Datasets:

LLukas22

/

lfqa_preprocessed

like 0

why does the human body become dependant on drugs that are not natural to it?

It depends a lot on the drug as to what's happening in the body, but two general reactions is that the drug either induces a standard process in the body, or replaces a hormone in the body. In either case, the body learns to stop inducing or producing whatever process the drug supplements because it saves the body energy (which is the body's ultimate goal). When someone stops taking the drug, the body freaks out because it's suddenly missing a critical process. The withdrawal symptoms are the body reacting to this missing process and attempting to get things started again. People can die because some processes are necessary for life and the body dies without it or without proper care when it stops.

The Eagle Nebula - what would it currently look like?

Unless this is *very* recent news (i.e., the last day or so), then I don't think it's true. There hasn't been a supernova in the Milky Way for some time -- [they average at just a couple per century](_URL_0_) -- which is an interesting problem in itself. You should be fine using the HST image.

why is southern europe relatively lush compared to the deserts of north africa when they are both next to the mediterranean?

Okay, so the comments so far only are only partially correct but the main reason is persistent high pressure which results in subsidence. There is a concept referred to as a [Hadley cell](_URL_0_) which is a basic description of how the atmosphere circulates. Essentially, the equator is hot and the poles are cold. Hot air rises and cold air sinks because cold air is more dense. To generalize, air from the equator moves toward the poles and air at the poles moves toward the equator. But it's not that simple since we are dealing with three dimensions as well as the Coriolis effect (sometimes incorrectly referred to as the Coriolis force) not to mention a variation in topography and surface cover (water vs bare land vs heavy vegetation). In any case, as you can see in the image, the Hadley cells near the equator depict air rising at the equator, moving poleward, and then decending at around 30ish degrees latitude. This descending air is key because as air descends, it heats up due to compression (more air pressure at the surface than aloft). The warmer air gets, the more water vapor it can carry. Now, there is such a thing called relative humidity...which is basically how much water vapor a body of air is holding vs. how much it could hold before producing precipitation. Since the water vapor content of the descending air does not change (because air of different temperatures and humidity tends not to mix very easily), the relative humidity goes down. To put it another way, say the air is 50 degrees F and has 100 units of water vapor, and it can hold 1000 units of water vapor at that temperature. In this case, there would be 10% relative humidity. Now, when that air sinks, it might heat up to say, 100 degrees F and since it is warmer, it can hold more water vapor (say, 10,000 units) so the RH would be 1%. Of course those numbers are completely fictional, but it illustrates the concept. TL;DR...air is generally descending over the sahara due to persistent high pressure. Descending air heats up adiabatically and causes RH to drop. Therefore, there is a major deficit of precipitation year round.

I've heard that the Ancient Romans saw large penises as a sign of barbarism. To what extent is this the case?

In general, the surviving sculptures, vases, and writings describing male beauty in the Greco-Roman world depict the ideal of beauty for men (especially young men) as being hairless, thin, athletic, and with a small penis with a tapering foreskin. Large penises are most often found on satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians, which suggests that they were viewed as grotesque, comical, and outlandish. In his study *Greek Homosexuality*, Kenneth Dover writes: > In caricature and in the representation of satyrs a penis of great size, even of preposterous size, is very common, and it is a reasonable conclusion (though not, I admit, an inescapable conclusion) that if a big penis goes with a hideous face, and a small penis with a handsome face, it is the small penis which was admired. As for why this would be the case, we can only speculate, but *Greek Homosexuality* does a good job of arguing why and how Greco-Roman conceptions of sexuality were not the same as modern conceptions of sexual orientation. Sexuality was considered more fluid, especially in the case of sexual relationships between older men and adolescent boys, which were not seen to make either of the participants exclusively homosexual. Therefore a standard of male beauty evolved around what these older men desired in younger men, which tended to be a slim, hairless, somewhat feminine physique with a small penis, rather than a more virile or well-endowed standard based around, for example, female sexual pleasure or desire. It was the older men who largely ran Greek and Roman society, and who created and patronized most of the art and literature, so it is their concept of male beauty which we know about. A PDF of *Greek Homosexuality* is [here](_URL_0_). I pulled that quote from page 126. EDIT: I realize this answer is mostly about the Greeks when OP asked about the Romans, but from what I've heard the Romans had similar views on penis size as the Greeks, and *Greek Homosexuality* was the best academic source I could find about ancient Mediterranean dick size preferences.

why does my dog smell differently when he comes inside from the cold?

The air oxidizes the oils in his fur, changing the way it smells to us. It happens to people too. Try smelling yourself before and after you spend some time in a windy area.

What causes black holes to have an upper limit to their rotational speed?

The *intuitive* reason is that angular momentum has an associated rotational energy. This energy increases the mass of the black hole (through E = Mc^(2)). Now, if you fix the total mass M, increasing the spin J then increases the fraction of M that is due to this rotational energy, and decreases the fraction of "normal", or "bare" mass (mass it would have if not rotating). At a certain point, the bare mass becomes zero and M is entirely due to the rotation. This is an extremal Kerr hole. If you continue increasing J then the bare mass must become negative, which means the BH has become superextremal. Superextremal BHs are unstable and are impossible to create. Intuitively because negative mass is impossible. Thus, for any given total mass, there is an upper bound on the spin which is given by the extremal black hole. Normal black holes satisfying the bound are called subextremal.

How did arabic women dress during the abbasid caliphate?

The actual cultural dress? No idea. But they were definitely not dressed like belly dancers. The average Muslim woman would have covered the majority of her body other than her face, hands, and feet. Muslim males would have covered the same area except for manual laborers who might have taken their shirt off while working. The actual outfits might have varied from place to place within the Abbassid caliphate but that is what would have been covered by free women in the major cities. Of course, in distant lands controlled by the Abbassids, you could have any range of dress. I think ibn Battuta mentions in his travels to Africa that he was shocked by how much skin women showed. However, the fact that he was shocked by it shows how rare it would have been in central Abbassid lands.

how can humans survive a partial beheading?

If that spinal cord isn’t cut, you won’t die instantly. Granted, you won’t live long with a severed carotid without immediate medical attention (even then it’s a crap shoot).

What are the differences between a mole and a freckle?

Both are types of what are known as *melanocytic lesions* - basically areas with a greater amount of production of melanin than the rest of the skin. Melanin is the pigment that is responsible for difference in skin tone and also the colour of moles and freckles. Melanin is produced by cells called *melanocytes*. The difference between freckles and moles is as follows: **In freckles** - no increased number of melanocytes, just an increased amount of melanin **In moles** - increased number of melanocytes AND an increased amount of melanin Moles (AKA melanocytic naevi) can arise as either a hamartoma (birth mark) or as a neoplasm (an acquired mole, usually benign [non-cancerous]). Moles can also be one of three types, depending on their location in the skin: **Junctional** - flat and brown/black in colour **Intradermal** - raised. Most are flesh-coloured (i.e. no pigmentation) **Compound** - slightly raised, brown/black in colour. Think of them as a combination of junctional and intradermal Hope that helps!

Do any wild organisms have a symbiotic relationship with another to babysit their young?

There are functional relationships where one species invests itself in raising the young of another, although the examples I'm familiar with are completely one-sided, which makes them parasitic and not symbiotic. Consider for instance the cuckoo, which will lay its eggs in another birds nest and just ... leave. The other bird cannot tell the difference between its eggs/chicks and the cuckoos, and will raise the cuckoo chick as its own. In return, [the cuckoo chick grows quite fast, is robust, and will kick the hosts chicks out of the nest until it alone remains. Definitely not symbiotic](_URL_5_), but you've got the "species A raising the offspring of species B" side of things. You suggest the existence of hollow plant nurseries that want fertilizer. Those sort-of exist. There are actually quite a few of those in different unrelated plant lineages such as the south/central american orchid [*Myrmecophila tibicinis*](_URL_2_), southeast asian plants of the genera [*Myrmecodia*](_URL_4_) (these might as well be called pre-fabbed ant nests) and [*Squamellaria*](_URL_3_) as well as [*Acacia cornigera*](_URL_0_) in Africa. Those that I know of are ant-hosting specialists aka ["myrmekophytes"](_URL_1_), and the relationship varies from full grown symbiosis to mutualism. The ants nest inside the plant and patrol the surface, providing protection from parasitic insects and (to some extent) from grazing. Their dejections may also provide nutrients, although the extent to which that matters may vary from one species-couple to the next. The plant provides shelter, and in some cases food through extrafloral nectaries. However, the plant's relationship is with the ant colony as a whole, and not just the young, so it's not quite what you asked for in that respect. I've also heard of (but have no direct knowledge of) a so-called "babysitting symbiosis" between two species of brittle stars (see: [Fourgon, D., Jangoux, M., & Eeckhaut, I. (2007). Biology of a “babysitting” symbiosis in brittle stars: analysis of the interactions between Ophiomastix venosa and Ophiocoma scolopendrina. Invertebrate Biology, 126(4), 385-395.](_URL_6_)) It doesn't sound as involved as the term "babysitting" would suggest.

Can a wave's wavelength be smaller than Planck length? And why?

No one knows the answer to this question. The Planck length just represents the scale at which our current models break down, the scale at which a theory that combines gravity and quantum mechanics will be needed. What the new models that work at that scale will tell us about physics at that scale or smaller is an open question.

if companies like samsung and apple pay (m/b)illions in "patent wars" about violating design patents, how can companies easily create identical iphone or samsung device knockoffs commonly seen on ebay and amazon?

They aren't in serious competition, for one; those are entirely different price points. Also, China.

How would people get phone messages during the 1930's?

Not a silly question. There were two types of calls that could be made during this time: person-to-person and station-to-station. If you had a specific person you wanted to talk to you would request a person-to-person call. You wouldn't be billed for the long distance charges until that person came to the phone. This was metered by having the operator on the line with you until the person you wanted came to the phone. Station-to-station calls were made when you didn't really care about who you talked to and one could leave a message with the person who answered if it was intended for a specific person. Interestingly, person-to-person calls are still available though I don't think anyone uses them anymore. If you look at AT & T's [rates for operator assisted calls](_URL_0_) it shows why one might have hesitated to use this service. The prices were much higher for person-to-person. The upside was you'd likely get billed for fewer minutes. An interesting note about billing.. the way that billing worked back in the early days of cross country calling was that it was billed in three-minute increments. I have an advertisement from 1927 from a magazine (unfortunately I don't know what magazine as it was just the single page when it was given to me) that says that a call from San Francisco to New York was $9 per billing segment. If you take inflation into account that would be around $120 or $40 per minute today! Clearly you had to be very well to makes calls of this type for personal reasons. Now regarding privacy, when working with the telegraph and telephone companies at the time there were often a number of people involved in the loop. With telegraphs there was someone on the sending and receiving end who were privy to your communications. With phone calls it was very easy for the operators along the route to listen in, though it wasn't really standard operating practice to do so. The employees of whatever company was employed were of course supposed to keep everything in confidence but you can imagine this wasn't always the case. That's not to say that privacy wasn't a concern. There's a documented case of a tenant trying to break a lease when they discovered their calls were being listened to. A judge in the 10th District Municipal Court of New York City ruled that it was legal for the lease to be broken. (New York Times, Dec. 1, 1907, p. C12) Relatively early on there were concerns from the financial industry about telephone privacy as well. (See a letter published in the New York Times, Apr. 22, 1916, p. 10) It wasn't really until the advent of Direct Distance Dialing in the 1950s and 1960s that one could feel relatively secure in an operator not listening in on their calls.

Why is the weight of a molecule in atomic mass units not exactly equal to the sum of the protons and neutrons?

/u/RobusEtCeleritas has a good explanation. It is also important to know that the masses of atoms are measured in amu (atmic mass units), where 1 amu is 1/12 the mass of a carbon 12 atom. This takes into account some of the binding energy that was brought up, but not every atom has the same binding energy per nucleon (protons and neutrons) so essentially no atoms besides carbon 12 will have an integer number mass in amu.

What race was Attila?

Do you mean what race *would* be Attila today? Race as we know it today is an early modern construct that wouldn't have played the same role in his life, akin to saying was he a Christian or a Muslim.

why are canker sores, ingrown toenails, and splinters so excrutiatingly painful?

Hands, feet, the face, the mouth and the external genitals have a very large number of nerve endings that give a high level of the sense of touch in those parts. Other parts of the body are a lot less sensitive. Some internal organs sense no physical pain at all. It's pretty easy to see why the body has evolved this way: a good sense of touch in the hands and feet is required for climbing trees, peeling fruit, working with tools etc., and being able to accurately feel and taste what you're chewing on can also be the difference between life and death. That the pain caused by a splinter is disproportionate to the problem may be just an evolutionary side-effect.

What is the reason for China's relatively modest nuclear arsenal? Why is China the only nuclear weapons state to have given an unqualified security assurance to non-nuclear-weapon states?

Under the theory of nuclear deterrence, most nuclear weapons states have little reason to build beyond that quantity of warheads. It's enough to effectively destroy any country. That's one reason why most nuclear weapons states stop near the 300 mark. The US and Russia are the exception because of their massive arms race during the Cold War. Source: The Spread of Nuclear Weapons by Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan has a lot on this topic

monte carlo simulation and markov chain or more specifically the setting up of the data.

> BUT if you have a - day, theres a i dunno + 10% bonus that it will be a - day tomorrow too. Then it isn't a Markov chain. A Markov chain's defining property is that the future evolution of the system depends *only* on its current state - it is "memoryless". You could still do a Monte Carlo simulation, since those are much more general.

What is the significance in electric and magnetic components of EM radiation being right angles to one another?

The components of the electric and magnetic fields are different in different inertial reference frames. But they can be written in terms of an object called the [electromagnetic field tensor](_URL_0_), which is relatively straightforward to transform between frames. From this tensor you can construct two invariant quantities, which are the same in **all** inertial frames. In Gaussian units, they are (**B**^(2) - **E**^(2)) and **E∙B**. For an electromagnetic wave, it turns out that *both* of these quantities are zero. And since they're invariants, they're zero **in all inertial frames**. The second one specifically is relevant to your question. If the dot product of two nonzero vectors is zero, they are perpendicular to each other. This means that the electric and magnetic fields in an EM wave are perpendicular **in all inertial frames**. The fact that they're perpendicular in one frame implies that they're perpendicular in all frames. I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for when you say "significance", but it's an interesting fact nonetheless.

Is riding a bike muscle memory?

**Edit, Source:** [I am on a course to acquire one of these in Physical Education.](_URL_0_) ~~There's no way to compare it to American qualifications, so I wouldn't bother trying if I were you.~~ > If there's a corresponding track, it would have to be closer to [Advanced Placement](_URL_2_) level courses offered in high school. These courses are not offered to every high school student, and generally only the top students even attempt to take these classes. The coursework is more rigorous and standardized than ordinary high school classes. At the end of AP classes, a standardized test is given, and if you score high enough you receive credit that is transferable to colleges and universities.) ~[the_longest_troll](_URL_1_) *** Yes and yes. You know how "riding a bike" is built up of different things that come together to create the act itself, as a whole? These are "sub-routines", they make up the Executive Motor Programme, or skill, which is what riding a bike is. Novices will begin at the cognitive stage of learning, it won't be "muscle memory", you're just figuring this out. Then you get better and you kinda get it, you know when you still fuck up in sport but you also manage some pretty decent stuff? That's associative. Regarding riding a bike you're still not in the "muscle memory" sort of league, you'll want to keep both hands on the handlebars, etc, but you're not useless. To be honest, this stage isn't as evident with riding a bike. You don't go straight from Cognitive to Autonomous, but the lines between the stages (Cognitive --- > Associative --- > Autonomous) are more blurry. Then you have the mastery of the skill which occurs through constant practice of it. Here you can just *do*, you don't even need to think about it (ever get in your car and then just arrive at your destination with no memory of getting there? That's because you're so good at it, you don't need to give it your full attention, so to speak). This is what you're talking about about, this is when you've "grooved" the skill so it means instinctive. I've not ridden a bike in years (my old one broke, can't afford a new one), I'll still be able to get on one and ride as if I'd been riding this whole time. It's a EMP that has been committed to my Long-Term Memory, it isn't going anywhere because LTM is, theoretically, unlimited. Kinesthesis. It's one of the senses that most people forget and plays a big part in balance. For instance, stand on one leg. Now close your eyes. You can feel yourself making sure you don't lose your balance, right? It's involuntary but it is something you also have control over.

what it that feeling of horrible burning when water goes up your nose when diving into a pool or just taking a shower and reaching down for something?

The main reason why water burns when it goes up your nose is because the salinity of the water does not match the salinity of the cells in your body. The salinity of freshwater is much lower than your body, so when water gets into your nose and into your sinuses, some of the cells that line the sinus and nasal cavities burst open and die because they rapidly suck in water - like overfilling a water balloon. Your body responds by rapidly secreting mucus to coat the remaining cells and protect them from the water. This whole thing involves three steps: (1) osmosis of water into the nasal cells; (2) many cells burst (cell lysis), and (3) the responds by releasing mucus. [Link](_URL_0_)

What are the pros and cons of HDL, LDL, and omega-3 fatty acids? (Also what are omega-3 fatty acids?)

Hi there. After digestion, your lipids are packed into droplets known as chylomicrons. From there, they are transported to the liver and re-packaged as lipoproteins (containing cholesterol, triglycerides, fatty acid etc). So as these lipoproteins, fresh from the liver, transport fatty acids, cholesterol and triglycerides around the body via the circulatory system. They start off as VLDL (Very low-density lipoproteins) and as they move around the body, depositing and distributing fatty acids and cholesterol, they come into contact with HDL which in turn removes part of their core (triglycerides) via breakdown of lipids. Also, the high triglycerides content in VLDL is exchanged for cholesterol with HDL. So after the exchange of triglycerides and cholesterol with HDL, VLDL is changed into LDL. LDL has a high cholesterol content due to this process. As it moves around the body, distributing cholesterol and triglycerides, some of the cholesterol are distributed onto the walls of the blood vessels. As time passes, this cholesterol deposition will increase in size due to more cholesterol being deposited. Another term for this mass of cholesterol is plaque. Inflammatory responses from the body will cause this plaque to be formed and eventually break off. This often resets in heart attack if the plaque is large enough to enter and clog up the coronary artery. Pros of LDL: - distribute triglycerides, cholesterol, lipids etc around the body for functioning - helps to regulate the body's lipid balance (homeostasis) Cons of LDL: - may result in cardiovascular diseases when in excess - too much of LDL can also bring by obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (II) etc HDL are deployed by the liver to collect back cholesterol, and also to exchange these cholesterol for triglycerides with VLDL as mentioned earlier on. Basically, HDL acts as a cleaning agent in the system, clearing some of the cholesterol that may result in cardiovascular disease in the body and in particular, the circulatory system. Pros of HDL: - Cleans up the circulatory system of cholesterol - Helps regulate the balance of lipids Cons of HDL: - Not too sure

how does the air stay so hot in the nighttime when the sun isn’t even out? and how is it that the sun makes the temperature only like 5-10 degrees warmer during the daytime in the summer?

The same reason the inside of an oven doesn't return to room temperature the instant you turn it off. Both the atmosphere and the ground absorb heat during the daytime. It takes time for this heat to dissipate after the sun sets. Furthermore, and this answers some of the second part of your question as well, air doesn't stay in one place. There are both local and global weather phenomenon that move air around, so warm air can be coming from elsewhere on the planet. As for your claim that it's only 5-10 degrees (I assume you mean Fahrenheit) cooler at night, that's your personal observation in your specific location for a short period of time, not fact. There are tons of historical weather records from all over the world at different times of year and different points in history that show the actual daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal highs and lows, and I think you'll find there's a ton of variation.

When does a comet stop moving?

You can think of a comet entering our solar system as a ball rolling down a hill. As it gets closer and closer to the sun, it'll speed up more and more. When it heads away from the sun, it'll be slowing down, like a ball going uphill. This is because of the effect of the sun's gravity. It won't otherwise come to a stop, per se. It'll be in some sort of orbit. It is, however, possible for something else to change that orbit. For example, Jupiter has redirected comets into new orbits when comets have passed too close to it.

why is it racist to do an asian accent but not racist to to a british or an australian etc. one

If you are a white American, it is because that is the same race. Brits and Australians speak the same language as you, just with different accents. An Asian has learned your language even though it is not their native tongue, and you would be mocking them.

why are so many of the world's greatest classic rock bands from england? what were the influences at that time and when did their rising popularity start to decline?

Two reasons. 1. The Beatles. They were HUGE, and seemingly came from nowhere. They became the most popular band in history, and inspired many small time bands and musicians in England to try and go big as well. 2. Empire. GB used to basically rule the world, and a lot of the world took up parts of British culture because of it. This probably allowed a band like the Beatles to have success a lot faster, as most of the world was already attuned to the British taste in music and art.

Does the pull of gravity increase or decrease as you approach the center of a mass?

I assume when you say "approach the CoM", you mean drilling a borehole. The [Shell Theorem](_URL_0_) states that it decreases. Assuming the body in question is radially uniform, the gravity at a point inside the body is equal to the gravity pull as if the mass above you (i.e. the "shell" of earth above you) didn't exist. For instance, if you were 10km inside earth, the surface gravity there would be equal as if the first 10km of earth was "shaved" off, and you were standing on said shaved earth. Hope that made sense.

how has the previous generation “ruined the housing market” for millennials?

The short answer, we don’t make as much money as they did. Slightly longer answer: US household median income in 1970 was $9,780 which has a buying power of $64,700 in today’s money. The current median US wage is 61,800, about $3,000 less or effectively 5% less money available per year than they did. Next, median home sale price in 1970 was $23,600 or $155k in today’s dollars. The median sale price in Jan 2018 was $330k; double what they were paying ‘back in the day.’ So, you have to spend on average 25-50% more money to get a home with 5-10% less money. This is all due to wage stagnation relative to productivity and inflation. Or otherwise said, wages did not keep up with the cost of goods and your dollar just doesn’t go as far.

why is it important to create credit and the benefits of it

Essentially, "building credit" is just showing that if you borrow someone else's money, they can trust you to pay it back. If I'm a random stranger, you probably wouldn't want to lend me a bunch of money, but if a bunch of people you trust all vouch for me that they loaned me money and I paid them back in full and on time, you might be more willing to consider it. As to why it's important, if you want to finance a large purchase like a car or a house (or even if you just want to raise the maximum on your credit card), your bank is going to want to know they can trust you to pay them back before they'll put the money down for you.

how i shock people/get shocked by touching things? (i.e. static electricity)

> How does it get built up? Everything is made of charges of positive electricity and negative. The two kinds of electricity are carried by the protons and electrons of atoms. But usually an object is electrically "neutral," because its own pos and neg charges are equal in number and cancelled out. "Static electricity" happens when the positives and negatives aren't in perfect balance. To create an imbalance, just pull some positives out of one object and put them on a second object. The first object ends up with excess negatives, and the second object will have excess positive charge. The usual way to create the imbalance is to push two different surfaces together, then peel them apart. When different surfaces touch, they unequally share atoms and charges. When the surface are pulled away from each other, usually one surface ends up with too many negatives, and the other has too many positives. If you walk across a carpet, you will leave positive footprints behind, and your shoes will become negatively charged. The charge on your shoes leaks to your body. Don't reach for a doorknob or you'll get a big zap! If you sit on a chair for awhile, then get up again, there will be a highly charged butt-print on the chair. And your clothes end up with excess charge of the opposite polarity. (Now don't dare to touch the car door!) . > Why does it hurt to be moved from one object to another The little spark is hotter than the surface of the sun. It's plasma, and gives you a tiny burn. Also the high voltage in your skin at the spark location can trigger the nerves in your skin to signal hot, cold, pressure, pain, etc. > but not by just having the electricity in my body? When you're charged, you might feel slight prickles as your body hair stands on end. But you won't feel pain without the 10,000 degree spark plasma drilling through the dead skin layers and into the live tissues below!

if someone started wearing weights/ weighted clothing, increasing as they got used to it, what would the effects actually be if they went through having it on often?

You will destroy your joints, your body is not Designed to have weight on the ends of your limbs and why we gain weight on our butts and bellies. Also the weights tend to flap around a bit when you move pulling in directions you don't want. Pretty sure there is a 'because science' YouTube video on this topic if your interested.

how can large chains (target, walmart, etc) produce store brand versions of nearly every product imaginable while industry manufacturers only really produce a single type of item?

Because they don't actually make it. Costco doesn't make "Coscto Whisky" Costco has a contract with (it's not but for ease of names) Jack Daniels. And again for ease I will use "Bottles" not "Barrels" If Jack Daniels sells their whisky for $20 a bottle, say it costs them $10 to produce. Costco says "We want to buy your whisky at $15 per bottle, but we will order 10,000 bottles. We're going to resell it as Costco Whisky" Jack Daniels says "Sure thing, but here's an Non-Disclosure Agreement. You cannot tell anyone Costco Whisky is made by Jack Daniels." Jack Daniels may only make $5 per bottle instead of 10 but they just sold 10,000 bottles. Costco paid $15/bottle, cost the $1/bottle to re-label it and they sell it at $18/bottle. So it's cheaper to buy costco & they still make money. They then do this with many other products.

why are toilets round?

Your ass is round.

how did other languages adopt the latin alphabet?

Did a little search and found this, might interest you _URL_0_ Seems that a major factor is the spread of Western Christianity and the roman empire.

what made concorde so fast compared to other commercial planes?

It was built to go that fast. The market isn't really willing to deal with the costs and complications of a plane like as compared to 747s and other craft we'd now call conventional though, so the concorde failed. It's just like how someone can build ships that go far faster than your average freighter, but the average freighter is more profitable even taking into account the potential for a faster ship to run cargo faster. Bigger and better engines are usually going to cost more to travel the same distance between fuel and maintenance costs. Often the time savings isn't worth that extra cost.

Is it possible to make 100% pure alcohol?

One thing to consider is the definition of purity, and the fact that it's essentially impossible for any macroscopic sample of a substance to be 100% pure at room temperature. I can confidently say that nobody has ever made a bottle of ethanol that contains no other molecule. We probably haven't even made a bottle of ethanol that contains no detectable impurities, partly because chemists are very, very, very good at detecting infinitesimal quantities of substances using instruments like accelerated mass spectrometers. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you had a magic wand that could fill a glass or plastic bottle with ethanol and absolutely nothing else. Within a few milliseconds, it would no longer be pure. The bottle material would start to dissolve into the ethanol. What's more, the ethanol would undergo a process called auto-ionization, in which one ethanol hydroxyl group will transfer a proton to a neighboring molecule. Suddenly, you have some units of ethanolium ethoxide dissolved in your previously pure bottle of ethanol. More exotic chemical reactions can also begin to occur to a small extent, making any number of pyrolysis, addition, and condensation products. On a macroscopic scale it's never considered, but it does not bode well for a sample that is supposed to be absolutely pure.

how would alien races communicate via mathematics?

You could do this using a series of pulses from an electromagnetic beam. Let's say you send out a group of 5 pulses. After a pause, you send out 7 more. After another pause, you send out 12. It doesn't matter what language the aliens speak and it doesn't matter what base their number system is expressed in or what symbols they use (if any) to record mathematical expressions. That 5 + 7 = 12 is a universal mathematical truth, and aliens on the lookout for intelligent life who have the capability to receive the signal could interpret this message. The purpose isn't to communicate just any message. It's to communicate the specific message that there is intelligent life present.

I stumbled across an image of the inside of the Hagia Sophia, it appears Christian imagery was not removed by the ottomans, why was this?

These mosaics were painted over but not removed when the city was taken by Mehmed II. Minarets, minbar, and mihrab were added and it became a functional mosque. After the fall of the empire and the transformation of the Hagia Sophia from mosque into museum in the 1920s, restorationists removed some of the plaster and whitewash to reveal the mosaics underneath.

the zapatista movement

Ooh, I was just looking into this! So basically, they are a guerrilla group of (mostly agricultural and ethnically Mayan) farmers that seek to limit government and foreign incursions into Chiapas, the southernmost state of Mexico. Their ideology is "Neozapatism", a blend of Marxism, anarchism and Mayan culture.

why does american television show naked babies bottoms, but won't show a grown person's?

one is sexualized, one isnt. Some people will be aroused by feet anyway, its just how it goes. our society has decided baby butts are ok as long as they arent used in a sexual theme. If the watcher wants to find it sexual, thats their business. with that said, you can find plenty of adult butts on tv, I recall NYPD Blue made headlines some 20 years ago with the first butt on network television.

Why do the Indian and Chinese depictions of Buddha differ so much?

Are you referring to the fat Chinese Buddha? He's just a folklore deity named [Budai](_URL_2_), not a depiction of Siddhartha Gautama. [This is one of the largest Buddha statue in Sichuan, China](_URL_1_), [here's a Buddha statue in Shaolin Temple](_URL_0_), and [here's a generic mass-produced Buddha statue](_URL_3_) from China, they are not that different from Indian ones.

how are dubbing voices replaced without messing with background noises?

Basically, all the footage and sound effects are kept as separate files. These days there’s software that you can load these files into and then arrange and edit, and then the software will compile it all into the video that’s actually distributed to tv networks, streaming sites, or movie theaters. Different audio is typically recorded separately, so voice acting and sound effects are stored in different files - even different lines likely are stored as separate files. This makes dubbing largely just a matter loading a different set of voice files into the software. If it’s animated, they might also edit the facial animations. The exact process can vary depending on techniques used, but that’s the basic idea

why are people with a latex allergy also allergic to bananas? what's the connection?

The banana contains a protein which is very similar in chemical structure to latex. So if you're sensitive to one, there's about a 50% chance that you're sensitive to the other as well. _URL_0_

How does x-ray powder diffraction work (specifically as applied to mineralogy)?

A powdered sample is still crystalline, and will still diffract x-rays to specific angles based on the lattice spacing. The size of the powder particles are still huge compared to the wavelength of x-rays. What powdering does is randomize your sample, so that all the different possible crystal faces of the material are all oriented along the surface of the sample. Then what you do is rotate the x-ray detector around the sample and measure the intensity of x-rays as a function of the rotation angle. You can then correlate that to the lattice spacing and piece together what crystal structure you have (or look it up in a table). You can learn more about it in most solid state physics books, like Ashcroft and Mermin or Blakemore, or more rigorously in a proper XRD material science book. I would check out Dover editions because they are considerably cheaper and just as good with the theory. Edit: You rotate the x-ray detector, not the x-ray source. This is just one method for powder diffraction.

What's the difference between a tribe and an organized government in the medieval period? Why do we talk about the "Kingdom of Lombardy" or the "Duchy of Normandy", but at the same time we talk about the "Avars" or the "Aboriginal australians"?

I'm going to give two very short, simple answers and then one somewhat more complex (but still pretty short) answer. First short answer is that we say "Kingdom of Lombardy" and "Ducky or Normandy" because that is what they called themselves. Nine times out of ten the best term to use for a particular state or social group is the one they use to refer to themselves. If we use a term like "Germanic tribe" it is because we don't actually know that term. Second short and simple answer isn't actually short and simple for you but is for me because it is just a [link to some discussion about the term "tribe"](_URL_1_) which has a pretty fraught history of usage. The third answer relates to an old but still somewhat useful concept in anthropology of sociopolitical typology, which essentially posits that political configurations can, broadly speaking, be categorized into four types: bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states. I was trying to think of an easy way to explain the difference but to be honest I am a bit at a loss, so I will just link [this handy chart](_URL_0_) (in my defense, this is generally how intro anthro textbooks do it also)[EDIT: changed to an imgur link. The original citation was "based on the typology in Elman R. Service's (1962) Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective" but to be perfectly honest I like most people learned the typology from introductory materials,specifically the excellent lecture series "Peoples and Cultures of the World" by Edward Fischer]. This typology is somewhat out of favor, for reasons that I think motivated your question: how on earth do you classify the Holy Roman Empire? It also implicitly promotes a linear view of human society in which people progress through different "stages" ending in the modern nation-state--actual history is rather more complex. Furthermore, actual political affiliation is often much more complex and multiple, for example one of my favorite groups n history are the Isuarians, who firmly existed within the Roman Empire but also maintained an internal political configuration that can best be described as somewhere between "tribe" and "chiefdom" on that chart. All the terms have a bit of difficulty coming down to the level of the individual.

can our brain switch it's perception of colors?

I dont have an answer, but everytime i get a high fever (102 F+) the way I perceive colors gets screwed up. I.E. I see the red digital numbers on my alarm clock as green.

Map of History

Is such a thing possible? No, not really. On a smaller scale, such a question has the problem of assuming defined states where there were none or where other arrangements would be more appropriate. On a larger scale, such a map would necessarily impose synchronous borders on areas that experienced consistent flux. Borders in the past were much more porous and flexible than today's nation-states. Still, there's a guy named [Thomas Lessman](_URL_0_) who is internet-famous for making rough maps of historical boundaries. They should not be taken as absolute truths, however, but as approximations. They're like Wikipedia (which Lessman draws on heavily): a good place to start, but a terrible place to finish.

Ataturk and the Progressive Dictator

First off, I highly, highly, highly recommend you read Şukru Hanioğlu's new book Atatürk: An Intellectual Biography if you haven't already. I think that the principles you've outlined as characteristic of Atatürk deserve some modification. Semi-official Kemalist doctrine has six "arrows": Republicanism, Popularism, Secularism (or laicite), Revolution(ism), Nationalism, Statism (etatism). While I think there is a good deal of wiggle room in those principles, I think they hew closer to what you might call Atatürk's philosophy than what you have inferred. I'll try and walk through your points one by one, then briefly reflect on Atatürk's legacy. 1. Secularism - This is perhaps the most potent aspect of Kemalist policy. It is the 'arrow' that often appears as sacred above all others to hardline Kemalists -- to the point that today religious suggestions in state affairs can be criminally punished as an 'insult to Atatürk' and his memory. But this legacy of Kemalism elides his viewpoints in earlier parts of his career. For sure, Mustafa Kemal saw secularist government as a fundamental aspect of modern society. Equally so, he believed that religion, and religious authority should be an expression of popular will -- something he felt the sultan-caliph was ill-suited for. During the war for independence, he welcomed the support of religious groups -- particularly the Indian Khalifat movement and the Libyan Sanusi sheikhs. He recognized an accord between himself and religious groups in a shared sense of anti-imperialism. He even supported the continuance of the caliphate, so long as it rested outside of Turkey. So you are right to say that he sought to erase religious influence on politics -- but his primary concern was not really the influence of symbols, headscarves for instance, but the influence of religious institutions who he saw as oppressive and illiberal anachronisms. 2. Nationalism -- Turkish nationalism is a much older idea than Atatürk, but he did run with the idea to some pretty inventive extremes. Theories like the Sun Language Theory and the Turkish History thesis represent an almost obsessive level of belief in Turkish greatness. Perhaps this was an attempt to rescue a populace who had been beaten down by the decay of the Ottoman Empire or nearly a quarter century of warfare, but ultimately, these theories were widely discredited and it is hard to say whether Turks really adopted Atatürk's nationalism beyond allegiance to his own cult of personality and shared sentimentalities (like the saying "How happy to call oneself a Turk"). 3. Liberalism - Yes, in the terms you set out about women's rights, Atatürk was forward thinking, but one must remember that this was a very paternalistic process. In Atatürk's eyes women didn't win their rights, he granted them. To credit women's liberation and enhanced role in the public sphere solely to Atatürk is a mistake, and in truth he himself was at times very hostile to the leaders of Turkish feminist movements who disagreed with him on other matters (e.g. Halide Edib Adivar, Sabiha Sertel). 4. Politicized military -- I think that you're close on this one, but the true development of the "Deep State" is really a post-WWII construct. It is hard to separate the role of the military, political party and government when they are basically run by the same people. I think he saw the army as a tool of the people, and stayed mostly true to that. That the army later developed into a force that guided the state, in Atatürk's name no less, would probably have disappointed him. 5. Single Party Rule -- I think the insistance on single-party rule was more of a practical matter than anything else. The early republic saw a few experimentations with multiparty democracy, but ultimately I think Mustafa Kemal saw that the economic modernization project took precedent had to be unified and driven by the state before multiparty democracy could thrive. 6. Education and Westernization -- Education, sure, but you have to be careful when talking about Mustafa Kemal and "Westernization". Mustafa Kemal was an explicitly anti-imperial figure, and this often coded as anti-western. He also was loathe to appear to explicitly "import" western culture or ideas, he would much rather cook up a rational that explained the inherent "Turkishness" of a thing like, say, opera than simply tell people to go see Carmen. This also fueled a somewhat friendly relationship with the Soviet Union in the early years. 7. Economic liberalization -- this isn't correct. Turkey's economy has only been reliably liberalized in the last 10 or 15 years. Kemal as a strict statist in terms of the economy, encouraging domestic production and industry guided by the state. In almost every sense, this was less liberal than the Ottoman economic model. You are very right to point out that Atatürk's influence was widespread. Most clearly with the Iranian Shah in terms of cultural reforms. I would say that yes, later dictators drew some lessons from Atatürk, but they failed on other fronts. For instance Kemal's anti-imperialism manifested in an obsessive focus on homegrown economic production and a wariness of foreign debt (and likewise a staunch non-aligned status in foreign policy). This lesson was lost on Iran, where the Shah fell prey to the wiles of the British re: oil nationalization. Mussolini mimicked Mustafa Kemal's deference to religious tradition, but of course was an imperialist. In most of the cases you mention, the influence is definitely there but for the most part if those dictators were 'practicing Kemalism' it wasn't more than salad-bar Kemalism.

how does a thermoelectric generator work?

What is really being asked is how the thermoelectric effect works, so I'll try and explain that. Imagine you had a metal wire that has either end held at a different temperature. The electrons in the metal act similar to a gas, where the electrons at the hotter end are moving faster and spreading out more. This causes a higher concentration of electrons at the cold end, which causes a voltage difference between the two ends of the wire. Note that different materials will generate different voltages, even under identical thermal conditions. A thermocouple or thermoelectric generator uses two dissimilar materials, with the hot ends attached together. This guarantees that there is a voltage difference between the two cold ends, which can either be used in power production or as a measurement signal.

the urge to scratch wounds

The 'urge' is not evolutionary. It's a biological reaction to the wound. The scab on the wound could be dry and cause an itch. Or the chemicals secreted by the body during the healing (histamines) could be the reason behind it.

what is a tree made out of?

It comes from the air. The tree absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, uses the carbon to build the majority of its mass, and expels oxygen.

eeg and erp

First read [this other ELI5-type post](_URL_0_) I wrote about how the brain works a few weeks ago, then come back here... EEG is basically just a way of detecting which parts of the brain are active, moment-to-moment. They place these little "electricity detectors" all over your head. Now imagine that you have a particular neural pathway activated that pulses from your left ear to your right ear inside your brain. Well, those electricity detectors on your scalp that are near the middle-top of your head are going to sense the tiny electrical current that's flowing in that pathway, while the sensors that are far away (like the ones near your eyebrows, or at the back of your neck) are not. Then a computer puts all that information together and generates either a giant set of numbers, or an image for the doctors to look at. From this information they can tell if you're having a seizure, if you're brain-dead, if you're in a coma, if you're under sufficient anesthesia, if you have brain damage etc.... ERP is like EEG, but instead of just sitting there doing nothing with this thing on your head, you are asked to perform a particular task, like remember a specific set of numbers, or watch a tv screen with a flashing light. Then they observe to see which pathways are being used and if they're "normal" or not. Many diseases like multiple sclerosis and some kinds of dementia show abnormal, or weird neural pathways being used in the brain.

how does target make any money off their redcard debit?

They actually save money by doing so, they don't make money. So when a guest comes in and uses a card, other than a RedCard, the provider (Visa for example) will charge them a fee. By signing up for a card, they can avoid the fee altogether (debit), or reduce it drastically because they made a deal with MasterCard (credit).

how is it physically possible for a mantis shrimp to punch so fast?

The punch of a Mantis shrimp really is incredible. There is no way that a mantis shrimp can punch that powerfully by muscle strength. Another mechanism is needed. This is an ELI5 over-simplification, but the shrimp "cocks" it's specially designed exoskeleton, elastic tissues, and linkage systems and stores energy. It's a lot like how a bow stores energy. You would never be able to throw the arrow as fast as you need to, but you can add energy to a bow over time and save that energy for when you want to release the arrow. Another example: Do you know how you can curl your finger down and hold it with your thumb and then flick your finger really fast? That's kind of what a Mantis shrimp is doing. Here is an article that goes into way more detail than I just did: _URL_0_

how is it possible for some foods to pass through my digestive system and come out whole. i.e. corn and certain small beans

The brown (and the yellow in your pee, for that matter) are derived from byproducts of the breakdown of red blood cells in your body. As far as corn, the outer shell of corn is cellulose, which our body is not good at breaking down. If you don't tear them apart with your teeth, then they can pass relatively unmolested out the back end. I expect you could find more if you sifted your poo, but at that point you're definitely verging on concerning weirdness.

How did the people of antiquity and medieval era record their music?

There's always more to be said on the topic, but while you're waiting check a look at these previous threads: [*What did Roman music sound like and what form did the written notation take?*](_URL_3_) by u/racecar_ray [*What do we know about Roman music?*](_URL_2_) by u/casestudyhouse22 [*What is the oldest form of musical notation?*](_URL_0_) and [*How did the modern system of musical notation come into being?*](_URL_1_) by u/erus

ramjet

Combustion engines need to compress the incoming air before it is burned. This does two things - it fits more air into the combustion chamber so that fuel can be burned at a higher rate, and it raises the temperature at which the combustion takes place, giving higher thermal efficiency. A turbojet engine has a compressor on the front to compress the incoming air before it passes through the combustion chamber. The compressor is driven by a turbine that extracts power from the exhaust gases as they leave the engine. A ramjet engine does not have a compressor or a turbine. Instead, it relies on the speed of the aircraft to compress the air. When air coming in at high speed is brought to rest inside the engine, it's pressure increases according to Bernoulli's principle. At sufficiently high speeds, this is sufficient to run the engine without the complexity of a compressor and turbine. Ramjets can be designed to operate at much higher speeds than a turbine engine - experimental ramjet powered aircraft have achieved speeds as high as five times the speed of sound. However, you need to get the aircraft up to a very high speed before you can start the ramjet - because it relies on the speed of the incoming air to compress the air, it cannot run if it isn't moving. Therefore, you need a rocket or a conventional turbojet to get the aircraft to the necessary speed before the ramjet can take over.

how was the playstation 3 able to perform so well with only 256mb of ram?

PC run Windows OS that multipurpose generic OS that will consume 2+ GB of RAM on it's own plus there is other software running at the same time so with 4GB of there is not even 2GB left for the game. The game on console can be fine tuned to specific configuration of the console. On PC it must be prepared to work with different configurations. PS3 has lower details. The thing about computational complexity (how it is hard to compute something) doesn't have to be linear.

How far does one blood cell travel with one beat of an average healthy human heart?

Let's go with the typical (or not so typical) 70 kg man. - Blood volume = ~5 liters - Stroke volume (amount pumped with each beat) = ~70 mL - Heart rate = ~ 75 bpm - Cardiac output = ~5 liters/minute - Height = 1.75 m (5'9") The entire blood volume is circulated once a minute or so. I'd surmise that blood circulated very near the heart will make it back sooner than blood going to your great toe. Let's say the blood needs to travel half the height of the body and back, or rather, one body height. - Distance traveled = 1.75 m - Time = 60 seconds - Rate = 1.75m/60s = ~3 cm/second - Heart beat frequency = 1 every 0.8 seconds **Distance traveled per beat = 2.4 cm** This is just an estimate but something on this order of magnitude seems reasonable. Edit: formatting and clarification

Why was there such a push to annex Texas in the 1840's?

Let's go back a bit. The Western Confederacy was beaten in the 1794 Northwest Indian War, and broken during the War of 1812. The Creeks collapsed into a brutal civil war in 1813, and Andrew Jackson razed the strongholds of the Creek and Seminole diehards during his 1816 invasion of Florida. The destruction of Negro Fort during this incursion shattered the black hope of building a refuge outside the United States. These victories and the relentless growth of the American population led to a flood of settlers. The Indian nations gave up their claims, and the U.S. government, starved of specie and dependent on a trickle of tariffs to fund itself, found itself in undisputed possession of millions of acres of land. The rich and well-connected grabbed this land at bargain prices and built fortunes parceling it out. The capital this land represented was entered in ledgers and grew into banks. Land was wealth. Land was opportunity. Squatters dragged their families just out of the law's reach, eking out a living on the frontier. Behind them came surveyors, whose chains and stakes laid out new towns. From these raw-timbered towns came a slow, steady stream of mortgage payments, which swelled the coffers of a few satisfied families in New York and Charleston. This process had a hard, keen edge in the South. The plantation lords were dependent on the land, but just as they understood how fragile their control over their slaves was, they understood how brittle their fortunes were. Cotton, tobacco, indigo; these crops created fortunes but they depleted the ground. Plantations ran down and produced less every year. Land was, for the slave-owners, more than a desire. It was a matter of life or death. More important than either: a matter of honor. The Creek Confederacy was consumed quickly. The rich bottomlands of the Delta, where spring floods replenished the soil's nutrients as quickly as cotton drained them, were snapped up. To survive, the slave-owners had to move west. The grand strategy of the United States in its earliest days involved the constant erosion of European power - and Europe's strategic partners in the Indian confederacies. The victories of the War of 1812 - and don't let the draw against Britain distract you, the death of Tecumseh and the fall of the Creek diehards made this war one of the greatest victories in American history - incidentally opened the door to unimaginable wealth. And just as these new lands promised wealth to the slave-owners, they also promised a different kind of security. The Industrial Revolution brought wealth to the North, and a flood of immigrants. The Southerners watched helplessly as the Midwest filled with free states. The writing was on the wall. Only expansion could restore the balance and keep the peace.

you spray an ant with raid (or a similar product), what is actually happening to it while it is dying?

Different products contain different chemicals, but the active ingredient in normal Raid interferes with sodium channels. It prevents nerve cells from building up electrical charge by "breaking" the mechanism they use to transport electrically-charged particles, therefore causing paralysis and potentially "brain" damage as well... though the distinction between a bug's "brain" from the rest of the "nervous system" is not as obvious or well-defined as it is in humans. The immobile/"brain-dead" bug can either be considered dead already (because it won't do anything), or will have other biological functions shut down as it does not eat, drink, etc anymore.

li5: could you please explain the phrase 'deus ex machina'?

It comes from when they used statues to represent gods in plays a long time ago. The machine part is because they were often lowered onto the stage with ropes and pulleys. They would often bring these onto the stage when the plot got stuck. The god would do something magic that solved a problem or moved the plot on. It's generally considered bad to use it in fiction these days, as it means the writer hasn't thought of a better way to move the plot along. It isn't really used much in everyday situations, but people might mention it when something very unlikely happens that solves a problem someone has.

if men's body temperature is slightly higher than women's, why are men hairier?

Women don't actually have a lower body temperature than men - the heat is just distributed differently. Women's bodies are better at maintaining core body temperature at the expense of body temperature in the extremities. Temperature also doesn't have much to do with hair. Human hair simply isn't effective insulation. Consider how hair patterns break down by geography. East Asians tend not to have much body hair - despite the fact that places like Korea and Japan are actually quite cold. In contrast, Indian men tend to have glorious amounts of hair, despite the fact that much of India has an equatorial climate. No one knows for sure why men are hairier, but it's likely for the same reason that male lions have manes: as a secondary sex characteristic that indicates virility.

how do airport scans actually work?

Congratulations on making it onto a watch list! Without saying anything too classified, density. Density of materials is almost like a finger print.

In several of his books journalist Mark Kurlansky claims that the Basques might have discovered America before Columbus. Is there any truth to this?

I will quote a [post](_URL_0_) I wrote where I touched on Kurlansky's work: > > Mark Kurlansky in his pop-history (non-academic with no citations or references) works Cod and Basque History of the World for some reason strongly proposes the theories of Basque knowledge of North America, himself confesses the following in Basque History of the World: > > > The two leading arguments for placing the Basques in pre- Columbian America are both based on deductive reasoning. > > and > > > But no physical evidence has been found of the Basques in North America before Cabot. Historians and archeologists who have searched for it and failed insist that the rumors are false. But the search for pre-Columbian Basques in America has yielded ample evidence of a surprisingly large-scale Basque presence in Newfoundland and Labrador soon after Cabot. The remains of extensive Basque whaling stations dating to 1530 have been found. > > As we see, he admits that there is no physical evidence and proceedes to demonstrate his case on deductive reasoning, and honestly, it rests on some really eager jumps to conclusions and some really bad historical premises. For example he says: > > > But the Basques chased whales that traveled to subarctic waters and then dropped down along both the European and American coastlines. > > But to quote an academic work about the Newfoundland fisheries "The Basque Whaling Establishments in Labrador 1536-1632 —A Summary" by Selma Huxley Barkham: > > > Contrary to the spurious claims of writers on the history of whaling who have based their findings on secondary evidence, the Basques never, at any point, chased whales further and further out into the Atlantic until they collided with North America. This ridiculous legend must be laid to rest once and for all. > > Kurlansky book has some other mistakes and misleading statements in that chapter that would warrant a good badhistory post for itself So in short, Kurlansky's argument rest on no evidence whatsoever, but mainly "deducing" from various other information, and even that is based on some faulty premises and reasoning

why don't countries invade other countries to take over land anymore?

What do you mean by 'anymore'? The USSR was a little grabby and Russia continues to be. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Iran-Iraq war prior that was a pretty fucking big war. India and Pakistan skirmish for land presently. Israel continues to fight the Palestinians as well as an entire region, although not in an all out-war. North and South Korea just have an armistice. Eritrea v. Ethiopia in the late 90s. Recently Cambodia and Thailand. South Sudan and Sudan. It's not that countries don't fight over land it's that the big countries haven't fought over land for a couple decades. Mainly that's due to the expense of war and new paradigm of controlling the world around you. They work through proxies and posturing. Instead of adding a country to your empire you add it to your sphere of influence. Instead of having a direct war you agitate and cajole and force treaties.

differences between catholic and episcopalian.

Episcopalian, barring from the basic beliefs (Belief in Jesus as God, Jesus will save you, Heaven and Hell) in general are very liberal. Things such as: The Bible was written "under influence of God" rather than direct words, leaving room for context and interpretation. Gays and women are allowed to be ordained, as they are seen as equal, and being made by God. Slavery is bad, and that everyone should receive equal compensation within the church, and pushes toward higher minimum wages and better working conditions. Open in it's support for anti-racism, gay rights, gender equality, and rich/poor disparity. As someone put it: "I used to be Episcopalian, and now I am atheist. Not much has changed." In regards to daily life, and morality, and general views.

why do we experience discomfort/pain when we are exposed to light after waking up in the morning?

It's because of our pupils. Your eyes, even if they were closed while you were asleep, got used to the dark, so the pupils got big to allow more light in the event that you woke up in the dark, you could see better. Well if you wake up to bright lights, that's a TON of light coming in and you can see ALL of it. So it's super overwhelming and painful to absorb all that light before your eyes can properly adjust.

why do people hate country music with a passion?

largely uncreative (not a large variety of topics), over produced, and i think most people hate the fans more than the music - similar to the emo hate.

Did the Cold War ever end?

This is a very interesting question. I'm not sure how helpful we can be, as the only people who'd be able to give you a decent answer don't exist yet. If you anticipate finding the secret to eternal life or passing your consciousness to a robot, and Reddit is still around several hundred years from now, set yourself a [Remind Me](_URL_0_) to come back to /r/AskHistorians and ask the question again. However, it does kinda feel unsatisfying to leave it at that. **Short answer:** Maybe. Define "Cold War" and "end." Shit, define "ever" and "the" and "Did," because the whole concept is complicated. **Long answer:** If you'll excuse me for a moment, I really need to get a monocle and a glass of port before attempting to answer this with the degree of pomposity required. Back. Okay. If you're very, very lucky as a student, you'll eventually run across a teacher who explains A Very Important Truth about history to you. Namely: We make a lot of stuff up. We don't make up names or dates or battles or events or whatever. We're not that dishonest. But we *do* make up a lot of the terms we use to describe things, and then we sort of tacitly lie about how absolute they really are. **Why?** Because that's how the human brain organizes, understands, and uses information. We slot things into categories and then we give the categories names. Whenever your brain accesses a particular event, it remembers the category and then has some context for why, when, and how something occurred. Let's try an example: **The Middle Ages started in 493 with the fall of the western Roman Empire and ended in 1492 with Columbus' voyage to the Americas.** This is useful. When we say, "There's going to be a conference on medieval literature at Kalamazoo this weekend," everyone has a rough idea of the time period this conference will cover. We know when it happened. Medieval literature overwhelmingly existed in a time before the printing press, when books were copied and distributed at an agonizingly slow rate, and influential styles or storytelling techniques took a long time to spread. The Middle Ages encompasses a discrete, readily-identifiable period in human history. **Except *most of that is actually bullshit*.** It's helpful bullshit that provides context for people who are learning about Europe at a particular point in time when historical events shared a certain consistency, but that's really all it does. Historians disagree on which dates and events are the most relevant as "start" and "end" markers for the Middle Ages, whether historical eras can be said to "start" or "end" at all, or even if the "Middle Ages" is relevant as a concept. Here's why, taking the statement example from earlier: - The people, political institutions, roads, cultures, and languages of the western Roman Empire didn't suddenly cease to exist in 493. - The "fall" of the western Roman Empire was a very lengthy process that happened over several centuries and was certainly not a single event. - 493 was not the first year in which the government construct known as the western Roman Empire changed radically. - Columbus did indeed sail for the Americas in 1492, but was that really the "end" of the Middle Ages? If the economic and cultural resources necessary to support naval expeditions were what most distinguished the Age of Exploration from the Middle Ages, why don't we use the Portuguese naval explorations that started 80 years earlier as an "end" marker? - If we're determined to keep the "end" of the Middle Ages in 1492, was Columbus' voyage really the era-defining event? Or was it the fall of Granada and the end of nearly eight centuries of Muslim control in Spain? But wouldn't the fall of Constantinople (1453) have been more influential than that? So you see the problem. The "Middle Ages," and of course, all "ages" and "eras" described by historians, are artificial constructs. They're useful categories that contextualize information, but they're not absolute, ironclad realities. Humans are not so well-organized as to arrange their affairs in neatly-described periods of time with clear start and end dates around major sociopolitical movements. The "Cold War" as a concept is no different, and so its start and end points are problematic. And that's not just about current tensions either -- although, yes, that has something to do with it. (We'll get to that in a moment.) We're very close to the events in question, and what looks like a discrete period to us may not actually be all that remarkable when all's said and done. **The Cold War *as we know it in 2015* is a period that stretches between the end of World War II in 1945 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.** These are pretty commonly-accepted dates among historians. However, if it's really Russian and Western antagonism more generally that we're concerned about, then that's by no means confined to 1945-1991. You could bump the "start date" to the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 (or much earlier for intra-European squabbling), and then extend it to ?????????, because we don't know enough about the future to place today's events in a reasonable context. And if you want to be really thorough, de Tocqueville saw imperial Russia and the United States on an ideological collision course back when *Democracy in America* was first written and published in the 1830s, even though the two countries had pretty good relations at the time (Russia was about 25 years away from selling Alaska to the U.S.): - "There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world’s attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing…. The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world." Creepy, isn't it? **So imagine you're an historian who's writing a general political history of our "era" several hundred years from now.** WE think of the Cold War as being a dangerous and uncertain period of antagonism and proxy conflicts between the Western world and the U.S.S.R. over a period spanning roughly 50 years. We know that there was a brief period of rapprochement during the 1990s and early 2000s. We know that relations deteriorated afterwards. Nevertheless, this isn't the Cold War from our perspective. It's just a period of bad relations. But ... what if it isn't? That historian isn't us. **He/she will know whatever happens beyond 2015.** This person will know whether 1992-2003 was a preview of even better relations later, or whether it was a blip that didn't fix the underlying conditions creating and incentivizing a distrustful relationship between Russia and the West. He/she will also know if we're heading for a war, or a massive financial crash, or a Yellowstone caldera eruption, or a San Francisco earthquake, or a major terrorist attack, or any one of a billion things that could alter the trajectory of current events and the incentive structure that guides nations' behavior. What we think of now as the "Cold War" might look to someone in 3015 like a period of somewhat heightened tensions during a much longer era of hostility. If that turns out to be the case, the whole concept of the "Cold War" loses much of its descriptive power because it won't have been all that unique in the history of Western/Russian relations. Or not. Maybe it was, is, and remains just the Cold War. We really don't know. The indelible lesson I took from spending a few weeks holed up with copies of American and Canadian news magazines from the 1960s-1980s is that humans are really, really, *really* bad at prediction, so I won't venture a guess here. **TL:DR: The answer is a solid "Maybe."**

why did the eli5 subreddit start off being full of extremely dumbed down, easy to digest, concise explanations when it started. now all the answers are like i'm reading doctoral thesis? what happened?

Several things to consider. 1) The easy and obvious questions have been asked to death. Simple questions are greeted by answers to just Google it. 2) The expanding user base has brought in experts in many fields. These people are able to provide much more accurate answers, at a reading comprehension level that fits better with the rules of the sub. These experts don't write answers for literal 5 year olds. 3) The automod is a little overzealous sometimes when it comes to deleting short posts. 4) A good question shouldn't have a very simple answer, as there are always matters of opinion buried within the OP's question.

why do duracell and energizer batteries last so much longer than the off brand batteries?

Nice try, Duracell and Energizer joint venture salesman.

Why was England so late in setting up colonies in the America's? Was it simple bad luck? Or something more political?

What do you mean "so late"? Englands first colonies were only about 100 years after Colombus. When you consider initial voyages took a year to get here and back, that the value of what was here was in doubt(indeed what was here period was unclear), that who owned it was unclear etc. its understandable the English would delay when it appeared the Spanish had gotten the best stuff.

Why does splashing your eyes with water, when you're sleepy, suddenly makes you more awake?

It's just a very minor cold shock response from your body.

why is the audio in porn videos so often not in sync? (nsfw)

Or better yet, is there a way to fix it?

My grandfather used to tell a story about WWII I always found interesting, does it have a basis in fact?

> That always preceded his feelings about the atomic bomb. He felt it was quite likely that he'd have been a part of and died in an invasion of mainland Japan, had it not been used. The implication being, none of us, his children and grandchildren, would have existed had the bomb not been dropped, since he didn't have kids until after the war. I can't say anything about the former part, but this is an incredibly common sentiment among men of that generation. I've heard it repeated a lot. My maternal grandfather's unit in Europe had received orders to transfer to the Pacific right before the war ended. According to him, he had an overwhelming feeling that those orders would result in his death. He credits the atomic bombs with saving him from that.

how is a degree from a place like harvard or yale any different from a degree in the same subject from somewhere else?

For starters, many of these places have good reputations because they have cutting edge research and the best academics who are at the forefront of their respective fields. It should be noted that this doesn't always translate to the best *teaching*, but that might well be beside the point. Some economic theories of the value of education are that it is a signalling mechanism - that by getting a degree you can prove your competency/commitment to a potential employer (as opposed to actually making you a more valuable employee). With that in mind, a degree from a prestigious university indicates that you achieved their stringent entry requirements and put in the required work. EDIT: people pointing out the importance of making good connections - definitely should not be underestimated. But the fact is that this is both a cause and an effect of the University's prestigious status. They feed into each other.

What is the longer-term background to Eritrean-Ethiopian tensions?

This is a complex question. Here's an answer to it, as far back as I could go in order to explain the shared heritage between the states and the rivalry that followed. For reference - Habesha is a term used to describe some, not all, of the peoples who inhabit Ethiopia and Eritrea. They speak Afroasiatic languages, write (mostly) in the Ge'ez script, and are unique to the Horn region. The main groups of note in this case are the Amhara and Tigray of Ethiopia, and the Tigre and Tigrinya of Eritrea. **Aksum to Medri Bahri** The Kingdom of Aksum was the first verifiable Habesha state and occupied North Ethiopia and Eritrea, as well as Yemen. This was during the Classical period, with Kingdom a contemporary to Rome. It was during this time that the region, in particular the Highlands, became Christianised. While there aren't many primary sources, we know that Aksumite Kings like Kaleb and Ezana were in contact with the Byzantine Empire, and warred in pre-Islamic Arabia. Things get especially murky following the rise of Islam. We know that Aksum lost it's holdings in Yemen to the Sassanids and the Sabaeans, but not much else is known apart from that. It fell around 940CE. After this, the Zagwe ruled in Ethiopia, and were succeeded by the Solomonids, while in Eritrea the state of Medri Bahri formed. Medri Bahri was at times a vassal to Ethiopia but was almost always a distinct political entity. It was ruled by the Bahri Negus, the "Sea-King," and this is where what can be perceived as tensions start. Negusa Nagast (Emperor, lit. King of Kings) Zera Yakob stated in his chronicle that he appointed the Bahri Negus to his office, through his right as the Suzerain of the area. Of course, this was done through coercion in order to make the Imperial ally the strongest of the local polities in the area. Zera Yakob then instituted a military colony in the state, effectively trying to start a military occupation of Medri Bahri. Following this, some 40 years later in the 1520s, Portuguese explorers note that the current Bahri Negus was the uncle of Emperor Lebne Dengel and paid him tribute. However, Medri Bahri also joined with the Ottomans against the Ethiopian Empire in 1572 You can see the attitude Medieval Ethiopia took to Medri Bahri from this. Ethiopia viewed Medri Bahri as a vassal that was more or less part of their Empire, whereas Medri Bahri was a distinct entity. This continues for several centuries - James Bruce visited Ethiopia in 1770, noting that the state (undergoing a period of civil strife known as the Zemene Mesafint) was frequently at war with it's northern neighbour. **The Imperial Period** Modern Ethiopia began with Menelik II. His predecessor, Tewodros II, had united country but had died facing off with the British in Magdala during the Abyssinian Expedition of 1868. After Tewodros came a brief resumption of conflict after a man named Tekle Giyorgis proclaimed himself the Negusa Nagast of the restored Zagwe Dynasty, but was overthrown and replaced with Yohannes IV. Yohannes was a complex man but undoubtedly started Ethiopian foreign outreach, cooperating with the British in Sudan against the Mahdi. [He is also pictured here in this montage of world Heads of State, the first from the left.](_URL_0_) When Yohannes died, Menelik succeeded him. While the Empire that Yohannes ruled was a small, but unified, state, Menelik expanded to the borders of Modern Ethiopia. One of the states he sought in his expansion was Medri Bahri. He succeeded in incorporating it by force, but it was taken from him by the Italians after the Congress of Berlin. Ethiopia remained independent, but Eritrea (as the Italians named Medri Bahri) was part of the colonial machine. But the Italians wanted more. The first Italian-Ethiopian War ended with the spectacular defeat of the Italians at Adwa and cemented Menelik's already incredible reputation as a leader. Ethiopia did not press on to Eritrea, however. This resulted in Italian cultural influence (though, it must be said, extremely minor influence) beginning in Eritrea. The Italians built a railway and some buildings, but that was about it. **BUT** Eritrea was it's own distinct entity once again, even more distinct now that it wasn't even independent. **Haile Selassie** Emperor Haile Selassie is perhaps the most famous of Ethiopia's Emperors. After WW2, he was triumphant, his country liberated, and, eventually, he was the face of Africa's decolonisation movement (next to Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana). Eritrea, meanwhile, was now a possession of Britain. In time, decolonisation came to Eritrea. This was seen as a chance for the people of Eritrea to finally have their own independence - a good thing for all involved. Britain then gave Eritrea to Ethiopia. This, arguably, is the immediate cause. The state had been, in the eyes of the now-large Eritrean Independence Movement, denied it's freedom too many times. Haile Selassie, the great liberator and face of Africa's future, was an Autocrat at heart. Saudi Arabia is, undoubtedly, an absolute monarchy - but not of the sort that Ethiopia was at this time. Ethiopia was more like a feudal kingdom, completely out of time, and the Emperor appointed Viceroy's to Eritrea rather than represent the people there. As well as this, local officials would often try to misrepresent how well their region was doing. When the Emperor would visit provinces, Governors would only take him to the best parts, show him how well some parts were doing. The Army was used to crush revolts. Centuries old tradition meant that the people had to prostrate themselves before the Emperor. Power was measured by how close you were to the Emperor's ear. One powerful figure was the Minister of the Pen, the man in charge of writing down the decrees of the quiet, soft-spoken Emperor. Then, in 1960, there was a coup attempt by some of the Emperor's circle while he was in Brazil. The Royal Guard proclaimed his son, Amha Selassie, the new Emperor. The coup was crushed, but the writing appeared on the wall. With this in mind, the Eritrean Liberation Front began it's 30 year campaign. Within 14 years, the rest of the Empire would devolve into civil war between the Marxist Derg and the coalition of opposition groups that would become the EPRDF. **Independence and War** After the end of the Civil War, Eritrea was granted independence under Isaias Afeworki. Eritrea and Ethiopia disputed the demarcation of the border from 1991, until May 1998 - when Eritrean officers were killed in the disputed Badme region. Eritrea sent a mechanised force into the region, beginning a brutal war that lasted 2 years. Since then, the tensions have long been apparent. Luckily, PM Abiy Ahmed has seen a thaw in relations with Eritrea - the border is open again, and a peace treaty has been signed. Things are starting to look up for both the countries relations, though both are still plagued with problems. In Ethiopia, previous Governments since 1991 have largely used force to resolve Ethnic problems, which very well could spiral into another conflict. Eritrea is a one party state, and even with this rapprochement from Ethiopia is still very isolationist. I hope this answers your question.

The brightness of the actual dark side of the moon?

Not much darker than a "dark sky" spot on Earth. The Earth's atmosphere mostly reflects back urban light. But go out in the desert, or out at sea, at least 100 km away from any city and town - it's a pretty dark place. Luna wouldn't be very different - a bit darker maybe, but not much. Most people have lived in cities their entire lives and have no idea how dark a moonless (and Venus-less) night can be at a dark sky site. Dark adaptation is very important. When at a very dark site, it takes something like 20 or 30 minutes for the eyes to fully adapt to darkness. Even a short glance at a light annihilates this adaptation. > could once expect a level of light to at least, say, see enough to not walk into a boulder? You could avoid big boulders, but there will be plenty of rocks that will twist your ankle - as many astronomers fumbling in the dark around telescopes will attest. Human eyes in low light have very, very poor resolution. But boulders should be big enough to distinguish, for a dark-adapted pair of eyes. Fist-sized rocks, not so much.

when that university shooting happened in oregon everyone made a huge deal about not mentioning or even sowing the shooters face, now with the current shootings in sb why is his name and picture all over the nation?

I think its partly due to the perpetrators. The main reason they don't like to publicizes school shooters is that the shooters often do it for the personal notoriety. Its looking more and more like the SB attack was an act of terror or something similar so you can argue that the identify of the specific shooter is less likely to incite future attacks.

How soon after the Big Bang did stars begin to form?

The first stars began to form about [150 million years](_URL_1_) after the Big Bang, during a period known as "reionization." Prior to this period were the "dark ages" where the universe was fairly uniformly filled with neutral hydrogen; since there were basically no charged atoms during this period, photons did not scatter off of the hydrogen much, and the universe was pretty much completely transparent. Eventually, gravitational attraction began to pull the hydrogen together into the first stars, known as [Population III](_URL_0_) stars for their extremely low metallicity and extremely large mass. Due to the very high mass, these stars were very short-lived (none are around today) and a great many of them exploded as [pair-instability supernovae](_URL_2_), scattering the few heavy elements (which were still pretty light overall, but heavier than hydrogen and helium) manufactured in their cores throughout the cosmos. The radiation released by these stars re-ionized the hydrogen that had not yet collapsed into stars (hence the name of the era, "reionization"), and the pressure from these early supernovae explosions helped to compress some of the hydrogen out there, triggering the gravitational formation of new stars with higher metal content, known as Population II stars (only a few of which can still be seen today; we know of about a dozen or so), which are also quite massive, but not as much as the first stars, and which manufactured much heavier elements overall (and much more of them) by comparison. Many of these stars also went supernova and scattered their metals throughout, helping lower-mass higher-metallicity Population I stars (i.e. basically all of the stars we see today) form. So to answer your question, the first stars began to form around 150 million years after the Big Bang. As for your second question, I don't know the answer so I won't speculate. Perhaps someone more familiar with galaxy formation can shed some light on it.

Why did the various revolts of 1840's Europe fail?

From Jonathan Sperber 'The European Revolutions, 1848-1851' -Revolution was heavily romanticized, revolutionary leaders often portrayed doing heroic deeds for the people. Lajos Kossuth from Hungary riding out and rallying peasantry or Giribaldi leading militias into battle. -Some revolutionaries were incompetent and monarchs did not always take them seriously. -Failed to establish lasting regimes. Old rulers took back power later on.

why can little caesars afford to sell pizzas at a low price while places like papa john's sells their pizzas for about double the price?

In every business there are some companies that focus on price, others that focus on making a better quality, and others that try to compromise. Little Caesars focus is very strongly on price, and they are willing to buy cheaper ingredients if that's what it takes.

Has there ever been a government system that the majority of the population, across all economic divides, generally approved of?

I don't think your question can be answered because it's not clear what data would allow us to answer it. Prior to modern times, we don't actually have the information to say whether the "majority of the population" "across all economic divides" approved of a particular government. We have information about whether particular groups within society approved, and we have information from which we can infer whether other groups *tolerated* it, but there's no way to know, for example, whether a majority of sixteenth century peasants approved of their government. The recorders of the history of the time didn't gather and maintain that information. Even in modern times, the question breaks because "across all economic divides" is vague. What level of specificity are you looking for, and which economic divides do you care about?

what are apis and why is "vulkan" apparently the next big thing for gaming?

Say you go to a mechanic for an oil change. If the mechanic is any good you don't need to give them step-by-step instructions on how to change the oil. Instead you just tell the mechanic to "change the oil" and trust that the mechanic knows what to do. In the above example **you are specifying an end result without having to give step-by-step instructions on how to do it.** This is handy because A) it saves time B) they may have handy tools in the garage that make your instructions obsolete. This is a common situation with computer programs. The exact way something gets done changes a bit (usually to make things faster) but the end result is the same. The oil change situation above is an example of an API. An API is just a menu of things that a program can do along with a standard way of asking for that thing. Moving back to computers, depending on the components (e.g. the processor, display, the operating system, and graphics card) there is a ton of variation on how to get a computer to draw, say, a red 10x20 rectangle in the top left of your screen. This is where Vulkan comes in. **Vulkan is like a standard graphics menu that a bunch of different hardware and software companies have agreed upon.** This means the people making the game don't have to worry about what hardware you are running. Instead they can tell the computer the final result (say a red 10x20 rectangle) and trust everything else involved will do it. Assuming the hardware and software companies stick to the menu, the game makers will not have to make changes for the different hardware and operating systems which makes it easier to release games on a bunch of different platforms.

Why is it so difficult to find a unifying theory in physics and why is it necessary? Can't it all work separately?

> Why is it so difficult I could go into details of examples of current difficulties but that would just lead us astray from the real answer, which is: why should it be easy? > Can't it all work separately? Often it can in practice. For example you could have a theory that works well for slow speeds but badly at high speeds, and another theory that works well at high speeds but badly at low speeds. So if you are working with slow speeds you can use theory 1 and if you are working with high speeds you can use theory 2. But the problem is that in neither case is the theory *exactly* true. So while each might work OK in practice, we *know* that neither theory is the "right" one. This is partly just a point of intellectual curiosity; there is some correct description of nature out there, and we would like to find it. But it also can have practical consequences. For example maybe the right theory predicts other things besides simply being slightly more accurate. Maybe it presents a totally new perspective on the world.

Could the amount of static electricity that shocks humans when they touch a doorknob be enough to kill an insect or other tiny creatures?

Static shocks have very high voltage (I remember reading somewhere that if you feel a shock, it's at least 10,000 Volts), but it has very little charge. You can think of it like trying to run a fire hose with an 8 oz glass of water; it might be at super high pressure, but it's not going to last very long. So the question is how much charge can humans deliver with a static shock? Human beings have an estimated capacitance of about 100 picofarads and static discharges have an average voltage of 20,000 to 50,000 Volts, which gives us a charge of 2-5 microcoulombs. Electric flyswatter circuits I found gave voltages variously between 500 and 1500V, and the main capacitor was between 33 nF to 2 uF, depending on supply voltage. Generally speaking, electric devices like this are regulated to 45 uC for safety reasons, and that apparently is only enough to stun flies rather than kill them (though a fly is usually subjected to multiple shocks). So even in the best case, the static shock a human can give is still about an order of magnitude short of being able to harm a fly. EDIT: Apparently the 45 uC limit applies to laboratory equipment, not fly swatters. I found a better source from someone who actually took apart a swatter, and the main discharge capacitor is 2 uF at 630 V, which gives a charge of 1,260 microcoulombs, so several hundred times more than what you can deliver with a shag carpet and your finger.

If my salt intake is too high, can I just drink a lot of water to cancel it out?

Salt (Sodium) makes you retain water. Adding water to a high salt diet means you'll be retaining lots of water. This makes you hypertensive. Hypertension (high blood pressure) is bad for pretty much everything. Sorry, this turned out more ELI5 than science.

Was the Kansas/Missouri border war the start of the Civil War or just a precursor to it?

In 1820 the U.S passed the Missouri compromise that stated that slavery could not extend above the 36' 30" line. When Kansas and Nebraska were looking to join the union Stephen Douglas proposed a bill that would allow each state to vote on if they were going to be a slave state or a free state. Nebraska was far enough north that there was never really a question over whether or not it was going to be slave or free. However, Kansas was right next to Missouri, which was a slave state. This lead to a massive amount of people entering the state on the side of slavery from the south and anti-slavery from the north. Many of these people were armed leading to a number of conflicts between the two. Bleeding Kansas was not a fight between Union and Confederate troops. Rather it was fighting between pro-slavery individuals and anti-slavery individuals. All of this happened in the lead up to the Civil War and not during the war itself. The Confederate States of America were not founded until 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected President and bleeding Kansas took place before them. Whenever I have heard people say that Bleeding Kansas was the first battles of the Civil War they have been referring to this point as the point that Civil War becomes inevitable. This was really the first time the U.S had had large conflicts over the matter of slavery. This was really the point where many in the nation saw that the U.S could not continue to expand and be half free and half slave. I hope this helped answer your question.

why can we see ultraviolet if it is outside the visible spectrum?

You can't. If you shine UV on some things, like liquid laundry detergent, it makes the substance glow brightly. This is not you seeing UV, it is a substance absorbing UV photons and re-radiating the energy as visible wavelength photons you can see.

What was the point of the invasion stripes on planes during D-day?

They were identification aids for Allied pilots and gunners. Friendly fire was a persistent risk for aircraft, positive recognition being difficult in the heat of battle; the first Fighter Command losses of the war were in the "Battle of Barking Creek" during which two Hurricanes were shot down by Spitfires and the introduction of further combatants and types of aircraft only made the situation more confusing. An early use of black and white stripes was on the wings of Hawker Typhoons in 1942 as they were frequently mistaken for the Focke-Wulf 190. Frank Zeigler, intelligence officer of 609 Squadron, wrote in the RAF Flying Review about the results of the confusion: "Once a gunnery officer, whom I had just 'blitzed' on the phone, actually called back with the request: 'Could you ask your pilots tactfully - very tactfully - did we get anywhere near them?' Sometimes they did. Roy Payne, wading ashore after being hit and crash-landing in shallow water, really lost his temper when the coastguards addressed him in German." See also an [Imperial War Museum photograph](_URL_0_): "A Hawker Typhoon Mk 1B in fighter pen at North West corner of RAF Duxford (...) The black and white stripes painted on the underside of the wings - sometimes referred to as 'Dieppe stripes'- were actually introduced following the failed Dieppe Raid of 19 August 1942. Originally only black stripes were painted on but white stripes were added by December 1942 for greater recognition by other RAF aircraft who had mistaken the Typhoon for the German Focke Wulf 190." During the 1943 invasion of Sicily C-47 transports suffered particularly badly from friendly anti-aircraft fire, 23 of 144 being shot down on 11th July. As a result during the planning of Operation Overlord a memorandum on "Distinctive Marking - Aircraft" was written: "1 OBJECT The object of this memorandum is to prescribe the distinctive markings which will be applied to US and BRITISH aircraft in order to make them more easily identified as friendly by ground and naval forces and by other friendly aircraft. (...) 4 DISTINCTIVE MARKINGS (a) Single engine aircraft. (1) Upper and lower wing surfaces of aircraft listed in paragraph 2g above, will be painted with five white and black stripes, each eighteen inches wide, parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane, arranged in order from center outward; white, black, white, black, white. Stripes will end six inches inboard of the national markings. (2) Fuselages will be painted with five parallel white and black stripes, each eighteen inches wide, completely around the fuselage, with the outside edge of the rearmost band eighteen inches from the leading edge of the tailplane." (etc) The order was issued on June 4th, leading to rather frantic painting for the squadrons involved, and can be considered a success, there being no large-scale repeat of the Sicily incident. Further reading: *US Army Air Forces Aircraft Markings and Camouflage 1941-1947*, Robert D. Archer "Fratricide - An Overview of Friendly Fire Incidents in the 20th Century", *RAF Historical Society Journal No. 34*, Wg Cdr C G 'Jeff' Jefford

why do circuit boards need transistors/what do they do?

You are thinking of capacitors. Capacitors are used to regulate the energy flowing through a board. Rarely will you have a 'clean' energy flow. There will be dips and spikes along the way. The capacitors help smooth that out and provide a little extra juice and buffers to prevent jolts on or off from damaging the system.

why do particles behave so differently at the quantum level?

Our universe operates on two scales: macro and micro. We, as humans, sit in an awkward middle ground where both effects can be demonstrated. There is a scaling effect in physics and engineering, in which mass and momentum increases cubically, while resistance increases to the square -- this is the result of volumetric versus surface areas operations. This principle means devices that operate on macro scales generally cannot be scaled down to micro scales, as the forces will swap their dominance. Similarly, the world we observe is the result of thousands of quantum events occurring simultaneously. When we begin to observe these effects individually, we see behaviour that doesn't match the large scale -- the macro behaviour is an emergent property of the micro system.

How advanced was Polynesian navigation compared to other civilizations?

They presumably knew a great deal about stars, the movement of ocean currents and wave patterns, the air and sea interference patterns caused by islands and atolls, the flight of birds, the winds, and the weather. However, so did other navigators. It's still unclear how much of their exploration of *new* islands was dependent upon luck.

How credible is Noam Chomsky on American History/foreign policy

> I know his views on history can be controversial and don't want to discuss them, I'm just wondering if he uses correct info Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Chomsky is that he's an unreliable source of historical information (and because of what he says about the self-brainwashing of US intellectuals, the reader isn't highly motivated to go look at other sources). In particular, as a reader, I usually assume that if a writer provides a selective quote from someone else, it should provide a reasonably accurate summary of what the other person said. Chomsky doesn't appear to adhere to this rule. This means that it's necessary to check his references very carefully. I assume not everyone who reads Chomsky does this. Orwell describes the phenomenon of extreme partisan writing in his essay [Notes on Nationalism](_URL_1_): "Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, **quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning**. Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied." There's a [February 26, 1970 letter](_URL_3_) to the New York Review of Books by Samuel Huntington, with a response by Chomsky, which gives an example. ("After Pinkville" is reprinted in The Chomsky Reader.) > In response to "After Pinkville" (January 1, 1970) > To the Editors: > In the space of three brief paragraphs in your January 1 issue, Noam Chomsky manages to mutilate the truth in a variety of ways with respect to my views and activities on Vietnam. > Mr. Chomsky writes as follows: > "Writing in Foreign Affairs, he [Huntington] explains that the Viet Cong is 'a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist.' The conclusion is obvious, and he does not shrink from it. We can ensure that the constituency ceases to exist by 'direct application of mechanical and conventional power...on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to city....'" > It would be difficult to conceive of a more blatantly dishonest instance of picking words out of context so as to give them a meaning directly opposite to that which the author stated. For the benefit of your readers, here is the "obvious conclusion" which I drew from my statement about the Viet Cong: > "...the Viet Cong will remain a powerful force which cannot be dislodged from its constituency so long as the constituency continues to exist. Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation." > By omitting my next sentence--'Peace in the immediate future must hence be based on accommodation'--and linking my statement about the Viet Cong to two other phrases which appear earlier in the article, Mr. Chomsky completely reversed my argument. Chomsky's response includes the following remarkable sophistry: > ... I did not say that he "favored" this answer but only that he "outlined" it, "explained" it, and "does not shrink from it," all of which is **literally** true [emphasis added]. Stanley Hoffmann, another critic of the Vietnam War, described Chomsky as having a "tendency to draw from an author’s statements inferences that correspond neither to the author’s intentions nor to the statements’ meaning." [Source](_URL_2_). I've written up a longer [critical review](_URL_0_) of Chomsky's writings on foreign policy, attempting to be as fair-minded as possible.

What sort of cosmetics did the women of royalty/aristocracy wear during Henry VIII's reign?

Fashion, yes! Queen Catherine of Aragon (the first wife) is believed to have started the trend of wearing a farthingale (hoop skirt). The farthingale or verdugados in Spanish had been a staple of Spanish fashion for at least 20 years before Catherine came to England. When she got to England, it took about another 20 years for the trend to catch on there. However, she is credited with starting it. Anne Boleyn is believed to have [introduced the French Hood](_URL_1_) to the English court. Anne had been away at the French court before coming back to England with the "continental style" of hat. As for makeup, [there is a great article](_URL_0_) on the various sometimes dangerous items to achieve the beauty ideals of the day. These included white lead and vinegar to give a pale completion and many other recipes in the article from period sources. Not all are Henrician but they are all 16th C English.

the russian subdivision system?

Russia is a union, much like the US is or the Soviet Union was. In fact, the official name of the country is not 'Russia', but the Russian Federation. Republics are regions where the majority of the population is (or was, at the time of its creation) not ethnically Russian. They have partial autonomy, and their own constitution and legislature. They are typically created for one of the non-Russian peoples inside the Federation, such as the Sakha Republic where the Yakutic people primarily live. You can compare them to the US Indian Territories. Oblasts are provinces, sub-state divisions. These have a local government with its own governor and can have local laws, but are not considered autonomous. You can compare them to US States. Krais are the same as Oblasts functionally, but are named such because they used to be territories on the Russian frontier. Federal Cities are semi-autonomous cities. Functionally they are also Oblasts. Autonomous Okrugs are minor regions created for a non-Russian ethnicity (like a Republic), but are too small to be given autonomy. They have very limited self-rule. Another type of 'Indian Territory'. The Autonomous Oblast is the Jewish region. Technically it is another Okrug (ethnic enclave) but because it was created for religious, not ethnic reasons, it has a special name.

Does our brain have a equivalent of binary code or pixels?

I'm not quite sure I understand your question. Neuronal firing can be thought of as a digital or binary process - they either fire or they do not. However, the relationship between input and output is non-linear.

how do we instinctively know if something is good for eating?

It's not instinctive at all for humans. Look at babies, they put all sorts of non-edible items in their mouths. What's good for eating is a learned behavior. We learn from our parents/society what is edible and what isn't. > Give a dog and deer an apple. The deer will probably eat it as soon as he understand you don't want to hurt him. The dog will simply play with the awesome red ball of fun. Dogs are omnivores. If my dog is chasing an apple, it's only because it won't sit still long enough for her to take a bite of it.

It seems that the Victorian Era distorted our view of history, especially of women. Is there evidence of this?

What we think of as the modern discipline of history was born in the western 19th century. Historians always reflect the mores and concerns of their age. Both before and after Leopold von Ranke and his contemporaries, historians did not so much *actively suppress* women's lives so much as ignore them. This was for two reasons: (1) women were not seen as a worthy subject of study in their own right (2) the areas in which women tend to be historically visible were not considered worthy of study. Both of these things start to change in the 1960s in America, but only with the [long, strenuous, and heroic efforts of scholars](_URL_0_) above all Gerda Lerner. Medieval *historiae* or chronicles are more like records of events than the type of explanatory narrative we're familiar with today. Nevertheless, they already reflect the pattern of what the first modern historians will see as primarily relevant topics for historical inquiry: kings, thrones, city councils, calamities. These proto-historians, primarily monks and clerks, can't necessarily be accused of actively *erasing* women: they mention rulers' marriages, daughters' births, women prophets or saints who saved/false women saints who ruined a city. Orderic Vitalis even praises Adela of Blois, not even a ruler in her own right, for the care and skill with which she administered her county while her infamous husband was on crusade. It's just that *in general*, medieval women are not (...are systemically excluded from) leading armies and maneuvering to win papal elections and feuding aginst competing noble families. Late medieval/early modern historians actually introduced a genre of "eminent women" texts (*De claris mulieribus* being the Latin form), recounting the stories of individual famous women throughout history. Or rather "history," as they tended to draw freely from mythology, legend, and their imaginations as well as the actual past. These texts could serve as a commentary on the state of *men*/male-dominated society of the time, be a salvo in an intellectual sparring match (the querelle des femmes), and/or represent a genuine interest in the subject matter. Nevertheless, it's still an isolation of women from the idea of a major, world history progression. Enlightenment-era history and then the rise of modern history make leaps and bounds in narrative and historical method (modern history is marked by rigorous scrutiny of primary sources, above all). It remained dominated by political history, which until very very recently was the study of--yup--rulers and nations. Considering the actions of rulers and seeking to understand the course of events is an area of history in which men are, indeed, much more prominent than women. Modern history is also born in universities and academics like to write about ourselves, so intellectual life--philosophy--also become a prominent area of study (Burckhardt, Haskins). While women certainly wrote philosophy, they are very rarely seen as groundbreaking. So Haskins in his *Renaissance of the Twelfth Century* will mention Herrad of Hohensburg's (although he says Landesburg) *Hortus deliciarum* with no qualms about it being the creation of a women's convent, but when it comes to philosophy power couple Heloise and Abelard, he delves extensively into Abelard's work (with good reason) but Heloise only gets a name-drop as Abelard's lover--not even a mention of her brainpower, because it didn't "shape history" like Abelard did. Where women did tend to be prominent in medieval and early modern history was religion. Religious history in the 19th and early 20th centuries remained compartmentalized, typically the province of confessional (Catholic and Protestant) historians for the purposes of their own churches and congregations--it tends to be a lot more sentimental and devotional, stories of saints' lives meant to inspire prayer and piety. I don't want to undersell the work of especially turn of the 20th century Germans here. I study, among other things, a couple of *really* obscure medieval women, and literally the only published source devoted to one of them is the modern publication of her hagiography, with a scholarly (not devotional) explanatory article, from a German scholar in IIRC 1888! But religious history was not part of Real History, in general (the Germans sort of make an exception for the Reformation, although this is a *really* contentious piece of history at the time due to Catholic versus Protestant polemic). In the 1960s, especially in America, two things were changing. First, historians like Gerda Lerner built on the work of some earlier pioneers like medievalists Lina Eckenstein and Eileen Power who made women a worthwhile subject of study in their own right. They argued and proved that understanding women's roles in society is crucial to understanding the past "as it really was," to quote von Ranke. Again, this development--both Lerner's fight and the ability of her and her comrades to carve a lasting foothold--reflects changing attitudes of time, obviously here second-wave feminism. Second, the rise of cultural history on the back of the social history movement especially after World War II brought enormous scholarly attention to areas of history where women indeed tend to be more visible: religion, literature, family life. The situation isn't perfect today. On the academic level, the field of history is about 40% female. Go to a conference or pick up a volume on women, and the represented scholars are 95% female. There is still a strong trend in academia of compartmentalizing women's roles in history as *women's history*, although at least in medieval there are some amazing historians--at the top of the field, even--striving to change that, both male and female. And scholars are *quite* skilled at hunting for women in difficult sources, but sometimes the sources themselves are simply uncooperative. Far more critically, IMHO, as *teaching* history inevitably means having to squeeze in more and more years each time pre-college textbooks are revised (time refuses to stop. I KNOW, right? Sheesh.), it's more and more tempting to just "hit the important parts"--which can so, so easily mean a return to narratives of rulers and nations. We want the story that got us here today, not understanding the texture of the past. (i.e. do the roots of 'human rights' as a concept in medieval political philosophy matter more for understanding the contemporary world than Clare of Assisi's struggle to establish a Franciscan Second Order for women? The problem is that the first roots of human rights in the western tradition are planted in and by a world that Chiara's struggle helps us understand, but how important is *understanding* in light of a looming AP Euro test?). To make women visible in the historical narrative is an ongoing struggle. The sources are not always generous, and the work that we want the past to do does not always line up with the constraints that patriarchal societies places on women in the past and to a varying extent today. For centuries, historians did not see any real need to fight that battle--in fact, they weren't even aware there was a battle to be fought. Today, at least we're fighting. (ETA) The fact that threads about the absence of women from the telling of history can get double-digit upvotes on Reddit of all places is a hopeful sign.