Datasets:

euclaise

/

reddit-instruct

like 20

[WH40k] I was a member of one of the traitor legions when the heresy kicked off. After seeing what chaos does to people, I realised I may have been on the wrong side of that one. What are my options?

I didn't really want to turn against the Emperor, but my brothers were all pretty keen on it and I didn't really want to go against them. I think I'm free from taint and haven't received any "gifts", so if I want to get out of this business what do I do? Do I hand myself in to the Inquisition? Do I try to join the Deathwatch and hope nobody asks where I came from? I hear those Tau guys can be pretty welcoming.

Find other like minded individuals in your chapter. Make sure you purge all records your existence from the traitor legion. Find some backwater imperial world, and pretend you are a new founding chapter. Come up with a name that sounds really loyalist, anything involving Blood and Raven should be fine. And since you are technically not an officially sanctioned chapter, you will often find yourself short on supplies. So you might need to "acquire" war-gears through more creative means.

Why do dogs play with the toys we buy them? A squeaky ball, a squeaky, plushy thing, etc?

I understand dog need stimulation and are playful and a lot of their behavior goes back to their genetics, to their ancestors, things they would or use to do in the wild before domestication. My question is, why do they find amusement in a rubber ball that squeaks? My dog for example loves this squeaky rubber ball, she fetches it like most dogs, but what gets me is that she can spend hours on end walking around the house squeaking it non stop. She will lay down with it and bite down on it every few seconds so it squeaks, walk around the house from room to room with the ball in her mouth squeaking. It doesn't annoy me, I am just curious as to why they do this. Is it because it possibly resembles an animal, a prey she thinks she caught so she walks around with it proudly. But why squeak it, I mean she obviously understand the concept that if she bites down, it will squeak, so she repeats it over and over. This sounds like a dumb question, but I am genuinely curious. Or am I just over thinking this, and the dogs just see it as a toy to play with, nothing else?

Do you ever repetitively click a pen? Or jingle the change in your pocket? Or chew your nails? Or throw a baseball with a friend or your kid? Or play with a stress ball? Or... Or... or... or... Why do people do those things? I think you're right that you're probably over thinking it and it's just a toy.

ELI5: Why does getting punched or hit in the nose hurt more and make your eyes involuntarily water?

The eyes drain fluid through the nose. That's why when you have a good cry, often you also have a runny nose -- it's not mucous, it's tears, in the nose. When you get punched/hit in the nose, the eye drainage is temporarily disrupted, plus the eyes are likely irritated as well, plus you would likely be emotionally upset -> eye watering

[Harry Potter] What are some good nsfw spells and potions that every adult wizard and witch should know?

I just graduated from Hogwarts and going steady with my boo from Beauxbatons.. What are some good potions and incantations that I should put in my repertoire?

Well, engorgio can be used for more than just the obvious. For that matter, so can reducio. Polyjuice potion *might* be illegal, but it will absolutely spice things up. If you're creative enough, any transfiguration, up to and including ducklifors can be used in the bedroom.

How is Bataille viewed nowadays?

I know this is a pretty open question but I don't really have a more specific one, about a particular concept of any sort. I've read "Story of the Eye" and parts of "Literature and Evil" and "Erotism" and while that isn't much, especially on the philosophical part of his work, I know that there is a philosophical part and would like to know how it is viewed. Thanks.

Pretty much any big name in 20th century French (continental) philosophy was influenced by Georges Bataille; but if we look at two trends sometimes called 'affirmative' (think Nietzsche) vs. 'negative' (you might put Adorno here) philosophy, it's fair to say anyone in the negative group has some debt to Bataille even if they don't know it. Some thinkers who have been pretty explicit about this influence are Nick Land and Alain Badiou. He definitely has a lot of respect in the continental tradition although he's a little bit of a 'background character'--his influence is sweeping and undeniable but he's rarely named explicitly.

Explain the whole voter ID controversy in the US.

Saw one of my more conservative relatives railing about how you're considered a racist now for supporting voter ID. I have something of an idea of what it's about, but haven't done much research.

Basically, IDs take time to get. The most common one is a drivers licence, but not everyone needs to drive. Some don't have cars, some are too old to drive, some are still in college and don't need to drive (or are from another state originally and have not converted their licence). These demographics, the very old, the very poor and students are disproportionately democratic. The very poor also has the added effect of being disproportionately less white than the population at large (which is part of what makes the group much more Democratic than Republican). So voter ID laws will have the effect of decreasing turnout by making it more difficult to vote. And those that will be less likely to vote are disproportionately Democratic and disproportionately not white. Some say the point is influenced by the latter, that it is racially motivated. But it is more likely to the former. Now to be fair, supporters claim that this crackdown is in response to voter fraud. But such fraud just doesn't happen in any major degrees. In Ohio there were only 9 cases of the 3.8 million votes cast in 2010. Florida doesn't have a single reported case for that election. So while preventing fraud is the stated goal, its effect will swing states a small percentage towards Republicans that in part reduces the amount of minorities who vote. Weather that makes it racist or political is an argument to be had.

ELI5: What exactly do game studios have to do to port a game made for console to PC?

Games are computer programs. And computer programs are written as a series of commands that humans can understand, like 'jump character ' in so called 'high level languages'. These are then converted by a program called a 'compiler' to a series of 1 and 0 called 'machine code', which is what computers can process. Depending on the the specific capabilities and design of the computer you wish to run the program on, there are different compilers. For example, on one computer, the command for 'jump character' may translate to a machine code '01001', while on a different computer it may be '10011'. On still another computer, there may be no 'jump character' instruction at all. Rather there is instead a command 'move character up' and 'move character down'. A jump would rerequire moving the character up and down really fast. These changes have to be made by the creators of games to ensure that their game runs on a different computer. The process is called 'porting'. Porting can be very hard or very easy depending on the specific design and high level langiage platform that the games are written in. It also depends on how similar or different the two computers which are being targeted are in terms of capabilities.

ELI5: Why are some spicy foods felt in the mouth (i.e. hot sauce) and some felt in the sinuses (i.e. wasabi?

There are two different chemicals at work, capsaicin in many hot sauces/peppers, and allyl isothiocyanate in mustards (what we call wasabi is usually actually horseradish, as an aside). The latter is more volatile, it evaporates more readily in the mouth and travels up into the nose with air. The former tends to stay a liquid and so is less inclined to do so. However, if you've ever sneezed after taking a big hit of hot sauce, you will discover that it definitely *can* be felt in the nose if you get it there.

ELI5: What would happen to a woman if she consumes viagra?

Seriously, would she have any hormonal alteration?

Viagra isn't some type of wonder sex drug by any stretch of the imagination. It was originally created with the intent of being a blood pressure medication. However, during trials they notice an interesting side effect. Men would get and maintain erections much easier. This is because the drug relaxes the smooth muscles in your body and allows blood to flow more easily. It has nothing to do with male sex drive at all. So what would happen if a woman took Viagra? Her smooth muscles would relax and blood flow would be improved in her body.

[Devil May Cry] Surely being a demon hunter must be a highly-sought after service. But how come Dante is always broke?

I can't remember a single instance of Dante getting paid for his work in the series as typically his benefactor is planning on double crossing him, sacrificing him, using him as a bargaining chip, waste his time and energy and so forth. Let's look at 3, he isn't technically hired by anyone and his only ally Lady was his enemy at one point, same with Virigil. I mean his shop is usually trashed in the games and he must spend inordinate amounts of money on it being A. In the city B. Full of pizza C. Full of music equipment D. Full of arms and artifacts We can also see in DMC (the bad one) that he lives in a trailer park, which is just as trashed as his shop was.

ELI5:How can a single wire in Coaxial cable carry so much information? Hundreds of channels, internet, and voip service in my case.

The single wire hooks into the cable box and it sees like a thousand different channels; it hooks into the modem and handles all the internet traffic from as many devices as I can attach to my network.

Superposition. Basically, waves at different frequencies don't interfere with each other. You can have one signal at 100khz, another at 110 kHz, on and on down the spectrum until you hit the maximum and minimum frequencies the wire is capable of carrying.

CMV: Video games should not have a standard price.

Before I explain my opinion I want to make it clear that I have little to no knowledge about: video games financing, video games development, pricing systems and exactly to which kinds of games this applies to. So please, do blast me with facts and maybe I will change my view accordingly. Basically here is what I'm saying: Almost all the games I buy (specifically AAA games) cost the same. I don't really have a problem with the price, I think that taking to account how much I enjoy video games and how much time they last the prices are relatively fair. What I don't get, and maybe because of my lack of knowledge of the field don't agree with, is that very different games from very different studios and publishers have the same price. Is it really possible that a game like the new "GOD OF WAR" and a game like "FIFA 19" took the same amount of resources to make, and is it possible that they are worth the same price? (1.not trying to shit on FIFA just what popped to my head 2. maybe FIFA is a bad example because they pay copyright or something, feel free to yell at me as long as you get the point). In my opinion video game prices should vary like other products according to what it cost to make them and how much people will be willing to pay for them. * When I say "will be willing to pay for them" I mean like how people are willing to pay a lot of money for Beats headphones or Iphones even though they sometimes know they don't cost a lot to make. * I know my view stumbles when considering movie ticket prices buy I do think it's different, if need be I will try and explain why in the comments. * I know that worldwide the prices between the games I'm talking about are not exactly identical, but they are very close so to me it's negligible. Why I think varied video game prices are a good thing: * People would have more freedom to choose games that cost less and so whoever sets the price for a video game will have an interest in making it cheaper. * If gamers would know the prices can change according to expenses or "game value" they will be able to protest certain prices and lead to change. * I think it just makes sense and to the best of my knowledge that's how most products are priced. So without wasting more of your time, please enlighten me and change my view, convince me that there is a logical and fair reason why most "big" video games cost the same. As I said I'm kind of ignorant about a lot of fields concerning this matter so if you have to tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, do so with an explanation. Thanks.

The price of a product isn’t determined in relation to the production costs. The price you see is the result of the company’s estimates of where exactly it is going to be able to maximize the profit function. Therefore, it is irrelevant that God of War and FIFA didn’t cost the same to make. Both companies determined that the common price of 60$ (?) was on the upper margin of what most people are willing to pay for a AAA game. This seems to be common for AAA games. Few companies manage to put out products and build enough hype to be able to set higher prices.

U.K. - increasing wages and increasing prices

I’m sorry if this is the wrong sub, but I’m just a bit confused. Since the U.K. left the EU immigration from the EU has dropped off… Immigration from the EU was typically the source of cheap labour - whether it’s lorry drivers, fruit pickers, abattoir workers etc Boris Johnson keeps saying because we’ve left the EU it’s meant businesses can’t rely on cheap labour anymore, so they’re going to put wages up, up skill people etc etc. But if wages go up, prices for the consumer will likely go up (e.g increase wage for a lorry driver for a supermarket, more expensive to transport food, pass cost onto consumer). So is there actually a net wage gain? Do people (hypothetically or otherwise) end up better off in the short/ medium/ long term? Or are things just going to get more expensive and wages rise accordingly? I really don’t care for the politics, I just don’t understand the economics bit. Thanks

Generally speaking, we know that for example, a hike in the minimum wage of 10% leads to *at most* 0.4% higher prices. You have to remember that labor costs are only a fraction of the total cost, so prices won't rise 1:1. So yes, in that case people are better off. That said, in the case of the UK, you have to consider the whole picture. It's difficult to make predictions, it depends on how the UK deals with brexit. But all in all, it means more barriers, less labor, less trade and therefore also a worse economy compared to staying in the EU.

What happens to our pupils when we sleep?

Do they dilate bigger or smaller?

(Almost) doctor here. The pupils, as well as our whole body respond to sympatic ("active mode" or fight/flight response) and parasympatic ("rest & digest mode", i.e. low stress situations) innervation. When we are awake, and in the fight/flight mode, your heart rate and your blood pressure increase to take on the demands of what your body is about to have to do. Your hands and feet will sweat in to increase your grip. Your pupils dilate in order to take in as much visual detail as possible so you won't miss anything. When we sleep, our parasympatic system kicks in. Our blood pressure and heart rate decline, and our pupils become smaller (miosis) because they will not need to see anything because they will be closed for a long period of time. Fun fact: adrenaline is a sympatic activator (or sympathicomimetic, as is MDMA, cocaine or amphetamine, thats why people who use them have major pupils (mydriasis). Opiates are more parasympatic, and so heroin users will have small pupils (so called pinpoint pupils). We look for these things when someone is brought in and is intoxicated and is not able to express himself. Disclaimer: really late here and possibly not 100% complete answer but this is a grossly simplified answer.

CMV: Psyduck should be a dual Water/Psychic type Pokemon

First of all, the name psyduck is a combination of the words "psychic" and "duck." It's own name says that it's psychic. That seems like a pretty good reason to be a psychic type pokemon. Secondly, it learns as many psychic type moves as water type moves. In its original form in generation I, it learns as many psychic type moves (confusion) as water type moves (hydro pump.) Not only that, but it learns the psychic type move at level 36, a full 16 levels before it learns a water type move. Third, its original pokedex entry reads "While lulling its enemies with its vacant look, this wily Pokémon will use psychokinetic powers. " This clearly makes more references to its psychicness than its waterness. In fact, none of its pokedex entries in any generation make reference to water or water moves.

In Gen 1, a bunch of things got messed up. Just check out Butterfree / Venomoth and compare them to Metapod / Venonat. Its pretty obvious that the art for Butterfree ended up on Venomoth and vice versa - based on what they evolved from. Similarly, the names of Psyduck/Golduck are obviously flipped. Psyduck is Golden while Golduck is Blue? Also, Canonicially, Psyduck doesn't yet realize it has psychic powers until it evolves to Golduck. While Psyduck can use psychic powers, it cannot do so purposefully or intentionally until it evolves (this is much more evident in the anime or manga, than in the games) - hence the typing. Finally, from a game balance perspective - slowbro and starmie are both already water/psychic - and having 3 different water/psychics in only 151 original gen 1 pokemon - may have seemed like too many.

Why aren't there pools of Liquid CO2 at the coldest parts of the Earth?

Stemming from [This is what happens to a cup of hot water when you throw it up in the air at -85C, in Greenland](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/16zwm6/this_is_what_happens_to_a_cup_of_hot_water_when/)... The lowest temperatures recorded on Earth [are quite easily below -80°C](http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/YongLiLiang.shtml), why arn't there pools of Carbon Dioxide [boiling point of -57 °C](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) found in these areas? Indeed, Carbon Dioxide melts at -78 °C, wouldn't we at least start to see some liquid/solids at -85 °C?

Because carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres (520 kPa), it's triple-point. It can, however, deposit directly to a solid at temperatures below -78.5 °C (-109.3 °F).

[My Life as a Teenage Robot] Jenny is stated to have the strength of a million and seventy men. How powerful is that really?

As a unit, one manpower has been stated to be about 75 watts, or a tenth of a horsepower. It's just math from there, so 75,005,250 watts, or 100,007 horsepower. That's roughly the power of a GE90 jet engine, like on the Boeing 777.

ELI5: Why are animal sounds different in different languages? How did their spellings originate?

Different languages use different sets of sounds, and different ways of stringing sounds together, to make words. For example, the way an American would say the 'r' in "red" doesn't exist that way in Japanese. Another example, the way a Francophone would say the 'r' in "rouge" doesn't exist in English. The sounds that things make, such as animals, are described differently based on the sounds of the language being used. We think cats say "meow" because that makes sense by the standards of English. Japanese people think cats say "nyan" because that makes more sense when you're working from Japanese sounds. Nyan doesn't make as much sense in English, and meow doesn't make as much sense in Japanese.

- and -- in console programs

Why some paraneters are prefixed with - and why others prefixed with -- when you use a console program?

It doesn't intrinsically mean anything - it's up to the program author what arguments they accept and how they want to parse them. However it's a fairly standard convention (in Unix/Linux at least) that `-` is used for short single letter options and `--` for longer options, and there is often a short and long version of the same option, e.g. you often have `-h` and `--help`. You will still sometimes find programs which don't conform to this though, and might have an option like `-help` - only way to be sure what options are available is to read the programs help however that's available (via `man`, `--help`, a readme etc)

[DC] Do people in the Suicide Squad ever get released or is it just a con? If they do are the bombs and tracker removed?

Waller has no incentive to lie to these folks. 1. The Suicide Squad, by all rights, should not be seeing the light of day ever again. Their crimes all merit multiple life sentences in maximum security facilities. Dangling the carrot of a wildly reduced sentence or even a pardon ensures that these folks have hope; if you have questions about how big a deal hope can be, ask Bane. 2. The Suicide Squad is comprised of people who could have easily been Justice League members in another universe (and, knowing the multiverse, likely are). They're more than just hardened criminals, they're hardened super-criminals. The kind of people you *need* the Justice League to take down under ordinary circumstances. And the way they're deployed, they're essentially a black-ops Justice League all their own. So what you have are a bunch of super-people, who believe they have a chance at getting out of an otherwise hopeless situation, and who could also give the most powerful people on the planet a run for their money. How do you think these people would react upon finding out it was all a lie?

[LOTR] What if the events of "The Hobbit" never happen and Gollum still has the One Ring. What would happen with Sauron and the rest of the events of the Lord of the Rings?

The Ring would abandon Gollum when Sauron began his rise to power- which it did in The Hobbit- but it would be found by an orc or a goblin instead of Bilbo. The Orc/Goblin would put it on and easily be dominated by Sauron delivering the Ring right to him. Saruman bows completely to the supremely powerful Sauron. Gandalf tries to rally the Elves and the men of Gondor to stand against Sauron. There are no Hobbits so the Ents never attack Isengard, Saruman's power is not broken. Theoden is never delivered from Saruman's grasp because Gandalf never becomes Gandalf the White. Sauron doesn't rush his assault on Gondor and when it does come it is much more devastating. Minas Tirith is destroyed. Aragorn, who went directly to Minas Tirith instead of taking the long route through Rohan, is killed. Sauron becomes the Dark Lord of Middle Earth.

My PhD advisor is trying to forbid me from going to the lab.

I feel like I'm in a bit of a weird situation, and I could use some other thoughts about what I should do. I'm in the last semester of my PhD (I hope). My department is kind of an omnishambles, and there's a lot of political maneuvering that is affecting my situation. Recently, my department advisor tried to asset control over my work by forbidding me to going to the lab that funds me. My co-advisor, who is my lab supervisor, very nearly cut my funding after my advisor called him to tell him I wasn't going to work in the lab anymore. (I met with him separately later to tell him I would still work there, regardless of what she said.) My advisor thinks my research, and my dissertation, is in a much worse off place than it is. She thinks that I need to spend 10 hours a day for a month non-stop writing, but also admits to not having read anything I have sent to her save one chapter. As of this post, I have about 8 chapters, 150-odd pages, all cited, formatted to the university's standards, figures and tables inserted, etc. I'm not sure if my advisor's behavior is in the scope of normal. The graduate program director has also told me I shouldn't be going to the lab, so I think my advisor catastophized my work to the director. I'm not sure if I should just let it slide and ignore my advisor, but she wants to meet me weekly before I hand my dissertation into my committee. According to my co-advisor and lab supervisor I'm doing fine and he thinks my other advisor is being needlessly negative. Any advice would be helpful. I honestly don't know what I should do in this situation.

Just curious...why do you need to be in the lab? With you at the very end of your PhD, and you having seemingly 8 chapters (that’s a ton for a PhD thesis, although 150 pages isn’t very long) worth of data already collected...it seems like you should be done in the lab? Is the stuff you want to do in the lab PhD related, or additional experiments?

What is the science behind the introvert-extrovert model of social interaction?

I have been seeing the terms "introvert" and "extrovert" used with increasing frequency as a physical diagnosis of one's capacity to interact with other people. Terms that evoke batteries--like "energy" and "recharge"--are used and there seems to an emphasis on this idea that people can be physically drained or energized by the presence of other people. There are many examples of this on the internet but here's [a comic](http://romanjones.deviantart.com/art/How-to-Live-with-Introverts-Guide-Printable-320818879) I have often seen and [an article](http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/why-introverted-teachers-are-burning-out/425151/) I just stumbled upon that I think show my point. I think that this is an interesting way to characterize human interaction and it *sounds* very good. However it seems like an overly simplistic description of something which has a huge variety of factors at play (mental illness, socialization, etc.). I want to know is there any scientific lab or paper which produced this energy-based model originally or is it just something which sounds good and has been internalized by our culture?

Personality types are not a good predictor of individual behavior. It is found that people act differently from their personalities when faced with strong situations. It is possible that personality traits like introversion and extroverted are just learned behaviors influenced by the situation that the individual is in and can be changed if the person is placed in a different situation.

CMV: Unrealized capital gains should not be taxed

I’ve been seeing the argument going around that the government should tax assets, instead of realized capital gains, in order to fairly extract taxes from billionaires, and thus, all investors. How can this actually to be implemented though? The value of an asset is speculative and volatile. If I was to be taxed on my stock portfolio, which fluctuates in value every second, would the tax man just tax it at an arbitrary point in time? This just doesn’t seem to make any sense. I could be taxed at my portfolio’s highest valuation and it could drop significantly the next moment…then I’d be screwed, and punished for investing in the economy, which is the opposite goal of any governments’ monetary policy, as the government wants to ENCOURAGE investment. Anyway, my stance on this is that it doesn’t make sense, but maybe I’m missing something? Change my view! Edit: Thank you to everyone who responded. What a lively and informative discussion! I’m not sure if I’ve completely changed my mind about the subject, but I am definitely not against it anymore. It seems like it COULD work.

Firstly, asset based taxes are normal. Property tax. Secondly, while we don't know for sure since it's not current law and likely won't be, the wyden plan uses both capital losses and capital gains. You could also be taxed at your portfolios lowest value, and losses can carry forward and so on. For every time you were screwed you also be unscrewed.

[asoiaf] How, in the domesticated Seven Kingdoms, is it possible for the Hill Tribes to exist in the Vale, plundering without being hunted down by the Knights of the Vale or by other official authorities?

They're almost like the Wildlings but south of the Wall.

The Hill Tribes are broken, fractured, impoverished, using barely any armor or weapons of quality but what they can -- rarely -- steal. They're uneducated, lack tactics, organization, leadership, and are compared to the northern Wildlings yet unsophisticated, untrained, and frankly rather stupid. Tyrion and Bronn and Tywin played them like children. The Vale knights and cavalry are amongst the most powerful and dangerous and martially skilled forces in all of the world. The hill tribes are the rednecks of the Vale and kept in firm check. Why the Arryns haven't simply wiped them out is probably down to simply not wanting to slaughter families whole. If this was the Westerlands, yeah, the Lannisters would've erased them by now. The tribes probably aren't enough of a problem to rise to that level.

ELI5: When I pee, am I peeing out the water I drank recently, or the water I drank yesterday to make room for the new water?

When you drink water, it eventually becomes part of your blood. Your kidney regulates your blood pressure by drawing out water from the blood, which gets excreted as urine. So it's not really possible to differentiate water you drank now from water you drank earlier or even water your body produced.

Can new photons be created by things like phone screens and flashlights or do they somehow take photons from the rest of the universe. Or, as I suspect, do I have a very flawed understanding of how light, photons, and phone screens work?

The total number of photons in the universe is not fixed. New photons can be created, and existing photons can be absorbed. A flashlight or phone screen makes photons; it does not take them from elsewhere.

ELI5: How can dogs pick up objects from the ground so much without getting sick?

How is it possible that dogs are able to put just about everything in their mouths and eat food from the ground without getting sick?

Dogs just have a more powerful/tolerant immune system regarding that kind of stuff since...well, they are still used to eat things off the ground as opposed to most humans. If you'd were raised from birth eating stuff off the ground everywhere, you'd probably have a much higher tolerance to it too. (Note: Please do not start eating things off the ground to train your body)

Would a flashlight work in outer space?

(just a simple flashlight: battery wired to a lightbulb with a switch in between) What about a wristwatch? An iPod? A computer?

electronics, in general, will work they are sensitive to radiation, so depending on where you are in space, your chance of data corruption and general circuit frying can be quite high. the defense of this usually involves using large process electronics a mechanical hard drive would not work because the read heads rely on aerodynamics to stay away from the disk platters heat becomes a problem, when on it's very difficult to dissipate, when off it becomes quite easy to get either too cold for batteries or too hot from solar radiation. for example, the surface temperature of the moon swings between -170 and 120 ºC (-280 to 240 ºF) for the most part, the answer is yes. while the harsh environment of space would limit the lifespan, most things would still work

[Marvel] Why do most versions of Peter Parker wear their webshooters inside the costume?

Wouldn't it be more convenient if he wore them outside? Refilling on webfluid takes out the extra step of removing his gloves. Plus there's a possibility that is costume won't get 'loose' and have the fabric cover up the nozzle of the webshooter. Spiderman not having organic webs isn't entirely a secret since he has mentioned modifying webfluid to his foes when his standard formula doesn't cut it.

Having inorganic webs isn't as wide spread as you think. Most people still have no idea what his powers are. He has successfully disarmed opponents by suggesting he can command spiders with his mind. When MJ beat the shit out of Chameleon (the second, more public time) someone at the Daily suggested she might secretly be Spider-Man. It was pointed out how they had all seen Spider-Man before and there's no way someone with her curves could be, another reporter suggested it was another of Spider'Man's powers; and broke JJJ. Point being, nobody really knows what Spider-Man can or can't do. To be frank, not even Peter knows.

Could a bullet made of frozen blood really be more effective than a bullet made of water?

First of all, blood is ~80% water, so the same general problems with ice bullets still apply. In addition to that, blood has a whole bunch of stuff dissolved in it that disrupts the formation of ice crystals and mechanically weakens the frozen phase. So, a bullet made from frozen blood would actually be worse than an ice bullet!

CMV: CMV: The Darknet of the internet does far more harm than good, providing a den for villainy and evil of all kinds, and is generally indefensible.

After seeing countless news stories and reddit posts about the 'Darknet', I got curious and just checked it out. I was/am pretty blown away by it - actually sickened might be a better word. A place to buy guns, drugs, learn how to make bombs, consume and transfer child pornography, connect with the Islamic State? Good god... While I believe in the right to privacy (generally) and a safe space for whisteblowing, etc., I now strongly feel that the Darknet is generally indefensible. The Darknet is weighted heavily towards, well, darkness. CMV EDIT: I see the value of the darknet (despite its deep, disturbing flaws), and enough justification for its existence, particularly with regards to the encouragement and protection of civil rights in places where they are threatened/don't exist. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

FYI: There is no such thing as 'the darknet' as a singular/encompassing term. Any encrypted semi-public network can be considered 'a darknet'. Tor is the most notable, but it is far, far away from the only one. Notably, on your view... the same technologies that are widely available and enable the darknets you dislike, also allow dissidents in China and in other repressive regimes to communicate more freely, and access the full open internet. These are laudable goals. I guess the question is, are you against the existence of darknets because they will be instantly colonized by pedos and drug dealers, right along with political dissidents? Or are you simply against pedos and drug dealers? In technology policy, we have politicians that do not educate themselves on these subjects before voting for insane, stupid laws, that are oppressive AND won't do a damn bit of good. Please don't be one of them?

How the sky had been at time when cosmic background radiation was mostly in visible spectrum?

I read about Redshift and the whole scale factor thing, how the wavelength of light wave coming toward us would grow up to have lesser energy and more wavelength. I hope that's the case with Cosmic background radiation, the light has been redshifted since then and now its mostly in Microwave spectrum. It must had been amazing to see the whole sky glowing when most of it was in visible spectrum. There wasn't intelligent life to see that(duh) but pretty cool an event that would have lasted for *many* years.

It was just barely visible even at the moment of emission. The cosmic microwave background, when it was emitted, was blackbody radiation corresponding to a temperature of about 3000 degrees Kelvin. At that temperature, the vast majority of the light emitted lies in the infrared spectrum. What could be seen would have been a dull orange glow, growing dimmer over time as space expanded and redshifted the light. If you type "3000 K" into Wolfram Alpha, it helpfully gives you a little square that approximates the color of the light emitted by a black body of that temperature.

[MCU] Why were the government after the Pym family?

So, in Ant-Man and the Wasp, when the government soldiers came into Scott's home for unwittingly violating his house arrest, they said that they were after Hank and Hope since Scott used their tech. But why? From what I remember, Scott used the Ant-Man suit in the airport fight in Germany without their knowledge or consent(which is why Scott and Hope were on the outs), so how could the Pyms be really held accountable for anything Scott did with it?

>so how could the Pyms be really held accountable for anything Scott did with it? That's something you determine in a court of law, *after* they've been apprehended by the police. All the government knows is that Pym tech was used in violation of the Sokovia Accords and Pym is *the* person when it comes to Pym tech. The fact that they are actively avoiding the police doesn't help their case.

How does a 2.1% increase in interest rates equate to a 25% increase in monthly mortgage payments?

Shopping around for new mortgage rates at the moment. Our current rate is 2.7%. The best new rate we can find is 4.8%, but the increase in our monthly payments is about 25% of what we’re currently paying. We’ve also added value to the property since we bought it through renovations (new boiler, floors, kitchen etc) so our loan to value is lower. I know life is crazy expensive at the moment but HOW does this work and make sense?

Let’s assume you borrowed £100,000. Your interest per year is £2,700. If you are paying your mortgage back over 25 years, then you will pay (this maths isn’t perfect as obviously there is a reducing balance whilst monthly payments are fixed but purely for illustrative purpose) £4,000 a year off your initial £100,000 capital. Total £6,700 per year If interest rates were 4.8% then you would need to pay £4,800 interest and £4,000 a year off the balance which is £8,800. Or 31% more per year.

ELI5:Rather than have two separate sexes, why are not all species hermaphroditic?

Organisms that exchange genes change more per generation than organisms that don't. As such, sexual organisms tend to evolve a lot faster relative to generation length than asexual ones. Not only does this allow them to more rapidly exploit ecological niches and adapt to change (thus standing a better chance of avoiding extinction), but it allows them to be *more different* than their peers - which means that a lot of the biological diversity out there *is the result of* sex-driven evolution. As with most evolutionary concepts, you kind of need to look at these things in hindsight. Species that haven't changed much over the eons... are the weird primitive things you find under rocks in ponds, because that's where they started, and they just haven't moved on. Any species that turns hermaphroditic (there are even some lizards that have) is retiring from the rat-race, because it lives in an environment so stable that mutations allowing self-fertilization provide less disadvantage than the cost of maintaining males. This doesn't tend to happen very often - and even when it does, it doesn't tend to spread, because a stable species doesn't split into new species.

ELI5: Is it true that if someone you love very much dies, you can also die of a "broken heart" and if so explain it.

Your body has a lot of hormones. When you experience a lot of stress that feeling you get is due to sudden creation of many hormones. When you are old and your heart is weak this jolt of hormones can damage your heart. And if you are fragile enough you can die. It is common to lose elderly married couples in pairs for this reason.

Are irrational numbers irrational in all bases and number systems?

Irrationality is a property of the number, not it's representation in any given base. How you choose to represent the number won't have any effect on whether it's irrational. To be clear, an irrational number is one that cannot be expressed as a ratio between two integers. That said, in any *rational* base, all irrational numbers will have expansions that are not eventually repeating. However, one can consider *ir*rational bases, in which case there will be irrational numbers with terminating representations. For example, in base pi one can express pi as 10.

[LOTR] If Morgoth was weakened by his great magical deeds, then were the other Valar also weakened too e.g. Creating the trees, the dwarves?

I would say no, the Valar created according to the song of Iluvatar. Harmonic waves are able to travel easily, gaining strength from the underlying order, whereas Morgoth's dissonance goes counter to the holy song, like a wave crashing into another wave, requiring more energy to be created.

ELI5: Why do people with higher intelligence worry more often than people with lower intelligence?

A long, detailed, recent post (which I unfortunately can't find anymore) on /r/psychology broke this claim down, but to a non-native English speaker it was a tad difficult to comprehend. I'd appreciate an ELI5. Thanks in advance!

To make it very, very simple; smarter people can imagine and think of more things to be worried about than dumber people. A dumber person might be worried about getting to work on time one day. A smarter person might be worried about whether his car will start, if he has recently checked the oil, that weird noise when he applies the brake, if he has enough gas to get to the gas station, whether he should leave the house early so that he can get to the gas station and then to work during traffic, whether he remembered to get groceries last weekend so he can make breakfast before leaving the house early to get gas and then get to work, whether he has time to make a hot breakfast or if he'll have a cold one instead, whether or not that thing he did at work last night was noticed by his boss and whether or not he'll be noticed today because of it. That chain of thought can get more complex very, very fast.

Does an increase in population increase or decrease the rate of evolution?

I'd imagine with a larger population there are more genetic differences which may or may not be beneficial. However with the increase in population it would take longer for desirable traits to propagate through the population.

It very much depends on the specific case at hand, as well as how you're defining the rate of evolution. All else being equal, as population size decreases, drift (i.e., the random fluctuation of allele frequency) becomes more important. Conversely, as population size increases, the impact of drift lessens, and natural selection becomes the dominant force. Therefore *generally* if you have a larger population, the rate at which alleles are fixed by selection will be faster than the rate in a smaller population and if you have a smaller population, the rate at which alleles are fixed randomly by drift will be faster than in a large population. Edit: cleaned up wording

What is the difference between contempt and disgust?

I recently came across the 7 universal emotions in a lecture. Amost all of them are familiar to me with the exception of "contempt". Searched it up on google and got this definition: the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn. To me, this also sounds like disgust which is another one of the 7. So what's the difference between the two?

Approach vs avoidance, as well as social vs. physical. We avoid disgusting things to keep us safe and healthy. Touching a dead body is gross because it can make us sick. Contempt involves approach because it is associated with feelings of aggression. Contempt is a inherently social, as it requires another party to exist.

ELI5: How does every flight always seems to be filled?

Does *everyone* happen to be flying to the same random city at the same time on the same day every day?

Flying a plane is expensive. If it's not full, the airline is losing money. They schedule flights far enough apart that the planes will be more likely to be full when flying. They will also put you on connecting flights, meaning the larger, fuller planes going to bigger, more major airports, are often taking people to a connection, not to that city. They will get on a smaller plane, (also full) going to another destination. The planes get smaller as the destinations get more remote, making it more cost-effective to fly with fewer paying passengers.

ELI5: Why were fortresses often built pentagonal?

It’s the fewest number of sides where the defense weapons of the time (cannon) could have overlapping fields of fire. Cannons on both walls can target the same attackers. A 4-sided fort means each side is facing a completely different direction so they can’t do that.

CMV: Honorary degrees should not exist.

At least not in their current format and before I go on I want to say I know that an honorary degree has no academic bearing. I think instead of a 'degree' being awarded it should named simply as it is- an award eg award for lifetime contribution to '____' Or something similar and reserve the name 'degree' for those that are more deserving of it. This is a view I've had for a long time now and can't think of a valid reason for their existence. Looking at the wikipedia article (I know, just humour me) they define it as 'An honorary degree is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements, such as matriculation, residence, study and the passing of examinations' It seems like a slap in the face to anyone who has actually paid tuition, spent 3-5 years of their life devoted to attaining their degree and on top of that maybe even *contributed* to the university through societies or a part-time campus job. Any honorary degrees given out, to me, appears to be more like a PR stunt to associate themselves with a particular academic, or even celebrity, and seem just a little pathetic. Edit: I've changed my view and now think there isn't a problem with honorary degree itself, more with the it can inflate someone's ego e.g now you have to call me Dr and the way honorary degrees can be paid for. None of this is anything against the degree itself. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

> It seems like a slap in the face to anyone who has actually paid tuition, spent 3-5 years of their life devoted to attaining their degree and on top of that maybe even contributed to the university through societies or a part-time campus job. There are two ways of getting a degree: 1. You pay tuition, spend years of your life studying, and then get a degree 2. You spend your life developing who you are (famous or intelligent), and make an impact on the world that resonates with the university. Surely you knew about honorary degrees before you attended college. Why didn't you chose the second path if you think it is so easy?

CMV: There is no moral distinction between the offensive use of chemical weapons and the offensive use of explosive material that blasts shards of super heated lead and steel in every direction.

I'm always confused by the "outrage" over the use of chemical weapons. To my mind, there simply is no distinction between gasing the denizens a city block to death and bombing that same city block into a pile of smoking rubble. "But chemical weapons are indiscriminate" -- So are bombs. Furthermore, this distinction falls apart if one intends to kill everyone in a city block. Whether that is done with gas or artillery is irrelevant. The result is the same. "But it's a gruesome way to die" -- More gruesome than having your entrails blasted out? Watching the blood spurt from your severed arteries at the ragged edges of your missing limbs? Being crushed beneath tons of concrete? Tomato, "tomahto," I guess. "They cause terrible fear" -- I've had the misfortune to have had mortars shot at me in Iraq. You know what? It was terrifying. I think I maxed out on fear at the thought of getting my ass blown apart. To be clear, I do agree that chemical weapons are bad. They are simply not worse than conventional exploding ordnance. Politicians wailing as if the use of chemical weapons is some extra cause for opprobrium on the user are nonsense. *EDIT* I'm going to work. Thanks for the input, everyone, if I tried to give you a delta and didn't take because I did it on the edit let me know and I will correct. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Some weapons we just agree not to use. Not necessarily because they are inherently morally wrong, but because they are just cruel. Chemical weapons, poison bullets, and certain kinds of bladed weapons are examples. There is nothing evil about these weapons, but there is something wrong with using them. They make warfare unnecessarily gruesome. Also, they are not particularly effective. Chemical weapons can be easily countered in modern war. As a matter of fact, a lot of cold war era military tech was designed for countering the effects of chemical/biological weapons and radiation. In a actual war, they would be very effective against civilians, but not very effective against military forces, who would likely be equipped with masks and other gear to protect themselves. If they would just cause suffering to civilians and not be effective against military forces, then why *not* ban them? Seems like a no-brainer.

ELI5: Is it possible to forcibly deflate currency by removing it from circulation or is it going to inflate infinitely?

It's certainly possible, but it's something most countries really want to avoid. Deflation incentivizes hoarding money, and widespread hording can crater an economy even faster than rampant inflation.

CMV: Credit limits serve no purpose to college students

EDIT: I wasn't clear initially, so I will explain. What I meant by "necessary classes" included classes that aren't directly in your field of study (such as communications or technical writing, for example). These courses have value for obvious reasons. I was instead referring to the situation where even after all of the necessary classes are attained, you still must take random classes around the university to reach the 120 credit limit. Original Post: What I'm talking about here are limits like "you need 120 credit hours to graduate". Obviously you need to complete the necessary classes to get your degree, but this 120 limit often extends past what is needed to complete degree requirements. Students pay exorbitant amounts of money in tuition, and that amount has only been increasing. So, college for most students is an investment. Why should we have to spend extra time just getting to that arbitrary number when we already know what we need to get our degree? In my opinion, this is a scam to keep students on campus longer, and to waste more of their money.

>but this 120 limit often extends past what is needed to complete degree requirements. If the 120 credit limit is required for you to graduate, then it is _part_ of the degree requirements. It doesn't "extend past" them.

[WH40K] Corrupted marine renouncing chaos?

Have there ever been a case of a corrupted Space Marine returning from chaos? Not that they'd get accepted back by the loyalist Space Marines, but I'm curious if the corruption in some way is reversibel.

Their souls are sworn to the chaos gods upon death, Chaos space marine's bodies are also warped and fused to their armor to better serve their patron god. Even if they manage to break away they are fundamentally altered from their original forms. The Emperor of mankind could definitely undo the changes wrought by chaos and potentially hold onto their souls, but they broke their oaths to him and attacked mankind so it's doubtful the Emperor would be so forgiving. What's more the Ordos Herecticus and Ordos Malleus would happily, with several Astartes on hand, kill such a traitor on sight. Ordo Scriptorum thanks you for your inquiry and an Inquisitor has been dispatched to determine the extent of your heresy. Praise the Emperor.

How or why does moon sometimes appear bigger and in different colour?

When moon is near the horizon, we compare its size with trees, houses, building etc, which makes it look bigger compared to when it is not on horizon. You can test this by closing one eye and covering moon with your thumb and repeat again when moon is not on horizon. Your thumb should be at the same distance from your body. The reason for the color is due to the scattering of light by the atmosphere. Sorry for the grammar.

[Marvel] What would happen if Thor met another version of himself and both try to pull the hammer?

Mjolnir's rules have never been clear to us mere mortals. It could be any number of things: * hammer goes to closest Thor - works like gravity or magnets, closest is strongest attraction * hammer goes to Thor who owns that version * hammer goes to whichever Thor called it first - nothing is simultaneous, one would be a few microseconds earlier even if they tried to start at the same time * hammer goes to whichever Thor is most worthy by whatever metric Odin set up for that. One Thor or another is probably feeling a little more Thory that day. * hammer is suspended in a tug-o-war between the two * hammer goes nowhere or otherwise malfunctions and maybe even explodes or something

[Starship Troopers] What is the point of the armor they wear? It doesn't do anything

It seems that the armor that we wear doesn't do anything. It's uncomfortable, hot, and bulky. It's understandable that it could be easily penetrated by the bugs as they have extremely sharp things, but the fact that our own bullets go right through it tells me that it doesn't do much, if anything. I am starting to think the Terran Federation is purposely trying to kill us; they give us piss poor weapons that barely damage the bugs, shit armor, and then send us all in to get slaughtered...

Doesn't do anything? Try dropping without gear, soldier! Its armoured plating stops you from burning up once you break athmo, its boosters stop you from cratering on the planets surface, its navigation HUD tells you were to go after landing and marks were your squad mates are so you don't hit one of them WITH THE GOD-DAMN BUILD-IN NUKE LAUNCHER (Didn't get one? Apply for Lance Corporal promotion immediately). Now, on the bounce, Soldier! (which reminds me, how could you be "on the bounce" without your combat suit? Jumping 100ft buildings was impossible for Soldiers before the suit...)

[DC] Does The Flash run on autopilot?

He processes things in less than nanoseconds and frequently runs across the world. Even running a mile would seem like thousands of years for him. This would surely make any normal person go insane. Is he incredibly patient or can he subconsciously lower his reaction speeds or something else entirely?

He can perceive things faster than we do, but his sense of time is still the same. For example, he can stretch a minute into an hour, but his sense of time still tells him that only a minute has passed. Or maybe he is just extremely patient.

Explain like I'm 5: the difference(s) between socialism and communism.

I have read conflicting descriptions of the difference between socialism and communism, many of them confusing; but I'm looking for a more definitive explanation.

Socialism, at it's root is the idea that we all live in a society, and depend on eachother, and therefore should decide stuff together. Typically, this goes beyond merely the political. For example, employees should have some say in how the company they work for should be run, parents should have a say in how the school their children attend is run, etc. Wikipedia assures me that in English this is called co-determination. The next step, is that if you already depend on eachother, and decide stuff together, you have some responsibility to take care of eachother. There's dozens of variation on these basic ideas. In Western Europe there's a lot of Social Democracy, which seperates the idea of decisionmaking and ownership, so that for example employees might have certain rights to make decisions for the company they work for, but does not entitle them to a share of the profit, or to make decisions that do not directly affect their work. Another type of socialism is communism. This is based on the writing of Marx, and the basic idea is that the right to decide and ownership are inextricably linked, and belong to all people together. The way communism is supposed to organize this, is by people working together, sharing together and deciding together in councils (hence the name "communism"). These councils (or "soviet" in Russian), or their representatives, would come together in an overarching council that would make decisions for the entire country, and own everything on behalf of these councils. Or at least, that's the theory. For a lot of countries, if not all, that tried to implement communism, the result was that a leader would end up being in control of the overarching council and being able to lead the local councils, rather than the other way around, which opens up lots of possibilities for abuse and general dictatorship.

ELI5: What exactly is insider trading and why is it illegal?

From what I understand it's being tipped off on the stocks. Why is it bad to get rid of stocks if you know a company is not doing well? I feel like I would want to know if it was my money.

Well, first off, insider trading isn't just getting rid of stocks you don't have faith in. There's nothing wrong with dropping Samsung shares in the face of this whole Note 7 exploding thing going on. The difference is whether or not the information you use to make that decision is public knowledge. Insider trading is basically 'cheating'. Think of it like a game of poker where your buddy is working with you by giving signals about his cards. He tells you through eye twitches or coughing whether he has a good hand or not, and with that information you can know when to fold or when to make a large bid. You have information that the other players don't have, which makes it an unfair situation for them. Insider trading is the same way. If you happened to be the sole person in the world outside of Apple Inc. that knew that Apple was about to announce a new type of phone capable of transforming into a jetpack and doing all your chores for you, you'd know that the announcement would cause their stock value to skyrocket. So you spend your life savings on tons of Apple shares at their current price, the announcement is made, the shares' value skyrockets and you sell them back for a fortune. You're now rich as heck because you had an advantage over everyone else in the 'game'. THAT'S insider trading.

How responsible was George Bush for the Great Recession?

Often times we hear how Bush’s ineptitude was at least partially responsible for it. How true is this?

The Great Recession can't really be primarily pinned on any one individual. There were so many different yet similar factors that went into it. Poor regulation of lending by the Federal Reserve and policy makers who didn't understand the effects and factors that went into the system they were responsible for (Bush probably fits in here, along with Fannie & Freddie Mac). As well as financial institutions who undertook very risky lending practices on the basis that the American mortgage was the most stable/guaranteed commodity in the world. As well as the general population of home buyers who took risky loans they couldn't afford under the guise that the housing market wouldn't give way and could only go up. A lot of times references to the Great Recession refer to the bursting of the "Housing Market Bubble" without explaining the economic factors that go into creating a bubble and it's eventual collapse. Bubbles occur when the price of an asset (Houses, Tech Company Stocks, Tulip Bulbs) increases at a dramatic rate not fundamentally rooted in the assets actual/real value. Because bubbles are tough to spot until it's too late it's hard to nail down exactly what caused them, but typically it's the result of over spending under the belief that an assests value will continue rise.

ELI5: If it's better and less painful to stand up straight, then why do some people slouch all the time?

Who says it's less painful? Posture issues aren't just due to not feeling like standing up straight. Your muscles work together and against each other to hold your body in certain positions. Poor posture habits tend to cause a muscle at one end of a joint to be overly tight, while a muscle on the other end to be overly relaxed. In trying to correct that imbalance by simply standing up straight, you're forcing the muscle that's so used to being relaxed to try to counteract the muscle that has been straining, which leads to pain and discomfort, so the person will go back to whatever poor posture position they were in that isn't uncomfortable. Over time, it starts becoming unbearable to just stand up straight, and requires a significant concentrated effort and constantly reminding oneself to manually fix their posture, because their muscles will force them into the poor posture position.

ELI5: What actually are shin splints?

I have suffered shin splints or Medial Tibial Stress Syndrome for the past 5 years. I've tried everything I possible can to get rid of them, but nothing gets rid of them for good. I've had a bone scan and everything and my GP says rest is the only cure. I've got orthotics because it's my flat feet that are causing them, but I still suffer. I've heard multiple answers to what shin splints actually from physios, GPs, Google search. I still never remember. I've heard answers like: it's the muscle tearing away from the bone and its lack of fluid which causes bubbles on the shins. Can someone please explain like I'm five so that I can remember once and for all!

When you see a diagram of the muscles and bones in the body, it is drawn to show that the muscles connect to the bones only at the ends of the muscles. In reality, though, the muscles are adhered directly to the bone where they lie up against it. If you've ever cut up a raw chicken, you know that the meat (which is mostly muscle) doesn't just fall off of the bone once the skin is removed. You have to cut it away, often scraping the meat off of the bone. Your muscles are stuck to your bones in the same way. Now imagine your muscles are moving and the stresses from that motion are pulling the muscle either away from the bone or along the bone. The parts of your muscles that are stuck to the bone get torn as the muscle moves around. This is what shin splints are.

ELI5: How come they still discover new things in Pompeii? Hasn't it been searched out before? How humongous is Pompeii?!

Edit: THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR GREAT ANSWERS! :D

A good portion of the city was excavated before the 1960s but they didn't do a great job so for the remainder of the city the majority is being left untouched and only small areas are being excavated so there will be more areas for the future as more advanced techniques are available There was a lot of damage done by the early excavations which did a bad job of preserving the site for the future so they're moving a lot slower now meaning there should be steady small discoveries for years to come

ELIF: What happened to Gandalf?

LOTR SPOILER ALERT I never read the books, just saw the movies. But what happened to Gandalf that brought him back as the white wizard?

Gandalf, like all Wizards, was an Ainu - an incarnated "lesser God" or angel, if you will. His spirit fled Middle-Earth to Valinor (home of the Gods) when he was killed by the Balrog. He was sent back by the Valar (the Gods) to finish his job: opposing Sauron, but given greater powers to replace Saruman as chief Wizard. The Wizards were sent to Middle-Earth by the Valar to oppose Sauron without the use of 'magical' force. All is revealed in the Silmarillion (including why they didn't want to use force).

ELI5 Christmas. How did it originate and how did it come to be what it is today?

I have heard that it originated from a Pagan holiday, but don't know much about the topic. Can somebody please help me understand how it shaped into what it now is?

Many cultures have 'winter solstice' festivals in and around the 25th of December. This was because days were short and dark, as little as 5 hours between sun rise and sun set in some northern Scandinavian capitals (Oslo etc) So the cheer themselves up around the time of the shortest say they would get together, have a party, exchange gifts, etc. Later Christianity became the dominant religion and pagan festivals could no longer be tolerated, so a story was created about the birth of Christ. (even though there is major dispute over this date) However many of the trappings of the pagan festivals can still be seen. Evergreen tree to remember even in deep winter plants can survive. Mistletoe and holly to ward of spirits. And so on. Each of the main countries that had these festivals (Gemany, Denmark, the UK, Norway, etc.) had a 'character' to go along with them, Saint Nicholas, sinterklaas, Father Christmas, and so on. When immigrants went to the US there needed to be someway of amalgamating these disparate elements. So gradually over time, the elements of 'German Christmas' 'British Christmas' and so on all blended together into the modern day incarnation, and Santa Claus was born to play the character in this new version. Shoes filled with candy were replaced with stockings over the fire place, candles mounted on ever green trees were replaced with the far more sensible electric lights. You can actually still see elements of the old characters in Santa Claus, both because of the name (Santa Claus is very close to Sinterklauss) and also because if you call him 'St. Nick' or 'Father Christmas' people know who you are talking about despite these figures being different and pre-dating him. Eventually the US became the dominant cultural force and exported its version of Christmas back to Europe.

[Command and Conquer] so some nerd just waltzed into my barracks and apparently we work for his boss now, what gives?

Hey look buddy. He's an engineer, that means he solves problems. Not problems like "what is Kane," because that would fall under the purview of weird plotline bullshit. He solves practical problems. For instance, how is he going to make these big mean mother-hubbards fight for the right side without having to tear them a structurally superfluous new be-hind? The answer: Use a gun. On the first guy he comes across. And when that don't work, use more gun. Until the rest of those sacks-o-craps fall in line. NOW GIT!

[Rise of the Guardians] Why couldn't the Guardians just show themselves to the children?

So during the 2nd act of this magnificent film the heroes are trying to make Easter happen in order to make the kids believe, however Pitch Black foils this attempt and kids stop believing in the easter bunny (instantly) so Bunny in a final attempt at it, comes out of the bushes and offers them free eggs but by this point it's too late and the kids don't see him. Why not do that earlier? If you see that this is a do or die situation, why not just come out? There doesn't seem to be a 'Guardian Rulebook' that tells you not to do that. In fact the literal last light and hope of the guardians was a child who believed because he physically watched them. So what stops them?

Because the problem is not, strictly speaking, that the children don't believe in the *guardians-* after all, most children don't believe in the Easter Bunny anyway. The problem is they don't believe in the things the guardians *represent*\- hope, wonder, joy, etc. Pitch isn't just making people stop believing in Santa Claus early, he's making people not believe the world can be a good place. That's what they need to deal with, and even if they went on national tv and held press conferences, it wouldn't change that problem. Hell, it might make it worse, putting the icons of childhood wonder as just another clout-seeking celebrity. Simply, it doesn't matter how many people believe in Santa Claus. It matters how many people believe in Christmas, and that takes more then a talk show appearence.

[Marvel]How come Wakanda hasn't run out of Vibranium?

They've had it for 10,000 years? How did they conserve so much of it?

They are sitting on a huge amount of it, and most applications don't require that much of it. Also, most things don't need to be remade. That vibranium spear is gonna last pretty much forever for example.

[The Venture Bros.] If Red Mantle is Buddy Holly and Dragoon is the Big Bopper, what happened to Richie Valens? Did he also fake his death and join the Guild?

Richie Valens was a necessary sacrifice to sell the lie that the other two died. He wasn't a part of the underworld, just a really good musician who chose to share the wrong plane with some*bad* people.

[Dungeons and Dragons] Can I use Polymorph to reproduce with Non-Humanoids?

Hey there everyone! My name is Firnagallad the Level 7 Wizard, and let's just say I'm *really* looking forward to level 8. But there is one question that the Academy refused to answer me (repeatedly). Under the effect of the Polymorph spell, can a human produce offspring with a normally nonviable non-human? Will those offspring be viable? Will they be 'half-human', or have any interesting morphological traits? For the inevitable follow up question, don't worry. 1 minute/Level is *more* than enough.

Thanks to the Book of Erotic Fantasy, this *does* have an answer. There are some weird wizards out there on the coast. If your current form has a penis, yes, you produce sperm and can impregnate someone normally. If your current form has a uterus, you need to remain polymorphed for the whole 9 months (the baby is lost if your transform back), but if you can manage that it works. Either way, the baby is a hybrid between your true form (i'm assuming human?) and the partners true form, regardless of what form you were in during intercourse . This can produce some weird new creatures, depending on what you fucked, and is at least theorised to be behind some of the strange hybrids out there So it seems your dream can come true! Shine on you crazy diamond.

ELI5: War of Currents; Did Edison screwed up Tesla?

I just watched "The Prestige" today, and so I was wondering why Edison is up on Tesla's ass? (It's just a little thing in the movie I was curious about). What happen if we use Tesla's AC methos now days? Would it be more efficient?

Like you're 5? Edison was making money providing power on a proven idea (DC). Tesla came along with a new, better idea (AC) and Edison knew it was better. Since he couldn't beat it, he decided to be really mean to Tesla. Edison went around to big crowds and said things like, "AC IS REALLY DANGEROUS WATCH THIS"* and then would electrocute large animals. *Paraphrased. Tesla responded by running AC through his body to power light bulbs so people could see it was safer. Pretty cool. Basically Edison was threatened by Tesla's cool ideas which were better than Edison's. Edison was a mean guy. Tesla died broke and alone. :<

What is the extent of Kevin Flynns powers on the grid?

What can he do? Create? Destroy?

He's a user. In theory he could unmake or remake the world, changing *anything* or *everything*. To explain it in the context of the Grid's togas-and-mysticism theme, users are demigods with the potential to perform godlike acts. When he first entered the Grid, he had to try really hard to temporarily redirect a light beam and it left him utterly exhausted. When he built his own Grid and spent years practicing, he was able to build a city from nothing, populated it with programs, created an avatar in his own image, and inadvertently created artificial life in the form of the ISOs.

What existed before the Big Bang?

A little research has taught me that before the Big Bang, all the mass in the universe existed in a tiny singularity. Since time slows around large mass, and this had all the mass in the universe, time didn't exist before this. Technically this means there is no "before" the Big Bang, but I was wondering if there are any theories as to how that singularity came into existence out of nothingness?

based on what we know now of physics, "before" the big bang did not exist. It created matter, and without matter (e.g. at least whirring electrons) we don't have time because there is nothing to measure.

[The Flash TV] *new episode spoiler* Why did Barry get help from...

Why did they need help from Snart to move the meta humans?

For whatever reason, possibly the high stress of the situation and the antagonism of Wells, it slipped the mind of every main character that Flash could have run all the imprisoned meta humans to the airstrip without the need of the truck, and in a short enough time that the knockout gas wouldn't have worn off. Instead, they decided to move them with a truck, and Barry, fearing the Metas could escape and outnumber him, decided to enlist Snart to help contain them in that eventuality.

CMV: r/cmv top replies are not usually disagreeing points of view

Hey, I have been using this subreddit for around 2 years now, and I have some qualms about the community. Most of the top replies (the ones that are expected to change the view of the OP) usually disregard and ignore the original view. Right now there is a thread about bikers being assholes. The top reply is someone saying, "not all bikers, there are some exceptions" while that's true, I'd imagine that the vast majority of people still feel that bikers in general are assholes. [Even south park made an episode about them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyKBFCd_u4). The top replies don't address the view of bikers being assholes in general. the response is "not all" but it doesn't change the view, and the exception is not the rule. I keep finding this issue, people find one little exception and then suddenly that's the most popular post. I rarely find a top post that addresses the whole of the OP, but rather takes one part out, nit picks it and that's what rises to the top. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Well it seems like in a lot of cases people post a CMV that's actually an overwhelmingly popular opinion or even a universally accepted fact and the only flaw is that it's too extreme, i.e. "All fat people could lose weight if they ate a better diet" or something like that. Since it's impossible to argue that statement isn't true in most cases (it is) the only way to challenge the viewpoint is to point out that it isn't as encompassing as OP says.

ELI5: What do singers have in their ears when singing live performances? Music? Back up music? Why are they always ripping the ear pieces out of their ears?

Audio technician here. It's a mix of audio, live from the microphones. It's not exactly what comes out of the "main" speakers, since they won't necessarily need to hear the drums or other sections of the band. Usually it's their own voice so they can hear themselves, and maybe a few other key instruments so they can keep pace with the rest of the band. If you've ever noticed the speakers on the floor of the stage facing the performers, they're the same thing. The earpieces are just more personal. There is no noticeable delay, and it's certainly not their own pre-recorded music. Either of those scenarios would be useless.

What is the difference between Agency and Will?

Newbie here at psychology. To my limited understanding, agency seems to be just another word for will, but this can hardly be the case. Could you please define for me what the difference between Agency and Will is?

So how I've always viewed it is that the will is more psychological or mental. We have the will to chose our own future. Our will is *free* in that we can chose whatever actions or make whatever decisions we wish. Agency however is more of our ability to act on our free will. For example, while humans everywhere have free will, there are certain places in the world where their individual agency to act on this free will is limited.

[40k] Is the Emperor's origin canon?

Is the Emperor's origin as the result of the reincarnation of the shamans of old still canon? Or is GW planning on retconning it like the rest of the aspects of the Emperor?

Maybe? Maybe not? Shit, even if it is canon it might not be true, 40k is real bad (or good, depending on how you look at it) about having unreliable narrators. What is canon is that the Emperor showed one of his custodians a vision of the emperor as a child in ancient Anatolia, and even then he had psychic powers.

[MCU] What difference between universes, timelines, and realities?

Venom and Loki spoilers will be basis for the background of my question. Loki and the TVA suggest that different timelines exist that branch off the “sacred timeline”. Which would be basically the MCU. MCU between Dr. Strange, Infinity War, End Game and Loki suggests that timelines are different realities in which choices affected outcomes of great importance. However in all these timelines every character that we know from the MCU exists. The characters don’t always become what they are meant to be but they still exists. They use the words universe and timeline interchangeably and it doesn’t really make sense to me. To me a different universe would be one where most if any of the MCU characters don’t even exist. A different timeline would be if Tony Stark was just a regular mechanic. Loki supports my belief I feel because there’s never any evidence that any of the other universes existed ie X-men or Amazing Spider-Man. There’s variants of TVA, of Loki, or Kang but never any of Wolverine or evidence that Adamantium exists. All this to say I just watched the new Venom and the post credit scene while enjoyable makes no sense. How is it possible that Venom can now exists in the MCU? Surely if it was a branch of the “sacred timeline” at least some elements of the MCU would have appeared before now.

A universe or reality is a single dimension that normally contains an alternate Earth. The MCU/Earth-19999/Reality-19999 (Avengers films) and Earth-616/Reality-19999 (comics universe) are examples of universes. The "real world" universe (our own) has been called Reality-1218. They are also called parallel universes, in that they co-exist with other universes with no direct interaction, such as the MCU and Earth-616 are similar but no derived from the same source. Picture two rivers flowing parallel but neve overlapping. A timeline is often used as another term to describe other universes or realities, but more specifically it is used when referring to that universe when time travel is involved. Whenever one time travels, they normally cannot enter their own timeline (ie they cannot interact with their direct past) but rather a divergent timeline branches off from the main timeline, effectively identical other than the chances made by the time travelers. Divergent timelines can also occur on their own without time travel. Picture on river that branches into a second stream, the first stream remains unchanged but their is a second one flowing from the same source. The term alternate universe is a blanket term to describe all variations of universes or realities. The Multiverse is the collection of ll the realities and timelines of the Marvel continuity (all the comics, films, TV series, etc). In a broader context, there are also other Multiverses, each one containing their own franchise. There is the DC Multiverse, the Star Trek Multiverse, the Doctor Who Multiverse, etc. In general, characters from one multiverse do not interact with characters from another unless there is some intercompany crossover (like the comic Justice League/Avengers). There is also the Omniverse, a term effectively describing all the universes and multiverses as a whole.

I don't think being old is intrinsically deserving of respect. CMV

Giving someone respect to anyone for an arbitrary reason, in this case age, is ignorant. Respect should be earned on a case-by-case basis. The saying “respect your elders” always seemed dogmatic and rubbed me the wrong way. Someone that’s older is just as capable as being naive or having ill intentions as a person of any other age. Of course I'll help an old person carry groceries or cross the street when the situation arises and it's also true that older people have more life experience so it’s important to hear their perspectives but this shouldn’t afford them any sort of special status in society. CMV

i dont feel that respect is something finite that you only have so much to give. so why not just give it to people? why do people have to prove themselves to you just for you to treat them like a human being? this sort of post is a trend that i see on CMV a lot: "we shouldnt respect X just for being Y." well, generally that is correct. and you dont think they are generally doing something that deserves a little added respect, that is fine. but i dont see it that way. you should respect people, period. its like a smile or kindness. respecting someone just for being someone costs you nothing. absolutely nothing. now if that old dude is an asshole and hits you with his cane for saying good morning, screw that guy. his ACTIONS just lost him your respect. wash your hands of him. but if its just an old dude, who has clearly been through a lot (being old, one sorta can assume he has) then show him a little respect. its not as though you wont be able to show someone else respect down the road because you "used up your respect allowance for the day."

Is the International Space Station's orbit altered by the weight of new supply deliveries?

I read that the ISS receives several tons of supplies at each delivery. Does this change the momentum or overall energy, or otherwise do anything to the object's orbit, and does its path need to be adjusted or boosted somehow to compensate for the additional mass?

Yes and no! When the new supplies arrive, the rocket that delivered them has already boosted them up to the correct orbital velocity/energy to be in the same orbit as the ISS. So although the supplies add mass to the ISS when they come aboard, they also bring all the kinetic energy they've been given, which exactly balances the increased mass - because if they didn't have the same velocity as the ISS they'd be crashing into it or missing it rather than being carried along the docking tunnel! Likewise, when stuff leaves the ISS, it has the same velocity (right until the capsule starts gently maneuvering away), so it carries away just enough momentum/kinetic energy to balance the mass it takes away. The re-entry craft then fires engines to change that into a trajectory going down to Earth, and all that energy it's taken from the ISS is turned into heat when aerobraking, in parachutes, etc.

ELI5:How can Journalists leak secret documents without any consequences?

For example here: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-kill-chain/ I understand that they are using documents that were provided to them by anonymous sources, but what stops government from taking down the website or charging the journalists?

Against freedom of speech, any information you can get your hands on is yours and you are free to speak it. They can declare that access to a server is illegal or entering an area is trespassing, but if they don't know who did the trespassing then they have no one to punish. You can bind someone to a contract that says, you cant let this information out without punishment, but those terms have to be accepted legally by someone.

[Star Trek: holosuite] We know that they make more space inside them once turned on than what their actual dimensions are when they are off. My question is what happens if I make it prject a football field fill it with boxes and then turn it off?

Did I just blow up the ship as trillions of particles suddenly occupy the same space? Make it project****

That is how they appear to work but don't really. It uses illusion to create a bigger seeming space. For example a few times someone throws something and it hits a shimmering force field to demonstrate the limitations. It's not explicitly stated, but it also probably creates something like a grid system when people are split up, separating them with force fields upon which images are projected. And the floor moves people as they walk so they don't bump into walls / force fields. However it works it definitely doesn't create extra space inside.

[The Incredibles] Was Mr. Incredible not wrong?

So in the first movie Mr. Incredible fights with his wife and says "They keep finding new ways to reward mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely exceptional....." In any video of this scene you always see comments like "Mr. Incredible is so woke/right" "This says a lot about our society (unironically)" "I feel like this is really true for my life, I was always smarter than everyone else in school but they dragged me down by keeping me with the idiots" "What a powerful line" Ignoring the fact that I think the people who post comments like that think more highly of themselves than they actually are, I feel like Mr. Incredible was wrong from the beginning. What makes Dash more "exceptional" than those other kids? The fact that he was born super? Mr. Incredible makes it seem like Dash did shit to make himself more "exceptional" than others, and that the school/society "refuses" to accept that because of their jealously/fear, but thats not true. Why is Dash more "exceptional" than the kid he beat in the race at the end? Hes not. I think by the end of the movie we realize that its who you are inside that makes you exceptional. Syndrome was born an average person and became very wealthy and powerful through hard work, but he wasn't exceptional, because he was a terrible person. He wanted to be, but he went about it the wrong way. All in all, I feel like I see the majority of people thinking that line is the right idea but it seems to me that Mr. Incredible is proven wrong at the end, and just by life in general. Maybe I am missing some context since I'm not American.

> What makes Dash more "exceptional" than those other kids? He wasn't talking about Dash, he was talking about himself. Being a superhero was his life, he was good at it, valued for it, then one day its flipped around and he's told to hide, that he can longer help others, etc. Some kids, including his own, moving up a grade, has nothing to do with how fast Dash can run, its more about Bob's frustration with how society treated his exceptional skills > but he wasn't exceptional, because he was a terrible person the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Napoleon was exceptional, doesn't mean he didn't plunge Europe into war twice

[predator] why do the yautja use visible lasers instead of infrared lasers?

Wouldnt it give the predators an advantage if their prey would not be able to know if they are being targeted?

It's part of their honor code to give their prey an opportunity to avoid being shot. Extra layer of challenge for themselves if they don't make the first shot and their prey figures out the lights mean death.

If livers regenerate, would it be possible for me to donate half my liver, grow it back, then donate it again? If so, how many times can one repeat this process?

EDIT: Thanks for all the responses guys! I enjoy learning about this stuff.

No, you can only donate your liver once, mostly limited by the fact that not just any part of the liver can be sliced off and be able to fully regrow. There are two (main) lobes in the liver and each has a full set of connections needed to connect to the rest of the body (an artery, vein and bile duct). They take one of the lobes, and the remaining one just gets bigger to compensate, the taken one does not grow back.

ELI5 how does growing work?

Just wondered how does a person get taller and how does the body know when to stop? I know your bones arent the same at birth compared to an adult but how?

The simple answer is that the bones in your body have special regions near the joints called "growth plates". These are areas of cartilage that the bones can elongate off of, causing you to get taller until the plate fully turns into bone itself. This occurs around the later teens, generally around 13-15 for girls and 15-17 for boys. These are ballpark numbers though, some people stop earlier and some stop later. You can actually fracture across a growth plate and cause that bone to stop growing altogether.

ELI5: How do ad blockers work?

Ads mostly come from known sources, known websites. They aren't generally served by the same site as you're visiting. So ad-blockers know a lot of these servers, and will block traffic from those servers. They also know a lot of the HTML and JavaScript ads typically use, and will remove them from incoming HTTP responses before they get rendered.

Could an object orbit within the event horizon of a supermassive black hole?

Since we theorise that tidal forces exerted by gravity just inside the event horizon of a supermassive black hole would have a negligible effect on matter, could a space station orbit for 500 years with people living their everyday lives without noticing the effects of the black hole. If such an orbit were possible, would it last indefinitely?

No, it's not possible. Inside the event horizon of a black hole all particles are forced to move inward radially in an analogous way to how all particles must move forward in time outside the event horizon. So no orbits are possible. There are actually well-defined limits to where orbits are possible or not. The most famous of these is called the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). For a non-spinning black hole, the ISCO is 3 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius (the distance. So it's actually not possible to orbit the black hole in some places outside the event horizon! For a spinning black hole, the ISCO actually matches the event horizon at the equatorial plane if you're orbiting in the same direction that the black hole is spinning. There are a few other important distances, one example of which is the photon sphere, where photons can travel in a ~~stable~~ circular orbit. That turns out to be 1.5 times the Schwarzschild radius for a non-spinning black hole. EDIT: As sto-ifics42 pointed out, orbits at the photon sphere are not stable. The photon sphere is the point closest to the black hole for which a circular orbit is possible. Another interesting distance is the so-called marginally bound orbit at twice the Schwarzschild radius. Circular orbits here are unstable because they are below the ISCO. This means that any small perturbation gets amplified exponentially. For particles at or below the marginally bound orbit, they have enough energy for these perturbations to cause them to escape to infinity!

ELI5: why is math (statistics, calculus, etc) so important for a strong programmer?

There are lots of areas of programming that require only basic math. If you're doing development for a moderate-sized web site or app, it's quite possible you'll almost never use any math, and never anything beyond things taught in high-school algebra. More generally, some programmers use a lot of math all the time, some hardly use math at all. There are many more specialized areas of programming that require a lot of math. Computer graphics uses a lot of trigonometry and calculus, so pretty much any game that requires physics or 3-d rendering uses a lot of math. Video and audio compression uses Fourier analysis. Cryptography uses number theory. Those are just a few examples - there are lots of specialties. Good programmers often need to have at least some familiarity with those areas, even if that isn't their area of expertise. Quite often large-scale software engineering requires more math - for example web sites that need to scale to millions of users. It's hard to properly optimize sites to handle a lot of traffic without a good foundation in probability and statistics. A degree in Computer Science typically covers many of those things, which is why there's a math requirement. In addition, Computer Science involves a lot of mathematical analysis of programs, including determining what's possible to compute, determining asymptotic runtime and memory usage, and mathematical proofs of bounds and of correctness.

ELI5 how is the US banking system not crippled by credit card fraud?

I come from a country where most people don't have a credit card. I cannot wrap my head around [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmh3_nSR1jU) documentary. Now I get that credit card fraud *is* a big problem. But if all you need is the card number to order stuff, and card numbers are so easy to come by as shown in the documentary, then why is not every single criminal in the US running a credit card fraud operation? It seems super easy and low risk. Get a burner device, order stuff from public wifi, and don't be stupid about the delivery locations.

While credit card fraud is a problem, it’s not overwhelming to banks. Just like stores expect some shoplifting and include the costs of that in their prices, banks expect some fraud and include those costs in the fees they charge. Banks also have lots of ways to detect fraud, and can often catch it before there are too many charges. They have algorithms that look for charges outside a customer’s normal area, at places they don’t normally shop, etc. When I’ve had a fraudulent charge, the bank itself has always been the one to catch it and call me. Also, you need more than a credit card number to shop. In person, you need the card itself. If a store runs just the number off a piece of paper, they would be liable for the charges. Spoofing cards is harder, especially the new chip cards. Online, you typically need the security number from the back of the card and the billing address. You can buy full sets of stolen data, of course, but it’s harder than straight numbers. As to why every criminal in America doesn’t take up credit card fraud, on the whole a lot of crime is opportunistic rather than carefully planned. Someone needs money *now*, so they smash a window or bump key a door, grab some stuff, and leave. Or rob someone in person. Credit card fraud takes start-up capital (to buy the devices and numbers), planning, and patience.

ELI5 what mainframe computer is and how it works

Lets say in your job there are occasionally really hard math problems that need to be solved. So the company has someone really good at math sit by your desk and solve the problems when they come up. But people who can solve really hard math problems are hard to find and get paid a lot. Since the problems only come up occasionally, the math person isn't doing much most of the time. So your company decides that instead of having a math person at every desk, they will set up a room full of math people. Instead of having your problems solved at your desk, you will send them to the math room where they will be assigned to someone to solve. Since multiple people can use the same person they need less math people and the ones they have will be working most of the time. Plus, when you have a really really hard problem multiple people can work on it together. That is basically what a mainframe is. A computer designed to handle a large amount of operations as quickly as possible for things like data and transaction processing.

ELI5: How can plants survive hydroponically, but die from over watering in different environments?

Over watering plants can kill them in several ways. It can "drown" roots and deprive them of oxygen. It can interfere with uptake of certain nutrients, or it can promote fungal growth which can infect plants. Hydroponic setups aerate the water to keep it oxygenated, and typically have some portion of the roots exposed to air. The water has specific nutrient levels in a form the plant can use. Fungi tends to do poorly in these systems because, unlike dirt, there isn't a lot of organic material to consume. That said, not all plants can be grown hydroponically. It's best suited for annual plants that have a short life cycle and doesn't work well for plants with specific soil needs.

[Star Wars] How difficult is it to fly a ship and how many people know how?

Is flying a ship comparable to driving a car? Or is it more like flying a plane? Somewhere in between? Throughout the movies we see characters having to actively seek a pilot to fly for them, though the Star Wars protagonists are not the average joe. How common is it for the average person to have at least somewhat competent ship-flying ability?

If you're flying a legal ship along legal hyperspace routes, it wouldn't be too difficult. It would be a matter of entering in the right coordinates, getting the right clearance and pressing go. There's a reason why standardized hyperspace routes are so vital for trade and travel. That being said hyperspace travel does take a decent amount of time and spaceships are stupid expensive so it's highly unlikely that everyone owns a spaceship. Likely a civilian would ride group spaceships to travel to other worlds. So it's probably like flying a plane.

ELI5: What happens inside the body during diarrhea?

Does drinking a lot of water have anything to do with it?

This can happen a couple of ways. When you have substances in your intestine that aren't being readily absorbed into the body, the concentration of the substances is higher in the intestine. Water flows from areas of low concentration to high concentration, so when there is a greater amount of a substance in your intestine, water will flow in. More water = diarrhea sometimes. Another way is in certain conditions, such as cholera, water is continuously being released in the intestine regardless of the how much there is present in the intestine. Yet another way occurs because your GI tract has a base level of motility; its continually contracting and relaxing to move the contents. Certain conditions can increase the motility, so the water doesn't have time to be absorbed, and comes out the other end as diarrhea. Essentially, there are quite a few ways diarrhea can happen, these are just a couple. Source: pre-med

ELI5: Humans need oxygen to survive, but air isn’t 100 percent oxygen so what happens to all the other chemicals we breath in?

I’ve always known air isn’t pure oxygen, that there’s a lot of chemicals that make up the air around us but another post sparked this question in me when explaining there is nitrogen and argon and other stuff in the air around us. What is happening for our bodies to breath in this soup of chemicals and only use oxygen, then exhale Carbon dioxide? Or monoxide? I’m not even sure what it is we exhale.. but are these other chemicals harmful in any way? Do we use the nitrogen and other stuff we inhale? Or does or body filter out just oxygen and lets everything else go when we exhale?

The nitrogen does form an interesting function. It doesn’t get absorbed and basically just gets exhaled out again. However this means that the nitrogen serves to splint open the little air sacs in the lungs (alveoli) and prevent them from collapsing. Very sick patients in intensive care requiring very high amounts of oxygen on a ventilator can experience what is known as “absorption atelectasis”. If someone is on very high amounts of oxygen (especially in the 90-100% range) the air they are breathing will therefore have little or no nitrogen. This means when they absorb oxygen from the air, the total volume of gas in the air sacs will reduce, meaning they shrink a little bit. This is problematic when people are difficult to ventilate and senior ICU drs will be extremely reluctant to leave patients on 100% oxygen, partially for that reason. Perversely, by the air sacs collapsing a bit the patients ability to absorb oxygen from the air will get worse.

I think couples should limit themselves to having no more than two children. CMV.

I think that every human being has the right to live a quality life. However, the more human beings there are, the harder it becomes for them to live such a life : territory, food, water and other resources are obviously limited. We already consume more resources than the Earth is able to provide. On one hand, it seems to me that having children is selfish : there are already children who have no food to eat and no shelter, why create more? On the other hand, having children is a fundamental aspect of our nature : I do not believe that anyone should be forbidden from having children. (Actually, in some cases I could understand forbidding someone from having children, but this isn't relevant here.) Because of this, I believe that, from a moral standpoint (not necessarily legal), every couple (2 people) should limit themselves to having no more than two children in order to counteract growth of population. Obviously, some cases are a bit more complicated (couples breaking up after having one child, children dying at a young age, etc.) Those cases would need further attention. Unplanned pregnancies would obviously be a problem, but those can be solved by contraception means. If a couple has a third child because of negligence, they should let a couple with fertility problems adopt it (I would not vouch for infanticide). Anyone care to change my view? Why should it be okay for couples to have more than two children?

> We already consume more resources than the Earth is able to provide. This is false. We have more than enough arable farmland and uninhabited space on Earth to support between 9 and 16 billion people. We don't have a resource problem: we have a distribution problem. Citizens of Western societies consume a disproportionate amount of resources, relative to their population. There is no reason to take away the fundamental right to procreate just because Western societies are profoundly wasteful and greedy. > If a couple has a third child because of negligence, they should let a couple with fertility problems adopt it What difference does it make? If two people have three children, there is +1 child in the equation. If four people (two couples) have 3 children, there is -1 child in the equation. If the couple with three children is better able to provide for those three children than the childless couple could provide for one, it would be in the child's best interest to stay with its parents. There will always be couples who are voluntarily childless. Should couples who wish to have more than two children be allowed to do so if they obtain permission or a waver from a childless couple? What about people who never marry or gay couples? Fundamentally, the problem you're attempting to address is both non-existent and impossible to address in the current geopolitical climate. The areas of the world where overpopulation is having serious health, resource-consumption, and poverty consequences lack both the strong central governmental authority to enforce such a mandate and the legal and social status of women that would allow them to control their fertility. Perhaps, in a One World Government scenario, we could use the power of the state to enforce birth-rate standards on every human being on the planet. But for First World countries (which are the only areas with sufficient access to contraception and governments stable enough to enforce birth-rate standards) to make an impact on global overpopulation, those countries would have to undertake *negative* population growth to compensate. Negative population growth is devastating to an economy, as the elderly are not cared for, unemployment plummets (raising the cost of labor and the cost of goods), and the tax base shrinks. Nations would be unable to service their debts, and global capital would come to a standstill. Economies must grow to survive, and to do so, they need more (not less) people. Look to the rising global prominence of India and China for your examples. Humankind *does* need to work toward more sustainable energy and resource management methods, and a more equitable distribution of global resources, but limiting population in 1st World countries where such a solution would be feasible is a ham-fisted and backward way of addressing these problems.

ELI5: Why do cats love Cat-Nip so much and what exactly does it do with them?

When they scratch and nibble on it it releases a chemical known as nepetalactone. If they inhale it, it's a simulator but if they eat it it's a sedative. Just like people and drugs/alcohol, different cats have different reactions.

[The Dark Knight] When Bruce Wayne sets things up with the Skyhook crew, how do they not know he's Batman?

They were smugglers. They don't give a shit about *what* they're transporting. If they're getting paid, that's all that matters. If Bruce was worried about them talking, then all he'd have to do is pay them more generously. If that fails, there's very little the smugglers could gain from know who Batman was because: 1. Batman was still very new on the scene during the events of Dark Knight. At most a few years and even then, up until his trip to Hong Kong, he never left Gotham. 2. They're smugglers. There's no honor among thieves, but if they willingly spill the beans on Batman, then it's only a matter of time before the rest of the underworld learns this group can't keep a secret. And there are bigger secrets than a Batman. Much bigger. 3. Do they even know who or what the hell Batman is? Alfred's exact words were "*South Korean smugglers operating out of Pyongyang*", implying their modus operandi was exclusive to the Korean peninsula. During the entire *Dark Knight* franchise, Batman's importance only affected Gotham. Essentially, if you're not from Gotham, who gives a shit?

Is there maximum as to how loud a sound can be?

Sound is a pressure wave. You have a region of high pressure followed by low pressure, high, low, high, low. You can make an arbitrarily high pressure, but you can't have a low pressure zone that's lower than vacuum. This caps the loudest true sound at about 194 decibels. Anything louder is more like a blast wave, with a substantial region of near-vacuum behind it.

How does radiation make other objects radioactive?

And is it always happen regardless of dosage?

The primary way that ionizing radiation makes things radioactive is by inducing nuclear reactions in the material, and transmuting its nuclei into different, radioactive species. This is primarily only a concern with neutron radiation, although very high-intensity, high-energy charged particles or gamma rays can activate things too. >And is it always happen regardless of dosage? The total amount of induced radioactivity will be proportional to the dose. At small doses, the induced radioactivity will be small but nonzero.

ELI5: why do some ice pops crystallize while others just become rock solid?

Hello, So recently I’ve fallen back in love with ice pops but noticed that some of them are solid through and through while others are almost as if they have developed crystal structures within it. I thought it was because of sugar but the amount is comparable between the 2 with them having about the same sugar content. What could be causing it to form into those crystalline consistency and is there a way to replicate it?

theres 3 factors here. First is the rate of frezing. A slow freezing process will produce larger crystals, while a faster freezing will produce smaller crystals with a smoother texture, thats why its recommended that you cool down food to pre freezing temperatures (especially meat) so the freezing process is shorter. The second is Agitation. Ice cream is churned, meaning its moved constantly and mixed to make sure ice crystals are distributed uniformly over the the mass of the liquid being frozen and breaking crystals that are growing too big, mantaining a smooth tecture. The third is impurities. Icecream has several things mixed in to it which modify the texutre, fats, sugars, air, the air bubbles give it a smoother texture, the sugars interrupt the size of the ice crystals and the fats give you a different texture which limits the packing of the ice crystals. Also an interesting thing about this is that in the making of many soft candies these 3 factors come in to play, the amount of water in a sugar mixture defines how hard a piece of candy will get, in toffee the mixture is agitated to put air in to it as to soften it and in many mashmellow recipies, the addition of a different sugar type (fructose) is added to disrupt the sugar crystal formation allowing a softer texture.

CMV: Because all human thoughts, behaviors, and emotions can be reduced to chemicals which biologists and chemists can study, the field of psychology is unnecessary.

I don't deny that psychological scientists have made many important and useful contributions to society. And I'm not as wedded to the idea that psychology is unnecessary as the title might suggest. But the "hard science is all that matters" voice inside of me is strong, and I'd like to try and quell it a bit. So far, a good argument I've heard against my position has to do with the placebo effect. Yes, although the placebo effect can be boiled down to the activation of certain chemicals in certain parts of the brain, what actually makes the placebo effect compelling is that it shows how powerful the effects of *thoughts* and *beliefs* can be on the body, a phenomenon a psychologist would probably be better suited to study, rather than a biologist or chemist.

Perhaps applying the logic to other fields will make you see how ridiculous it is. 0. Since all action posed by economic agents can be reduced to human thoughts, behaviors, and emotions which psychologists can study, the field of economics is unnecessary. 1. Since all human thoughts, behaviors, and emotions can be reduced to chemicals which biologists and chemists can study, the field of psychology is unnecessary. 2. Since all of biology can be reduced to chemical reactions which chemists can study, the field of biology is unnecessary. 3. Since all of chemistry can be reduced to interaction between particles which physicists can study, the field of chemistry is unnecessary. While it may be possible to think of economics at the atomic level, it's simply not practical. It's much more efficient and sufficiently effective to opt for econometric analysis instead. The same is true for chemistry, where learning about how organic chemistry is sufficient to proceed to synthesis. Rarely, if ever, does one need to know about the nitty-gritty of physics to produce the right molecule. In the case of psychology, one can learn more than enough from clinical trials. In fact, we've yet to figure out enough about the neurochemistry for biologists to derive that information alone. Another way to think about it is astrophysics versus particle physics. Fundamentally, everything is about particle physics but that does not render astrophysics useless. When we zoom in or out, we can gain different kinds of knowledge which would have taken a lot more time and effort to figure out using a different methodology. Maybe, one day, particle physics will have reached a point where we could have known everything we know now about astrophysics but meanwhile we'd have been passing on a lot of low-hanging fruits.

ELI5: Why do apocrine sweat glands (the ones the lead to body odor) only develop after puberty?

Biologist here! Because originally, some 500,000+ years ago, proto-humans used smells for signals like sexual attraction. Since we are unable to breed until puberty, it would be a waste of precious energy to release pheromones when we can't actually "seal the deal" so, evolution decided it would be best to use puberty hormones to activate pheromone release