f77mmq9",
"f77v8io",
"f78b6mn",
"f78fbbf",
"f78gimr",
"f799jfx",
"f7a99t2"
],
"score": [
869,
26,
67,
19,
75,
151,
13,
10,
2,
10,
6,
4,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, you can fairly effectively stop a receding hairline by taking something that blocks testosterone from being converted to dht, or blocking dht from being used in the body, suck as as finasteride. If you are genetically predisposed to it, dht will take your hair, and its a natural byproduct of Test. Not only that, but you can somewhat effectively regrow lost hair with something like minoxidil depending on your circumstances.",
"Because it relates to DNA and dihydrotestosterone that result in the loss of hair, changing those would in theory stop a receding hairline, but that is very difficult - _URL_0_",
"I (F, 28) have alopecia. I start wearing a lot of beanies and head scarves every time I go into another hair loss cycle. I've thought about getting some wigs or hair pieces that might look like my natural hair too. Having light hair also helps mask hair loss if your hair is just \"thin\"... On this most recent cycle of hair loss I've lost about half of the hair all over my body and wear hats 90% of the time. This is one of the cheapest and simplest solution. There are also a lot of anti-thinning, DHT blocking shampoos/conditioners which might help you. Minoxidil is also a good option to try. \n\nIt's not completely related to what you're looking for, but I can definitely say that hair pieces, weaves, and wigs can look very natural and are a great option for people who are struggling with their hair. A nice hair piece or wig can give you that little extra bit of confidence if you're really self conscious about hair loss.\n\nOR - embrace the lack of hair and shave it off like my siblings did. Bald is beautiful too.",
"The same reason we can't stop aging among thousands of other things. Its complicated and nobody has worked out how to do it yet.",
"there's an Science Vs podcast about this. only one solution to this. cut your balls and be hairy your whole life, I'm not kidding",
"As others have mentioned, the concentration of androgen rises to toxic levels on the scalp but often times you'll seen an 'island' pattern form of skin where the surrounding hair is unaffected. So pure concentrations of DHT don't explain that.\n\nThe latest happy accident was when a lady went for a botox treatment(yes, women can go bald too later in life) and afterward saw some regrowth. What happened is the botox killed the nerves that pull on muscles, which stops you moving them and crushing the collagen which smooths out wrinkles.\n\nBut it just targets muscles regardless. This loosened the skin on the scalp and allowed for more bloodflow to the area. More blood means less overall concentration of DHT in the area. So the initial culprit may be the muscles pulling the skin too tightly over the scalp as we age.",
"I hear finasteride works well. It does suppress dht though - a stronger version of testosterone - and has a chance of making erections not work. Also there's something called PFS, or post-finasteride syndrome, which can cause lifeling impotence, muscle loss, and depression... :l\n\nPick your poison, eh?",
"This is actually a good question. Viagra and Cialis are billion dollar drugs, and male-pattern-baldness / MPB is a global issue. I think is shallow to be concerned about that, but...people ARE shallow, and pharma companies want to make a profit. Seems like an easy target. Invest a few million on the most promising ways to accomplish this, and reap billions...",
"Because, ultimately, we don't really understand how aging works, or how to forestall it, at the molecular level. At their core, the fundamental technologies behind rocketry and computing were all developed in the mid 20th century, and they're comparatively simple, human devised systems. Biology is immensely more complicated, and takes place at a scale where observation is much more difficult, and we also don't want to harm the subjects being studied.\n\nRather than focus on the biomechanics specific to hair loss, the ideal treatment would be one which functionally arrested aging at, say, your mid 20's.",
"Have not reviewed entire thread so this may have been addressed.\n\nBut what about gene editing technologies such as CRISPR CAS 9 and the newly discovered (maybe more confirmed) “Prime Editing” which apparently has less “off target” (negative) genetic effects?\n\nI mean there has GOT to be a FORTUNE to be made in solving this problem right?",
"Also avoid companies like Monat that sell $80 small shampoo bottles that they say will restore hair. It’s a pyramid club on top of that. \nMinoxidil and finasteride and biotin among others are proven to keep your hair from falling out.",
"In this thread: lots of explaining how hair loss works on a scientific level, exactly zero explanation of OP's question.\n\nThe thing that causes hair loss is broken down testosterone, and without constant medication that stops the reaction from happening then it will keep happening. We can stop/slow down hair loss with the meds, but the question is how much money does the person want to spend, and how dedicated to regularly taking medicine for it are they?",
"All of you saying \"just go with it\" or \"it's natural so don't fight it\" or \"you can still get dates and be attractive\", and every other variations of these sentiments: ok, fair points for some guys - but there's a lot of us that just don't like how we look bald, or with thinning hair, and want to find a way to get our full heads of hair back. That's all, it's not complicated and it's not repressing or being in denial - it's just wanting to have a look you like. And yes, *of course* you can get used to being bald. But being used to something isn't liking it. So try and be a little less dismissive or judgmental for those of us that just want a certain look and want to explore ways that work to get it.\n\nNote: there *are* promising medications and treatments to reverse hair loss and various other types of baldness. An Italian company has shown a very promising treatment that could be seen as early as next year. The company is [Cassiopea](_URL_0_) for anyone interested in reading more. The company has a good clinical record and has earned a solid reputation with the FDA with a hormonal acne treatment that's passed phase III trials.",
"For similar reasons as why it's quicker to cut down a 80y.o. tree than to grow an 80y.o. tree. It's just super easy to murder things. Way easier than pretty much anything else.",
"It is odd that those individual follicles have their DNA stamped with the code to revert back to lanugo hair (baby hair). You don't necessarily go bald, it's just that some of your follicles are returning to a previous, underdeveloped state and some indeed \"die\" off. Hair \"plugs\" work very well as they take hair from the part of the head that never recedes and fill in the light areas. I've seen more than a few satisfactory results. And the prices are becoming increasingly competitive here in the States.",
"If you wanna talk about receding hairlines and going to Mars, look at pictures of Elon Musk from college vs today. Man looks a good 10 years younger now than he did back then.",
"Because you can still conquer the world with a receding hairline. If the other side has Mars robots or city bombs and you don't, different story.",
"If you had the money to send a robot to Mars, you could stop a receding hairline.\n\n[This guy knows.](_URL_0_)",
"Imagine finding a machine made by aliens millions of years ago that is so advanced that it's capable of complex thought and reasoning, can express emotions, can do advanced image classification and processing, has self regenerating components, contains an entire biochemical power plant, has a vast network of complex nano machines that fight microscopic aggressors, and those only just scratch the surface of what goes on inside of it.\n\nNow imagine taking that and trying to figure out how it works on a fundamental level so that you can manipulate and control it. That's basically what modern day medical science is tasked with. Once you internalize just how incredibly complex a system a human being is it makes a lot more sense why it's not so easy to do something like stop a receding hairline. Honestly I'm frequently amazed with how well we do understand the human body and how much we can control despite it's complexity.",
"OP and everyone else reading this. Google Pumpkin Seed oil pills and baldness. There was a study done that showed they not only stopped the receding hairline but also brought back hairgrowth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/zxR5K8zqdEw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.labiotech.eu/medical/cassiopea-baldness-hair-loss/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://pagesix.com/2018/07/25/its-highly-likely-elon-musk-spent-over-20k-on-hair-transplant-surgery-doctor-says/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
9m70iy | why do bugs fly into glasses of water where they immediately die? | With some regularity I'll come back to a glass of water that's been sitting out and find that there's a dead flying insect in it.
Given that humans didn't invent standing pools of water, it seems like any bugs that *can't* fly out of water after landing in it would have evolved to *not* *fly into that water in the first place*. Is there something different about glasses of water, as opposed to a natural puddle, that would trap a bug? Why don't bugs know to avoid this apparent death sentence? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9m70iy/eli5_why_do_bugs_fly_into_glasses_of_water_where/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7dhz8y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well, insects aren't that bright and rely almost exclusively on evolution for their survival as a species. A large majority of insects don't land in water because nature likely selected against those that did - the ones that fell in water and never got out died and likely didn't reproduce as much as those that managed to survive. Either that, or falling in the water is simply too rare of an occurrence for anything to happen in a population, so you will always have a few insects meet their end in the water.\n\nBut not so fast, insects don't immediately die in the water. For a short time, they're still able to float and swim around. You might be wondering, why doesn't it drown? Insects are special in that they breathe using spiracles or paired holes on the body, that are connected to tubes that carry oxygen directly to bodily tissues (99% of insects don't get oxygen via the blood). Water is also special in that it's got this neat surface tension property where water molecules form a net-like structure because of hydrogen bonding. Combined with tiny hairs that cover the body, the spiracle is often shielded from water entering the spiracles. This saves the insect for some time, but eventually, they will still run out of oxygen and die after several minutes. Nature has just bought them some time to hopefully get away.\n\nBut if an insect gets into soapy or oily water, that surface tension is gone, and liquid will immediately rush into the insect's respiratory system, immediately killing it in a second or so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1q20a9 | how do music players and game systems pick thinks at random? | Surely this is a basic form of ai? How is music on shuffle pre programmed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q20a9/eli5_how_do_music_players_and_game_systems_pick/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd8d088",
"cd8d5dh",
"cd8d6jp",
"cd8dczn"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They pretty much are preprogrammed. _URL_0_",
"Short answer: They don't. They choose in an order that is merely enough to trick a human brain into thinking it's random.",
"There is no AI. It's a randomizer algorythm. While it is random to an extent there is nothing random about it at all. In college I had to write a couple of these for such project favorites as \"dice roll.\" ",
"Basically, the program will assign a unique ID to every item to be randomly picked from an array (list) or if it is pulling from a database, each item should already have a primary ID(unique ID.) \n\nThe program will then have an algorithm(steps or instructions), some listed in the above wiki link, that will randomly pick one of the numbers in the array or database. Said algorithm should also add a number to its pool when something is added to the database or array "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3xap1k | "Italians" through the Middle Ages and Renaissance | Hello- I've got a simple question. (Sorry if it's been asked before.)
What did Italians- or, rather, the people living in Italy at the time- consider themselves, between the fall of Rome and the unification of Italy? It's a wide timespan that I don't know much about.
Did people consider themselves as, i.e., Genoese/Neapolitan/Venetian, or did they think of themselves as Italians; or was there some other identity?
In other words, what was the ethnicity at the time?
Thanks in advance for the help! | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xap1k/italians_through_the_middle_ages_and_renaissance/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy3gjnc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ try this thread."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/396q0e/did_the_concept_of_italy_endure_even_when_italy/"
]
] |
|
2eji4c | How accurate are Bill O'Reilly's "Killing ____" books? | My dad has recently been reading some of Bill O'Reilly's *Killing (famous person here)* books, particularly *Killing Lincoln* and *Killing Jesus*. I haven't been able to get my hands on them, or make time to read them if I did. Bill O'Reilly has never struck me as a font of historical knowledge, so I'm very curious to know how accurate they are. Are they pretty solid accounts of historical events, or are they right-wing neo-con crazy spewed as historical revisionism? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2eji4c/how_accurate_are_bill_oreillys_killing_books/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck0v15k"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"I have not read the books, but I have read reviews of the Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy books. The basic gist of the reviews were, this is just warmed over versions of the standard stories, probably mostly written by ghost writers. E.g. nothing controversial, or interesting, about them, just an attempt to sell some books by putting O'Reilly's name on the cover and marketing them towards his target demographic (middle-to-old aged, white, Christian American men). They sound dull, but at least devoid of revisionism or controversy. But, again, I haven't read the books personally. Just recycled bits from other popular accounts. Which is at least not terrible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
21t9hq | How exactly did ancient warfare work on the battlefield? | I've been playing a lot of Rome 2 Total War as various factions and it's made me wonder how real battles actually worked. In the game battles are generally 5 to 30 minutes long with units inflicting high amounts of kills on each side. Usually after a period of time the losing side will route and flee. In the game the armies can reach up to 7000 or so men on each side and a close battle can result in 3000 or more deaths per side.
I can't imagine this being accurate though as I know real battles could go on for hours or days. What caused battles to last so long? How did various units such as pike-men, cavalry and hoplites fit into the battle? How where troops able to retreat to rest while cycling in new men without the enemy simply charging the breaks in formation and slaughtering them?
I want to know really how a battle would happen and the intricacies of it.
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21t9hq/how_exactly_did_ancient_warfare_work_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cggb7eo",
"cggbr0r"
],
"score": [
3,
29
],
"text": [
"Although not directly related to RTW2, you will find good answers on some of your questions in this thread: _URL_0_",
"It depends a bit of course on the place, the sides involved, the size of the armies and the time.\n\nDifferent sides used different tactics and styles of warfare developed out of their wealth, social system, access to metals, horses and craftsmen and the terrain.\n\nThe general rule is that most casualties happened once one side had started to run. Grossman (his work has been debated though) claims that it is psychologically easier for himans to strike another human in the back, both because of dormant hunting instincts, but also because it is easier to dehumanise and kill someone whose face you cannot see.\n\nThe ancient Greeks used the hoplite phalanx, a tight formation of free men that bought their own equipment. This was the middle class, with well-made weapons and armour paid for individually, but fighting in discplined, close formations with spear and large shields. The men used their large shields to protect themselves and the man to the left of them. Thus there was a tendency to pull right, both because you wanted to be as close to the man on your right to be protected by his shield as well as your own, but also because most people are right-handed and wield their weapon from the right. It was not unheard of for two hoplite formations to completely reverse side by both sides' right flank beating back the opposing left flank. Hoplite warfare could become a inverted tug-of-war where both sides attempted to break the others formation, break their line and roll up on both sides. If a formation broke, the side that broke would most likely soon start runnig, and had then lost.\n\nThe Greek hoplite armies made use of missile troops to harass the enemy formation, recoinnasance, flanking and skirmishing. Javelin throwers (peltasts) and archers and slingers were common. Cavalry were mostly light and only used to harass the enemy troops, with the Thessalians as the sole exception to this rule.\n\nThe lower classes served as skirmishers and lightly armoured and armed troops, the middle class as heavily armoured and armed infantry and the upper class as officers. The Spartans and the Thebans were the masters of this kind of warfare. The Hoplite started to evolve to becoming the Thurepos in the style of Illyrian medium infantry, more lightly armoured, with an oval shield and carrying javelins as well after the long wars over Hegemony over Greece.\n\nThe Macedonians made a change in this by having a strong state that could afford to equip and train the sarissa (pike) phalanx. A Macedonian pikeman had lighter armour (often linen) and less protection than a hoplite. He also had a much smaller shield strapped to his arm, since he needed both hands to hold his pike. With a high degree of discipline and training the pike phalanx was unbeatable from the front and when in formation (terrain and other factors could make the formation less than rigid). It had to be flanked or attacked from behind, or its formation broken up. The Macedonians also introduced heavy cavalry even better than the Thessalians to the Greek world, cavalry that could charge the flank or rear of an enemy infantry formation, in the form of the Companions. The Macedonians probably introduced what was the first complete combined arms army where the state could get all parts of what it needed at any given time. Macedonian slingers were renowned for their skill and had a longer range than bows of the time. The Macedonians were the first to be able to field large armies of poor men equipped and trained to take on any infantry in the world, giving them a distinct adantage. They also fielded a smale contignent of elite medium infantry called the hypaspists, who were equipped and fought similarly to the Roman legionaries.\n\nThe Egyptians were under Persian rule, were conquered by the Macedonians and the Ptolemaic dynasty, founded by one of Alexander's successors, made use of the Macedonian style of warfare. Initially with Greek and Macedonian mercenaries, but eventually with native troops trained in the same style Cleruch cavalry, men who served as heavy cavalry in the style of the Companions and Thessalian cavalry.\n\nThe Carthaganians used native Tunisian and Sicilian Greek infantry in the Greek hoplite style originally. However, since the number of citizens in Carthage dropped, they started making use mostly of mercenaries from North Africa, Sicily, Iberia and Gaul (see below for some mercenaries sought after during the era).\n\nThe Iberians, or Celto-Iberians in Spain and Portugal made use of medium infantry with short swords, javelins and shields which, when serving as mercenaries with the Carthaganians, helped the inspire the Romans to develop the gladius and to adapt their Hastati to their Marian legion. The Celto-Iberians also made use of heavily armoured cataphract cavalry, although in very small numbers.\n\nThe Gauls, or celtish people in Gaul made use of spearmen, good javelin throwers, noble infantry and heavy cavalry as well as archers and other skirmishers. Naked fanatics are mentioned in one source as men with long swords, large shields and no clothes (however, only one source mentions them, and only in one battle, in which they were severely defeated).\n\nThe Germans - little is actually very well known, but the spear seems to have been the focus of their warfare, both on foot and on horse, both thrown and stabbed. Germanic heavy cavalry were popoular mercenaries both for the Romans and the various Gaul tribes fighting them or each other before the Roman takeover.\n\nThe Persians before the Macedonian conquest made extensive use of archers and other missile troops, horse archers, heavy and light cavalry and masses of conscripted light spear infantry with wicker shields. This army came up short in Greek terrain against the hoplite phalanx at Marathon and Plataiai and against the combined arms army of the Macedonians. After the Macedonian conquest, the Persian Empire was divided among his hiers (called the Daidochi) who mixed Macedonian style warfare with the usage of more missile troops. The pike phalanx of these states became heavier and heavier to resist missiles, culminating in the Selucid silver shield phalanx, men who were like medieval knights and Egyptian cleruch cavalry awarded a parcel of land to finance themselves and their expensive equipment.\n\nThe Parthians, a horse people who eventually rose to prominence when the Romans crushed the Selucids and would be the grand power counterweight to Rome for a long time made extensive use of horse archers (using the Parthian shot, ie turning around in the saddle and loosing the arrow over the back of the horse after having turned the horse around) and heavy cataphract armoured cavalry.\n\nThe early Roman army made use of landowners who paid for their own equipment - essentially the middle class, divided into three classes - the hastati, the principes and the triarii. The hastati fought as light infantry, with short swords, large shields and javelins, much like the Iberians. It was probably learned from the Samnites, who made use of mobile swordsmen in their wars against Rome. The earliest Roman armies probably fought in a Greek-style hoplite phalanx. The hastati wore what little armour they could afford, while the wealther principes while armed the same way had heavier armour. The triarii consisted of the most affluent, oldest and most veteran Roman landowners and fought with spears. Poorer people fought as skirmishers, mostly with javelins as velites. The upper classes, the equites, fought on horseback as light cavalry and might have been dragoons, as they in several battles where the conditions became too cramped seem to have dismounted to fight on foot. Generally, the quality of the Roman cavalry was not as good as their infantry, and they were regularly bested by other countries' cavalry. The later Roman army after the Marian reforms is made up of the heavy, well-trained and well-armoured infantry in iron armour (lorica segmenta or chainail), iron helmets, large square shields, javelins (pila) and short swords. The Romans were unique in this era by having a formal system to replace the men in the frontline to allow them to rest and always having fresh troops at the front.\n\nThe Romans also made extensive use of auxulia (semi-permanent mercenaries) and mercenaries as they saw fit. When fighting the Parthians, they brought large amount of cavalry - Saramatians, Germans, Scythians or Gaul - and large amount of foot missile troops such as Syrian and Cretan archers and Macedonian and Rhodian slingers. When fighting Illyrians or Iberians, who made extensive use of light troops and hit-and-run tactics, the Romans hired light infantry and cavalry to fight them. While the Macedonians made a combined arms army, the Romans made a modular army with a core of legionaries to which the needed auxulia could be be added.\n\nAll made extensive use of mercenaries at the time. Illyrian medium infantry, using large oval shields, short swords, some armour and javelins were sought after medium infantry, capable of both skirmishing and fighting in the line.\n\nDacian (from present-day Romania and Bulgaria) swordsmen and falxmen (using a large reverse blade sabre used either with one or with both hands) were also sought after.\n\nGreek hoplites were still good heavy infantry and were extensively used as mercenaries and garrisons by the Romans after they conquered Greece and made up large part of the Roman armies that fought civil wars in the Greek world.\n\nThessalian cavalry continued to be an important part of warfare in the Greek world. Sought after as mercenaries, King Pyrrhuss of Epirus had his cavalry sunk en route to Italy and had to fight pretty much without them, which severely hampered his ability to destroy Roman armies thus the costly Pyrrhic victories.\n\nCretan archers were excellent skirmishers who were said to be able to take on any other archers of the era. Often said to have had a longer range than other archers. These were not restricted to only Crete, as it was more a style of warfare than an ethnic group. Cretan archers seem to have existed over a large part of the Greek world.\n\nSyria procuced very good archers that were also sought after.\n\nArmenia produced horse archers and heavy cavalry that all that had access to liked to hire.\n\nThe central regions of Anatolia were the home of Celts who had settled there after raiding through Greece. These Galatians as they were called were common mercenaries, producing renowned armoured swordsmen and scythed chariots.\n\nMacedonian, Rhodian and Balearic slingers were renowned for their skill and ability, and were often hired as mercenaries. The Romans were fond of using these to counter Parthian horse archers as slingers usually had longer range than archers and foot troops were cheaper and could be had in larger numbers than horse archers.\n\nNumidian javelinmen were highly sought after, and the Carthaganians used them as mercenaries extensively, both on foot and on horseback.\n\nSaramatians were a horse people adapt both as horse archers and medium to heavy cavalry and extensively used by the Romans."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20x01e/did_soldiers_in_the_sword_and_shield_era_in_big/"
],
[]
] |
|
7p2hbd | why do old light gun video game accessories (like the nes zapper) not work on modern tvs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7p2hbd/eli5_why_do_old_light_gun_video_game_accessories/ | {
"a_id": [
"dse07d3",
"dsef4kj",
"dsegq2d",
"dseib7s"
],
"score": [
164,
39,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"CRTs would turn off the pixels and then light them up again each frame, lighting them up one by one in sequence. By timing when the light gun \"sees\" the pixel light up, it can deduce where the gun was pointing.\n\nPlasma/LCD/LED screens are permanently on, they just adjust the pixels each refresh. There is no \"off\" state (unless the screen is actually off). The mechanism which the light guns used on CRTs simply does not exist.",
"CRTs are a glass wall of phosphorus that is lit from behind by a raybeam of electrons. The ray sweeps horizontally across the screen row by row, lighting up the phosphorus where required to make the picture. It does this 50 or 60 times a second depending where you are from. The NES knows what time the ray started the top row and measures the time it takes to see it with the gun. This then gives the location on the screen. \n\nPlasmas are essentially a huge matrix of single pixel CRTs so they don't scan.\n\nLCDs are basically curtains hiding a back light source so they don't scan either. \n\nBecause neither scan, the NES can't calculate the location from when the new frame starts drawing.",
"the zapper doesn't actually shoot anything - it has a camera inside the barrel, where the bullets would come from if it was a real gun.\n\nsee how the screen flashes when you pull the trigger? that's because for just a moment, instead of showing the game, the screen just shows white squares - wherever the targets are in your game. if the camera in the barrel sees one of those white squares, the zapper tells the game that you hit that target!\n\nthe older bulkier TVs displayed game graphics really fast - that's why you don't notice the white squares during the flash unless you look really carefully. The newer TVs are better, they're not as blurry and can show higher quality pictures - but it takes them a little bit of time to do that. So by the time the screen flashes, the camera in the zapper has already 'looked' for the white squares - and because the TV hasn't quite gotten ready to show them yet, the camera doesn't see them, and tells the game you missed, even if you were really aiming at the target.",
"Timing.\n\nWhen you pull the trigger on the NES Zapper, the game flashes a black screen, then white squares where the ducks were. The gun is just a photo-sensor and sends the data (how much light it's seeing) back to the NES. So, if the game senses a black-then-white pattern at *exactly* the right moment, then the duck was shot.\n\nThe problem is while CRTs were analog and basically instant, (most) modern TVs have a few milliseconds or so delay, which totally screws up the timing between the game and the display. \n\nImagine just a few milliseconds delay. When the game outputs black, the gun is still seeing light, and then when the game outputs a white square, the gun is still seeing black.\n\n^\\*: ^grammar"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2l785g | mormonism and christianity | so question: whats the difference between mormons and christians, like what do they believe in thats different and how is church different? How hard would it be to become mormon if i am a christian? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l785g/eli5mormonism_and_christianity/ | {
"a_id": [
"cls3us2",
"cls3yrj"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Mormonism is based on Christianity, but it has an additional set of gospels that detail Jesus's adventures in the New World.\n\nThere are a variety of ritualistic and mythological differences between Mormons and more mainstream Christians, but there aren't all that many doctrinal differences. If a Mormon thinks it's a sin, then most evangelical Christians would agree - and vice versa. Compared to the entire spectrum of Christian belief, Mormons tend to fall on the more conservative side.",
"At its very roots, Mormonism is from the same theological tradition as Christianity, but there are some major differences. They both believe in the Bible, although Mormons interpret a lot of it in a very different way than do Christians. For example, Christians believe in the Holy Trinity (That the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are really all one entity and are all equally God) while Mormons believe the three are very separate entities, with the Father being the only one that is actually God.\n\nMormons also believe in a second book called the Book of Mormon, which discusses how Jesus went to Central America after the crucifixion and establishing the church there.\n\nThey believe that God used to be a guy like you and me who lived on a planet orbiting a star called Kolob. He lived a virtuous life and was awarded God status over a planet of his own, Earth. Mormons believe that if you do everything right, you can one day become a God yourself.\n\nBecoming a Mormon isn't particularly hard to do, since they are very interested in expanding their membership base as much as possible. I believe you just have to study for a while, have some interviews, profess your faith, and be baptized. However, that's just \"base-level\" Mormonism, and there's a much more complex hierarchy that you can work your way through."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6hemap | why can somebody post a picture/video of anyone online without their consent but sometimes you are asked to sign a consent form? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hemap/eli5_why_can_somebody_post_a_picturevideo_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dixoe8q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People can post anything online it doesnt mean it's all legal & law enforcement have devisions dedicated to incarcerate & prosecute those illegally posting content."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3i2ge6 | why can some insects survive high radiation levels they wouldn't encounter on earth and others don't? | For instance take the clichéd cockroach. They can survive substantially higher levels of radiation such as that from a nuclear weapon. Surely in nature they would never encounter such high levels of radiation, outwith some stellar events. Furthermore why do only certain species have such a great tolerance to radiation whilst others do not.
It seems like genetics are coding for an unnecessary and unlikely exposure to radiation. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i2ge6/eli5_why_can_some_insects_survive_high_radiation/ | {
"a_id": [
"cucpewh",
"cucu6yd"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"They do not have specific adaptations for surviving radiation, but they are pretty tough little bugs that can survive injuries, starvation, etc. Insect biology just handles radiation damage better than mammals and things, mainly because they're much simpler than vertebrates. \n\nThere are arthropods that can survive the vacuum of space, not because they need to live in space bot because they evolved to survive *dessication* (drying out). Tardigrades are the instant ramen of the arthropod world.",
"Evolution isn't necessarily aimed at the outcome, its just a set of mutations that end up with the end result getting better and better over time. Certain parts of that evolution are specific, like cockroaches being able to eat almost anything, others like the radiation example are simply side effects of how their system works with regards to cancer and redundancy protection. \nIf it turned out that surviving nuclear war was a disadvantage in some other way, like it was just too much and could be made leaner somehow, evolution will degrade or completely remove it eventually, but like I said, its simply a result of something else, not necessarily the desired effect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.