Datasets:

euclaise

/

reddit-instruct

like 20

What's the noise a formula 1 makes when it changes gears?

I've just came back from the F1 Belgian GP and was thinking about what makes the noise (kind of a small explosion) when a F1 (also GP2 and GP3) car changes gears. What is the reason and why it sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't? EDIT: Thanks for the responses, guys!

It's most likely a backfire. When the car is accelerating its at full throttle/load, and the engine runs out of power, so it's time to change gears. imagine going from full throttle to no throttle (changing gears) then back to full throttle. The bang u hear is unburnt fuel exploding in the exhaust after its left the combustion chamber, which is after engine has gone off full throttle to change gears. It's excess fuel that was needed to sustain full power, but is no longer needed when off throttle.

CMV: There is nothing inherently racist about dating preferences regarding skin tone

Nobody decides what they are and are not attracted to. I'm not attracted to fat people, so I wouldn't date one. Most women wouldn't date a short man because they aren't attracted to them. Gay men wouldn't date women because they're only attracted to men. The sake is true with all sorts of tastes: I didn't choose to like chocolate cake but dislike chocolate ice cream any more than I chose to be brown-eyed and black-haired. For somebody to change my mind in this, they would have to explain to me why preferences regarding skin tone should be seen any differently than the other preferences people have. For instance, why is being gay not inherently misogynistic but not wanting to date dark-skinned people inherently racist?

You're right. The body wants what the body wants. But the brain also believes what the brain tells itself is true. If you happen to only be attracted to a certain skin tone that's fine and dandy. But in reality attraction is based on a whole host of things, skin tone being just one of them. You might find different levels of attraction to different people no matter the skin tone. However if you tell yourself "I am not attracted to black people" and do a hard pass at them without even letting your heart consider, then you are telling your body what is true and forcing a racially motivated sexual preference. This creates a feedback loop which, after some time, becomes deeply ingrained in you because your brain believes what you tell it is true. I know it sounds a little like spiritual mumbo jumbo but there is scientific evidence to back up the effects of self-talk

[Spider Man : No Way Home] Would non Peter Parker Spider-Men be affected by the spell?

Given the spell's parameters, would the Japanese Spider-Man [Takuya Yamashiro](https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/scale_small/0/77/4319508-1420725186691.jpg), Manga Spider-Man [Yu Komori](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/1191b97c-de10-4eb0-a0ef-65472256ebd4/scale-to-width/755) or Spider-Man India's [Pavitr Prabhakar](https://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/6/f0/60b69b494ff26/clean.jpg) be summoned or would the spell pass their world without issue?

The spell was bringing the people who knew that Peter Parker was Spider-Man from across the multiverse into the MCU. Since Spider-Man is not Peter Parker in those worlds, they would not pass that qualification. However, since I’m pretty sure all of those guys have been part of the Spider-Verse storylines and interacted with the others, they do know *a* Peter Parker that is Spider-Man and would have been affected based off that.

ELI5: Why I can get 200 HD channels instantly over a coaxial cable yet streaming online video over the same cable is significantly slower

1. Those channels are being broadcast from a "headend" that is very close to you. It is broadcast constantly and the same stream is veiwed by all customers in the area. it doesn't require any 2 way communication to activate. 2. Streaming Websites serve the entire country from a handful of server locations, they require separate streams for each person watching as they start and stop them whenever they want. 3. Depending on your Internet speed, you cable/telco company limits the amount of bandwidth you can pull from the Internet at any given time...

Why do some vaccines only need to be given once, while others such as the flu jab need to be done yearly?

The flu virus is highly unstable, anytime a person have two types of virus at the same time, he can create a third hybrid type that wouldn’t respond as well to the vaccine. That is why it is given yearly, of the several hundred subtypes, each year your get the ones most likely to affect the next year. If it is a match, great you don’t get the disease, but usually you get a slightly different version, in which case the vaccine works but not fully, you get a milder flu than an unvaccinated person.

ELI5: If you have internal bleeding how does the blood that has leaked into areas outside of your veins get flushed out of your body?

If it can’t get back into veins or into your digestive system how does it get out of the open spaces between your organs?

Your body does reabsorb the blood over time. The risk of internal bleeding isn't because the blood in your body doesn't ever go away, it's because it may go unnoticed for too long or may not be stoppable without proper medical intervention.

ELI5: Why wax occurs in our ear canals and should ears be cleaned?

My dad has an ear wax problem at the moment from to much wax. The doctor says he needs to regularly clean his ears but many people say not to. I am confused.

They say not to only because a lot of people don't do it right. There are specific ways you're supposed to do it, as well as specific tools. If you have a mild wax problem, like just a little buildup around the canal, a q-tip is fine if used safely. If you have a bad problem, all a q-tip is doing is packing it back further into the ear canal. They actually make soft little ear "scoops" exactly for this. There are also ear cleaning fluids; you pour a couple of drops in, let it sit, then tilt your head with a tissue under your ear, and all the wax pours out. He really should ask his doctor what he thinks the best method for cleaning is.

[The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers] How on earth did Gimli beat Legolas's kill count?

The first 5 minutes into the battle Glimi only had 2 kills while Legolas had 17. Legolas has a major advantage here being with a bow, and his elvish eyes, he can get far more kills form a distance while Glimi is forced to fight up close. Legolas is also able to get many multi-kills, such as shooting the latter down which cripples a dozen, if not more at once. Not to mention his epic shield slide move. I just don't see how he could have lost by one point.

once things got to close combat a big axe is more effective on that thick uruk hai armor than knives and bow. Also Legolas would have had to stop to refill his quiver with arrows. An English Longbow man during the 100 years war was expected to fire about 15-20 arrows a minuite. Legolas is well an Elf so he is probably better at archery than real life humans. So lets say 25 arrows a minuite. He only had the one quiver it seemed so he would be going to refill it every few minutes probably.

When we are sick why do we feel worse at night?

Cortisol is a steroid hormone that curbs white blood cell activity. More cortisol is in your blood during the day, so your white blood cells are less active in fighting infections. At night, there is less cortisol in your blood, your white blood cells will detect and fight infections more readily, and you will experience more of symptoms of infection (i.e. fevers, sweating).

How did Aristotle know bees are deaf?

Right at the start of the Metaphysics Aristotle says bees cannot hear. How did he know this?

Aristotle has tons of discussions of bees in his works on animal biology. He gained basically none of that knowledge first-hand. He asked bee-keepers for their knowledge of bee anatomy, physiology, reproduction, etc. That's how he came to know these facts about bees. It's the same way that he came to know about how dolphins feed, for example, which is an important subject in *Parts of Animals* IV. It isn't like he stuck his head in the water to see how they feed. He's relying on a set of received knowledge from fishermen. (This was during the phase of Aristotle's life that he spent studying a lot of marine biology.)

CMV: There is no logical reason for God to exist

I understand that many people turn to faith in God as a source of comfort, even though that faith is not backed by evidence (like they think there is no evidence of God but the idea of a supreme being looking out for them is comforting and so they are faithful). There doesn't seem to be any proof or explanation for the existence of God, beyond the God is used to explain ideas we don't currently understand with science. It doesn't seem to me that a supreme being really exists beyond our imaginations because it seems like a placeholder for what we don't understand. I am totally open to the possibility, though. What I am asking is if there is any type of proof or reason to believe a supreme being or creator exists beyond blind faith. Any scientific/metaphysical/logical/whatever theories that might explain the need for a Creator?

There’s a compelling scientific theory why humans believe god exists. It’s because evolution has hard-wired us to detect agency everywhere. Our ancestors who saw the rustling bush and concluded there was some agent (that wanted to eat them) rustling the bush survived longer than our ancestors who brushed it off as just the wind. So when we see a thunderstorm, human instinct is to assume that some being must be causing it, and next thing you know, we’ve created Thor.

CMV: A totally free market hinders competition.

The common view that the free market supports competition could be because when compared to the other end of the spectrum (the soviet union) any step towards the free market is a step towards more competition. The mistake has been the conclusion that a free market must therefore lead always to more competition. here's the issue. the effect of gravity on the mass of objects could also be applied economically. that with greater wealth attracts greater wealthy more easily. they get better interest rates both ways, they have the funds to make investments, to expand, to get better deals etc. then they can buy out their competition until eventually you end up with what we have today.... oligopolies. Whether it's meat, finance, hospitality, media, food and beverage etc, more and more market share is being taken up by fewer and fewer companies. This creates the opposite of what we love about competition. In this scenario, big companies just make politicians do what they want to block competition further. case in point, net neutrality. Just as in the game of golf, handicaps can support competition within the game and keep everyone on their toes. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[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)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

> they get better interest rates both ways, they have the funds to make investments, to expand, to get better deals etc. then they can buy out their competition until eventually you end up with what we have today.... oligopolies. An oligopoly, such as an ISP having exclusive rights to service a given municipality, is the direct result of government interference in the market. Were there no government influence in the market (the "total free market" in your topic), companies would be left competing with each other for the business of the consumer. Now, nowhere is it stated that a free-market is an equal market, nor should it be. If a company can provide a product or service that gives maximum value to consumers, good for them. That company's success would be because of their outstanding innovation or service, not government interference. >This creates the opposite of what we love about competition. In this scenario, big companies just make politicians do what they want to block competition further. If companies are able to buy the favor of politicians, it is not a free market.

ELI5: When sleeping why do some people move so much like kids, but others can stay in the same position for hours?

The simplest answer is that the people who move around lots usually have one or more of the upwards of 80 sleep disorders. The people without sleep problems are the ones sleeping still. Source: 15 years working in sleep medicine.

Please take the time to learn how to ask a question

A thing you will have to do a lot in your journey as a developer is asking questions: please understand that it's your responsibility to make it as easy as possible for people to help you. This holds true in general, as well as in this subreddit. The person on the other side of the screen has no idea of the context of what you are trying to do, your goal, your constraints, your specification: you have to be **clear** about all of those when asking a question I see questions that are borderline like: "why doesn't my code work?" (copypaste of the code) ​ So here's a few things you should ask yourself before you ask for help 1. Do you understand what the error is? Because if you don't understand it, you can't communicate it. You have to have a clear idea of what the expected behavior is, what the actual behavior is, and communicate both 2. Did you try googling the error before asking? A lot of questions I answered on this sub were just copy pasting from the first result of stack overflow 3. Is all of the code you're posting necessary for the comprehension of the problem? If not, it's probably a good idea to strip away some parts of the code, and only leave what is essential 4. Did you try solving the issue for at least 10 minutes on your own before asking? 5. Is the form in which the question is formulated essential and direct? Is the code properly formatted? Maybe you should consider pasting a link to a codesandbox / jsFiddle instead? 6. By reading your question, would a stranger be able to have a good idea of what I was expecting to happen, and what is happening instead? 7. Most problems can have plenty of possible solutions. In the body of your question, please provide examples of ways you've already tried solving the issue ​ As for the rest, just use common sense ​ ​ Thanks for coming to my ted talk

I know this is not a question, but it is a very valid point. A lot of people write _very_ bad questions on this sub and elsewhere. Quick question in the community: should we make a sticky "[Meta] how to ask good questions"? Gonna use that sticky feature for something 😅

Why do we stretch and why does it feel good when we do?

It doesn't seem to be something we do instinctively. Yet other animals do it too. ^(I actually sound like I'm 5)

When your at rest your body slows down and your blood flow decreases. Stretching gets things moving along by causing your heart to beat a bit faster for a few moments. This increases oxygen, blood flow, and waste removal. Making you feel awake and fresh with new energy. Similarly water at rest can become bland and boring but once it ripples or moves it becomes more alive as do the beings within.

ELI5: That feeling you get when someone is behind you but no one is actually around.

Evolution and pattern recognition! The reason you know nobody is there is you turned around, which was a cost-free event. Had there been someone there deserving of the feeling of fear etc, and you didn't turn around, that could have been a costly event. This is the primal parts of your brain playing safe hands of cards for your benefit. At the end of the day, the apes that overreacted to strange sensations as though they were danger to be avoided, avoided more dangerous scenarios which could otherwise stop their participation in the gene pool.

ELI5: Why do new electric housewares smell like they are burning the first time you use them

The varnish or insulation on motor windings and anything else that generates heat will outgas until it cures and sets. What you smell when it burns out is the resumption of the outgassing from the higher than normal heat from a failure.

[The Martian by Andy Weir] in the aftermath of the events of the book. What policy/ methodology changes would be introduced?

(1) A secondary communication system able to reach the orbiter to relay to Earth buried on the site as an emergency backup. (2) Enough food cached to keep the crew alive until a rescue mission could get there. Probably sent with the MAV but you could also keep it in orbit so you only have to send teh cache once and its an emergency supply for multiple missions. MMM high density nutritional gel. (3) Better weather satellites to detect dust storms earlier. (4) Bigger media library to keep the disco from driving you mad. (5) If someone is presumed dead after an escape attempt stay in orbit for a while to make sure they are dead before heading back to Earth.

CMV: Politics is a good reason to end a relationship

I remember there being a small rash of news stories about couples, some married for years, breaking up in the wake up of the Trump election as a result of who people voted for. A similar thing happened on a smaller level with Brexit in the UK. This was met with a lot of comments from people in news sites saying that was a stupid reason to break up, but I disagree. ' Politics' isn't just a game politicians play, or something that happens away from the world. Political views reveal a lot about beliefs on society, rights, justice, and basically political views are very intertwined with personal morality. Having a partner who challenges you is good, but wide differences are a legitimate break in a relationship. I would argue the couple who broke up after years of marriage in the wake of the American election didn't break up trivially because political parties suddenly became important, but that they'd ignored that aspect of their relationship if neither was interested in politics, and the election revealed some very deep personal divides which were irreconcilable. So, political differences can be a make or break aspect of a relationship, and justifiably so.

A genuinely healthy, happy relationship shouldn’t end because of politics – and they don’t. But fraught political issues can reveal deeper problems and incompatibilities – like a lack of respect, opposing world views, etc. The 2016 presidential race and Brexit were breaking points for relationships that were already badly fractured.

CMV: Harshly criticizing your competitor by name would make for quality advertising.

Commercials are generally sanguine or annoying. How many times can we hear "I was born free!" Chevy commercials? Just once I'd like to see Chevy say "The F150 is a poor choice and here are some complaints from real Ford owners." Why is it so taboo for one business to pick on or pick apart their competitors by name? * This kind of tactic is almost never used in TV/Radio campaigns. Why not? * Is there a fear of backlash or starting a war they can't win? * Sometimes danced around by saying 'the other guys' or 'brand x' * We mostly hear about what's fun, new, delicious, improved, on sale, etc. * Why is dissing exclusive to hiphop and political campaigns? * I don't see this is as the "low-road", but a different tactic. * What's wrong with a commercial for XYZ Widgets where people give reasons why "ABC and LMNOP's widgets really suck!" ? * I'm sure someone can find a few good examples of this, but why should it be uncommon?

Negative advertising is pretty common, but it is mostly relegated to markets where there are only two options (like political campaigns). Coke and Pepsi have gotten into negative advertising over the years as well (aka the Pepsi Challenge) If Chevy makes a commercial about how crappy Ford is, they aren't necessarily convincing you to buy a Chevy. You could take the message to heart, then buy a Dodge, or a Honda, or any other brand of car. From Chevy's perspective it makes more sense to talk up a Chevy, rather than try to talk down on all the other possible choices.

With all the variations of dog sizes, from a poodle to a dane... If we were to find these bones (say they were millions of years old), would we conclude these are different species? What conclusions would a paleontologist make?

Initially, yes. Single species never have the type of variation found in domesticated species where breeding takes place, and dogs breeds have a huge amount of diversity. Eventually however, future scientists would find morphological constants that would tie them together. Then they would try to hypothesize about why there was so much diversity, although it would be very hard to pin it down unless they realized it was done deliberately by our species.

How might one go about learning deleuze?

You might want to start with his Dialogues, a collection of short exchanges that gives some good insights into his thought, his article on "Societies of control", and also his books on Nietzsche, Kant, Spinoza and Bergson if you are already familiar with those authors, as Deleuze uses them to expand on his own philosophy. In general, of you want to understand his project, it is good to have some notion of those authors, as well as some Hegel and Marx. Then, if you want to learn more about his own metaphysical thought, you can read Difference and Repetition and Empirism and Subjectivity. If you want to learn about his work with Guattari, I'd argue it'd be best to read a little bit of Marx and Freud before delving into Capitalism and Schizophrenia. You can also read their book on Kafka or What is philosophy? Hope this helps!

If you were teaching philosophy to first year college students, what's a short (10 page -ish) piece of writing to start with on day 1? Something fairly easy, but thought provoking.

Something that elicits wonder and interest. A classic choice (pun intended) would be a Socratic dialogue. I'm struggling to find one right now. Maybe something where Socrates is talking about the value of arguments and knowledge. Or perhaps part of a book or some article that introduces some of the most basic issues at the center of academic philosophy. I'm leaning towards this. I don't want to confuse them with difficult prose. Just trying to fill a small hole in my syllabus. Cheers and thanks.

Plato's *Euthyphro*, Carroll's "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles," Midgley's "On Trying Out One's New Sword," Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?", Sorensen's "Faking Munchausen's Syndrome," Dennett's "Where Am I?", Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."

How many times can a piece of plastic be recycled?

This is highly dependent on how you want to recycle the plastic and the plastic material itself. A thermoset plastic is a non-reversible process, so it can't be used as re-grind in an injection molding process, whereas a thermoplastic may be able to be used depending on the performance required. Each time to process a thermoplastic it loses some of its properties, as well as potential effects on fillers. You can also recycle plastic as an aggregate such as in products like extruded plastic lumber. Plastic isn't fully melted in the process, and the performance isn't as critical, so you can theoretically recycle the plastic more times.

ELI5: if earth does a full rotation of it’s axis in 24 hours in an eastward direction, what (theoretically) prevents a transport system from being built which would go straight up, and then straight back down again in a place west of your origin, taking advantage of the earths rotation?

If you go straight up, you will still retain your momentum you had from being grounded. So going straight up means you keep rotating relatively parralel to Earths surface. You would need to decrease your relative momentum by accelerating against the rotation. There is nothing that can break your rotaion for you, since Earth Athmosphere is rotating too and outside of athmosphere there is nothing to friction against.

[StarTrek] Do other races in the Federation still fly their own ships?

One thing I liked about Enterprise was how other races like Vulcans, Andorians, Telerites, and so on had their own style of space ships. I would like to know, do the other races in the Federation as of the 24th century still fly their own style of ships or do they just use Starfleet vessels now?

They do use their own ships. A notable example is when the Romulans stole a Vulcan ship in an attempt to launch an invasion under the guise of reunification. Generally speaking, the "Federation" is not as centralized an organization as it is often portrayed. Most member worlds are pretty much left to run their own affairs. They retain their local governments, local militaries, local economies, and conduct their own political affairs. So long as they don't run afoul of Federation law, they are allowed to operate as they see fit. The Federation is more like a loosely held together *Con*federation. Most of the members are more than happy to let the humans do all of the cheerleading and heavy lifting, which is why you most often see the boons of the Federation touted by humans, with the political and military headquarters being on Earth, and the main military army being founded, manned, and run primarily by humans.

Has there ever been a recorded pandemic for marine life?

Hi everyone, pandemics seem to be a hot topic right now, and rightfully so, but I was wondering if there have ever been any devastating marine viruses, pandemics, or plagues? Humans have a long history with plagues but I’ve never heard of marine life being effected by that. Thanks for your time!

Sea star wasting disease has been a big one the last few years in the PNW, *Pycnopodia helianthoides* (Sunflower star) have been especially hard hit, becoming functionally eliminated in many areas; other species (ie. *Pisaster ochraceous* and *brevispinus*) have also been significantly impacted, but to a lesser degreee. Similar name, there is also a Seagrass wasting disease. It caused large scale die-offs of *Zostera marina* beds on the Atlantic coast of the US in the early 1900s. I’m sure there are many more, these are just the two I’m personally familiar with.

How difficult would this project be?

Hello, I am new to programming, currently a freshman in a C++ course. I am not sure if this is the right sub to post this is in, so please let me know if it is not. One of the projects I have always wanted to do was write a program that will automatically perform a water change on my aquariums. Essentially I want to be able to click a button or say a command for example " Hey Google, water change my aquarium". I want the program to turn on a drain pump then turn it off after a specified amount of time, then after it turns off the drain pump, turn on a refill pump and then turn it off after a specified amount of time. Here is a crappy visual: [https://imgur.com/a/6tqRCeq](https://imgur.com/a/6tqRCeq) I am very new to programming ( only been doing it for a week) so I am not sure where I would even start with this or if it is something I should even be attempting right now. Any advice is appreciated, thank you.

Definitely not hard, you can use something like an arduino (a small programamable microcontroller) to control a pump through a relay and then have it be triggered whenever you'd like to. You can find guides for arduino controlled pumps all over the place. The hardest thing might just be having connecting it to a steady water source, but the programming itself will be incredibly simple

Multiple Offers! Help!

I lucked out and ended up in the envious position of a second T-T offer coming in after my first. Rub is, I already signed for the first several weeks ago; however, the second is significantly better. The first is a 4/4 at a SLAC, and the second is about 20k more for a 2/2 at an R1. This seems like a no-brainer from a business angle, but I've read other threads where current profs insist you don't burn a bridge, regardless. (P.S. the first position is a very small college and burning a bridge wouldn't cause a stir in my field.) Could there be more ramifications than a failed search, e.g. legal? I'm a newly minted terminal degree, really without mentors, so any advice you all would have for me would mean a ton! Thank you so much in advance :)

Take the second offer, get it signed ASAP, and then let the first school know. They won't be happy but ultimately, you gotta look out for yourself first, and it'll be quite hard to make that jump from a 4-4 type school to an R1/R2 if you do stay at the SLAC for a couple of years.

What is the differnce in AMD cpus that make them less effected by spectre/meltdown?

Surely AMD also uses similar technology such as speculative execution so why are AMD less affected ?

The Meltdown flaw is caused by letting a user-level program speculatively execute on supervisor-level data (which is a permission failure). Most processors (like from AMD) immediately stop executing past the failure, but Intel apparently doesn't check the failure occurred until later.

ELI5: When and why did the US political parties "switch"? Ex. Republicans in early 1800s being generally progressive and Democrats being generally conservative, but now it's the opposite.

The switch started in the 1940's when the Democrats officially adopted Civil Rights as part of their party platform. What really kicked it into gear though was the 1960's. After JFK was assassinated and LBJ became President, he rammed the Civil Rights Act down Congress' throat. This was the first real sign to a lot of voters that Democrats were now interested in progressive values. In the 1964 Presidential election, Republicans reacted by nominating Barry Goldwater, a very conservative candidate. He lost in one of the largest landslides in American history. The Republican party had to do some soul searching, and the hard-core conservatives seized the party power positions and started using populism to win elections. By scaring white voters about crime and civil rights and the end of morality in America, they could win elections. Ronald Reagan was swept into the CA governor's mansion on a wave of populism. The result is a more conservative Republican party. Meanwhile, northern liberal Republicans are getting ostracized in their own party (like John Lindsey) for supporting civil rights and voted out of office by voters for not being Democrats. At the same time, northern Democrats are going harder for civil rights and voting rights while southern Democrats feel abandoned by their party and are starting to flip to Republicans (like Strom Thurmond) or going rogue (like George Wallace). At the end of the day, the crazy cultural liberalism of the 1960's drove a huge conservative backlash that found root in the Republican party and turned it more conservative.

Is there a certain altitude where CO2 is concentrated?

The lowest ~100 km are very well mixed, so the concentration of most gases (including CO2) doesn't change that much with altitude, you can find it everywhere. Above that heavier gases, including CO2, drop in their concentration.

[Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith] If Vader had died on Mustafar, who would Sidious have chosen to be his apprentice?

I don't think he would have chosen anyone we have met yet. Most likely another powerful force user stolen at birth. It may also be that Obi-wan tells Luke the truth and trains him, at which point Luke may reveal himself and his identity to the Emperor. Technically speaking if Luke revealed himself, we would be right back to the Death Star II Throne Room with Palpatine trying to bring Luke to the dark side.

Why does Neptune have such strong winds?

According to Wikipedia, it has the "strongest sustained winds of any planet in the solar system, with recorded wind speeds as high as 2,100 kilometres per hour (580 m/s; 1,300 mph)." Why are the winds so strong there?

There's a lot of conjecture in the other answers here, but as someone who specialized in this for his PhD, the only real answer is: we don't really know yet. This is one of the big unsolved problems in the field, though we have some ideas. There are a few scaling relations for planetary winds that are generally true but lack precision, and there are an awful lot of exceptions, too: - **The bigger the planet, the faster the winds.** In general the larger your planet is, the more angular momentum a parcel of air will have near the equator. As it moves towards the pole, angular momentum must be conserved, and that translates to faster winds. This generally explains why giant planets have faster winds than terrestrial planets, but doesn't really explain why Neptune's winds are faster than Jupiter's, which is quite a bit larger. - **The faster the planet rotates, the faster the winds.** Again, the faster your planet rotates means the more angular momentum there is to feed into winds. Nonetheless, with this explanation alone one would again expect Jupiter (10 hour rotation) to have the fastest winds, but the winds of Neptune (16 hour rotation) are quicker. This also really fails for Venus, which has a 243 days rotation, yet has some impressively speedy winds at cloud-top. - **The bigger the source of internal heat, the faster the winds.** It takes energy to fight against drag and pump the planetary jets, and localized release of energy, generally starting as small local storms, feed into the jets to keep them strong. Again you'd expect Jupiter to win out here in terms of total internal energy, but this does explain why the winds of Neptune (with a fairly substantial internal heat source itself) beat out the winds of Uranus (essentially the same size, temperature, and rotation period as Neptune, but no internal heat). - **The lower the temperature, the lower the viscosity**. This one is probably really important for both Uranus and Neptune. As you decrease the temperature of a gas, its viscosity also decreases, so there's very little to slow down the winds and act as a source of drag. At low temperatures, you don't need to feed the winds much energy to get them going and keep the going. It's something of a holy grail in the field to understand how each of these general rules play off one another. Which rule is most important? How many jets would we expect for each planet? Why is Venus so very different? **TL;DR**: Neptune seems to have hit a sweet spot of relatively large (good for angular momentum), relatively fast rotation (also good for angular momentum), strong internal heat source (good for feeding the winds), and very cold (low viscosity, so little to slow the winds down).

ELI5: Why do couches need legs/to be elevated?

It seems to me like having couches elevated is just asking for dust and rogue toys to collect underneath. Is there a real reason why we screw on legs after the item is delivered? Can I just put my new couch flush with the floor to avoid needing to clean under it?

It's for air flow and to prevent damage to the floor. Leaving the entire flat bottom of your couch (especially if it's upholstered, or otherwise doesn't let air flow properly) enables mold to grow on the floor. The air is stagnant and humidity may collect there, leading to mold. Also, it's easier to protect the floor from being scratched by the legs in just a few places than it is to protect the floor from the entire surface are of the couch. As you use the couch, it'll move around slightly and cause scratches. In old timey days, having the furniture on thin legs was a mark of good construction. To design slim legs in an appealing manner while also supporting the weight of the couch indicated good craftsmanship. It also helped to avoid pests climbing on to the softa/couch. Smooth wood with a finish is hard for insects and small rodents to climb, saving the furniture.

[Buffy] Why would anyone besides the Scoobies choose to remain living in Sunnydale with all the near-apocalyptic shit going down?

The hellmouth seems to affects people's view of normalcy. They were dealing with those problems before Buffy showed up and they seemed to have thought it was perfectly normal. They are even self aware of the issue enough that they gave Buffy an award for keeping them mostly alive.

[General Zombies] How much good would a shelter-in-place order do to curtail the spread of a zombie outbreak?

Almost every piece of zombie media I've ever seen uses an emergency broadcast with some variant of "lock your doors, barricade your windows and remain in your homes" as part of the set dressing. Shaun of the Dead is the only movie I've ever seen where it becomes clear in the end that that would have worked if the protagonists had been a little smarter. So how much good would it do if everyone holed up at home? On the one hand, fewer crowds. On the other hand, canned meat.

It depends on how effective the zombies are at breaking through doors. Assuming that they can be held at bay this would clear the streets, allowing the military to operate with less difficulty in determining friend or foe. With slow zombies a coordinated sweep (assuming that they know how zombies work) should clear out almost all the zombies eventually. Clearing a major metropolitan center would take time though, so they would probably need to have a means to deliver supplies to people sheltering in place ahead of the army (perhaps riot-police going door to door with supplies). Those in cleared areas could go back to somewhat normal life with some restrictions and education on how to handle stragglers.

CMV: There are no natural rights.

I don't see a reason to believe that there are universal natural rights, i.e. laws independent of the culture or customs of a specific society, that command humans to act in specific ways, or that prohibit specific kinds of actions. For example this: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What do natural rights proponents mean when they say that a person has a duty not to do X (i.e. someone else has the right not to be done X to)? Apparently, the person can physically do X, and there are no consequences for them other than howsoever other people decide to treat him for his actions, which they would do anyway regardless of whether there is such a natural right or not. Furthermore, natural rights are supposed to be mere should- or ought-sentences. Saying "You shouldn't kill people" is different from "If you want world peace, then you shouldn't kill people." The latter is just another way of saying "If less people go around killing others, then we're closer to world peace", which is a statement that can be true or false, and can be tested and verified. I have no idea how to interpret the former. Even if natural rights are supposed to originate from a religious entity, the same problem arises. In this context, "You shall not kill" is different from "If you want to please your god, you shouldn't kill" or "If you want to go to heaven, you shouldn't kill" or something similar, which again (assuming that a god exists) is a statement (much more than a right) that is (in theory) verifiable, for example via scripture. (Basing the existence of natural rights on the existence of a god won't change my view) Political/ civil rights on the other hand are different: They are specific rules inside a society that are enforced by the people of that society. "I have the right of free speech in the US" is just another way of saying "The US government will ensure that I am not prevented from speaking freely in a way that the first amendment specifies", which again is a factual statement that is either true or false, and can be tested and verified. These kinds of rights are clearly not universal, since they only exist as long as they are enforced, and are different in every society that exists now and has existed in the past. You can change my view by showing that statements like "You should not do X" are not meaningless, are universal/ absolute, and can be interpreted in some way "to be true" or "to exist." Merely referring to the is-ought gap or the categorical imperative won't change my mind, unless it is specifically connected to my previous sentence. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[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)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Natural rights are not like physical laws that can be measured or tested in the real world. It is a mistake to treat them in the same context as scientific principles, because they're not. Morality, which natural rights are a part of, is an intensely subjective thing. However, they are not without logical reasoning and we have been in a constant struggle as a species to define morality in a way that makes sense. There is a common desire to find a shared baseline for morality amongst everybody, which natural rights are an attempt to do. So, natural rights aren't really something that you *prove* empirically rather than something you can believe through your sense of ethics and morality. At the end of the day we're glorified bags of meat hurtling along on a rock in the empty vacuum of space, and the universe doesn't care about if we're good to each other or not. But as humans we are able to not just follow the natural compass of the world, we have the ability to create and decide meaning in our lives. *Deciding* that natural rights exist and that you will defend them for all human beings can be just as meaningful as those rights existing from some external source. It's important to realise that this extends to all morality. To our knowledge, the universe is amoral. But who we are as a species contains concepts like altruism, empathy, sacrifice, community and morality. These things only exist because we decide they exist, because it is the bricks and mortar through which we construct our world. It is this ability to create our own meaning in this life that distinguishes humanity from other species. You are correct in that natural universal rights are not strongly enforced in our world right now, but at the same time we're doing better than we ever have before. The concept of universal rights is absolutely revolutionary and only a few hundred years old with the Declaration of the Rights of Man from the French Revolution. From those humble beginnings, we now have several large entities like the UN throwing their weight behind the concept. You are looking for an objective argument, but there is nothing but the void of nihilism out there on that path, unless you accept the rules of some higher power. It's what happens to anyone who tries to apply inhuman philosophising to the most human topic there is - you end up in a utilitarian place that just isn't particularly human. Instead, ask what is right and good, and what is the world you wish to live in.

Besides the Turing Test, is there any other checkbox that must get ticked before we can say we invented true artificial intelligence?

This is a good question, in the sense that it can be used to clarify multiple intertwined misconceptions about AI. First, _what is artificial intelligence_? In computer science, the field of AI research defines itself as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal (Russell & Norvig, 2003). The central problems (or goals) of AI research include reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, natural language processing (communication), perception, and the ability to move and manipulate objects. [1] In colloquial use, what is implied by _AI_ is what John Searle hypothesized as "strong AI" (Searle, 1999, "Mind, language and society"), which is inadequately defined. Quoting Searle: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds". The field of AI initially was founded on this premise; the claim that human intelligence "can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it" (the Dartmouth proposal). It has become exceedingly clear this description eludes us (machines have no mind, and our emulation of organic brains has only been done at a very small-scale, see OpenWorm) that's why CS has moved gradually to a definition that excludes (mental) facilities once thought to require intelligence: optical recognition, competing at a high level in strategic games, routing, interpretation of complex data, etc. This is the reason approaches like the CM-originated "cognitive simulation" have been abandoned. This is the first major problem with "true artificial intelligence": to test for it, one must first define it precisely and unambiguously. Secondly, Searle's "strong AI" is now a _long-term_ goal of AI research, and not part of its definition. Creating lifelike simulations of human beings is a difficult problem on its own that does not need to be solved to achieve the basic goals of AI research. Believable human characters may be interesting in a work of art, a game, or a sophisticated user interface, but they are not part of the science of creating intelligent machines, that is, machines that solve problems using intelligence. Its creation, existence, and implications are more relevant to the philosophy of artificial intelligence (Turing, 1950, "The Imitation Game"), the impact of which on actual AI research has not been significant (John McCarthy, 1996, "The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence", What has AI in Common with Philosophy?) AI researchers have argued that passing the Turing Test is a distraction from useful research [2], and they have devoted little time to passing it (Russell & Norvig, 2003). Since current research is aimed at specific goals, such as scheduling, object recognition, logistics, etc. it is more straightforward and useful to test these approaches at the specific problems they intend to solve. To paraphrase the analogy given by Russell and Norvig: airplanes are tested by how well they perform in flight, not by how similar they are to birds - aeronautical engineering isn't the field of making machines that behave like pigeons, to fool other pigeons. So, secondly, due to its irrelevance to the modern understanding of the field as well as the complexity of its imprecise definition, "strong AI" is not an active area of R&D. [1] This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by the major AI textbooks, including: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, Nilsson 1998 [2] Shieber, Stuart M. (1994), "Lessons from a Restricted Turing Test", Communications of the ACM, 37 (6): 70–78

ELI5: Is it possible to "Fix" the genetic problems many dogs have (Pugs, Bulldogs, Etc) by continuing to selectively breed?

I saw [this link](http://imgur.com/a/6ECML) last night and how far some dog species have come (mostly for worse). Is it possible to get these breeds back to the way they were?

No. Selective breeding will actually give rise to new problems, and potentially worsen existing problems. The genetic problems which are common among many dog breeds are due to a lack of genetic *diversity*.

Why do audio cables produce static when they are near/touching metal, or human flesh?

I first noticed this with my guitar amp cable. When it was plugged into the amp, but not my guitar, it produced loud static when touching something metal, such as a metal stool. Even if it was near the metal, it would produce a softer static. It would also produce a less "jagged" sounding static if the metal node was touching my skin. The same thing happens with my auxiliary cable isn't plugged into my laptop. I'm guessing it has something to do with electromagnetic fields, but I'm not exactly sure. I tried googling for an answer, but I couldn't get the right search terms to narrow it down to something relevant. Thanks!

Several things are going on at the same time: First - all things act as antennas. You act as an antenna, the metal stool acts as an antenna, the cable acts as an antenna. Antennas pick up all kinds of noise in the atmosphere and that's part of what you're hearing coming out of your amp. The volume and exact sound is from the "quality" of your antenna and the noise around it. Usually the most prevalent noise is the 60 Hz hum from power lines being picked up and amplified. Second - A long cable or large object connected to the amplifier can change the loading of the amplifier. (Usually this is due to excess capacitance.) When the loading changes, the amplification changes - usually this is a small amount but it can be enough to cause distortion or oscillation. These things can combine sometimes resulting an an amplifiers ability to act as a radio under certain circumstances. Usually this happens when a long input cable is plugged in without being connected to anything else. EDIT: fixed typos

Why is Lex Luthor Superman's arch-enemy?

Regular old guy vs alien from another planet. What keeps Superman from just throwing this guy in jail? Why Lex and not someone like Doomsday or Brainiac? Granted, I'm not a huge superman fan, but this relationship always seemed really interesting to me.

Well, Lex really isn't a "regular ol' guy", he's literally the smartest human being on the planet (and several others). A charismatic and strong leader on one had, and an egotistical, obsessive and petty man on the other. For the most part, Luthor is jealous of Superman and his power. He often speaks of his fear that one day, the world will worship Superman like a god as he fixes everyone's problems forever. Humanity will stagnate and become useless under the heel of the Kryptonian. Lex hates useless things above all else. While he doesn't hate the idea of the world worshipping HIM, he would at least lead the world as a human being and not an alien. Besides, it's very likely threats like Doomsday or Brainiac wouldn't have arrived if it weren't for him. (Well, maybe not, but like Batman, you can argue the hero/villain arms race also happens with Superman) And sometimes, Doomsday can be controlled. Braniac can be bargained with if you know how to deal with him, and Lex is intelligent enough to know exactly what to say. Overall, Luthor is the mental match to Superman's physical powers, and he just can't stand the idea of someone out there he can't buy, bargain, kill or destroy. As for why Superman doesn't just throw him in jail, most of the time Luthor's hands are kept legally clean of any nefarious schemes he comes up with. He's rich enough to hire the best lawyers in the world, remember. He can also just instantly pay any bail set by a judge, no matter the cost. And then he'll buy the courthouse and jail to boot.

ELI5: Why do cockroaches fall apart so quickly when they die?

I've noticed that whenever I find a dead cockroach it always has some of its legs lying nearby and when I pick it up to throw it away it's brittle and crumbly. I'd understand if it was behind some dresser that I hadn't cleaned in a year, but this one appeared overnight.

Well one possibility is that it's not a dead cockroach, it's a molt; the cockroach just shed its exoskeleton. But also remember that bugs are kinda.... inside out compared to us. We die, and maybe if we dry up our flesh wraps around our bones and might hold us together. But their "bones" are on the outside, so as their meat decays the sections of their exoskeleton separate.

Can skin ever grow together?

I phrased this kinda weird in the title. What I'm wondering is if, for example, you kept your arm on your stomach for huge amounts of time, never moving it, would the skin that touched grow together? If not, what would actually happen? Maybe a better example is rolls of fat: what happens to the skin that is folded to touch itself? Another question I have is what if you got some sort of really serious injury that involved losing all/most of the skin on two parts of your body and you pressed those injuries together somehow and didn't move them at all. Would they grow together? Sorry if this is all inane and absurd and would never happen. :s I'm just curious. Edit: I just wanted to thank everyone who replied. The human body can do some weird and creepy things at times.

The serious injury part: If the blood supply was worked out, it would grow together. That's how they repair or reduce people's earlobes that have been stretched to accept large gauge earrings. They pretty much cut the excess off and sew the rest together.

[Kill Bill] If someone has the five point palm exploding heart technique done on them, and then they do not take another step (let’s say they live in a wheelchair), will they live a long normal life?

The exertion of pushing yourself around in a wheelchair would likely have the same effect as taking 5 steps, causing your heart to explode. Its possible one could survive by using an electric wheelchair and having someone on hand to move them in and out of the chair, though that'd be a major impact on their quality of life.

Why is it when I focus on the source of a sound (e.g. looking directly at someone talking) I can hear and comprehend them better? Can hearing be "focused"?

As an example, if I'm in a lecture and someone is talking while I'm not directly looking at them, this periphery noise is harder to understand than if I looked directly at them and focused my visual attention on them. Does this mean you can actually focus and pinpoint your hearing according to your visual focus? Or is this just a function of focusing your attention on them and merely digesting what they're actually saying rather than dismissing it as periphery noise? I guess if this were the case the same concept would apply to your sensation of smell? TLDR: is "aural focusing" a thing?

It is pretty simple actually. If you look at the design of the ear it is intended to catch sound coming directly at us. Peripheral noise typically won't encompass your head so information going in only one ear provides only one stream of data and nothing to cross reference it to. Compared to directly in front of you where both ears pick up on the sound the direction and origin of the sound is a lot easier to determine. **TL:DR**- Sound in both ears = focusing

What's the difference between 'hearing voices' and imagining/remembering someone's voice?

It depends what you mean when you say "hearing voices" and "imagining." Most of the time, when people say someone is "hearing voices" they mean someone thinks they can hear voices that aren't there, but they do not know that these voices aren't really there. The voices sound as if they are coming from outside, like any old people on the street talking. Sometimes, a person "hearing voices" can realize that it makes no sense to be hearing what they heard and understand that the voice is in their head, but "hearing voices" generally means, at least at first, a person hears a voice as if from the outside and is unaware that the voice is not real. When imagining and remembering cannot be distinguished from things taking place outside the mind, they become "psychosis," which is a condition where a person cannot tell the real from the not real. "Hearing voices" is considered a psychotic symptom. So most imagining and remembering are things people know are going on inside they're heads. Even if the remembering and imagining takes place without conscious control, as in some dissociative disorders or flashbacks, the person is aware they take place within and does not mistake them for outside sounds. In mentally healthy individuals, imagining and remembering are also often voluntary, healthy, and under control. They are completely normal. Sometimes, a person can recall a voice or imagine a voice so clearly it seems almost real - but they still know they imagined/remembered it and that it comes from within. Similarly, everyone some hears voices, usually their name, or mumbling, for just a second, and it doesn't bother them much. This is also normal. If it happens just as they fall asleep or wake up, it is even more common. If hearing voices, imagining, or remembering becomes scary or bothers you, tell a grown-up.

When we carbon date items, how do we know how much carbon started in them?

We aren't measuring the amount of carbon, we are measuring one isotope, carbon fourteen. C-14 is formed by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. Carbon fourteen is unstable, it has a half life about five thousand years. Plants get their carbon from the atmosphere, animals get their carbon from plants, living things have an exact ratio of carbon 14 to normal carbon. It doesn't change during their lifetime, because they continue to grow and take in new carbon. But once they die, they stop taking new carbon 14 in, and the C-14 begins to decay. A 5000 year old object has half the c14 of a fresh one; it is a quarter when it is ten thousand years old. By fifty thousand years, there is too little to measure, and the technique only treks you that it is over that age.

ELI5: Why is the ice that comes out of my fridge's ice maker white, or cloudy, while the ice you get at a restaurant or bar is clear?

The white/cloudiness is mostly small bubbles of air that was previously dissolved in the water when it was a liquid. Residential ice makers form the top down. The top layer of water freezes and slowly the ice grows downwards into the mold. This trap the air that was previously dissolved into the water. Commercial ice makers form ice from the bottom up, this lets the gas escape. Additionally they may use water that was additionally filtered through a carbon tank to remove off flavors, water softener to reduce calcium and other minerals, or reverse osmosis to make it "pure" water. Boil and cool the water before freezing it, and you'll get almost clear ice.

[MCU] What does the world think happened to Captain America?

The deaths of Tony, Nat, and Vision all seem to be public knowledge, but I highly doubt that Steve told the world that he was going back in time to the 40s to be with his girlfriend. So what does everybody think became of Captain America? Did they think he died in the battle against Thanos or something?

There are conspiracy theories that Steve's living on a moon base. Joaquin Torres asks Sam Wilson if it's true, but also seems a bit embarrassed when he does as if neither of them take that theory too seriously.

Would there be no waves in the oceans if we didn't have a moon?

Me and a fishermen buddy got to talking over beers, and we started talking about the moon and it's relationship to the tides. We were wondering what the oceans would be like if we didn't have a moon. Would they be still like a lake in the morning?

The waves that are of short enough wavelenth for you to see are not caused by the tides, but by winds. Sometimes those winds are obvious because the observer feels them. Sometimes they are not, because they were blowing in the past, a long distance away, but the waves then moved to the observer's location. The tidal bulge can be thought of as a giant wave, but the wavelength is the diameter of the earth and it takes ~12 hours for the wave to pass you, so it is not reallly noticeable as a wave to the average observer. So no moon wouldn't really affect how choppy or wavy the ocean is, in general. Edit: mixed up wavelength and amplitude

[MCU] Why is a 'destruction' of the stones, even a thing?

Sure they'd be broken into smaller pieces, but they're still pieces of the first stuff ever created. How does 'breaking' one work? How is it even possible?

Normally it isn't, except for the fact that the Scarlet Witch has some ultra-mega-reality-warping powers. It should be impossible for anyone except the Living Tribunal or the One Above All as they stones are fundamental aspects of the universe.

What is the actual science behind cutting flower stems at a 45 degree angle?

Can anyone explain the science behind this? I know that's it increases surface area, but does this increase capillary action? For instance, if I have a bundle of straws, and I cut them at a 45, the SA does increase, but I can't necessarily drink faster just because of that. A detailed response is very much appreciated.

It is beneficial because if they are cut at an angle, the crushing of the xylem (vessels) will not cut off the flow of H2O and minerals to the rest of the plant. If cut straight across, the xylem can be crushed closed.

ELI5: As a non-american person, why is the Confederate Flag associated with Nazis and racism?

THE confederate flag was a symbol of the south(who fought and supported racism/slavery) in the civil war and beyond, many people see the confederate flag and associate it with slavery, much as when people see a swastika they associate is with hitler.

When and why did money become a taboo subject?

Hi. I'm mainly looking to see if anyone knows when money became a taboo subject to talk about (particularly salaries, but money in general is fine.) I would also be interested to know why it became taboo. I tried searching for the question and didn't find anything. If there is something I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Thanks!

This isn't going to exactly answer your question, but the place you should 100% start is with Viviana Zelizer. She's based her entire career (and started the field) on how money is rarely just *money,* and is more often than not loaded with social and moral meaning. I'd start with her book The Social Meaning of Money.

[X-men] When nightcrawler teleports, does he need to just see the destination, or also the path? Could he teleport into a room if he can see it through a security camera?

Nightcrawler doesn't need to see the destination, especially if he's familiar with it or knows it's layout in 3 dimensions by heart. As to your example, if he knows exactly how far the room is away and its elevation relative to him, if it's in his range he can easily teleport there. He could teleport blind if he chose, but he doesn't displace matter when he *bamfs* back in, and to teleport into a solid object would be either crippling or fatal. So he avoids that if at all possible.

[LotR] Why did Illuvatar make it so that magic would gradually disappear?

Given that the elves, one of his two favorite children, suffer greatly by the gradual diminishing of magic, why wouldn't he make magic constant and undimishing?

It's kind of the other way around; magic is diminishing because the Elves are diminishing. Morgoth messing with the creation of Arda led to a concept called Arda Marred, which is basically the corruption that Morgoth forced upon the world. The Valar abandoned Middle-earth and colonised Valinor instead, allowing it to be the only place on Arda to be free of Morgoth's corruption. That's why the Valinor brought the Elves to Valinor, because only there could their bodies and spirits not suffer the effects of Morgoth's taint upon the world. This is because their spirits are tied to Arda in a way that Men's spirits are not, so that damage to Arda essentially also means damage to the Elves. When the Noldor returned, they were essentially at full power. Their spirits were unmarred and they'd learned plenty of things from the Valar, plus they'd all seen the light of the Two Trees of Valinor (which Elves born during and after the First Age would never see). However, as time passed, the Elves in Middle-earth slowly diminished, even after Morgoth's defeat. Due to Arda Marred, Elves in Middle-earth would slowly "weaken" over time, eventually resulting in them travelling west to Valinor. This can take thousands of years, in the cases of people like Cirdan or Celeborn, but it was ultimately the inevitable fate of all Elves. That's why the Three Rings were created - so that Elven rulers would delay the passage of time and decay in their lands. This is why places like Rivendell and Lothlorien are so magical, because Elrond and Galadriel are using their rings to artificially enhance the beauty and majesty of their lands. Once the Three Rings lost their power, most of the remaining Elves left Middle-earth shortly afterwards as they could no longer stay. Even if they wanted to stay, their bodies would eventually weaken to the point of which they would become harmless wraiths. So to put it bluntly, the Elves brought "magic" to Middle-earth from Valinor. As the Elves weakened over time, as did the "magic" in Middle-earth.

Does time dialation effect how old we see the universe to be?

Its said that the age of the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old but since all mass has an effect on space time how do we know if thats the true age? Like from the perspective of someone next to a black hole the universe would be younger and someone in intergalactic space older right? Do scientists take this into account when they estimate ages of space objects? And if time doesnt run at exactly the same speed in any two parts of the universe is there any way to know the exact age of anything far away?

Yes. The given age of the universe is in the frame of reference of minimal motion relative to the cosmic background radiation. This means that if we look left, right, up or down we can't tell the difference between the temperature of the background. If we had a large motion it would be blue-shifted in some directions and red shifted in others. It is also given relative to being in an area with no strong gravitational fields. If you were travelling with a high speed relative to the background you could calculate a different "local" age of the universe. If you were stationary in a strong gravitation field and you would also calculate a different age of the universe, however this would not help you much, as you would be dead.

Why is our right to die for unsatisfying lives not mainstream?

Is there a movement that grants a person their right for a humane death? Such a procedure would need a long waiting time, like 14 months with multiple doctors appointments and antidepressant treatments such as vitamin D. I feel like a lot of suicides are impulsive decisions, sometimes out of rage, or helplessness, and are sometimes unsuccessful (or successful) with devastating consequences, and a right to die for any person would make suicides inpractical. Copycat suicides would be less likely due to the process being more clinical. Secondly, what grants a parent, or the state, a right for their child lives if they are artificially kept alive after a *suicide* attempt? I am thinking of terrible cases such as Kyle Osadnick or Michael Morones.

Well outside of the terminally ill the thought that the right to die is inappropriate because bad lives are generally contingent, as in they can be transformed into good lives. The other motivating reason is that the terminally ill are often physically incapable of committing suicide, and so without the right to die have a very concrete inability to kill themselves, but this does not apply in the case of the dissatisfied. >Secondly, what grants a parent, or the state, a right for their child lives if they are artificially kept alive after a suicide attempt? The reason we don't permit guardians to let disabled children to die is that otherwise people would kill lots of disabled children who wanted to live/should be allowed to live on.

Children who experience severe reactions to the TDaP vaccine receive the Td vaccine instead. What is it about the addition of the pertussis protection that makes people react?

Disclaimer: I AM EXTREMELY PRO-VACCINE. I know that these reactions are unbelievably rare. How come people respond differently/aren’t “allergic” (if that’s even the mechanism behind the reactions?) to the Td when they are to the DTaP? I’ve tried to research on my own but am worried I’m accidentally finding antivaxx nonsense studies that lack valid data.

That is not about all adverse reactions. It's specifically about seizure and encephalopathy. There appears to be a higher risk of seizure in the short time after Tdap, that is not present after Td. Seizures are rare, so the numbers are small and this effect may not really exist, but we treat it as real until proven otherwise. If someone has had seizure after Tdap, they should in the future receive Td instead, unless evaluation can attribute the seizure to something else. On the other hand if someone has a severe *allergic* reaction to Tdap, they should not receive any vaccine containing any of the components, unless they undergo allergy testing to see which was the trigger. Note that this is not a contraindication to receiving Tdap or any other vaccine. If a person stays unvaccinated and develops pertussis, the infection is even more likely cause seizures, and may even trigger the development of lifelong seizure disorder.

ELI5: How do sharks detect electrical signals fish emmit when they move?

They have special organs called the ampullae of Lorenzini. They're basically clusters of pores with electroreceptors. These organ cells are specialized to have high concentrations of voltage dependent ion channels. The cells are also connected very tightly to one another by gap junctions. There are some other anatomic features that also help direct the current inwards and prevent current leakage. What the sharks actually sense is the difference in electric potential between the skin and the base of the pore. Fish swim around using their muscles, which produce electric fields by contracting. Salt water is a good conductor, and the movement of the conductor in the presence of Earth's magnetic field produces an electric field. Sharks sense this and their ampullae of Lorenzini are excited.

[Harry Potter] What are the odds that modern muggle Governments would be aware of an underground world of wizards?

The (muggle) prime minister got told by the (wizarding world) minister for magic, so at least one person knew. The wizarding world's ongoing secrecy relied on the fact that no-one would believe a head of state telling people about secret wizard societies.

[Harry Potter] Why didn't anyone fix Harry's eyesight?

He magically regrew his bones and came back to life. Even us muggles have contacts and lasers.

You'll note that other wizards have glasses, including Dumbledore. You'll also note they can't regrow eyes - Moody had to have an enchanted one. It's possible eyes are one of those things that is too difficult to magic.

[MCU] so does Cap’s shield absorb energy or not?

So in Winter Soldier he falls 30 stories and uses the shield to break his fall. So it seems to absorb energy. But when he throws it it bounces all over, almost increasing in energy. And when Thor hits it with his hammer in Avengers it deflect energy everywhere. What is it supposed to do?

It can both store and release energy. Think of it as a less refined version of Black Panther’s suit. BP absorbs energy and can release it as a shockwave. He has more control over the release than Cap does with his shield, but he does have to release the energy if it’s too much. Thor swinging Mjolnir onto the shield was too much energy to store so it released as a shockwave. A bullet hitting it is not. There’s also evidently a difference in composition from the center of the shield which seems to have more Vibranium and the edges since the edges have more bounciness to them.

If water is 'unable' to be compressed, how can it be pressurized?

I put 'unable' in quotes, because any fluid can be compressed just a little. But practically speaking, it cannot be compressed. So how can it be pressurized?

I'll attempt this. The water is not really the factor here, it is the container (in the case of open containers like an ocean, the force of gravity acts as a top to the container. Say you have a bottle of water that has been "pressurized" with the water. The water hasn't changed much at all. The container is deformed and the elasticity of the container is what pushes the water out when you open it, rather than a property of the water. In cases where air is included with the water, the air is the matter being deformed, and is what pushes the water out when the closed system is breached.

CMV: I'm Maximilien Robespierre and I should execute King Louis XVI

*21 November, 1792* King Louis, or now citizen Louis Capet, represents the great danger of counterrevolution against the French people. As long as he lives, he will be the axis around which all counterrevolutionary action focuses. His crimes against the people, including the flight to Varennes, the use of the suspensive veto against critical laws in the National Assembly, and many other acts under his rule demonstrate a treacherous love of his own power above love for the people of France. The documents discovered in the iron chest demonstrate this beyond any doubt. As said by Mr. Saint-Just, no man can reign innocently. His remaining in power will lead to further unrest as was seen in the massacre on the Champs de Mars. If this body lets him live, August 10 will happen again and we will be in a perpetual turmoil. Louis must die so that the nation may live. _____ > *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!*

Our relations with the outside world will be damaged, perhaps irreparably, if we execute Louis Capet. We must seek legitimacy in the eyes of Europe; Louis cannot be a foil to our diplomacy, and a martyr for domestic counterrevolutionaries. Royalists have made a divine of Louis - well, like all pagan G-ds, let him remain inert in his Temple. We should resolve ourselves to mercy, for the sake of mending hearts, and unifying heads. The light of the people fills the streets of Paris: the dawn is ours, let us not forsake the dew for memory of night. Let every child have her loaf, and every man his liberty; Louis' greatest punishment shall be watching, through bars, as we spin wisdom from his folly, prosperity from his immiseration, justice from his tyranny. Vive la République!

What is the difference between aquatic and terrestrial plants?

Whats the difference in, say, cell structure between a terrestrial and aquatic plant? There are a lot of plants that can grow in water and above, but their leaves/appearance tend to change depending on their conditions.

One big difference is the waxy cuticle that terrestrial plants have to prevent water from escaping. They also rarely have xylem (the vascular tissue that carries water) and often do not have phloem (the vascular tissue that carries sugars) since larger portions of the plant are often photosynthetic (make sugars) and do not need to transport sugars long distances.

If protons and neutrons both have a mass greater than 1 amu how can an atom with a mass number of N have a mass of less than N amu?

As an example according to my chemistry book Cl-35 has a mass of 34.97 amu.

The mass of a bound nucleus with Z protons and N neutrons is less than the mass of Z free protons plus N free neutrons. The attractive strong forces between nucleons lead to a lower mass of the overall system than the sum of the masses of the individual parts. That's why the nucleus is bound to begin with. The difference between the mass of the bound nucleus and the sum of the masses of its parts (times c^(2)) is the nuclear binding energy.

ELI5: Why do wounds leave scars, and why can’t they just heal?

Title

It's a side effect of the body trying to rapidly heal a wound. Lots of a protein called collagen, which is the most common structural protein in the body, gets deposit around the injury site and tries to heal over quickly. The resulting scar has much more collagen than normal skin, and it is organised differently. As it is also "filling in the gap" from an injury, otherwise structures in the skin like sweat glands and hair follicles are usually not present. So it's just a result of the body trying to heal itself quickly. It fills the gap quickly, but in a different way to how skin usually forms. The same thing can happen anywhere in the body where there is damage to tissues. Liver cirrhosis involves scarring, the heart scars after a major heart attack, which is why the organs don't function as well. With time, skin scars tend to fade as normal skin is produced, but major wound, particularly with deep injuries or tissue loss, will heal (and scar) worse than smaller, more superficial wounds.

CMV: In case of emergency, it's better to save adults over children

Everybody says, "In case of emergency, women and children first". Well, i'll refrain from the women part, i'll discuss about saving the children first. Why "children first"? I've heard so many people said "because children are the future and they'll continue our human race". To me, that is absolute nonsense. I'm not gonna debate about the moral or emotional point, i'm talking about the practical point. Saving children first is an idiotic move. First, adults are more likely to survive the disaster. For example, in case of sinking ship, put the adults on life boat and they'll survive longer until help comes, or they will know how to navigate to a safe place or nearby land unlike the children who most likely will wait until rescued or die. Second, adults are more likely to survive after the disaster. For example, in a zombie apocalypse, save the adults and they can form a group, build shelter and fend for themselves. Save the children and they will hide in the corner and get eaten in a day or two. Not to mention, when fighting off the zombies, more adults mean more fighting power, while more children will drag you down as you have to look out for them when fighting and can easily make fatal mistakes, like when you're safe in your fort but Sophia gets a panic attack and run out to the wild and you have to risk going out to find her? Yeah, I would hate to be in that situation. Third, for the purpose of reproduction and preserve our specie, the adults are much more suitable. Adults can breed immediately as long as they find a safe shelter. Children need to wait years until they reach puberty, and most won't even survive to get to that, and even if they get to the point they can breed, the lack of experience in sexual relationship and child birth makes them less likely to produce a healthy and safe offsprings, not when they can hardly protect themselves. Therefore, their chance of preserving the human race is extremely low. All in all, i don't see any reason to save the children first in case of emergency or apocalypse.

"Children First" almost never refers to an actual apocalyptic scenario and instead points out the fact that adults are much more capable of saving themselves than a child and in the event of a panic, are more likely to be crushed by a crowd.

ELI5: when you slowly rotate the mug/jar/glass/etc, why does the water (or other drink) in it not rotate with it?

Objects at rest want to stay at rest, this includes liquids. However, in the case of a rotating glass with liquid inside, the liquid near the side of the glass will rotate with the glass when it starts. The longer you rotate it for, the liquid near the middle of the glass will start rotating, until eventually all the liquid is rotating at the same speed as the glass.

[Marvel] What are the limits (if any) to the Reality Gem?

It seems like this Gem should be by far the most powerful. Are there any limits to it?

The reality gem's ability to distort reality is limitless in theory but it does have several limitations. On it's own, the reality stone can cause massive (to you and me) distortions in the fabric of reality. However, if one wanted to distort reality on a cosmic scale, or across all of time and space, or across the multiverse, one would need other infinity stones to enhance its power. That's why Thanos simply couldn't grab the reality stone to end half of the life in the universe. Even when one bears all infinity stones, there are still limitations. For starters, there is the limitations of the beholder. One cannot distort reality in a way they cannot imagine. One can also only distort reality in a way in which the Living Tribunal and the One Above All will accept. One could not destroy the multiverse or destroy the One Above All with the power of the infinity gauntlet because if one had serious intentions of doing so, these forces could stop the infinity gauntlet from working.

If your balance is determined by fluid in your inner ear, how does one "practice" their balance?

Your sense of balance is measured with your inner ear. Maintaining your balance requires practiced neural control of muscles. That is what you are practicing. Possibly some part of it is learning to pay more attention to minute changes in your sense of balance.

Is there a "universal speed limit" lower than the speed of light for an object of a given mass?

Let's say there's a 100kg object traveling through space. Obviously it can't reach the speed of light because it has mass. But since we know its mass, do we know how fast it *can* go according to the laws of physics? Or could it theoretically reach 99.9999999% of *c* but just never quite reach *c*?

An object of non-zero mass can in principle attain any speed less than the speed of light. In fact, since velocity has only a relative meaning, there are frames of reference in which an object of non-zero mass has whatever speed less than *c* you wish.

What are the macro economic drawbacks for canceling student debt?

From an unbiased stance, are there any negative economic impact for the American nation on a macro scale for just canceling the trillion dollars in student debt?

1. Increased national debt and the consequences that come along with that 2. Increased inequality. Student loans are disproportionately held by Americans with well above average lifetime incomes 3. If this is a recurrent event - moral hazard (this is microecon). Even not explicitly stated, merely the expectation that debt might be forgiven in the future could distort decision making.

ELI5: Baking Soda and Baking Powder. The difference between them and what they both do.

While making some tasty chocolate chip oatmeal cookies I reflected on the fact that both of these substances go in so many baking things yet I have no idea what the difference between them is or what they even do. What is baking soda and baking powder? What does it do?

Baking soda and baking powder are both leavening agents - they make your baking rise through an acid/base chemical reaction (like the baking soda/vinegar volcano in every show/movie involving a science fair). Baking soda is pure sodium bicarbonate (a base), and baking powder is sodium bicarbonate with cream of tartar (an acid). Which one you use depends on the other ingredients in your baking - if there's no acid to activate the baking soda, then the recipe will call for baking powder.

ELI5: If i had a nosebleed, would i be able to use that blood from the nosebleed for regular blood testings?

If you could manage to keep it sterile, get it into a tube and store it properly like really fast then most likely yes. The chances of your being able to achieve this are pretty low though, so you’re probably better off collecting the traditional way. Blood required for testing need to be fresh, in some cases still alive and uncontaminated by chemicals or microorganisms from the environment. Satisfying all of these is pretty hard if you aren’t in a doctors office where that have proper equipment.

ELI5: What's happening in my brain when when I read an entire page or so of a book, only to realize that I wasn't actually paying attention and have no idea what I just read?

"Mind-wandering", an extremely common phenomenon, but understudied subject in cognitive and educational psychology. MW can take the form of task-related (e.g., imagining scenarios utilizing current material) or task-unrelated (e.g., dwelling on relationship issues, dinner planning, etc.). MW can be mitigated by reaffirming your internal motivations (e.g., interest in the topic) or external motivations (e.g., upcoming exams, being paid to absorb material). However, MW has also been correlated to higher creativity measures, so it ain't all bad. Source: cognitive neuroscience researcher. EDIT: Man_Fred_Beardman 's comment below is insightful for those interested in the cognitive mechanisms at play during mind-wandering: "To expand a little on why you don't remember what you read, you have to understand memory is divided into three categories: Short-Term Memory (which only lasts approximately 4-7 seconds), Long-Term Memory (memories beyond 7 seconds), and Working Memory (memories being processed from short-term to long-term memory). When you're reading and your mind becomes preoccupied with something else (like day dreaming/mind wandering) your working memory kind if shuts down (or at least focuses on processing your daydream into long-term memory instead of what you just read). So you end up remembering your day dream, but not what you read. Your short-term memory is still working, so you end up remembering the last few words you read, but nothing else." EDIT 2: Thank you kind stranger for the gold!

How is Dostoevsky viewed in philosophy circles?

Is Dostoevsky considered a heavy hitter in philosophy? Many great philosophers commented on his works in a positive light, from Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and even Freud. So, are his ideas still relevant and discussed within academic philosophy circles today?

Unfortunately, serious academic study of Dostoevsky's thought, along with that of most other Russian philosophers, has in America tended to be largely relegated to the realm of "Russian studies" or "Slavic studies." The vast majority of major Western studies on his thought (as opposed to his literary significance) come from scholars associated with that field, and so they don't tend to integrate him well into Western philosophical conversations. Some theologians engage him heavily too, and recently some very good theological treatments have come out (such as the monograph by Rowan Williams, mandatory for anyone with a strong interest in D.). In Russian philosophy itself, D. is undoubtedly a canonical source, and the subject of some of the greatest studies in Russian philosophical scholarship (e.g., Bakhtin's *Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics*). His own writing also brilliantly captures, and in some cases responds to, earlier pioneers of Russian philosophy (e.g., the strong resemblance of Ivan Karamazov to Bakunin and Herzen). Russia's own traditional self understanding of what philosophy *is* tends to be vastly different from, say, Western analytic philosophy. It is far less disconnected from literature, from political agitation, from cultural studies ("the Russian idea"), etc., than most of what you find in the Western academy, likely because it has a very different developmental history than Western philosophy. It's hard for Western philosophers to engage it deeply without also engaging all of its historical, cultural, and linguistic baggage, which is probably part of the reason that the work has tended be done by the Russian studies folk.

CMV: You can be a kind and mentally healthy person and still get off to fantasies of torture and murder.

There seems to be a common trend of sensationalizing what people enjoy or find thrilling in their private thoughts as being dangerous if it does not fit into the narrative of what others deem normal or acceptable. People seem to believe that your thoughts influence your actions so much that you couldn’t possibly just enjoy a harmless fantasy for your own pleasure without it being who you are at your core. Well, I disagree. You can be a kind, empathic person in reality who would never hurt a fly, but get off on the thought of torturing someone to death in the private fantasy world in your head. You know in reality it would be sickening and wrong to do such a thing, but in your mind, it is a fun indulgence where you get to be as cruel and heartless as you desire. This doesn’t mean you are at all influenced in your daily life by these thoughts. You see the same kind of overreaction from people when anyone gains any kind of pleasure from something considered taboo. People call it “normalizing” and “sick” and don’t even think people can enjoy fictional stories or drawings depicting such things. But people fail to realize that fantasy is never the same as reality and humans are into a lot of shit they would never do. That’s why roleplay exists in the first place.

Where does the enjoyment in torture fantasies stem from? >You know in reality it would be sickening and wrong to do such a thing, but in your mind, it is a fun indulgence I think the thing is, we don't act based on what we think is acceptable. Our behavior is a response to what we feel. If a feeling is strong enough, we will act on it regardless of whether we think it is acceptable. So if you have fantasies of torturing and murdering people, that means that you would enjoy it. If you incubate those feelings in fantasy, they could overpower your will to stop them playing out in real life.

Will we ever be able to "see" the cosmic microwave background radiation?

As I understand it, the cosmic background radiation leftover from the big bang is currently in the microwave spectrum, but is constantly redshifting as the universe expands; so logically that means eventually it will redshift enough to be in the visible spectrum. Does this mean that at some point in the distant future we will actually be able to see it with the naked eye, and what would this look like? (Assuming of course we survive that long as a species)

"Redshift" means that the wavelengths get longer, and microwaves are already longer wavelength than visible light, so no, it won't ever become visible (barring a Big Crunch scenario, but that is pretty much excluded by cosmological data). The CMB radiation currently peaks at about a wavelength of 1 mm (10^-3 meters), while the longest-wavelength light that our eyes can see is around 750 nm (7.5 x 10^-7 meters). When the CMB was emitted, the universe was at a temperature of 3000 K, which is a little hotter than your typical incandescent light bulb, so the emitted light was mostly in the visible and near-infrared, and would look like a warm yellowish glow.

ELI5: How come when you have a sore throat it gets significantly worse if you sleep with the fan on?

Your throat relies on staying moist. But the moving air from the fan tends to remove moisture from you, so your throat dries out more. That makes it feel even worse than it did. The effect doesn't happen much if you point the fan at your legs instead of your head.

ELI5: An anechoic chamber in Minneapolis is recorded as being -9 decibels. How can there be a negative decibel measurement?

It was recorded in [this](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/worlds-quietest-room-the-anechoic-chamber-minnesota-minneapolis_n_1403476.html) article. I vaguely understand how sound works, but the concept of a negative decibel confuses me.

The decibel is a logarithmic scale, rather than a linear one like "meters" or "seconds". The difference between 10 cm and 20 cm is the same as the difference between 30 cm and 40 cm, but the difference between 10 decibels and 20 decibels is **not** the same as the difference between 30 decibels and 40 decibels. Essentially, when one sound is 10 times as loud as another, there is a 10 decibel difference between them. The reason that we can have negative decibel values is that 0 decibels does not mean "no sound". The decibel is a relative scale, meaning that 0 decibels means "no louder or softer than our point of reference". Our point of reference is usually the lower threshold of human hearing, or the quietest sound a human could hear. So knowing what we know about logarithms and the decibel scale, the -9 decibel rating just means that the sound in the chamber is roughly 1/9 the loudness of the quietest sound that a human can hear. EDIT: Mixed up the normal reference point for decibels.

[Vampires] What not-holy symbol would repel a Vampire when wielded by an Atheist?

Let us presume that a cross repels a vampire, and that it works only because person wielding the cross has certitude or trust in the symbol's power, and that by the same logic a vampire would be equally repelled by a Christian holding a small bible, or a Jew presenting a Star of David or Mezuzah or copy of the Torah, etc. Now, what hand-held object or symbol or text could a rational non-believer or Atheist carry with sufficient certitude to repel a vampire to equal effect? [POST-SCRIPT] In my mind I imagine objects like the following For a human who is confident in science: • magnifying glass • balancing scales • slide rule or calculator • compass or square • lit torch • atom symbol ⚛ • triangular prismatic glass • copy of Newton's Principia • sterilized and deionized water • laser pointer • a radio isotope of a particular element • a hominid fossil For a person who is confident in humanism: • scales of Justice • copy of national constitution or symbol • image of the planet Earth One person mentioned people who are not religious but sincerely believe in luck, and I would imagine such people could brandish a lucky rabbit's foot or four leaf clover or other luck symbol.

Nothing. The religious symbols represent the faithful's trust in a power that will protect them from evil. An atheist does not believe any such power exists, and do not believe they are protected from evil. Hence they have no symbol they can use against vampires.

How do forbidden quantum transitions happen?

Ok, so I majored in (bio)chemistry and work in chemistry for my job. I have an introductory knowledge of quantum physics and how it is different from classical models, but not a deep mathematical understanding. One thing that spectroscopists mention often is "forbidden" quantum transitions. I gather that these are supposedly against the rules of physics, so in my understanding they should never occur, but they very much do. So, they are much longer lived quantum states because of their "forbidden" nature disallowing an "allowed" path to relax back to ground state, but they still manage to do so, but slower. I don't understand how something can be against the laws of physics and still happen. Wouldn't that imply that our understanding of what's happening incomplete and we need a better model?

"Forbidden" transitions are not actually forbidden, just suppressed. If the transition carries one unit of angular momentum, it's a dipole transition. Higher-order transitions (quadrupole, octupole, hexadecapole, etc.) are called "forbidden", but they're still possible. They're just less likely than a dipole transition, all else being equal.

Serious problems with coworkers at the lab. Some advice needed.

It's gonna be a long one, I'm sorry. So I came to this research institute in the UK to do a 5 year postdoc. (I know, right? Awesome opportunity.) After the first month a postdoc, who was working closest with me (a bit of a knowitall, who really likes hearing his own voice, but otherwise I thought he was a nice guy) suddenly became hostile. Friday -fine, Monday -not so fine. In fact, another colleague of mine (who is the real subject of this post) actually had to tell him to dial back a notch. Since then he merely ignores my presence, which is fine. (I repeatedly tried to ask him, talk to him, he refuses. I have no clue what his problems is.) The other guy I thought was a friend. We had once brush-in (I tried to help him and another coworker with an instrument, and he really snapped at me. To this day I don't understand why. I wasn't asked to help, true, but come on, I tried to help, not push him down an elevator shaft). I apologized, and left. From then on, every single time I asked him if he wanted coffee or something, he excused himself, yet 5 mins later he was in the canteen. He also stopped saying hi, and did not look at me, when we met on the corridor. Most peculiar. (The other colleauges are not very relatable: one middle aged woman is trying to convert me to fundi Christianity, and there's a very tight group which just ignores my presence; sometimes I feel unconfortable when I walk into the lab and two of them are alone. So not much interaction with humans here.) Anyhow, a month or two later he texts me if I had a problem with him, because he would expect me to tell him if I did. I said I did not. (Also thought I should point out that HE DID have a problem with ME yet he did not tell me about it, but did not for some reason.) It turns out he is still angry about me fighting him about that instrument. I told him it's nonsense. Why the fuck (pardon) would I pick a fight over a scientific instrument with one of the two people I count as friend? I do not even pick fights with people I know hate me (see the guy above), so why with a friend anyway?? He somehow refused to see the point, and turned hostile from then on. Fast forward today. Narrow staircase, I'm rushing to the seminar, hoping to have a wee and grab a coffee before, he is coming up, shoulders set. I turn a bit, expecting him to do the same (otherwise I would have had to hug the wall), he does not, and we bump into each other. Mind you, had I not turned, I would have slammed into him full force. I stop, start to apologize, expecting he does the same, he rushes forward, and shouts back "fucking dickhead" and some other stuff. Two minutes later I stop him in front of the conference room, trying to talk to him about professional conduct, when he says that I must think him an idiot if I want to make him belive I did not bump into him on purpose. (His body language is extremely aggressive: pushing up against me, fists clenched.) At this point I was more than upset, so I started to say, yes, he IS indeed an idiot if he thinks that, but he just says "come fucking outside you asshole", and still fists clenched, storms out. At this point the seminar starts, and I really did not wish to escalate this into a fight; after all it's a fucking lab, not a pub. When he comes in, he tells me that I'm a prick (I think that was the word, but not sure), and he's not talking to me. The girl next to me looks at me because she thought he told this to her. So what do I do? At this point I hate every minute I spend in this place at this time. I want to make a report, but the lab manager (my other friend) tells me not to. She is a good friend of his, and she says he is having issues. Well, I've been having issues, thanks to this douche myself. And she did not see fit to help out, which makes me wonder how much of a friend she really is. (They've known each other longer, that is true.) I can't just let it slide; I can't talk to this guy because he seems to be bent on aggression, and I really don't want to lose my job for beating the living shit out of his fat ass (yes, I'm full of aggression right now, too). I really ,really just want to quit my postdoc and get a proper job somewhere normal. Any suggestions?

>I want to make a report, but the lab manager (my other friend) tells me not to. She is a good friend of his, and she says he is having issues. File a report anyway. His issues are not yours to deal with. Make it clear to your lab manager, who should be managing the lab, that his "issues" are creating a hostile work environment and you cannot tolerate it.

[Star Wars] At the Battle of Endor, why did the rebels not attack the Death Star from the other side?

The Empire knew what direction the Rebels would be coming from so pointed the DS that way. This was a trap remember so they had intel on the rebel plans. Once in system they couldn't sublight around the Deathstar fast enough without exposing themselves to the Star Destroyers that were also there. The Empire most likely had interdictors in the mix so the rebels couldn't hyperdrive out and come back in from hyperspace on a different vector.

[Deadpool 2] How badly did Deadpool fuck up his own timeline? [spoilers]

So, Deadpool goes back in time and kills the man that kills his girlfriend, thus technically unraveling everything, right? She doesn't die and so he doesn't get depressed enough to blow himself up, to meet Colossus, become an X-Man (In Training), going to jail, etc. Right? Cable comes to the past, kills the kid and leaves? But then why doesn't Deadpool have his entire timeline unraveled or fixed or... SOMETHING!

In Deadpool’s Defense, the xmen universe timeline was already fucked up during the events of Days if Future Past. That event severely fractured the X-men timeline so you could probably do a running total of timelines in the movies. 1. The X-men trilogy timeline 2. The X men origins wolverine timeline where Deadpool turns into Scott Adkins and Emma frost is a kid 3. The Logan timeline which seems like a the X-men trilogy timeline where the sentinels never happened so Logan never went back in time 4. The Deadpool timeline which seems linked to the first class timeline 5. Cable’s hell world timeline that he tried to fix 6. The legion tv series timeline which may or may not be any of the aforementioned timelines 7. The Gifted tv series timeline which definitely isn’t part of any of the timelines above And then any other timeline created by Deadpool’s fuckery. Time is very strange in the X-men universe and it seems that rather than the timeline sorting itself out, it just unravels and just sort of goes it’s own way so that might be why Deadpool can get away with all sorts of time travel shenanigans.

ELI5: Deus Ex Machina

Can someone break this down for me? I’ve read explanations and I’m not grasping it. An example would be great. Cheers y’all

Deus Ex Machina is a device used in story telling where a problem gets solved by something unexpected that hasn't been mentioned before. For example in War of the Worlds, although the story is about mankind fighting against the aliens (and losing). in the end it is disease, caused by earth bacteria, that kills them Or, imagine a story about people fighting forest fires. A child is trapped at the top of a burning building and it looks like they cannot be saved. Then there is a sudden rainstorm which solves the problem and everything else becomes irrelevant. In the above examples it is a natural force that is deus ex machina. But it needn't be. For example a poor person needs an operation and the whole story is about how her friends rally round trying to raise the money. At the end it seems they haven't raised enough and it looks like all is lost. Then someone notices the signature on the painting hanging in her room and it turns out to be a Picasso worth millions. Here, the painting is deus ex machina. Deus ex machina is often seen as a "cheat". As though the author couldn't find a way of resolving the problems he has created and so brings in something unexpected at the end. To be deus ex machina it is important that the solution is unexpected and there is no hint that it might happen earlier in the story. In the above examples, if the possibility of rain had been mentioned or if someone had already commented on the picture then it it wouldnt qualify.

ELI5: Why is the temperature around -150C in space when there's vacuum? What exactly cools if there's just nothing?

> What exactly cools if there's just nothing? Welcome to the problem of measuring temperature in space Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy(there are many types of energy so we only care about thermal here) in a volume. If item A has a higher temperature than item B then heat goes from A to B. Since there isn't much stuff in space, the total thermal energy of any volume is stupidly low because 50 hydrogen atoms don't have much heat between them The problem with space is that it is really low temperature so its not going to put heat into any object in it, but there's nothing around to conduct heat into so heat can only be lost through very slow radiative cooling, basically IR waves wiggling off into space with the energy. This gives you the weird effect of spacing having an extremely low temperature but also not cooling you off almost at all, both because there's basically nothing

[star wars] what happened to the Jedi Temple on courascant after the purge? Was it left alone? Was it bulldozed to make way for a high end subdivision? Did Palpatine like to go there and reminisce?

Disney Canon has Palpatine making it into his new palace. Its fate in Legends was never confirmed beyond that it still existed a couple years prior to the Battle of Yavin, as Starkiller underwent some training there. It's presumed by many to have been destroyed when the SSD Lusankya launched from its hidden position beneath the capital.

How to answer questions about why do you choose this school? Why do you think you're the best fit for this position?

Well, I'm applying assistant professor positions in social sciences, and I found that the hardest interview questions that I'm facing now is how to answer the questions such as why do you choose to come to xxx university? Why do you think you are the best fit for this position? ​ From what perspective should I answer this type of question? Thank you!

Before you go to the interview, do some research about the school and the department and see what you find interesting about it. Some things to look for: * Where is is located? City vs rural, what part of the country/world, what physical climate / geography. What can you do in the area in your down time? * How big is the school? * What is the school known for? * What is the school’s mission statement? * How big are class sizes? * What research is being done in the department? * what courses do they offer? * among those courses, what is one you’d really be looking forward to teach? * among the courses they *don’t* offer, what is one you’d like to develop and teach for them? * are you more interested in teaching grad or undergrad courses? Intro or advanced undergrad? * who is faculty in the department? Do you know any of them personally or professionally, like have you met them at conferences or read their work? Who would you most want to collaborate with? * How does your research fit with their research? * What facilities do they have (teaching or research) that you’d be looking forward to using? Do your HW - honestly half of these are useful to find out before applying even - and it’ll help you to answer those specific questions and others.

CMV: On scene news reporters are despicable human beings.

I’m gonna tell you all about a story that happened about a year ago. Me and my girlfriend heard sirens outside, and walked out to see smoke coming two blocks up from our house. We knew our good friends lived on that block, so we decided to walk up, and make sure it wasn’t their home. It was. The neighbors grill malfunctioned and took out three connected homes. We sat there and tried to console our friends as they literally watched everything they own burn. In the middle of the street was a camera man, and news reporter filming. My friends fiancé began to get upset at their presence, but her family kinda explained that it comes with the situation, which I also understand. I watched them approach a neighbor, then saw the neighbor point in our direction. They began walking over to us, obviously seeing how hysterical our friends were. I pointed out the fact they were coming. My friends fiancés mom intercepted them, and yelled “NO!” And this is what he said...”Listen, I know it’s shitty, i figured she would wanna talk to us before we interview all the neighbors” We all shouted a bunch of not nice things to them and they walked away. Thankfully this is the only time I had to witness something like this. I admit, it’s possible they were young, and this situation was a rare occurrence. How can you not as a human being put yourself in a victims situation and say “How would I feel if this were me?” “Don’t you wanna share the worst experience of your life with the world?” These people can’t have any redeeming qualities. Change my view.

Some of the most iconic reporting ever done would fall into this category. Newsworthy stories occur when people are at their worst. Respecting privacy is important, but capturing raw emotion on camera and eyewitness testimonials is important too. It connects humans and real people to the stories being told. The people with the power to effect change in the world need to see that the world is in need of changing. For example, in 2015 during the height of the Syrian Refugee Crisis, there were pictures taken of families who had just lost their children due to the conflict, or due to the boats capsizing as they fled. These images were extremely powerful and they touched the emotions of many people in the world. As a result, many governments decided to take in more Syrian refugees. Sure, those reporters were probably being rude by capturing these peoples' worst moments, but if you look bigger picture, these reporters' stories helped those people.

Origins of Marx's quote about California and Mexico?

"Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?" This line is heralded on the Internet as a reason Marx is/was racist. I remember having found it once and this seemed to very clearly be wrong. I'm only finding sources on it that display this one quotation out of context, though.

The paper *Were Marx and Engels White Racists: The Prolet-Aryan Outlook of Marxism* by Carlos Moore (1974) includes the quote, saying it was written by Engels (not Marx himself, although reportedly expressing their joint view) for an article in the February 15 1849 copy of Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and citing it as: > Marx and Engels, Gesamtausgabe (published by the Institute for Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1959), Vol. 6, pp. 273-271 (Quoted in: Gustavo Beyhaut, Raices de America Latina [Eudeba Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires, 1964], Chapter II, p. 74, our translation and emphasis). I don't know if the entire article is available anywhere in English, but for slightly more context the full quote included in that paper is: > Is it a misfortune that the wonderful California was wrested from the lazy Mexicans, who did not know what to do with it?... All impotent nations must, in the final analysis, be grateful to those who, obeying historical necessities, attach them to a great empire, thus allowing them participation in a historical development which would otherwise be unknown to them. It is self-evident that such a result could not be obtained without crushing some sweet little flowers. Without violence, nothing can be accomplished in history... Another quote by Engels on the same topic from an article in Deutsche-Brüsseler Zeitung from January 23 1848 (republished in the same source as the above) is also provided: > ...we have been spectators of the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced in it. It is progress that a country which, up till now, was concerned exclusively with itself, torn asunder by eternal civil wars and alien to any form of development...should have been propelled, through violence, to historical development. It is in the interest of its own development that it shall, in the future, be placed under the tutelage of the United States. It is in the interest of the whole of America that the United States, thanks to the conquest of California, should achieve mastery over the Pacific Ocean.

ELI5: Why is Finnegan's Wake considered to be such a classic of English literature, when it's completely incomprehensible and scholars can't even agree on what the plot is?

I mean really, here's the whole book - http://www.chartrain.org/PDF/Finnegans.pdf - what the hell?

Some literature is interesting not for its themes, popularity, or plot, but because of the way it uses language and explores the English language and the written medium. Finnegan's Wake is interesting precisely *because* it's (almost) completely incomprehensible. Think of it like Marcel Duchamp's urinal, submitted to an art competition. The urinal is, of course, not beautiful, nor of any civic value, and displays no great skills of the artist. But in the absurdity of submitting a urinal to an art competition, Duchamp challenges traditional ideas about art by taking the typical discussion of what art is to an extreme conclusion. Finnegan's Wake, like Duchamp's urinal, is *interesting*. That doesn't mean it has to be *enjoyable*.

ELI5: Why is it when travelling in a car and sleeping, it seems easier to stay asleep while the vehicle is moving around, but more often than not we wake once the vehicle slows/has stopped?

a vehicle's movement has a rhythm, and that steady (or mostly steady) rhythm is reassuring to very low-level parts of your brain (the so-called reptile brain). So long as the rhythm continues, your body thinks that you're safe. Once the vehicle's movement changes significantly (slowing down, coming in for a landing, swerving to avoid road moose, etc.), you sense the change. That change could be dangerous, so you awaken.

What did Albert Camus mean when he said "Morality, when formal, devours."?

Title\^

There are some quotes which could help to elucidate this further. One (from his Notebook) is: "Those who prefer their principles over their happiness, they refuse to be happy outside the conditions they seem to have attached to their happiness." In another place (can't find it at the moment) he writes that in most occasions you don't need principles because just being merciful is enough.

ELI5: A friend of mine who lives in Germany told me citizens receive help from the goverment if they do not have a Job or a home, how can Germany afford it to do so, and why do they do it?

This is commonplace throughout Europe. We have high tax rates that enable a high quality of welfare provision. This extends to free or low cost medical and dental care, housing, and cost of living benefits. The answer to why is because these societies have decided that the expense of helping people through rough patches is worth it in the long term. It can help reduce crime, keep people out of worse poverty, which saves health costs further down the line. Or they just support it on moral grounds. Or a mix and match combination of factors.

Would cancelling all US student loan debt tank the economy a-la a subprime mortgage crisis?

Basically title - isn't it possible that cancelling all student loan debt would tank the economy? what if our debt has been packaged, sold, and speculated upon by banks a-la subprime mortgage crisis? wouldn't value just disappear?

The debt that is having a call for cancellation is federally owned student loan debt- because the government owns the debt directly, they have the power to forgive via fiat (though whatever process this fiat takes is currently a matter of political debate) and they have not resold the debt. Hence, it has not been "packaged, sold, and speculated upon", at least the stuff of interest.

Why are there no “Great lakes” in Europe?

As I understand, the Great Lakes were formed after the last Ice Age by ice. Northern Europe and Siberia both were under ice on the same glaciation, but why are there no great lakes in Eurasia? Did they get filled somehow or did they never exist at all?

There are, they are just connected to the sea. The Mediterranean was empty and the British Isles used to be connected to Europe. See:Doggerland. In the middle of the North Sea between the Netherlands and England and France From Wikipedia - "As ice melted at the end of the last glacial period of the current ice age, sea levels rose and the land began to tilt in an isostatic adjustment as the huge weight of ice lessened. Doggerland eventually became submerged, cutting off what was previously the British peninsula from the European mainland by around 6500 BCE.[9][12] The Dogger Bank, an upland area of Doggerland, remained an island until at least 5000 BCE.[9][12] Key stages are now believed to have included the gradual evolution of a large tidal bay between eastern England and Dogger Bank by 9000 BCE and a rapid sea level rise thereafter, leading to Dogger Bank becoming an island and Britain becoming physically disconnected from the continent.[13