{"defining_instances": [{"Unnamed: 0": 1412, "q_id": "3fegs8", "title": "why do we make such bad decisions related to food when we're hungry?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fegs8/eli5why_do_we_make_such_bad_decisions_related_to/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctnurvp', 'ctnuvt8', 'cto0897', 'cto34g5', 'ctofs7o'], 'score': [87, 5, 7, 3, 2], 'text': [\"One of the reasons is that self-control is actually a resource that can be depleted. The brain has to expend more energy to exhibit self-control rather than just doing what it wants. Want to guess what form that energy takes? Glucose! That's right, sugar. So, when your sugar levels drop you actually have less ability to exhibit self-control.\\n\\nThat's why it's a good idea to have your meals planned and prepared before you're insanely hungry because you won't have the self-control to stop yourself from going to McDonald's.\", 'We dont really crave \"bad\" foods, we crave foods that our brains know have a lot of carbs in them.  Carbs are like gasoline,  they burn fast and hot. Your brain knows that pizza is the best way to get the hunger issue taken care of. Sort of like, you know its a terrible idea to call your ex at 2am for some action, but your brain is not in charge of the chemical reaction that is drawing you to the bad decision. So to help prevent the choosing bad food thing, keep lean protein on hand and try to not let yourself get overly hungry. Stuff like pregrilled chicken frozen strips, almonds, hard boiled eggs. All of that is low carb, but filling.  I like to put wing sauce on the pre grilled chicken and dip it in light ranch. Gets my fried chicken wing craving taken care of for about 300 calories and no carbs. \\n\\nTldr, your brain knows your body needs quick fuel and most bad food is carbs, wrapped in carbs. Quick fuel is all your after.', 'The notion of \"bad food decisions\", \"I\\'m being so bad today\", and other morality associated with diet is an entirely social one. \\n\\nBiologically, \"bad decisions related to food\" would be, like, eating a lightbulb. Which is not something people do when they\\'re hungry.\\n\\nOn the other hand, if you\\'re wondering why you\\'re prone to eating junk food (there goes that morality again) when you\\'re especially hungry, it\\'s because... you\\'re hungry! Being hungry is a great excuse to let yourself out of whatever arbitrary rules you\\'ve set for yourself. And, yes, diets are, for the most part, arbitrary rules. You want to look a certain way, or see certain numbers (whether that\\'s the size of your pants or your cholesterol test), or whatever, so you create rules for what you can eat in order to achieve those results. When you get really hungry, though, of course all that\\'s going to go out the window. \\n\\nIt\\'s kind of like the way you\\'re more likely to sleep through your alarm when you\\'re tired, more likely to rationalize not using a condom when you *really* want to have sex with someone, etc. When the stakes are higher, we\\'re going to have a harder time making ourselves do the less fun thing.\\n\\nEdit: I\\'d also add that a lot of \"bad\" foods are convenience foods. A lot of the time, we\\'re hungry because we didn\\'t get a chance to eat. So you probably find yourself in a lot of situations where you\\'re ravenous, but the only food at hand is something suboptimal. If you had time to cook a nice nutritious meal from whole ingredients, you probably wouldn\\'t be feeling this hungry.', \"Bad food decisions relate to the abundance of carbs, fats, and sugars which are rarely found in nature but overly abundant in quick or fast foods. When you are hungry you crave those things, not healthy nutrient packed foods - because your body thinks healthy food is plentiful. \\n\\nThere is probably a time factor built in there, most nutritious food isn't quick in preparation and generally requires additional things to enjoy (and/or more money if eating out). Few people are content sitting around eating only a head of lettuce - they want carrots, peppers, nuts, dried fruit, etc on top with a dressing which takes time to prepare. A pizza pocket is ready in like 150 seconds and 145 of that you are simply waiting.\", \"I'm assuming when you say bad decisions, you mean foods that aren't good for us like fast food, junk food, etc. Humans naturally crave foods that are high in fat, sugar, and salt. It's in our genes. When we are hungry, our brain is telling us that we need to eat, so naturally we will seek food containing those things. Since fast food and junk food are more readily available (requires pulling into a restaurant on the way home or opening a bag of chips), we will want to go for those options rather than spending an hour or two cooking a meal. There are plenty of health foods that contain fat and sugar, but they usually require more effort to obtain. It just so happens that fast foods are more convenient so we go for those options.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1564, "q_id": "3yhz25", "title": "why do americans build homes out of nothing but wood in areas where hurricanes or tornadoes would do mostly nothing to a house made of brick or concrete?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yhz25/eli5why_do_americans_build_homes_out_of_nothing/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cydmaj0', 'cydmbv1', 'cydmdoi', 'cydmeyh', 'cydmgxc', 'cydr6st', 'cydsoch', 'cydvu5x', 'cye4ln5'], 'score': [6, 16, 46, 17, 5, 24, 33, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Brick gets wiped smooth just as stick built pretty much.  Concrete is a great idea, might help some, but unless you concrete roof that shit, it also won't matter in a tornado.  You'll just have some nice concrete walls standing.\\n\\nBut most of the real Tornado alley dwellers don't have the finances.  \\n\\nIt's kind of like people living in flood zones.  They know it's going to fucking flood, but it's cheap, and it's hard to find a buyer for your current property, so you're kinda stuck with floods.  Or in this case Tornados.  \", \"I'm not an expert but I would guess...\\n\\n1. Brick and concrete are expensive. People generally don't assume a natural disaster will happen to THEM, and many probably don't factor in insurance costs when buying a home.\\n\\n2. Most new housing these days is basically cookie cutter, off the shelf designs. Concrete, brick, etc. will mean basically a custom designed home.\", \"1. In extremely violent tornado storms that wipe out entire cities, virtually no structure, regardless of material, can survive the wind and still be within reasonable cost. Instead most houses in tornado-prone areas have much safer and cheaper underground shelters. ([Here's a bank vault where 23 people took shelter that withstood an EF5 tornado](_URL_0_). As you can see it protected the occupants but nevertheless sustained considerable damage. Most people can't afford to or really want to live in a windowless bank vault.)\\n\\n2. In less violent tornado storms the tornado will only travel through a very narrow path, so the chance of getting hit by a tornado is very low and it's simply not cost effective to tear down every house and replace it with brick houses. Most new subdivisions in these areas are stronger and can withstand a mild tornado. \\n\\n3. Flying debris is a major cause of death and injuries. Wood will break apart into smaller and lighter pieces while brick and concrete will not break apart easily, they will make much more dangerous hazard. \", \"With hurricanes most damages is from tidal surges and flooding. Brick homes and concrete homes are just as susceptible to this kind of damage as wooden ones are. \\n\\nYou also seem to have a lack of understanding as to how strong tornadoes are. Tornadoes can dismantle a brick house nearly as easily as they can a wooden house. All you get is heavier debris being thrown in the air. Concrete homes would do better, but to be a tornado resistant concrete it has to be around 4' thick and steel reinforced. \\n\\nIt basically boils down to cost. A brick home would be between 2 and 5 times more expensive than a wooden one and a concrete home can be as much as 10 times as expensive. A tornado resistant home would be around 20 times as expensive as a single tornado bunker room can cost as much as a normal house. \", '\"It\\'s not *that* the wind is blowing, it\\'s *what* the wind is blowing.\" - Ron White\\n\\nWhen a house gets hit with the debris inside a tornado, it can be made of just about anything and it will still be demolished.\\n\\nThe structural damage from a hurricane is caused by the extreme flooding, not wind.', 'Its all about cost vs usefullness. The chance for a tornado to tear down your house is like winning the lottery, while building a brick house vs wood is significantly more expensive and infact might be too expensive for the family to afford.  \\n\\nWe all need to live somewhere...', 'I live in tornado alley, and the chances of my house getting hit by a tornado are basically zero. It just isn\\'t worth the expense to build a house that can withstand a tornado. It\\'s like saying \"look how many people die in car crashes, why not drive tanks around?\"', \"Because common established building practices. Nobody is really trained to build a half underground mound house that looks like something out of the Hobbit Shire, even though that is likely the most storm-proof design. (Sloped so the wind and any storm debris goes over it, and insulated and protected by some amount of earth.) And if somehow you manage to build one like that independently, it's typically considered a harder sell because the design is fairly unique.\\n\\nThere's also considerations that once building out of more solid materials, you also need to work out ways to get a building to breathe. Condensation and moisture build-up and just not enough air-exchange in a unique design can cause sick-building syndrome. Less experience among local architects in dealing with those things tend to make that more difficult and expensive to approach as well.\\n\\nWood has been tried and done all the time, so it's a lot cheaper. That and the insurance industry, people just get to keep rebuilding the same damn thing even though you'd think they'd learn after nature hits them with a clue stick every 20 years or so. (And some areas really should have been left farmland and not developed because of the weather patterns.)\", \"I lived in central Illinois for my childhood and in coastal South Carolina for my early adulthood. The odds of a tornado touching down on a house and not a corn field are slim. Many of the towns and homes that dot the wide open farm land are from the late 1800's and most brick structures are important civic buildings or schools due to cost. Tornadoes don't care if a building is made with the finest brick or cheapest pressed wood, in the end it eats what it wants to unless it's an earth home. Earth homes seem to be the bane of tornadoes but nobody wants to bury their 100 year old home stead yet. Architect's have more to think of when building on the SC coast not just because of the hurricane but also the swamps. The swamps love to give full body hugs to heavy structures. Most buildings really close to the ocean are stucco, brick, or hardie-plank and put up on huge stilts or foundation HOWEVER, some places like Charleston have historical buildings that can't be messed and still have wood. Many of the cheaper more inland buildings have a brick veneer on the first floor and a slab foundation but homes close to the swamps are small and built of wood due to sinking (well, that's what I was told by locals). The SC government has tax breaks put in to help home owners make hurricane improvements too but none are for brick that I know of just working shutters, roofs, windows/ doors... you get the idea. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a3b678f07573b302cd839fea2a4e3bfb?convert_to_webp=true'], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 203, "q_id": "3ihix7", "title": "if i watch a 1080p video on my 720p phone, would it look \"better\" or the same as a 720p video on the same screen?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ihix7/eli5_if_i_watch_a_1080p_video_on_my_720p_phone/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cugft5w', 'cugijj8', 'cugle7y'], 'score': [6, 23, 6], 'text': ['It would look the same, barring actual quality differences between the 1080p version and 720p version.\\n\\nHowever, it has been shown that on Youtube, if you set it to a higher resolution, it will display a better quality video which could improve the image, despite still being 720p. ', 'Let\\'s make a distinction between \"is different\" and \"looks different\". \\n\\nA 1080p or 4k image on a 720p screen will BE different from a 720p image. By that I mean if we took every pixel and compared the color value of them while displaying the 1080p and the 720p, they would be different. This happens because a 720p screen can\\'t display all the pixels from a 1080p image, so it resizes it into 720p. To figure out what colors to display for each pixel of the new image, it \"averages out\" the neighbour pixels of the big image. This process isn\\'t perfect, you\\'re taking several values and producing 1 value. There\\'s loss of quality (comparing to the original 1080p).\\n\\nNow let\\'s compare that to a native 720p photo. Let\\'s imagine you took the exact same photo in 720p and 1080p. Your screen displays the 720p natively, but resizes the 1080p. In order to BE the same, the average-out process would need to produce the exact same 720p image (as in, every pixel having the same color value) as the original 720p photo. This can happen, but it\\'s unlikely. It depends on too many factors (if the camera is the same, it also averaged-out when taking the 720p, for example).\\n\\nNow about LOOKING different. In my opinion, it can look better. The difference isn\\'t usually that obvious, but 2 factors make it somewhat better to watch for example 4k on a 1080p screen. If you have a 1080p camera and take a 1080p photo, it has 1 sensor-thingy determine what color should be attributed to 1 pixel. But if you use a 4k camera to take a 1080p shot, or you take a 4k shot and resize it to 1080p, you have 4 pixels to figure out what the color for the new pixel should be. It should look closer to the natural thing. I have several 4k wallpapers that look better on my 1080p screen that 1080p wallpapers.\\n\\nThe other factor is that it makes sense that cameras with higher resolutions will also have better overall quality. Although it\\'s possible that a manufacturer produces a 20 megapixel camera and cuts corners on the aperture, for example. Or for example people who own and use 20 megapixel cameras are in general more knowledgeable about photography than people with 1080p cameras. This has nothing to do with the resizing or the screen, of course.', 'A really short, incomplete description:\\n\\nPixels you see on the screen are generally made of 2-4 \"sub pixels\" that generate the actual primary colors, and when combined together (in groups of [commonly] 2-4), they can represent millions of colors.\\n\\nAs such, a good renderer can take advantage of subpixel information and output more detail, or at least interpret more detail from a 1080p video into a 720p display, since each pixel is made of 2-4 actual elements.\\n\\n\\n(2-4 subpixels? I thought there were three primary colors!)\\n\\nConstraints of technology. A lot of older OLED displays had issues with blue elements burning out, so they doubled the size of the blue elements, and had every other \"pixel\" switch between a blue/red and blue/green combo. A bit of clever programming helped the subpixel array overcome the red and green deficiency, but not without complaint.\\n\\n3 colors is the most \"normal,\" and probably most common for most displays. Primary colors (for lights), red green blue.\\n\\n4 colors is sometimes done, either for luminosity (so a \"white\" subpixel) or for color depth (short explanation; consumer display technology doesn\\'t really display all of the colors we can see, for [predominantly] cost reasons).\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1407, "q_id": "1shhoq", "title": "Why was Alcatraz closed?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1shhoq/why_was_alcatraz_closed/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cdxn8uj', 'cdxrkpn'], 'score': [12, 68], 'text': [\"Okay, why does this say I have two comments but I don't see any?\", \"A prison facility built on an island in the middle of a salt water bay is neither logistically easy to keep supplied (especially given that this is a busy port), nor economically frugal to keep maintained, and operational. \\n\\n\\n\\nSomeone, or a lot of someones, figured it'd be cheaper to build a facility that was accessibly by land / road, while not necessarily being much less safe for Joe Public. \\n\\n\\n\\nAnd a lot of someones in the Joe Public sector probably were less than excited about looking out across the majestic San Francisco bay to see Angel Island, the Golden Gate Bridge and then....see a prison. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 52, "q_id": "87pmz2", "title": "why do people often wake up when the tv is turned off, even though the room becomes darker and more quiet?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/87pmz2/eli5_why_do_people_often_wake_up_when_the_tv_is/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dwenhw9', 'dwess6g', 'dwesx4v', 'dwf49cz', 'dwgby63'], 'score': [33, 9, 3, 6, 2], 'text': [\"Because even though it's taking stuff away, it's still a big change in what's going on around us.\\n\\nUs humans are wired since we were primitive animals to react to things that might indicate danger. \\n\\nWhen a big noise suddenly happens, we'd wake up in case we had to flee. When a long consistent noise and light that had been going on for some time suddenly stops, same thing happens, and alarm bells go off so we bolt awake.\\n\\n[Here's a prank where you can see what happens when something in the environment stops. It's pretty jarring.](_URL_0_)\", 'It stems from a very primal instinct to wake up to anything that might be \"dangerous\".\\n\\nThe TV noise is familiar. It being there is what we fell asleep to. Any sound (or lack thereof) that is different from what we would expect wakes us up.', 'Specifically because the room has gotten darker and become more quiet. It is the change in our surrounding that prompts us to wake. \\n\\nSudden changes in light mean danger, something has gotten between you and the light source and might eat you. \\n\\nSudden changes in sound mean danger, the things that were making noise stopped to hide so something may eat you. ', 'In the wild, when everything goes suddenly silent it usually means someone noticed a large and dangerous predator. The sudden absence of sound is as important as the sudden presence.', 'It is not only because a change might be dangerous, it is that most of our senses are sensible to differences (which for some things like light are strongly related to avoiding dangers, and it is actually the way the eye evolved: a cell sensitive to light variation was more useful than no such cell to escape predators or finding nutrients):\\n\\n- we don\\'t feel absolute temperature, we feel heat transfer (which is why plastic and metal at the same temperature feel very different)\\n\\n- a stable image would fade out in our vision system, which is why the eye \"vibrates\" (microsaccades) when the image doesn\\'t change.\\n\\n- something touching you is detected, but if after contact the pressure remain constant you cannot tell anymore if the thing is still touching you.\\nand so on, including sensing concentration of chemicals inside our body.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://youtu.be/jwMj3PJDxuo?t=20'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 705, "q_id": "1scgrn", "title": "evolution (former jehovah witness)", "selftext": "The theory of evolution.....ELI5:", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1scgrn/eli5evolution_former_jehovah_witness/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cdw4bub', 'cdw4w25', 'cdw54do', 'cdw6clg', 'cdwg7bs'], 'score': [8, 3, 49, 10, 2], 'text': [\"If you use the search function you can see that [this is a super common question](_URL_0_). I'm not saying that to be a dick, but to tell you that there are tons of quality answers already written and just waiting for you to read them.\", 'Lots of info on evolution is out there; can you be more specific on what you are looking for?  Something related to JW teachings?  \\n\\nThe shortest answer I can think of is that evolution is a cycle of variation and selection.', \"Basic explanation:\\n\\nYou have animals producing offspringThere will be slight variations between offspring and parents. These differences are due to recombinant of genes (you are a combo of genes from your mom and your dad, so you aren't exactly like either one of them) and from mutation. Mutation is when a part of your DNA is accidentally changed (many ways this can happen). Some mutations don't cause any change while others can have a huge effect. These mutations can create new traits that did not exist in your species before. \\n\\nNow, as populations of animals create new offspring and live they must compete with each other and other animals to survive. They must also survive environmental factors such as weather. This struggle for survival causes what is referred to as selective pressure. Basically what it means it is since it is difficult to live only the best animals will be able to survive and reproduce. (This isn't 100%, but the idea is your chances of surviving and reproducing are higher if you are a better individual). if only the best survive and you have random changes between generations then any new mutations that are a benefit to the animal will survive and be passed on to more and more offspring while any traits that are disadvantageous will eventually die of. In this way species slowly change over many generations to become better adapted to their situation\", \"Imagine a Derp. It's some animal that is really stupid. Details aren't important.\\n\\nThe Derps have babies and one of them is a freak. He has three eyes.\\n\\nSuddenly, someone horrible happens, such as a lion attacking the Derps - but the three-eyed Derp saw the lion coming and could find shelter. It was better prepared.\\n\\nTons of Derps die, and Three-eyed Derp survived. He is acknowledged as a hero and has tons of babies.\\n\\nNow tons of Derps have three eyes, and they are all a bit better than the previous derps, because three-eyed Derps can see danger from afar.\\n\\nThis is Natural Selection. Some mutation happens and it's so beneficial that it is passed onto children. If this happens for millions of years, you have Evolution!\\n\\n^(Also, friendly reminder that this is Explain Like I'm Five, not  Explain Like I'm A *Frikkin Bio Major*)\", \"Lots of good responses here.\\n\\nA great parallel to evolution of life is the evolution of computers.  We start with the old machines that were just a few vacuum tubes, simple things that could barely calculate basic math.  Then we get to the age of the computer dinosaurs... giant machines that would fill a room, were considered state of the art, and cost tens of thousands of dollars.  Then we have the modern PC, and with it the birth of the Internet.  Then the age of laptops.  Then cell phones.  Then MP3 players.  Then tablets.  Then smart phones.  Now here we are with phones in our cars and frankly a ludicrous amount of technology and power at our fingertips, with new ones on the horizon.\\n\\nOne thing you notice with technology is that when something works, and works well, it sticks around for a while.  Calculators, one of our oldest computers, are still around in abundance despite changing very little over the last 30 years.  Once a breakthrough happens, we get hundreds, if not thousands, of variations on that theme.  PCs could vary wildly, but they'd all still have a monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive, floppy/CD/DVD drive, etc.  Now we've got tablets, which are all flat with a touch screen that controls pretty much everything.  Both laptops and phones got smaller and sleeker over time.  Storage and memory consistently went up.  For cell phones and laptops, size consistently went down, while with PCs, monitor screens consistently got bigger.\\n\\nTechnology that is terrible (remember laserdiscs?) tends to fade away very rapidly.  So do computers when better computers come out.  Residual old computers may linger for a time, but eventually they get replaced by the new and better computers.  Remember 5 1/4 inch floppy disks?  There was nothing wrong with them, but they got replaced by 3 1/2 inch disks because they were smaller and held more.  Those got replaced by CDs, which got replaced by DVDs.  Overall, technology has gotten so much better and much more complex over just a short period of time -- only 50ish years or so.\\n\\nWhat does this have to do with the evolution of life?  It's very similar, but much slower (millions of years, not 50) and much more complex.  You get one form of life that has a huge advantage over its predecessors, and then they're everywhere, and eventually there are thousands of variations on that one theme.  An animal is really good at what it does, even if it's fairly simple?  It's not going to change all that much, if at all.  Something comes along that's better in every way/many ways?  It's probably going to replace the old population of its predecessor.\\n\\nIt's not a perfect analogy, of course.  But it's a great example of what evolution really is, which is change over time.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=evolution&amp;restrict_sr=on'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 765, "q_id": "52ubgs", "title": "Does anti-reflective coating on lenses increase light transmission?", "selftext": "I know many lenses these days have an anti-reflective coating. My understanding is that this works because the anti-reflective coating thickness is equal to 1/4 wavelength of the light you are trying not to reflect (500 nm in the case of green light, so a coating with 125 nm). The waves reflecting from the surface of the coating and the surface of the glass destructively interfere, which\"cancels out\" the reflection.\n\nSo here's the real question: When I hear people talk about anti-reflective coatings, they make it sound as if it results in increased transmission of the light through the lens. Does this coating really increase the total number of photons that will be transmitted through the whole optical system? It seems to me that these photons must still be \"bouncing off the front\" in order to destructively interfere?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/52ubgs/does_antireflective_coating_on_lenses_increase/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d7nkvbq', 'd7nkw9s'], 'score': [2, 4], 'text': [\"Yes it does. If we ignore absorption, a photon must either be reflected or transmitted at the surface. So any decrease in reflection must be matched by an increase in transmission. The coating sets up destructive interference, as you guessed, but no real photons actually need to reflect off the surface to create destructive interference. In fact, it is better to think of the light as a wave to understand why the destructive interference works in the first place.\\n\\nNote that the increase in transmission isn't readily noticeable, because glass already transmits about 95% of the light coming straight into the glasses. With an AR coating maybe that goes to 99%. The difference between 95% and 99% is pretty subtle, while the loss of 80% of the reflected light is more obvious.\\n\", ' > When I hear people talk about anti-reflective coatings, they make it sound as if it results in increased transmission of the light through the lens.\\n\\nIt does. \\n\\n >  It seems to me that these photons must still be \"bouncing off the front\" in order to destructively interfere?\\n\\nPhotons are frequently causing so much confusion, because it sounds like something intuitive, but in the end they are something quite abstract. Long story short, if you insist to talk about photons taking paths, then each single photon takes *every possible* path and interferes with itself and since they interfere destructively with themselves for the reflecting direction, they can not actually be measured there or can only be measured with very low probability, while they constructively interfere for the transmission paths.\\n\\nA better way might be thinking of photons as excitations of \\'modes\\', which are just valid solutions for the boundary conditions that are given by the problem. Photons are not particles with a position and trajectory, but just the number of \\'energy packets\\' you put into your mode. For most interference effects thinking of photons doesn\\'t give more insight than classical EM for what is actually happening, but only spark confusion.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2516, "q_id": "7rduum", "title": "how does nintendo's labo work?", "selftext": "I just don't get it? Is it just cardboard and you have to pretend that your doing something or is there more too it?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rduum/eli5_how_does_nintendos_labo_work/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dsw5hn6', 'dsw5ijs', 'dswadbg', 'dswhbw7', 'dswlf4c', 'dswoff2', 'dswvjxq', 'dswyymn', 'dswz2k9', 'dswzw6u', 'dsx0c7c'], 'score': [2282, 47, 393, 57, 42, 1581, 12, 4, 3, 8, 3], 'text': ['In conjunction with the software, the IR sensors in the right joy con allows pieces of reflective plastic inside the cardboard to sense different movements and then the software reacts accordingly.', \"Remember the original Wiimote's motion functionality and its other accessories such as the crossbow, steering wheel, etc.? Well, the Labo are essentially cardboard accessories for the JoyCons that are a bit more exclusive to the compatible games. \\n\\nAs you saw in the reveal trailer, it went to things such as a piano, a fishing rod, and a house; clearly much more exclusive accessories that work with only a single game. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's my take on it. We only had so much to work with.\", 'The right side Joy-Con has a little infrared camera and illumination LED. You can see how it all works in [this](_URL_0_) segment of the video (pause and look closely a the scenes from that point on). The moving cardboard bits have white markers attached. The camera captures an image, and the software looks for the motion of these markers to determine which pieces of cardboard have moved. It seems you can probably customize the layout of the detection (by defining rectangular regions of interest that detect when a particular white marker enters or leaves them) to build your own contraptions.\\n\\nEdit: Here\\'s an [annotated diagram](_URL_1_).\\n\\nFor the moving \"robot\", the cardboard body is designed so that when the joy-cons vibrate, the robot moves preferentially in one direction (thanks to the angled comb-shaped \"legs\"). By choosing which side is vibrating (or both), you can steer the robot around.', \"It is using the joy-cons to their fullest.  It uses the buttons (obviously), motion controls, and the IR sensor (least obviously).  I'm sure they will use the HD rumble which is apparently very good, though under utilized.\\n\\nThe IR sensor can basically read a layout of white objects in front of it (in a dark enclosed environment, especially).  Think of it as reading a chessboard equivalent (it can probably do much better), and reading the positions of things in the squares.  It is easy to imagine that moving one piece back and forth across one or more squares could easily be treated the same as a button push or motion control that we use so often now.\", 'If you watch the video closely you see that in all of the cardboard devices they Place one of the joycons in them. The joycons have gyro sensors in them and the red one has an IR sensor. These allow the movement of the cardboard devices to be translated to input for the games or applications, whatever you want to call them.', \"The piano works by pointing the right joycon into the body of the box and pushing a key changes what the IR camera views (I'm guessing it lifts small paddles on the inside via lever motion). The camera can detect basic shapes easily and determine distance of objects so that must play into how it works too. The software the kit comes with interprets what the camera sees and outputs the corresponding notes.\\n\\nThe robot vr backpack looks like it uses the gyrometers (things that can sense motion) of the left joycon headset piece to determine view while it uses the other gyrometers on the right joycon to detect when your ducking. It then uses the ir camera again, to look at the position of markers inside the backpack controlled by pulleys, rubber bands and string. When you pull the strings it pulls on the tab with the marker on the inside up, and the camera can see that info to tell which arm your moving. \\n\\nThe rc car works like a hexbug nano but has dual drive lol the way the legs are shaped, the vibration makes it move forward incrementally. If only one side rumbles, it turns to ~~that~~ *the other* side.\\n\\n**TLDR**: This is really a kit for creating non electric peripherals that mechanically give info to the gyros and IR camera. It isn't pretending to play with that stuff you make, they interact with the joycon to become actual controllers of what your doing\\n\\n\", \"Labo is similar to google cardboard in the sense that the cardboard portion of your purchase simply holds your existing technology's multiple sensors (in this case your nintendo switch), and allows you engage in augmented reality play.\\n\\n[Here's a good demo video](_URL_0_)\", 'The right joy-con of a Nintendo Switch has a shiny black sensor at the bottom. This sensor, when you point it at stuff, can sense the shape and distance of the stuff. Sort of like a Kinect, if you\u2019ve ever used one of those.\\n\\nPiano:\\n\\nWhen you slide the right joy-con into the cardboard piano, then pressing keys down on the piano makes other things inside the piano move. The joy-con senses what those things are and, judging by the shapes and positions, the Switch is able to tell which keys are being pressed.\\n\\nThe Switch then plays notes that go with those keys, so pressing a cardboard key makes the Switch play the note for that key.\\n\\nThe piano is small so it won\u2019t have as many keys as a real piano, but it\u2019s a neat start.\\n\\nRC car:\\n\\nBoth joy-cons have a rumble feature, meaning that they can vibrate. Most video game controllers have rumble features now. Most games usually use it to make the controller shake when your guy in the game gets hit, which makes it feel more real.\\n\\nWith Labo, you attach the joy-cons to the cardboard RC car and then you press the Switch touchscreen which has touchscreen buttons for left and right. If you press the \u201cleft\u201d touchscreen button, the joy-con on the right will shake and that\u2019ll make the car turn left.\\n\\nThe RC car won\u2019t have wheels and so it\u2019ll need to be on a flat surface to work. Will it work on carpet? I dunno, I guess we\u2019ll find out.', 'How does the \"vr\" robot set work? It looks like the vr acts as a single lense piece that you wear in front your eyes so when you look at your tv it acts as a pseudo vr thing?', \"It's just nintendo taking a bit of the virtual out of virtual reality.. Like playing counterstrike with a cardboard gun instead of a mouse and keyboard\", \"It's a mixture of the motion sensing in the joycons and the IR camera in the right joycon for certain things like noticing which piano key is hit. There's a surprising amount of tech in those little joycons\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Bd3HUMkyU&amp;t=129', 'https://mrcn.st/t/labo.jpg'], [], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3Bd3HUMkyU'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1775, "q_id": "6nb46x", "title": "why, at least i know in the u.s., are public funds sometimes used to help build private stadiums/arenas?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nb46x/eli5_why_at_least_i_know_in_the_us_are_public/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dk83v57', 'dk84c3o', 'dk858km', 'dk860h1', 'dk8dh2o'], 'score': [17, 6, 11, 2, 3], 'text': ['Because of the \"expected\" economic revenue said Stadium will bring to a city and surrounding areas. In most cases, it pays off, although the question is always going to be: \"Why is a person worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars not paying for their own stadium?\" of which the answer would be \"Because they don\\'t have to when there are cities around the country that will fight to have the team in their city and be willing to pay for a large amount of the funding.\"', \"Because the public often supports them.\\n\\nIf you are Oklahoma City and you don't have a major professional sports franchise, your citizens might support public money to a new stadium to lure one to move.\\n\\nOr if you are Minneapolis, and have team you have supported for decades, when an owner started dropping hints about moving, you support a new public stadium to keep the team in town.\\n\\nOf course, it doesn't always work that way, cities have grown a little weary of billionaires hold their sports teams for ransom.  San Diego and Oakland basically told their teams to take a hike.\", '[This is a picture](_URL_1_) of Downtown San Diego before they built the Padres stadium in the early 2000s\\n\\n[This is a picture](_URL_0_) of downtown San Diego several  years after they built Petco Park\\n\\nA stadium and the regular traffic it brings in can be a huge windfall to an area.  It encourages development and improves the tax base *if done correctly*\\n\\nPetco Park has helped dramatically improve the city economically.  It has 100% been worth the public money spent on it.', 'It\\'s the \"we\" mentality of professional sports.  How many times have you heard someone refer to their team as \"we\"?  Dumb people take personal and emotional ownership of sports franchises in their geography and act like they matter.  The owners know this and will continue to exploit it for their own financial gain. ', 'Most major sports leagues in the US are monopolies. As such, if you are convinced there is a Civic or financial upside to having a team in your city, you may have to compete against other cities to convince one to locate in your area. Public stadium financing is a popular bribe or inducement depending on how you look at it for a team to move to your city. The teams want to maximize ticket sales and minimize costs, and seem to think newer, larger, and nicer stadiums help with that.\\n\\nActual economic impact is not clear, but sports fans talk about it a lot anyway.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EVAfter.jpg', 'http://voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EVBefore.jpg'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2349, "q_id": "33n4wf", "title": "why do video game companies bloat their games with drm even though pirates always find a way around it? can't the experienced company programmers defeat the pirates?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33n4wf/eli5_why_do_video_game_companies_bloat_their/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqmh4ae', 'cqmh6co', 'cqmhjyg', 'cqmk2zv', 'cqml63y', 'cqmlqts', 'cqmmyyl', 'cqmoifm', 'cqmv923', 'cqmwith', 'cqmyl2b', 'cqnkwqs'], 'score': [37, 10, 52, 2, 3, 7, 14, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2], 'text': [\"DRM-bloat *is* the experienced company programmers' attempt at defeating the pirates. As you say yourself, the pirates always find a way around it.\", 'No matter how good you are at said skill, there is always someone better at it. With this logic, no matter how good they companies are, someone is better at breaking a game than they are at fixing it.', \"Nobody believes that DRM is going to prevent piracy, it's there to slow it down and make pirating the game inconvenient. \\n\\nIt's the difference between having the game available on torrents an hour after launch that can be installed and run just by double clicking the icon and having it on torrents a couple of days after launch that requires a bit of reading to get it working. \\n\\nPeople are willing to pay to get things quicker and with less effort.\", \" >  Can't the experienced company programmers defeat the pirates?\\n\\nOnly by defeating the regular, paying users as well. This happened sometimes. It doesn't really need much experience.\\n\\nSome clever authors found smarter anti-piracy measures, such as allowing pirates to play the game seemingly as normal, but making it increasingly frustrating, towards unbeatable or unplayable. The protection is not harder to circumvent, but nonpaying players typically don't suspect there is a protection to circumvent. It lead to really bad review ratings, but those are easily pointed out to be a pirate's story.\\nProblem: it doesn't seem to increase incentive to buy rather than pirate, while apparently DRM does.\\n\\n\\n... Also, they still make bloating DRMs? I'm *such* a sucker for Steam and Blizzard -_-\u00b0.\\n\", 'Because they have to show their shareholders that they are doing something to stop people from pirating the game, even if that something is going to be ultimately useless.', 'All you have to do is make more money of the DRM than you would have if you didn\\'t include it. Let\\'s simplify and say that including DRM has the following associated costs (we\\'ll ignore \\'brand damage\\', like people not buying future games, and other costs for simplicities sake):\\n\\n-Development costs of the DRM: $500\\n-Lost sales due to customers disliking DRM: $250\\n-DLC sales lost from unhappy customers: $100\\n-People returning the game because DRM prevents if from playing: $100\\nLoss: $950\\n\\nHowever, by preventing the game from being torrentable immediately, a small fraction of people who were on the fence about torrenting vs buying now cave in and buy the game. If these people\\'s sales exceed $950, the DRM is worth it. Furthermore, the DRM might be developed for one game, but used for future games, meaning including it in future titles won\\'t even cost the full $500.\\n\\nHaving said that, the data isn\\'t usually as clear cut (hard to quantify gained sales vs lost sales for including DRM, for example). However, I think it\\'s fair to say that these companies have some reasonable data supporting their decisions. I\\'m not entirely convinced that DRM is \\'useless\\' like most people seem to think. It might be, but the mere fact that companies, with access to way more data about their products than us, are so adamant about using it leads me to believe that there must be some argument for it. Or maybe it is costing them money and they just don\\'t have the data to realise it.\\n\\nThe point is, whether it\\'s actually good or not isn\\'t just a simple case of \"people hate it\" or \"it\\'ll get cracked anyway\".\\n\\nAnother pro-DRM argument is maybe the technology is costing them money on products sold today. But maybe they\\'re just using today\\'s products as guinea pigs to make better DRM for a future generation.', 'Someone could just break your window to get in your house. Does knowing that keep you from locking your front door?', 'Its a balancing act between putting in enough DRM to stop those who are looking for convenience (for whom a torrent, for its speed, may well be easier than paying), but not overdoing it and driving away too many real customers due to the DRM.  \\nExamples of DRM messing up are SimCity, where it made the game almost unusable for a fair while after launch, or Windows Live giving certain people big issues, while others barely noticed its existence.  \\nMeanwhile the Witcher series continues to ship with no DRM, and still sells very well, producing customer loyalty, although coming with the side effect of (looks like) no DLC.\\n\\nUltimately theres no right or wrong answer to the question of \"How much DRM should we use?\", but the implementation of more online interactions and Digital Game Stores with integrated DRM systems, developers are using less and less \\'bad\\' DRM (at least, now the servers for those systems seem to be stable enough). The music industry found its middle ground, all be it not really applicable to games, and the movie industry followed suit somewhat, the games industry just has to come to that happy medium, hopefully without having to remember 20 different accounts, but if thats the solution then its better than always online requirements (that don\\'t even work).', 'Lots of people are answering the why question, but not really the other. \"Why can\\'t experienced company programmers defeat the pirates?\"\\n\\nImagine that you have to build a castle that keeps undesirables out, but still lets you and all paying customers in.  In order to keep everyone \"bad\" out, you have to consider every single possible way that they could get in.  They could sneak through the front, they could sneak through the back, they could dig underneath, they could catapult over the walls, they could be ninjas, or have magic, bribery, proper disguises, and ALL the other things I didn\\'t just think of.\\n\\nHowever, when you are a sneaky pirate, all you have to do is know a bit about castles, see this one, and figure out ONE of the ways the company dood didn\\'t think of to get in.', 'DRM is like the walls of a fortress protecting against an invader army, depending on the weapons and abilities of the enemy it will fall sooner or later, you just expect to make it so inconvenient so that the attackers either give up or you have enough time to get to safety. In this case the time will probably buy you sales and increase your profit. No DRM is perfect but some are advanced enough for people that really want the game to buy it and avoid the hassle.', 'I\\'ll answer in two parts because there are two questions:\\n\\n1. Games get bloated DRM because of the people in business suits. See, almost every game you see involves two main forces: the **developers** (the ones who actually do the programming) and the **publishers** (the ones responsible for distribution of the game, from the creation of the physical copies to marketing. Also, usually, they are the ones with the budget to enable development). Usually, the publishers, in a misguided attempt to generate bigger sales, bosses the devs around to include some sort of DRM to ensure that the game \"can\\'t be copied\". This takes additional resources and development time. Done too much, and you will see the development studio go belly-up, screwed by the publishers, since they\\'re usually the ones with the money. Developers really can\\'t combat the publishers with regards to business decisions most of the time, so when they say it needs DRM, it WILL get DRM. Publishers are usually also not that tech-savvy, so when the DRM backfires they don\\'t learn their lesson.\\n\\n2. No amount of experience can totally eradicate piracy. All code will eventually get broken, so the best you can do is to obfuscate it enough, so that the critical period (around 1-2 months of release) will more or less be pirate-free. The only true way to combat it is to treat your customers as the responsible adults they are, since DRM only adds inconvenience, which the pirated versions won\\'t have.\\n\\nTL;DR: DRM is stupid and useless because pirates will break the copy protection anyway, regardless of the method used. DRM is the wrong way to combat piracy because it assumes guilt on the part of the paying consumer.', 'At the end of the day, its impossible to write unhackable software without also controlling the hardware. As soon as someone gets a usable version of the code (buys the game), its over. A hacker can turn off whatever safeguards you have if you cant control them changing the memory. Its just a matter of time.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 149, "q_id": "1xcjsr", "title": "Why did Germany stop using the Gothic script halfway through WWII?", "selftext": "According to [the wiki](_URL_0_) it is because Bormann thought that it was discovered the script was designed by Jews. I can't help but think that there are other reasons though.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xcjsr/why_did_germany_stop_using_the_gothic_script/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cfa9ook', 'cfaa6xc', 'cfaafco', 'cfagd6t', 'cfaiks2'], 'score': [43, 58, 35, 5, 2], 'text': [\"Hey guys, just a general, thread-level reminder here :) \\n\\n* **While sources are not required in a top-level comment, they are heavily encouraged.** \\n\\n* **While brevity is the soul of wit, a choppy answer helps no one.** If you're posting no more than one or two sentences to the OP's question, please don't answer. [We have standards that we do not hesitate to enforce](_URL_0_) here - so please, be considerate to other posters :)\\n\\n* **Remember the original question.** \\n\\n* **Please don't speculate**. If you don't know the answer, or otherwise aren't willing to follow the standards that I linked above, then again...please, just upvote the question and keep an eye on it. Someone will come :)\\n\\n* **If all you can offer is a link to Wikipedia, please do not post.**\\n\\n* **Racism is unacceptable here. Similarly, civility is mandatory.**\\n\\n* **If you do not know the answer, then please do not post.**\\n\\nThanks again!\", 'Scripts are a little detached from my niche, but to offer a response:\\n\\nThe German script debate is mirrored by the [War of the Romantics](_URL_0_), the moniker given to the debate among the German intellectuals regarding Germany\\'s cultural/ideological identity. There were two camps which were broadly labelled conservative and progressive.\\n\\nThere was a lot of this going on in German culture affecting everything from the Brothers Grimm to Wagner. One side advocated enshrining the mysticism associated with German history while the other wanted to modernise. This reflects the [Antiqua-Fraktur dispute](_URL_1_). The \"ideological connotations\" Wikipedia mentions are the aforementioned ones.\\n\\nFraktur, on the Gothic side, represented the mystic German history I glossed over, while Antiqua (despite its name) was considered the more modern alphabet. [Bormann and others in power were modernists](_URL_2_) and saw Antiqua as the way forward in German supremacy. It wouldn\\'t surprise me if Blackletter typefaces were called Jewish to speed this along.\\n\\n\\nNow, while this may be the \"theory\" behind the shift, in practice it\\'s probable that Blackletter wouldn\\'t have held up happily to the pressures of European support of Antiqua/Latin typefaces anyway, considering Germany\\'s place in Europe.', 'Ach.  I am on the road now so I don\\'t have my references with me.\\n\\nBut as I recall it was due to eligibility issues.  The old gothic and [fraktur](_URL_0_) fonts which were being used were difficult to read for those that had not grown up with them (ie .. the people in the occupied territories.)\\n\\nEspecially .. s, f, z, l, t, j .. are tricky and can easily be mistaken for one another.  And you also have to add confusion from slavic names like \"Sojczynski\" and you can imagine how a lot of confusion would come up as things go back and forth between the occupiers and the occupied.\\n\\nWhen it concerns military orders, or police lists of people to be arrested, etc .. you don\\'t want to have people bickering over misread names, addresses, and other details.\\n\\nSo the story was concocted that the old fonts had Jewish \"taint\", and a more eligible font was introduced.  Because of course, the Gothic/Fraktur fonts, being traditionally German and therefore superior, couldn\\'t just be called \"hard to read and problematic\".', 'From a quick survey of the online sources from the [German Wikipedia article](_URL_3_), hence all links are in German except if noted otherwise.  \\n\\nThe Antiqua-Fraktur dispute dates back to the beginning of the 19th century and it appears that usually the nationalists preferred Fraktur. But the front lines in the dispute were not settled enough to prevent the use by left wing groups during the Weimar republic. ( [Social democratic propaganda poster](_URL_4_) )  On the right Hitler apparently disliked Fraktur. In 1934 he said in a address to the Reichstag (translation [English Wikipedia](_URL_1_))\\n\\n >  Your alleged Gothic internalisation does not fit well in this age of steel and iron, glass and concrete, of womanly beauty and manly strength, of head raised high and intention defiant ... In a hundred years, our language will be the European language. The nations of the east, the north and the west will, to communicate with us, learn our language. The prerequisite for this: The script called Gothic is replaced by the script we have called Latin so far ...\\n\\nBut this did not lead to a coherent policy, [in 1939 high-schools were still ordered to teach both](_URL_0_) \"German and Latin script,\" that is Fraktur and Antiqua.  Additionally, on 7/30/1937 the Propaganda ministry forbade Jewish publishers to use Fraktur. Which was a demand of the *Deutsche Studentenschaft* ( German student union) from 1933. \\n\\nAn interesting detail is, that the NSDAP party newspaper *V\u00f6lkischer Beobachter* was [set in Bernhard-Fraktur](_URL_2_), a font by the Jewish designer Lucian Bernhard, until after the banning of Fraktur. The publisher of the *V\u00f6lkischer Beobachter* was at the meeting referenced in the Normalschrifterlass. And it is a temptation to speculate, if these two are related. \\n\\nFriedrich Beck notes in his 2006 essay on the topic ([German, pdf](_URL_5_)), that the banning of Fraktur was puzzling especially for Germans abroad, and he sees it as a expression of dictatorial power. That is, it is simply a matter of Hitlers personal preference, rather than some deep reason.  ', 'Fun fact: the memo that [Bormann released](_URL_0_) to mandate the changeover to modern script was printed with the Nazi party logo in Fraktur (Gothic) script.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwabacher']", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jsabs/what_it_means_to_post_a_good_answer_in'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Romantics', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiqua-Fraktur_dispute', 'http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&amp;type=summary&amp;url=/journals/modernism-modernity/v003/3.1fritzsche.html'], ['http://www.google.de/imgres?sa=X&amp;espvd=210&amp;es_sm=122&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=643&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbnid=IuWTcUi0n5RntM%3A&amp;imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2FEBchecked%2Fmedia%2F129064%2FSeven-black-letter-fonts-by-Rudolf-Koch&amp;docid=ZzZch8cTYfecVM&amp;imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-1.web.britannica.com%2Feb-media%2F75%2F132375-004-156D683B.jpg&amp;w=450&amp;h=450&amp;ei=22v2UoarLqqa4wT2oIDYAQ&amp;zoom=1&amp;iact=rc&amp;dur=1605&amp;page=1&amp;start=0&amp;ndsp=18&amp;ved=0CI8BEK0DMBE'], ['http://vau-ef-be.beepworld.de/frakturverbot.htm', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiqua-Fraktur_dispute', 'http://home.arcor.de/lutz.schweizer/schrifterlass.html', 'https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiqua-Fraktur-Streit', 'http://imgur.com/6dl5J0Q', 'http://opus.kobv.de/fhpotsdam/volltexte/2007/28/pdf/Beck.pdf'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schrifterlass_Antiqua1941.gif']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2874, "q_id": "cdwmq7", "title": "Tuesday Trivia: People Using Really Cool Technology! (This thread has relaxed standards\u2014we invite everyone to participate!)", "selftext": "Welcome to Tuesday Trivia!\n\nIf you are:\n\n* a long-time reader, lurker, or inquirer who has always felt too nervous to contribute an answer\n* new to /r/AskHistorians and getting a feel for the community\n* Looking for feedback on how well you answer\n* polishing up a flair application\n* one of our amazing flairs\n\nthis thread is for you ALL!\n\nCome share the cool stuff you love about the past! Please don\u2019t just write a phrase or a sentence\u2014explain the thing, get us interested in it! Include sources especially if you think other people might be interested in them.\n\nAskHistorians requires that answers be supported by published research. **We do not allow posts based on personal or relatives' anecdotes.** All other rules also apply\u2014no bigotry, current events, and so forth.\n\n**For this round, let\u2019s look at:** Fifty years ago we went to the MOON! Let\u2019s celebrate by telling stories about people inventing and using really cool technology, from the wheel to, well, the moon!\n\n**Next time:** Heroes of the Battlefield\u2014When They\u2019re *Off* the Battlefield", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cdwmq7/tuesday_trivia_people_using_really_cool/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['etwtn7o', 'etwwcc4', 'etwybtl', 'etx23nj', 'etx2o89', 'etx4r9a', 'etx65yr', 'etx7qy5', 'etxcju8'], 'score': [36, 13, 23, 26, 11, 12, 25, 17, 25], 'text': ['From a chapter I wrote as part of a book proposal that unfortunately never ended up going anywhere:\\n\\nThe patent for the first commercially produced electric guitar, the Ro-Pat-In \u2018Frying Pan\u201d, was filed in June 1934. But if we step back: the acoustic guitarist in the age before amplification has a major problem: volume. A well-made acoustic guitar, strummed hard, certainly can fill a room. However, in a club full of people, or in a theatre, the acoustic guitar just wouldn\u2019t be loud enough to compete with, say, a big band full of trumpets and saxophones and clarinets. This issue is amplified by the fact that a melodic part on an acoustic guitar is even more likely to get drowned out by noise than strummed chords; the carefully plucked single notes of a melody or a solo are considerably softer than six strings strummed rhythmically. Which is to say that, before consistent amplification, the best a guitarist in a big band could do was to provide a plunky-plunk rhythmic backing.\\n\\nIn 1926, George Beauchamp, a guitarist making Hawaiian music \u2013 a style very much in vogue in the 1920s, and a style based around acoustic guitars \u2013 visited the Los Angeles shop of a Slovakian-born instrument maker, John Dopyera, despairing of the lack of volume of his acoustic guitar. Together, they designed the resonator guitar, made of solid aluminium, and featuring a design that channelled sound to \u2018resonator cones\u2019, both of which helped to significantly increased the volume of the guitar. With backing from Beauchamp\u2019s rich cousin, and with Beauchamp\u2019s connections putting the guitar in the hands of some of the more prominent Hawaiian guitarists, the National guitar was a hit. However, Beauchamp and Dopyera butted heads and bickered over designs and copyrights, and Dopyera left the company in 1928, starting another resonator guitar company with his brothers called Dobro. Dobro eventually bought out National in 1932, by which time Beauchamp was thinking beyond National and resonator guitars.\\n\\nThe components that would go into the electric amplifier were essentially all assembled by 1921, when the modern speaker \u2013 the kind that uses electricity to convert electrical signals into vibrations of paper cone to create sound - had been created by a collaboration between General Electric\u2019s Chester Rice and AT & T\u2019s Edward Kellogg. The modern speaker solved a problem that had been created by Lee De Forest\u2019s invention in 1907 of the vacuum tube/valve tube. The vacuum tube used electricity to heat up metal plates inside a vacuum; this had the effect of increasing the voltage of the electrical signal, thus amplifying it. De Forest saw its potential, saying that it was \u201can Aladdin\u2019s lamp of our new world, a lamp by which one might hear instead of read.\u201d With the ability to amplify a signal thanks to De Forest, and the ability to then vibrate a material to turn that electrical signal into a reasonably accurate sonic representation of the signal, the amplifier was born. \\nThe first way in which vacuum tubes and paper cone speakers changed the way that people heard the world was in radio. The clarity of the sound that could be heard on AM radio signals via vacuum tubes and paper cones was unprecedented, and in the swinging optimism of the 1920s before the Great Depression, vacuum tube-powered radios were an enormous commercial sensation, with a speed of take-up that rivalled the internet in the 1990s. Less than a decade after the technology arrived, in 1929, 35-40 percent of American homes had radio receivers. The rapid take up of radio meant that there was now a viable radio industry, with radio stations playing a world of different music suddenly available to people in the privacy of their own homes. This was a period of genre cross-pollination; on record, jazz trumpeter Louis Armstrong played on recordings by Jimmie Rodgers, the biggest star of a newly popular genre that would become known as \u2018country music\u2019. And why not?\\n\\nMusic was no longer regionally or ethnically limited. In Bob Dylan\u2019s (admittedly sometimes-unreliable) memoir, *Chronicles*, he discusses how, growing up in Hibbing, Minnesota, he would sometimes be able to listen to signals from radio stations from stations in places like Memphis, 1500km to the South. Similarly, Elvis Presley, a white boy from Tupelo, Mississippi, grew up listening to the black radio stations of the South, exposing himself to music that his parents wouldn\u2019t have been able to teach him.\\n\\nThe principles of the vacuum tubes and speakers in radio would soon impact other sonic mediums. In 1924, technicians at Western Electric, essentially reversing the principles of vacuum-tube/paper-cone amplifiers, came up with the first viable electrical recording system, with electrical microphones that convert sound waves into electrical signals.  Before this point, recording was acoustic; musicians essentially played into a horn much like a gramophone horn, and the vibrations were channelled through the horn onto a medium that would record the disturbance of the vibrations. Acoustic recordings in this format sound almost unlistenable to most modern ears; they had a limited frequency range and sounds needed to be loud indeed to be heard. For example, in order for violin sounds to be heard on such acoustic recordings, instruments like the Stroh-violin were devised, which added a metal horn over the Violin\u2019s soundholes in order to amplify the sound. But after electrical recording became the norm, the Stroh-violins of the world got turfed into junk shops \u2013 once sound quality improved, it was obvious that they didn\u2019t sound as good as a proper violin.\\n\\nAdditionally, if amplifiers exist, and microphones exist, public address (PA) systems are possible. As PA systems in music venues came to be the norm, a singer no longer had to sing in full-bore operatic style to be heard over a loud band. This enabled singers like Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra to sing in front of a band in the style of a \u2018crooner\u2019. Such technology also enabled the move from silent films to \u2018talkies\u2019 like *The Jazz Singer* starring Al Jolson. Such technology also enabled the electric guitar.\\n\\nFresh from inventing the resonator guitar, but still wanting guitars to be louder, Beauchamp began experimenting with amplifying the guitar. Initially experimenting with early carbon button microphones, Beauchamp eventually pulled apart a Brunswick phonograph for its \u2018pickup\u2019, an electromagnet and a coil of wire which picked up the sounds made by the needle as it navigated the grooves of a 78rpm record spinning around. Beauchamp\u2019s crucial insight \u2013 perhaps born from a similar place to his insight with the resonator guitar that the body of the guitar need not be made of wood \u2013 was that if he put a pickup near the strings of the guitar, it didn\u2019t matter what the rest of the guitar was. The pickup would pick up the vibrations of the string, converting it to an electrical signal to be sent to an amplifier.\\n \\nBeauchamp devised pickups more optimised for the guitar than the phonograph pickup he started with, and he fashioned a prototype with the help of Adolph Rickenbacker, Paul Barth and Harry Watson, now nicknamed the \u2018Frying Pan\u2019. By 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, Beauchamp\u2019s formerly rich cousin was rather poor, and so the funding to manufacture the \u2018Frying Pan\u2019 was put up by Adolph Rickenbacker and his wife Charlotte. Perhaps for this reason, the brand Ro-Pat-In faded, and the new electric guitar became known as the Rickenbacker Electro. The Rickenbacker Electro became accepted as an instrument useful for the \u2018lap steel\u2019 style common in Hawaiian music, where the guitar is placed on the lap of the musician. In this style, instead of pressing down on the strings with the fingers of one hand while strumming with the other, the strings are pressed down on with a \u2018slide\u2019 \u2013 a metal or glass cylinder that can be placed against the strings and slid around. However, the principle of the electric guitar could also be applied to other ways of playing the guitar.\\n\\nBeauchamp didn\u2019t successfully patent his pickup design until 1937, five years after the Rickenbacker Electro went on sale. In the intervening years, numerous competitors \u2013 Dobro, Gibson and Epiphone included - put their own versions of the electric guitar on the market. Many of these had considerably more graceful designs than the ugly Frying Pan, and some of them were designed to be played \u2018Spanish\u2019 style \u2013 i.e., with the guitar on a strap around the body, facing outwards from the standing musician (in other words, the normal position for a guitar in the second half of the 20th century that you\u2019ve seen in thousands of photos). One electric guitar designed to be played Spanish style was the Gibson ES-150, released in 1936. This was a semi-acoustic hollow-bodied guitar \u2013 meaning that it\u2019d still make a decent sound even if it wasn\u2019t plugged in \u2013 which cost $150USD, a sizeable amount in the Great Depression \u2013 thus the name of the guitar, code for it being an Electric Spanish guitar worth $150. One ES-150 fell into the hands of a jazz guitarist named Charlie Christian. \\n\\nChristian was perhaps the first guitarist to see the true potential of the electric guitar. Where other guitarists had seen it as a sort of Hawaiian guitar novelty, Christian had the dexterity and the imagination to see the electric guitar into an instrument that rivalled the saxophone and the trumpet for sheer power, versatility and solo within a big band context. Christian\u2019s licks and riffs were, of course, very widely imitated, though he only recorded a few \u2018sides\u2019 \u2013 songs or tracks that were on one of the sides of a record, in other words - before passing away in 1942.', \"Somewhat related to yesterday's Age of Empires thread, [here is a guy firing a repeating crossbow](_URL_1_), also known as a Chu Ko Nu. It is named after a general from the Three Kingdoms Period in China, Zhuge Liang, where Chu Ko is Zhuge in an older Romanization and Nu means crossbow. He lived around 200 AD but didn't actually invent the repeating crossbow, it is older than that. It is the [Chinese unique unit in Age of Empires 2](_URL_0_).\\n\\nThe contemporary Greco-Roman world had ballistae, but the Chu Ko Nu was seeing use in China about 1000 years before the crossbow became common in European warfare. It was [used to defend Korea](_URL_2_) when the Japanese invaded in the late 1500s, squaring off against the Japanese firearms. \\n\\n Anyway that's all I got, I just thought it was cool to see it in action in that video, and that it's neat that there was a machine gun crossbow being used in China almost 2000 years before machine guns were invented.\\n\\nSome sources:\\n\\n*Prenderghast, Gerald. Repeating and Multi-Fire Weapons: A History from the Zhuge Crossbow Through the AK-47. McFarland, 2018.*\\n\\n*Gies, Frances, and Joseph Gies. Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel. 1994.*\", 'Some of my favorite moments from history are how often the people of Belgium go out of their way to make a mockery of both themselves and everyone else. \\n\\nExamples include: \\n\\n\u2022 the Mannekin Pis, the mascot of Brussels which is just a little boy peeing. They purposely hype up the presence of this statue so that people come from all over to see the magnificent Mannekin Pis only to laugh at tourists when they see a disappointingly small statue of a little boy peeing. When I visited it I also got to watch the mechanic increase the water pressure so it peed all over a crowd of tourists.\\n\\n\u2022 Lions Mound Park which commemorates the Battle of Waterloo. It\u2019s an amazing feat of landscape architecture and engineering but the designer also made the enormous lion statue to be roaring toward France and simultaneously show its hind to England.\\n\\n\u2022 the 2016 Brussels Bombings were a tragic terrorist attack on an otherwise peaceful nation and while conducting a search for the terrorists, the federal government asked that Brussels citizens stay off social media to keep themselves and the officers safe. Instead of staying quiet, the citizens spammed websites like Twitter with cat pictures and bad puns to make any useful information that had been leaked to terrorists impossible to find under a mountain of cats. \\n\\nAll of these moments plus the overall attitude of the country\u2019s people is hilarious to me, where some people are proud of their country\u2019s tenacity in war or devotion to faith I am proud of my country\u2019s lack of f***s to give to anyone.', 'Technology in Greater Iran is almost synonymous with two things: icemaking and irrigation.\\n\\nPerhaps the most iconic among these is the [Yakhdan or Yakhchal](_URL_2_) (literally, \"Ice container\", \"Ice pit\"). These were used in the form of simpler pits from ancient times (1st milennium BC), evolving into the domed towers (with ice stored below ground) widely used well into the mid-20th century; a few dozen remain today. It isn\\'t exactly clear how this evolution occurred; rudimentary ice storage is first documented in Assyria in the 2nd milennium BC, but there seems to have been an expansion in advanced irrigation systems and consequently probably ice-making structures during the Achaemenid era; Pierre Briant suggests that it was the result of a tax relief for irrigation granted by Artaxerxes II. The structure encourages hot air to rise and escape, while colder breezes can enter through the holes in the structure, making for a surprisingly effective refrigeration system. These could also be combined with [Badgirs](_URL_3_), wind-catchers, for even better ventilation. In its most extravagant form, water is continuously allowed to flow around the dome to cool by evaporation.\\n\\nThe most impressive feature is perhaps the shallow pools ([yakhband](_URL_4_)) used to make ice in the winter, exploiting the cooling achieved by evaporation and radiative cooling toward the clear night sky. When a nearby mountain top was not available for harvesting ice, these were capable of enough ice production to keep the yakhchal stocked. \\n\\nThis brings us to discuss the irrigation channels, _karez_ or _qanat_ (the latter is an Arabic loanword more common in the Western regions), the ingenuity of which are illustrated by [this diagram](_URL_1_) courtesy of Encyclopaedia Iranica. Essentially, in the highlands, you extract water from the saturated aquifier. Then you allow this water to flow through a canal into lower field lands where it will end up above the aquifier, seep into the ground, and thereby irrigate the field land. This essentially increases the elevation of the aquifier.\\n\\nThe major advantage of this system is that it is _continuously discharging_, which is to say, unlike surface level channels which depend on the river level, it cannot dry out in the summer (though the rate of discharge will vary). The major disadvantage is the labour and know-how needed to maintain the underground tunnels (often cited as a reason for population declines following e.g. the Mongol invasion, when these systems were disrupted). The systems required significant investment to be constructed, and according to [this interesting Iranica article on the socio-economic context](_URL_0_) it is unlikely that small communities of farmers could get together to build one. Rather, wealthy landowners or perhaps royal stipends would be necessary to construct them. However, the process of inheritance meant that they could end up in communal hands.\\n\\nThe combination of simplicity of construction (however laborious!) and conceptual ingenuity inherent to these technologies never ceases to amaze me.', ' >  Saw a demonstration of television last Saturday. Very vague  &  flickering.\\n\\n- H. P. Lovecraft to Robert E. Howard, 25 Oct 1933, A Means to Freedom 2.654\\n\\n >  Saw a demonstration of television the other day at a local department store. Rather like the blurred, flickering biograph films of 1898.\\n\\n- H. P. Lovecraft to August Derleth, October 1933, Essential Solitude 2.612\\n\\nWhat Lovecraft saw was a demonstration of the [Sanabria Mechanical Television System](_URL_0_). This was well before television was a household appliance - it was basically a novelty, dragged out at sideshows and demonstrated to crowds that still primarily went to theaters, nickelodeons, and silent films.', 'This comes from a lecture I gave last year at the Catholic University of Chile.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nLet\\'s travel to one of the most popular time travel destinations in many people\\'s minds: renaissance Florence. We\\'ll take a look at the invention of one of the most important and famous instruments in the history of music, both in the West and in the whole world: the piano.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nIn *The early pianoforte* (1995), Stewart Pollens, a luthier and musical instruments expert, quite renowned in the musicological sphere, describes the process by which a 33 year old man from Padua came to be in the service of Ferdinando de\\' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany. From the beginning of his principate, Ferdinando dedicated time and resources to the preservation and promotion of the arts in all its forms. He was also very interested in engines and machines in general, fascinated by their complexity. This two interests may have led him to recruit Bartolomeo Cristofori, a Venetian musician an luthier, to work for the court. While there is no concrete evidence of Cristofori being appointed as an inventor, it seems likely due to the nature of his work.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nDuring the later years of the XVII century, Cristofori worked on the invention of several variants of the harpsichord, and, according to Pollens, he may have started a new project in 1698, but evidence of this date is inconclusive. \\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nFor the next years he worked on an idea: to create a harpsichord that was able to produce less metallic, more harmonious sounds. Making some fascinating changes to the traditional structure of the harpsichord, most notably the use of larger, softer, leather covered hammers that, according to Denzil Wright caused the sounds to be less metallic by affecting the vibration of the strings. The strings were also modified; Pollens notes that the surviving instruments that Cristofori created had iron and brass strings. He named his instrument the arpicembalo, which translates as harp-harpsichord, because of the harmonious characteristics of its sounds.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nWe don\\'t know what those instruments sounded like, because the only surviving ones are simply unplayable, but we know this much: according to *The Piano: a history* by prof. Cyril Ehrlich, the first instrument was recorded in one of Ferdinando\\'s inventories of instruments, dating from 1700, as \"*Un Arpicembalo di Bartolomeo Cristofori di nuova inventione,* ***che fa\\' il piano, e il forte****, a due registri principali unisoni, con fondo di cipresso senza rosa(...)\"* , which translates to \"*An \"Arpicembalo\" by Bartolomeo Cristofori, of new invention that produces soft and loud, with two sets of strings at unison pitch, with soundboard of cypress without rose(...)\".* \\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nThe invention, later known as forte-piano or pianoforte, became the preferred keyboard instrument in Florence and, gradually, became popular in the rest of Europe, eventually becoming the XVIII century piano model that we know today.', 'In early 1896, a young medical student in the *Mekteb-i T\u0131bbiye-i \u015eahane* (Ottoman Military Medical School) named Esad Feyzi read an article in a French medical journal on a certain Roentgen\u2019s photography through opaque objects. Inspired,the young doctor acquired a Ruhmkoff coil, a Crookes tube and a powerful battery, installed the Roentgen apparatus and immediately replicated the experiments in the military hospital in Istanbul, using a younger medical student\u2019s hand. Though this probably wasn\\'t the first usage of Roentgen\\'s photography technique in the Ottoman Empire, this was the one that\\'s most influential. Esad, alongside with his collaborator Rifat Osman and helped by physicians and lecturers in the school created their x-ray machine that year.\\n\\nBy the time the Greco-Turkish war broke out a year later in 1897, the medical students were eager to put this invention to use. A temporary hospital had been set up on the Sultan\u2019s Yildiz palace grounds to treat the wounded, and Esad Feyzi and his collaborator wrote to its medical director, Cemil Pasha. In their letter they spoke of their patriotic gratitude upon reading the news of the wounded being treated in the palace\u2019s hospital, and offered the services of their x-ray technology to help determine the exact locations of bullets or shrapnel. They went on to suggest that the application of this new technology would lead to the rightful recognition of Ottoman medicine in the civilized world as the first to use x-rays in military surgery, and could also save the wounded from long suffering. Permission was granted in 1 May and Mehmet of Boyabat was the first wounded soldier x-rayed to determine the precise location of shrapnel in his right wrist. The head surgeon of the hospital removed the shrapnel, and the radiographic film of the arm was presented to the Sultan Abd\u00fclhamid by Divisional General Cemil Pasha. The team then was awarded by the Sultan with medals.  When a team of German Red Cross doctors and surgeons arrived in Istanbul in 22 May with an x-ray machine from Berlin, they were surprised and amused to find a Esad\\'s cobbled-together version of the machine already in use at the temporary hospital for the wounded on the palace grounds, and expressed their admiration at this early application of radiography which was then, an emerging branch of medicine all over the world. The German team then installed their x-ray machine, and both the German and Turkish doctors at Temporary Yildiz Military Hospital continued working on the radiographic captures\\n\\nAfter the war, Esad Feyzi, by now officially a doctor, published his knowledge about x-rays in a book aptly titled \"Roentgen Rays, its Medical and Surgical Application\" issued as a manuscript in 1898. The book comprises the author\u2019s experiences on X-rays in a 2-year period. Esad Feyzi gives information on electricity, introduces tubes, explains the X-ray photography technique and film development. He also excerpts various medical and surgical applications of Roentgen rays, ending with a list of possible uses for this new technology. In addition to military surgery, forensics and prenatal diagnosis he suggested that x-rays would help identify fake diamonds and investigate packages sent through the newly reorganized postal system. The book includes many sketches of upper and lower extremities drawn by Esad Feyzi himself, and supplemented with 12 X-ray films in original dimensions. The third X-ray machine was imported from Germany and installed in 1899 at that Military Medical School Clinic under direction of Cemil Pasha.\\n\\nAfter Esad Feyzi\u2019s sudden death of sepsis due to erysipelas in 1902, Sufyan Bey worked and led the Roentgen laboratory alongside Cemil Pasha from 20 June 1903. Protection from the harmful effects of X-rays was unknown at those early years, and many doctors died because of it. For instance, Ibrahim Vasif, Sufyan Bey\\'s successor who worked as assistant at the same laboratory, died of cancer due to the severe damage of X rays. The fourth X-ray machine was brought from Germany to Gulhane postdoctoral clinic attached to the Medical Faculty at the disposal of Dr. Deycke, the chief of staff and Rifat Osman who was charged in the Roentgen department. The fifth machine was installed at Haydarpasha Military Hospital in Istanbul, the sixth at Hamidiye Children\u2019s Hospital under the direction of Rasih Emin, who was raised by Esad Feyzi and died due to radiodermatitis. The seventh machine was the first to be installed in the provinces, that is Selanik Civilian Hospital in 1902 operated Kamil Mazhar Bey. The eighth machine was also installed in the province, that is in Izmir in a clinic operated by a Greek doctor George Illiadhes who was offered the civilian title of Pasha in recognition of his services to the public after the devastating earthquake that hit the area around Aydin in 1900. In the following years oculist Albert Englaender started his career as radiologist by opening a private laboratory in Istanbul in 1905 and published his first radiological findings on cancer therapy by X-rays in 1906. In 1908, the Greek Hospital in Istanbul installed an X-ray machine that was operated by Dr. Vassilios Savvaides. Dimitrios Chilaiditi, another Greek national opened his practice at Istanbul in 1910 and soon acquired international recognition due to his observations of the syndrome that bears his name.', \"When we think of some technological inventions and the eventual success they become, we oftentimes forget about how most inventions failed or how some of these *eventually* successful inventions had a more than dubious start to them, as the *vroedschap* (city council) of Doornik (Tournai) in Flanders would experience in 1346.\\n\\nThe members of the *vroedschap* had invited master Pieter van Brugge - an engineer and an expert on gunpowder weaponry - to their city in order to witness a demonstration of a primitive form of cannon. The field outside the city was considered to be a suitable location for this demonstration, and as such master Pieter van Brugge did the honours, primed the cannon, and fired it. It worked! It did not blow up in the faces of the master engineer or the *vroedschap* members. However, it was not a success either. The lead covered wooden ball, for reasons unknown, veered off course, over the city walls, and struck a man in the street, killing him instantly. This man had the dubious honour of being the first recorded casualty of gunpowder weaponry in the low countries.\\n\\nSadly, the sources do not record how the demonstration influenced any further decisions on the matter by the *vroedschap* but one could imagine they were not immediately impressed by the device's accuracy.\\n\\nSources:\\n\\n*Ronald de Graaf, Oorlog om Holland 1000-1375 p. 51, in turn using quotations from Gaier, L'Industrie des Armes, p. 120.*\", 'Checksums are useful for various programming purposes.  What a checksum is, is that you add up something to check for errors.  For example, a human checksum would be checking that you entered your credit card number correctly by adding the digits and making sure it matches a known value.  This allows a computer to check for corrupted data much more quickly and easily than actually checking the data.\\n\\nBut, contrary to what big computer science would tell you, this wasn\u2019t invented by programmers\u2014it was invented by Jewish scribes in the early Middle Ages (well, they used it anyway).  Before spellcheck, scribes faced a problem\u2014it\u2019s very hard to copy a text by hand with perfect accuracy, even if you\u2019re really trying hard.  This became a big problem for Jewish scribes, who wanted to copy the biblical text perfectly.  Hebrew has somewhat flexible spelling rules and there are many words that are sometimes spelled in different ways, so even just reading through a text won\u2019t make errors obvious.  Even checking side-by-side can make it tough to spot minor spelling differences.\\n\\nFor scrolls in ritual use, there wasn\u2019t much of a solution.  But when books started being used, which Jewish tradition didn\u2019t mind having annotations in, a solution was developed\u2014the checksum.  Basically, scribes would add up letters and sentences in a portion and note the proper value.  Scribes would know the correct value (using a convenient mnemonic) and could count up letters or words, and know the text was correct.  This was aided by the system in Hebrew for assigning values to letters, which meant that the values could be summed, in addition to the quantity of letters which makes two errors that cancel each other out somewhat less likely.  This also makes it easy to come up with mnemonics\u2014you just figure out a word or phrase whose numerological value is the checksum.  This way scribes can check not just that everything says what it ought to, but that every word is intact.\\n\\nBut they went even further.  This method still is susceptible to errors cancelling each other out, as I noted, and makes it tough to find errors\u2014you know there\u2019s an error, but you won\u2019t know exactly where because the checksum covers a potentially lengthy portion.  Here the checksum methods go further.  The scribes began to note unusual spellings of words, and made marginal notes (in an opaque system of Aramaic abbreviations) to note the spelling and occurrences of a particular word.  By comparing notes a scribe could check for the most likely errors in spelling of a text.  These marginal notes also noted when a word in an existing text might look like a scribal error, but isn\u2019t, and the scribe should be attentive not to \u201ccorrect\u201d the text, either accidentally by copying from memory or intentionally.  Of course in a complex and old manuscript tradition what version really is \u201ccorrect\u201d is not always discernable, but these scribes were attempting to maintain a standard.  They also noted traditional unsual letters, such as letters that are traditionally extra-large or extra-small or have some other unusual appearance.\\n\\nBy and large they succeeded\u2014within the Jewish tradition there\u2019s a great deal of uniformity in the consonantal text, which is what the checksums cover.  Unfortunately nowadays these features are not printed generally, because computers allow much faster and more reliable checking, and printed Hebrew bibles do not all have the features for scribal writing.  But some still have the checksum for portions, and either way it\u2019s a cool historical innovation to maintain an accurate text.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/7gvcgv/unique_unit_discussion_chu_ko_nu/', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4reL9No73s', 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Navalzhugenu.jpg'], [], ['http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kariz_3', 'http://www.iranicaonline.org/uploads/files/Kariz/kariz-fig01.jpg', 'http://iranontrip.ir/public/user_data/images/The-Ice-Chamber-of-Meybod-1.jpg', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher', 'https://i2.wp.com/www.fieldstudyoftheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/DSC07977.jpg?ssl=1'], ['http://www.earlytelevision.org/sanabria_theater_tv.html'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 423, "q_id": "eufgrx", "title": "How do twisted pair wires reduce electromagnetic interference?", "selftext": "I've scoured the web and I just keep finding sources that elaborate what a twisted pair is or their history. I cannot find anything that explains how twisting 2 wires around each other insulates them and prevents magnetic fields affecting them. Are they creating their own protective magnetic field? What is happening?\n\nEdit: what a great turnout! Seriously thank you everyone for the replies. Everyone explained it a little differently, but in the end it helped visualize it for me.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/eufgrx/how_do_twisted_pair_wires_reduce_electromagnetic/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ffp8qpx', 'ffp97yf', 'ffp98pk', 'ffpgp5d', 'ffpzvai'], 'score': [28, 9, 5, 8, 5], 'text': ['The signals are transmitted over both wires in opposing polarity, but the EM interference picked up will have the same polarity. When both signals reach the other end, one is inverted and the signals are summed. What you end up with is \u201cnoise cancellation\u201d of the interference. This happens because both wires will carry a mostly identical interference signal, but by \u2018re-inverting\u2019 the original signal, you\u2019ve now inverted one of the interference signals. When those are summed, the opposite interference cancels out, while the signal you want to keep gets added together and becomes stronger.', \"In a twisted pair, each wire carries a differential signal that is the opposite polarity of the other.  This means that the actual data is the difference between the 2 signals.  Since they are opposite of each other, they cancel out each other's emissions.  Any external signal that tries to induce a voltage on the wires, induces the same voltage on them (common mode), which doesn't affect the difference.\", 'It\u2019s all about [differential signalling](_URL_0_). In a nutshell, if both wires gets affected by the same noise, by using a pair to send the signal and it inverse and summing both wires on the other end, the noise should cancel itself out.', 'Lets compare two wires that are twisted together to two wires that simply run along side each other.  Two wires that run along side each other form a big loop, with the area in the loop contained between the two wires to the points at the end of the wires where the two join the transmitter and receiver at each end.  From Faraday\\'s law, we know that a changing magnetic field in a loop of wire induces a voltage.  Therefore the two wires form a long and narrow loop to pick up stray magnetic field interference.  On the other hand, if the wires are twisted together, they form a loop, but the magnetic field lines intersect the loop in the opposite direction for each twist of the loop because that part of the loop goes from facing up to facing down, and then facing up, etc.  So while you get magnetic induction, the voltages from the even twists cancel the voltages from the odd twists, and there is little net induced voltage.  \\n\\nAdditionally, if you use differential signaling, there is a further advantage.  Twisted pair is a balanced transmission line, so that the voltage on one wire is the opposite of the other, and it is the difference in the voltage that indicates the signal level.  If an electric field is applied along the twisted pair, a voltage potential exists along the wire.   This voltage can sometimes be much higher than the difference voltage between the two wires.  By using a differential line driver (for example RS-422) and receiver, the two wires are driven with opposite voltages given a digital signal at the transmitter and the voltage difference is turned back into a digital signal at the receiver, while the effect of the common voltage is greatly reduced.\\n\\nA further complication is that in general, it is not desirable to connect the grounds on multiple pieces of separated equipment that could be on very different circuits, because a \"ground loop\" might be formed.  A ground loop is when there are multiple connections between the grounds of two pieces of equipment that are actually at different potentials forming a loop in which noise can be picked up.  For example, a 50/60 Hz hum heard in audio speakers is often due to this problem.  Because the absolute voltage level of a differential signaling line is not important, differential signals can be transformer or magnetically coupled, so that the two grounds are not connected by the signaling path.  Ethernet magnetics/transformers are for passing the differential signal through using magnetic coupling but isolating the grounds so that multiple pieces of equipment can be connected together without being concerned about noisy and occasionally  dangerous potentials between them.', \"1) twisting the wires scrambles the far field (ie any EM effects from a distance of more than 3-5x the twist length), so they're unable to efficiently lose energy to EM waves. They're also frankly terrible at *receiving* interference for the same reason.\\n\\n2) Signals on twisted pairs are transmitted differentially, which means the transmitter pulls one up and the other down, then swaps. The receiver is carefully designed to only look at the difference in the voltages, not the absolute voltage vs ground like conventional signals. When electrical interference hits the cable, it tends to make both wires go up and down together, which the receiver ignores.\\n\\nThey're only effective with balanced transmitters and receivers, you can't just put any random signal on a twisted pair and expect it to magically get better.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling?wprov=sfti1'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 175, "q_id": "9meps8", "title": "What is the historical event behind the Pied Piper legend?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9meps8/what_is_the_historical_event_behind_the_pied/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e7eyx70'], 'score': [7], 'text': ['Hi, not discouraging further contributions here, but FYI /u/itsallfolklore has tackled this question a couple of times\\n\\n* [Is there any truth behind the Pied Piper fairytale?] (_URL_0_)\\n\\n* [What are the origins of the Pied Piper legend?](_URL_1_) ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8nsto6/is_there_any_truth_behind_the_pied_piper_fairytale', 'https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kbutq/what_are_the_origins_of_the_pied_piper_legend']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 332, "q_id": "8d5dlg", "title": "Do recreational drugs effect different ethnic groups differently?", "selftext": "I'm not trying to sound or be racist racist. I'm curious about the effects of drugs on different ethnic groups. I believe certain drugs may effect people with certain DNA SNP's differently. I put my DNA into a SNP reader and it says I could have poor metabolization to certain medications. So I was wondering if the effects of say alcohol on someone who's say British/Irish ethnicity would differ to someone who's say Japanese ethnicity.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8d5dlg/do_recreational_drugs_effect_different_ethnic/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dxkkrej', 'dxklop4', 'dxl73pi'], 'score': [16, 7, 4], 'text': [\"Well, Native Americans metabolize alcohol differently than Europeans do. It makes alcohol much more potent and thus addictive and deadly. (Don't read this as Native Americans are more likely to be alcoholics.) It's due to a missing liver enzyme.\\n\\n\\n\", 'So I\u2019m not aware of any such effects that occur to *all* or *most* members of a given race (e.g. \u201call white people receive more of a high from THC\u201d). There is however the pretty well-known example of \u201cAsian Flush\u201d, where something like 36% of people of East Asian descent lack a particular enzyme necessary for breaking down one of the metabolic byproducts created as the body processes alcohol (I think? I\u2019ll rely on someone smarter than I to make sure I got that right). [Here](_URL_0_) is a video by Vox explaining it, and \\n\\n[this](_URL_1_) is the wiki page on it. ', \"The state of colorado did tests where groups of people would get high on known quantities of marijuana then drive in a driving simulator with various scenarios where they can measure attention and reaction times. They were attempting to establish legal standards for marijuana intoxication similar to those already established for alcohol. The results were not helpful for their goal. They found that heavy marijuana users could have very high concentrations of THC or whatever it was they were measuring, and still be relatively unaffected. Others who were never or infrequent users would be greatly incapacitated with even minor levels. The results were not consistent across similar experience groups though. There was a small set of people whose reaction times got much better when they were high/had high levels. Not everybody who was a neophyte/lightweight got floored by small doses, and some heavy users still got pretty bad with small doses.  It does suggest there may be genetic differences in different people's responses to the drug in addition to there being some correlation between prior usage and the response. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6717bNakuA', 'https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2580, "q_id": "4wg3st", "title": "what are those 'inside itches' we can't scratch?", "selftext": "The sensation of an itch, but it feels under your skin and you can't make it go away by scratching it. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4wg3st/eli5_what_are_those_inside_itches_we_cant_scratch/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d66scm9', 'd66sfvl', 'd670wya'], 'score': [3061, 69, 165], 'text': ['It\\'s because the nerves responsible for sensation **on your skin (called \"dermatomes\") look like [this](_URL_0_).\\n\\nEach one of those lines correspond with a region of the brain that causes sensation. Notice how there are 3 sections in the hands alone, but 3 sections in the entire leg. Your hands need to be much more sensitive, which is why there are more nerves dedicated to those areas than the legs or arms (for example). \\n\\nSo when you can\\'t get that itch, it\\'s not that it\\'s *under* the skin, it\\'s that it\\'s in a different area completely. You just can\\'t tell very well, because the nerves aren\\'t as accurate in some areas, and you\\'re just feeling that there is an itch in that general direction instead.', \"Your skin is many layers thick, and there are different nerves present in each of these layers. Some nerves are deeper, others are closer to the surface. If the itch is being caused by a neuron that's in a deeper layer of your skin sending signals to your brain, scratching the surface of the skin might not stimulate that neuron enough to make the itch go away.  [Here's](_URL_0_)  a figure showing all the different kinds of neurons you have in your dermis and epidermis as well as their relative depth in the skin. They all respond to different kinds of sensation, such as pressure, vibration, pull, stretch, light brush, etc. If you find scratching an itch doesn't make it go away, try stimulating the skin in a different way! Rubbing it, pushing down, etc.\", \"Basically your sensory nerves are confusing your brain.  The nerves are telling your brain the itch is in one place when it's really in another.\\n\\nA common related example, though not an itch, is when someone has an injury near the groin - their entire leg may feel pain, or just a particular part of their leg or foot may feel pain.  The injured nerve near the groin is responsible for carrying the messages from the legs as well, and so it can send a confusing message to the brain when it's injured, signalling pain the leg, when there really is none.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/445845/Brittany_Blog_Images/Locating-and-alleviating-pain-with-the-dermatome-chart-and-estim.png?t=1469557207573'], ['http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n3/images/nrn2993-f1.jpg'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 144, "q_id": "222qwm", "title": "why do pain killers such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen help with fevers as well?", "selftext": "Suffering through a cold right now and thought I'd pose the question. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/222qwm/eli5why_do_pain_killers_such_as_ibuprofen_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgiubko', 'cgiux5o', 'cgiuy8n', 'cgivhi9', 'cgix4j9', 'cgixsd7', 'cgiy75z', 'cgiyae4', 'cgizvjj', 'cgizwh9', 'cgizyq5', 'cgizysx', 'cgj33uo'], 'score': [57, 20, 14, 5, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3], 'text': [\"Don't know what the second one is but can answer for ibuprofen. It belongs to a class of drugs knows as nonsteroidal anti-inflammitory drugs(NSAIDS). Basically inflammation is your body ramping things up to deal with a situation. This involves the release of chemicals that cause inflammation, which(among other things) create pain through direct contact with nerves. They also create fever through a number of mechanisms that basically serves to create a hot hostile environment for what ever is invading your body and increase blood flow to the affected area. NSAIDS work by reducing the amount of these inflammatory chemicals being released in the first place.\", \"Interestingly it is argued that the use of antiinflammatory and antipyretic drugs should perhaps be avoided with mild fevers and colds as you're counteracting some of the responses needed to effectively clear the infection! \", 'Acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and some other common over-the-counter drugs are \"non-opiod analgesics\" (EDIT: also called NSAIDs, as someone else in the thread mentioned). They work by inhibiting certain mechanisms in the body, including the ones that cause inflammation. Basically, your cells can produce a lipid (fatty) compound called prostaglandin. It\\'s part of your body\\'s immune/pathogenic response, or how your body reacts to an infection, presence of a foreign body, or trauma. It encourages functions that help your body fight off pathogens and begin to heal.\\n\\n\"Inhibitors\" work in a particular way. Essentially, your cells have what are called receptor sites where certain chemicals and compounds can \"connect\" to the cell, if you will. Inhibitors work by taking up some of those spots so there\\'s less room for whatever chemical you\\'re trying to prevent from affecting the cell. Imagine that for whatever reason you want to keep a particular group of people off of a bus. You could try to get other people to fill in all of the seats first. Not a perfect analogy, but I think it sort of helps.\\n\\nProstaglandin causes inflammation and an increase in temperature, i.e. a fever. Fever, swelling, redness, and pain are all generally interconnected as part of your immune response. To a certain degree, stop the prostaglandin, stop the fever. Prostaglandin also has many other functions, including controlling smooth muscle structures in your body, like blood vessels and the intestines, which is why people who fear they are having a heart attack or are having chest pain will often chew a few \"baby Aspirin.\" It causes widening of the arteries which can help resolve issues with blood supply to the heart muscle.\\n\\nUltimately, the prostaglandin is one of the common factors in the fever, headache, and sore throat you might be experiencing. Acetominophen and ibuprofen can\\'t stop it from being generated really, but it keeps that stuff from getting where it needs to be to cause a fever, etc. I hope this was helpful, I\\'m really weak when it comes to pharmacology but I\\'ve always found it interesting. Feel free to correct me.', 'NSAIDs such as ibuprofen (acetaminophen/paracetamol is not a NSAID) reduce inflammation and reduce pain by inhibiting the action of the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX). The COX-1 enzyme is responsible for the protection of the stomach mucosa from its own acids. The COX-2 enzyme is responsible for the prostaglandin synthesis. Prostaglandins act as messenger molecules in the inflammation pathway -- one of the symptoms of inflammation happens to be fever, thus by reducing the amount of prostaglandins the inflammation response reduces, reducing the fever.\\n\\nSome NSAID drugs non-selectively inhibit the COX enzyme, meaning that it inhibits COX-1 and COX-2, which is why it is recommended that these are taken with food, as food reduces the effects of the acid on your stomach mucosa. This also explains why your stomach might hurt after you take one of these drugs without food/water. Drugs, such as Celecoxib, selectively inhibit COX-2, reducing this gastric distress.\\n\\nAcetaminophen/paracetamol  is not considered a NSAID because, although it does inhibit COX-2, it only does so in the central nervous system, only blocking the pain, and not the localized inflammation.\\n\\nTL;DR -- NSAID painkillers inhibit an enzyme necessary for an inflammatory response, thereby reducing fever with it.\\n\\nEdit: Spelling', 'Paracetamol is a far more effective treament - its anti-pyretic (anti fire), a COX-2 inhibitor (Cyclooxygenase being part of a biological pathway that causes fever, 2 being the particular receptor it acts on) and it affects the hyperthalmus (bit in your brain that controls temperature) to reduce body temperature back to normal (stopping your fever).\\n\\nIbuprofen is, as pointed out, nonsteroidal anti-inflammitory drug (NSAID) which stops inflammation through the same \"Mechanism\" as Paracetamol (just its less selective about what it targets). It\\'s effect on a fever isn\\'t as good as Paracetamol, and it is mainly used to treat muscle pain/headaches more than fever\\'s. \\n\\nAlso note, its very dangerous to take Ibruprofen if your taking Warfarin (blood thinner, anti-coaulant). That is because they both compete with one another and have a higher impact on the body.\\n\\nAnd don\\'t forgot, cold and flu remedies are a cocktail of drugs that affect other areas like the throat and nose to help alleviate the symptoms of a cold.', 'I must say, what everyone told you here is true. But ibuprofen just doesn\\'t have the same antipyretic (fever reducing) effect that Paracetamol (acetaminophen) does. Paracetamol is theorized to also work in the hypothalamus in your brain to change what the body temperature should be (this is a theory). Ibuprofen, while reducing mediators such as prostaglandins, doesn\\'t have a direct effect on your temperature because \"only\" IL-1 and IL-6 (interleukin 1 and 6) work in your brain causing you to have a fever. Prostaglandins can activate your white blood cells to produce these Interleukins and so ibuprofen may indirectly reduce your fever but that is not what it was meant to do. It also cannot do it as well as acetaminophen. How acetaminophen works....is still a mystery.', 'When a part of your body is inflamed, that is, when there is anything illiciting an immune reaction(Bacteria, injury etc). Five basic things happen. In medicine these are called\\n\\nDolor(pain)\\n\\nCalor(heat)\\n\\nRubor(redness)\\n\\nTumor(swelling)\\n\\nFunction laesa(loss of function)\\n\\nThis may be very localized or more systemic, depending on your illness.\\nWhat drugs like Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen(paracetamol) do, is to inhibit the mediators of these inflammatory responses, thereby reducing the pain, swelling, redness etc.\\n\\nMore specifically, they inhibit something called cyclooxygenases in your body (COX-1 and COX-2), which are vital to the synthesis of prostaglandins. Prostaglandins, amongst many other things, are responsible for raising your body temperature when you have a fever.\\nThey act on the hypothalamus(control center) in your brain, which generates a systemic temperature-increasing response.\\n\\n\\nAs an added note, prostaglandins are also important for the formation of the mucus membrane lining your stomach. That is why excessive use of these blockers might make you more susceptible to ulcers, especially if combined with other risk factors.\\n\\nAnother useful fact is that acetaminophen(paracetamol) follows the same pathway of metabolism as does alcohol. This is why it is not advised to combine the two, as you run the risk of exceeding your livers capacity for detoxification, and causing liver damage.\\n\\nSource: Medschool', 'As someone who has a severe allergy to ibuprofen, (or NSAIDs for that matter) I can tell you that Acetaminophen  &  ibuprofen are certainly not the same thing. \\nNSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have anti-inflammatory (swelling reducer), analgesic (pain reliever), and antipyretic (fever reducer) effects, while Tylenol, or acetaminophen is a pain reliever.  Acetaminophen relieves pain by elevating the pain threshold, that is, by requiring a greater amount of pain to develop before it is felt by a person. It reduces fever through its action on the heat-regulating center of the brain. Specifically, it tells the center to lower the body\u2019s temperature when the temperature is elevated. Acetaminophen relieves pain in mild arthritis but has no effect on the underlying inflammation, redness and swelling of the joint. \\nAcetaminophen is actually a safer choice than ibuprofen. \\n', 'Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen kill pain by destroying the spiders that feed on your organs and muscles (your immune system is less able to destroy the spiders when they attempt to enter your body while you sleep if you are ill or becoming ill). The spiders usually create nests in your brain (and sometimes your entire body) and these nests are very warm. These drugs are not only good at killing the spiders, but also their nests, so your fever goes down as the millions of spider babies in the nests in your brain die.', \"Some of the responses make me feel like we shouldn't sell such basic things OTC.  People just don't seem to understand how to take them or even they what they are.  They can have serious side effects people!  Read your labels! \", 'Well little dilli, let me tell you....\\n\\nWhen your body has trouble with bacteria or a big ouchy a little cell called the white blood cell comes to the rescue. Think of it as the superhero of the body, protecting the rest of the cells from evildoers. One of its jobs is to shoot out little magic bullets called cytokines including a specific group called interleukins. These interleukins go about setting up the different defense mechanisms of the body. Think of it as a game of a strategy game where you have to build up the different defenses to protect your base. One of the defenses is to raise the body\\'s temperature. Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are \"antipyretics\" which means they fight the fire of increased body temperature by overriding those interleukins in part of the brain. This can be a good thing in cases of high temperatures that backfire and cause more harm then good. In the case of a mild fever though let it ride little dilli because it will help fight off whatever ails you!', \"Ibuprofen- anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antipyretic\\nAcetaminophen- analgesic, antipyretic \\n\\nEven though its not an anti-inflammatory, acetaminophen is still an antipyretic, hence it's ability to help with fever\", \"When you take any drug, it essentially has two types of effects on you. The effect(s) its intended for (Therapeutic effects) and the effects that occur that are not intended (non-therapeutic/side effects). \\n\\nJust like Barbiturates and Benzodiazepines help raise the threshold of seizure activity (makes it harder for someone who is prone to seizures to start convulsing), other drugs have positive side-effects.\\n\\nThough, I wouldn't recommend anti-inflammatory or opiates to help with a fever. Stick to Motrin. \\n\\nedit: typo :(\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 44, "q_id": "1ihljt", "title": "why does the word 'liberal' refer to the left in the us?", "selftext": "I assume it is because of the lack of a significant 'socialist' movement. In much of Europe, for example, liberals are considered centrist or even fiscal conservatives. Why is this not the case in the US? It confuses me.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ihljt/eli5_why_does_the_word_liberal_refer_to_the_left/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cb4ih44', 'cb4ik7a', 'cb4kkeq', 'cb4orvv', 'cb4p0wo'], 'score': [11, 22, 16, 2, 19], 'text': ['You assume correctly. The lack of a real socialist movement in the US means that the only opposition to the right-wing movement is liberalism, and politics in the US are so skewed to the right that people mistakenly just throw liberalism and socialism together when they\\'re really two very different ideologies.\\n\\nA quick example would be gun control: Leftist revolutionary thought would suggest freer access to guns, indeed the Republicans even passed gun control laws as a reaction to the Black Panther movement, but liberals and (whatever measure of) socialists alike are now on the pro-gun-control side of the debate.\\n\\nThe two-party system of the US also plays a part in this. The Democratic party is a mishmash (not intended to be pejorative) coalition of progressives, neoliberals, hold-out socialists, moderates and not-far-right-enough-conservatives. These factions all have to band together under a \"Not Republicans\" banner because they can\\'t get any national play otherwise. And then people start considering \"Democrats\", \"liberals\", \"progressives\", and \"socialists\" as interchangeable terms and it gets even more confusing.', 'The word liberal originally meant something like \"people should have liberty.\" That meant stuff like elected government, rule of law, that kind of stuff. No one is really against that anymore so anyone can call them selves \"liberals\" by this old meaning. \\n\\nIn the 20th century, one group of liberals became important in the US and a different one in Europe.  They both came out of the old meaning of liberal so they both called themselves liberal. \\n\\nIn the US the thinking was something like, \"To give people more liberty the government needs to help them out when they are down.\"\\n\\nIn Europe it was something like, \"To give people more liberty the government needs to get out of the way.\"\\n\\nBoth are still about liberty but how to get it was very different.\\n\\nAn important note: Conservative\\'s aren\\'t against liberty. Of course not, By the old definition, conservatives are also liberals.  The opposite of a conservative isn\\'t a liberal by that meaning, it\\'s a progressive. ', 'In the U.S. the \"liberal\" politicians are actually centrists, and sometimes even fiscal conservatives (and sometimes not), just as they are in Europe. the difference here is that in Europe there is usually an actual political party to the left of liberal politicians. there are actual Marxists, socialists, communists, etc. In the U.S. there is no political party to the left of liberal politicians. the entire political spectrum in this country is shifted rightward so our \"left\" isn\\'t really the left, its the center. ', 'I disagree with a few here. I mostly see it as definitions being flipped every once in awhile as opinions change and the parties with liberal/conservative/progressive labeling change with them. The lack of a real socialist movement caused a lot of that in the early 1900\\'s and later in the 50s. But, for example, the Democratic part held the south for a LONG time and for awhile was the party of segregation; the longest serving Democrat in the house up until 2010 was in the freaking Clan. All the major democrats of the era were stalwart segregationists : Strom Thurmond, John C. Stennis, Carl Vinson. And then the party was led in a new direction in the 60s/70s by a different sect of the party aka Kennedy, LBJ, Carter. That\\'s how we got to our current definition today. Republicans today are a big difference between the Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln or even before that Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican party. That party, in a weird irony, lines itself with what would be considered modern Republican ideals (less government), but is the forerunner to the Democratic Party.\\n\\nUS history has a lot of big moments where the two party system basically flip flopped their ideals to stay relevant in whatever was going on at the time. The civil war was one, communism\\'s rise was another, and the Cold war caused another. The segregation issue with the Democratic party is the best example of one party doing a complete 180 simply to appease changing opinions. \\n\\nIn actuality all are some form of what would be, in the rest of the world, a centrist or liberal viewpoint with neither aligning with a \"right\" or \"left\" political stance. But Democrats can be very very conservative on certain issues. For example, gun rights are an extremely liberal viewpoint historically. But the Republicans\\' support of the patriot act is horrifying to anyone against big government. If we were to have a two part system divided equally on issues purely on right leaning values (more government = more problems) and left values (more government to help) it would be the Libertarian party and the progressive element of the Democratic party. ', 'Liberal was originally used in the US in a similar context to what is used in Europe. This is often called \"Classical Liberalism\". The modern sense of the word came into major use under FDR. \\n\\nWhere FDR\\'s policies were very \"Progressive\", that word was practically banned in American politics during his era. Wilson (a known progressive) getting the US involved in WWI and many other things lead to the word \"progressive\" being blighted. Roosevelt started to use the word \"Liberal\" to describe his policies and from then on \"Liberal\" has been associated with the Left in American politics.\\n\\nInterestingly enough, the use of \"Liberal\" in the left forced another switch. The word \"Libertarian\", which once described various groups of communists and anarchists, was adopted by the right, for the most part, in the United States. Many US libertarians are quite close in ideology to \"Classical Liberals\"']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 325, "q_id": "iver9", "title": "Assuming it comes into contact with (only) dust-sized particles, will the Voyager 2 probe eventually be destroyed by pieces of dust smashing into it or going through it? How long could that take?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/iver9/assuming_it_comes_into_contact_with_only/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c26zdc6', 'c26zint'], 'score': [3, 2], 'text': ['I see no reason why not. \\n\\nMy guess is when is really hard to estimate, as I understand it the science behind how things break apart is very complex. Also, different parts could break before others, etc. \\n\\n', \"It could, but it's impossible to say for certain, there are too many variables we don't know. It's likely that eventually Voyager 2 (and 1) will pass near or through a stellar system (or several), which would significantly raise its chances of hitting something large enough to be destroyed. That said, there's a reasonably strong change that the Voyager probes will still be around largely intact for perhaps billions of years.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1292, "q_id": "3w827z", "title": "when we are put out for surgery we remember nothing, why do we think death will be any different?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w827z/eli5_when_we_are_put_out_for_surgery_we_remember/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxu2a37', 'cxu2g0e', 'cxu2ykh', 'cxu32s5', 'cxu44ez', 'cxu5n2y', 'cxu94ti', 'cxu9sxd', 'cxua44d', 'cxuapw2', 'cxubomu', 'cxubu9a', 'cxucewt', 'cxudqn9', 'cxudr7t', 'cxudu1e', 'cxueh05', 'cxueixb', 'cxuesly', 'cxuetlc', 'cxufdfv', 'cxufrq6', 'cxuftre'], 'score': [131, 8, 255, 11, 53, 15, 37, 19, 2, 6, 7, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"You don't wake up after death?  At least most of the time.\", 'I remember lots from being under anaesthetic for surgery. Nothing coherent or intelligible -- colour, sound, brief flashes of emotion, etc. -- but I still remember it. Your experiences do not represent those of ~7 billion people. ', \"Fear. People make up stories to comfort themselves. Or each other.\\n\\n\\nOnce we exist we want to continue to exist because those of us without that drive, didn't survive.\", 'People like being alive and are afraid of it ending so they need to believe that there is SOME way that they can live on after they\\'ve already died.\\n\\nit makes them feel better about the inevitability of their own death.\\n\\nMany people who struggle in life also want (need) to believe that some how they will get what they \"deserve\" and the belief in an afterlife where they will be happy helps them deal with the fact that their life isn\\'t where they\\'d like it to be.\\n\\nThen there\\'s the loss of others.  Much like how people don\\'t want to accept that their own life will end eventually, it can be even harder when someone they care about dies before they do.  The idea of never seeing that person again can be devastating for some people and the belief that that person lives on somewhere else that you will go to eventually helps them live with the loss of that loved one.\\n', \"I have my own beliefs about the afterlife, but for me the biggest curiosity is just as OP stated.\\n\\nWhen I'm sleeping, or under anesthesia,  I have no recognition of time that past. For instance, when I had a surgery earlier this year, the anesthesiologist was talking to me, and in the middle of my sentence hit the juice, I woke up 3 hours later, trying to finish my sententence because I was out and to me it felt no different than blinking. \\n\\nAm I the only one that thinks feels like that?\\n\\n\\n\\nI think it's because I can't comprehend the idea of falling asleep and never waking up, because in my mind it's an immediate transition (even though I know time had passed). \", \"Death will be different because we won't return to consciousness.  It will be like the time before you were born. We have all be dead for billions of years, the only difference is that we won't be born this time. \", 'Because the \"nothingness\" *ends* after you\\'re put out by you waking up. You have no memory of the nothingness though. You \"fast forwarded\" through it. Will the nothingness you experience while dead ever end? That\\'s the difference.\\n\\nActually, if the universe exists forever, I think that nothingness does end. As soon as you die you\\'ll \"fast forward\" to having a consciousness again. Atoms will be arranged in such a way at some point in the infinite time of the universe, you\\'ll have a consciousness again and everything that happens in the septillions of years before that will pass in the blink of an eye.\\n\\nThis is assuming the universe doesn\\'t ever end. But what if it does...', '\u201cI do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.\u201d\\n\\n-Mark Twain', 'This question makes me think of how Michael Jackson died.  He never woke up from his nightly anesthesia.  If he were to be resurrected in the future he would just awake and not have known how long he was out for.  Time becomes irrelevant if you have no concept of it.', 'Some people are so self centered they cannot imagine a reality without them in it. So they refuse to accept that they will disappear one day.\\n\\nI usually try to explain that \"after death\" is exactly the same as \"before birth\". It seldom works.', \"I've been officially dead for 2 times. Both times 3 minutes+ \\n\\nI can't remember anything from about 15 minutes before my heart stopped until I woke up in IC 2 days later\", 'My personal belief is that death will not be any different than being unconscious, which is why I am not particularly afraid of death. It would just bum me out to not be able to spend more time with my loved ones.', 'Because religious teachings have instilled the idea of the soul into our collective consciousness, even for people who are not particularly religious.\\n\\nI myself think we simply cease to exist. ', 'Most of us don\\'t exactly recall most of their lives either, just a few lucid moments, and some gray fuzzy goo of images that somehow deep inside feels as our own. What happens right before waking up of deep slumber? Were we all \"dead\" in these in-betweens?\\n\\nPerhaps, maybe, what transcends is not memory, but that fuzzy, dark, velvet-y sense of self we call \"I\". It may need of a sensory capable embodiment, to reflect onto itself and to manifest as \"alive\"; later to continue its journey when that embodiment fades away.\\n\\n', \"There are a few comments talking about before birth and being essentially dead for eons before we're born, but I've been intrigued by the idea that if death sends us to a state that is identical to before we're born then perhaps the cycle just continues. This isn't reincarnation, which relies on a singular consciousness, but that our current consciousness is gone and a new you will be born again as the first available life form, anywhere in this universe or elsewhere. I don't believe there is an escape from existence, from a certain point of view.\", 'To answer part of your question, when we\\'re \"put out for surgery\" under anesthesia, part of the anesthetic cocktail is purposely for amnesia:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nWe have no way of reliably putting people \"out\" - so a lot of the purpose is just to ensure that even if people accidentally wake up during surgery or are conscious during the procedure, at least they won\\'t remember it.', \"TIL after all this time, for thousands of years of humans' debating what happens after you die, finally the actual answer is on Reddit.  Now, which one is the right one?\", \"No, the waking is very different. In Holland they keep you in coma for at least 24 hours. So you wake up slowly in a room with a lot of monitors, wires and at least one infusion connected to you.   Not sure how to prove I'm not lieing. Could copy part of my disability-report but that would be in Dutch and still not verified. \", \"Many people believe that the reason you don't remember during surgery is because you aren't dead yet...Think of people who have near death experiences that see the white light. THey have very profound and lucid experiences and often claim they are more conscious than real life. The debate is obviously whether or not these experiences are caused by chemicals in the brain but many studies show that during these experiences there is zero brain activity. This isn't my personal belief but I am just presenting what the counter argument is. I have family members who have had these experiences and they can't explain it like any other thing in their life. For all of them, their life has completely changed from the experience for the better. Personally, I think when we die we return to the place where we were before birth....No where. No concept of time. We aren't bothered by the fact that we didn't exist before birth so why would we be afraid to return to that place. And for the people that say we die forever, well if that was true then why are we here now? Shouldn't death be permanent? If it's permanent we shouldn't be here in the first place. Just my belief.\", 'Because people are scared of the nothingness. The abyss. The void. They also want to believe that their lives had purpose so they choose to believe that for living a good and purposeful life, they will be rewarded. Also, the idea that small children can get cancer or some other horrible thing happen to them and die before ever really getting to experience life makes them want to believe that the kid is in heaven where things are awesome. ', 'I\\'ve gotten many treatments of electroshock therapy, all which require full anesthesia. \\n\\nThe doctor, nurses and anesthesiologist form a circle around the hospital bed, and tell you when they\\'re about to knock you out.\\n\\nAfter a lot of treatments, I thought \"Is this what a lethal injection is like? What if I died from this?\" I logically knew I wasn\\'t, but I just put myself mentally in that place as I went under.\\n\\nWhen I came out of the anesthesia an hour or two later, it made me think things like, \"Am I the same person?\" \"How would I know if I died and came back?\"\\n\\nAfter that (a lot of other types of recovery) I realized I\\'m not really scared of death itself. The pain before death would be something I wouldn\\'t look forward to, but death itself, IMHO, is probably very peaceful.', 'When you have surgery, the doctor gives you a medicine that causes both anesthesia (sleeping) and amnesia (forgetting). Sleep lets our minds store memories sort of like defragging a computer disk. Neither of these states are meant to be remembered or realized at the time. Death of the brain may be very like these as there would be no physical consciousness or memory by a brain that no longer is alive.\\nHowever, I feel no comparison with death can be made. Death is clearly a stop for mental, cognitive functions, meaning we are not thinking or remembering on a physical level. Few believe that death is a continuation of the physical body we are in at the time of death. Physical death can only explain the sensations of the body. \\n\\nI feel this does nothing to either prove or disprove what other parts of the \"person,\" if they exist, might be doing. If some part of us goes on after death of our bodies, it is most definitely not those very bodies, and therefore, not likely to feel exactly like life.\\n\\nI think this neither proves or disproves that there is something else after life. Apples and Oranges!', \"My best way of thinking about it is I have no awareness of life before I was born. So there will be no awareness when I am gone. \\n\\nI've had two seizures and I don't remember any of it. Nothing. \\n\\nThe afterlife is a lovely fantasy, but that is all it is. A fantasy.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_anaesthesia#Purpose'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 322, "q_id": "1fju1o", "title": "how is it possible for internet searches to get results so quick?", "selftext": "Why is it when I search my computer for a file it takes an eternity, yet I can search something on google, that has to search through......billions? Of websites and usually spit out the perfect result?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fju1o/eli5_how_is_it_possible_for_internet_searches_to/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['caay7h5', 'caaygyu', 'cab2c2y', 'cab65fv'], 'score': [17, 6, 19, 2], 'text': [\"Google actually has servers all over the world constantly updating their data caches of as much information as they can store. So when you search for something, Google is rarely actually searching for whatever porn subgenre you're looking for. It already found it on it's on and stored the information, so when you searched for it, all that data pops up.\", 'Your computer is optimized to store, view, and manipulate files.  Your PCs search function is fairly weak. \\n\\nGoogle keeps an index of all it discovers and they have optimized their software and hardware to search that index at blinding speeds.  \\n\\nThe arrangement of the data, the amount of memory, the data throughput rates, and the topology of the network are all set up to produce incredibly fast results. ', 'Compare these two things:\\n\\nIn the next sentence, find the number of all the words that are \"dog\".\\n\\n\"The dog in the field is a black dog.\"\\nYou found word 2 and word 9.  But you probably had to read the whole sentence and count carefully.\\n\\nUsing the following information, tell me which words are \"dog\"\\n\\nblack: word 8\\ndog: word 2, word 9\\nfield: word 5\\n\\nSee, I did the extra work of reading the sentence and storing where the words are.  I also eliminated the \"useless\" words like \"the\" and \"in\".  And then I stored it in alphabetical order so you could look up anything really fast.\\n\\nGoogle does something similar.  It has a set of information that includes things like:\\ndog: _URL_0_, _URL_1_, _URL_2_\\n\\nSo when you search for \"dog\" it just goes and looks it up and reports it as fast as it can.\\n\\nOn your computer when you search for \"dog\" it goes and reads all your documents.  (except for when you have an indexing service, then it\\'s working more like google, and then it\\'s usually pretty quick).\\n', \"Google has an index, your computer doesn't \\\\*. Imagine it like you're looking something up in a book. Your computer is a small book, the internet is a very large book.\\n\\nNow, your computer book doesn't have an index section so you have to flick through every page looking for the bit you want.\\n\\nThe internet book does have an index, so you can just turn to the back, find the bit you're looking for in the index then go straight to that page.\\n\\nEven though the internet book is much larger, because there's an index you can find something much quicker than in the computer book.\\n\\n\\\\* You can get your computer to create an index, but it's still not as effective as Google's index.\\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dog', 'http://pets.webmd.dogs/default.htm', 'http://pets.webfinder.com/dogs'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1393, "q_id": "3eb7rq", "title": "why piratebay creator is in prison if it was the users who added illegal content?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eb7rq/eli5_why_piratebay_creator_is_in_prison_if_it_was/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctd8mxs', 'ctd8u28', 'ctd90bc', 'ctdbhi2', 'ctdbyh6', 'ctdc0vs', 'ctdc17b', 'ctdc6iz', 'ctdc717', 'ctddmh2', 'ctde3q2', 'ctdep2c', 'ctdepdv', 'ctdf6rw', 'ctdfbi1', 'ctdgkep', 'ctdhgo3', 'ctdhhwn', 'ctdi3ze', 'ctdixr5', 'ctdjrf3', 'ctdkfks', 'ctdktq1', 'ctdljn8', 'ctdm37t', 'ctdmijb', 'ctdnlxc', 'ctdom0x', 'ctdqla2', 'ctdr3r6', 'ctdre29', 'ctdsbqh', 'ctdsu7o', 'ctdsueu', 'ctdt1p0', 'ctdxu6e', 'ctdzhd7', 'ctdzywz', 'cte1dwe', 'cte2ool', 'cte2twm', 'cte74xi', 'cte7f0f'], 'score': [14, 2, 3264, 5, 23, 29, 27, 449, 45, 159, 9, 2, 4, 3, 2, 12, 2, 3, 24, 17, 3, 7, 2, 3, 2, 8, 2, 6, 9, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['I am not familiar with the details of the case, but here are the most relevant points:\\n1, by operating the site/servers the owner(s) were at the very least, aiding in the theft of the files being shared. \\n\\n2, if they made any money from the service, they would have been charged with profiting from an illegal activity.\\n\\nSo while they might not have been uploading the files themselves, they were still participants in one form or another in illegal activity. That is most likely how it is seen in the eyes of international copyright law.', \"This thread will soon be infested with people claiming that the founders of Pirate Bay were convicted despite not having done anything criminal, because the courts wanted to make an example out of them. Well, it just doesn't work that way. \\n\\nIt was criminal. Now, one may like it or not. If we don't like it, let's argue for a change of those laws that they broke. But there's not much room to argue that they didn't break the law, because they did. \", 'Pirate Bay did not take a prudent step to protect themselves. That is the issue. \\n\\nMost times a hosting site cannot be charged for distributing copyrighted or illegal material, because as you say, it is the users who are doing that. However, if illegal activity is brought to the attention of the hosting site and they do nothing about it, it can be argued that they are knowingly and willingly allowing it to happen.\\n\\nWe can use reddit for an example. When the leaked celebrity photos happen, they banned the subreddit that was posting them. They were made aware of the sharing of illegal activity and they took a prudent step to prevent it. This does not mean reddit has to actively search their site for illegal content, but they cannot just ignore it when it is brought to their attention.', '\\n Why do they arrest the driver helping with a bank robbery? ', \"Aren't they [free](_URL_0_) now?\", 'Well, one is in jail now for hacking banks and government records of protected identities (witness protection)', \"There are safe harbor laws that protect site owners from illegal activities of their users. TPB did not work within the confines of those laws. Reddit's does. \", '(Throwaway cause I\\'m admitting to shady stuff in this post)\\n\\nI know quite a bit about this scene because I used to run a tracker (it was a tracker dedicated to anime, nothing as big as thepiratebay). We didn\\'t run any advertisements in our website, what we did was just ask people to donate for hosting, we only asked for the amount that we needed for hosting. We did this like every 6 months and in a few days we\\'d find somebody that\\'d pay our server bills.\\n\\nWe did this because we didn\\'t want to profit from it, not only for ethical reasons but also in the hopes that showing we didn\\'t profit would give us some legal protection/leniency if we got caught.\\n\\nThe vast majority of trackers and sites like that, however, were run for a profit. Thepiratebay was among those 100%-for-profit enterprises that turned a huge profit while portraying themselves as uninterested martyrs. The truth is that bandwidth is hilariously cheap if you don\\'t have specific stability concerns for it. For a tracker, it\\'s irrelevant to have an uptime of \"just\" 98% or a packet loss of 2% (too much for enterprise) or a latency that is 50ms higher than it should, but this kind of bandwidth is really, really cheap. I made calculations once and the piratebay could have been paid for by showing a single banner one day a month. But they had a shit-ton of banners all month long, all that was profit.\\n\\nThe reason there was a conviction is that as soon as numbers were presented in court it became clear to everybody present that the pirate bay was a cynical cash-grab and not an ideologically-driven internet community.\\n\\nEDIT: Here is the verdict in English, _URL_0_ in pages 53 and 58 you can read how the commercial nature of the operation was indeed a factor regarded in the severity of the penalties.\\n\\n >  It has been confirmed that the operation of The Pirate Bay has generated advertising revenue\\nwhich, during the period indicated in the indictment, has amounted to at least SEK 1,200,000.\\nOn this basis alone, the District Court can conclude that the operation was carried on as a\\ncommercial project. This conclusion is confirmed by the correspondence between the\\ndefendants and the fact that the defendants have investigated and discussed various corporate forms which may have been applicable to the continued operation of The Pirate Bay. It has,\\nconsequently, been a question of an operation carried on in organised form. The\\ncircumstances mentioned here also indicate that an increase in the penalty may be\\nappropriate. ', 'The movie TPB: AFK explains it. They responded to requests with \"Please contact the uploader\"', \"The news media really skimmed over this point, but they weren't just running pirate bay, they were users as well.  Once they were investigated as the owners of pirate bay, the investigators tracked down that they had in fact uploaded 33 specific files that were copy-written. \\n\\n[sauce](_URL_0_)\\n\\nMeaning, they were in fact arrested as users, but were only really investigated because they were also the owners. \", \"Most hosting sites make it perfectly clear that if you, as a user, are posting and sharing copyrighted material or illegal content then it's not the site's fault. They can remove it only if the copyright owner makes them take it down... or it's child porn.\\n\\nPirate Bay outright advertises 'Come here for your illegally downloaded movies, pirated games and MP3 rip-offs'. If they said 'We allow users to share files via online cloud storage' they could dodge it... except they were idiots.\\n\\n'We do not participate in the sale or distribution of illegal fireworks... but go ask Bob down the street he has a *ton* of them. You didn't hear that from me.'\", 'I followed the case alot before/during the trial and there is alot of strange things surrounding it, it was a while ago so ill try to find some sources, they will probably be in swedish tho.\\n\\nThey were basically convicted for assisting in copyright infringement, a crime who none had ever heard of before the conviction, its basically the same as convicting a gun manufacturer of assisting in a murder commited by their guns.\\n\\nThe leading investigator at the case left the police department 2 months after the investigation had concluded(before the trial) and got a high position job at warner brothers sweden, who were one of the plaintiffs, and THEN gave testomony in court. _URL_2_\\n\\nThe judge was involved in \"The swedish organisation for copyright\" and was accused of \"bias\" but our \"High court\" rejected the accusation. _URL_1_ English post from CNet about it _URL_3_\\n\\nPeter Sunde who also got convicted basically only helped the site with marketing, this is his story in his own words _URL_0_\\n\\nMy gut feeling on the case was that alot of money were thrown around behind the scenes and the pirate bay guys were made an example of, still think this case is a disgrace to our justice system.', 'For the same reason that someone who drives the car for some bank robbers will go to jail even if they did not physically loot the bank. Pirate Bay was created with the explicit purpose of enabling piracy.', \"Because pirate bay was built for the specific purpose of facilitating the illegal distribution of copyright content. That is illegal. And it's far more damaging than the actions of each individual participating on it. \\n\\nWithout sites like pirate bay, piracy would not be so easy. If everyone who was downloading torrents had to go from person to person it would be much more difficult. Having a single site to find everything is what makes it such a big problem. \\n\\nIt's sort of like asking how the police can charge a mob boss when the mob boss is not doing the actual killing. Without the mob boss the killing would not be organized and as effective. \", \"Its kind of like building a farmers market and letting people sell marijuana at your market .. You didn't do anything but you did build the market. Similar situation with owner of silkroad\", 'ITT: People comparing it to a manufacturer being jailed for when their product is used to hurt someone.\\n\\nBullshit analogy.\\n\\nA better analogy is that of a new store that opens up online.  It\\'s called \"Illegal Weapons for sale!\".\\n\\nTheir slogan is \"Use us to find whatever illegal weapon you want, no questions asked\".\\n\\nTheir website posts pictures of warrants and notices they get from law enforcement tell them they can\\'t sell Stinger missles to 8 year olds.  They respond \"Fuck you, hahah, we\\'ll never stop selling illegal weapons!  Besides, we\\'re not technically selling, we\\'re just a marketplace for buyers and sellers to meet and exchange goods.\".\\n\\nTHOSE owners may damned well get in trouble since they are so damn knowingly breaking the law.  Their \"technically the Stinger missile never went through our physical warehouse since we just connected buyer and seller\" is a bullshit excuse and I\\'m sure the courts would come down as hard as possible on them.  Everything about that site would be there to explicitly enable illegal transactions.\\n\\n', \"Swede here, longtime follower of legalese regarding pirayebay... Fun fact: What ultimately took thesysop's and admin/owners down was an unencrypted email from the lead tech, Gottfrid Svartholm.\\n\\nThe irony in it is that Gottfrid was supergungho about security, encryption and all such things was on him, he encrypted all his comms normally, but never actualy encrypted his OS drive, just 1 unencrypted drive of his was enough to tear a hole in the defense.\", \"They didn't get convicted for copyright infrigement. They were however found to be accessory to copyright infringement, which isn't really surprising considering piratebay is largely used for this legal activity, they knew about it and they allowed it to happen. A large part of the courts decision discussed this issue since this situation has not appeared in a swedish court before, but their conclusion is hard to be critical of if you actually look at it and has some knowledge of law, and swedish law in particular.\\n\\nWhat is more questionable to me as a swedish law student, is the way the damages was calculated (the civil part of the case), but I'm guessing that the maxim of party disposition (had to google for the english term) is responsible for this.\", \"Think of it like a pawn shop. \\n\\nAny pawn shop, from time to time, is going to have some illegal goods. That's just the nature of the business. \\n\\nBut that is different from a pawn shop that openly advertises that it takes in stolen goods and refuses to remove them even when the owners come in demanding their goods back. \\n\\nA service like Reddit is more like the former. While I am sure there is copyrighted material on here, they take steps to prevent it and removes it upon request. If you set up /r/freedisneymovies and put up torrents for all of them, it would be removed. \\n\\nThe Pirate Bay on the other hand is more like the latter kind of shop. They take no action to remove unlawful content and even encourage it. That puts them outside of the various safe harbors that protect people who unknowingly become involved in illegal activity. \", 'Okay, I study law in Sweden so I know a bit, at least.\\n\\nThe three creators was convicted of accesory to copyright infringement.\\n\\nHas a copyright-crime been commited?\\n1) The different kinds of worked that had been downloaded/uploaded was protected by copyright\\n2) Copyright was infringed when torrents were uploaded\\n3) Unidentified people was found to have commited the crime of copyright-infringement on TPB-website\\n\\nThe question now is basically, have TPB-creators \"helped\" these acts of crime (Accessory/Medhj\u00e4lp)\\n4) The creatos had all commited various types of acts that \"helped\" the crimes (administration, financing, organisation, programming of the site etc.) i.e. TPB-website included different search, uploading and communication services that made the 3) crime \"easier to commit\"\\n5) The creators hade the intent to help the 3) crime (They knew about it and didn\\'t take countermeasures etc.)\\n\\n- This is a quite-simplified version of the ruling, there were a few more legal hoops to be passed, but the above are the main ones\\n\\n-- Also: the difference between TPB and Google/youtube is (badly translated) that the \"risk-taking\" (for accessorising 3) crimes) of Google/Youtube versus TPB is on another level and acceptable because of the benefits Google/Youtube brings...', \"Simple, they hosted the content and refused to take it down. They knew they were hosting illegal content, and refused to take it down, even when faced with DMCAs up the ass, and multiple lawsuits and cease and desist orders. By law, they are (unfortunately) equally at fault for not removing the content when they were told.\\n\\nUp until a year or two ago, Sweden didn't have any anti-piracy laws, and since TPB was absed in Sweden, they were breaking no laws, and they were allowed to host the content. However, they were arrested when Sweden introduced some really controversial anti-piracy laws.\", \"He is in prison because of how the law works.   It's like if you loan your car to a person who you know doesn't have a driver's license.  If that person causes any damage to persons or property, you can be held liable.  In the eyes of the law, you are viewed as an enabler of the crime and are therefore an accessory.\", 'because that \"its not my fault all those other people used my website for piracy when it was explicitly for piracy...they posted it all, go be mean to *them* and leave me be\"  is a ridiculous flimsy loophole excuse that doesn\\'t deserve to work\\n\\n....but for some retarded reason it works on drugs pimping racketeering and murder.    \\n\\njust not watching movies.  i think its a money and lobbyists thing', 'He knowingly created an environment for the crime to take place making him an accessory to a crime, which is illegal.', 'Because they provided the means for the people who did, also, they lacked of any content upload prohibition, of course, intentionally. Plus bad defense tactics.', 'Gotfried \"anakata\" is not in prison for running piratebay, he is in Danish prison because he hacked the center for social security numbers (CPR-Numbers).', \"It's called contributory copyright infringement: _URL_0_\\n\\nIn other words, if you don't infringe on copyrights yourself but provide a means for others to do so, then you could still be sued or charged for it.\", 'Because I can\\'t start a business called \"Bob\\'s underage alcohol sales warehouse\" and provide the marketplace in which the transactions occur, advertise and brag about how my warehouse space exists specifically to facilitate 3rd party adults selling alcohol to 13 year olds.  I can\\'t then post the warrants for my arrest and say \"Ha!  Nothing will stop me from helping children buy alcohol in my warehouse!!!\".\\n\\nIf I do that shit I\\'m going to get in trouble.  ', 'If you build a highway and drug traffickers traffic drugs on it, you aren\\'t liable.\\n\\nIf you build a highway called \"no piggies drug expressway\" there is a case to make that you built it specifically for drug trafficking and that you enabled traffickers to break the law.', \"Facilitating criminal activity is also a crime. If you help someone commit a crime, even if they could have gotten help from someone else or done it themselves, it's still also a crime.\", 'Who owns the site now?\\nIt still is used by a lot of people.', \"Well you know it's how people who are responsible for incompetent and racist police departments go to jail. Or how politicians that pass terrible laws get punished. How bankers went to the slammer for causing a global economic meltdown, or how Greece was kicked out of the Euro for blatantly lying when they submitted their statistics. How the people who started a false war under the pretense of 'weapons of mass distruction' are languishing in prison now (Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney). How the president of FIFA is now digging ditches. \\n\\nExactly like that.\", 'Why did the owner of the crack house get arrested if it was the junkies coming in smoking crack and not him?', 'Does anyone know the estimated amount of profit lost to the movie industry distributors due to Pirate Bay? ', 'In 1908, a bunch of countries got together and signed an agreement called \"1908 modification of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works\" (aka Berne Convention) in Berlin.\\n\\nOne of the topics they discussed was that:\\n\\n*Hey, its fucking hard to sue individual copyright infringers because there are so many of those bastards and none of them have money! Our important citizens/copyright holders/lobbyers are asking us implement some law that allows them to sue those guys who enables mass infringement and have deep pockets to sue while making it easy for us as we only need to sue one person.*\\n\\nSo they agreed to say that anyone who *authorises* infringement (secondary infringement) is just as guilty as the people who commits it (aka primary infringement).\\n\\nBut it was really up to each individual country to adopt that agreement into local domestic legislation with their precise wording. Just because you sign an international agreement, it wont come into effect until you make legislation for it. \\n\\nTypically, the way most cases have interpreted this vague word is that if they had some combination of the following factors:\\n\\n* the defendant had technical control to prevent infringement and did nothing about it to prevent it or even turned a blind eye (or even worse, actively promoted it which is what piratebay pretty much did)\\n\\n* it would have been very easy (ie not a lot of time and money) for the defendant to control/prevent infringement\\n\\n* they were made aware of the infringing activities\\n\\n* their business model was reliant on heavy usage of infringing activity (ie legitimate use was minimal compared to illegitimate use) \\n\\nFor example, a famous case in Australia called iiNet where the ISP was sued for this reason, they satisfied everything except for the fact that they could not easily prevent all those infringing activities.\\n\\nThe Piratebay creator was probably one of the most easiest cases to find that it was illegal under authorisation out all of the authorisation cases in history. \\n\\nTaking him to prison is something that the international agreement didnt require each country to do - the addition of criminality must have been added by the jurisdiction he was found guilty for.\\n\\n\\n', 'Okay, it goes something like this. The Piratebay founders, let\\'s call them The Pirates, are of the opinion that banks (Entertainment Industry) shouldn\\'t be allowed to keep all their money (Entertainment) for themselves. They buy a car (server) and drive it (run the server). Then they say \"If you want the monies from the bank, you have to take a ride with us.\" So, you, a pre-pubescent little 5 year old, obey. As do all the rest, and soon, The Pirates are driving people around constantly!\\n\\nThe Pirates drive you to the bank, and give you the access codes, the layout of the security, the keys and the combination to the vault. Then you run in and get what you want, and come out unscathed because The Pirates also blessed you with Anti-Piracy Fairy Powder, so you blend right in with the crowd. Then they drive you home, and you use the money to buy a hooker or soda.\\n\\nThe Pirates say they have no responsibility for what you, a 5 year old, is doing inside the bank. *They* aren\\'t robbing the banks. They\\'re just helping people get from A to B :P\\n\\nBut the ***GOVERNMENT*** now knows their license plate number, because there\\'s cameras everywhere (ISPs are Government\\'s bitches). So, instead of catching the *real* (lol) criminals, they settle for getting the driver(s) of the getaway vehicle. It\\'s not fair, but fairness never ruled the world.', ' The same reason a drug dealer will go to prison\\nAnd if caught the drug user. Now swap out the word \"drug\" \"stolen media\" and you have pirate bay. \\n\\nPs  I allegedly downloaded all the Star Wars  because George Lucas wouldn\\'t let me download/buy/rent  episode one anywhere .  Allegedly of course ', 'The top answers here are correct on a legal and technical level...\\n\\nBut consider: there\\'s a guy in prison, and 2 guys living abroad after not having anything to do with the site for near on 10 years... and they\\'re STILL being nut punched for so-called offenses WELL beyond what should otherwise be statute of limitations.\\n\\nWhy are these dead horses being kicked so hard and so often when other sites are way bigger now than TBP ever was in it\\'s heyday?\\n\\nBecause people. \\n\\nIn the early days of tbp, they would put up the take-down letters and emails that they were sent and ridicule them HARD on a page of the website. I don\\'t think they\\'re still there, but you might be able to find an archive somewhere. They did this for about a 2 years. \\n\\nOnce the sale took place in 06, all that stopped but it was too late.\\n\\nYou\\'re not suppose to make fun of a large person. They\\'ll kick your ass. But a small person with a checkbook will make your life a living hell forevermore.\\n\\nThat\\'s what has happened. They thumbed their noses at an industry run by people with influence and deep pockets. Basically, the *IAAs parachuted in a herd of lobbyists, got the laws changed, and BAM now we\\'ll gitcha. The other sites that are still running said nothing. They ignored or played down the legal issues, but largely just kept quietly running their site. \\n\\nI\\'ve said it before: the way these guys laughed and pointed from behind the laws of Sweden site early on set the tone for filesharing for the forseeable future. If they had not said a word, we may have actually seen *IAAs actually embrace filesharing to a point. \\n\\nPersonally I think the rideshare companies are doing the same thing... they\\'re bulldozing over municipalities and \"building value\" while legal catches up. And because of that tactic, once cities figure out that they actually can do something about it, the end result will be far more strict than it would have been if they\\'d just worked with people from the beginning.', 'Politics- I mean honestly nothing about the site was illegal the logic is he is responsible for what happens on his site, look at Megaupload though- the famous people involved were not charged. You are only going to actually be put in jail if you do not have the power through $$$ political position or fame to do anything about it', 'Is contributory infringement still a thing? It started with vcr and Xerox machines', 'Trafficking/fencing stolen property.  Drug dealers often use a mule, sometimes a minor, to handle the goods.  This guy was involved in turning the internet into his mule.  Technically it qualifies as hacking today.\\n\\n\\nThis entire long sentence exists in this post to provide enough wordage for the post to qualify as an answer for ELI5.  Which frankly is a stupid way to detect whether a post is useful or not.', 'It\\'s like giving drugs to someone, then that guy being searched by the cops.\\n\\nYou just don\\'t easily get off with \"But its not my meth! I\\'m just holding it for a friend!\" You have the offence for possessing drugs.', \"Piratebay, unlike other information sharing websites like reddit, is very obviously created with the specific intention of promoting illegal activities. And the creator is facing punishment for providing a way for the crime to take place. Its the same thing as if you were a get away driver to people who just robbed a gas station. You never robbed the place, waved a gun at somebody, or took a bunch of money that isn't yours. Helping the thieves get away is a crime itself\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-acquitted-in-criminal-copyright-case-150710/'], [], [], ['http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/04/piratebayverdicts.pdf'], [], ['http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/apr/17/the-pirate-bay-trial-guilty-verdict'], [], ['http://blog.brokep.com/2012/07/04/nadeansokan/', 'http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article11780390.ab', 'http://www.svd.se/amerikanskt-filmbolag-anstallde-pirate-bay-utredare', 'http://www.cnet.com/news/why-pirate-bay-judge-shouldnt-have-heard-case/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_liability#Contributory_liability'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2959, "q_id": "5gicnb", "title": "why do very high resolution images/videos look \"sharper\" than reality ?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5gicnb/eli5_why_do_very_high_resolution_imagesvideos/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dasgpfg', 'dasgpm7', 'dash2fm', 'dasiwka', 'daslzts', 'dat1iaa', 'dat1l4h', 'dat3tq1', 'dat5j1a'], 'score': [85, 9, 7, 3, 15, 3, 12, 3, 2], 'text': ['Reality is moving all the time.  Your eyes can only handle so much resolution and your brain can only process so much at once, but with a high res picture you have a frozen image that you can study up close, so it looks razor sharp.', \"Usually because everything's in focus, IRL your brain cuts out a ton of the signal from your eyes. If you had a way of making the image take up your entire field of vision it'd probably be less noticeable\", \"It's has to do with HDR (High Dynamic Range), also known as Contrast (between pixels / colors).\\n\\nThose picture have an higher contrast compared to reality. Yes, that 4k landscape video actually is not that colorful in real life.\", \"The image processing electronics actually *do* adjust the image to give things sharper contrast (especially at the edges) compared to real life. You're not mistaken.\", \"Or its possible that you are near sighted like i was as a kid. Even normal 90's tv looked amazing compared to real life because it was all in focus if you stand the right distance from it.\", \"A lot of pictures and landscapes use a technique called High Dynamic range, where they combine several photos shot at different exposures to captures different details, then combine all these photos, only taking the parts that are properly exposed. \\n\\nFor instance weve all been blinded by the sun and unable to see an object, well a digital camera can focus and take a clear photo of the sun but the object  is  not properly exposed and looks terrible, or it can focus and take a clear photo of the object but the sun isn't expose properly. Using Photoshop, you could combine these two images and get a single photo where the object and sun are properly exposed even tho we could never really see it like that in real life. \", \"i'll just add in: why do 60FPS Videos look more fluid than real life?\", \"Pick up your phone, put it one foot away from your face and stare at the screen. You can see the phone perfectly fine but all the stuff behind it looks blurry unless you purposely stare at it. This occurs because the eyes will focus on whatever you are paying more attention to. In a movie, the entire picture looks sharp which isn't what would happen if you were there in person.\", 'Digital images have a range of detail greater than the eye can observe. The traditional gray scale used in traditional photography has a 14 steps the eye can perceive individually. A digital gradation involved in high resolution images on the other hand has so many values the eye cannot perceive as individual steps.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 930, "q_id": "34hrdq", "title": "Was Gautama Buddha illiterate? Was there a written language at that time?", "selftext": "I am guessing that Gautama was educated because he was born in a wealthy family. But what would his education look like? Could he read and write? What language (spoken and written) was used at that time?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34hrdq/was_gautama_buddha_illiterate_was_there_a_written/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqv4xuv'], 'score': [15], 'text': [\"The dates of the birth and death of Gautama Buddha are among the few things that most historians are relatively sure about when it comes to ancient Indian history. They are not fixed in stone but most historians agree about the period being 5th century BCE with the date of his death varying between 483 BCE to 420 BCE. This was near the end of the Vedic period and knowledge was still primarily orally transmitted. There is no proof that Vedic Sanskrit had a written alphabet at all.\\n\\nThe earliest examples of writing in Sanskrit appear from 3rd century BCE onwards during the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the Brahmi script. During Buddha's time, Sanskrit was supposed to be the language of the elite and was used for literary purposes like composing religious hymns or epics. Ordinary people of that era mostly used Prakrit and depending on the region, there were probably different dialects of Prakrit. Given that Gautama was born a prince and must have had training in elite arts, he probably did learn Sanskrit. However, he probably did learn the Magadhi variation of Prakrit too when he delivered sermons as the Buddha to ordinary people in his travels, mostly across the Magadha Empire. But there exists no written documents in India from Buddha's time and neither Sanskrit nor Prakrit seemed to have started using writing yet.\\n\\nFrom Panini's *Ashtadhyayi*, a book composed of eight chapters of Sanskrit grammar, the art of writing seemed to have been known to people of that era. Panini is dated to have existed anytime between 6th and 4th century BCE but it is anybody's guess whether he wrote his book or, as was the tradition then, the book was orally transmitted. If he did write his book, he could have written it in the Kharoshti script which was used by Persian administrators in north-western regions of the Indian subcontinent. The Brahmi script that arose in India later was most likely derived from Kharoshti and was still used mainly for Magadhi Prakrit and Pali rather than Classical Sanskrit, following Panini's grammar rules, which had become the language of the elite. \\n\\nTL;DR - Buddha was born in Nepal and lived and worked mostly in eastern India. As such, he was probably illiterate despite being educated as written language was still not used in most parts of the subcontinent.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 450, "q_id": "118ims", "title": "In '1493' Charles Mann makes a brief mention of Japanese samurai working in South America in the early 1600s protecting the Spaniards' silver shipments. Does anyone have any more info on this phenomenon? Also, why is this not a movie?", "selftext": "pg 364\n\n*Known collectively as* chinos, *Asian migrants spread slowly along the silver highway from Alcapulco to Mexico City, Puebla, and Veracruz. Indeed, the road was patrolled by them--Japanese samurai perhaps in particular. Katana swinging Japanese had helped suppress Chinese rebellions in Manila in 1603 and 1609. When Japan closed its borders to foreigners in the 1630s, Japanese expatriates were stranded wherever they were. Scores, perhaps hundreds, migrated to Mexico. Initially the viceroy had forbidden...* chinos *to carry weapons. The Spaniards made an exception for samurai, allowing them to wield their katanas and tantos to protect the silver shipments against the escaped-slaves-turned highwaymen in the hills.*\n\nI found this idea badass and fascinating, but haven't been able to find any more info on 17th Century South American Samurai. Anybody know anything about this?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/118ims/in_1493_charles_mann_makes_a_brief_mention_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6k8wlb', 'c6ka9ec', 'c6kb34l', 'c6kb7nq', 'c6kbkub', 'c6kc1js', 'c6kcxzl', 'c6kf9eq', 'c6kfzhh', 'c6kggi4', 'c6khww9'], 'score': [38, 5, 7, 26, 8, 21, 7, 3, 3, 6, 3], 'text': [\"I don't know anything about them being in South America, but I do know about them being in Manilla. [They were Japanese Catholics who were hired to fight against the Dutch](_URL_0_). [They were driven out of Japan in the aftermath of the Shimabara Rebellion](_URL_1_), in which [the Dutch had helped the Tokugawa Shogunate defeat the Catholic rebels](_URL_2_) and marked the beginning of serious persecution of Catholics in Japan.\", 'I also read recently that post-Tokugawa ronin fought for Thailand. The fact that some got all the way to America blows my mind.', \"I can't remember who but someone kept quoting (in a neckbeard western vs eastern martial arts issue) that the Portuguese fought against samurai, buckler and rapier/rapier and dagger, has anyone even remotely heard of any sources which enforce this?\", 'Mexico is not in South America', \"I actually have a source on this one somewhere. IIRC, there was a colony of Japanese exiles in the Philippines, and once the Spanish took the place over they started getting jobs on the galleon fleets. If I remember after work, i'll try to hunt for the footnote again.\", \"Am I the only one who isn't at all sure that the OP's quote from *1493* actually states that samurai ended up protecting silver shipments in Mexico?\\n\\nIt mentions Japanese expats and samurai in Manila, certainly plausible, and that some of the expatriates migrated to Mexico in the 1630s, also plausible. But where does it say that the silver shipments being protected by samurai were in Mexico and not Manila/the Philippines?\\n\\nFor one, the governership of Manila was overseen by the Viceroy in Mexico City, so the ban on weapons would have come from him regardless of whether it was in Manila or Mexico, so that part isn't conclusive. Next, so far as I know Mexico furnished decent amounts of gold but much less silver. Most silver from the Spanish Americas came from Peru, IIRC, not Mexico. What's more, the Manila-Acapulco trade carried American silver all the time, so samurai in Manila would certainly have been in a position to protect it there if the Spanish had allowed it.\\n\\nI'm admittedly not a historian of this era specifically but I ~~did stay at a Holiday Inn last night~~ am taking a seminar on the subject at the moment, and I'm not sure Mann's text is saying what the OP thinks it's saying.\\n\\nedit: OP should check out Mann's bibliography/references for that page, as there's bound to be a citation (look for the little endnote numbers on page 364. If that passage isn't cited anywhere specifically in Mann's text, I wouldn't trust it. But if it's there, I might be proven wrong.\\n\\nedit 2: there's semi relevant evidence in the form of [Hasekura Tsunenaga](_URL_0_), a Japanese samurai who traveled the Manila-Acapulco route on a diplomatic mission to Europe in the early 17th century, about 15-20 years before the events Mann is alluding to. This guy was on a diplomatic mission, didn't stay long in Mexico or protect silver shipments, but it is an instance of a samurai entering into Mexico (and evidently for the first time).\", 'I think these Samurai were ex-member of Keich\u014d Embassy (wikipedia\\'s article is [here](_URL_1_)).\\nAs far as I remember [this book](_URL_0_) (\"Samurais who were missing in Europe\"), which focus on vestige of Keich\u014d Embassy,some of the members and the shipcrews were left mission due to Tokugawa shogunate\\'s persecution of the Christian faith, and settled Spain,and Mexico. And few Spainish documents (I can\\'t remember but probably New Spain\\'s record) mentioned Japanese mercenary,i.e. Samurai, several years after departure of the mission.\\n(Sorry for my poor English and vague answer)', \"True or not there needs to be a movie. I'd watch it like twice! Anyways there does need to be more love for the Manila galleon route. I think I saw some show or read some book taking about many Filipinos in Acupolco from the galleon days but the been in Mexico so long and people were. It called Filipinos when they came over. Also before WWII Davao city was mostly Japanese abaca and production center. Remember Philippines was governeerd through Mexico before Mexican independence and the. On crucified Japanese Catholics were shipped to Philippines. It's like a big triangle with Philippines in the middle.  So it can be plausible but with out some solid evidence just can only reflect upon the epicness of it all.\", 'So I found [this book](_URL_0_) while trying to find more information on Hispanic-Asian interaction. I would try searching through the book for relevant information, but I have to go to class. Hopefully one of you guys can gather some more information.', 'This was floating around TIL today: _URL_0_\\n\\nSemi-related, a town in Spain with the descendants of 17th century samurai', '_URL_0_\\n\\nsemi- relevant, but some Japanese sailed accross the Pacific to Mexico with some Spaniards. Thanks for introducing me to William Adams, fascinating ! ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://books.google.com/books?id=kk_iU0f-iT8C&amp;pg=PA243&amp;lpg=PA243&amp;dq=japanese+samurai+galleons&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Dc-ovzVQWf&amp;sig=yfYhZ8mQ5Xv90vIjVG_7Zywu3Sk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=Z_90UILvC8SDjAKc24Fg&amp;ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=japanese%20samurai%20galleons&amp;f=false', 'http://books.google.com/books?id=RMBdoimD2kIC&amp;pg=PA260&amp;lpg=PA260&amp;dq=japanese+samurai+galleons&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=VcYIa36YyB&amp;sig=MnPfxAwvEbPFI2LRIsIuJGCDWMc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=rf50UOa5N-vpiwL934HQDQ&amp;ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&amp;q=japanese%20samurai%20galleons&amp;f=false', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimabara_Rebellion'], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasekura_Tsunenaga'], ['http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%83%A8%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AD%E3%83%83%E3%83%91%E3%81%AB%E6%B6%88%E3%81%88%E3%81%9F%E3%82%B5%E3%83%A0%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%81%9F%E3%81%A1-%E3%81%A1%E3%81%8F%E3%81%BE%E6%96%87%E5%BA%AB-%E5%A4%AA%E7%94%B0-%E5%B0%9A%E6%A8%B9/dp/4480422951', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasekura_Tsunenaga'], [], ['http://www.amazon.com/They-Need-Nothing-Hispanic-Asian-Encounters/dp/1442645113/ref=sr_1_114?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1349887681&amp;sr=1-114&amp;keywords=Samurai+Europe'], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/118syg/til_that_there_is_a_town_in_spain_where_700/'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanaka_Sh%C5%8Dsuke']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 291, "q_id": "52352h", "title": "from material science perspective if possible, why we let the food cool down to room temperature before putting it in the freezer or refrigerator.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52352h/eli5_from_material_science_perspective_if/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d7gxha9', 'd7gxjrn', 'd7gy7zr', 'd7h1hej'], 'score': [6, 7, 14, 3], 'text': ['This is actually not a good practice because it will keep food in the warm \"danger zone\" longer.\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"This is not a best practice in terms of food safety. Letting food cool to room temperature allows bacteria to grow in and on the food. Refrigerating slows that growth down, but the longer the food spends at room temperature they greater the risk of sickness becomes. It's better to go straight from hot to inside the fridge. \", \"In the olden days, we didn't have refrigerators or freezers.  We had insulated iceboxes.  The [ice man](_URL_0_) would bring by a chunk of ice every day (see also: milk man, egg man, and mail man).  The ice would be put in the top of icebox.  The ice would melt and run down the inside walls, cooling what was placed there, and the water would collect in a drip tray at the bottom.  If you put hot food in the icebox, it would melt the ice faster.  All the ice would melt before the ice man came again and your food would spoil.  So it was common practice to let the food cool to room temperature before putting it into the icebox.  Early refrigerator/freezers weren't very efficient, taking a long time to cool down hot food and allowing other food to get warmer in the process, so the practice continued.\\n\\nWith current refrigerator/freezer technology, there's no reason to wait for the food to cool.  I mean, I wouldn't go straight from the oven to the freezer, but no need to wait for it to get anywhere near room temperature, either.\", \"As others have said, the main reason this is done is to not to heat up the inside of your fridge, but honestly, 99% of the cooking people do at home is perfectly fine to straight to the fridge. The only time you might have an issue is if say you trying to put a gallon of piping hot soup into a mini fridge, but a standard size modern refrigerator won't really be affected. Having worked in kitchens for a long time, I can tell you the main reason we allow a soup or sauce to cool before transfer is mainly the potential danger involved in transporting 5 gallons of 200\u00b0 liquid. Since you are more than likely not dealing with this volume at home, it really shouldn't be an issue. However, I wouldn't recommend going straight to the freezer with something hot, as you don't want to have any surrounding food in the freezer thawing and refreezing. Instead let it cool down in the fridge first, then transfer it to the freezer. No matter what you do, the most important thing to take away from all of this is NEVER put a hot item away in a sealed container. You're just laying down the red carpet for bacteria. Cool first, cover later.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/basics/mistakes/'], [], ['http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqlsua_three-stooges-057-an-ache-in-every-stake-colour_fun'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1413, "q_id": "bb8kv6", "title": "Why does the event of two black-holes merging send large gravitational \"ripples\" across spacetime?", "selftext": "I know that one of these events was used to confirm the existence of gravity waves, but do the two BH's actual merging emit waves that are stronger than are emitted in the aftermath of the event or is the \"ripple\" actually just the detectable start-point for the new SMBH's warping of space?\n\nWhat puzzles me is that black-holes are already infinitely dense, so how could the pressure from the merger produce temporarily an even higher density?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bb8kv6/why_does_the_event_of_two_blackholes_merging_send/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ekhfono'], 'score': [17], 'text': ['The gravitational waves are not produces by the merger itself. Any time when one body orbits another, it emits gravitational waves. In the case of regular planets and stars, the gravitational waves are negligible, because the orbital speed is too slow. But when the black holes orbits each other, their mutual attraction makes them move fast enough to emit gravitational waves of significant energy. Since the gravitational waves carry the energy away from the pair of black holes, they become closer and move faster, emitting even stronger gravitational waves. Eventually they merge and stop emitting gravitational waves.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nThis video illustrates the process:\\n\\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\\n\\nNotice that the waves become stronger as black holes approach each other and stop at the moment of the merger']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7dyMISb1Hk']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1593, "q_id": "31zyqy", "title": "why do americans take dates/partners to strip clubs?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31zyqy/eli5_why_do_americans_take_datespartners_to_strip/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cq6j4ve', 'cq6jcr9', 'cq6jem7', 'cq6m59q', 'cq6midz', 'cq6msp5'], 'score': [3, 6, 18, 13, 4, 3], 'text': [\"I don't know what the rules are like at strip clubs in the UK, but a lot of times here, it's just another form of entertainment. Like going to see a burlesque show. The big difference is, the actresses interact with you at a strip club, but for the most part (at least in the nicer clubs) the girls aren't trying to get the guys off. It's a tease - a strip tease to be exact.\\n\\nAlthough, I've certainly seen a lot of couples where the women are very uncomfortable at first (or up until the moment they walk out the door) and their boyfriends are trying to show them that there's nothing really sexual going on, it's just a show.\", 'We hope the SO learns some new moves.  Plus it will probably lead to really good sex.', \"I don't think this is an American thing, but a relationship thing. I know plenty of American couples who would do this and plenty who wouldn't.  I like to go to strip clubs / sex clubs / burlesque with my SO because neither of us gets jealous and because we both like looking at pretty naked people.\", \"American here, I have never heard of this even being thought of as common. I don't even know if I know anyone who has gone to a strip club.\", \"It's not that common.\\n\\n90% of the people in a strip club are going to be guys by them selves or with their buddies.\", ' >  in the UK this would never happen\\n\\nI doubt that is true.\\n\\nMy girlfriend and I have gone to a few strip clubs together. She likes looking at naked ladies, I like looking at naked ladies. We both get turned on then go home and have great sex. \\n\\nI wouldnt say that this is all that common, though.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2725, "q_id": "6dxrvb", "title": "why are acids commonly portrayed as green in video games?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dxrvb/eli5why_are_acids_commonly_portrayed_as_green_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['di67li8', 'di6e7nu', 'di6lglx', 'di6mukg', 'di7c2hy'], 'score': [314, 42, 49, 6, 2], 'text': [\"It's the leftover color when you're trying to balance a system that involves elemental types of damage.\\n\\nRed has a strong association with fire and heat, and likewise Blue has a strong association with cold, ice and water. Electricity tends to be another very common damage type and is generally tied to the color Yellow -- signs warning about electrical dangers even tend to be bright Yellow.\\n\\nIf you're trying to deal with simple primary colors that leaves you with Green, and a common damage type that's left over once you've made your way through Fire, Ice and Electricity is either Poison or Acid, so those often get relegated to Green.\\n\\nIn short, it's often Fire=Red, Water=Blue, Lightning/Air=Yellow, Poison/Acid/Radiation/Earth=Green.\\n\\nThe concept of using sickly-green or greenish-yellow colors to represent acids and poisons goes back further than that, though. There's a TVTropes article about it: \\n\\n_URL_0_\", 'Acid=bile=bilious=green.\\n\\nPeople have been throwing up for a long time, and have understood  that stomach bile -- which is green/yellow -- is acidic.\\n\\nedit: I should have put \"acidic\" in quotes. There\\'s a bunch of literary references going wayyy back that refer to bile as both green and acidic, I\\'ll see if I can dig them up. We\\'re talking a link between poetry about jealousy/vengeance and modern video games, not medical accuracy. :)', \"Chlorine gas is *the* traditional chemical weapon. (WW1) since is easy and cheap to make. [And it's green](_URL_0_)\", \"It is a common trope in movies, long pre-dating video games or D & D as has been suggested here. I don't know how it started, but Disney movies used green to signify evil or danger as far back as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937.\\n\", 'Inspired by /u/blubox28 i did some further digging and found the origin story for the Joker in Detective Comics #168 from 1951.\\n\\nIt shows the \"Red Hood\" (the Joker before he became deformed) falling into a vat of \"chemical wastes\" which is... *green*.\\n\\n\\n_URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAcid'], [], ['http://www.dugway.army.mil/PAO/Articles/2015/10/JackRabbit%20II%20October%20Version_files/image012.jpg'], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/Gy10QfA.jpg']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1559, "q_id": "ctu30w", "title": "As modern humans, we spend a significant percentage of our lives wearing shoes and other related footwear. How does this affect the development of our feet and legs, if at all?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ctu30w/as_modern_humans_we_spend_a_significant/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['expcyoq', 'expsnf9'], 'score': [3, 10], 'text': ['The first shoes did not have a big impact on this\\nBut the newer shoes that have thick soles do. your feet will land differently once u touch the ground. In a study it was discovered that walking barefoot puts 12% less pressure on the knees.\\nAs far as i know there is not a really big difference in how our legs evolved but we do walk differently\\nI hopes this somewhat answers your question', \"There are definite morphological implications.  People who grew up barefoot (ie native tribes in South America, Africa, or Australia) tend to have significantly wider feet. This is because the confinement of shoes, while slight, is enough that it alters the shape of the foot. In addition, the intirnisic muscles of the foot in shoe-wearing populations tend to be relatively weak and/or underdeveloped, as the shoe structure replaces many functions of the foot. The weakness of those muscles tends to lead to over-pronation, which in turn can lead to increased tibial rotation during the stance phase of gait, and tibial rotation can cause a misalignment of the tibia/femur/patella complex.\\n\\nThat being said, feet are very unique so you may not see all of those things or even none of those things in any given person who usually wears shoes. Things like 'barefoot' shoes are also primarily marketing gimmicks meant to prey upon ignorance and utilizing psuedoscience.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1651, "q_id": "4d7chh", "title": "i got spam from my own account. i looked this up and apparently some e-mail providers allow you to send messages from other e-mail accounts (spoofing). why is this allowed?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d7chh/eli5_i_got_spam_from_my_own_account_i_looked_this/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d1oct02', 'd1od788', 'd1om983'], 'score': [7, 27, 11], 'text': ['For an e-mail to get where it\\'s going, it has to pass through many steps.\\n\\nLet\\'s have a human equivalent. Andrew wants to send a message to David. He gives the message to Bob, telling him it\\'s for David. Bob gives the message to Charles, telling him it\\'s from Andrew and it\\'s for David. And Charles gives the message to David, telling him it\\'s from Andrew.\\n\\nThe thing is, there\\'s no way for Charles or David to know the message really is from Andrew. It may be that Bob said it is, but he just made it up.\\n\\nE-mail spoofing woks like this. So it\\'s not a case of being \"allowed\", it\\'s just that, with the way e-mails work, it\\'s hard to prevent.', \"E-mail is sent using a protocol called SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) which dates back to 1981 (and so is about eight years older than the World Wide Web).\\n\\nBack then, the internet was used by the military and academia (universities, research institutions and so on) -- it wasn't available to the general public. Nobody really thought the internet would become what it is now, with nearly everyone in the developed world (and a lot of people in the developing world) owning devices that could connect to it. And the idea that anyone would want to spoof e-mails was... ridiculous. This was a serious research tool, a network of databases.\\n\\nSo SMTP never included a way to authenticate the sender. And we're stuck with that.\", \"It's like writing a false return address on an envelope.  The email system, like the postal system, doesn't check that the sender has put their real address.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 402, "q_id": "4rjbd7", "title": "How did the Arabic word \"alcohol\" come into usage in Europe rather than the Latin word \"vocatus?\"", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4rjbd7/how_did_the_arabic_word_alcohol_come_into_usage/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d51n1ff', 'd51sp6n'], 'score': [42, 9], 'text': [\"Words very often get tied to a new technology or skill.  So they learn the name of the technology in the source language.\\n\\nAlcohol in Arabic (al kuhul) referred broadly to the process of distillation in any form, including eyeshadow or any fine powder.  This is true into the 18th century.  So it didn't refer to exclusively to the beverage until very late.\\n\\nThe other half of the story is that the Greeks and Romans fermented, but they didn't distill.  So when the skill of distillation spread, it used the Arabic word and the outcome was referred to as alcohol.  And since the word 'alcohol' applied not just to the liquid product, but the process by which the liquid product was achieved, it was going to stick.  \\n\\nEventually the word was then applied to a specific chemical compound that became known as 'alcohol'.  And since that compound is found in beer and wine as well, they became known as alcoholic beverages too.\\n\\nSo basically you can thank science for that one.\", 'Where are you getting \"vocatus\" from? I havent come across this\\n\\nAlso, the answer of pastillus_fartus is correct.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 695, "q_id": "1paqt0", "title": "When an electronic video camera is struck, jolted, or involved in an impact, why is there noticeable distortion?", "selftext": "This makes sense for film cameras (loss of tracking, speed, shutter timing, etc), or even a video camera with a spinning write-head; but why, in an all digital camera or in a live-feed situation would any distortion take place at all? Is the light sensor somehow sensitive to motion?\n\n(Example: [This gif](_URL_0_) was on the front page; it's very quick but watch as the hockey puck hits the lens, there is a green bar across the image in at least one frame - I assume that as the camera scanned the sensor the signal coming back was only solid green for just a few lines, but I can't think of a good reason why this would happen in the way it does. I should probably find a better example...)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1paqt0/when_an_electronic_video_camera_is_struck_jolted/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cd0jym9', 'cd0kq66'], 'score': [4, 6], 'text': ['It is difficult to say with certainty but there are several things that may have happened..\\n\\n1- a connector or other physical piece loses signal for a moment, leading to bad data\\n\\n2- the physical stress causes a n electrical effect, piezoelectric for example, which due to whatever fluke of physical design or timing during the read process, leads to the green channel being excited.\\n', \"Without knowing the specifics behind this camera setup I'd say that this camera uses a mechanical rolling shutter. That is, the whole frame isn't exposed at the same time but the the frame is exposed linewise.\\n\\nWhen the camera gets jolted with enough force the exposure mechanics is unable to properly expose the currently relevant lines, giving them such bad readings that either the camera or the encoder determines that these lines are just noise. The lines are thus filled with placeholder values (the green).\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://i.imgur.com/7gswOaa.gif']", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1505, "q_id": "362pru", "title": "how can roman bridges be still standing after 2000 years, but my 10 year old concrete driveway is cracking?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/362pru/eli5_how_can_roman_bridges_be_still_standing/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cra5b8n', 'cra5ffu', 'cra5mzp', 'cra5raa', 'cra5z21', 'cra625b', 'cra6bya', 'cra6euk', 'cra6tfx', 'cra6vf2', 'cra6z8k', 'cra74zo', 'cra78pc', 'cra79st', 'cra7afv', 'cra7dso', 'cra7vju', 'cra8jrt', 'cra8npd', 'cra8tul', 'cra9b38', 'cra9eu9', 'cra9fw7', 'cra9gda', 'cra9jlh', 'cra9zlr', 'craa03z', 'craafta', 'crab5qu', 'crabazf', 'crabb5d', 'crabnvn', 'crabt5p', 'crabu50', 'crabv7r', 'crabzv3', 'crac0cd', 'crac5m9', 'craccv1', 'cracfrq', 'cracsg3', 'cracw1f', 'crad4e9', 'cradd0j', 'cradj79', 'cradv5k', 'cradw0p', 'cradxbz', 'cradxqb', 'cradzwo', 'crae6lg', 'craedxx', 'craeho6', 'craejam', 'craevvv', 'craf053', 'craf11w', 'craf3gg', 'craf3q8', 'crafcwn', 'crafhec', 'crafjeg', 'crafkyz', 'crafnwf', 'crafv2i', 'crafxnv', 'crag5j2', 'crag63r', 'crag6ai', 'cragbmc', 'cragdj5', 'cragoi1', 'cragscx', 'cragxlm', 'crah23j', 'crah5rw', 'crahee9', 'crahrs6', 'crai1r0', 'crai8q1', 'craih3k', 'craijhl', 'crail6j', 'craivvb', 'craix3e', 'craj620', 'craj9fm', 'crajhhb', 'crajn6g', 'crajyne', 'crak1v4', 'crak49e', 'crakadn', 'crakbf5', 'crakz4c', 'cral6wu', 'craloew', 'craloqb', 'cram621', 'cramqjp', 'cramvkc', 'cranar5', 'cranksp', 'crankt2', 'cranln6', 'crao1uo', 'craoedg', 'craomag', 'craowbs', 'craox6d', 'craprq1', 'crapuv7', 'craq1pr', 'craq2rp', 'craqgls', 'craqk4u', 'craqwqw', 'crar3ol', 'crarfgx', 'crariic', 'crarl5x', 'crarpql', 'crartys', 'crasdw8', 'crat259', 'crat2y1', 'cratc92', 'crau1ok', 'crauuq7', 'cravu3z', 'crax2e5', 'cray7cq', 'craynqe', 'crb1kqb'], 'score': [1149, 9, 914, 4214, 126, 16, 56, 5, 13, 10, 3, 21, 35, 101, 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 3, 3, 36, 2, 7, 7, 3, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 10, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 10, 2, 2, 3, 2849, 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 6, 2, 5, 4, 6, 5, 4, 5, 2, 6, 8, 3, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Because they are two totally different things with almost nothing in common. If you built a Roman style arched bridge today it too would last forever.\\n\\nLemme elaborate: Your driveway has to flex like a big long beam, the bridge is an arch. All of the weight there is going straight down into the rocks of the arch legs. Concrete can't bend very well. Rocks are really good at just holding up weight. Your driveway is all concrete that cracks (except for the aggregate, but let's move along), the the arch legs of those bridges are big hunks of rock that don't crack. Your driveway has rebar. The bridge doesn't. Your driveway is sitting on top of the soil, which moves every year as the ground freezes and thaws. Or as water erodes it. Or about a thousand other things that can undermine what your driveway is sitting on. The legs of those Roman bridges go down to bedrock and don't move.\\n\\nAll of these things cause your driveway to crack and the bridge to not.\", \"I can't really eli5, but this is a nice overview.  _URL_0_\", \"A lot of Roman stuff still standing has been maintained and periodically fixed.  The Colosseum for example has new parts that keep it from further damage.  However, the Colosseum was actually built with iron supports originally to keep it from falling down.  After the empire collapsed, people removed the iron to sell for scrap.  It would be in a lot better shape now if people didn't use it for parts. \", 'Old stone bridges that are still standing probably had their footings build on solid rock or very stable earth. By contrast, your driveway was poured onto earth that moved or eroded under it. \\n\\nFortunately, cracked driveways are still safe to use, unlike cracked bridges.\\n\\nEdit:typo', \"Concrete in driveways is vulnerable to a number of attacks:\\n\\n1. Concrete shrinks when it cures, resulting in cracks. These may be large or barely visible, but they all let water in. When the water freezes it expands and causes considerable damage to the concrete. This happens all through winter.\\n\\n2. This can be compounded if there is reinforcement, as de-icing salts accelerate corrosion. When steel corrodes it expands and cracks concrete.\\n\\n3. Ground heave, from frost, can lead to uneven expansion of soil beneath the slab which causes/opens cracks.\\n\\n4. Possible poor workmanship - bad concrete mix, bad installation, poor compaction of subgrade, bad design (too thin), improper curing and the like will also greatly reduce the longevity of your slab.\\n\\nNow - for the Romans - you're mostly looking at stone, which is MUCH less susceptible to weathering and is not full of metal bars that'll expand if they corrode. Any mortar in the bridges is a potential weak point, but one that can be compensated with some maintenance. The bridges are also arch bridges with a very high arch - the stones all basically hold themselves together under the force of gravity as they are shaped together (shallow arch bridges are a little more vulnerable).\\n\\nAlso - the roman bridges we see today aren't all the bridges they built - plenty of Roman structures have fallen to pieces over the millennia. What we see today are mostly the best and most durable examples of Roman architecture. Any shoddy workmanship done by the Romans is long gone.\", 'One word, over-engineering. Although modern constructions takes a shitload of safety factors into account theyre only made as strong as they have to be to be considered safe. back in the roman days construction was waay less precise so they just built it the way their limited engineering knowledge and materials allowed them to. If we were to build our infrastructure to those standards there would be probably like 10 times less of it, not mentioning the immense amount of energy it requires in compare to with modern buildings. And yeah you can still build long lasting things they just tend to be on the more expensive side of things.', 'There are a lot of correct answers but one thing that is missing is that nobody seems to mention is that not every bridge and structure built by Romans are still standing. What you see after 2000 years are only the strongest ones while the shoddy ones that only lasted 20 years are long forgotten. In 2000 years there will undoubtedly be some driveways around and the future people will marvel at their longevity but your driveway will likely have been long forgotten.', \"Roman bridges have regulated traffic, that was usually limited to horses. The bridge itself is made of real stonework (not concrete).\\n\\nYour driveway is made of bitumen, a recyclable cheap substance made of oil. Unfortunately it loses many of it's properties to weathering. Also you park a multiton car on it.\", 'You forgot to put in expansion joint and/or control joints.  Concrete always cracks but you can decide where and how.\\n', \"A roman bridge and your driveway are made from completely different materials. It's like asking why a ceramic mug lasts longer than a paper cup. \\n\\n_URL_0_\", 'Just you wait until [this self-healing biological concrete](_URL_0_) comes into the market. ', \"Civil Engineer here:\\n\\nOne thing that I don't see mentioned is the engineering behind the structure.  The Romans didn't have finite element analysis and as such over designed their structures.  Structures now are designed to be more efficient which means that just enough steel is used to maintain a comfortable factor of safety.  \\n\", 'If anyone wants to interpret this further:\\n\\n[Roman road structure](_URL_0_)\\n\\n[Typical modern road structure](_URL_1_)', 'I remember reading that Roman concrete was actually a substantially different formula than the concrete in use today and that theirs was stronger due to use of volcanic ash.\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'Roman Concrete my friend. Archaeologists are trying to find / or found the way to make it. It lasts super long (Millennia), while our concrete nowadays would hardly last 100 years..', \" If Roman bridges are so good, why don't we build more?\", \"I'm sure part of it it due to the fact that the Romans weren't driving cars over their bridges everyday\", \"The Romans didn't know how to build a road that would last ten years. They had to massively overengineer everything they built because they didn't have the mathematical knowhow to build to a particular expectation. \", 'Cause all the crappy bridges they built have long since crumbled. What is left now is that tiny fraction of constructions that were of extraordinary quality!', 'Roman cement is actually made differently than the cement we use today, and even the cement used by other civilizations around that time.\\n\\nRoman cement was mixed with ash from the volcanos, actually making it stronger.', 'Too lazy to browse to see if someone else said this somewhere in the comments.  Roman bridges never had 300,000+ automobiles rolling over them per hour, each weighing anywhere from 1500lbs to 60,000lbs rolling through them on a daily basis.  Also, the majority of them are in temperate regions, so you don\\'t get as high of a heat/cold fluctuation as we have (at least compared to here in the upper midwest USA).  There\\'s an old saying around here: we have two seasons - Winter and Road Construction.  Believe you me, a bit of water and extreme cold/heat will do numbers to concrete, no matter its composition.  Even softer materials such as asphalt which contract/expand better than concrete need repair/replacement every few years.  \\n\\n\\nModern concrete is as good as the technology gets, since it provides us with the perfect balance of cost, strength/durability, and ease of manufacturing/use.  If the modern day engineers built a bridge for modern day use, but all you got were foot traffic, horse buggies, or the occasional army-on-horseback riding through, I\\'d bet those bridges will stand for several millennia. \\n\\n\\nIt\\'s unfair to compare your concrete driveway to bridges, though, since the thickness of the concrete comes into play.  Most slabs for residential driveways and garages only go about 4 to 6 inches deep, and are not uniform across the entire surface.  If you\\'ve ever noticed, the contractors rarely use anything more than a 2x6 to create the edges of your driveway.  Assuming the depth is universal (99.99% of the time it isn\\'t) then you\\'d have a 6\" slab all the way around.  Not bad, but still prone to breaking under its own weight as the ground shifts.  On the other hand, if you\\'ve ever seen them pour concrete for roadways or bridges, it is rebar-reinforced and poured several feet thick.  \\n\\n\\nTL:DR (ELI5); don\\'t compare your 4\" driveway slab made to park one or two small cars to a bridge designed to safely carry heavy volume.', 'Romans used concrete admixture that was composed of lime and another volcanic material called pozzalana (sp?). These materials are much more resistance to salt, which is the main culprit for the deterioration of modern day concrete. Romans did not use steel reinforcment either, which will accelerate deterioration of the concrete if it comes into contact with salt water. Water causes oxidation of iron creating rust, while salt accelerates that process. The rust increases the volume of the steel, creating a large force, which then results in the concrete (which is kind of like, glued together with a binder) to deteriorate because the tension resistance of the concrete is not strong. \\n\\nI assume that your concrete driveway has some sort of welded wire mesh (fabric), and with enough rain, water, and salt, the concrete deteriorates faster over time - espcially with continual use. \\n\\nSource: Structural Engineer + Forensic Repair and Restoration Experience\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nTLDR: Romans used concrete with different stuff. Also most of the structures that are still standing do not have embedded steel reinforcement, which causes deterioration in concrete. Modern structures use steel reinforcment, and different admixture for concrete (cheapest method is best method) which deteriorate faster. ', \"We also have no idea how they made their concrete. We have taken guesses at it, but still can't compete with their quality. \", 'A lot of modern bridges are made of a different concrete mix than Roman bridges. A lot of Roman bridges had a different mix of stone and sand that came from volcanic soils, which are chemically distinct from the concrete used in modern concrete. Additionally, modern concrete uses rebar, which can crack the concrete, and these micro-cracks can react with the rebar, rusting it from the outside in.\\n\\nA *really* fascinating book that goes over the different kinds of concrete, and uses concrete to look at historical and architectural marvels is Concrete Planet by Robert Courtland. Simply a stunning read.', \"CONTRACTOR HERE:\\n\\nIf your drive way doesn't have room to shift, it will crack. \\n\\nIf your concrete slab dries to fast after being poured, it cracks because concrete shrinks when moisture leaves. \\n \", 'Roman concrete contained volcanic ash which is probably a large factor in why they are still standing strong today.', 'Gravity was a lot lighter back then, because there were less people on the Earth at the time, so bridges were more sturdy. As gravity increased, it only strengthened the existing structures by compressing them more tightly. Your concrete driveway would need to be carved out of stones by hand and individually fitted if you didn\\'t want it to crack due to the increased gravity of 7 billion people.    \\n    \\nSadly, I know people who would believe that shit.       \\n     \\nRoman architecture in particular was all about math and engineering and making something \"work\" and still be beautiful. They used what they had on hand, and they figured out things (like arches) that really added support and stabilization to things.      \\n     \\nModern day architecture is a lot looser, uses different materials (like concrete) and is overall, in my opinion, inferior to our ancestors simply because we don\\'t care if it\\'s going to last the test of time, we just want to work and be as cheap as possible. So the people laying the concrete in your driveway probably didn\\'t use steamrollers and those big hammers that pack down the dirt enough to provide a suitable bed for the concrete. So as rain falls, it gets up underneath the concrete and into the soil bed, which starts to shift and slide and ultimately you end up with big giant cracks in your concrete from where there\\'s no more \"earth\" underneath it, because it all washed away.        \\n       \\nIf you really want a driveway that\\'s going to last, pavers are really the way to go. They last decades, and if individual paving stones crack, break, etc, you just replace that paving stone instead of the entire driveway. ', 'You have to look more at the construction of your driveway, there are ways of doing a driveway/concrete work to last, the issue is it costs far out weigh the longevity of it. \\n\\nWe want things fast, we want things cheap, and we want quality goods. This is not how things work in reality. ', 'Because General Maximus threatened that bridge with his legion in 45 ad.  \\n\\n\"Stand, bridge!  For the age!  For the Glory of Rome!\"\\n\\nAnd so there it is.  ', \"We are only seeing the bridges/structures that survived. There were tons of other buildings that didn't. We will probably say the same thing in two thousand years about structures of our era\", \"They don't make them like they used to? I got nothing.\", 'Is this /r/shittyaskscience?', 'Do you live in 4 seasons zone? The freeze-thaw process is a killer to rigid structures.  ', \"[Roman concrete](_URL_0_) is much different than your typical driveway concrete. This is probably the biggest reason why there's such a difference in quality.\", \"I'm assuming you live in America.  Roads and bridges are built cheaply here so they need fixing more often to create more jobs. \", 'Among the other good reasons mentioned here is probably selection bias. All the shitty bridges have been gone for centuries so all we have left are the good ones.', 'If your 10 year old driveway is cracking, it is one of 2 things.  Poor mud or poor craftsmanship.  The ready mix industry is pretty reliable, however there are times when loads get contaminated with things that don\\'t belong in concrete.  \\n\\nIt could be one of a million factors, but typically cracked concrete is a result of poor grade prep (compacting, fill, class V, etc) - poor design (expansion and control joints in the wrong spot), poor finishing, incorrect reinforcement placing, etc.\\n\\nKeep in mind, cracked concrete does not necessarily mean a \"bad\" concrete job.  There are 2 guarantees with concrete - it gets hard and cracks.  It is all about CONTROLLING where the cracks are.  That is why you see guys sawing a brand new slab after they pour with diamond saws, or they use a groover or cutter to cut a joint into the concrete for the naturally occurring cracks to develop in an aesthetically pleasing way.  Al the \"lines\" you see in the concrete you walk on that are nice and straight were put there so the concrete would crack along those lines.\\n\\nNow spalling, chipping, scaling concrete is another story.  Same culprits (bad mud, bad finishing practices, improper curing process, de-icing chemicals with no protection (siloxanes, acrylics, methacrylates, linseed oil, PAMS curing compounds, etc), over-finishing, adding too much water, hot windy days where the slab gets away from you, can all contribute to a failed pour.\\n\\nin conclusion - cracked concrete aint a bad thing - that is what concrete does.\\n\\nalso - modern concrete is evolves and changes.  volcanic pozzolans, fly ash, different Portland cements and admixtures are always changing, and the \"concrete\" that the romans used is fundamentally different than the concrete used today with the advent of synthetic fiber reinforcing, chemical admixtures and water reducers etc.', 'Roman concrete was mixed with red volcanic ash mined on the Isle of Santorini. It hardened underwater and is a much stronger concrete than is made today. Generally speaking, Roman engineers would avoid using a \"grout\" and fit the stones together so that gravity (i.e. the arch keystone) would hold things together. In other words, we dont make things like we used to.', \"[Survivorship bias](_URL_0_): They made a lot of bridges and acquaducts, and you only see the ones that lasted.\\n\\nDriveways in disrepair are still used. But 5 bucks says the currently cracked driveways won't be here in 50 years.\", \"Just some thinking, no scientific proof for this one:\\nThe concrete that was poored for your driveway is probably pretty solid. After some years of expanding and decreasing in size beacause of temperature fluctuations it is pushed to it's limit. At some point the molecules and particles it's made of won't bent anymore, but crack. The intermoleculair bonds will break so there is room for the solid matter to expand in and shrink if needed.\\nThe roman bridges however consist of multiple parts: you have the big stone blocks and the cement. Both of which are pretty loose from each other. This way the materials wil behave differently when temperatures rise or decrease and thus the shrinking and expanding won't put as much pressure on the matter itself.\\n(note: probably the cement will grind and break up first, because the stones expanding is much more consistent and powerful than the cement mixture that on it's own consists out of multiple different solids)\\n\\nHope you agree with me.\\nIf not: leave a comment. I'm curious about other their thoughts as well!\", \"The masonry work was made with a special blend that really resisted time.  that's about it, and also good design and construction.    Romans built roads and aqueducts really, really well.  NOT LIKE MY STUPID ASS CITY.  ELI5: THEY WEREN'T CHEAP LITTLE FUCKS\", 'the old bridges that Flagler built in the keys are in great shape, the replacement bridges -  not so much! ', 'Because the Romans built it better.  Seriously, if you had a time machine and went back to ancient Rome, picked up a bunch of Roman craftsman, and said \"Build me a driveway that would last a thousand years\" -they will pull it off.  \\n\\nBUT\\n\\nYou go to some guy named Roman running a driveway paver business down the street from where you live.  He probably doesn\\'t even know what materials exist that would last longer than a decade.  He won\\'t know shit.  He\\'s got machines that will level it, lay down gravel, and put some asphalt on top.  That\\'s all he knows.  And if that doesn\\'t last more than a few years you\\'re fucked.  ', 'It all comes down to workmanship.... was your driveway built by slaves? Cause the Roman bridges were', \"To be fair, all the Roman bridges that fell down are no longer visible, and I suspect that's the majority of them, so they're not part of your equation.\\n\\nHowever, there is also [significant research into the durability and tensile strength of Roman concrete,](_URL_0_) and the process for making it is still not completely understood.\", 'There are a variety of contributing factors. The makeup of today\\'s concrete is weaker than that of Roman concrete unless it is specifically designed not to be for heavy duty purposes. Roman concrete would be prohibitively expensive today, on the scale that we use it. \\n\\nThere are a lot of \"modern\" innovations which are actually inferior to what was used in ancient times, being meant to fill a function adequately at far less expense. Concrete is one; another major item on that list would be paper. Wood pulp makes paper that degrades relatively quickly compared to the materials of yesteryear (it\\'s also much cheaper, far less of a pain in the ass, etc.).\\n\\nOther contributing factors are undoubtedly function (there were no heavy vehicles thundering across Roman concrete, or resting on it for prolonged periods of time--not like what we have today, at least. Nothing more than fully-loaded carts and lots of foot traffic.). I don\\'t pretend to know to what extent this contributes, but it would seem to be a factor.\\n\\nFinally... most ancient Roman structures that are still standing after 2,000 years are only in \"good condition\" for something that\\'s been standing for 2,000 years. They\\'re largely collapsed, they\\'re in pieces, no individual portion is completely intact, they\\'ve been cannibalized for material, etc. They are, with very few exceptions, no longer capable of fulfilling their original functions.', \"Because the old Roman structures aren't loaded with cars, trucks and whatever else on a daily basis. They're either tourist attractions or just used for foot traffic... \", 'What is used in your driveway is likely unreinforced portland cement.\\n\\nModern cement is not particularly strong by itself. To make it not crack, you need to reinforce it with rebar and/or inserting shims to allow expansion and contraction.\\n\\nIn the heyday of roman concrete it was quite different than modern concrete using portland cement. In particular roman formulations used a bit of pozzolans, or volcanic pumice. Experiments have shown that some formulations with this (the romans had several different formulations for different applications and times) makes a more crack resistant concrete. However, reinforced concrete is generally better than unreinforced.\\n\\nConcrete is very old and slow, air-setting concrete has been found that predates the romans by thousands of years. It is widely believed the romans invented concrete that can set without air, which they used for applications such as bridge footings. Actually though, it was the Greeks who first used concrete with pumice and concrete which could set underwater. However, they did not use it as widely as the Romans, who made it famous.', \"Civil engineer here. If your driveway is getting major cracks already it was probably designed/installed improperly or there was a defect in the mix when it was poured. Also you could be parking really heavy things on it. A pretty common problem for cracking is to have a subgrade (i.e. the stuff under the bottom of the slab) that is too thin or too soft. The concrete may not have been poured thick enough too, but that doesn't happen as often. Even more rare is when joints are cut in the wet concrete incorrectly. Odd shapes and sizes of panels can increase the chance of cracking.\", \"Part of this has to do with the fact that their structures were built to last.....another part has to do with the fact that you don't see vast majority of their stuff which fell apart. Just the parts that remain.\", \"Keep in mind that you're talking about the Roman bridges that have survived out of all that have been built, and compared it to a modern example of something that isn't lasting.\\n\\nThe Romans built plenty of things that haven't lasted till today as well, and there are plenty of things we have built that may last for a long time. We just don't know which ones will last.\\n\\ntl;dr: There's a wide spread of the life of various structures. Your driveway and that Roman bridge are just on the opposite ends of the spectrum\", '\"\u201cIn the middle 20th century, concrete structures were designed to last 50 years, and a lot of them are on borrowed time,\u201d Monteiro says. \u201cNow we design buildings to last 100 to 120 years.\u201d Yet Roman harbor installations have survived 2,000 years of chemical attack and wave action underwater.\\n\\nHow the Romans did it\\n\\nThe Romans made concrete by mixing lime and volcanic rock. For underwater structures, lime and volcanic ash were mixed to form mortar, and this mortar and volcanic tuff were packed into wooden forms. The seawater instantly triggered a hot chemical reaction. The lime was hydrated \u2013 incorporating water molecules into its structure \u2013 and reacted with the ash to cement the whole mixture together.\\n\\nDescriptions of volcanic ash have survived from ancient times. First Vitruvius, an engineer for the Emperor Augustus, and later Pliny the Elder recorded that the best maritime concrete was made with ash from volcanic regions of the Gulf of Naples (Pliny died in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius that buried Pompeii), especially from sites near today\u2019s seaside town of Pozzuoli. Ash with similar mineral characteristics, called pozzolan, is found in many parts of the world.\\n\\nAnother striking contribution of the Monteiro team concerns the hydration products in concrete. [...]\\n\\n[...] Finally, microscopic studies [...] identified the other minerals in the Roman samples. Integration of the results from the various beamlines revealed the minerals\u2019 potential applications for high-performance concretes, including the encapsulation of hazardous wastes.\"\\n_URL_0_', 'Long answer? You can find that elsewhere in the thread.\\n\\nShort answer? Slaves get shit done.', 'In America, the bridge is still standing after 2000 years.  In soviet Russia, after 2000 years still standing on bridge!', ' If we are talking about Roman concrete then it has to do with a different formula. The ground underneath has nothing to do with it, as this concrete holds up across a wide range of terrain. \\n\\nBasically, they made it better back then. [Roman Concrete](_URL_2_)\\n\\nLooks like they used [volcanic ash and seawater](_URL_0_) as special ingredients. \\n\\nEdit: Not only did it hold up better, it was more environmentally friendly than today\\'s concrete. [Source](_URL_1_)\\n\\n\"The secret to Roman concrete lies in its unique mineral formulation and production technique. As the researchers explain in a press release outlining their findings, \u201cThe Romans made concrete by mixing lime and volcanic rock. For underwater structures, lime and volcanic ash were mixed to form mortar, and this mortar and volcanic tuff were packed into wooden forms. The seawater instantly triggered a hot chemical reaction. The lime was hydrated\u2014incorporating water molecules into its structure\u2014and reacted with the ash to cement the whole mixture together.\u201d\\n\\nThe Portland cement formula crucially lacks the lyme and volcanic ash mixture. As a result, it doesn\u2019t bind quite as well when compared with the Roman concrete, researchers found. It is this inferior binding property that explains why structures made of Portland cement tend to weaken and crack after a few decades of use, Jackson says.\"', \"I believe a kind of (rare) volcanic sand - found locally at that time- was one of the 'ingredients' of the concrete mix, and that supposedly gave it its durability.\", \"[This will most likely be buried but apparently science has figured this one out.](_URL_1_) Apparently the secret ingredient was volcanic ash. This story did the rounds in December 2014, [here's another one from the daily mail.]( _URL_0_)\", \"Didn't I read somewhere that Roman concrete used some kind of volcanic ash and someone had rediscovered the recipe for their super strong concrete?\", 'Your driveway is a cheap imitation called portland cement, mainly ground limestone and other rocks. The formula for Roman concrete was lost until just recently, and added volcanic ash and seawater. Salt would actually corrode cement, but the ash resists it somehow, and maybe it gives it some equilibrium against the environment (utter speculation).\\n\\nVolcanic ash might not be economical in the quantities we use today, and salt might damage steel reinforcement.\\n\\nYour driveway is also one big slab. Big slabs tend to crack from thermal expansion, or if water gets in and freezes. I doubt it freezes in Rome most years.', \"An important consideration to make is that not every Roman bridge is still standing 2000 years later, we only see the very best and they are a fraction of their overall infrastructure. In much the same way, just because your driveway cracks after 10 years doesn't mean there isn't a driveway out there that has far exceeded that age. Next we need to consider the engineering levels at each time, the Romans knew less and as a result were more likely to over-engineer structures to ensure they were sufficient. Today you can fairly accurately predict the strength and failure points of any building material, so engineers today can get by with much less.\\n\\n\\nAll of that said, the largest consideration would have to be the foundations involved. Roman bridges likely had foundations in solid rock, and since there isn't a lot of flexing occurring the materials experience a much longer life. Your driveway on the other hand is likely over dirt that can erode leaving gaps beneath or allowing roots to grow upward into it; and the constant addition/removal of a load over the thin slab will cause a lot more flex. Concrete is very strong, but very brittle, and that constant stress from flexing lends to cracks.\", 'Also, Roman Concrete had a better cement from active volcanoes\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n', 'Another key factor is that the Romans would use a lot more concrete in their buildings and supports. Concrete has a high compressive strength and very weak tensile strength which we overcome now a days by using steel reinforcing. This meant that a column we use today with steel reinforcing would need to be significantly larger without the steel reinforcement. A column with a 4 square foot cross section today may of needed to be 20 square feet in the roman times. Because the volume needed would be so much larger it would also take longer to deteriorate. You can still design modern day concrete to last a 100 years, but the cost would be enormous.', 'Roman concrete was made with volcanic ash instead of sand like modern concrete. It takes hundreds of years to fully cure and gets stronger with time.', \"[Roman concrete was different than our concrete and had a secret ingredient that made it less susceptible to tiny cracks - volcanic ash.](_URL_0_)\\n\\nSource: I'm part Roman. :)\", \"I know I've seen something about a certain material the Romans used in their concrete that we don't use today. I can't remember exactly what the material is, but believe it was a sort of sand/silt/ash found on a volcanic mountain that causes the concrete made by the Romans to continue hardening as it ages. Pretty sure it as said that the hardening was still happening in most Roman structures that were built that way, so they will only continue to get stronger as they age.\", \"I'm a civil technologist who specializes in concrete quality control.  You have no idea how frustrating this thread is that keeps repeating the same wrong shit.  \", \"Roman concrete was made with volcanic ash which pretty much made the stuff indestructible. Most things made by it have lasted more than a 1,000 years. We've only recent found out how to create the same sort of concrete.  In fact a project that used flyash(very similar to roman volcanic ash) it in the Florida keys for the support beams for a raised road was found to be irremovable when they decided to expand the road.  They blew up a few pillars with high explosives, but at such cost that they gave up and just built the new road higher than the old to avoid having to remove the old pillars.\\n\\nA bit on the topic:\\n_URL_0_\", \"The sweat of slave labor hardens their building materials harder than you can imagine. And simply can't be matched by the contactor doing your driveway.\", \"I am not sure if many of you understand how drastically different Mediterranean climate is to most of that in US. Climate factors such as  freeze-thaw cycles are critical when it comes to concrete serviceability.\\n\\nIt is hard to compare regular driveway slab to some beam bridge, since in general they are designed to be working under different conditions and loads. Say, those roman bridges or aqueducts are currently experiencing very small service loads (or none at all), while your typical road slab is experiencing more under the course of one year than that bridge had in all his life in comparison.\\n\\nIn addition to that, slabs are typically vulnerable to shrinkage-creep cycles, as suggested by one of the commenters here, and unless they are placed in ideal conditions they are bound to fail serviceability checks (read: crack) sooner or later. But it's ok, we can replace them very quickly. On the other hand, typical ancient stone road bridge utilizes much smaller elements so much less vulnerable to shrinkage. Why don't we use stone roads then anymore? Because they cannot survive continious high dynamic load cycles, much more vulnerable to freeze-thaw and are harder to maintain.\\n\\neli5-TL:DR - stone bridges and road slabs are different things. Those slabs are in use while most of roman bridges are not. It is not that cold in Rome so their bridges don't crack due to that.\", 'The Romans used Volcanic Ash called pozzolana or \"pit sand\" in their mortar. By doing so their cement was much more resistant to salt water because of its higher alumina and silica content.\\nI am a Geologist Major, and learned about this in class. You will find many online resources about this topic as well!', \"What's the worst that can happen if a Roman bridge collapses?\\nWhat's the worst that can happen if your driveway cracks into a few pieces? \\n\\nExactly. \", \"Lowball bidding, half-assed site prep, inadequate compaction, lack of/to few cold joints in the slab sections and sub-par workmanship.\\n\\nBut mostly it's because the product used today is sand-laden/lime/ash deficient and inferior to the product used 2000 years ago.\\n\\nYou'll actually get better/longer life out of your driveway using compacted cinder instead of concrete or asphalt. The up-front cost is higher for cinder, but you'll save a ton of money in maintenance in the long-term.\", 'Lots of valid replies so far, but for a true 5 year old level:\\n\\n- This is true of antiques in general - people think old stuff was really well built.  Nope.  Its just that all the poorly built stuff is gone.\\n\\n- Stone bridges in general have to be made really durable to work at all, and are really expensive to build so are made to last.  Driveways work even if cheaply made, and nobody wants to pay a lot for one.\\n\\n- Roman concrete used chemicals that make it more durable than modern concrete.  The stone that the bridges are mostly made of is more durable than either.', 'Mainly because the materials used are somewhat different. Romans used more volcanic sand and ash. This causes a different and stronger type of chemical bond than the materials used in modern concrete. \\n\\n_URL_0_', \"Civil Engineering Student here; Firstly in ancient times they just scaled up what worked. This often didn't work and they just tried to make it work. This meant the bridges that didn't work fell down pretty much straight away (as the max load was on placed on it) and have been checked and upgraded for modern loading. (Perfect) Arches are always in compression, their shape is the inverse of the bending moment diagram should it be a beam. Your Concrete driveway undergoes beading (depending on ground underneath). Concrete is meant to crack. A beam under a uniformally distributed load has tension at the bottom and compression at the top. Concrete has approx 0 tensile strength (that is why there is reinforcement steel to take the tension). The concrete in the tension zone cracks but as it didn't take any load anyway it is fine. Also concrete is susceptible to damage. Frost for example can cause water in the voids in the concrete to expand and contract causing cracking. Also chemicals, road salt, sulphates etc. can all damage concrete. \\n\\nConsider geotechnical (soil) conditions as well. Bridges are founded with deep foundations on rock. driveways could have basements, old coal mines, voids, whatever underneath. Also as it is soil the weather conditions can cause shrink and swell on the soil. Consolidation can still be ongoing up to 50 years after loading for clay soils. \\n\\nFatigue could be another cause of cracking, this could occur with bridges as well though. Fatigue is reduction of strength due to cyclic (on/off) loading but I won't go into detail.\\n\\nTL:DR Concrete is suspectible to cracking; You only see roman structures that have survived long enough\", 'The old becomes the new. You should lay PAVERS. The stone bridges of the Romans are based on the same technology. They did not pour concrete :)', \"Can't believe that the top comment doesn't mention anything about the lost art of Roman concrete.  Ancient Rome used an recipe for concrete that was - until very very recently - completely lost to modern knowledge.  Roman concrete was widely considered to be a miracle mystery until just a couple of years ago.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n\", 'Romans used mostly rock joined whit really good concrete.\\n\\nYour driveway is made whit litle rock, by the lowest bidder.', \"Because only the ones that survived, survived. I'm sure 99% of Roman architecture has long since vanished into nothing but the 1% that happened to be built exceptionally well are what remains and that's what we see today.\", \"The Romans used an additive to the concrete. One we haven't bee able to find. But your question is age old, and there are people out there looking for the secret. Some say its hair, some straw, some say its needles. There is a denser cement than that they used for driveways. You can use it for driveways, but it much more expensive. They even have double hydrological, and they are used for making high rises and sky scrapper, the bigger the hard the cement needs to be. They used none rusting metal tiny needles to keep from cracking. The reason a driveway craks is because there is no metal frame work in it, to keep it together, so when it naturally contracts and expands with the temperatures, nothing to bind it. \", 'The romans used lime mortar which has greater flexibility and actually gets stronger with age. The flexibility allows the wall to cope with small land movements and should microscopic cracks appear the wall can resettle and the mortar \"reheal\" by chemical reaction. Lime also doesn\\'t trap water which can create pressure and make a wall fail. Lime motar is also softer than the stone or brick used to make the wall. This is important because if there is movement the mortar breaks first because of this, which means the wall just needs repatching with new mortar. If you try to smash down a concreted wall then very often you\\'ll destroy the bricks as well because they are weaker than the concrete.\\n\\nThe inverse is important and in short, concrete is strong but brittle. It\\'s something like glass, very strong but it can\\'t cope well with twisting or bending. It\\'s not as straightforward as described, the Roman structures would be maintained very well and it could be the case that your driveway has maybe more damage from freezing winters. However, all concrete cracks it\\'s just in the nature of the material.\\n\\nEven older surviving structures didn\\'t use mortar at all, neither lime nor concrete, and instead just used dry stone cut [accurately to shape](_URL_0_). It has the added advantage of being able to be dismantled like a jigsaw and new blocks cut to match old damaged ones.', 'We lost the recipe. Romans had the best concrete even in the docks that are still there it is way better then what we have now. \\n\\n_URL_0_', 'Either your concrete driveway is absolutely shit, the base course is shit, the reinforcement is shit or whoever built it forgot to build expansion joints into the pavement. On the other hand, roman bridges are built from stone, have good foundations, are built without the need for reinforcement and each joint provides for expansion. ', \"A few issues:\\n\\nThe Romans had a slightly different recepie for concrete that was lost to time and only very recently discovered. It is stronger, lighter and more environmentally friendly. This alone doesn't account for the difference though. \\n\\nThe romans didn't reinforce their concrete. If you don't have enough cover over your steel reo, it will be exposed to air and rust. \\n\\nYour driveway is likely too thin, was left to cure wrongly (bad weather, lack of water, poorly mixed.\", 'Because all the crappy bridges buildt in roman times have allready collapsed. There are almost certainly some bridges buildt today that will still be around in 2000 years time. Most however wont.', \"Romans mixed their concrete with volcanic ash, which creates a stronger bond. What we use in place of ash isn't nearly as durable.\", 'It is because during the Roman time period they came up with the brilliant idea of putting volcanic ash into their cement mix. Adding this simple and abundant resource to the mix also made it weather durable and even waterproof! That is why some of the concrete building and pieces of art are not corroded whilst in the salty ocean water. :)', \"The Romans' concrete is especially strong because it is made from their volcanic rock. The concrete is so strong that the structures have well outlasted the Greek structures and will outlast even your driveway.\", 'I studied this recently during my class on Ancient Civilizations.  Apparently, the reason why the buildings and roadwork that remains from the ancient Romans is due to the ingredients they used in their building mixtures.  Volcanic ash was the primary source that apparently gave the concrete its ability to last longer in harsher environments.  Hope this helps on the answer towards your question. :)', \"It's the same reason your house needs maintenance, but thousand-year old castles are still standing. It's all in what you're willing and able to spend and do.\\n\\nPerhaps ironically, the biggest reason that many ancient Roman constructions are still standing is that ancient Roman engineers weren't as good as modern ones -- but they *knew* it. What they did was *over*engineer those structures, to make up for what they knew they didn't know about how to build things like that to be strong, safe, and durable.\\n\\nImagine, for example, you want to suspend something in the air -- let's say a bicycle. You're pretty sure that [this](_URL_1_) won't do. You're certain, though, that [this](_URL_0_) would. If you don't know the exact strength you need and how to achieve it, and you can afford it, you're going to err towards the latter, even though you know there's a good chance you're overdoing it. Better to overdo it and be wrong, then the opposite.\\n\\nAs a result, ancient Roman structures were often built to a safety factor up to *four times* what most modern ones were. Just to be on the safe side. Because they *didn't know* that they were overdoing it by that much.\\n\\nIt's *possible* to build to that same standard today, but it's hard to justify economically. Sure, we can build a bridge that will stand for two thousand years. But why would we? We're not going to bet on needing it or wanting that long, and it will be very expensive.\\n\\nWhat we do instead is build to a reasonably manageable cost-benefit standard, that we've calculated we can reasonably afford to build and maintain indefinitely. In most cases, that's what makes the best economic sense. That's especially true when the final word comes from taxpayers instead of emperors.\\n\", \"A lot of people are saying that Roman concrete is stronger than modern day concrete, this is not correct. It may be more durable and last longer but it certainly would not have the compression strength that we can make today. Any academic paper I've found on the strength of ancient concrete has said that the strength varies greatly, however the average for Roman concrete is around 12MPA ( 1,700 psi), where as modern high strength concrete can go beyond 150 MPA (22,000 psi ).\", \"Can say nothing about how to build bridges and explain much about that. However about Roman Bridges I have a small amount of knowledge. \\nThey designate bridges as these 3:\\nRoman Bridge: Construction or reconstruction maintaining the original design\\nMedieval-Roman Bridge: Medieval reconstruction over Roman foundations\\nRoman?-Medieval Bridge: Medieval Bridge not of Roman design but on Roman pathway.\\nThere are 4 main bridges still being used today all of those have several times been reconstructed:\\n_URL_0_\\n_URL_2_\\n_URL_1_\\n_URL_3_\\n\\nNo expert by all means in Geology or even Petrology but my experience is in the fact that I've lived for the first 20 years of my life in a Roman road. Leading to a Roman bridge. And next to a Roman Aqueduct.\\n Which leads me to this: The really impressive ones are the aqueducts. When it rains? It still carries water. It's obviously not in use. Broken in parts, only bits and bobs remain. But impressive none the less.\\n\\nPS: I am editing the post to also say this: A lot of the things called Roman, sorry English not my first language, are actually in Roman Style? So you will often have things designed exactly the same way and built between 16th and 18th century. \\nLeading to a lot of confusion.\", 'I wish I could find the article or documentary where I heard this but today\\'s concrete is very different from ancient concrete, we use cheap and abundant materials whereas I believe the ancient romans used..I think it was volcano ash or a particular type of sand which was much stronger and durable. Hopefully someone here can  back me up with a link to what I saw/read\\n\\nEdit >  some mention of it here _URL_0_ \\n\\n >  Gypsum and lime were used as binders. Volcanic dusts, called pozzolana or \"pit sand\", were favored where they could be obtained. Pozzolana makes the concrete more resistant to salt water than modern-day concrete.[4] The pozzolanic mortar used had a high content of alumina and silica.\\n', 'I\\'m actually a concrete inspector with a history degree. This might be the only question ever on reddit that I am qualified to answer in authority. Yay!\\n\\n Before you build a bridge you have to make sure the soil under it can bear the weight, the soil has to be very compact and stable. They had ways of doing this similar to a [proctor test](_URL_0_) and a [sand cone test](_URL_1_)The ancient Romans being the best civil engineers that history would see for centuries learned it the hard way. This is before science so it was just an ongoing record of learning from past mistakes with knowledge handed down to the next generation. They only built with the best plans, with the best material available. Earthquakes are a big problem in Italy so you have to \"over build\" often. That means make something much stronger than necessary every step of the way so that when it\\'s finished it\\'s going to stick around. \\n\\nThey also made sure to pick the best spot for their bridges and would sometimes dig and dig and dig to make sure that if there is bed rock, they\\'ll hit it.\\n\\nAlso, you have to remember that after thousands of years all of the ones who couldn\\'t survive the test of time fell apart. What you\\'re seeing is the ones who could and did.\\n\\nWhat you are seeing in your driveway is the cheapest cement on discount at Home depot, poured by the cheapest guys a crooked sub contractor tricked into working in terrible conditions regardless of the untested soil.\\n\\n', 'This is because the Romans used a secert recipe unknown to anyone living in the modern age. This recipe was lost during the dark ages. However scientists have recently rediscovered the recipe! Inside the concrete, deposits of volcanic ash were found. If you look Pompeii today (the Roman city were Mt. Vesuvius erupted) you will still see bodies covered in volcanic ash, frozen in time. The Romans were smart enough to put this ash in their concrete mix, and nobodies thought of it since.', \"Roman concrete (opus caementicium) is quite different to modern concrete; hence why it has stood the test of time so well. As far as I'm aware for centuries there were numerous attempts to recreate Roman concrete as no one was able to find an actual recipe in Roman records. Eventually the concrete was found to be made from specific levels of pasty, hydrate lime; pozzolan ash; and a few pieces of fist-sized rock. It's generally believed that the ash gives it it's unique properties.\", \"Because your driveway wasn't financed by an empire?\", 'In modern construction the lowest bid wins. Then to break even, contractors cut cost any way possible. Cheapest materials, labor and bare minimum to pass inspections.', 'Roman concrete was far stronger than ours today:\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'This is true, however 2000 year old bridges obviously did not constantly have 2500 lb cars driving over them. They had people walking over them. Therefore, less stress= less cracks/damage', 'What did the romans ever do for us?', \"Roman concrete and modern concrete differ in three important ways: steel reinforcement, volcanic ash, and age. \\n\\nRoman concrete was made with volcanic ash, which is a very fine powder. The smaller particles of ash makes the pores in the concrete (tiny spaces between particles) very small. This prevents water from soaking into the concrete, which breaks it down and erodes it. \\n\\nConcrete takes a short time to set, but a long time to cure. When it's set, it's hard, but basically only because it's dry. As the concrete cures, it undergoes a chemical change that makes it tougher. The longer it cures, the tougher it gets. \\n\\nThis is why your driveway doesn't last (plus the fact that Roman concrete didn't have tons of car constantly moving on it).\\n\\nModern bridges also use steel reinforcement bars, which, when exposed to the caustic concrete, rust. Rusting steel expands, which puts pressure on the concrete from the inside. \\n\\nTl;Dr They're not the same kind of concrete. \", 'IIRC, The recipe for Roman concrete is a lost technology.  A lost art.\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'its called planned obsolescence.  if you only have to pay for something one time and then it works forever the company that sold it to you will go bankrupt.  roman roads were built before some jack ass invented this scam.  back then, you built something right the first time.', 'roman cement was made with volcanic ash making it more durable than any modern cement available today. this also makes it water resistant ', 'When we compare your driveway to Roman bridges, do we include the ones that fell down over the course of 2000 years, or just the few that remain standing?', 'Roman concrete becomes stronger over time through the development of secondary minerals forming as hydrates in the concrete matrix.  The pore spaces fill themselves with new crystal growth.  Most concrete is in modern use becomes weaker over time and exposure to water (especially salty water) when used in conjunction with metal or wood these structures are prone to decay.  Metal rusts and wood rots, molds and burns.  Roman structures used primarily stone and concrete fired at lower than modern temperatures using localized volcanic ash.  (I heard of this from these sources:  _URL_1_ , _URL_0_)\\n  Your driveway may be also subject to swelling soils underneath and heavy vehicles driving over it, faulting (microfaulting) and improper (a small possibility) laying.  Roman bridges that were on swelling soils or faults probably deteriorated during roman times, so there was a preservation bias for the strongest bridges on the steadiest ground.\\ntl`dr: Better materials, luck and the strongest survived to today.', 'What the top rated guy said. ALSO, Romans used a different kind of concrete, they had some sort of volcano shit in it that makes it a lot higher quality than our run of the mill cycle and recycle and recycled concrete.', 'Roman concrete uses a mixture of lime and volcanic rock, as the mixture dries and hardens, it forms molecular bonds much more lasting than modern concrete formulas.', \"You know when I read this I was thinking if I asked my dad this. He would have said they don't make things like they used to son. Now thinking would have told my son the same thing if he would have asked me too. I made explain it like a dad today...\", 'Remember only the best Roman buildings are still standing, all the crap ones have fallen down and the stone has been nicked to build with.', 'The Romans may have also made better concrete by mixing volcanic sand with limestone.  \\n\\nSource: _URL_0_\\n\\nMy knowledge base: I red it on the internet and I once made a sand castle.', 'All the things built 2000 years ago that are still standing today have lasted for 2000 years.\\n\\nBut the things that were built 10 years ago that are still around today have only lasted for 10 years.', 'I know this one.  They are just now re-discovering that the Romans put a substance into their concrete.  It was one of those things that \"everyone\" knows so they never recorded it.  The substance was very common and would make the concrete stronger and allow it to flex and not crack.  We have begun using a substance called \"fly-ash\" from coal power plants in ND that does a similar thing to concrete.  ', 'Depends how many people died and suffered to build it. The more death and suffering the better the product. ', \"_URL_0_\\n\\nIt's because the Romans used volcanic rock that produces a durable mineral that prevents the spreading of the tiny cracks that end up growing and breaking modern cement. If I remember right they started using volcanic rock because they had massive amounts of ash laying over next to Vesuvius\", 'Hi, here is an answer to your question regarding Roman concrete, The Romans used a different type of method which involved salt water, the salt water creates aluminium deposits into the mixture during the hardening process making Roman concrete more durable than what we use today.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n', 'Well I make cement (not concrete) for a living, so I will take a shot at this. There is a lot of pressure to reduce cost nowadays. This pressure has done several things:\\n\\nTher is much less over-design in the structure itself. Typical safety factors range from around 2 - 5, meaning a bridge might be designed to carry up to 5x the intended load. In ancient times, the exact strength could not be calculated in advance, so they dramatically overbuilt.\\n\\nCement builds strength much faster than in the past. This save a lot of money because of the quicker construction times, but durability suffers. I could easilly make much more durable cement, but it would set slower, and noone would want to buy it.\\n\\nFinally, there is one glaring contradiction to your observation. You are comparing the very best structures built at the time to one of the cheapest structures built today. A better comparison would be to the concrete used in skyscrapers today. That concrete is much more advanced, very strong, expected to last centuries, and of course very very expensive.', 'Romans knew a different way of making concrete, which was much better than ours.\\n\\nWe only rediscovered the formula in December, 2014:\\n_URL_0_', 'The Romans figured out that arch bridges are really strong. They would make two identical sets of bricks, stack them up in to two identical towers. You could stack them and say something like \"brick \\'a\\' would be on the bottom, brick \\'b\\' would be on top brick \\'a\\', brick \\'c\\' would be on top of \\'b\\', brick \\'d\\' would be on top of brick \\'c\\', and so on\". Now once the have the two towers stacked up very neatly, they would put one last brick between the tops of the two towers. This last brick is called a \"keystone\", and the two towers beside it keep it from falling down because they are really heavy and put a lot of friction on it. The bridge is then laid over a bunch of these arches, on top of each of the keystones. Somehow the load is evenly distributed. Since there are already cracks between the bricks, there is no more need for major cracks.', \"It all balances out. Roman candles don't even last 2 minutes whereas regular candles last several hours.\", \"One thing to keep in mind is what the builders intend.\\n\\nYou probably live in a neighborhood that was built by one company that was not interested in building stronger than they had to.\\n\\nAnd it's not like we can't be as good as the Romans if we wanted to be.\\n\\nLook at our Monuments, and other things that we built to last.\\n\\nThe St. Louis Arch for instance? Because it's near a fault, when they were making it they drove the foundations deep and it won't rust. Plus Arch's are generally strong shapes.\\n\\nThis makes it possibly among the most durable Man made objects in the World.\\n\\nAnd most Roman building was the same way. They didn't build the average homes and shops they needed to last forever, that would be silly and expensive.\\n\\nHomes today in many ways are much better and more convenient.\", \"The Romans were advanced engineers and had discovered several [volcanic ash additives](_URL_0_) that acted as a cementing agent in their concrete. Like in modern concrete the hardening process is a chemical reaction that occurs when the cement is exposed to lime and water as opposed to say drying mud bricks. This is why Roman concrete survives today. Comparing a 100mm thick driveway slab to a bridge isn't really fair though. Very few if any Roman 'driveways' survive to the modern day. I would also hazard that if our civilisation disappeared tomorrow many of our mega structures would also survive several millennia reasonably intact, though obviously your driveway will not.\\n\\nIf anyone is interested in Roman engineering I strongly recommend reading [De architectura](_URL_1_). It is an architectural handbook authored approx 15 BC (no one actually knows for sure) and covers many topics such as building materials, town planning etc. Interesting read.\", 'Roman concrete was made with a blend of volcanic ash, limestone, and other minerals from that area. These materials formed bonds that were resistant against the elements for years. \\nMore info here:\\n_URL_0_', \"Pave your driveway with solid granite blocks and it will be there 2,000 years from now.  \\n\\nPave it with generic concrete mixed by some thieving contractor's prison-furloughed brother-in-law and your dog will outlive it.\", 'They used less water and hammered it into place. [Source](_URL_0_)', 'Roman concrete is simply far superior due to volcanic rock and ash used to make it, there is currently studys under way on this exaxt thing because its more eco friendly!  \\n\\n_URL_0_', 'The ancient Romans used a special concrete that gets stronger as it ages. Scientists have only recently figured out the recipe and are just beginning to learn how it works.\\n\\nFor more info, see here: _URL_0_', 'roman made a special concrete that is better then the concrete we use today in the past we didnt know the secret concrete mix but now we know. _URL_0_\\n', \"One thing that no one has mentioned is that pre 1880's cement was much much weaker than it is today. In fact it was much more like a hydraulic lime, which is way more flexible. \\n\\nModern cements are incredibly strong,  75 newton's per square inch plus, as the main use for it is for use in concrete for multi stories, skyscrapers etc. \\n\\nIn fact only 1% of cement actually goes into bricks and mortar. This is why expansion joints are necessary in modern cement and concrete, otherwise they will crack due to expansion and contraction. \\n\\nLime mortars and roman cements are a much more flexible binder and can often settle and out live many modern structures with good conservation. \\n\\nSource : I'm a Heritage and Conservation Brickmason\\n\\n\", 'The difference is those Roman bridges were built by expert stonemasons with vast experience and they took great pride in their work, whereas your drive was built by some lazy pikeys.  ', 'When a local highway was built here on Long Island \"sunrise highway\" their was an article that said they were mixing in volcanic ash into the concrete.  It was a technique borrowed from the Romans.  The ash had very tiny particles and filled in the holes in the concrete on a microscopic level.  That way water could not seep into the concrete and cause it to break apart when it froze. Water seeping into concrete and freezing is the enemy of concrete.\\nThe article described who this was rediscovered after a couple of thousand years. ', 'Your driveway is likely only 4 inches thick built on a base of sand that was probably not compacted like it should be. There may be a mesh reinforcement that was not pulled into the center of the concrete as it was being poured. The concrete may have been to hot, to cold, to wet when poured. The base settled over time and cracked the concrete. Low bidding may be a factor.\\nThe Romans built to last using soldier labor with the cost as no object. (mostly)', 'Part of it too, is that it had been found that the materials used for Roman style cement formed a small crystalline structure over the exterior that helped protect it. The exact mix of materials used was list to time, and modern cement for not form this protective barrier.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2877547/Why-Colosseum-hasn-t-collapsed-Roman-concrete-used-secret-ingredient-stand-test-time-engineers-want-copy-it.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete'], ['http://www.citg.tudelft.nl/en/research/projects/self-healing-concrete'], [], ['http://www.crystalinks.com/RomeRoads2.jpg', 'http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=TOICH/2011/12/05/5/Img/Pc0050700.jpg'], ['http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias'], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm'], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/06/04/roman-concrete/'], [], [], ['http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a9208/ancient-roman-concrete-the-building-material-of-the-future-15631356/', 'http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-06-14/ancient-roman-concrete-is-about-to-revolutionize-modern-architecture', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete'], [], ['http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2877547/Why-Colosseum-hasn-t-collapsed-Roman-concrete-used-secret-ingredient-stand-test-time-engineers-want-copy-it.html', 'http://gizmodo.com/scientists-have-found-the-ancient-secret-of-indestructi-513592527'], [], [], [], ['http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm'], [], [], ['http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2877547/Why-Colosseum-hasn-t-collapsed-Roman-concrete-used-secret-ingredient-stand-test-time-engineers-want-copy-it.html'], [], [], ['http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a9208/ancient-roman-concrete-the-building-material-of-the-future-15631356/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], [], [], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], [], [], [], ['http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Inka_mauern_cuzco.jpg'], ['http://moduslighting.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-we-lost-recipe-for-concrete.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Contin_-_stone_tower_-_geograph.org.uk_-_14046.jpg', 'http://eunnyjang.com/images/knit/0511armwarmers/011704.jpg'], [], ['http://viasromanas.planetaclix.pt/pontedechaves.jpg', 'http://viasromanas.planetaclix.pt/pontedapedratorredonachama2.jpg', 'http://viasromanas.planetaclix.pt/pontedevilaformosa.jpg', 'http://viasromanas.planetaclix.pt/pontedesegura.jpg'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete'], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25z0MewBj0Q', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK9kt_P3IMw'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], [], [], [], ['http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2877547/Why-Colosseum-hasn-t-collapsed-Roman-concrete-used-secret-ingredient-stand-test-time-engineers-want-copy-it.html'], [], [], [], ['http://goldschmidt.info/2014/uploads/abstracts/proofs/J.pdf', 'http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/what-makes-ancient-roman-concrete-so-tough'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], [], [], [], ['http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/18484'], ['http://www.history.com/news/the-secrets-of-ancient-roman-concrete'], [], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pozzolana', 'http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20239/20239-h/29239-h.htm'], ['http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-secrets-of-ancient-romes-buildings-234992/?no-ist'], [], ['http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm'], ['http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a9208/ancient-roman-concrete-the-building-material-of-the-future-15631356/'], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], ['http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/researchers-discover-secret-recipe-roman-concrete-020141'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2442, "q_id": "23odr2", "title": "Has anyone ever been \"erased\" from history?", "selftext": "I was watching 300 last weekend, and in the movie, Xerxes tells Leonidas \"I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories. Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned, and every Greek historian and every scribe shall have their eyes put out and their tongues cut from their mouths! Why, uttering the very name of Sparta or Leonidas will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!\" \n\nI was wondering if this has ever happened to a person or group of people?  Are there any instances of someone attempting to do this?  ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23odr2/has_anyone_ever_been_erased_from_history/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgyysnq', 'cgyz501', 'cgz36lr', 'cgz4ooe', 'cgz7f7c', 'cgzaxer', 'cgzcvcl'], 'score': [28, 120, 2, 31, 9, 22, 9], 'text': ['/u/Georgy_K_Zhukov would be a good guy to ask on this. Zhukov was not erased per-se but a major attempt to play down his role in WW2 was made in the post-Stalin era. Mod Zhukov did a rather long post on it a while ago but i forgot what the question was.\\n\\nEDIT: Thanks to caffarelli for finding the question: _URL_0_', 'The practice, in Roman history, is known as *damnatio memoriae* and involves the deliberate condemnation of someone to have their memory,, as much as possible, wiped from the record. Of course, it is historically impossible to show that this was ever done completely successfully since it would not be successful if it were complete.\\n\\nThree emperors received an official damnatio memoriae - Domitian, Publius Septimius Geta, and Maximian. Other Roman senators also suffered this penalty in the official legal sense. It involved seizure or property, destruction or re-utilisation of statues and other monuments, and the like.\\n\\nI would tentatively suggest that in the Roman context it is tied to an idealisation of \"legacy\", and so what is worse than death is to have that legacy and memorial destroyed.\\n\\nA similar practice emerges in early Church history, where theologians and writers deemed (even centuries later) to be heretical, are censured and their works actively destroyed in order to not only halt their influence, but erase their presence.\\n\\nI can go into some more detail if you\\'d like, but perhaps one of the Roman specialists will turn up and elaborate on the Roman legal practice.\\n\\nedit: as two commentators have noted, I should also add that *damnatio memoriae* is indeed a modern term for the practice. Also that it did not only apply to emperors. Apologies for not making this more clear in my original text.', 'Can anyone comment on the supposed Nazi punishment where apparently should one commit a heinous enough crime then ones family and extended family would be killed and their records erased?', 'An entire period from Ancient Egypt along with its probable five Pharaohs was \"erased\" from history: (Amenhotep IV) Akhenaten, Smenkhare, Neferneferuaten, Tutankhamun (King Tut), and Ay of the [Amarna Period](_URL_4_)\\n\\n(Amenhotep IV) Akhenaten started off this period, but most people are probably more familiar with his son [King Tutankhamun (King Tut)](_URL_3_), and his wife [Nefertiti](_URL_1_) because of the incredible works of art they\\'re associated with and the stories of their discoveries. \\n\\nAmenhotep IV changed his name to [Akhenaten](_URL_0_) and moved the capital city from Thebes, where it had been for almost 300 years, to Akhetaten a new city. He radically changed the religious system of Egypt from polytheistic to one focusing on the worship of Aten, the sun disk (to the near exclusion of all other gods). His reign was one of extreme richness and the art style changed pretty dramatically. But the new religion created a lot of tension / chaos / hatred and his line of succession was messy. After his death, the newly reformed religion reverted back to what it was before.\\n\\nAfter a few successors came and died, Horemheb became pharaoh and wanted to distance himself from the past, unpopular Akhenaten. So the entire city of Akhetaten and all its temples was destroyed and abandoned. The capital moved back to Thebes. Akhenaten\\'s name was erased and replaced with simply \"the enemy\" in places, and Horemheb erased the probable five pharaohs of the period from the record books. He extended the dates of his reign to make it seem as if he succeeded directly from Akhenaten predecessor.\\n\\nMuch of what we know about the Amarna period is possible because the city and temples were not fully destroyed before they were abandoned and because many temples and buildings were taken down and their stones reused. Many carved stones were simply turned around so that their faces were covered and re-carved. Others were just dumped in quarries or were crudely broken and have been reconstructed. The pieces of the puzzle are still being put back together today, for example this from late 2012 about the life/death of Nefertiti: _URL_2_', \"Thuthmose III tried to have his stepmother and co regent Hatshepsut erased from history by literally chiselling her name and image of walls and having her statues destroyed. That said the campaign was haphazard at best and we know plenty about her, although not as much as we would like about Egypt's only female Pharaoh. It certainly didn't help that all the images tat show her show her as a man in the dress of a male Pharaoh but all the epithets are feminine. Gave the first people to decode the hieroglyphics a real headache since they could find no record of her in the lists of royal names.\", 'There was a serious effort to erase a man named [Herostratus](_URL_2_) from the historical record.\\n\\nHerostratus burned down the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus.  The Temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and was the favorite of the man who made the first list of the seven wonders:\\n\\n > I have set eyes on the wall of lofty Babylon on which is a road for \\n > chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alpheus, and the hanging \\n > gardens, and the colossus of the Sun, and the huge labour of the high \\n > pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus; but when I saw the house of\\n >  Artemis that mounted to the clouds, those other marvels lost their \\n > brilliancy, and I said, \"Lo, apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked on\\n >  aught so grand\".[2]\\n\\n- [The Antipater of Sidon](_URL_0_)\\n\\nThe temple was not only the pride of Ephesus, it seems like they had somewhat of a tourist economy built around it.  Herostratus burned the temple because he wanted his name to live forever.\\n\\nThe authorities of Ephesus banned his name from being spoken under the penalty of death.  Their plan would have worked if it wasn\\'t for the meddling [Theopompus](_URL_1_) who as far as I know was the only one to record Herostratus\\'s name in his history.\\n\\nTheopompus\\'s works became well known, and he dragged Herostratus along with him.  He probably would have been erased without Theopompus.  We still would have known that someone burned down the temple, but not his name and probably not other details as well.', '[The Aztec ruler Itzcotl and his adviser Tlacaelel tried to erase from history all memories of a pre-Aztec Past, including the memories of the nomadic Mexicas who first founded their capital city of Tenochtitlan.](_URL_0_)\\n\\n\\n > Shortly after the formation of the Triple Alliance, Itzcoatl and Tlacaelel instigated sweeping reforms on the Aztec state and religion. **Tlacaelel ordered the burning of most of the extant Aztec books**, claiming that they contained lies and that it was \"not wise that all the people should know the paintings\". **He thereafter rewrote the history of the Aztec people, placing the Mexica in a more central role.**\\n\\n > **Tlacaelel recast or strengthened the concept of the Aztecs as a chosen people, elevated the tribal god/hero Huitzilopochtli to top of the pantheon of gods,[4] and increased militarism.**[5] In tandem with this, Tlacaelel is said to have increased the level and prevalence of human sacrifice, particularly during a period of natural disasters that started in 1446 (according to Dur\u00e1n). \\n\\n > To strengthen the Aztec nobility, [Tlacaelel] helped create and enforce sumptuary laws, prohibiting commoners from wearing certain adornments such as lip plugs, gold armbands, and cotton cloaks. **He also instigated a policy of burning the books of conquered peoples with the aim of erasing all memories of a pre-Aztec past.**\\n\\n\\nThis was most likely done by Tlacaelel in an attempt to establish the Aztec Empire as the dominant regional power. He did this by bolstering nationalism and removing any reminisce of the old and weak nomadic-Aztec past.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mera8/do_we_know_what_georgy_zhukovs_thought_of_the/'], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nofretete_Neues_Museum.jpg', 'http://www.dayralbarsha.com/node/124', 'http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/01/07/king-tut_custom-d0ee41453f1a757002921cab83ab684624d63b91-s6-c30.jpg', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_Period'], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Artemis', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theopompus', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus'], ['http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_Empire']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1084, "q_id": "2rcss1", "title": "What were some dirty tricks used by soldiers and armies in the Middle ages or Medieval/Classical periods?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rcss1/what_were_some_dirty_tricks_used_by_soldiers_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cnev5s5', 'cnevk4i', 'cnevn35', 'cnewzj9'], 'score': [18, 11, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Signifying something as a 'dirty trick' presupposes mutually-agreed upon standards of conduct in warfare that it would contravene, and for most of (European) history this has not *really* been the case. General principles (capture rather than kill nobility, for instance) may have been perceptible but usually those had an underlying layer of practicality (prisoners/hostages are more politically useful than corpses). You can find many examples throughout history of military subterfuge, but not much stuff that was roundly condemned as 'dirty.' Even those were usually isolated or unique events. If some 'secret trick' allowed a smaller army to regularly rout a larger one, regardless of circumstance... Would it really stay secret for long?\\n\\nAs a side note, GoT's fighting and warfare owes much, much more to Errol Flynn and lord of the rings than to history. Don't put too much stock in it.\", \"Deception plays an important role in all martial systems, from movements of armies to the movements of a body in a duel; what you call dirty tricks, martial writings call sound tactics.  In dueling, the most basic and common deception is the feint: you attack a target knowing your opponent will react, and you redirect your attack to counter that reaction.  \\n\\nBut you want something more fun... In his 1606 fencing manual, Salvatore Fabris takes a brief look at the rapier with a cloak as an off hand weapon.  He shows an action where the fencer throws his cloak at his opponent's face, and as it opens up and moves forward through the air he puts the point of his sword into the cloak and thrusts forward, through the cape, into the face of his opponent!  You can find the (almost) original illustration of this with a quick google image search.\", \"You might want to head over to /r/wma and ask in there, there's certainly plenty of dirty tricks as well as some straight up nasty ones in the old manuals. In the meantime, you may find this amusing:\\n\\n_URL_0_\", \"Sorry, we don't allow [throughout history questions](_URL_0_).  These tend to produce threads which are collections of trivia, not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for.  If you have a specific question about a historical event or period or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again. Alternatively, questions of this type can be directed to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history or /r/askhistory.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://youtu.be/jETLCm7k3sU'], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22in_your_era.22_or_.22throughout_history.22_questions']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1947, "q_id": "ek5o9g", "title": "Are creatures with exoskeletons able to become morbidly obese or even fat, like can they overeat even, what's the deal with excessive food intake and exoskeletons?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ek5o9g/are_creatures_with_exoskeletons_able_to_become/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['fdesu64'], 'score': [8], 'text': ['Animals with exoskeletons have soft tissue filling in gaps between pieces of exoskeleton (chitin/cuticle/etc), and this is the part that expands.\\n\\n[This footage of a mosquito drinking blood](_URL_0_) illustrates how the exoskeleton on its abdomen is not interlocked but in fact resting on expandable soft tissue which expands considerably when its gut fills with blood.\\n\\nIn general, if an animal with an exoskeleton *does* build up considerable fat, it actually builds out relatively uniformly through the body, and puts pressure on the organs until the animal molts (if it does). \\n\\nTurtles/Tortoises, who have partial exoskeletons, can become obese, but in these cases their body just tends to \"spill out\" from between the top and bottom shells more than usual (also their legs get chunky). Naturally they suffer significant health issues if their internal organs come under significant pressure from the extra bulk.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVy67d_wozE']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1677, "q_id": "2zvppv", "title": "why are there so many more poisonous/venomous animals in australia than the rest of the world?", "selftext": "It seems like Australia is trying to kill everything and anything. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zvppv/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_more_poisonousvenomous/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cpmq1pl', 'cpmqhon', 'cpmqkhx', 'cpmqouz', 'cpmra01', 'cpmrul7', 'cpms34z', 'cpmskbd', 'cpmuq4f', 'cpmxhe8', 'cpmyj4g', 'cpn7qrv'], 'score': [39, 14, 2, 5, 6, 10, 5, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2], 'text': ['comformation bias, there are very venomous and poisous animals all over the world alstalia just happens to have a few of the most.', \"Our warm / hot conditions are a good breeding ground for many diverse types of animals.\\n\\nIt doesn't snow in many places here, and most animals in the outback can expect fairly consistent conditions. It's been shown that there are usually a lot more diverse types of animals in these conditions compared to areas where animals have to adapt to more extreme temperature variations like having a yearly snowfall.\", \"Isolstion could be part of it, but a big factor may be how relatively unpopulated it's been compared to other land masses.  In a world with humans, it's a much more advantageous trait to be delicious that to be dangerous.\\n\\nPigs, sheep, and cows, none of whom are noted swimmers, have crossed every ocean to establish populations around the world.  On the other hand, England used to have wolves (though Ireland never had snakes).  Give the 'Strayans a thousand more years or so and they'll even the ledgers.\", \"Don't forget the [Drop Bears](_URL_1_) - they actually [target tourists](_URL_0_)\", \"Maybe because there's lots of big distances and it's underpopulated. So if you're going to get some prey you need to make sure you kill it because the encounters would be relatively infrequent. It's also not very fertile in most of Australia and not as many animals survive. \", ' Proportionally, there are just as many venomous snakes and spiders as most of the rest of the world. Due to there being a larger number of snakes and spiders in Australia versus colder places, there are more venomous species. For example, if a certain percentage of snakes are venomous, then the more snakes in a given area the more venomous. Still at the same proportion though. _URL_0_\\n', 'This is an interesting question, particularly when we consider the relative lack of natural predators in Australia. Bill Bryson puts it well in \\'Down Under\\':\\n >  \"No one knows, incidentally, why Australia\\'s spiders are so extravagantly toxic; capturing small insects and injecting them with enough poison to drop a horse would appear to be the most literal case of overkill. Still, it does mean that everyone gives them lots of space.\u201d \\n\u2015 Bill Bryson. ', 'Bollocks, Snake Island off the coast of Brazil!', 'So that annoying tourists scared of their own shadows stay home.', \"I can't find the article now, but when the Australia has dangerous animals meme started, someone wrote an article on how certain climates/biomes tend to have more poisonous/venomous animals. It showed that most of those biomes were by the equator and that the country with actually the most poisonous/venomous animals is Mexico.\\n\\nBut I think we don't hear about it is because A. Mexico is a poorer country so much fewer people are on the internet than Australia and A. they speak mostly Spanish so they wouldn't be on the same places on the internet to see debunk the meme.\", \"It has a lot to do with Australia's location on the globe. This video explains it nicely:\\n\\n_URL_0_\", \"I'm an American who grew up in Europe, and currently lives in Australia, and I've never really found that they have 'more poisonous/venomous' animals as the rest of the world, it's just a huge exaggeration that aussies love to talk up... just like their damned 'drop-bear' joke. (sorry mates!)\\n\\nI will say though, my partner (female) and many Aussie girls I know, have very little fear of critters like spiders and bugs, compared to the average American female I grew up with. Oh, and they don't really seem to be worried about 'stingers' during 'stinger season,' which are fatal jellyfish that are in the ocean waters at a certain time of year! She is from Cairns, after all though, and they have (fairly regular) dengue outbreaks where the mosquitos just happen to be carrying this terrible disease. Her response is always, 'you'll probably be fine, I always have been!'\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2013/03/drop-bears-target-tourists,-study-says/', 'http://australianmuseum.net.au/drop-bear'], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myh94hpFmJY'], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbUd0iCFvjc'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2436, "q_id": "fyat8", "title": "I'm trying to understand atomic orbitals, and frankly, I don't.", "selftext": "I'm familiar electron orbitals to some extent. 1s, 2s, 2px, 2py, 2pz. I'm also familiar with the system of quantum numbers, if not exactly what they mean. I'm familiar with the shapes of the various electron clouds around atoms, and the fact that one cannot be certain of where an electron actually is. I'm in high school, and I'm trying to write a paper summarizing the history and basics of various theories of electron orbitals. I'm good all the way through the Rutherford experiment, but when I hit the details of the Bohr model, my brain is not quite catching it. I'm discovering that electrons are waves and particles, and my education thus far has skipped the \"wave\" part. So if someone could break down the basics of the Bohr model or modern atomic orbitals, I would be incredibly grateful. I should mention I've pored over Wikipedia, but the pages I've found are extremely complex. \n\nTLDR: I'm trying to understand the basics of current atomic orbital theory, and I'd appreciate a breakdown of the basics, if possible.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fyat8/im_trying_to_understand_atomic_orbitals_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c1jjdoo', 'c1jjg4x', 'c1jk39q'], 'score': [7, 2, 2], 'text': ['It all started with Louis de Broglie who had a [hypothesis](_URL_1_). He thought that since the momentum of a photon was related to its wavelength, maybe a particle would have a wavelength related to its momentum.\\n\\nThat all worked out nicely, so then Niels Bohr thought that if electrons had a wavelength, maybe that would explain certain phenomena regarding electrons around an atom. So he took the wavelength of an electron and assumed you would always have to fit an integer number of electron wavelengths around an atom, and this became known as the [Bohr Model of the Atom](_URL_0_).', \"Let me give this a shot\\n\\nThe atom consists of protons, neutrons and electrons.  The protons and neutrons are in the nucleus. The electrons surround the nucleus. The Bohr model tries to explain how these electrons distribute themselves around the nucleus.  So, to explain this I'm going to go in a bit of a tangent. Imagine a ball that can move anywhere in space. Theoretically, this ball could have any value of potential energy because it can move from any one place to another. Now we put this ball in a box that it cant get out of. Because of this it can only have values of potential energy that fit those for inside the box. Its the same thing for an electron. If you say an electron belongs to an atom then it has to be within a certain range of the nucleus. This places a neccessary boundary on the values of energy that an electron can have. This is what we call energy quantization - an electron can only have certain discrete values of energy. \\nEach discrete value is called an energy level or orbit. Each orbit is given a name called the principal quantum number, n. Now within this energy level, the electrons can move around the nucleus in a bunch of ways*. Depending on how close the electron is to the nucleus, the number of different ways in which it can move around varies. These different shapes in which they move are called orbitals and s, p, d and f are examples of these. It was found that each of these shapes could orient in either the x, y or z axes and each of these orientations are given another quantum number. \\n\\n\", 'After you set up Schrodinger\\'s equation for a hydrogen atom, you can perform a technique called \"separation of variables\", which is one of the few analytical methods of getting somewhere with PDEs.\\n\\nThe equation is in spherical coordiantes (r,phi,theta). Unfortunately the two angles phi and theta cannot be serparated, so you can factor the solution into R_n(r)*Y_lm (phi,theta). The functions you get for this angular component are called \"spherical harmonics\" and are labelled by two numbers: l and m. Here is a [picture](_URL_0_) of them (look familiar?). Any sum of such solutions is also a solution, but these are the building blocks.\\n\\nEssentially, the quantum numbers come out of solving the partial differential equation for an electron in an atom. If you want to understand it more deeply, study partial differential equations, especially separation of variables and Laplace\\'s equation in spherical coordinates. Then try to follow the separation of Schrodinger\\'s equation in spherical coordinates (can be found in any undergraduate Quantum Mechanics textbook; some better than others).\\n\\nIt\\'s a good question, and I think it\\'s unfair to expect students accept such things at face value (what\\'s the point of science again?). ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bohr.html', 'http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html'], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harmoniki.png']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1880, "q_id": "qlqow", "title": "why is the lethal injection needle sterilised?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qlqow/eli5why_is_the_lethal_injection_needle_sterilised/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c3ykaco', 'c3ykbxi', 'c3ykeqm', 'c3ylifm', 'c3ylkwc', 'c3ym0sm', 'c3ym3jr', 'c3ym5pa', 'c3yn7cn', 'c3ynhkt', 'c3ynj1n', 'c3yny56', 'c3yo47a', 'c3yo4d0', 'c3yp2ft', 'c3ypisb', 'c3yqgm5', 'c3yqtnr', 'c3yro0q', 'c3yt76d', 'c3yudxh'], 'score': [201, 1019, 19, 9, 7, 5, 160, 128, 6, 13, 2, 2, 9, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3], 'text': [\"It's a standard medical procedure and has no real meaning nor is it part of a subtle, ongoing joke.  In addition to the health and safety reasons (for when you're handling sharp objects), you are also ensuring that the condemned dies due to the chemicals.\\n\\nAlso, the companies that manufacture the needles don't know what it's going to be used for.  They are required to sterilize the needles that they ship out.  \", \"I believe the execution can be halted right up to the 'push' of the drug sequence into the IV.\\n\\nThis means that the needle is placed a few minutes before the actual execution starts.\\n\\nSo they still need to be able to abort the procedure at a moments notice with no harm to the prisoner.\\n\\nEdit: Grammar \", \"It would have to also have something to do with the fact that the needle is being handled by someone other than the one being executed. If they stick themselves with the needle, they'll want the assurance that they haven't contracted something horrible. That would mean a whole LOT of other needles to be involved!\\n\\nWorkplace health and safety\", \"As has been mentioned, when the State is trying to put someone to death, it takes a while. \\n\\nDuring all the time it takes to get ready, the Governor can call and pardon the prisoner and tell everyone not to kill him. So they take out the needle, which must be clean to prevent infection.\\n\\nLegally, if the prisoner was to get sick because of the needle, his lawyers could argue that the prison broke the rules of how to keep prisoners (ELI20: The 6th Amendment on Cruel and Unusual Punishment) and try to get the prisoner life in prison instead, or even freed. \\n\\nSo they're really trying to cover their own ass at for possible options, as governments usually try to do.\", \"fun fact: doctors can't perform a lethal injection because of the Hippocratic Oath so the prisons hire interns and nurses to do it instead and you end up with stories, like this one, where they  [can't find the vein](_URL_0_)\", 'I\\'ve heard urban legends of doctors \"saving\" prisioners from heart attacks/etc with the prisioner being executed days later.  I\\'m curious how many \"11th hour\" stoppage there have been (I mean, where the sterilization of the needle has come into play).  Has someone really been hooked up and then the governor calls?  ', \"Good God, armchair doctors and lawyers, step aside a second.\\n\\nNobody actually sterilizes needles before using them anymore. They're all disposable and come prepackaged already sterile. It's cheaper than buying and maintaining an autoclave, and paying a surgical tech to operate it. Plus it reduces the risk of an accidental needlestick injury (they teach you not to even re-cap a used needle- there are almost always safety mechanisms on them to slide a plastic sheath over the needle so that it can be disposed of in a sharps container). \\n\\nNow go back to the movies and TV shows that inform your knowledge bases.\", 'Where are you going to get unsterilized needles?  Recovering used needles would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, and opening the packaging earlier in the day just to let it sit out and fester for awhile is a waste of time.  They are pre-packaged single-use devices, manufactured in bulk.', 'You want them to keep a used, dirty needle around somewhere instead of just buying a box of clean ones for $10 and using a fresh one everytime?', \"I'm sure it's easier and cheaper to find sterile needles than used ones...\", \"Because it's not like we're a bunch of sick fucking monsters.  Non-sterilized needles?  Come on now, that's inhumane.\", \"Aside from whatever the *actual* reason is, I would think the most *reasonable and simple* explanation is that medical procedures shouldn't allow for inconsistencies from one patient to the next due to the potential for other problems. Inconsistencies in most anything is what creates problems and litigation.\", '\"In case the condemned receives a stay of execution at the last minute.\\nSince no one knows if the condemned will be receive a stay at the last minute, standard medical infection rules apply. This includes swabbing the IV area with alcohol and iodine as well as using sterile, one-time-use needles.\\nRegardless of setting, using sterilized needles makes things safer for everyone involved. It avoids any improper infection, making cause of death easier to rule. Also, having sterilized needles prevents staff members from getting any infection due to cross-contamination.\\nIt does seem counter-intuitive, yes. But since the main reason is to keep the condemned healthy until death is administered, spending the extra time to sanitize and sterilize is well worth it.\"\\n\\nFound this.', 'It has nothing to do with it being a lethal injection. I doubt you could even buy non sterile medical syringes if you wanted to for some reason.\\n', 'Surgical needles, at least in the west, come in one flavour - sterilised. Sourcing unsterlised needles would cost more than buying standard ones.', 'Because everything about capital punishment is illogical and abhorrent.', 'Suplly technician for a large hospital here. Many needless come sterilized from the factory.  As in when you remove it from the covering it is already sterile.\\n\\nI doubt they have a sterilization unit there processing their supplies. It pregnant just comes that way, but people have turned it into a thing where it sounds like they go out of their way to sterilize it.', \"Well, kiddo, when the government decides to...get rid of a bad guy, they don't want to hurt the bad guys, just to get rid of them. It's not nice to be mean to the bad guys. Also, sometimes a good person is mistaken for the bad guy and we don't want to risk getting him sick, just in case.\", \"As a needle user every day in a veterinary practice, every needle I have ever purchased for use has been prepackaged and sterile.  Also, if you use a needle too many times, such as poking it into a rubber stopper of a medicine bottle, the needle dulls.  So it's not like it has to be sterile, but it just comes like that.\", 'That\\'s just how needles for injections come. I don\\'t think there\\'s much of a market for non-sterile needles. They likely come from the same kind of suppliers as the ones health care providers and the general population get their supplies from. I\\'d be surprised if there was some kind of \"special\" equipment for lethal injection. I\\'ve never actually seen it done but I am under the impression that it\\'s actually a luer-lock type of system with IV line established, not just a venipuncture and immediate injection thereafter. I think they probably establish a peripheral site line and then attach a needleless syringe to the hub to inject the solution. All of that stuff is just sterile.  ', \"All prison nurses are union.  Union nurses must sterilize all needles regardless of procedure.  It would take millions of dollars for lawyers to weed out a provision in their contracts to make a single caveat for lethal injections.  \\n\\n$1,000,000's in lawyers fees  >  $.03 for a cotton ball and a dab of alcohol times every time we've actually gotten around to putting someone to death.  \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130959&amp;page=1#.T1eQdHJAYnY'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2550, "q_id": "3tx8tl", "title": "why can't batteries be recharged infinite times?", "selftext": "Phone batteries for example - why do they decrease in capacity over time?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tx8tl/eli5_why_cant_batteries_be_recharged_infinite/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxa0ecb', 'cxa2df8', 'cxa3dt4', 'cxa40xi', 'cxais9t'], 'score': [118, 3, 44, 12, 2], 'text': ['The materials inside them actually degrade over time when used and recharged repeatedly. Due to this, they have a finite lifespan ', 'Take something that is flexible and bend it a few times.  After a while, it tends to permanently deform, and does not snap back as much or weakens where it was bent, or just snaps.\\n\\nBatteries can be thought of in similar fashion.   The stress of recharge cycles eventually causes part of the battery to lose the ability to hold a charge.', 'Batteries work by containing chemicals that react to produce electric energy. \\n\\nIn rechargeable batteries, applying electric energy can reverse these reactions to restore the original state in wich electric energy can be produced, effectively \"storing\" electric energy.\\n\\nHowever, neither process is perfect - a small part of the materials involved (which tend to be pretty aggressive) reacts in different ways, which are not reversible. This problem is excarbated by high temeperatures (which stimulate all chemical reactions).', \"I think I read this analogy here once about this topic. I don't have the original quote, nor do I remember who said it, so I'm not claiming this as my own.\\n\\nThink of a battery as a cup you use to drink water. Imagine everytime you fill the water cup, it forms a very thin layer of ice on the bottom that never melts.\\n\\nThe layer is so thin that you won't notice the ice buildup until you've used it very many times. Eventually you've got a cup that can only hold a tiny amount of water. \\n\\nNow replace ice with rock salt and water with ions and that's the explanation with batteries. When Lithium ions move across the electrode while charging, they form a rock salt in the battery.\", 'In the case of lead-acid, the \"plate\" is a thin leaf of Pb (negative) and PbO2 (positive) and the reaction absorbs the sulfide ion from the sulfuric acid electrolyte to convert both plates to  lead(II) sulfate (PbSO4).  It\\'s reversible, of course... but it\\'s like this.  If you had an iron plate and it scales apart into rust, and electrolytically turned the rust back into iron, it\\'s not a plate anymore, is it?\\n\\nLead plates can be cycled about 300 times total.  The material swells and contracts during discharge/recharge and slowly falls apart.  It flakes off bits of lead, it cracks which disconnects a part of the plate from the terminal.  There is a porous separator (a plastic or rubber mesh) between the positive and negative plates to allow them to be sandwiched very close to keep the resistance down, while separating them to prevent a short.  Flakes shedding off pack into the separator and can poke through, resulting in a short.\\n\\nYou might envision it as \"plating\" a new lead surface when it\\'s recharged.  That\\'s not it- *the lead never moves in either plate*.  The sulfide ion moves in and out of the electrolyte.  The plate must be thin and porous on a molecular level (because each lead molecute can only react with electrolyte it\\'s in contact with, otherwise the lead is useless).  You might think \"well we could glue the lead to fiberglass cloth to hold it together\" but the lead will still flake and crack apart and come off at about the same point.  You might say \"well let\\'s make the lead plate like 1/4\" thick\" but then the battery would only have like 5% of the capacity it should for its size- and the shedding flakes off the plate surface will STILL clog the separator.  \\n\\nPeople often ask \"well can\\'t I just wash out the old electrolyte with new and fix the battery\"?  Well, each cell is like 200 plates of interleaved positive/separator/neg plates with flaked bits of plate packed into the separator.  The flaked stuff is insoluble and can\\'t be washed out.  Replacing the electrolyte fixes nothing.\\n\\nIt can only be truly reformed by melting it back down and rolling it down into a new sheet during remfg.  \\n\\nIn the case of NiCd/NiMH/NiFe Edison cells (rare, used early 20th cent), it\\'s different- the plates don\\'t really break down.  Rather, every time we charge them, the electrolyte loses a bit of water.  In the typical sealed \"AA\" steel-can battery, there\\'s no surplus electrolyte, and no way to refill them.\\n\\nBut there ARE very uncommon flooded-plate NiCd/NiMH/NiFe batteries which you can add distilled water to.  I have a lot of vintage flooded-plate NiCd that work fine that I sell on eBay.  These DO last basically forever.  It\\'s crazy how long they last.  But they do require maintenance and their charging cycle management is a bit crazy.\\n\\nThe NiCd/NiMH/NiFe has one other enemy- carbonation.  Regardless of whether they\\'re the sealed type or not.  The electrolyte is a strong base (not acid) of potassium hydroxide.  If exposed to air, it absorbs carbon from the small trace of CO2 in the air and forms potassium carbonate, which is chemically useless and charging doesn\\'t reverse that back into hydroxide.   However... you CAN simply drain the electrolyte and mix up new KOH and refurbish the cell like-new again.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2458, "q_id": "1pxbdh", "title": "if verizon and the fcc were to overturn net neutrality laws, what will really happen?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pxbdh/eli5_if_verizon_and_the_fcc_were_to_overturn_net/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cd71mds', 'cd71nmw', 'cd71qoh', 'cd71ruq', 'cd71uyv', 'cd71v4c', 'cd71vsh', 'cd71yc5', 'cd721b9', 'cd728z1', 'cd72abl', 'cd72auc', 'cd72ie3', 'cd72kbb', 'cd72mhu', 'cd72rwp', 'cd73rzt', 'cd73z4y', 'cd73zlt', 'cd740d0', 'cd746d4', 'cd74out', 'cd7502o', 'cd757sj', 'cd75cys', 'cd7606c', 'cd761a8', 'cd768q5', 'cd76geq', 'cd76gpv', 'cd76kev', 'cd76lze', 'cd77gfi', 'cd77gyk', 'cd77skh', 'cd77wsm', 'cd7871y', 'cd78p0l', 'cd797lc', 'cd79fgc', 'cd79gfx', 'cd7a3ux', 'cd7a6ta'], 'score': [2, 79, 7, 9, 84, 28, 1057, 64, 13, 14, 27, 12, 4, 6, 172, 8, 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 12, 10, 3, 2, 10, 2, 10, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2, 8, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['This should [help](_URL_0_).', 'Think of toll roads versus interstate highways. Verizon wants to charge either the users a toll for certain applications ie) Facebook, Facetime, Skype.. or charge owners of those services. This drastically will reduce competition and advancements because users are not going to pay money to try something new and unproven yet, and on the flip side if the owners have to pay more money there will be less money to put back into the business.\\n\\nAnother explanation is that all internet is already payed for on both ends of the line. If i run a website I am paying to host that website on the internet, and someone accessing it is paying to be connected to the internet. Verizon wants to have a say which sites/services should caugh up more money if their paying customers happen to go to said websites.', \"Right now, we have the same access to everything on the big table that is the internet.  Slow downs have to do with how many people want a dish, and how slow the servers are in serving it up. \\n\\nWithout net neutrality, suddenly this internet table would have some plates easier to eat than others, the restaurant owner decides what you get served rather your communication to the servers or your ability to navigate the crowds.\\n\\nMaybe the restaurant has a problem with pork or prefers pepsi over coke.  Maybe you won't get the meals you prefer, like you can now, as your entire experience will be tailored by the restaurant owner.  \\n\\nThis hasn't happened before in a big scale before, so no one knows how it will affect our meal.  \", \"I guess we would make our own internet.  We'd need Al Gore.\", \" > I know what a lot of people FEAR will happen, but what is the reality?\\n\\nPeople have reasons for having those fears. Go back a decade, and you'll notice people fearing the Patriot Act could be misused for dubious practices, a fear which has been realized. \\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nJust because the ramifications seem too far fetched for us today does not mean they will not happen.\", \"You know how when you pay for tv, you buy it in packages? You can buy HD packages, and sports packages, and packages that give you HBO?\\n\\nWell without net neutrality, companies can charge more for you to go to Youtube, as opposed to just checking your email.\\n\\nIt's the difference between paying money at a buffet, and being able to try everything, and having to pay for each course.\", 'A combination of the following (one, the other, or both, to varying degrees of limitation and/or price):\\n\\n* You own a website, online service, or mobile app; but Verizon slows it so it takes a long time to load *unless* you pay them.\\n* You subscribe to the internet as an end user. Facebook and Google load slowly, Netflix and YouTube run at standard def only, and LiveLeak and BitTorrent are totally blocked. Your ping time in games is abysmal UNLESS you pay extra for a \"Premium Subscriber\" package.\\n\\nISPs then introduce their own content services, which will of course run much faster than anyone else\\'s over their own connections. They take all the ad revenue, and you are stuck with their service which they can do whatever they want with (including charge for it - but charge less than what they charge to use a competitor\\'s). The original content providers slowly die off, as people don\\'t want to pay for the \"Netflix\" package since they already pay for Netflix, or for the YouTube package since YouTube is supposed to be free.\\n\\nThey make all the money and control all the information flow. Little startup companies who can\\'t afford to pay for all their user\\'s bandwidth? Gone. With the competition eliminated, these companies have no reason to really innovate, and the internet becomes a crappy text-based version of cable-TV: super-high subscription fees, crap content, and no freedom to innovate.\\n\\nIt\\'s really a shit excuse to sap as much money from people as they can, but if it happens it will cost much, much more.\\n\\nEDIT: One silver lining is that we may see more startup ISPs who DON\\'T pull this kind of crap - but that will be very difficult because the big boys provide all the \"information superhighway\" wires that connect the internet across long ranges, and they\\'ll just charge the small ISPs to lease bandwidth from the big connection lines.', 'basically Telecoms want to turn the Internet into a tiered paid subscription. Just like television.', \"Think of it like your standard TV cable package.\\n\\nYou will probably pay nothing, or very little for the most basic, minimal usage of the internet.  Like basic cable. You won't get a lot, but its cheap.\\n\\nIf you want more fancy websites, like Youtube and Facebook, you are going to have to pay a little bit more.  Its like adding ESPN, USA, or other networks onto your TV. It also costs a bit more.\\n\\nIf you want all internet, or the most internet, you are going to have to cough up the most.  Like HBO, Starz, and Showtime.\\n\\nThe reason people dislike it or are afraid of it, is because it makes it much more difficult for smaller and new websites to get any viewing, because no one will pay for that.  Think of it like living in NYC, and trying to pay for a local broadcasting in LA.  No one is going to do that.\\n\\n\", \"We all will be bent over and screwed even harder by service providers. 'Murica, for the corportations, by the corporations. \", 'It would be the end of a golden era of shared information. It would turn a platform into a product. Instead of unlimited access to the internet at a price, it would be specific portions of the internet at varying qualities and prices, like tv. The smaller sites (Independant sites, blogs, ect.) would likely die out leaving only the larger corporation run sites (Facebook, google, youtube, ebay, ect), which would likely be offered in bundles and packages, featuring only approved content. *Please note that I am a dumbass on the internet with no real knowledge on the subject, this is just my two cents.*', 'The big providers might get away with their tiered system for a while but only for a little while (1-5 years lets say).  Because just when they start to feel comfortable with the new higher level of revenue they are dragging in, the whole thing will collapse as soon as Google comes to town with not only significantly faster service, but no tiers and no bullshit, just wide open internet access 24/7.  You see Google saw this coming a years ago and they know that this greed on the part of the majors will only help them sell a newer better system, makes it easy actually.', \"To answer this question, I'd think of the internet as having a bunch of train stations (IP Addresses) and a bunch of trains (Internet Service Providers - ISPs). Right now, everyone with an ISP pays some amount of money for unlimited train access - more money can get you a faster train, but it doesn't matter where you're going. \\n\\nThis court case is not really about who owns the tracks, but rather a question on whether an ISP can limit your train access or charge you more based on your destination. With this power, they can make renting a train on the way to Netflix more expensive. It remains to be seen if this can be be implemented and whether Netflix could use mirrors (copy-paste their train station) to circumvent this. \\n\\nWhy this could be really bad: ISP's are notoriously not competitive in most regional markets. Depending on the verdict, this could give them more staying power.\\nWhy this could be irrelevant: Assuming the cost of traveling on a different set of tracks is not more expensive, economics would suggest that this is an unsustainable practice from a competitive standpoint.\", \"Verizon and the FCC aren't working together to overturn net neutrality regulations as the title somewhat implies. The FCC created the net neutrality rules, and Verizon is challenging their validity.\\n\\nIt's important to remember that these rules are very new: they were only adopted in 2010. The problem with predicting what would happen if the rules were overturned is that the net neutrality push has pretty much been preemptive, so there's not a huge amount of stuff to point to in terms of actual things that the rules were preventing.\\n\\nThe major actual examples that I'm aware of are Comcast's interference with BitTorrent (which predated the rules), and MetroPCS creating service levels that only allowed video from YouTube, not other providers.\", 'You can think of it basically like [this](_URL_0_) picture was a real picture on an ISP pricing page.', 'Is there some way we can pool our money together and put Verizon out of business?  Maybe we can crowdsource our own isp.  \\n\\nAnyone got any ideas?  Lets talk.', 'One (I think) important distinction is that ISPs are not planning to \"slow down\" certain sites/services, per se. What they are planning to do is use Quality of Service/Class of Service markings on traffic to sites and services they prefer (read - that pay them) to protect that traffic during congestion. \\n\\nSo, here\\'s an example - I am Verizon or whatever ISP. My customers use Netflix and Hulu. Netflix, however REALLY wants my 100 million subscribers to use their service and is willing to pay me a ton of cash to ensure that connectivity to their service maintains a certain level of performance. Say Hulu is not willing to do that. I haven\\'t \"slowed down\" Hulu traffic, I have only given Netflix traffic priority through my network to maintain the service level we have agreed upon.\\n\\nI don\\'t believe this scenario will ever involve the ISP charging the end user, although it is possible I suppose that they may offer \"premium service\" at the higher rate. The golden ring for the ISPs is to get the content providers to foot the bill. ', \"We'll just have to make our own Internet, with coke and hookers.\", 'The net would be like cable. They could charge you more for certain \"premium\" sites or for sites that they don\\'t want around. Right now it is like by paying one price you get pretty much the whole internet. If the companies get their way the public would end up paying more for the same thing. \\n\\nThis also means some less popular sites may have less chance to stay afloat because of their inability to generate profits like the more mainstream sites. ', 'Ultimately, ISPs will be regulated like utilities.  It is inevitable.  Unfortunately, it looks like companies like Comcast will have to destroy the internet before we move in that direction.  ', \"The internet has jumped the shark.  \\n\\nThe new new is already making its way to a synapse near you. \\n\\nSoon you'll be thinking your way around the ol' BioGoogle wetwire.  A.K.A.the inner-net. \", 'To anybody saying, \"oh, the ISP\\'s won\\'t abuse this new power without net neutrality\". Remember a lot of people said the same thing about the government with the Patriot Act.\\n\\nIf you give people power, it will be used. Period.', 'As someone who does NOT live in the USA, do you think there will be significant flow-on effects for me?', \"If you're feeling ballsy: instead of asking what would happen to users and startups in the case of overturning Net Neutrality, try asking what would happen to the USA as a whole. People tend to forget that the internet doesn't reside in America; when the USA is done chasing out it's intellectuals and emerging business people, all they'll be left with is poverty-stricken middle class and an oligarchy of business vampires that control the politics of the state. And nobody or nothing will be able to save the country and it will mark the end of an empire. Mark my words. \", 'Browse google.  Instead of a colourful search box, you\\'re greeted with: \"Hi! This is just a friendly reminder from Verizon.  Did you know what you can use **Bing** to search for things too?  Would you like to search for *horse p0rn* using **Bing** today?  \\n\\n**Yes** - OK!  \\n**No** - Please wait 30 seconds and fill out this captcha to continue to google.\"  \\n  \\nBasically, the shit of nightmares.', 'Can someone please explain to me why Facebook, Google, Yahoo, etc are not flipping the **** out right now?', 'Is this relevant in a worldwide scale? Will this have any impact on someone in Europe?', 'Nothing.\\n\\nAt least not at first.\\n\\nThese companies play the game for the long haul.  When they get a ruling on their side they know that people are against them, so they don\\'t act for a while.  They\\'ll sit it out for a while as all the original hubbub dies down.  People have short memories and even worse attention spans.  But slowly and surely, they\\'ll make moves.  They\\'ll start to acquire companies that they\\'ll use in the future to maximize their power and profit.  Then they\\'ll start pulling t he crap that other people are posting about.  That\\'s when certain sites will conveniently start to slow down and when certain other ones automagically become \"premium\" services.  \\n\\nHeyve already set the precedent with things like cable TV and cell phones.  Its all fucken data.  Its all 1s and 0s, so why do I need a separate voice, texting *and* data plan?  This is the type of shit they will pull.  But they\\'ll wait.  They\\'ll start implementingthese type of pricing structures slowly, and not too coincidentally, ALL the service providers will do it together.  Just like with cell phone plans... when vVerizon announces a plan, AT & T has a mirror image of that plan within weeks.  And its never to the customers advantage.', 'this will happen\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'Norwegian redditor here :) Is this something only happening in the US, or is the entire world going under? ', '[30 years from now](_URL_0_)', 'This is where a Death Note would be really handy...', 'I\\'ll bridge the gap that people tend to leave open.\\n\\nWhat is this \"neutrality\" in Net Neutrality? It\\'s the **indifference / non-interference** that we expect from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with regards to what **kind** of data they transmit to/from us.\\n\\nWe already pay for data transmission, and we already pay **more** for **faster** data transmission. Just not what **kind**.\\n\\n---\\n\\nI still haven\\'t worked out exactly how someone with this power would use it to make money, but consider this ... contrived scenario:\\n\\n >  I subscribe to Comcast\\'s package A, which promises to deliver 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream connection.  \\n >  Scenario 1 (with net neutrality): Comcast lets me do what I want, so I can do the followings:\\n\\n >  - download large files at near-3mbps speeds: Maybe a 2GB+ Windows image in a bit more than 1 hour. Note: 2GB / 4Mbps ~= 1.14 hours.\\n >  - stream HD movies without stopping to buffer: Maybe a 2GB+ movie that lasts 93 minutes. Note: 2GB per 93 minutes requires a 388KBps = 3.1Mbps internet connection, which is well under our 4Mbps capability.\\n\\n >  Now, let\\'s play devil\\'s advocate and try to come up with ways Comcast can charge me more.\\n\\n >  1) They can throttle my connection so that neither of those tasks finish as expected. My download takes more than 3 hours and my video stream spends ~100% more time buffering. Since this performance is clearly unacceptable, they\\'d then offer me a better package at a higher price.  \\nI don\\'t know whether or not they\\'re already doing this.\\n\\n >  2) More discretely, they can throttle your data stream only for types of data that they don\\'t like (for whatever reason). So your download would still finish in a bit more than an hour and you\\'d still be happy, but your movies won\\'t play satisfactorily. In heroic manners, Comcast comes along and offers you a \"video package\" that \"boosts\" your video streaming connection for a \"small monthly subscription fee\".  \\nI don\\'t know the legal details, but they may get away with doing this because they actually *do* serve you the subscribed speed of your package (so they technically didn\\'t lie legally when you signed the contract).\\n\\n >  3) Things can be a bit more bleak for a small start-up company, as their needs tend to be more \"focused\". This is wildly speculative, so feel free to ignore it. As a user, you may not die if video streaming is taken away from you; you can still watch cat gifs or play online games. A start-up company tends to serve only one type of service, which likely involves one data type. Take a DRM-free video streaming service for example (we don\\'t care whether this can ever be a legal business). Their lives depend on video streaming. If the only ISP in their area throttle their video data transfer speed, they either pay extra or get screwed.\\n\\nAnd then of course they can jump into the service providing game, eliminating competition until they are the primary provider of certain services you depend on. Then charge you cut-throat prices for them.  \\nI imagine this is what happened to the cable TV. Exclusivity of certain TV shows and hundred-dollar subscriptions.\\n\\nEventually, the internet may look like an amusement park. You pay once for the ticket to get into the area, then pay again for everything you do.', \" >   I know what a lot of people FEAR will happen, but what is the reality?\\n\\nMost of the stuff in the other comments is fear based, although it's important to note that it all *could* happen if the law is changed without careful consideration, and we have good reason to be concerned.\\n\\n*Why* Verison is looking for change is important, and a valid concern on their part.\\n\\nThe ISP business model is based on overselling their capacity. If they have a 100Mb/s link in the network they can safely sell five 20Mb/s connections and never have an issue; but unless all five connections are constantly maxed out the network will be under-utilised, it makes sense to sell more connections until the actual usage gets closer to capacity. Higher return means higher profits and/or lower prices.\\n\\nTraditionally this has worked very well, customers (simplifying) only use the network when downloading a web page, and for most pages this is only a small amount of data and take a small amount of time (just think about how long you look at reddit pages versus how long you're waiting for them to load), you can put a lot of customers into a limited amount of bandwidth this way, unless everyone coincidentally tries to load a page at the same time the system will handle it.\\n\\nRecently though, steaming video has changed this, Netflix and similar services make up a massive portion of total internet traffic. When streaming data connections are sustained for very long periods of time, and if the video is HD it occupies a lot of bandwith. It's becoming more common for enough people to be using data at the same time to strain ISP resources, improving capacity severely cuts into the ISP's bottom line (remember, most people don't watch Netflix 24/7, during non-peak periods the network becomes very under utilised).\\n\\nSome ISPs use throttling to keep on top of this but to be neutral they can't discriminate, all traffic is sped up or slowed. ISPs would like to be able to prioritise bandwidth selectively, if they can limit Netflix traffic to a portion of their capacity they have the rest to service other kinds of traffic.\\n\\nObviously the business side of this could allow the ISP to sell additional capacity on their network to customers or sites that were otherwise limited. This would mean Netflix or its users would need to pay for the peak strain they put on the system, offsetting the ISP's cost of boosting capacity. This is of course the part people think will be abused, if an ISP could limit you to a tiny fraction of their capacity unless you cough up a hefty fee then this creates issues for all sites on the Internet.\", 'A lot of people are comparing this to TV, my question is what would TV be like if it had its own \"neutrality law\"?', \"What is going to happen is that a company like google with tons of money is going to be forced to pay to pay money to ISPs so that internet users can use their sites quickly (a little bit faster than currently).  A website like reddit, in the red, not yet profitable without money to spare won't be able to pay nearly as much as to them.  That means users don't get a high speed connection and everything will load slower.  And new sites just starting out are going to be terrible\", 'Google will start its own internet. They will lay the wires and take over the world', 'So, wealth wise, would Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc., decide that this means war and combine forces to buy/create their own ISPs at a much faster pace than Google fiber is being deployed now?', \"I am a network engineer for an ISP. I sit in big wig meetings and I can tell you that My company can not wait until Net Neutrality is gotten rid of. \\n\\nMy company's train of thought is this, they are the ones who paid the money for laying out the wiring, it is their network that people use. But services like, facebook, Skype, oovoo, etc are saturating the bandwidth forcing my company to expand and open higher Bandwidth only so these free video services can make money, While the ISP doesn't make enough from its customers. \\n\\nThis is a major schism of all ISPs. Skype has more bandwidth usage and airtime then any other phone, video conferencing service, and Skype is just raking in money with out having to do any work that ISP does for that connection. \\n\\nI'm sure by now it is understood that, when an ISP gives you  50 MB of bandwidth. What they are saying is that it is possible you you to achieve 50 MB download speeds as certain times of the day, when the bandwidth is available. so it not guaranteed 50 MB its Best effort 50MB. \\n\\nLets say 1000 GIG pipe was layed out for a specific neighborhood and all residence buy internet from that company. Even to some people are paying for 50 MB, they will only  be guarenteed 5 MB, so the ISP can put as many customers on that pipe as possible. Evening and night times, you will experience slow speeds because everybody is online after coming home from work. During Mid day, you will experience even higher speeds than 50MB, since not many of the customers are online. \\n\\nEDIT: I am only giving an outlook in to the ISPs agenda and reasoning. I am not justifying their actions. \\n\\n\\n\", \"Won't overturning net neutrality laws in the US speed up the technology exodus started by the Snowden leaks? \", \"I pay for the amount of food I eat, amount of gas I use, etc.  Why shouldn't everyone pay for the amount of bits they use?  Right now, lite users subsidize heavy users (people watching hours of Netflix, etc.\\n\\nPeople should pay for what they use, not ride on the backs of low-bandwidth users.\", \"What about the people that are not in the US, we shouldn't get punished for the ridiculous shit that America pulls.\", 'Google better hurry up with that Google Fiber and deliver us away from evil!']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L11kLmWha6o'], [], [], [], ['https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/patriot-act-10-years-later'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/weqTlxD.jpg'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.bash.org/?142934'], [], ['http://www.asofterworld.com/clean/fist.jpg'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1392, "q_id": "76k66j", "title": "how do people die in wildfires?", "selftext": "It\u2019s not like the area spontaneously combusts, don\u2019t people have ample time to get to safety?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76k66j/eli5_how_do_people_die_in_wildfires/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['doek40k', 'doendsa', 'doepfew', 'doetm07'], 'score': [20, 7, 2, 9], 'text': [' >  It\u2019s not like the area spontaneously combusts, don\u2019t people have ample time to get to safety?\\n\\nIt sort of does spontaneously combust. Imagine a wall of flame approaching at 50+ mph and winds carrying embers which are dropping around you. Each of those might start their own fires in any direction, blocking your movement and vision.\\n\\nLook around your house, how far can you see? Probably not more than a mile or two at most. Once you can see fire you are probably out of time.', 'a wildfire breaks out 50 miles from you.  do you evacuate?   probably not.   with wind, fire can travel 10mph.    that fire that was 50 miles away from you when you went to bed is now on top of you when you wake up in the morning.   ', \"The key to this question is looking that the age of the deaths. In California, almost everyone was over 75 years old.\\n\\nMost often (old) people die from smoke inhalation. It aggravates pre existing conditions and they die. \\n\\nIn california, some residents weren't given evacuation notices, and the fire reached the houses at 2 or 3 in the morning, so everyone was sleeping. Some people woke up with flames literally in their yard. Elderly people aren't as mobile so they are more susceptible.\\n\\nPeople can burn to death if they get trapped by the fire. If the fire is blocking the escape, they can get trapped in. If people are on foot evacuating like that 14 year old boy, the flames can easily out pace him. The winds were  > 45 mph\", \"In normal forest fires most of the time yes people can evacuate in time because they have an hour or two to get out of the way. If you're talking about the fires in California right now like in the Napa Valley those are not regular forest fires, those are firestorms. \\n\\nA firestorm is a result of a fire that burns so hot that it actually changes the weather around it and causes air to be sucked into the base of the Flames causing them to burn even hotter which causes more air to be sucked in and the Flames to burn even hotter... the result is a wall of flame several stories tall moving faster than what you can legally do on some freeways. The time difference from when you first see the Flames to when you are literally being burned by the Flames can be 2 to 3 minutes. \\n\\nNow you might say that it is possible to get away from a fire in 2 to 3 minutes but I'll remind you that in most places of the world roads do not go directly away from disasters. Especially in places that are literally valleys or Canyons where there are only one or two roads out of an area meaning sometimes your last evacuation route is actually towards the flames and you need to just shelter in place. Sheltering in place can be an acceptable Last Resort but considering the raw power of a firestorm there's really no hope, we're even seeing melted engine blocks from the devastation areas so there's really nothing you can do to hide from it. For those in the path if they did not evacuate when it was 25 miles away (the next town over) they may not have had a chance to leave at all. \\n\\nSo stop and consider what is 25 miles away from you, and think that if that was a natural disaster, would you evacuate from your city just because of what's happening 25 miles away? Also the next time you're on the freeway think about a wall of flame the height of a large building going that speed. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2308, "q_id": "1g5277", "title": "Is there a particular reason why some people are risk-takers while some are risk-averse?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1g5277/is_there_a_particular_reason_why_some_people_are/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cagsmwx'], 'score': [4], 'text': ['_URL_0_\\n\\nThis is probably where you want to start reading. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1090, "q_id": "o43vs", "title": "When light is reflected, does it \"stop\" at the point of reflection? ", "selftext": "Assuming a perfect 90 degree (perpendicular) \"impact.\" Or am I completely misunderstanding the concept? If so, what does happen?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o43vs/when_light_is_reflected_does_it_stop_at_the_point/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c3e7qry', 'c3e7r6v'], 'score': [4, 7], 'text': ['I was going to answer with what I know about the physics of reflection...but then I found [this](_URL_0_) instead. Hope this helps.\\n\\nedit: due to weird formatting just click the first link: Reflection (physics). Cheers.', 'There are kind of two interpretations of this phenomena based on whether you are taking the \"light is a particle\" or \"light is a wave\" approach.\\n\\n\"Light is a particle\" - Photons comes in and \"impact\" the surface.  Physically, this is the photon being absorbed by electrons in the material the surface is made out of.  Absorption makes electrons jump to a higher energy level.  Eventually, the excited electron drops back down to a lower (usually the original) energy level and emits a photon of equal energy as the one that just went in.  Now, the photon is emitted in a random direction, so sometimes it just gets shot further into the surface and the same process repeats.  If, however, the photon gets emitted out of the surface, it can travel back to your eye, which you see as a reflection.  Though the photon is emitted in a random direction, this doesn\\'t mean that all directions are created equal.  For rough surfaces, the probability that a random direction means smacking into a peak or value on the surface is increased.  For smooth surfaces, the chances that a photon can travel, unimpeded back to your eye is increased.  This is why smooth things tend to be more reflective than rough surfaces.\\n\\n\"Light as a wave\" - As we know, however, light can be thought of as a planar electromagnetic wave.  A oscillating electric field and perpendicular magnetic field travel towards the surface.  When these waves strike a surface, different boundary conditions exists depending on the properties of the material.  A good way to think about this is like a piece of with one end in your hand and the other attached to a flag poll.  A fixed boundary condition is when the rope is tied to a single spot on the flag poll.  When you wave your end of the rope, it has to stop and come back towards you.  If, however, the rop is attached to a ring slipped over the flag poll, so that the ring can move up and down, then the point that the rope itself can move up and down at the flag poll and the energy does not get sent back.  The actual directions and magnitudes of the reflected electromagnet wave depends on vector calculus and Maxwell\\'s equations, but that\\'s probably more than you want.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2881, "q_id": "4b939c", "title": "why are window screens so uncommon throughout much of the tropical world?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b939c/eli5_why_are_window_screens_so_uncommon/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d1757lf', 'd1767qx', 'd176nto', 'd176qag', 'd1774rj', 'd1775ee', 'd177nf9', 'd177nv9', 'd177qfg', 'd177qfo', 'd17808n', 'd1783mw', 'd1785vy', 'd1786j7', 'd178f9l', 'd178kli', 'd178krc', 'd178yvh', 'd179kg5', 'd17a28y'], 'score': [29, 16, 42, 9, 10, 14, 16, 12, 2, 40, 4, 9, 8, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3], 'text': [\"What exactly do you mean by a screen? I'm from Caracas and I had a metal 'mesh' thing in my room's window to keep bugs out \", \"I traveled across tropical countries and this was also the case, even super rich people didn't have screens. Insects, lizards, rodents, and even cats came through the windows. The people just deal with it as part of life. Most of the places I went to didn't have glass windows either, just wooden shutters, and most buildings are not made of wood. Attaching sliding screens might be difficult. \", \"A lot of people in St. Croix don't have them, because they have to be shipped in from elsewhere, making them expensive, because they blow off and get damaged in storms, making them a hazard, and because they get in the way of the opening and closing of the window louvers which are the main ventilation of most homes (air conditioning is considered a luxury, not a given).\", \"I lived in a tropical country and always felt they increased the heat. I'd rather deal with mosquitoes than that horrible heat. The obvious solution is to close your windows and put some A/C but that's expensive, so not everyone can afford that.\", \"In Australia it is unheard of four a home to not have screen. Now I'm in NZ it's the opposite! And it's so necessary particularly in the Waikato where the flies are ever present. I'm thinking of going into the fly screen business.\", 'I live in Florida, which is semi-tropical climate. Screen in doors and windows are total common here. Honestly, I have no idea you guys on Brazil are surviving without them. \\n\\nI love opening all the windows and airing out the house.  ', 'I worked as an architect in S.E Asia. Most houses are not Air conditioned so  we keep our windows open most of the time. The windows are made out of timber and are side hung as opposed to the double hung type that you see in the US. To install the mesh it should be open-able. With the side hung window to have a mesh is a bit tricky, not impossible but tricky. So you might think, why cant we install double hung windows? with the weather and humidity the timber gets warped easily and the sliding get screwed up pretty easily.\\n\\nIn one house that I designed, the client specifically requested meshes for all windows and open-able doors. We opted for aluminum windows, with a three layers. The outer layer would be the side hung window, the middle layer would be a protective metal grill (for security) the third inner layer again would be a open-able side hung mesh panel. We could have done the double hung type window, but the client did not like the appearance.\\n\\n', \"In puerto rico they're common,  never lived in a house without them....really explains why Brazil has such a high incidence in these diseases\", \"I lived in SEA for a while, and they wouldn't have worked very well, at least not in the neighbourhood I lived in. The buildings seem to favour very large windows/big sliding doors or open walls (things which leave huge open spaces) and the buildings aren't quite uniform in shape so it would be difficult to standardise sizes.\\n\\nIt would likely be quite expensive to have an assortment of small and large screen doors custom made to fit every house, and since ceiling + stand fans are very cheap and do the same job good enough most people just don't bother.\", 'My parents are from India and I remember about twenty years ago, when I was a little kid, my mum\\'s parents house didn\\'t even have any glass windows. Just metal grids. We always slept underneath mosquito nets. Oh my god, if you accidentally moved against it in your sleep, the mosquitos would bite you dozens of times on the skin touching the net. Or when you needed to get out to pee, couldn\\'t remove the net properly, your one leg got tangled in the net, the other was already on it\\'s way to the floor and then you just smashed your face into the ground. Bonus points if the dog was lying there and was having an nightmare about the postman...\\n\\nBut the worst thing was when one of the tiny suckers got caught inside of your net. I imagine them thinking something like \"Thanks to that genius net I can have these three blood bags all by myself. Yeah, Patty, Jenny, I can see you hating from outside of the club. But you can\\'t even get in... Haha\"\\n\\nOk, maybe there\\'s some brain disease contracted by mosquitos. And I caught it. ;)\\n\\nEdit: just wanted to add, why the houses didn\\'t have any windows, or sometimes slanted ones. Because it\\'s something \"we\\'ve always done this way\".\\n\\nEven after my father built a new house for his parents and my mum\\'s parents, the windows had to be properly installed afterwards and my dad had a lot of trouble with it. Also the windows aren\\'t see through and are installed on top of the metal grids.  And most important, for ventilation purpose they are left open during the night... Hello mosquitos!', \"Living in Puerto Rico, almost all houses don't have screens. The reason I assume is because houses have louvered windows which are unable to be screened.\", \"Have you ever taken the screens out of your windows and seen what is was like? It's pretty amazing how much more air comes through. Screens block a really significant portion of the airflow, more than I expected.\\n\\nIt may be that in addition to the obvious factors like cost, they're  seen as counter-productive to the obvious purpose of the open window in a tropical climate --cooling the house.\", \"Look... I don't know the answer... I don't have them because I don't like screens. Could be a cultural thing. But what I do know is not a monetary thing like many have said or suggested.\\n\\nI just goggled, and if I wanted I would spend 120-160 Reais (30-40 dollars) to put screen in all my windows. This is not a high monetary burden even for the poorest of people. I'm not saying that is cheap... but is not expensive for something you only pay once.\\n\\nI would say it's culture... I lived my whole life in houses with open windows... when I lived a short time in a house with screens was weird... I didn't liked, it was like the windows were constantly closed. In the end I think is taste... people here just don't like having screens in their windows.\", \"I don't have an answer for your question but I noticed the same thing. I went to Ecuador and all the more Americanized or touristy places had window screens but the local houses did not. Even with the screens our room was still constantly full of bugs and spiders (we were in the jungle though so I'm not sure if it would be the same somewhere like Quito). We still had unwelcome visitors like botflies that we had to shoo out, its like they were just waiting for us to open the door so they could crowd in. Maybe the locals just have more of an immunity? I'm not sure.\", 'Window screens are virtually unheard of in South American countries.  Source:  lived there for a while.  It\\'s not a money issue, people just don\\'t buy it.  When they do, they buy netting for their beds.  \\n\\n\\nThey do buy a lot of moth balls though.  But over there they\\'re called \"alcanfor\". ', 'Puerto Rico: the vast majority of houses have screens, but you can still find an odd house here and there without them, for some damn reason. ', 'Australian here - Typically the \"old Queenslander\" design is built on stilts to combat against mosquito, flooding and marsh lands as they (usually) can\\'t fly that high. As for the screens - it depends. On our newer houses there are screens but for the older houses this isn\\'t the case as the old window designs have to be pushed from the inside out - making it a real big hassle to fit screens. Plus - you know cleaning them (because Australia is so fucking dusty) is a real cbf, we\\'d rather drink beer. \\n\\nAs for all the dangerous animals that could sneak in at night... Staya breakfast for champs. Just add some vegemite. ', \"Another Brazilian here hahaha.\\nI live in Sao Paulo, great city :)\\nI live in a 2 stores house, no window screens here, our my neighborhood, also mosquitos are quite rare (where I live, to be clear) I must say.\\nAnd God, not that hot at all hahaha \\nI've been to some places in Europe that were way hotter than here.\\nAs obvious as it is, the closer to the equator more warm you are. \", 'Was just rereading my journal that I kept while studying abroad in Brasil...one entry reads \"while Brasil is a lil on the ghetto side you\\'d think they\\'d have invented these things called window screens to keep this fucking wall of mosquitos that feast on me every night out of my room since I have to open the window since it\\'s too damn hot in the room at night to sleep!\" \\nStill loved Brasil and can\\'t wait to go back and experience that again ', \"I currently live in the interior of SP, Brazil and I often asked myself this question DAILY. I have also traveled throughout Latin America and Northern Australia, and I don't remember seeing screens in those places either. But, I'll just give an explanation based on what I've noticed in Brazil.\\nNot sure about the houses in your city OP, but where I live, many windows are long, thin and opened by a lever. Putting a screen in those windows would be virtually impossible as the window moves up/down, and in/out therefore, it would slice the screen if the lever is moved. \\nI could foresee you placing a screen in front of the window, but then the action of the lever may be inhibited. \\nIn my case, I had a family member in the US send me screens based on window measurements taken from my normal looking, single-paned windows.\\nFor those of you who have never lived in a tropical place, it sure becomes annoying when the temperature gets to be 100 F (38C) and you can't have any ventilation or cross-breezes because the windows need to be closed to avoid insect intruders. \\nI've asked many people at hardware stores here and they look at me like, why the hell would you want a screen!? Just culture I guess. I've considered trying to import some to sell, but really, the variation in window types here would make it very tricky.\\nLove the question, OP.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1804, "q_id": "18n9g7", "title": "What prevents us from controlling smooth muscle in our body?", "selftext": "I understand there are different nerves involved (autonomic nerves), but I guess my question is kind of...why are these nerves autonomic and not controllable by our conscious mind? What prevents us from altering our smooth muscle such as in our gut?\n\nDo these nerves just run from a part of our mind that we don't have control over? And did we ever have control of these functions at any point in time on the evolutionary scale?\n\nSorry for the mouthful of questions", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18n9g7/what_prevents_us_from_controlling_smooth_muscle/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8geyee'], 'score': [3], 'text': ['The central nervous system has two different types of nerves:\\n- Autonomic Nervous system (Involuntary control)\\n- Somatic Nervous system (Voluntary control)\\n\\nAutonomic nervous system indeed has nerves going in and out of organs (gastrointestinal system) to the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) but these nerves terminate at a region we cannot consciously control. I.e. it does not terminate at the primary motor cortex, thus disabling us from controlling it. There are sensory nerves from the gut then again it does not end at the primary sensory cortex, thus disabling us from feeling gut stretch etc. This was the shorthand explanation. There is another nervous system present at the gastrointestinal system called the enteric nervous system, which finely control the digestion and absorption of oral intake. The enteric nervous system works with autonomic nervous system to transfer information to the brain which then again intergrated and sent back to the enteric nervous sytem for further change in control which also deemed involuntary. \\n\\nIn short, yes you are correct, the nerves terminate in the central nervous system that we do not have control over. It is primarily regulated by feedback mechanisms. The body is programmed naturally to control the gut itself. I am not sure whether these functions at any point in time were voluntary, you have to ask an evolutionary biologist. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1192, "q_id": "18o6bw", "title": "Why do we consider Muons to be an elementary particle if they decay to an electron? ", "selftext": "I haven't been able to find any sort of easy to understand explanations of why we consider any of the unstable leptons to be elementary particles if they have half-lives in the microseconds.  It seems counter-intuitive to assume that a particle with a much heavier mass then an electron that decays to an electron isn't in fact made up of smaller particles.  Is there some sort of theory behind this that I can't find/understand?  \n\nedit: typo", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18o6bw/why_do_we_consider_muons_to_be_an_elementary/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8ghlhu', 'c8ghm6a'], 'score': [5, 16], 'text': [\"Well, consider an electron in an atom that absorbs a photon, increasing the electron's energy. Where did the photon go? They're both elementary particles; the electron isn't made up of an additional photon now. (Well, in a certain sense _it is_, as the electron now has the photon's energy and angular momentum. But not in the sense that the electron is a composite particle)\\n\\nThe basic 'theory' here is that particles can be created and destroyed/annihilated. They come from nothing and disappear to nothing. This is (ultimately) a consequence of special relativity. (simplistically you could point to E = mc^2 and how a mass can be converted to energy and vice-versa, although there's a bit more to it than just that)\\n\\nBut there are constraints here - energy is conserved, charge is conserved, angular momentum is conserved, etc. So a particle cannot be created or annihilated without something else happening as well. \\n\\nSo when a muon decays into an electron and a pair of neutrinos, it's not a composite muon splitting apart. The muon is being annihilated in concert with the other particles being created. When an electron absorbs a photon, the photon is annihilated but without any new particles being created. \\n\\n\", \"There is simply no evidence of substructure for the muon or other elementary particles.  The Standard Model treats these as point particles, and the predictions of the Standard Model have consistently been upheld.\\n\\nI think what may be confusing you is what's happening in particle decay.  Particle decay is not the breaking up of something into smaller constituents.  It's a process whereby the energy, charge, and other conserved properties of a particle are reconstituted into a new state with the same properties.  So a muon can turn into an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino.\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 93, "q_id": "5ox18t", "title": "if electricity travels at 300k meters per second, why does it take several hours to charge some lithium ion batteries.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ox18t/eli5_if_electricity_travels_at_300k_meters_per/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dcmo5v0', 'dcmq9w3', 'dcmqqwh', 'dcmrh7r', 'dcmtn4h', 'dcmvwsg'], 'score': [6, 7, 5, 16, 3, 9], 'text': [\"Those two things aren't related.\\n\\nElectricity travels that fast.  That's why when you flick on your lights, it's basically instant.\\n\\nBut a lithium ion battery takes several hours to charge because it holds *a lot* of electricity.  The issue isn't how fast electricity is traveling, but how much has to pile in before a battery is charged.\", 'If you open the tap, water starts flowing out of it quickly.\\n\\nIt still takes a while until your bathtub is full.\\n\\n300 million meters per second, by the way.', 'I bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, but you would still take hours to fill a house with bullets fired from your gun. ', \"A battery isn't simply 'storing electricity' the same way a glass stores water.  The electricity that flows to a battery is used to reverse a chemical reaction.  The electricity is converted into chemical potential energy.  This is the part that takes some time.  Since it isn't a 100% efficient process, excess heat is generated.  If you were to charge the battery super quickly, bad things would happen.\\n\\nWhen the battery is being used to power something, the chemical potential energy is being converted back into electrical energy.\", '\"If light travels 300k meters per second, why does it take several days to get a tan?\"', \"Electrons in a conductor don't travel nearly that fast. The velocity that the electrons themselves travel at is referred to as the [drift velocity](_URL_0_), which is actually very slow (typically less than a millimetre per second). What travels quickly is the electrical *signal* - when a voltage is applied, the electrons at the far end of the conductor start moving almost instantly.\\n\\n\\nYou can imagine a pipe filled with water:\\n\\n* The velocity of the water doesn't tell you how long it's going to take to fill your tank - you would also need to know how big your pipe is. What you want to know is how *much* water is flowing, not how fast it's flowing.\\n\\n* When you start pumping water, the disturbance will propogate at the speed of sound in water (which is about 1.5km/s), but that doesn't mean the water itself is travelling that fast. The water that starts flowing out the end of the pipe when you turn on the pumps is water that was already sitting near the end of the pipe.\\n\\n\\nThe reason you can't supply a lithium battery with a higher current to make it charge faster is because doing so can damage the battery. Lithium batteries rely on a chemical reaction to store energy, which can only proceeed so fast. If too much current is supplied, lithium metal gets deposited on the electrodes, which results in loss of capacity as it is the lithium ions that store the charge. If this results in a short circuit, it can lead to thermal runaway and the [catastrophic failure of the battery](_URL_1_). Lithium batteries must be used within specified voltage and temperature ranges in order to remain safe to use. \\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J96ywv7yAM']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2383, "q_id": "4mdzp0", "title": "to increase literacy, mao zedong had the chinese language simplified. why was this never a problem for the japanese language?", "selftext": "I asked my brother who's taking Japanese in school and he didn't know, so now I go to you, dear Reddit, to help me understand.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mdzp0/eli5_to_increase_literacy_mao_zedong_had_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d3ups5p', 'd3ur4sw', 'd3us6rn'], 'score': [9, 9, 8], 'text': ['Japanese is already a much simpler language.  They use kanji borrowed from Chinese as well which is very complex, but Hiragana is quite straightforward.', \"Mao was not merely trying to improve literacy, he was attempting to scour Chinese culture for all references to the past and systematically destroy them in order to create an idealized New China. \\n\\nSimple Chinese is one of many cultural weapons Mao and the Chinese authority used to homogenize Chinese culture and strip elements like regionalism, Confucism, and liberalism from the language.  \\n\\nThe Japanese certainly had a similar bout of authoritarianism but Facism generally looks to honor the past while Communism as we saw in China was about destroying the past. That's one of the key differences between Communism and Facism as opposites on the far left and far right side of the political spectrum. \", '[Japan *does* have a form of simplified kanji, called shinjitai.](_URL_0_) Many of these are the same forms that Simplified Chinese took, while others are different. Some simplified forms are unique to Chinese while others are unique to Japanese, although shinjitai is not as extensive as Simplified Chinese was, which is likely due to the fact that Japan already used syllabaries (hiragana and katakana) in addition to kanji.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinjitai']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 651, "q_id": "3qyw8y", "title": "How exactly did the papal/medieval inquisition work? More specifically, what kind of person became an inquisitor?", "selftext": "I know it was common for Dominicans and Franciscans to serve, but not much beyond that.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qyw8y/how_exactly_did_the_papalmedieval_inquisition/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cwjh6b6'], 'score': [92], 'text': ['When we hear the word \\'inquisition\\' we immediately think of superstitions, torture, imprisonment, execution. And this meaning was well-earned by the medieval and early modern Catholic Church. And yet in modern Europe (Italy, France, Spain) the word \\'inquisition\\' is still used for the modern court. Why? The story is fascinating and goes to the heart of the invention of the modern legal system in the High Middle Ages.\\n\\n\\n**Legal Systems before the \\'Inquisition\\'**\\n\\nFor much of the early middle ages right up to the 12th century, \\'court actions\\' (and here \\'court\\' goes back to it\\'s roots: the court of a lord) were driven by the accusatorial method: someone complained to the lord about a theft, a murder, as injury to property; no action would *ever* take place without a complainant. The accuser and accused would appear before the court, they would each tell their story. The aim seems to have been reconciliation before anything else (something like arbitration in modern terms). If the accused did not confess, and there was no reconciliation, the accused would have to go through an ordeal: ordeal by hot or cold water, ordeal by hot metal, ordeal by fire, ordeal by compunction, ordeal by battle, etc. Some were more common than others. The ordeals were conducted jointly by secular and ecclesiastic authority: after all, the ordeal was meant to reveal God\\'s independent judgement. The ordeal is not fully understood \u2013 we have to make some guesses about it as these things were not recorded in an oral society like Western Europe before the 12th century. \\n\\nOne of the chief problems of the idea of \\'feudalism\\' is that it completely obscures the relationship of the Church to medieval society, particularly the 9th-13th centuries which are the subject of this post. It is well known that the \\'Church\\' in the medieval period controlled something around 30% of the arable land mass \u2013 and we know that land at this time was the source of power.  That power was very material. The bishop (or abbot of a monastery) was often a secular lord equal to their secular peers. This meant that ecclesiastical lords were responsible not only for the \\'spiritual\\' jurisdiction of the Church (marriage, death, baptism, etc), but also the material lordship of land and property, and often went to war just as easily as their secular peers. By the 11th century, the \\'courts\\' of bishops and abbots were stuffed, as ecclesiastics exerted their jurisdiction over disputes both spiritual and *material*. As the investiture controversy sorted itself out on the ground through the 11th and 12th centuries, the juridical requirements of the Church became over-extended, particularly because the basis of the procedure was customary (even in application of Canon Law - which affected both spiritual and material jurisdictions - which was still unorganized in any comprehensive way). Even if the ordeal wasn\\'t used in particular, court processes just did not exist.\\n\\nWell, legal \\'processes\\' changed profoundly in the 12th century due to the Roman Church \u2013 changes which determined the legal apparatus we live with today. By the late 11th - early 12th century, two key things happened: \\n\\n1. The Papacy had consolidated power and centralized authority (as a political corollary to, and result of, the investiture controversy): the chief problem it created for itself was that it said that the Papal court in Rome was the highest level of appeal, and that any Christian could appeal a local decision (ie a decision of a bishop\\'s court) to it \u2013 before the deicsion was even rendered! And the appeals began to flood in as bishops rendered decisions which were objected to by nobility and peasantry alike, for whatever reason. Very quickly in the 12th century the Papacy was swamped with an overwhelming tide of claims before it; it wasn\\'t long before the Papacy had to begin delegating Papal judicial responsibility to secondary courts both in Rome and in the provinces.\\n\\n2. The Church began forbidding priests and other ecclesiastics from participating in the ordeal (finally outlawing it in Lateran IV of 1215). The ordeal began to be put under theological scrutiny and was rejected as heretical: humans cannot call up God as their servant to render decisions for them. Without ordeals, secular and ecclesiastical courts had to find other modes of proof of guilt.\\n\\nThese were the fulcrum for change in judicial processes which define the judicial systems which we live with even today.\\n\\nAt the same time, Roman Law was being excavated from archives and studied and taught in northern Italy (why that happened is a fascinating story of its own, but beyond the scope of this answer). However that retrieval of Roman Law, specifically parts of the Justinian Code (the [*Corpus juris civilis*](_URL_0_)), set in motion the transformation of the legal systems of Europe.\\n\\nThe problem for the Papacy in point # 1 above was not just who would handle the appeals, but how could those waves of appeals swamping Rome be handled efficiently and consistently? \\n\\nBy this time, early to mid-12th century, Gratian had published the first Codex of Canon Law, the Concordia discordantium canonum: the first codex of law of the middle ages, the first of its kind in the history of the western Church, and it was a throughly organized blend of Canon statute and legal procedure drawn from the books of Justinianic *Corpus juris civilis* that had lain dead for 600 years. Moreover, it was the study of this dead legal code which drew people from across Europe to study at Bologna - the first known university in the West - and which started to produce hordes of trained lawyers under the tutelage of brilliant teachers such as Bulgarus:\\n\\n > ...the papal chancellor, Haimeric, asked the leading teacher of Roman law in Bologna, Bulgarus, for a treatise on procedure in the 1130s, [and] he did so for practical reasons, not because of intellectual curiosity ([Pennington](_URL_2_))\\n\\nThis treatise *De arbitris* laid the foundations for what became the *ordo iudiciarius*. In principle, the *ordo* re-organized the court under a judge who directed inquiries, and set out rules and processes for the submission of arguments, evidence, and oral and written testimony. This organizing of judicial process, the first in the medieval period, took wing in the late 12th century and displaced the ordeal with a accusatorial process centered on a judge who evaluated evidence that was submitted through formal processes.\\n\\nYou can see the text of *De arbitris* [here](_URL_1_) in English. Note how thoroughly *modern* the ideas are and what a fundamental shift they are from an ordeal. The ideas in *De arbitris* would be at home in courtrooms today. Moreover, the organization of a court room in the late 12th century looked virtually the same as they do today.\\n\\nMoreover, we can credit the modern notion of \\'due process\\' to these same jurists who derived their jurisprudence, and even the justification of these new court processes themselves, from the first pages of the Bible.\\n\\n > The form of pleading was first found in paradise when the first man was questioned about the crime of disobedience.  When the Lord questioned him about the report of the crime or of use he transferred the guilt to his wife by asserting \"The wife whom you gave to me handed it to me and I ate it.\"  Finally in the Old Testament we learn that Moses stated in his law that \"In the testimony of two or three witnesses one may find the truth.\" ^1 [Paucapalea, *summa*, taken from Pennington]\\n\\n\\n^1 *Placitandi forma in paradiso primum videtur inventa, dum prothoplastus de inobedientiae crimine ibidem a domino interrogatus criminis relatione sive remotione usus culpam in coniugem removisse autumat dicens,* \\'mulier, quam dedisti, dedit mihi et comedi\\' (Genesis 3.12).  *Deinde in veteri lege nobis tradita, dum Moyses in lege sua ait:* \\'In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum\\'  (Deut. 19.15).\" \\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis', 'http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law508/BulgarusDeArbitris.htm', 'http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/PenningtonRomanLawLateranII.htm']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 63, "q_id": "9jr5yq", "title": "Why does Wyoming exist?", "selftext": "Besides the Tetons, Wyoming doesn't have distinct natural borders nor does it have large amounts of water or arable land. When it became a territory in 1868, Wyoming Territory was sparsely populated and had only small amounts of known mineral reserves. Why was it thought necessary to make it an independent territory rather than keep it divided between the Idaho, Dakota and Nebraska territories?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9jr5yq/why_does_wyoming_exist/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e6ugjmv'], 'score': [38], 'text': ['The creation of the territory was almost entirely driven by the railroad - Cheyenne was that important. Coal and gold mining, assisted by the railroad, were also important in increasing the area\u2019s population.\\n\\nThe following paragraph describes some of the reasoning surrounding the law that created the territory:\\n\\n >  The first proposal to establish a temporary government for the territory of Wyoming was made on January 5, 1865, by James M. Ashley of Ohio, who for a short time served as Governor of the Territory of Montana, and later became the chairman of the House Committee on Territories. Politicians in Dakota Territory, to which Wyoming belonged, also favored a subdivision, since they realized that the large population following the new railway could swing an election, regardless of what the older citizens of Dakota wanted.\\n\\nSource: *Wyoming, a Guide to Its History, Highways, and People*, University of Nebraska Press\\n\\nIt should be noted that for many years, it was Nevada, not Wyoming, that people were wondering same thing about. It had very few inhabitants; why was it still a state? Then Vegas took off (lots of interesting history about that), so now Wyoming gets the short end of the stick.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1566, "q_id": "i71jj", "title": "Safest medium for long term water storage.", "selftext": "Whats the best way to store water for extended periods of time. Glass?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i71jj/safest_medium_for_long_term_water_storage/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c21evm7'], 'score': [5], 'text': ['Silver Coated Can void of air.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2972, "q_id": "3qba9h", "title": "What were the religious practices in pre-Christian Scotland?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qba9h/what_were_the_religious_practices_in_prechristian/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cweg9ck'], 'score': [3], 'text': [\"Can't attest to Scotland, though Iron Age burial custom in the north of Ireland - which was culturally very similar to Scotland, with migration and religious ideologies moving in a two-way process - was for cremation, and there was probably some excarnation as well.\\n\\nDruidism was popular in Ireland, if the early Christian monk's writing is anything to go by. Votive offerings were made, possibly to propitiate the gods and ensure the continued fertility of the soil. Druids would have worked as intermediaries between the spirit world and reality, and peasants would have been terrified of offending the gods.\\n\\nThere was certainly a belief in life after death, and if the stone circles and henges are anything to go, sun worship was a part of the cultural package.\\n\\nIrish culture became more ingrained in Scotland as time went on, and we really don't know much about the Picts, but if you believe that they were a Celtic society - which is prevailing theory - then they would have had gods similar to Dagda, Morrigan, and the 'Dis Pater' that the Romans claimed the Gauls worshipped.\\n\\nAs the Iron Age progressed, and the influence of Roman and Romano-British settlement was felt, inhumation became more popular.\\n\\nGood sources on this would incude Colin Renfrew and Barry Raftery, whose *Pagan Celtic Ireland* I've drawn on.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2659, "q_id": "fzaqqn", "title": "How do patients that have recovered from Covid, test positive again?", "selftext": "Is it an issue with the testing, does the virus turn dormant ?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fzaqqn/how_do_patients_that_have_recovered_from_covid/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['fn3ti05'], 'score': [28], 'text': [\"The media has made a lot of fuss about this, but few scientists are convinced that those repeat-positives are truly reinfections. Rather, they\u2019re probably false negative tests taken between two true positives. We know that false negatives are fairly common with the available tests, so this is by far the simplest explanation.\\n\\n > \\tThere remains a lot of uncertainty, but experts TIME spoke with say that it\u2019s likely the reports of patients who seemed to have recovered but then tested positive again were not examples of re-infection, but were cases where lingering infection was not detected by tests for a period of time. ... Instead, testing positive after recovery could just mean the tests resulted in a false negative and that the patient is still infected. \u201cIt may be because of the quality of the specimen that they took and may be because the test was not so sensitive,\u201d explains David Hui ...\\n\\n\u2014[Can You Be Re-Infected After Recovering From Coronavirus? Here's What We Know About COVID-19 Immunity](_URL_0_)\\n\\nIt\u2019s also possible that some are false positives. I don\u2019t know what the false-positive rate is, but given that we\u2019re somewhere around 10 million tests, a 99.9% specificity rate would give us some 10,000 false positives. If some of those were on recovered patients, it would look like a reinfection.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://time.com/5810454/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2440, "q_id": "73v6vb", "title": "Is there a material that is the equivalent of a superconductor, but for light instead of electricity?", "selftext": "I understand that there are \"superconducting\" materials which can achieve an electrical resistance of zero ohms - is there a similar material or class of materials (not a vacuum) that can achieve a zero attenuation for light or other EM wavelengths?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/73v6vb/is_there_a_material_that_is_the_equivalent_of_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dntju4i'], 'score': [12], 'text': ['All materials (that are currently known) have tiny resistances in the absorption and emission of photons. This GIF is a good reference - _URL_0_ - which unfortunately means that any EM wave travelling through a medium will be slowed. \\n\\nIf such a \"superconducting\" material existed, it wouldn\\'t violate any laws or anything, but it\\'s resistance would be \u2248 0 meaning it wouldn\\'t even interact with the wave.\\n\\nTl;DR : Not currently, but it wouldn\\'t do anything.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/em.gif']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 555, "q_id": "2r5bge", "title": "why did florida get such a bad reputation for trashiness?", "selftext": "I'm not from Florida but why does Florida have such a reputation for trashiness?  For example, as seen on /r/floridaman and _URL_0_'s \"Florida\" tag.  \n\nWhenever an odd story emerges from Florida why is the fact it happened in Florida relevant when it just as easily could have happened in Alabama, Kentucky or Ohio?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r5bge/eli5_why_did_florida_get_such_a_bad_reputation/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cncldyw', 'cncn08l', 'cncn5gx', 'cncpum6', 'cnctiox'], 'score': [38, 21, 10, 3, 3], 'text': ['Because the State of Florida has EXTREMELY extensive government transparency (\"Sunshine\") laws, where reporters have access to large quantities of governmental, police (arrest information, court proceedings, etc), and such information. So it\\'s pretty much just a matter of fishing for the strangest stories.\\n\\nAlso, American Media, the publisher of most of the tabloids in America, is based in Florida, which means a lot of \"local color\" stories ends up getting published as national news.', \"I've lived in Florida. Here are some reasons:\\n\\n-Florida has a huge population, 4th highest in the nation at around 18.5 million. News stations don't report on normal people, they report the crazies. Just by virtue of having a higher population, there's a higher incidence of trashy behavior (although it may have the same amount of trashy behavior relative to other states).\\n\\n-It's a tourist destination. When people are on vacation, they let it all hang out. They're gonna leave in a week, might as well party it up in Panama City Beach, no one's ever gonna see you again when you go back to snowland.\\n\\n-Psychopaths, homeless people, and just general weirdos always migrate to warmer climates.. same thing as California.\\n\", 'I can come up with a few reasons:\\n\\n1. Florida is a vacation/cut loose spot for a wide variety of people (e.g. Spring Break at Daytona, Redneck Riviera in the Panhandle, cruise passengers at Fort Lauderdale, the entire shitshow known as Orlando, etc.), most categories of which have \"getting drunk\" as a high priority on the list. Guess what happens when towns are filled to three times beyond normal population with drunk people.\\n\\n2. Florida has/recently had the [5th highest violent crime rate](_URL_0_) and has a much greater population than any of the states ahead of it. (IIRC Florida just moved into the #3 spot in population behind CA and TX) This means that there is simply a lot of violent crime to report on.\\n\\n3. [People get pissy when it\\'s hot and Florida is very hot.](_URL_1_)\\n\\n4. Just throwing this one out there, but simple classism may be part of it. There isn\\'t a lot of \"middle income\" in Florida and the cities that aren\\'t beach resorts tend to be quite poor. (For fun, check out the Sarasota area, which features both sides of the income spectrum in close proximity - the local government in Sarasota also happens to be extremely unfriendly to homeless people). These disparities likely create a lot of tension and give a lot of ammo for the media (guess which income group they cater to) to report on what the \"white trash\" are up to.\\n\\nHope this helps!\\n\\nEDIT: Clarified the bit about Florida being 3rd in population now.', 'Florida resident here (tampa area), most of the points being brought up here are true. As with any state, you\\'ll have your mix of normal people and crazies. Another problem IMO is the large concentration of \"rednecks\". No, not your normal hard-working, traditional living rednecks, I\\'m talking about the lived-in-the-city-all-my-life ghetto rednecks. I swear every time I see a big ass lifted trucks with confederate flags in the back I know to stay away. \\n\\n', 'In addition to what others have said, most people who live in Florida aren\\'t \"Floridians\". They are people who moved here from other states. Florida is often called the \"melting pot\" of people. Different people from many man different places move to Florida in big numbers.\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nLarge groups of VERY different people/cultures, people are bound to butt heads.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['FARK.com']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/ranks/rank21.html', 'http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/1985-1989/89A1.pdf'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 299, "q_id": "2c4xvg", "title": "why do buildings have gravel on top of them?", "selftext": "A lot of big city buildings will have a layer of gravel on top of them. Why is this? Does it serve a purpose or is it just left over material from building?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c4xvg/eli5_why_do_buildings_have_gravel_on_top_of_them/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cjby3ps', 'cjc0vpz', 'cjc10om', 'cjc1tyh', 'cjc2ty2', 'cjc3mxj'], 'score': [9, 233, 3, 30, 2, 8], 'text': [\"Those buildings are using a low sloped roofing system with a EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer).  It's a rubber layer that protects the roof.  The buildings that have a layer of gravel on them use an EPDM that does not have an adhesive side to keep it on the roof.\", \"The layer of gravel on a low slope / flat roof is used to help keep the underlay fabric secured and to provide some protection from the elements and human interference.\\n\\nThis roof type is typically composed of  overlapping layers of tar paper or rubber sheeting separated by tar.  Putting a thin layer of gravel (usually river gravel for the smooth edges) on top of the top tar layer will keep the tar from running as much during hot weather thus reducing the risk of a leak developing.  It also provides a safer, cleaner, more stable footing for anyone on the roof, as well as protecting the roof from that person's weight.  It keeps hailstones, errant baseballs, etc. from damaging the waterproof seal created by the paper and tar, as well as helping to keep the layers in place.\\n\\nFlat roofs in my experience are seldom totally flat.  Most of the ones I have been up on had a tiny bit of slope to them to feed water to the edges for removal.\\n\\nSource:  Carried more than a few rolls of felt paper up those steep ladders back in the days of my youth.\", 'A flat roof has a rubber membrane adhered to the decking that waterproofs the roof. The roof will also have a slight slope so as to remove water. Gravel serves a couple purposes, 1) to protect the membrane from damage, 2) to provide a flat surface to walk on and place equipment like A/C pumps.', 'True Story:  Working in a hotel in Boston (with a big, flat roof as described by OP), the VP of the United States is planning to come to speak at a banquet, arriving in a motorcade.  A few hours before, I am in the GM\\'s office when the call comes in from the VP\\'s advance man asking if it is okay for them to arrive by helicopter, and land on the roof.  The GM says he thinks so (he\\'s thinking about the weight), but says let me check with our Chief Building Engineer.  Calls the Chief on the phone, explains the question, and the Chief replies so loudly that I can hear his response sitting 8 feet away, \"Who\\'s going to pick up the fucking pebbles!\"  The GM politely explained to the VP that they could land on the lawn.  ', 'I always thought there was some salt element to the gravel to prevent snow buildup as well.. ', 'Another that Skeezy hints at but needs to be pointed out is that gravel is used versus some lighter material is to provide weight to hold the roof material down during high winds. Flat semi concrete panels can be used for same purposes as all listed and are more suited for times when roof will be used for higher traffic such as tenant use. Gravel just happens to be a cheap suitable material that provides for a lot of benefits. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 0, "q_id": "2bln8r", "title": "why does it take longer to build muscle the longer you've been doing it and fat longer to burn off the less you have on you?", "selftext": "I have seen several times in fitness subs certain charts that how how much muscle you can build depending on the number of years you've been working out. It shows that you can put on less as time goes on. \n\nI've seen the same with fat loss. Apparently, it takes longer to burn off fat as your body fat % gets lower. \n\nWhy is that for both of these?\n\nEdit: I know I butchered the title of this post. It's ironic too because I consider myself a grammar nazi. This is what happens when you don't proof read your stuff, folks. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bln8r/eli5_why_does_it_take_longer_to_build_muscle_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cj6irdq', 'cj6is8g', 'cj6iupv', 'cj6jv6g', 'cj6k6y6', 'cj6ye5c', 'cj6yr13'], 'score': [2, 7, 108, 10, 2, 2, 3], 'text': [\"Diminishing returns. The more you do something, the less of an effect you're gonna receive out of it.\\nWhen initially gaining muscle, your body is doing something it isn't used to and you have a lot more room to grow. Muscle fibers aren't created, they just get bigger until they can't grow any more. \\nFat is excess energy. So when you're obese, you have lots of energy that your body didn't initially need but is willing to give up. You do need fat to survive and your body does want to keep some of it.\", \"Not a doctor or a trainer but just someone with years of heavy weight training for sports. \\n\\nBasically your body is built to survive. The tasks we put it through and train for might not be the best for surviving in the wild. Having a slightly higher body fat percentage is considered good as it means food supply is abundant. Even 200-300 years ago, being overweight was considered a beauty trait as it meant you could afford enough food to over eat. \\n\\nBack to the original question. As the BFP goes down and your muscle weight does ups, it's much harder for your body to burn it off and build more. It does it slower. Also at a certain point, too low body fat will significantly affect athletic performance. Too low body fat may make it difficult to increase muscle weight.  \", 'While it varies from person to person, there\\'s a general sort of \"ideal\" body form that humans have evolved to favor. Back in our hunter-gatherer days, a decent amount of muscle was likely very useful for survival, and a decent amount of fat was likely handy to have just in case of tough times. \\n\\nBut eventually you get to a point of diminishing returns. Having enough muscle mass to be able to bench press 200 pounds might be a great trait for a hunter-gatherer human. But does increasing that muscle mass to the point where you could bench 400 pounds make you twice as good at hunting or gathering? Probably not. But all of that extra muscle mass does require more energy input in order to maintain. (You need to eat more). You get to a point where, in terms of survival in the natural world, more muscle is a bigger liability than a benefit. \\n\\nYour amount of body fat has similar tradeoffs. Obviously having 300 lbs of fat would make life as a hunter/gatherer difficult in a bunch of ways. But having very little fat reserves would leave you very vulnerable in times of scarce food. In terms of natural survival, there\\'s absolutely no reason why a decently fed human body would ever want its fat percentage to drop to lower digits. \\n\\nWhen you\\'re trying to get your body fat percentage really low, or bulk up your muscle mass really high, you\\'re fighting against your body\\'s natural inclination. You\\'re forcing it to do things that, for the majority of human history, would reduce its chances of survival. \\n\\n', \"For gains, you're thinking of it in percentages. Let's say you're building a Lego tower. The bigger and taller the tower becomes, the longer it seems to take to grow with the same amount of time and Legos put into it. Even if, over time, you start putting more time and Legos into it, it will be harder to see serious results when you're working with a giant Lego castle than with a small Lego house. \\n\\nFor losses, it's okay to think of it more in percentages. It takes a person just as long to lose 1% of their body fat if they're 300 pounds than if they're 145 pounds doing the same amount of work. If you're not thinking of it in percentages though, it would appear as though fat people are just losing much more weight, because they are!\", \"I look at it like this;\\n\\nIf you put stress on your muscles, you tear muscle fibers. In order to let your muscles repair properly you need to ingest enough proteins. Now, let's look at your example; if you bench press 200 pounds, you put a lot of stress on your muscle, causing a lot of muscle fibers to tear. You need a lot of proteins in order to restore that. Now, if you go too *400* pounds, you put even more stress on your muscle, so you need to ingest *even more* to have it repaired properly. So if you feel like the amount of muscle is not what you expected it to be, it's purely because you're not eating enough proteins to repair the damaged muscle tissue. \\n\\nFor losing fat, I have this philosophy:\\nWhen you are exercising to lose weight, your goal is to *lose weight*. But realise that weight doesn't equal fat. You are made of much more than just fat. During exercise your body first uses any available energy source directly from your bloodstream, but once that's depleted, your body starts utilizing energy storages. Energy is stored in as well muscle as in fat. So your body is going to break down fat tissue *and* glycogen from your muscles at the same time. After this, you eat to restore energy. But don't overdo it, because then the workout would be for naught! Avoid saturated fatty acids and  go for complex carbohydrates and proteins (to restore muscle fibers and your glycogen). This way fat will barely not be restored. Now, when you come to the low body fat percentages, another part comes to play. Fat is not just ugly, it does serve a purpose. Fat keeps you warm in the winter and provides kind of like a protective layer. Your body just genetically doesn't want to lose his nice and warm soft layer so it will *actively* store fat. Even if you only ate proteins, your body can metabolize proteins to sugar and than sugars to fat.\\n\\nSo moral of the story; exercise is important, but **DIET IS EVERYTHING!**\", \"Muscle requires testosterone to sustain. You only make so much. That's why with time you will peak.\\n\\nContrary to popular belief, thin people burn calories at a lower rate than larger people. Your resting metabolic rate is related to weight. The more you weigh, the higher the rate. Because your rate decreases as you lose weight, it takes less calories before you start to store them as fat.\", 'What people are saying about fat loss seems generally incorrect. The fact is an active man needs about 15 calories per pound of body weight each day in order to maintain that weight.\\n\\nA moderately active 300 pound man would need 4500 calories per day. There are approximately 3500 calories in a pound of fat.\\n\\nIf a moderately active 300 pound man ate 2000 calories per day, that would be 1500 less than needed to maintain his weight. It would take 2.3 days to lose one pound.\\n\\nA moderately active 200 pound man needs 3000 calories per day to maintain his weight. If he reduced his calories by 1500 per day it would be nearly debilitating. \\n\\nA sedentary 200 pound man could survive on 1500 calories (perhaps) but an moderately active 200 pound man could not. \\n\\nIn short, a very fat person can cut out more calories per day than a slightly fat person.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1027, "q_id": "4dj4wu", "title": "Is there such a thing as an \"anti\" catalyst?", "selftext": "Basically, is there something that can raise the amount of energy needed for a reaction?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4dj4wu/is_there_such_a_thing_as_an_anti_catalyst/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d1rht2d', 'd1rm18v', 'd1rrsv6'], 'score': [3, 11, 2], 'text': ['Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of catalysts is that it stabilizes the transition state of a reaction by stabilizing charge or increasing entropy. \\n\\nAn anti catalyst, as you put it would want to destabilize a transition state of a reactant, and thus would increase the activation energy which would make it harder for reactants to become products. In this definition, I can think of anything that would act in this way that would occur naturally. \\n\\nTraditional meaning of anti-catalyst is anything that slows reaction speed and there are many types of inhibitors like pharmaceutical drugs that compete for binding sites of enzymes (a bodies catalyst) that increases Km (higher Km, slower it reaches max velocity of reactants) \\n\\nSo answer to your question (to the best of my knowledge) yes, but not in the way you think.', 'A catalyst is technically any other species that lowers the activation energy of a reaction. So technically an anti-catalyst would be any species that increases the activation energy of a reaction, which doesn\\'t really exist in the same sense.\\n\\n**Introducing a catalyst is like installing an elevator. You could take the stair, but it just takes more effort. An \"anti-catalyst\" would be like installing a rock climbing wall right next to the stairs. Climbing the wall would take a lot of effort... but the stairs are right there.**\\n\\nNow, if you have a reaction that requires a catalyst (like bodily reactions which require catalytic enzymes) you can in a sense block the catalyst via inhibition, which just removes the easy path. The standard path is still there.', 'Sort-of, depending on your definition of catalyst. I\\'m going to copy from another comment I left:\\n\\nA catalyst typically facilitates many individual reactions. Because this happens faster than the unassisted reaction, you can have many fewer molecules of catalyst than reactant. If you have a reaction that proceeds faster in the absence of the \"anti-catalyst\", then you need to bind it all - you need just as many molecules of anti-catalyst as reactant, and probably some considerable stoichometric excess to ensure everything remains bound.\\n\\nSo, if part of your definition of catalyst is that it has to be present in much lower quantities than the reactant, then an anti-catalyst isn\\'t really workable. If you\\'re happy calling something that is present in equal amounts or excess of the reactant a catalyst, then there\\'s lots of examples where that can happen.\\n\\nIn these cases, we don\\'t really call them anti-catalysts, just things like \"chaperones\" or \"stabilizers\". In biology, there are many cases where a protein has evolved that doesn\\'t acting as an enzyme (biological catalyst), but as a binding protein that shelters a reactive molecule away from the environment it might break down in. That activity would satisfy at least some definitions of \"anti-catalyst\".']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2413, "q_id": "hihu1", "title": "Calling all Material Scientists!", "selftext": "Sorry if this isn't the right place, but I would love it if you could tell me why you're in the material science field and what you're researching (or have done research in previously).\n\nI had always planned to study physics in University, but I'm at a university where I didn't get to do straight physics until my 3rd year (this might be common in America, but not in the UK). So I took physics, materials and chem in year one, and am now taking physics and materials. I've decided to concentrate solely on material science for my final two years. I just find the course a lot more interesting.\n\nAlthough some people have criticized my choice, they think that I'm taking the \"easy option\" or that it'll be harder to get a job with a material science degree than with a physics one. It's getting a bit disheartening to be honest, so I'd like to hear your stories from the other side :)\n\nEdit - Just wanted to say thanks for the replies guys. Really interesting stuff.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hihu1/calling_all_material_scientists/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c1vnr1e', 'c1vnvvp', 'c1vo6lm', 'c1vpmxn', 'c1vpndd'], 'score': [3, 3, 3, 2, 3], 'text': ['Hi! Materials Scientist here. I\\'m doing steel research now for my PhD, but I used to work with thin films of magnetic oxides, which are slightly more physics-y. The stuff I do now is looking at the effect of nitrogen on steels containing aluminum.\\n\\nI\\'m hoping to go into consulting/failure analysis \"when I grow up,\" and the few firms I talked to while doing my undergrad were looking for PhDs, so I don\\'t have much insight into the job market. \\n\\nFWIW, I love my major. I love the fact that as an undergrad you have the flexibility to study any of a wide variety of materials. I went into undergrad thinking I might be interested in doing electronic materials, quickly realized that solid state physics weren\\'t my thing, and then  discovered how fascinating fracture is. But the fact that the defects that lead to ductility in metals are the same defects that physicists are looking at in [supersolid helium](_URL_0_) is really cool.', \"Polymer chemist.  I'm researching stimuli-responsive copolymers.  In solution, they undergo some change in physical properties based on some external stimuli like pH, temperature, or ionic strength.\", \"I got into materials by a long a circuitous road. After high-school I studied enrolled in an applied physics program at a large university and promptly failed out twice. I then worked as an industrial mechanic while going to technical school to be an aircraft mechanic (a & p). I worked on airplanes for several years and was always bothered by questions related to material response that didn't make much sense to my mechanic brain. For example why do fatigue cracks in landing gear components make a right angle and not cross a weld or why do certain types of aluminum rivets need to be kept in the freezer to keep them from becoming too hard to buck?\\n\\nSo at about 30 I went back to school and received my BS in materials science and engineering. Then stuck around for my masters and Ph.D. I worked as an adjunct professor for a bit teaching mechanics of materials, strength of materials (typical mech e course) and intro to materials science.\\n\\nI am currently employed as a researcher at a large national laboratory in the atomic southwestern United States. My current research interests include polycrystalline plasticity in hexagonal metals, stochastic modeling of microstructure, in-situ stress measurement via electron backscatter diffraction and uncertainty quantification in microstructure evolution modeling.\\n\\nAs far as materials being the easy choice I guess it is all a matter of perspective. Materials has historically had a lack of people with good solid math skills. Often the people on the mathematical side of things are mechanical engineering or physics converts. If you find the classes more interesting then take them for pete's sake. No sense in studying things you don't like because someone called you a wimp.\\n\\nOn the job side of things, I know a whole lot of pure or theoretical physics people now working in materials. Look through the job adds. There are a lot more job postings for assistant professors in materials departments than in physics departments. A majority of the post docs in government labs in the US are in materials or materials related fields. Oh and chances are your advisor will have money to pay you, and you can probably find a tenure track or professional job with only 1 (or maybe even zero) stint as a post doc.\\n\\nPlease PM me if you want to talk more about it. \", \"My bachelors was in physics. I am now studying structural bio-materials in a chemical engineering department.\\n\\nI do not regret majoring in physics and I love studying materials. I would say you can't go wrong either way. The job you get will be based on how you sell yourself and your degree. Either degree is easy to sell and neither degree is the easy way out.\\n\\nPhysics is more fundamental and the upper division will teach you techniques and ways of thinking which will be useful no matter what you do.\\n\\nIf you are more interested in materials then go for it. If materials is where you want to be there are plenty of jobs in the field and you will be more qualified than a physicist to study materials. Physicists are second best at a lot of disciplines, so choosing physics will give you more options, but then its on you to convince an employer why they should choose you over a materials scientist/engineer.\", \"Mankind has had computers, airplanes, cars, telephones, batteries, solar cells, etc, for about a century. Fundamental technologies have not changed much, but progress in many fields are limited by the quality of their available materials. However, many fields have progressed rapidly in the last 40 years due to the development of new materials with enhanced properties, enabling higher level engineering to take place.\\n\\nFor example, the new Boeing 787 is made of a composite material that is stronger than structural metals but significantly lighter, making it more fuel efficient, and also eliminates ear popping (see, structural steels can't stand the pressure difference at high altitudes, so they have to depressurize the cabin. This new composite can withstand it, so they can maintain ground pressure). Structural material engineering accounts for stronger, tougher, and cheaper materials for ship hulls, car engines, tank armor, building materials, concrete, nuclear fuel canisters, and more. \\n\\nComputational power has followed Moore's law for a few decades now, which says that CPU capability doubles about every 18 months. What is driving this increase? Typically, it's how many transistors you can fit on a CPU. We are now putting billions of transistors within a square inch, fabricating at the  < 50 nm regime - does that not blow your mind? Nanofabrication and device engineering is a huge field that drives the forefront of the electronic device industry. Transparent Conducting Oxides, and other novel materials, are what allow touchscreen phones to exist, as well as the flatscreen monitor you're reading this off of. Don't forget LEDs, LCDs, and more. Exciting things in the future include photonic CPUs (and quantum computers, but that's still in the theoretical physics stage).\\n\\nOne of the major concerns of humanity in this coming century is the energy problem. We have to figure out efficient ways of generating energy and storing energy in environmentally sustainable ways, ideally with resources that are plentiful, like sunlight and water. Often, the material used to convert and store energy *is* the device. Making better solar cells, lithium ion batteries, thermoelectrics (convert waste heat to electricity), etc, these are all *material* problems. Finding materials that can work with hydrogen is also a huge field of research - for generation from water with material catalysts, storage in the solid state for on-board vehicle transport, and conversion to electricity using fuel cells.\\n\\nNovel materials also open up entirely new fields of engineering. Metallic glasses, quantum dots, graphene, aerogels, conducting polymers, etc - these are drivers of future technology. The modern revolution in science is a materials revolution, and it's a good field to get involved in. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-frozen-helium-supersolid-state-liquid-like.html'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1391, "q_id": "2e09yn", "title": "If Jupiter and Saturn are made of gas, why haven't we tried sending anything into them?", "selftext": "Would the radiation just destroy anything we send near it or do we already know enough about these planets and its not worth it?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2e09yn/if_jupiter_and_saturn_are_made_of_gas_why_havent/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cjuwcgt', 'cjuwg50', 'cjv839d'], 'score': [26, 5, 2], 'text': [\"We actually have! In 1995, we sent an atmospheric probe into Jupiter. It transmitted weather data for 58 minutes before failing due to the heat of about 150 Celsius and 23 atmospheric pressure. The next probe to arrive at Jupiter will be the Juno spacecraft, while it won't scientifically descend into the clouds, it will collect valuable data on Jupiter's polar regions.\\n\\n_URL_0_  \\n_URL_1_\", 'We already have. We crashed Galileo into Jupiter in 2003 and we will be crashing Cassini into Saturn in 2017. ', \"As mentioned by u/AsAChemicalEngineer, our previous attempt at penetration failed after the first hour or so because of the high temperatures/pressures destroying it. We'd have to manufacture something to withstand that, and I am not sure whether we have concrete data about the upper limits of what to expect.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(spacecraft)', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1273, "q_id": "b2xy98", "title": "Why did the Patriarch of Rome specifically become the most powerful patriarch prior to the Great Schism?", "selftext": "Why not answer to Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, or even a city in Aksum?\n\n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b2xy98/why_did_the_patriarch_of_rome_specifically_become/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['eiwijs6'], 'score': [17], 'text': ['Thing is the bishop of Rome wasn\\'t necessarily the most powerful patriarch of Christiendom : it is true that it claimed some primacy over other main seats of Christianity as the bishops of Rome were considered the successors of Peter from one hand, and ruling from one of the most prestigious imperial centres, but nobody really agreed on what this primacy was or how it was to be applied.While Leo I, supported by the western emperor Valentinian III, asserted Roman claims to primacy in 451 during the Council of Chalcedonia, it was made clear too that the Patriarchate of Constantinople would enjoy a similar primacy especially in the East.\\n\\nAnd, in facts, the Roman Papacy only enjoyed a symbolic (if pretty much real) dominance over western metropolites : Milan and Ravenne beneficied from a closer relationship with western emperors and patricians such as Ricimer (and actually tended to have not a good relation with them). Roman influence over eastern churches policies was superficial at the very best. As Papacy fall under patrician/Barbarian control over the late Vth and VIth century, its prestige was fragilized.\\n\\nConstantinople, on the other hand, was closer to imperial authority than any other seat, and thanks to this could arguably actually enforce its primacy over the other eastern patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, following a broad imperial religious policy, and Constantinople could really be considered the most powerful patriarchate of western Christiendom during Late Antiquity.\\n\\nThe Vth century, while Roman pontiffs tried to assert the independence of the Church to the political power, was essentially a small \"Dark Age\" : most of royal authority in the region was Homoian (even if, at the notable exception of Vandals, not actively anti-Niceans) and Nicean Barbarians as Franks directly ruled ecclesiastical matters with their clergy, as Roman popes were, if autonomous, essentially set within Ostrogothic political influence. Seats like Carthage, without being really recognized as patriarchates, tended to function largely autonomously.\\n\\nByzantine reconquest of Italy, while putting Rome into Constantinople\\'s sphere as much it was done in history which wasn\\'t without real resistence and hostility in Italy itself, especially as Justinian proclaimed Constantinople the \"chief of all churches\", but it contributed to remove most of simony in favour of imperial nomination and to connect Rome with the general Christian theological community.\\n\\nWith the fall of Ostrogothic Italy, Nicean Merovingians took the lead in Western Europe where what remained of Homoian Christianity quickly vanished and began to be a political and religious influence for pagan kingdoms-in-building (such as Kent, Sussex and East-Anglia), while inner dynamics and imperial policies led to the adoption of the Nicean Credo by Spanish Goths.\\n\\nIn the same time, Rome and the territory it overseed, became a haven for clergy fleeing Lombard, Slavic and Persian armies (and later, Arabs), effectively making the patriarch not only more connected with the theological problems, mostly christology and defence of Chalcedonian _URL_2_ Latin Christianity grew, ecclesiastical assemblies and organisations whuch were still first and firstmost managed trough royal authority, acknowledged a significant spiritual and pastoral leadership from Papacy.\\n\\nImperial religious policies, critically the Three Chapters, monoenergism and monothelism, tended to be ill-recieved outside Constantinople, and the clergy of other patriarchates (especially Jerusalem, due to a lot of monastic ties with Rome since the Vth century) which opposed imperial policies looked to Rome for championing their struggle, which Rome did, less to increase its overall authority but maybe more because there wasn\\'t much motivation for them to compromise over Christology as the matter was resolved in the _URL_3_ might seems bizarre as Roman Papacy was largely under Imperial thumb in the VIIth century. But thanks to the apparent triumph of Nicean Credo in the west and the conversion of England, a growing political autonomy born out of the Lombard advance in Italy and emperors being busy with Persians, Roman pontiffs were able to lead a short schism over monothelism, further increasing their prestige in _URL_4_ would be wrong, however, to consider the primacy of Rome established  : even in Italy, pontifical authority was challenged during the Three-Chapter controversy, as pointed by the schism of the self-proclaimed Patriarchate of Aquilea. Both the emperor and the patriarchate of Constantinople readily acted against Rome there, intervening in Roman matters and putting popes in inner exile at Constantinople.\\n\\nSimilarily, it\\'s not to mean the roman partiarchate was crushed either : the emperors wanted to keep a working relationship there, rather than burning bridges (especially as Constans II toyed with the idea of moving the center of the Empire in Italy). The continuous stream of Greek and Syrian popes of the late VIIth were rather a compromise with Latins than any political imposition. In fact, Latin Church, under Rome, became more and more autonomous and (partly because of these non-Italian popes) became to identify Roman church with _URL_0_ this point, indeed, Latin Christianity\\'s pastoral and ritual differences with Greek and Eastern Christianities became obvious, and Latins simply didn\\'t considered abandoning it, considering these to be regular and _URL_1_, when Justinian II attempted to backtrack on the compromise and impose Constantinople\\'s considerations and Greek rites, backleash was immediate in Italy (while the clergy in Rome was mainly Greek and Syrian), and the emperor adopted more conciliatory tone which was met by Roman church without too much trouble : the main focus of both emperor and pontiff was to keep a Roman and Christian commonwealth alive.\\n\\nNevertheless, what really killed it was the adoption of Iconoclasm by Leo III. Rome was really keen to championing against  imperial \"innovations\", just as before. This time, especially due to the capture of the other patriarchates by Arabs during the century, the opposition was dualistic rather than polycentric, and Leo III reneged on most of the compromises made by his predecessors, which achieved to alienate him the Roman church.Eventually, as Lombards tried to benefit from Roman isolation to achieve their conquest of Italy, Stephen II turned to the main power of Western Europe, Francia that Arnulfids (also known as Peppinids, later named Carolingians) reached a large prestige having defeated Arabo-Berbers during the 730\\'s, while having built a tight relationship with Latin clergy with several missions in Frankish Germania. This forged a relation which climaxed with the sacrality of Carolingians and the establishment of the Carolingian Empire, as an alternative Christian Empire compared to Byzantine (the title of Charlemagne \"emperor ruling over the Empire of Romans\" is rather a reference to the pope, incarnating the will of Romans, than a reference to the old WRE).\\n\\nWhile Frankish Papacy, at least initially, was really under the thumb of Charlemagne, it took more and more autonomy as the sole religious reference in the West, even as Byzantine Emperors recanted iconoclasm. The late IXth and early Xth was particularily messy for Rome, which lost a lot of prestige in the anarchy that followed the fall of Carolingia; but reforms of the Xth century essentially strived to restaure Roman sole primacy, not just in the West, but also universal primacy as Constantinople obviously needed some theological discipine as far as Latin Christianity was concerned.\\n\\nBasically, the primacy of Roman church was always more or less asserted by Rome, but didn\\'t really existed in practice for a long time. It was concretly built over a shaky relationship with imperial Christianity, the triumph of Nicean Credo in the West, and a defiance to imperial religious policies. It wasn\\'t really ever acknowledged by Constantinople, but this is what made the claim of universal primacy a reality in the West at first : there are later movements (Ottonian reforms, political decline of Byzantine Empire, etc.) which reinforced it, of course, but they were mostly built over this evolution.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['Christianity.At', 'catholic.So', 'Credo.As', 'West.It', 'Christiendom.It']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2162, "q_id": "3nrk23", "title": "why couldn't edward snowden return to america, where he would need to face a proper and fair trial, and appeal his case until it reaches the supreme court?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nrk23/eli5_why_couldnt_edward_snowden_return_to_america/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cvqmjp4', 'cvqmll2', 'cvqmu5d', 'cvqopqe', 'cvqpnvb', 'cvqv0uo', 'cvqwovq', 'cvqzbfe', 'cvr14t4', 'cvr1zoy', 'cvr2rak', 'cvr2zwg', 'cvr4mtu', 'cvr5tiq'], 'score': [5, 16, 26, 391, 6, 4, 10, 2, 161, 2, 12, 14, 4, 14], 'text': [\" > why couldnt Snowdens case reach the Supreme Court and a ruling in favor of Snowden\\n\\nSure, that *could* happen.  Or Snowden could be found guilty, have his appeal denied by the supreme court (or have them rule against him), and spend the rest of his life in prison for treason.\\n\\nHe clearly doesn't want to take that risk.\\n\\n > and/or an Amendment/Act created that would deem the activities of the NSA illegal?\\n\\nSuch an act would not impact Snowden, because it wouldn't make what he did legal.\", \"He could, but he's afraid that he would lose. Which is reasonable, seeing as he almost certainly would. \\n\\nEven *if* we make the incredibly generous assumption that there's no corruption in the American government, and that there's no incentive to protect the NSA, Snowden still committed a crime. Someone else doing something illegal doesn't usually give you the right to also do something illegal. So it's entirely possible that while the NSA will be penalized for their actions, so will Snowden. \\n\\nAnd that's really the best case scenario, seeing as there *is* likely incentive for the government to protect the NSA. Or worse, there might be actual *justification* for the NSA's actions, which will seriously hurt any of Snowden's defenses. \\n\\nSo even if he gets a fair trial he'll probably be found guilty, and it's certainly a reasonable fear that he wouldn't get a fair trial. Coming back is really a no-win scenario for him. \", \"The Supreme Court wouldn't need to get involved here. ~~They generally only get involved in constitutional issues (that is, interpreting the United States Constitution).~~ Snowden committed a crime, there's no two ways about it. What he did may or may not have been morally or ethically right or wrong, but under current law, he committed a crime. Even if SCOTUS finds what the NSA did to be illegal, it still wouldn't exonerate him of his crime.\", '[In his own words](_URL_0_): \\n\\n >  A number of detractors have suggested that if Snowden, who disclosed controversial top-secret N.S.A. programs to reporters, truly wanted to commit an act of civil disobedience for reasons of conscience, then he should have faced the legal consequences, making his case to the American public while standing trial at home.\\n\\n >  When I asked why he didn\u2019t take this route, Snowden said that because of the way national-security laws have been interpreted since September 11, 2001, he believed that the government had deprived him, and other whistle-blowers, of ever having the opportunity to make their cases in this time-honored tradition. Instead of being allowed to make his arguments in an open, public court, he said, his lawyers were told that the government would close the court for national-security reasons. (When asked to comment, a Justice Department spokesman would say only, \u201cIt remains our position that Mr. Snowden should return to the United States and face the charges filed against him. If he does, he will be accorded full due process and protections.\u201d)\\n\\n >  Snowden said that he would \u201clove\u201d to return to the United States and stand trial, if he could be assured that it would be open and fair. He said, \u201cI have told the government again and again in negotiations that if they\u2019re prepared to offer an open trial, a fair trial, in the same way that Daniel Ellsberg got, and I\u2019m allowed to make my case to the jury, I would love to do so. But they\u2019ve declined.\u201d\\n\\n >  Instead, Snowden said, \u201cThey want to use special procedures. They want a closed court. They want to use something called the Classified Information [Procedures] Act.\u201d \\n\\nSo basically, two reasons. One, he doesn\\'t believe he will be given a fair, impartial trial conducted according to recognized rules of evidence. Two, he fears that the American public will never hear the result of his trial. \\n\\nCritics might accuse him of demanding a \"show\" trial, open to the public, so that he can use the court to grandstand on issues important to him. But I think a more fair interpretation is that he has sacrificed his freedom and his career in order to expose abuse of surveillance within the US government, and he fears that facing a secret trial here would mean that that abuse would be covered up permanently. ', \"* he doesn't believe he will be given a fair trial\\n* even if he gets a fair trial, he pretty clearly broke that law, and likely will go to prison\\n* he doesn't believe he will be treated fairly in prison\", 'Because he would die in a \"traffic accident\" before there was any hope. Also he technically broke a ton of laws(even though it was the right thing to do) the court would still lock him up', \"Hypocrisy.  If you look at what Snowden released the gist of it is that the U.S. security apparatus (NSA in this case) is spying on everyone in the world including American citizens (without a wire tap warrant signed by a judge, aka due process) and foreign heads of state ( a breach of diplomatic protocol).  Snowden let the public know what was going on.  The powers that be call this treason and would like to do to him what was done to the Rosenbergs.  Up to this point the government sounds both reasonable and consistent.  Later, however, we find out that the Chinese are doing the same thing, as are the Brits, the Russians, and basically any country that bothers to do so is in fact doing so.  Now the situation is that Snowden didn't release any information to the 'enemy' because like the U.S. they had it all to begin with.  The only thing that Snowden did was to let everyone else know what the governments were doing.  He pissed off bureaucrats, nothing more.\\n\", \"I just thought of something. Couldn't the defense argue that Snowden cannot be charged with violating the Espionage Act as he leaked the classified documents to Wikileaks, which is not a hostile government but closer to a corporation? Yeah he leaked classified information, but didn't actually hand it over to Russia so it isn't actually treason. \", \"No one has mentioned this yet or at least not very succinctly:\\n\\n\\nThe crime he is accused of (Violating the Espionage Act of 1917) doesn't allow you to defend yourself and the Supreme court has previously ruled this is not a violation of free speech.\\n\\n\\n\\nI feel like more people need to know that.\", \"Someone like Snowden would be tried for treason and espionage. This isn't a larceny charge or even a murder charge, where fair trials are your right and the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. That's simply not the case here.\\n\\nIf someone like Snowden ever made it to trial, it would not be the kind of trial you see on TV. In fact, it would probably be worst and more on-sided than Hussein's trial, and he was a monster.\", \"Are you really asking why the government wouldn't give Snowden a fair trial for exposing the government? Just think about it for a moment. It doesn't matter what the laws are, the government made and enforces the laws. He leaked stuff that the government did not want leaked. He would not get a trial, he would just be detained indefinitely, and indefinitely might as well mean eternally because only a super hero would ever be able to break him out, not any kind of lawyer, not even the next president or 5 presidents from now. That is what happens when you try to expose your own government, in nearly any country. America is no exception.\\n\\nThere's your ELI5 answer.\", 'Get real. He will never get a proper and fair trial in the US. He will either \"have an accident\" or \"commit suicide\".', \"You know how manning was treated? \\n\\nThat's why.\\n\\nAnd he doesn't stand a chance, supreme court can't and won't help him.\", 'Alright since this is explain like I\\'m 5....\\n\\nEver see a bully on the playground harassing other kids,  not letting them live their lives fairly, creepily monitoring their movements? \\n\\nImagine if you exposed that bullying to everyone in town and move across state to avoid him. Then, the bully says, \" hey man its okay, just come talk with me in private and let\\'s work this out? I promise I\\'ll treat you fairly!\"\\n\\n\\nWould you walk right into a sucker punch?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/video-snowden-love-stand-trial'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1476, "q_id": "5ky1lz", "title": "when the barometric pressure changes, why do surgically repaired areas get sore?", "selftext": "When there's an incoming storm or cold front coming, areas that have had surgery tend to get sore. I asked my doctor before getting surgery about this and he didn't have an answer for me. Does anyone know what happens?\n\nEDIT: It seems very subjective at this point. Thanks for all the answers!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ky1lz/eli5_when_the_barometric_pressure_changes_why_do/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dbrjrt9', 'dbrk7k4', 'dbrkid5', 'dbrks5s', 'dbrkz4s', 'dbrllky', 'dbrn5x1', 'dbrnf0a', 'dbror3s', 'dbrqiwc', 'dbrr8r8', 'dbrrurq', 'dbrsdx1', 'dbrusrt', 'dbruvab', 'dbrw7et', 'dbrx5ui', 'dbrxds7', 'dbrxp25', 'dbrzqk4', 'dbs0kjb', 'dbs1rhk', 'dbs20xo', 'dbs3wjr', 'dbs44cy', 'dbs507i', 'dbs76je', 'dbs79et', 'dbs7cvd', 'dbs91sk', 'dbs9fq7', 'dbs9jzf', 'dbsbdfk', 'dbsg5tj'], 'score': [75, 2491, 32, 724, 2, 8, 2, 150, 6, 6, 3, 4, 64, 2, 2, 2, 195, 2, 2, 10, 2, 2, 12, 5, 8, 2, 2, 2, 6, 7, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Think of a wooden object like a cabinet.  As the weather changes, the doors on the cabinet sometimes get hard to open and close because the shape and size of the wood pieces are slightly changing in response to the humidity and temperature.\\n\\nYour body does something similar.  As you grow from childhood to adulthood your body is growing as one unit so everything works well together.  But when you break a bone, the area that healed is going to be slightly different from the area that grew when you were younger.  \\n\\nNow this area doesn't respond to atmospheric changes in the same way the rest of the area reacts so you might notice some discomfort in the area.  The regular bone might shrink a little more than the newly healed area and you feel it.\", 'Any answer to this is purely theoretical. Seems to be a real phenomenon though, at least based on the extent to which people report this effect\\n\\nSauce: am arthritis doctor', 'The way it was explained to me was a combination of the pressure change and nerve damage.  No matter how you are cut, during a surgery, there is a small amount of nerve damage.  Nerves heal extremely slowly, if at all.  That causes changes in the pathways for feeling at an injured site.  (Anyone who has experienced a pinched or damaged nerve will tell you that just touching your skin can be painful, or feel different at an affected nerve).. this heightened or changed feeling/area is easily affected by pressure changes.  Thats pretty much it.', 'Ok I did some actual literature searching.\\n\\nMost published studies seem to read more or less the same conclusion as this one : _URL_0_\\n\\n\"CONCLUSION: The studies to date do not show any consistent group effect of weather conditions on pain in people with RA. There is, however, evidence suggesting that pain in some individuals is more affected by the weather than in others, and that patients react in different ways to the weather. Thus, the hypothesis that weather changes might significantly influence pain reporting in clinical care and research in some patients with RA cannot be rejected.\"', 'I have an old ankle injury as well as a shitty left knee.\\nI know bad weather is coming the day before it does because those two parts start feeling pretty achy.', 'When the pressure around something (IE your body) decreases it expands.  This is known in physics.  The rest is a guess based on that rule, my BS in physics, and my chronic pain.\\n\\nNormally, this expansion is typically not a problem as your body is more or less [Isotropic](_URL_0_), so everything expands equally and stays in the proper proportion.  With damaged/scar tissue you *may* get a different expansion relative to the neighboring tissue.  \\n\\nI think of it like what happened to the O-ring causing the [Challenger Disaster](_URL_1_). Due to the cold weather, the O-ring expanded *less* than the joint it sealed, resulting in a gap and catastrophic failure. In your case, the drop in pressure might cause your damaged tissue to shrink too much or too little which can result in pain. ', \"When air pressure gets higher (like when you go down in altitude, when it's cold, or during some storms) there's essentially more weight pressing down on you. So places that tend to get sore get sore quicker or for no reason.\\nFor example, I have a friend who's a pilot and has had back surgery. He loves flying because he doesn't feel sore or achy at high altitudes, and hates visiting places like Los Angeles because it the relatively higher pressure makes him feel sore. \\nYou feel more sore/achy in the winter because the air is cold - >  more dense - >  heavier. Same for some storms that are accompanied by high pressure systems\\n\\nSource: Meteorology minor living at high altitude\", 'Barometric pressure.  Injuries never heal perfectly (yet).  When the barometric pressure changes, you are getting stretched or compressed.  The scar tissue does the same, but at a different rate than surrounding non-damaged areas.  That makes it hurt.  The greater the change, the more pain.  Once the barometric pressure stabilizes, the stretching and compressing stops and everything goes back to \"normal\".  That\\'s why it hurts before the storm, but not necessarily during or after...at least for me.\\n\\nArthritis works under a similar method.  Any currently inflamed tissue will ache because some level of damage is occurring - sort of like tugging at a big cut on your arm.  Leave it be and the pain will stop.  Keeping tugging and it will keep hurting.', 'This applies mostly to implants, and not just all areas that have been openened. Your body minutely expands and contracts with barometric pressure. Any artificial implant will expand and contract at a different rate.  \\n\\nBarometric pressure drops before clouds/a storm, sometimes quickly, so this can make orthopedic rods, plates, screws, and joint replacements ache.', 'Personally I have Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type 2 causalgia\\nI have constant issues with weather patterns and low and high-pressure systems bringing about different effects, with the pain and feeling involved.\\nI find at lower pressure the feeling received is like a vice being enclosed around the limb \\nI find at higher pressure the feeling received is like a balloon being overinflated inside the limb.\\nWhat I have found in my searches and talks with peeps/pros is: so far peripheral nervous system gets out of whack with\\nThe lymphatic system, your spleen and few other bodily functions which control micro circulation which all work together in a wonderful way assisting each other. When you disrupt, the brain remembers the injury/surgery! peripheral and central nervous systems can \"shudder\" sending out incorrect signals thinking that the body is in a similar state. this is what I have been informed so far .....Good luck\\n\\n\\n', 'Can confirm. My migraines go apeshit when the pressure drops. I used to think this was just something old people said because they were old.', 'The area with internal scarring caused by the surgery is of a different density to the surrounding tissue, and therefore expands/contracts at a different rate in response to changes in atmospheric pressure than the surrounding areas.', \"I have a little input on this. \\n\\nI'm an air traffic controller and a big part of my job is controlling medevac helicopters transitioning through the airspace. We aren't supposed to give the aircraft altitude adjustments because if someone is bleeding in the aircraft, changing the aircraft's altitude a few hundred feet can mean the difference of a person remaining stable and a person bleeding out.  \\n\\nThis is sad when you think about helpless pilots in Afghanistan when they fly out of steep terrain. Those pilots know what's going on behind them and know that clearing the ridge by climbing 1,000 ft is going to kill his passengers.  \\n\\nAt my last base, we were one of the busiest airports for VFR traffic in the country, working 12-14 aircraft in a pattern was almost a daily occurrence(for tower, that's pretty damn busy).  I've had situations where we have been busy as shit and a medevac helo called needing to cut straight through my airspace with a critical casualty. I've made blanket broadcasts telling all the aircraft at once to change their altitude and 'race track' just so medavac can get through without any issues; it's that important that they don't climb.   \", \"Then it wouldn't balloon... to balloon it must be elastic...  less elastic would resist stretching even more. More elastic would allow it to compensate by stretching. Scar tissue may hurt because it cannot stretch because it is not elastic and it cannot balloon to compensate. \", \"My brother was in a car accident a long time ago and had to have a small metal plate put in his head. Before a storm would come in, even if it didn't look like it, he would call it. And it was pretty accurate. Not quite science, but damnit I'm not Bill Nye. \", \"First surgery was in '98 for a broken knee. Second in 2003 for partial reconstruction. After the second I started having fluid in my knee. The air pressure vs the internal pressure of my knee fluid caused my pain. \\n\\nIn '06 had a tib/fib fracture. The rod in my leg caused really cold temperature swings to hurt, but not pressure related. \", 'From: _URL_0_\\n\\nAnd the pain is not just from surgically repaired areas. Even the \"ole football\" type injures become sore as well. \\n\\n >  > There\\'s no full agreement among scientists that weather causes pain, or if a specific mechanism is at fault, Jamison says. But there are plausible theories.\\n\\n >  > One leading theory points to changes in air pressure. Although many people say that their pain worsens with damp, rainy weather, research has shown that it\\'s not the cold, wind, rain, or snow, Borenstein says. \"The thing that affects people most is barometric pressure.\"\\n\\n >  > Barometric pressure is the weight of the atmosphere that surrounds us.\\n\\n >  > If you imagine the tissues surrounding the joints to be like a balloon, high barometric pressure that pushes against the body from the outside will keep tissues from expanding.\\n\\n >  > But barometric pressure often drops before bad weather sets in. This lower air pressure pushes less against the body, allowing tissues to expand -- and those expanded tissues can put pressure on the joint. \"It\\'s very microscopic and we can hardly notice, except that we have these sensations,\" Jamison says.', 'The rise and fall of the barometer, especially in a short period of time, causes the bones to hurt.\\n\\n  \\n\\nBone/tissue  density variations caused by rapid changes to air pressure.\\n\\n', \"I had multiple surgeries and only one had screws and that one gets painful when there's low pressure systems coming through. \", \"I would like to know this as well. I've had multiple brain surgeries and I can feel the change of the weather all the time. It's like a superpower, but one of those unwanted superpowers \", \"It's not just surgery. I suffered a very serious longboard injury when I was a teenager and did significant damage to my elbows knees and forearm.  I live a relatively pain-free life yet every time a storm is approaching or within a few hours away I start to notice my forearm throbs and my knees start to ache.  \", \"Dude with metal plates and screws in his arm and a titanium rod for a tibia checking in. I've never experienced this. Everyone always asks me though.\", 'My opinion is based on personal experience, knowledge of materials and relating the two. I have torn so many muscles, tendons, ligaments, broken a couple bones, screwed up my back, neck, shoulder, wrists... a 20f variance over less than 48 hours is enough to make me grab advil or such.  Over a day or less and I hurt quite a bit.  40f change during the day REALLY hurts \\n\\nMatter expands and contracts.  Change over time of that is directly related to the type of material, mostly density. Different materials or materials of the same matter but different densities expand/contract at different rates over the same time.  At the end, they will have expanded/contracted different amounts.  Atmospheric pressure along with temperature both affect expansion and contraction. \\n\\nHealing of injuries involves the human body replacing or adding new material to the injured area. Typically, it is also more durable than what it replaced. To be that way, it has to be more dense then the material around it.\\n\\nPut the two concepts together.  Just like with two different metals being affected by temp and/or pressure, they will expand/contract at different rates.  This causes friction and pressure with metals, woods, etc.\\n\\nI suspect it also does the same with bone and flesh.  Difference is, there are also nerves involved and those are stimulated by the differences. Much like someone lightly applying pressure and increasing it will cause increasing discomfort, even pain. ', 'I have had 14 surgeries in my life so far, several broken bones, spinal fusions, progressive arthritis, etc. And have never experienced this, ever. All my surgically repaired and injury areas always feel the same.', \"Not a doctor o scientist however I had my left arm reconstructed when I got shot in Afghanistan. My theory: Our bodies typically work in harmony when under barometric pressure shifts and adjust according so we don't feel the pressure change. The presence of excessive scared tissue, bone overgrowth, shifted muscle/fascia placement and internal fixation throw off this equilibrium and result in our bodies perceiving the pressure change when the affected areas come under pressure change without being able to equalize this pressure change in the same way a healthy area of the body would. \", 'I have a large scar on my stomach from surgery when I was two. It gets sore and tense when the weather drastically changes. I only feel this on the left side of where the incision was made. It shocked my husband the first time he felt my scar tense up. If I could describe the pain I would say that it feels like a cramp in your side after running for too long.', 'Did you have any plates or screws fixated to your bone/s? If so this may help, it explains the thermal expansion properties of bone and orthopedic biomaterials that are used in surgeries. \\n\\n_URL_0_ ', \"I don't have a solid answer for this of course, but I can let you know that apparently my mother's shoulder can tell when a big storm is coming. She'll put it out on Facebook as well warning everyone. Oddly enough she's usually right, an ice storm, thunderstorm, something ends up happening within the next couple days. She still sounds like a nutter doing it, but it's interesting it's usually right. :) \", 'I have had multiple spinal fusions and I can predict with over 90% accuracy when it will rain/snow within the following 36 hours. Now if i could only use this to my advantage in Vegas and gamble on when the weather is going to change.', \"General surgery, see most of the comments. \\n\\nBroken bones however are what I've always heard pain associated with. This was explained to me by my orthopedic surgeon after a femur break. \\n\\nYou have a tube of marrow in your bone which has liquid in it. This liquid also contains gases in solution. The body can effectively shift pressures in your bones to match the outside pressure, until you break your bones. When your bone heals it creates a solid wall through that fluid chamber. The result is when you get a pressure change the bone cannot equalize pressure on each side at the same rate. Result is pressure at the point of the break which causes pain and discomfort. \\n\\nThe pain is more noticeable as a storm front approaches since the pressure usually drops. \", 'well the pressure changing could be expanding or contracting your over all body, the scar tissue in the area is less flexible than normal skin so it might be nerves reacting to that.... \\ni had a knee surgery and ive noticed it as more of an itch than a soreness when the pressure changes before a storm.', \"Migraine sufferer here.  I have also had upper and lower jaw surgery.  Over 70% of my migraines happen within a few hours of a steep increase in pressure.  I suspect that pain is affected by mood, which is affected by weather.  I can't believe that such a small increase influences things, especially when going on an airplane seems to have such little effect.\", \"Random total fucking guess (because everyone else is doing it), the area doesn't heal perfectly back to normal or is healing and changes in pressure causes expansion/contraction of fluids and tissue in ways that can cause nerves to fire.\\n\\nWhen I broke my hand the first 4-5 months after I could feel weather changes in it, eventually it went away. \", \"I see this too. My mother has psoriatic arthritis along with plenty of other joint issues. I always would call her if the weatherman said a storm was coming. She was never wrong. Maybe we should stop giving idiots fresh out of college meteorology jobs and give it to people with physical pains. Then they'll never be wrong. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20570193/?i=5&amp;from=/15229951/related'], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/weather_and_pain#1'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.globalacademicresearchjournals.org/full-articles/compatibility-of-thermal.pdf?view=inline'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1533, "q_id": "1zyljk", "title": "Did the Polish Army really fight on horses against tanks in WW2?", "selftext": "I've heard several stories here. My background is Polish so I have a bit of a interest into Polish history.\n\nI've talked to some old timers about the war and many would say the Polish Army fought the tanks on Horseback, now this may seem ridiculous and maybe somewhat brave, but more or less stupid. I heard from family sources that this horse vs tank, was nothing more than German propaganda in Italy.\n\nI understand Poland was not high in tech during the time, and I could understand using a cavalry to split up infantry, but to ride against a tank? I find that utter nonsense.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zyljk/did_the_polish_army_really_fight_on_horses/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cfy5mc3'], 'score': [585], 'text': ['This is actually a really interesting story.\\n\\nThe Polish Cavalry was a very high-prestige part of Polish armed forces, and had a lot of history behind them - Napoleon\\'s lancers, Winged Hussars and so on. By 1939, the Polish cavalry were, as mirozi said, highly mobile infantry units really, but were used in the same way as NATO planned to use jeep squads in the event of a Soviet invasion - set up an ambush with anti-tank weapons, knock out a couple of tanks, retire to the next position quickly and set up another ambush etc. \\n\\nThere were even examples of the Polish cavalry divisions bringing the Panzers to a dead stop, for example the [Battle of Mokra](_URL_0_).\\n\\nThe \"charging tanks with cavalry\" myth seems to have originated in a specific incident on the first day of the invasion, the [Skirmish at Krojanty](_URL_1_).\\n\\nAlthough trained as mobile anti-tank/dragoon units, Polish cavalry retained the sabre, just in case. On 1 September, the 18th Pomeranian Uhlans were covering a retreat when they spotted a unit of German infantry resting in a clearing. Colonel Mastalerz decided to take them by surprise and ordered a sabre charge of about 250 cavalry. The charge was successful and the German infantry - who can\\'t have been expecting cavalry with sabres charging them - dispersed into the trees with heavy casualties.\\n\\nAt that point, some German armoured cars appeared and laid into the cavalry, causing some casualties (including Col. Mastelarz) and driving the rest off.\\n\\nIn the aftermath, the German casualties were cleared away and the Poles left, and some neutral war correspondents were invited to come and see, and told that the cavalrymen had been killed while charging at tanks with sabres.\\n\\nThe story circulated rapidly, not only among the German and sympathetic presses (to whom the moral of the story was supposed to be *Look how stupid and backward the Poles are - we\\'re doing them a favour by bringing German civilisation*), but also in the British and French presses, who swallowed the story whole, but there the moral was *Look how suicidally brave the romantic Poles are - isn\\'t this just the sort of people we should be supporting*.\\n\\nThen, after the war, the Communist Polish government, eager to seize on anything that would make the pre-war government look bad, perpetuated the myth, with the moral now being *Look what the old capitalist government did for you - forcing soldiers to face Panzers with sword and lance!*\\n\\nIn other words the same, fake, story has been repeated by fascist, democratic and communist sources each to serve their own narrative of the invasion if 1939.\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_mokra', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skirmish_of_Krojanty']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1442, "q_id": "5ajdfy", "title": "Why did the sons of liberty decide to dress up as Indians during the Boston tea party? Did they actually think no one would see through their disguise or was it intended to be a political statement?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ajdfy/why_did_the_sons_of_liberty_decide_to_dress_up_as/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d9i3g28'], 'score': [17], 'text': ['I read a great analysis of this recently in the book \"Playing Indian\" by the historian Phil Deloria. I can\\'t find the chapter online but I have a pdf copy if anyone wants to read it - I highly recommend it. This is my understanding of the argument:\\n\\nThe use of native-looking costumes by the colonists is drawing on long-standing traditions of both celebration and political dissent throughout European history. Going all the way back to ancient Rome and through the medieval era (probably starting way earlier, I would guess) the practice of inversion was common. So for example, during Saturnalia celebrations, medieval feast days, carnival/mardi gras and such, the servants would dress up as lords and the lords would wait on them. Or the kids of the household would tell the adults what to do, people would cross-dress, some random person dressed as a priest, etc. In some way a social norm or role was being reversed. Think of this happening while there are huge parties in the streets. \\n\\nSo on one hand, this practice of inversion - which you could find in one form or another in every culture\u2019s celebrations (Halloween comes to mind) - fucks with the social order of the society, because you are switching roles of class/gender/religious role/etc which are usually very strictly enforced. At the same time you\\'re also *reinforcing* the social order just by the fact that the inversion only happens at a very specific time for a very specific reason. Like \"haha, isn\\'t this ridiculous! it\\'s totally backwards and strange and weird and would never normally happen without consequences!\"\\n\\nOkay so then the political dissent part. I\u2019m not too familiar with this part of history but if anyone knows more I\u2019d be interested to know. Basically, in England access to land and game was controlled by the landed nobility, and hunting by \u201ccommon\u201d folk was forbidden by the Game Laws. However, for centuries there was this kind of unofficial agreement between most nobles and the poachers, where if the latter would be discreet/reasonable in their hunting then the Game Laws wouldn\u2019t be enforced against them. A key point here is that poachers practiced \u201cblacking\u201d as part of the discreetness thing - they paint their faces black and hunt at night to avoid being identified. \\n\\nBut then, after the English civil war the forests were owned more by the new rich, or essentially the bourgeoisie. They have an economic interest in profiting off the land rather than just a hereditary claim like the nobles, so they come down hard on poachers of any kind to protect those resources. As a way to resist this, the poachers start organizing and \u201cblacking\u201d together as a political act of protest. If a landowner was especially cruel in their enforcement of the Game Laws, groups of poachers would all get together in disguise and go vandalize the house or humiliate the owner in some way. This form of dissent was called \u201cmisrule,\u201d btw, and it\u2019s a tradition that gets carried over to the colonies. \\n\\nAnyways, so basically what Deloria is getting at with this is that you have to understand both the traditions of inversion during celebrations and misrule as protest to understand the Boston Tea Party. Because the line between celebration and dissent is often blurred, and one could (and often did) switch to the other in any of these situations. You tend to think of the BTP as more strictly political, but the other commenter on this thread said they were probably drunk, so I think it fits.\\n\\nAlright so applying this to the colonists in particular: Deloria (who is the son of the legendary native scholar/activist Vine Deloria, which I think is relevant) is using the Boston Tea Party to make a larger argument about the relationship between the English colonists and indigenous peoples. In order to protest against the Crown, the colonists had to adopt their own distinctive American identity to separate them from their British origins. By adopting a native identity, they\\'re reinforcing their ties to the land that they\u2019re occupying. To them being native represents freedom, seemingly endless land to explore and settle (and game, I might add), and basically everything boundless in opposition to the tight constraints of British land and society. \\n\\nBut there\u2019s also a colonial racist element to this as well, because again, the practice of inversion is supposed to strengthen the division just as much as it challenges it. So while these dudes might dress up as native peoples in the night to destroy property, there\u2019s an implication that they would never do something so savage and destructive in the light of day because they\u2019re good and civilized colonials. Adopting this caricature of an \u201cIndian\u201d allows them to express themselves in ways that would be unbecoming to their everyday lives. The point is, \"blacking\" was considered a significant political act in itself and there are complex reasons that these colonists chose these costumes rather than just the standard disguise. \\n\\nPlus, when it comes to actual encounters with native peoples, the colonists were waging a war on the frontiers and murdering/taking land, using all sorts of justifications like that they were managing the resources in a more efficient and civilized (European) way, unlike the \"savages.\" So it\u2019s this uneasy relationship where the colonists will identify with native peoples to protest the British, and then identify with the British to subjugate native peoples. And Deloria basically says that this contradiction is a key part of understanding the insecurities of the early American identity - and one that arguably is still playing out today.\\n\\n**TL;DR: The colonists dressed up in their interpretation of native attire to separate themselves from and oppose the British while reinforcing both their ties to the American continent and their authority over native peoples (in a more indirect way). It was both a political act and a disguise, which has precedent in English history as a political act in itself.**']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2034, "q_id": "3d4shs", "title": "Get Cultured! - Massive Cultural History Panel AMA", "selftext": "Hi everyone! Today's panel AMA will have a bit of a different tone than our regular panels; instead of focusing on a specific period or topic in history, we will talk about our work in a specific *subfield* of history: cultural history. My hope is to give some of our flairs with obscure specialties some exposure, while simultaneously introducing many of you to a subfield of history that you may be unaware of. Think of this panel as a half-AMA, half-workshop: we will all be glad to discuss questions about our fields of research, but we will also answer questions about the nitty-gritty of doing cultural history: how does a cultural historian conduct their research? What kinds of sources do we use, and in what ways do we use them?\n\nSo then, what is cultural history? Admittedly, it is a fairly nebulously defined subfield when compared to its sisters like economic or military history. Peter Burke answered the same question thusly: \u201cit still awaits a definitive answer.\u201d Cultural history can be done across time and space, and study nearly any aspect of a society: there exist cultural histories of animals, of clothing, of landscapes, finance, religious beliefs, warfare and so on. Burke posited that because cultural historians study such a multitude of subjects, it is their methods, not objects of study, which unites them: \n\n > \u201cthe common ground of cultural historians might be defined as a concern with the symbolic and its interpretation. Symbols, conscious or unconscious, can be found everywhere, from art to everyday life, but an approach to the past in terms of symbolism is just one approach among others.\u201d \n\nWe look at any aspect of a society, how it is created as a symbol and how that symbol is interpreted and by members of a historical culture. Accordingly, this will be a fairly open-ended panel where we invite you to discuss our objects of study *and* our methods. We are cultural historians, ask us anything!\n\nHere is the massive list of our panelists, their areas of research and the kinds of topics they would like to address today:\n\n* /u/depanneur is a historian of the imagination who is broadly interested in popular belief and the supernatural in medieval Europe, and is specifically focused on that topic as it pertains to early medieval Ireland. His other interests include the intersection of landscape and culture, magic in the pre-modern world as well as animals and animal symbolism. He is willing to discuss the forest in medieval imagination (especially in Ireland), the supernatural in early Irish history and the methods used to study popular cultures in pre-modern Europe, as well as their problems.\n\n* /u/vertexoflife  is primarily a historian of the book, but focuses specifically on the history of pornography and obscenity, with a heavy focus on histories of sexuality, marriage, and privacy. He has just finished writing a book on the history of pornography, the majority of which can be read at _URL_0_. He is happy to answer questions about the overlap between cultural and intellectual historians, or how the book can be a cultural force.\n\n* /u/TheGreenReaper7 holds an MA in Medieval and Renaissance Studies from University College London. His research outputs have been on socio-legal culture in a comparative context in the Medieval West (c.1100-c.1300) with a special emphasis on pre-Conquest Wales. His other chief research interest is the development of the social and martial cultural phenomenon commonly known as \u2018chivalry' from its (contested) origins in the twelfth-century to the end of the Hundred Years War. Questions about cultural (vis-\u00e0-vis legal) bonds, masculinity, and military ethics very welcome!\n\n* /u/itsallfolklore has conducted work on Northern European folklore, especially as recorded in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I have also published on the social/cultural history of the American mining West, working with written and archaeological/architectural resources. My dozen books include studies of Virginia City, Nevada, the architectural history of Nevada, and work with letters from the California Gold Rush. Over three dozen articles include diverse subjects on the same and also dealing with Northern European folklore; I am currently working on a book that is a collection of essays on the folklore of Cornwall. I can address aspects of folklore (particularly as oral tradition manifests in historical documents) and the culture of the Old West.\n\n* /u/historiagrephour holds a master's degree in Scottish history and specializes in the concept of cultural gradation within the Scottish Highlands. For the purposes of the AMA, I can discuss issues related to elite Lowland and Gaelic cultures in early modern Scotland (roughly, 1500-1700) including cultural influences on marriage, fosterage, divorce, education, language, literacy, honor codes, and hospitality.\n\n* /u/WedgeHead is an historian of the Ancient Near East specializing in culture and identity. My interests primarily concern the way ancient people expressed their imagination of the self and other (identity/alterity) in texts. I have written on a variety of topics including cultural appropriation during the reign of Assurnasirpal II (Neo-Assyrian Empire), stereotyping and cultural identity in the diplomatic correspondence of the Late Second Millennium BCE (Amarna Letters), and a variety of topics concerning the Middle Babylonian period (c. 1500\u20131000 BCE) in Mesopotamia. My current research deals with the formation and development of the concept of ethnicity in the ancient Mediterranean world. I am happy to answer anything I can about the cultures of the ancient world or the methods we use to study them.\n\n* /u/Mictlantecuhtli studies the Teuchitlan culture of West Mexico, a Classic period civilization centered around the Tequila volcano of Jalisco. The Teuchitlan culture is one of many of many cultures that make up the shaft tomb tradition of Western Mexico. What sets the Teuchitlan culture apart from other extensions in Nayarit or Colima is their unique concentric circle architecture called a guachimonton named after the principal site Los Guachimontones. My primary focus on the Teuchitlan culture is less on the hollow ceramic figures from their tombs and more on their architecture. I'm interested in how they were built, why they were built, and their distribution on the landscape. My in-progress thesis is on architectural energetics and labor organization in the context of the Teuchitlan culture's corporate power structure.\n\n* /u/Shartastic studies African-American athletes throughout the 19th Century into the early 20th Century. His focus is on African-American jockeys and the modernization/commercialization of sport, but he's happy to talk about other sports and athletes generally too.\n\n* /u/butforevernow is an art historian and gallery curator with a speciality in eighteenth century Spanish art. My current research (for my Master's) focuses on depictions of everyday life in Madrid from/in the later eighteenth century, so I'm particularly interested in the details and workings of that culture, especially the art, theatre, and costume/fashion. I'm happy and eager to answer any questions that I can in that or any related area :)\n\n* /u/TenMinuteHistory: My research is on the Bolshoi Ballet in the 1920s and 30s, My research interests more generally include bodies, movement and their cultural meaning.\n\n* /u/agentdcf: I am a historian of 19th and 20th century Britain, with particular thematic emphases in culture, environment, and food. My research is a cultural and environmental history of wheat, flour, and bread, and it stands at the intersection of several (usually separate) themes and methodologies: cultural history (which I would define as histories of \"meaning,\" broadly defined), social history, environmental history, food, science and medicine, the body, and consumption. I'm best-equipped to answer questions about food and ideas of nature, though I can take a stab at questions of cultural history across the West in the modern period. I have a lot of teaching experience in Western Civilization, world history, environmental history, and some US history (especially California, my home state); this has given me a long and global view of things, but a fairly spotty expertise.\n\n\nPlease note that not all of our panelists live in the same time zones, so some may answer your questions later than others. Please be patient!\n\n^^^^^^^Obligatory ^^^^^^^shoutout ^^^^^^^to ^^^^^^^/u/dubstripsquads ^^^^^^^for ^^^^^^^coming ^^^^^^^up ^^^^^^^with ^^^^^^^this ^^^^^^^panel's ^^^^^^^title", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d4shs/get_cultured_massive_cultural_history_panel_ama/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ct1r5gr', 'ct1r9u6', 'ct1rc5x', 'ct1rcr6', 'ct1re5t', 'ct1ryeb', 'ct1s0xe', 'ct1seou', 'ct1sh0n', 'ct1sjzs', 'ct1ti31', 'ct1uc8r', 'ct1v597', 'ct1vb6s', 'ct1wi45', 'ct1zkc3', 'ct1zrph', 'ct26e3l', 'ct2td3g'], 'score': [6, 3, 7, 6, 7, 3, 9, 2, 13, 3, 8, 3, 4, 3, 13, 6, 2, 3, 2], 'text': ['/u/depanneur : How do histories of the imagination work? Do you trace elements such as \"representations of werewolves\" through chronicles and histories and how people would have thought about them?\\n\\nLike histories of sexuality, I imagine it is immensely difficult to talk about people\\'s imaginations, as they are especially unrecorded and undocumented until much later in the historical period. How do you deal with this diffuculty?', '/u/historiagrephour how did concepts and particularties of marriage change in the late 1600s to the early 1700s? In my research, this is the period of time in which the English established a more or less five-step process when it came to marriage:\\n\\n > 1) A contract between the the families for financial arrangements and exchanges of property (in cases where there were finances or property to be exchanged.)\\n\\n > 2) The spousals--the exchange of promises spoken between the husband and wife in front of witnesses.\\n\\n > 3) The proclamation of banns for three weeks prior to the marriage. The banns were a loud public announcement on behalf of the marrying couple for three weeks prior to the marriage, to allow people to dispute or contradict it.\\n\\n > 4) The wedding in and the blessing of the Church (when the wedding actually took place in a church)\\n\\n > 5) Sexual Consummation. Legally speaking, anyhow--surviving evidence shows sexual consummation happened among the lower classes before the marriage in many cases.\\n\\nDoes this hold true in Scotland as well?\\n\\nAlso, in English literature and culture the bordertown of Gretna Green is described as a sort of old version of a Las Vegas wedding, where people could run over the border and get married quickly. Do you have any information on this?', \"/u/itsallfolklore How do you work with oral histories and orality in folklore? I understand there has been a great deal of critique of early pioneers in the field such as the Grimm Brothers for writing down, well, essentially their own stories (middle class) dressed up in peasant clothes. How do folklorists deal with alternate or different folktales.\\n\\nAlso, I've been reading into erotic folk stories lately, any pointers you might have for me there?\", \"Directed at /u/Wedgehead, what sort of sourcework must you use to construct the identity of these Ancient Near-Eastern cultures? I imagine things that we might use now (diaries, letters) are somewhat few and far between.\\n\\nSecondly, abstractly related to the first, how can we use Ancient Near-Eastern religious belief, or folklore (i'm thinking Gilgamesh) to construct how these societies viewed themselves or their neighbors?\", '/u/TheGreenReaper7 how would sexual masculinities be expressed? That is, what were they defined against? In England, for example, poets often defined themselves as masculine and asserted their masculinity by painting the Italian as effeminate, dissolute, and obsessed with buggery. Would this carry through to Wales or other places?', 'For everyone: What kinds of sources do we use, and in what ways do we use them?', 'To my mind Cultural History is, at its core, about the *meaning* of things. \\n\\nTake, for example, the recent debate about the meaning of the Confederate Flag in the United States.  This is the kind of thing cultural historians are interested in.  Of course, when talking about meaning you have to talk about meaning *to whom* because these are not universally agreed upon and might even be hotly contested. When historians turn their eye to this moment and talk about the contested meaning of the flag, they will be doing cultural history. Indeed there is already plenty of literature on the meaning of the Confederacy.  \\n\\nNote that the meaning might not be the same thing as what something is.  Describing the flag, how it was made, or even the battles of the American Civil War don\\'t necessarily get you closer to answering the question.  You need to get at what people think, how they react, and what they say about things.  And that\\'s not always easy depending on the sources you have available to you!\\n\\nFor my own work, I\\'m particularly interested in the ways that human bodies ascribe meaning and have meaning ascribed onto them.  When I study ballet in the Soviet Union, I am interested in the ways in which an aesthetic and style of movement that emerged in and represented an aristocratic and imperial era were reconciled (or weren\\'t!) within an environment that was purportedly antagonistic to the aristocratic and imperial past. In what ways did Soviet artists and audiences understand ballet intellectually?  Did their intellectual understanding seem to conflict with their aesthetic understanding? (Spoilers: It seems to have!).  \\n\\nThe arts aren\\'t the only things that carry meaning with them, the flag being just one example.  But cultural history can be done on practically an endless variety of topics.  Food, institutions, sports, art, political process, cars, and the list could go on and on. \\n\\nThe beginning of the AMA mentioned symbols - and I think this is at least partly correct.  The important thing to realize is that even things that aren\\'t normally thought of as symbols carry a great deal of meaning with them.  Often time people don\\'t even think of that meaning as culturally contingent. The usual give away is when people start talking about things that are \"natural.\"  Cultural Historians tend to question just how \"natural\" these things are and instead what to discover how the meaning arose, how it is expressed, and what people do with that meaning.', 'This one is for /u/Mictlantecuhtli specifically, although of course anyone can chime in. \\n\\nI\\'m assuming that a great deal of work and debate goes into how we define a \"culture,\" particularly when what we have left is mainly archaeological remains. I\\'m also guessing that there\\'s a great deal of work on the margins of cultures -- stuff like \"well this is definitely a shaft tomb, and that one over there is definitely not, but what about these things in the middle?\" \\n\\nI\\'m wondering if you can speak a bit to the other side of that, if possible. How do we study or how do we know what *internal* controls there were on a particular culture to, for example, keep building shaft tombs, or keep on creating *guachimonton* architecture, etc. Is it a conscious cultural choice, or is it something that people are so accustomed to that they don\\'t even notice anymore? Who policed, internally, the outliers in that culture? ', \"For everyone: why the resurgence of interest in material culture on the part of historians as of late? From the History of the World in a 100 Objects to Jane Bennet's *Vital Matter*, 'things' are pretty hot in the academy. Is it a desire to sidestep some of the messiness of texts, which were so thoroughly problematized by three decades of theory? Is it a move to make our methods and ambit more interdiscplinary? A simple matter of pragmatically working with a broader array of sources without unduly privileging text?\", \"I guess my question is mainly for /u/WedgeHead. \\n\\nHow *do* the cultures of the Acient Near East express their identity? Or, the other way around, what aspects do you study to arrive at an answer, what material do you use? And what social strata are present in the material, e.g., can you say anything about the middle/lower classes at all, or is it mainly elite communication? \\n\\nSorry for the many question marks and if the question comes of a bit broad! I'm mainly asking because my own research atm. goes into questions of identity and expression in Roman Germany, in the context of Epigraphic Culture. Which means that the things I look at are mostly names, liguistic peculiarities, the gods they worship and how they did that, the men/women they marry, their social status as well as iconography and portraits/statues (which allow us to look at the way people dressed or wanted to be portrayed to the outside world); so mainly funerary inscriptions and votive altars and the way they relate to the landscape and population around them - I'd find it *very* interesting to see how similar questions are asked in other cultural contexts (and with a different material corpus, I imagine)!\\n\\n\", \"Question for /u/TheGreenReaper7, I have a copy of Maurice Keen's *Chivalry* sitting on my bookshelf in the 'to-read' pile. To what extent is this book still a major work in the study of Chivalry and how has it been left behind in the ~30 years since it was first published? \", 'How do you define a culture and how frequently do groups of individuals assert that they belong to one culture when in some real sense they belong to another culture.', 'hello to user historiagrephour.   Did Gael and Gall of the same religion in Scotland see themselves as having a more important connection than Gael and Gael of different Christian sects?', 'hello to user depanneur.  \\nIs there any evidence that Irish people in the middle ages were consciously copying barbarian modes of dress and facial hair as reported in Latin texts?', 'A kind of methodological question, do you think culture is \"real\" or is it created by observation? Given that \"culture\" imposes a uniformity on the lifeworlds of innumerable diverse individuals, can you actually talk about, for example, French culture independent if talking about French culture?', \"This one is probably for /u/itsallfolklore. I recently picked up a collection of Russian fairy tales, which I'm very much enjoying. One of the things that's struck me though is the similarity to those that I learnt as a child (in Ireland). \\n\\nSome of this can be explained by open borrowing (eg Pushkin's *Fisherman and the Fish*) but it seems that a lot of elements of fairy tales are common (eg clever foxes, people-turning-into-animals, kidnapped wives, etc) across borders.\\n\\nSo is this a case of certain fairy/folk tales spreading across Europe? Or are these elements, and the stories that contain them, universal across peasant societies? Or indeed, are the various fairy tale taxonomies simply broad enough that you could use them to classify *any* tale, if you wished.\\n\\nBasically: how did fairy tales or their elements of these spread over time? If that's too broad a question, I'd welcome being pointed at any reading.\\n\\n[Edit: And, of course, thanks to everyone for doing this AMA.]\", 'What is the difference between a historical culture and a historical ethnicity?\\n\\nHow broadly can we stretch the category of \"a culture\" and still have it be meaningful? I imagine \"early modern Italian high-class ballet culture\" could be a useful construct, but \"Western culture\" might be near meaningless. ', 'A question for all panelists:\\n\\nMy studies tend to focus on the fairly traditional aspect of high politics, diplomacy, and war. From what I\\'ve come across, it seems that historians like me (who I\\'ll call \"traditionalists\" for lack of a better term) by and large neglect the methodologies of cultural historians. They are far more interested in things like interest group dynamics, theories of institutional behavior, and ideology (but ideology as it\\'s studied in political science/international relations departments, rather than by cultural historians). Likewise, cultural historians seem to neglect those aspects of politics that traditionalist historians focus on. I\\'m probably being somewhat myopic here, but it seems that cultural historians focus almost solely on the \"holy trinity\" of race, class, and gender. This isn\\'t to say that cultural historians are unconcerned with politics. From what I\\'ve come across, it seems that a major argument of cultural historians is that *everything* is political. Yet there appears to be a distinct lack of concern by cultural historians about the \"high politics\" analyzed by traditionalist historians. There are exceptions to this, with Krisitin Hoganson\\'s *Fighting for American Manhood* being the example that first pops into my mind, but there does seem to be a general disconnect between the methodologies and findings of traditionalist historians and cultural historians. \\n\\nSo, to finally get to my question: Do you think this disconnect between traditionalist and cultural historians exists? If so, what explains it and how can it be reconciled?', 'I was wondering what you all thought about the interdisciplinary nature of cultural history. One of you mentioned above that often art history departments are less interested in the thing-ness of things than actual historians are nowadays, which made me think about my own relationship to historical studies. \\n\\nIt seems like you are all trained as historians - which of course means very different things in different schools, nations, traditions - but nonetheless you must find yourselves often bumping into problems that are of a specifically literary nature, or a specifically art historical nature. \\n\\nI am trained in literary studies, but I would consider myself more of a cultural historian, and I often hear more textual people say that we are both bad historians and bad literary scholars. Jack of all trades, master of none! \\n\\nOf course these people are wrong, but how? \\n\\nHow do you overcome these training hurdles? Or do you think that the specific methodologies of cultural history are \"deep\" enough to cover all your bases? Or do you believe that we have to be one kind of cultural historian - more anthropological, more literary, or more iconographic? \\n\\nAnd finally, a practical question, why won\\'t the rigid contours of academic departments soften to allow access to cultural historians? It often seems like if you have a degree in history, you can only work in history departments, and if you have a phd in literary studies, the only jobs open are in literature departments... ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['www.annalspornographie.com']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 139, "q_id": "sqn2q", "title": "Is there a way to tell from a DNA sample whether it came from a live or dead animal?", "selftext": "I know a fair bit of molecular biology but for some reason this simple question has stumped me. Example: [the U.S. government is using \"environmental DNA\" (eDNA) from water samples to guess where invasive species are present or absent](_URL_0_), but\n\n >  At present, eDNA evidence cannot verify whether live Asian carp are present, whether the DNA may have come from a dead fish, or whether water containing Asian carp DNA may have been transported from other sources such as bilge water, storm sewers or fish-eating birds.\n\nIs this really not a solved problem?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sqn2q/is_there_a_way_to_tell_from_a_dna_sample_whether/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c4g5sch', 'c4g5sq4'], 'score': [6, 2], 'text': [\"Once an animal dies the proteins that care for the stability of the chromosomes are no longer made and the quality of the sequence will break down. While this does not tell you whether the animal is alive or dead it's a start.\", 'At the risk of starting to answer my own question - I wonder if (at least for appropriate organisms) the ratio of mitochondrial to nuclear DNA could be at least somewhat predictive. You might expect recent residues from live organisms to be less likely to have lysed, i.e. their nuclei and mitochondria are more likely to still be found together. Is that realistic?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/AsianCarp/eDNA.htm']", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 298, "q_id": "1e2tky", "title": "Are the normal skin flora of our feet different that those on the rest of our body?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1e2tky/are_the_normal_skin_flora_of_our_feet_different/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c9wn0gt'], 'score': [3], 'text': ['I assume you are referring to bacterial flora. \\n\\nYes it varies dramatically from other parts of your body. \\n\\nCheck out this figure: _URL_1_\\n\\n**Important**: Each chunk of those pie charts represents a **class** of bacteria. So each chunk can contain within itself multiple genera and species!\\n\\nSource: _URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21407241', 'http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535073/bin/nihms424100f3.jpg']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2499, "q_id": "2lb6hl", "title": "When was the t-shirt created?", "selftext": "Wikipedia states it was sometime between the Spanish-American War and 1913. Why is there such a gap between speculative dates? Were there multiple sources claiming to have first created it around this period?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2lb6hl/when_was_the_tshirt_created/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cltb4lx'], 'score': [30], 'text': ['Around the same time as cotton jersey (the material they\u2019re made from) and the knitting machine were invented. The knitting machine dates to 1589 when it was invented by William Lee (1) and by 1598 it had been refined enough to knit finer fibres like silk, to make silk stockings, cotton stockings, and wool. His assistant John Ashton added a divider mechanism that facilitated the process after Lee\u2019s death. \\n\\nLater, in the 18th century many companies were working to refine the knitting machine to knit with silk, cotton and wool. One of them was the Derby rib, where knits and purls (backwards knit stitch) are alternated, which creates a fabric even more elastic than regular knit. This is just like that stretchy fabric that forms the wrist bands and bottom of clothes like sweatshirts. \\n\\nT-shirts could have been made as early as 1844 according to this website (2), here\u2019s a knitting machine frame from that era, which knit wide pieces of fabric which would be cut down to make t-shirts, and other underwear. Here\u2019s an image of men\u2019s underwear (3) from that era, made of the same fabric as a t-shirt. The fabric was called Jersey, because it was an export from Jersey in the Channel Islands, but there\u2019s nothing in my skim of sites that attributes that name to more concrete findings. \\n\\nIn 1916,  Coco Chanel started to use cotton jersey in exterior garments like sweaters, dresses and the like. Keep in mind, then, men wore what we know as tank tops and t-shirts as undershirts, so it would have been viewed as making clothing from a scandalous fabric. \\n\\n1- _URL_0_\\n\\n2- _URL_2_\\n\\n3- _URL_1_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3634', 'http://www.knittingtogether.org.uk/docEX3a04.html?doc=13678&amp;cat=740', 'http://www.knittingtogether.org.uk/docEX35a5.html?doc=13661&amp;cat=738']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 14, "q_id": "16w1fk", "title": "Double chicken egg, what went wrong?", "selftext": "A man cracks open an oversized Chicken egg to find another, smaller, egg inside: _URL_0_\n\nIt would be great if someone could describe what caused this bizarre double egg. Could any of the embryos survive (if the ovum was fertilised)? I believe it is called 'ovum in ovo' and is much rarer than a double-yolker. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16w1fk/double_chicken_egg_what_went_wrong/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c7zzjgo'], 'score': [3], 'text': [\"A bit down in the comment thread that you linked was [this comment thread](_URL_1_) where someone linked to [this video](_URL_0_) from New Scientist featuring a Natural History Museum curator explaining the phenomenon. He says (only in a lovely British accent):\\n\\n > What generally happens is that as the egg is developing and being pushed down the oviduct, a series of abnormal contractions can occur which can push a developing egg back up the oviduct, and what happens is that one egg can be surrounded by another egg.\\n\\nEdit: This doesn't answer your question about whether either embryo could survive, though. I don't want to speculate as I'm not an expert (though I definitely have my guesses here) - would love to hear someone more knowledgable weigh in.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/16vnw3/6_ounce_egg_what_could_possibly_be_inside/']", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrBTg8YANYE', 'http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/16vnw3/6_ounce_egg_what_could_possibly_be_inside/c7zvjib']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1110, "q_id": "2jwt7v", "title": "why do sexual orientation studies primarily focus on gay men and not gay women?", "selftext": "Edit:Some of you are questioning whether or not my premise is even true...\nSource:_URL_0_", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jwt7v/eli5why_do_sexual_orientation_studies_primarily/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clfs5d6', 'clfspye', 'clfu3ig', 'clg4eq7', 'clg6vfk'], 'score': [12, 16, 7, 3, 2], 'text': [\"I don't know that this is even true. Do you have a basis for your premise here?\", \"If the premise is true, it may be because masculinity is (in some cases) more rigidly defined, leading to a greater conflict between people who insist on traditional masculinity and males who don't adhere to it than between people who are fond of traditional femininity and females who don't adhere to it.\", 'That study is lumps women and bisexuals together as an unaccessed group, so it is not clear how big the divide is when bisexuals are excluded.\\n\\nAlso, research investigate difference between gay and straight populations might make a methodological decision to exclude bisexuals.  Since female sexuality tends to be more flexible, a greater portion of women identify themselves as bisexual, which might cause more to be excluded from such studies.', \"My guess would be that it's because men have traditionally been used for testing studies. This is due to the historical stereotype of men protecting women and children from danger. Additionally, men have been more typically used for experimentation and study because they are unable to get pregnant, taking out potential variables and in some cases danger. Another factor could be the sexualization of lesbians in society. Sex appeal takes away the perceived validity of scientific results as it can come off as gimmicky.\", 'gay men are more common. or at least more openly available. you can poke around for the surveys and studies, but they universally find the LGBT community has a disproportionate male population.\\n\\nthe other reason is that gay men have been the focus of much more hate. the attitude persists to this day. people are more OK with lesbians than gay men. this also means the early inquiries, the work of freuds of the world, spent more time and energy on men than women. it snowballs into today where we have more data to work with because of the history. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8738744']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 990, "q_id": "31rmj7", "title": "why is scientology, with its heavy cult-like status, still allowed to carry on as a religion?", "selftext": "I have seen many documentaries going in-depth over the cult-like status of Scientology. Its been proven that L.Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was a sci-fi writer, who lied to many over his background and military's service. The guy seems to have been a borderline psychopath. How is it, even with the tax exemption that the IRS has granted it, that Scientology is still allowed to exist? There are many tails of the human right violations that go on within it. Have they go too many friends in high places?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31rmj7/eli5_why_is_scientology_with_its_heavy_cultlike/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cq4amrn', 'cq4bulb', 'cq4fkrs', 'cq4flys', 'cq4g4xq', 'cq4gghm', 'cq4gow6', 'cq4hpbi', 'cq4k8l8', 'cq4lk1s', 'cq4mmmn', 'cq4n5c0', 'cq4qxww', 'cq4suyx', 'cq50u9a', 'cq50xm5', 'cq521b9'], 'score': [133, 5, 3, 9, 2, 6, 2, 28, 8, 5, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3], 'text': [\"In the USA we're protected to freely assemble for any reason so long as it's peaceful. Any group of people can get together and do whatever they want so long as it's not harming anyone or breaking any laws.\\n\\nSo, just like Lutherans can get together every Sunday and sing songs and recite prayers in unison, so can Scientologists. \\n\\nCults are protected, just like all other groups, under the First Amendment. So, until Scientology breaks some laws they won't get disbanded - and even if they do break laws it's likely only those specific people involved will get charged with a crime.\\n\\nCheck out Wikipedia's [Legality of Cults (Bottom of the page)](_URL_0_) page.\", 'that\\'s what the new documentary Going Clear is literally about.\\n\\nthey created a huge \"controversy\" about it, harassed the government with lawsuits and essentially \"doxxing\" legislators themselves on an individual level, and they eventually succumbed and gave Scientology tax exemption status and now they insist they\\'re a religion because of it', \"It's pretty much the same for all religion openly practice in the US. Scientology is no different than any other religions. There is that old saying that say churches only allow what they can no longer forbid.\", \"There's a petition you can sign on the Wire House website to remove their tax-exempt status. I highly recommend doing so. \", \"Cults aren't illegal. Also what about the catholic church? That has a far more shady history (and even present) than the church of Scientology. Should they be made illegal.\", 'I see a lot of answers here that offer fundamentally flawed logic. The \"if its been around for 1000 years it\\'s a religion, been around for 100 years it\\'s a cult\" theory is unrealistic and little ridiculous. Also, it is almost exactly copied from Neil Degrasse Tyson\\'s statement about \"Going Clear\" and, originally, James Randi\\'s investigations on Scientology from the early 90\\'s. While there is nothing overtly incorrect with this logic, the theory is misplaced. A cult or religious group should be defined by their actions. Scientology ruins peoples lives, destroys its own members\\' relationships with other members, and tantamount, actually injures/tortures people physically and emotionally. ', \"I've heard the faith has a lot of active lobbyist. Is that true and if so, how does lobbying help them?\", '\"Still allowed\" is a funny way to put it.  Why are they maintaining non-profit status for tax purposes is a better question.  \\n\\nA large part of the reason Scientology has been able to minimize, and contain the bad press about their org is by legal bullying.  They employ an army of lawyers who control antagonists inside and outside the organization.  They also do other fucked up shit like buying the former crisis hotline for people stuck in a cult.  So now when people call to get help for themselves or their loved ones, they inadvertently report the details to scientologists, not people trying to help them.  These people represent the worst kind of chicanery.  Do not associate with them; and they are not harmless.  ', \"In Germany they aren't, it's considered an exploitative business.\", 'because they have money and lawyers out the wazoo. I have read they got tax exemption because they would clog up the system with bullshit until the IRS just said yes and told them to go away.', 'All religions are cults, some just have more history than others.', 'You seem to be under the impression that cults are disallowed. They are not.', 'Same reason why Christianity, Islam, ect. ect. are still allowed to carry on as religion. Or do you believe that  Jesus really transformed water into whine and that Mohammed flew to the Moon?', 'The first amendment and the ridiculous cash flow from those who join and want to keep their subscription. Aka big ponzi scheme type business. ', 'The line between religion, cult, and superstition is just a matter of perspective. ', ' > lied to many over his background and military\\'s service\\n\\nThere are those who called L Ron a \"bullshit artist,\" but that does the man a great injustice. He was the entire freaking RENAISSANCE of bullshit. Pretty much from the moment he learned to talk, he started making shit up. If you want an inside look at his life, read \"Bare-faced Messiah\" by Russell Miller.\\n\\nIn the 1960s, Scientology was under heavy government scrutiny for their questionable activities. There was even at least one FBI raid at Scientology headquarters in LA in the old days.\\n\\nAs it quickly became obvious to the government that Scientology was nothing more than a money-making scam, the IRS even revoked their religious status. But Hubbard just ignored that and continued to pay no taxes, running up staggering interest and penalties, all the while staging a HUGE string of lawsuits against the IRS, as well as engaging in their standard harassment, blackmailing, and other nefarious activities on IRS agents and administrators.\\n\\nFinally, after some 30 years of this, the IRS had been so beaten down (yeah. Stop and read that again: *the IRS had been cowed by harassment*) that David Miscavige was able to walk into IRS headquarters unannounced one day in the 90s, demand a meeting with the commissioner of the IRS...and get it.\\n\\nSo the CoS and IRS met to hash out a solution both could live with. Remember that scene in Godfather 2? \"Here\\'s my offer, Senator: nothing.\" Yeah, it was just like that. The IRS said, \"if we drop this, will you stop the harassment?\" Miscavige said, \"like a faucet turning off.\"\\n\\nAnd that was that. The IRS caved.\\n\\nBut wait, it gets better. First off, by this time, as filthy rich as the CoS was, the interest and penalties they owed were MUCH higher. If the IRS had pushed forward, they could have ENDED Scientology. Wiped it off the map. But not only didn\\'t they do that--CoS agreed to pay some chump change fine--but they let the CoS write the new rules about how the CoS\\'s religious status would be viewed (short version: any new thing they pull out of their ass in the future is automatically religious). AND they got the IRS to agree to put pressure on foreign governments (like Germany) to restore its religious status. The IRS got...nothing, except the creepy Scientologists hanging around their homes vanished.\\n\\nSo today, it\\'s that locked-in religious status that protects them. Even though the religion part is all Xenu this and \"you\\'re a reincarnated clam\" (seriously) that, they can go toe to toe with any \"real\" religion on goofiness. You think a couple of Mormon FBI agents who try and raid a Scientology office in Salt Lake City are gonna last two minutes arguing about \"bullshit religious beliefs?\" Other religions impose harsh conditions on their followers to \"spiritually cleanse them.\" The most devout followers of other religions perform extraordinary service for the church while living in poverty themselves. If you tried to take down Scientology as a religion, you\\'re going to take pretty much every OTHER religion down with it.\\n\\nIf the FBI raided Gold Base to \"free\" the poor sods eating garbage scraps in the RPF dungeons, every single one of them would indignantly report that they were there of their own free will. Actually, Miscavige\\'s wife (who used to be the Goebbels to his Adolf) has not been seen in public since 2007, and there is speculation she\\'s locked away in the RPF. There have been some noises about filing lawsuits on her behalf, but Scientology is SERIOUSLY abusive on anybody who tries to muscle in on their turf. These guys intimidated the freaking IRS enough for them to back down and apologize. You wanna fuck with them?\\n\\n', \"A better question would be 'why are people so stupid to join'. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2553, "q_id": "8850sv", "title": "Does the habitable zone around a star get larger as the star's size increases?", "selftext": "e.g. our suns habitable zone starts at 0.95 a.u. and ends at 1.37 a.u. giving a range of 0.42 a.u. Question being do larger stars have a larger range?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8850sv/does_the_habitable_zone_around_a_star_get_larger/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dwi0pr0', 'dwj2bh0'], 'score': [13, 4], 'text': [\"The range of the habitable zone depends on power output of the star. Stars with a high power output have a larger habitable zone than stars with a smaller one. \\n\\nIt's important to note however, that the power output is not linked to size. Stars change dramatically over their lives, and their output is a delicate balance between their size, mass and composition.\", 'Sort of. As first approximation, the habitable zone is simply the range between two radiation intensities, something like 1.5 kW/m^(2) and 1 kW/m^(2). As the intensity scales with the inverse squared distance, this gives a fixed distance ratio between inner and outer edge. More luminous stars have their habitable zone at larger distances, which also means the range is larger in absolute numbers.\\n\\nLarger stars are not always more luminous than smaller stars, but there is a strong correlation between the two. Therefore: Sort of.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2022, "q_id": "71c62a", "title": "Why are non-differentiable continuous functions integrable?", "selftext": "We learnt that a |mod| function is  continuous yet non-differentiable and as integrals are defined as \"anti-derivatives\" sooo how come we can integrate a mod function yet we can't differentiate it?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/71c62a/why_are_nondifferentiable_continuous_functions/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dn9mhlv', 'dn9v1i2'], 'score': [39, 10], 'text': ['Integrals are not defined as antiderivatives. Integrals are defined as the limit of a Riemann sum, i.e., area under the graph. (Or, in more advanced math, as limits of objects involving something called a *measure*.) The slope of the floor function is not always defined, but the area under its graph is.\\n\\nThe link between an integral and an antiderivative is provided by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Integrals and antiderivatives are not synonymous.\\n\\n**edit:** As an interesting side comment, the floor function cannot be the derivative of any function, i.e., the floor function has no antiderivative. It turns out that not only do *continuous* functions have the intermediate value property, but so do all derivatives (even if that derivative is not continuous). So, in particular, a derivative can never have a jump discontinuity. The only types of discontinuity a derivative can actually have are infinite discontinuities (like 1/x) and essential singularities (like sin(1/x)).', \"Also note that the absolute value does have an antiderivative, |x|x/2. So just because you can't differentiate it doesn't mean it isn't the derivative of something else.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2252, "q_id": "32s8q8", "title": "what are parents with a \"baby on board\" sticker/decal trying to say, and why should i care about a decision they made?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32s8q8/eli5_what_are_parents_with_a_baby_on_board/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqe55wi', 'cqe56h3', 'cqe56mh', 'cqe59rn', 'cqe5ej0', 'cqe5qt8'], 'score': [2, 8, 12, 15, 7, 2], 'text': [\"I don't know really the objective of driving stays the same: get to destination without crashing. Stupid yellow sign does not alter this.\", \"It's designed to get your attention, and notify you that they have a kid in the car. The idea is that since you'd feel extra guilty if you killed a baby in a car crash, after seeing the sticker you'll be extra careful driving around them.\", \"I think it reminds/let's people know to drive a wee bit safer near them.\", 'It is basically in case the car is in an accident.  The sign is for emergency workers so that if there is an accident and they can see the parents,  they will look for the baby too and try to save the baby first.', \"It's so anyone doing a rescue after you plow your car into them knows they need to look for the bloodied remains of a small infant.\", \"I think it's also meant to soften cops when they pull over a mother that may not have kids in the car.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2573, "q_id": "3n04f0", "title": "why are most eastern religions more accepting?", "selftext": "So I'm reading a little bit about Buddhism and Hinduism.  Buddhism seems to be about staying within yourself and controlling what you can, and Hinduism seems like it allows and embraces other religions as an equal but alternate path to God.  Why are these religions so accepting of others when I've been brought up to believe that Christianity, Judaism, or Islam is *the* true religion?\n\nEDIT: I should clarify that when I mean more accepting, I mean of other religions.  Not accepting of people in general.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3n04f0/eli5_why_are_most_eastern_religions_more_accepting/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cvjn8g1', 'cvjnc26', 'cvjnepj', 'cvjoa8g', 'cvjprr7', 'cvk5glb'], 'score': [7, 83, 11, 20, 15, 3], 'text': ['Nobody knows for sure; though it is likely to be due to the cultures they arose in.\\n\\nOne reason that has been proposed is that the Middle East and Europe tends to have geography that favors tribes: smaller groups of people that identify as different from other tribes. Meanwhile, China and large sections of India tend to favor less tribal behavior: while there are many different cultural groups in both China and India, they don\\'t have the same \"Us vs everyone else\" mentality you see in both Europe and the Middle East through much of history.\\n\\nAnd the religions mirror that: most Western religions tend to be very much about \"This is The True Way; and you either follow The True Way, or you will go to Hell\"; while many Eastern Religions are more likely to say \"This is one path, and there are other paths\"', \"They aren't. Just ask the guy that was just killed for being suspected of eating beef. You just do not hear as much about it. \", \"The religions you're talking about have different origins than Christianity Judaism or Islam, all three of which have the same origin.  So when you view those 3 religions it's not so much that western religions by their nature are less excepting but rather you are viewing 3 branches of the same teachings and those core teachings were exclusionary. \\n\\nThere is a long history of polytheism through Europe that has since been abandoned in favor of one of the 3 branches of these religions because the basis of the religion encourage (some times require) people to not only adhere to the religion but also to actively convert.\\n\\nAny group that actively and aggressively attempts to convince others their way is right will always spread faster and find more success than those who have more passive teachings.\", 'Perhaps we should start with your definition of accepting?', 'Joseph Campbell has a whole theory about the way climate effects religion. Quick and dirty version:\\n1. Religion A comes from a dangerous dry desert land with many warring tribes fighting over scarce resources - imagine mad max- and the religion that originates there is dangerous, apocalyptic, \"life is short there\\'s a war going on\" and the afterlife is beautiful and wonderful and all the good things that your present life is not. And God is a vindictive asshole. \\n\\n2. Religion B comes from a tropical wonderland where food is plentiful, life is beautiful, and everywhere you look there are papayas and mangoes and coconuts and flowers and the rivers are full of fish, and there are many groups of people all with their local nature spirits that they revere, and God is totally imminent and is the source of all these wonderful things that you see.\\n\\nNot too hard to imagine, right?', \"I actually know this answer!\\n\\nWestern religions tended to develop as an *orthodoxy,* which means that you have to think what the church tells you to think. Buddhism specifically (other eastern religions may have as well) developed as an *orthopraxy,* which means you have to practice how the authority figures tell you to practice. This is a very important difference, as early Buddhists were allowed to think whatever they wanted, so long as the chanted the right words and sat in the right place.\\n\\nThere are also ideological differences. As a Buddhist, I can account for the existence of other religions, since other ideologies do not threaten my beliefs or teaching. Western religions, however, tend to teach very polarized ideologies, which means that Buddhism cannot exist within Christianity.\\n\\nLastly, I've had multiple professors and religious figures say that eastern religions aren't actually religions, since they fundamentally have little in common with the practices in the west. Since Buddhism and Shinto are more about ways to live your life, it's easier to accept other religions and ideas, whereas Christianity is specifically concerned with being right and making a single choice.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 439, "q_id": "lhy1g", "title": "Can the mind be restarted?  Can all electrical activity in the brain cease, and then restart, and not cause psychological changes?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lhy1g/can_the_mind_be_restarted_can_all_electrical/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2suf1x', 'c2svbr6', 'c2sz6fa', 'c2suf1x', 'c2svbr6', 'c2sz6fa'], 'score': [13, 12, 3, 13, 12, 3], 'text': ['No.\\n\\nThe brain has inherent electrical activity that we can measure.  However, [a vast majority of the interactions are chemical.](_URL_3_)  The process of communication involves the transfer of charged ions across the neuron\\'s outer walls (membranes), so we **CAN** take some electrical measurments, and do some [frigging amazing things with them](_URL_0_).\\n\\nThere are a few electrical junctions, [mostly for very fast interactions that happen at regular intervals.](_URL_1_) (think of the heart)\\n\\nAnyways, if all electrical activity stops, everything stops. Your brain is never \"off\".  When a heart stops, like [this](_URL_2_), you die because of lack of oxygen getting to the brain via the blood stream (this happens amazingly fast) however you will still have a good deal of brain activity for quite some time.  W/o oxygen, the brain can no longer carry out many of the chemical processes it needs to function.\\n\\nThere are also any number of very tightly held gradients of chemicals throughout the brain.  Shutting down would mean the loss of many of these gradients.  A chemical mechanism like our brain just doenst function at a core level like an electrical mechanism like a computer.  Losing any of the complex interactions for even a split second would result in permanent damage.\\n\\nI\\'m struggling for an analogy here if anyone can help...', \"Neuroscience grad student here. I disagree with Syberton.\\n\\nFirst, let's define what we would mean by 'electrical activity in the brain ceasing'. I'm going to take it to mean, that somehow, we magically stop every axon from firing for a couple of seconds. This would stop all intrinsic rhythms and patterns and would basically represent a complete shut down of 'thought'. However, membrane potentials and cell metabolism would continue, so widespread cell death would not occur. \\n\\nWith this definition in mind, I am pretty sure that you could restart the system pretty easily. If you removed the block on axons all at once, you would almost certainly seize, which would probably cause some psychological damage. However, if you removed the blocks in order, eg senses and then their downstream targets as they'd hit them, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't seize too much. Most of the rhythms in the brain that are well-correlated to thought (through EEG and sticking electrodes in the brain) are generated by intrinsic firing patterns of cells and the underlying anatomical properties of the brain. The brain would fall back into rhythm fairly quickly and you probably wouldn't have much of a long lasting effect.\\n\\nHowever, if you locked the axons still for too long (without stopping all metabolic and degradation processes in general), some of the cells would start to die off. This would mostly be due to housekeeping cells not receiving the proper signals and the energy balance in the brain falling apart.\\n\\nLet me know if you want me to go deeper into the question or want a source for something I said.\\n\\n\", \"Interesting question. In the normal course, electrocerebral silence is only encountered when\\n\\n1. a person is brain-dead\\n1. a person is in especially-deep coma\\n2. a person is in an especially-deep medically-induced coma\\n\\nEven then, the cessation of electrical activity is just that which is measured on scalp EEG; ie, we can only really be certain that the most superficial layers of cortex aren't firing. Because of the widespread coupling of the brain, it's assumed other parts are silent, too.\\n\\nCase #1 is by definition irreversible. The other two cases are complicated by other factors. Most people with a flat EEG aren't in a very reversible coma; if they wake at all, they're likely to have severe residual deficits from whatever global insult caused the coma. Most persons in medically-induced coma to flatline have refractory status epilepticus, a state of continuous seizure which can itself be damaging.\\n\\nNote that in general anesthesia, the most likely pattern on EEG is what's called suppression-burst, not a flat line.\\n\\nBut what if, on a lark, we took a healthy volunteer and flattened his EEG? [Kirshbaum and Carollo](_URL_0_) reported years ago a case of a woman with barbiturate overdose, iso-electric EEG, and then complete recovery. So it happens.\\n\\nThe caveats: I'm interpreting your question to mean no electroencephalographic activity. EEG really only measures the excitatory and inhibitory post-synaptic potentials generated in the superficial dendritic trees of cortical neurons. (At least, that's what we think.) Electrical activity, more broadly considered, might include the resting potential of the neuron and the gated and leak channels that maintain it. If you stopped things like sodium-potassium pumps your cell may not be very healthy. Also, I do not recommend you try things like barbiturate overdose at home.\\n\", 'No.\\n\\nThe brain has inherent electrical activity that we can measure.  However, [a vast majority of the interactions are chemical.](_URL_3_)  The process of communication involves the transfer of charged ions across the neuron\\'s outer walls (membranes), so we **CAN** take some electrical measurments, and do some [frigging amazing things with them](_URL_0_).\\n\\nThere are a few electrical junctions, [mostly for very fast interactions that happen at regular intervals.](_URL_1_) (think of the heart)\\n\\nAnyways, if all electrical activity stops, everything stops. Your brain is never \"off\".  When a heart stops, like [this](_URL_2_), you die because of lack of oxygen getting to the brain via the blood stream (this happens amazingly fast) however you will still have a good deal of brain activity for quite some time.  W/o oxygen, the brain can no longer carry out many of the chemical processes it needs to function.\\n\\nThere are also any number of very tightly held gradients of chemicals throughout the brain.  Shutting down would mean the loss of many of these gradients.  A chemical mechanism like our brain just doenst function at a core level like an electrical mechanism like a computer.  Losing any of the complex interactions for even a split second would result in permanent damage.\\n\\nI\\'m struggling for an analogy here if anyone can help...', \"Neuroscience grad student here. I disagree with Syberton.\\n\\nFirst, let's define what we would mean by 'electrical activity in the brain ceasing'. I'm going to take it to mean, that somehow, we magically stop every axon from firing for a couple of seconds. This would stop all intrinsic rhythms and patterns and would basically represent a complete shut down of 'thought'. However, membrane potentials and cell metabolism would continue, so widespread cell death would not occur. \\n\\nWith this definition in mind, I am pretty sure that you could restart the system pretty easily. If you removed the block on axons all at once, you would almost certainly seize, which would probably cause some psychological damage. However, if you removed the blocks in order, eg senses and then their downstream targets as they'd hit them, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't seize too much. Most of the rhythms in the brain that are well-correlated to thought (through EEG and sticking electrodes in the brain) are generated by intrinsic firing patterns of cells and the underlying anatomical properties of the brain. The brain would fall back into rhythm fairly quickly and you probably wouldn't have much of a long lasting effect.\\n\\nHowever, if you locked the axons still for too long (without stopping all metabolic and degradation processes in general), some of the cells would start to die off. This would mostly be due to housekeeping cells not receiving the proper signals and the energy balance in the brain falling apart.\\n\\nLet me know if you want me to go deeper into the question or want a source for something I said.\\n\\n\", \"Interesting question. In the normal course, electrocerebral silence is only encountered when\\n\\n1. a person is brain-dead\\n1. a person is in especially-deep coma\\n2. a person is in an especially-deep medically-induced coma\\n\\nEven then, the cessation of electrical activity is just that which is measured on scalp EEG; ie, we can only really be certain that the most superficial layers of cortex aren't firing. Because of the widespread coupling of the brain, it's assumed other parts are silent, too.\\n\\nCase #1 is by definition irreversible. The other two cases are complicated by other factors. Most people with a flat EEG aren't in a very reversible coma; if they wake at all, they're likely to have severe residual deficits from whatever global insult caused the coma. Most persons in medically-induced coma to flatline have refractory status epilepticus, a state of continuous seizure which can itself be damaging.\\n\\nNote that in general anesthesia, the most likely pattern on EEG is what's called suppression-burst, not a flat line.\\n\\nBut what if, on a lark, we took a healthy volunteer and flattened his EEG? [Kirshbaum and Carollo](_URL_0_) reported years ago a case of a woman with barbiturate overdose, iso-electric EEG, and then complete recovery. So it happens.\\n\\nThe caveats: I'm interpreting your question to mean no electroencephalographic activity. EEG really only measures the excitatory and inhibitory post-synaptic potentials generated in the superficial dendritic trees of cortical neurons. (At least, that's what we think.) Electrical activity, more broadly considered, might include the resting potential of the neuron and the gated and leak channels that maintain it. If you stopped things like sodium-potassium pumps your cell may not be very healthy. Also, I do not recommend you try things like barbiturate overdose at home.\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11283/1181062-53.stm', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_synapse', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBIdcUxdgo0', 'http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/synapse.html'], [], ['http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/212/7/1215.1.short'], ['http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11283/1181062-53.stm', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_synapse', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBIdcUxdgo0', 'http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/synapse.html'], [], ['http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/212/7/1215.1.short']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1681, "q_id": "388py7", "title": "what does the pope actually do?", "selftext": "Edit: I was not specific enough in my title, I guess I am wondering about what he does on a day to day basis. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/388py7/eli5_what_does_the_pope_actually_do/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['crt6bat', 'crthj1f', 'crti3wi', 'crtkl20', 'crtlp59', 'crtlsdo', 'crtmlcd', 'cru35qt'], 'score': [53, 28, 29, 134, 9, 3, 5, 2], 'text': ['The pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. He is in charge of a small country, and a global population of Catholics.\\n\\n[For more info, click here.](_URL_0_)', 'ELI5: Hyperlinks.\\n\\nCan someone just type out what the links say... like, in short bullet points or something?\\n\\nWhat does the Pope do?', \"Isn't he also the bishop of Rome? Does he do what the bishop of Los Angeles does, In Addition to his job a pope?\", \"The Pope is the absolute monarch of Vatican City. Within city, his word is law, and he can override everyone else within the Vatican City. Outside the city, he is the final word for the Catholic Church's official doctrine. He can speak *Ex cathedra,* (from the chair), which means he IS speaking for God, and everything he says while doing so IS God's word.\\n\\nUnofficially, the Pope is the face of the Church and (for lack of a better term) markets it to the world at large.\", 'He is the head of the Catholic church.\\n\\nThis means: He is the effective \"Head-Of-State\" in the Catholic World (I.e. someone else does the day to day running but he is the figure head). \\nHowever he can become \"Commander-in-Chief\" if he needs to be and says \"As the pope - I decree that all Catholics believe this\".\\n\\nAnd this boils down to WHY Catholics have a pope - to ultimately decide what the Catholic Churches teachings/beliefs are. For example with the abortion stance - the pope would have instigated a series of discussions, consulting on the advice of Scientific experts, to understand and establish when \\'life\\' is created. The pope would then decide, based upon the advice and opinions of his subordinates and scientists, that life begins when the Sperm hits the Egg and therefore Abortion is wrong and Catholic teaching should reflect this. This is all done behind closed doors and this gives the appearance of the pope/Church just pulling ideas out their arse. \\n\\nBut the idea is that this prevents a split in the Church and it is a unified message that as a Catholic you either accept or not - hence why Catholicism has Confirmation (The Act of Confirming that the religion your parents brought you up in - is now yours. And now that you have been taught what it means to be catholic you agree with it).\\n\\nHowever splits do happen - Protestant churches represent splits away from the Pope. e.g. King Henry became head of the Church in England so that he could conduct a divorce that the Pope was not willing to grant. Other churches broke away for a variety of different reasons, but ultimately are saying they do not agree with the authority that the Pope is given.', 'Other than priesty stuff, he does pretty much what a CEO does with the catholic church being the company in this analogy.', \"He gives a papal audience every week, he does religious duties (like most other priests), gives visits to countries (he's coming to the US this fall) and writes books, the pope is rad. in a spiritual sense, the pope is the pontifex, the bridge between the world and God. \", 'CGP grey on some pope videos\\n\\n[Vatican City Explained](_URL_1_)\\n\\nHow to become [pope](_URL_0_)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.livescience.com/27623-what-does-the-pope-do.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF8I_r9XT7A', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPHRIjI3hXs']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2631, "q_id": "3o57io", "title": "if slouching is so bad for us, why is it such a natural position to sit/stand in?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o57io/eli5_if_slouching_is_so_bad_for_us_why_is_it_such/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cvu5cds', 'cvude8f', 'cvug3xf'], 'score': [107, 9, 9], 'text': [\"There is a ted talk on this. It's about [primal posture](_URL_0_).\\n\\nIn short, it's because of our furniture. From when we are babies, our posture is encouraged to slouch, like in car seats. Pelvis tilted in and rounded forward shoulders. This continues through our lives, in our couches and regular chairs. So it is difficult to train your body to sit properly, when it has been doing something else it's whole life.\\n\\nIn the talk she mentions, societies in non-developed areas, they sit and stand properly. Since they were from birth sitting and standing optimally, thanks to not having furniture encouraging bad posture.\", 'There\\'s some work disputing that all \"slouching\" is bad:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n_URL_1_\\n', 'Have you ever looked at antique furniture and thought \"man, that looks uncomfortable.\" The slouching posture is pretty recent. In the 18th century all children wore stays from the time they started sitting up/walking until they were around 4-6 for boys and for the rest of their lives for girls. These stays aren\\'t cinching in the waist at all, just encouraging proper posture. The clothing of the 19th and early 20th centuries do the same thing. It\\'s much harder to slouch in a well fit suit coat than a t-shirt. \\n\\nBut as mentioned by other posters, as you slouch your muscles change and it becomes easier to slouch. If you were to wear a pair of stays or a coat that pushes your body into the right position it will hurt for the first week or so. Not painful, but aching like you\\'ve been working out. And you have. The muscles across the chest are under-used when slouching as are the ones across the shoulders in back. After spending enough time in this posture it hurts to slouch. Also, those terrible straight chairs? Suddenly comfortable. And your overstuffed sofa that you curl into? It\\'s awful.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://youtu.be/k1luKAS_Xcg'], ['http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6187080.stm', 'http://www.webmd.com/back-pain/news/20061129/back-pain-eased-by-sitting-back'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1702, "q_id": "83bow1", "title": "babies crying pre-sedentary/having shelters if it would technically be a death sentence attracting predators in nature", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83bow1/eli5_babies_crying_presedentaryhaving_shelters_if/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dvgn39g', 'dvgoj4k', 'dvh0zs2', 'dvh5ah8'], 'score': [48, 16, 5, 6], 'text': ['Hardly.\\n\\nFirst, remember that babies were not left unattended. Our early ancestors (much like some hunter gatherer tribes still do to this day) carries their babies around constantly. Babies that are worn cry much less because pretty much their every need (food and comfort) are very close by.\\n\\nAdditionally, we are a species that lives in groups. A group of humans is going to be loud in any situation, and the occasional baby cry is not going to add much to that. Living in a group was our protection already, not stealth. ', 'Human infants were rarely without shelter, even during the hunter-gatherer nomadic phase humans lived in camps and caves. Infants were also never left alone. There were always adults around to attend to their needs and protect them from predators. This is one of the reasons that humans live in groups. ', 'There are no predators in nature that will attack a group of humans (except maybe when completely desparate). Heck, there are very few that will even attack a single adult human. The few predators that are actually bigger and stronger than humans also understand the concept of strength in numbers.', \"Predators don't want to tangle with a bunch of hunter-gatherers, whether or not they are in a shelter.  Humans are scary, and predators in general tend to go for isolated young or old individuals.\\n\\nAlso, in mobile societies the babies spend a whole lot of time on their mothers, either in arms or wrapped on.  They tend to cry a lot less when being held.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 621, "q_id": "mjvhb", "title": "Is a star *needed* for life on other planets?", "selftext": "So I understand that Europa has probable liquid water under it's surface which is warmed by tidal forces. _URL_1_\n\nI also just read about chemosynthesis here\n_URL_0_\n\nSo now imagine there's a planet orbiting a star outside of the zone where liquid water is possible. The planet is also geologically active. \n\nCould the heat from this activity be high enough to allow liquid water to exist (ie, without much energy from the star)? \n*Scientifically*, could life evolve here? (using chemosynthesis)\nIs it possible for a planet that far from it's star to be geologically active?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mjvhb/is_a_star_needed_for_life_on_other_planets/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c31kjqp', 'c31lx2t', 'c31kjqp', 'c31lx2t'], 'score': [3, 2, 3, 2], 'text': ['Well, given the fact that scientists have found organisms deep down in the soil and in caves which have never been \"touched\" by the sun I\\'d say a star isn\\'t needed, but some kind of heat is needed, probably thermal', 'I was listening to an episode of The Skeptic\\'s Guide to the Universe, and one of the \"science or fiction\" questions went into details about how there are an estimated 400 million jupiter-sized planets not orbiting stars. And that it is conceivable that many of them could be life sustaining - the internal heat would not require a star for life to form. ', 'Well, given the fact that scientists have found organisms deep down in the soil and in caves which have never been \"touched\" by the sun I\\'d say a star isn\\'t needed, but some kind of heat is needed, probably thermal', 'I was listening to an episode of The Skeptic\\'s Guide to the Universe, and one of the \"science or fiction\" questions went into details about how there are an estimated 400 million jupiter-sized planets not orbiting stars. And that it is conceivable that many of them could be life sustaining - the internal heat would not require a star for life to form. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_communities#Chemosynthesis', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)#Subsurface_ocean']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2367, "q_id": "2fl905", "title": "[Physics] Why is acceleration always detectable (why is it not relative)?", "selftext": "So I know that velocity is relative, but acceleration is absolute and can be detected from within a frame of reference. So I would like to know the mistake I am making in the following scenario:\n\nImagine I am in space in a rocket. I see another rocket go pass and measure it to be accelerating. But someone in the other rocket will not be moving with respect to themselves. So if the other rocket's observer looks at me they will see my velocity increasing (in the opposite direction of the rocket's motion in my reference frame). That is, they will see me accelerating. Will/should they assume there is a force on me that increases my velocity? But the thing is that the people in the rocket themselves will feel a force pushing them back? (A dropped item will move). But form their perspective, I am the one accelerating, so I should feel a force pushing me back?\n\nI specifically thought of this question, after reading about Newton's bucket, but I think it would be easier to talk about and explain the question in terms of acceleration in linear motion. (So if you can explain the bulging of the water in the bucket in terms of Relativity, that would be nice too).\n\nThank you.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2fl905/physics_why_is_acceleration_always_detectable_why/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ckadmkk', 'ckafqs7'], 'score': [5, 13], 'text': ['You only feel a force in one rocket, the one that is accelerating. If you both have a weight suspended in the middle of a bunch of springs, only one observer will see the weight in an out-of-equilibrium position. The two reference frames are not equivalent: one is inertial and one is not.', \"Wow, fantastic question.  You are right that if Alice is traveling at a constant velocity in an inertial reference frame and an observer (Bob) were accelerating past us, in Bob's non-inertial reference frame, he would be moving at constant velocity and Alice would be accelerating.  \\n\\nWhy do we say that Alice is moving at constant velocity and Bob is the one accelerating then?  The answer (as with many things in physics) is one of convenience.  In Bob's accelerational  reference frame, there is a mysterious force accelerating all objects in one direction, and Alice just happens to be accelerating in the direction of that force.  Alice's accelerational frame is the only one that does not have the mysterious force, and so we call it an inertial frame.  We find that calculations are usually a lot easier in inertial frames, so we usually use them, but there is nothing invalid with other accelerational frames.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 256, "q_id": "6g0ght", "title": "I've been reading Anna Karanina, which takes place in the 1880s, not long after the end of serfdom. How accurate was Tolstoy's portrayal of the peasantry? Was it as idyllic as he makes it sound?", "selftext": "He goes into detail about the difficulties that post-serfdom land owners had in getting the peasants to produce enough, and there's also lots of handwringing about agricultural modernization vis-a-vis Europe.  \n\nThat aside, he makes the peasants sound like a jolly, carefree lot, whose existences aren't much more than wholesome outdoor work, homemade vodka, and joyous outbursts whenever their landlord comes ambling by.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6g0ght/ive_been_reading_anna_karanina_which_takes_place/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dimra24'], 'score': [67], 'text': ['Nope. The way that Tolstoy portrays the peasants is in no way accurate. While there was a lot of change, modernisation and so on, in general the average life of the Russian peasant in this period was unpleasant, brutish and short. The following quotes are taken from a book called \"village life in late Tsarist Russia\" by Olga Semyonova Tian-Shanskaia an ethnographer writing in the early 1900s. To a certain extent she was writing to rebuff the very idyllic images which many Russian intellectuals, including Tolstoy, had of the peasants. She embedded herself with them and observed them a year in assembling the notes which eventually went into this work. It seems that the also realised that actually finding out what the peasants thought was very difficult since they tended to lie to her. She was a good water colourist and took to painting in public spaces as a way of evesdropping on peasants so she could observe them without changing their social interactions by her presence. That said, while Tolstoy\\'s portrayal of peasants in his work is clearly idealised, the one which I quote below is possibly biased in the other direction. The author had a very negative conception of peasants and peasant culture. While nothing here is fabricated it is certainly presented in as negative a light as possible.\\n\\n > \u201cyoung mothers very often smother their children accidentally in their sleep. The mother sometimes places her infant between herself and her husband\u2026 she goes to sleep, rolls over onto the baby and smothers it...a good half of women have overlain their child in this way\u201d \\n\\nShe later comments about how she does not really believe the peasant claims to the accidental deaths of children. \u201cThere have been two notorious cases of infanticide in the village\u2026in practice the number of these killings is higher\u2026 I have always been suspicious of cases of reported accidental smothering of babies since it is very easy to roll over on a baby and intentionally smother it\u201d  The outright murder of illegitimate offspring was also not uncommon\\n\\n >  \u201ccases of infanticide of illegitimate babies are not at all rare. A married or unmarried woman gives birth alone somewhere in a shed, smothers the baby and dumps it into the river with a rock secured to its neck...in fact in the large village of muraevnia, one or two children are found dead almost every year\u2026 recently pigs out by the graveyard the body of a newborn that had turned blue, making it obvious that the baby had been buried only a short time before. No action was taken. Peasants do not like criminal investigations\u201d \\n\\nWomen tended to return to work very quickly after giving birth, normally the week after. \\n\\n >  \u201cAnd the child is consequently neglected; it is left alone in a dirty cradle wearing a soaking wet diaper, criying its heart out in hunger pains and its navel swells and hurts.\u201d\\n\\nWomen had very little medical care after birth and were subjected to some odd medical treatments. \\n\\n > \u201cmore often than not, the hard work that follows childbirth results in some degree of prolapse of the uterus\u2026 the midwife soaps her hands, forces the uterus into place, then pushes a peeled potato into the vagina and binds the lower abdomen tightly with a handkerchief\u201d \\n\\nWife beating and abuse was endemic and impossible to control.\\n\\n > \u201cin the village of muraevnia there was a case of a drunken husband who killed his wife for infidelity. He rolled her braids around his hand and beat her head\u2026. Until she lapsed into a coma and died three days later\u201d \\n\\nThe author was also fascinated and appalled by the way that the peasants treated the animals which lived with them.\\n\\n >  \"in their treatment of cats, dogs and other animals, ivan and his family can be quite cruel\u2026 peasants will torture them just for fun\u2026 when I ask \u2018don\u2019t you feel sorry for them?\u2019 the children respond \u2018why feel sorry? They\\'re not people, just dogs\u2019\"\\n\\nMany peasants also lived in the most awful conditions. For example most peasant houses did not have chimneys (called a black stove) and \\n\\n > \u201cwhen a black stove is being lighted\u2026. [the smoke] forms a blue and white blanket\u2026 a good sized man finds it difficult to stand up when the stove is being fired because his eyes will be in the caustic cloud\u201d \\n\\nwhich would then cause a whole host of health problems including cataracts and respiratory issues. There is an awful lot more that I could insert, about alcoholism, poverty and so on. However it makes me unhappy so I am not going to include it.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1723, "q_id": "409w7r", "title": "how sean penn located el chapo to conduct an interview yet none of the intelligence agencies looking for the wanted drug kingpin could find him", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/409w7r/eli5_how_sean_penn_located_el_chapo_to_conduct_an/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cysm44t', 'cysm91r', 'cysmti5', 'cysq53i', 'cysqxy2', 'cysqzsh', 'cysuu8l', 'cyswb1r', 'cyswwzi', 'cysx0m9', 'cysybwx', 'cysyxh9', 'cysz7ys', 'cyszwi5', 'cyt0d11', 'cyt0hrj', 'cyt1d72', 'cyt1naw', 'cyt1pze', 'cyt27xc', 'cyt3sr1', 'cyt755e', 'cytdia1', 'cyti03o'], 'score': [968, 454, 2080, 406, 19, 128, 16, 20, 10, 6, 4, 2, 11, 52, 4, 13, 2, 3, 8, 3, 3, 5, 2, 2], 'text': [\"The did find him. A few days after one of the interviews the Mexican government attacked one of the interview locations and Chapo only narrowly escaped. It's widely believed that his continued contact with Penn is the main reason they were able to eventually re-capture him. \", 'Because El Chapo *wanted* to be found by Penn, because he trusted Penn would adhere to journalistic standards of protecting his sources (although I\\'d assume he was still cautious in the arrangements for the interview).\\n\\nIts not hard for someone to find a person, if they want you to find them.\\n\\nI wonder if El Chapo\\'s \"one hundred dollars million\" contract on Trump still stands.', \"El Chapo's people reached out to him. All penn had to do follow chapos security and sit in the back of a truck for a couple hours\", 'I think El Chapo watched the secret life of Walter Mitty and thought Sean  Penn was a photojournalist.', 'The news reported that there was a go between (a Mexican actress) who helped facilitate the interview.\\n\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'el chapo was receiving movie offers and stuff while in jail.  a mexican actress that had played a drug lord offered to help him with the movie.  chapo liked her work and trusted her to help with his movie.\\n\\nsean penn and this actress had some mutual acquaintances/friends.  he heard that she was in contact with chapo.  sean got in contact with her through their mutual friends.  the actress set up the meeting.', \"read the stories instead of the headlines, OP. newspapers explain stuff, that's their job.  \\n  \\n_URL_0_\", 'So now that Chapo has been caught (or is it almost caught?) Due to his interviews with Sean Penn, will Penn be murdered now?', \"1).  Sean Penn and his crew go to any city within 500 miles of Chapo.\\n2).  Put out the word that this famous American actor would like to do a fawning, soft serve interview.\\n3).  Chapo's intel network will surreptitiously discover that Penn's luggage contains 100% cameras and 0% submachine guns.\\n4).  Interview will be arranged because crime bosses are usually egotists and consider themselves celebrities just like anybody in Hollywood; plus they're usually misunderstood, wronged souls who only have their community's best interests at heart, and this message must get out.  \", \"Although Chapo is a bad person and deserved to be caught, I find it distasteful that Rolling Stone helped capture him. \\n\\nReporters are not Law Enforcement Agencies; they aren't supposed to create the story themselves (remember *Nightcrawler?*). This puts legitimate journalists in harms way.\\n\\nFuck Rolling Stone.\", 'Is it just me or does \"El Chapo\" is sounds really cool as a nickname?', \"The CIA/DEA arranged it because El Chapo is in leagues with the government. And the CIA is heavily involved in Hollywood. Everyone is corrupt as fuck. That's my guess.\", '(Mexican here) It\\'s widely considered that the Federal Government is allied with organized crime, and uses El Chapo (and viceversa) when considered necessary. A lot of us believe that the government has always known where El Chapo is at all times, and \"arrests\" him when they want to seem in control, but he\\'s too powerful, for him jail is probably just another safe house where he keeps working just like outside of it.  ', \"Imagine you're playing hide and seek with your childhood classmates. Youre the one of the last ones hiding, and you hear the class bully is looking for you, so you stay hidden. Then you hear your crush looking for you, so you whisper to her where you are hidden so she can come and hide with you for awhile   \\n   \\nThat's essentially how it works with fugitives like this.\", 'Because the Intelligence Agencies that are \"looking\" for El Chapo don\\'t *really* want to find him.  Him being on any \"Most Wanted\" list is public relations, not crime fighting.', 'How about an ELI5 on why Sean penn feels the need to put himself into a real live dangerous movie when he could just fucking chill on a yacht and party at home.', \"And how is it that Penn didn't get in any trouble?\", 'Where i can watch the interview?', \"Life in Mexico law enforcement goes like this:  You want to catch/inprision/keep/convict El Chapo?  The last guy in your job has just disappeared, then one day someone visits you with an offer you can't refuse.  Pictures of your children/wife/family in one hand, a suitcase of cash on the other - if you are lucky.  \", \"Guess you never watched that Netflix show Narcos. It's easy to keep hiding when people are visiting the families of those trying to catch you or bribing people.\", \"Those wondering Kate del Castillo the actress who helped Sean Penn meet El Chapo has her show La Reina del Sur on Netflix. About a woman who heads a drug cartel in good ol' Mexico. Fun watch, similar to Narcos. \", 'This seems like the timeline that answers the question and clarifies some of the speculative comments in the thread:\\n\\n\"El Chapo was caught after contacting actors and directors about making a Narcos-style biopic about his life, Mexican officials said. It is not clear whether Penn was contacted about the movie.\\n\\nThe seeds for the bizarre meeting between Penn and El Chapo were sown back in 2012 after a representative for the Mexican gangster contacted del Castillo, who had posted tweets saying she had more trust in the cartel than the government.\\n\\nA lawyer for the Sinaloa cartel said flowers were being sent to the actress, however they never arrived. \\n\\nDel Castillo later met a fixer called Espinoza - and both of them remained in contact with El Chapo\\'s people after his escape. \\n\\nPenn later met Espinoza and suggested he meet the fugitive for a magazine article and, incredibly, the Sinaloa cartel agreed to it. \\n\\nSOURCE: _URL_0_\\n\\n', \"I'm still wondering in what conditions did chapo respond to the video interview: was it after or before his capture? The timeline in the article isn't clear.\", \"It's like when Dan Rather got an interview with Sadaam Hussein, when the military couldn't find him. \\n_URL_0_\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://www.latintimes.com/joaquin-el-chapo-guzman-arrest-kate-del-castillo-sean-penn-interviewed-drug-lord-his-363217'], [], ['http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/world/americas/el-chapo-mexican-drug-lord-interview-with-sean-penn.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3392260/Actor-Sean-Penn-met-interviewed-El-Chapo-Mexico-run-year.html#ixzz3wsHkJGv4'], [], ['https://youtu.be/y64XR36zsIM']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 51, "q_id": "51s5yi", "title": "Was there such a thing as \"Aztec Death Whistles\"?", "selftext": "I saw [this](_URL_0_) post today. I had never heard of such instruments. Did ancient Aztecs or other Mesoamerican civilizations ever use anything like this?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/51s5yi/was_there_such_a_thing_as_aztec_death_whistles/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d7eukaz'], 'score': [81], 'text': ['Kind of, but not really.\\n\\nThe instrument featured in that video is what\\'s known as a *chichtli*, a \"skull-whistle\" that uses an air-spring mechanism to create a rattling/whistling sound when blown. However, the particular version of the instrument shown in that video isn\\'t exactly the same sound, and appears to be a modern instrument loosely based on the ancient one. The actual sound of the ancient instrument is described by ethnomusicologist Arnd Adje Both as \"a distorted sound reminding one of the atmospheric noise generated by the wind.\" [This video](_URL_0_) is probably closer to what the instrument actually sounded like.\\n\\nAlso, the idea that warriors would carry these into battle and use them to terrify enemies is pure speculation. Musical instruments used in warfare were more commonly drums and conch shell trumpets, and their purpose was more to provide signaling to their own army than to intimidate their enemies. The chichtli was more likely used in religious rituals associated with the underworld rather than warfare.\\n\\nEdit: I should also add that these instruments are relatively rare in archaeological contexts compared to more traditional flutes and ocarinas, which is further evidence against the idea that an entire army would be using these in battle.\\n\\n* Both, Arnd Adje. 2010. \"Aztec Music Culture.\" *The World of Music*, Vol. 52, No. 1/3, the world of music: Readings in\\nEthnomusicology (2010), pp. 14-28']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/51quxs/woah_ancient_aztec_death_whistle_sounds_like/']", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4T9sYbRzcQ#t=30s']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1208, "q_id": "2lis0y", "title": "why do death with dignity laws allow people with incurable, untreatable physical illness to end their lives if they wish, but not for people with incurable, untreatable mental illness?", "selftext": "(Throwaway account for fear of flame wars)\n\n\nWhy do states/countries with death with dignity laws allow patients who have incurable, untreatable physical illnesses the right to choose to die to avoid suffering, but don't extend that right to people with mental illness in the same position? I know that suicide is often an impulse decision for people with mental illness, and that some mental illnesses (psychosis, acute schizophrenia, etc) can easily impair a patient's judgment. Still, for people experiencing immense suffering from mental illness and for whom no treatment has been effective, in situations where this pain has a very high likelihood of continuing for the rest of the patient's life, why does it not fall under those law's goals to prevent suffering with incurable diseases? Sure, mental illness isn't going to outright physically kill a person, and new treatments might be found, but that might take many, many years, during which time the person is in incredible distress? If they're capable of making a rational decision, why are they denied that right?\n\n\nThanks for your answers.\n\n\nEDIT: There's been a lot of really good thoughtful conversation here. I do believe I forgot about the requirement for the physical illness to be terminal within six months, so my apologies there. I do wonder though, in regards to suicide and mental illness, as memory serves people facing certain diagnoses (I think BPD is one of them) are statistically much more likely to attempt suicide. People who make one attempt are statistically unlikely to try again, but for people who have attempted multiple times, I think there's a much higher probability of additional attempts and eventually a successful attempt, so that may factor in to how likely their illness is to be \"terminal.\" Still, I definitely agree that a major revamping of the mental health care system is in order. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lis0y/eli5_why_do_death_with_dignity_laws_allow_people/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clv5syw', 'clv5tu4', 'clv5unn', 'clv7cqi', 'clv7f63', 'clv99q5', 'clv9mpa', 'clva0rl', 'clvb1qo', 'clvb5ca', 'clvbjxt', 'clvcsl9', 'clvcupd', 'clvdf3s', 'clvdm8e', 'clve0ay', 'clvey4h', 'clvf3jp', 'clvfwqv', 'clvgoud', 'clvgr6j', 'clvgzgj', 'clvh9o0', 'clvhfo1', 'clvhhna', 'clvhnmd', 'clvhqoq', 'clvhtss', 'clvhz0o', 'clvi274', 'clvi2pg', 'clvigvf', 'clviqft', 'clvis02', 'clvizex', 'clvjf4c', 'clvk43w', 'clvk60q', 'clvkpzb', 'clvl1re', 'clvlbtd', 'clvlvsl', 'clvn6h8', 'clvo22m', 'clvojb3', 'clvp86t', 'clvpgkm', 'clvqsdz', 'clvscwq', 'clvtfrm', 'clvua7q', 'clvud38', 'clvvblt'], 'score': [64, 8, 2, 14, 725, 6, 4, 4, 10, 426, 2, 29, 3, 5, 39, 3, 6, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 13, 2, 2, 6, 3, 7, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 7, 5, 2, 5, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"When we can 'see' mental illness like we can see tumors or abnormal blood tests, then much will change. Then instead of stigmatizing those who suffer silently, we can have difficult conversations about quality of life. \", ' > Sure, mental illness isn\\'t going to outright physically kill a person\\n\\nthat\\'s why we should dismiss deep despair and loneliness as \"no big deal\".', 'Despite all the recent research and evidence to the contrary, the medical community still clings to the notion that mental illness is more \"all in the patient\\'s head\". Such perceptions often take decades and a few controversies before people finally address the issue.\\nThe basic idea is, \"you wouldn\\'t say you wanted to die if you didn\\'t have this mental illness\", even when it clearly has no effect on your ability to make rational decisions. Doctors just don\\'t want to risk being wrong and get charged with malpractice. Yes they\\'re suffering. But better to keep them alive and suffering than dead.\\n', \"All bodies give out eventually, but our minds (arguably) don't. With physical ailments, people see assisted death as accelerating the inevitable. With mental illness, you're just killing off any chance of recovery. \\n\\nIf you're physically sick, it makes sense to offer a physical solution. Obviously, there is not always an emotional solution to emotional suffering, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to move on to just any kind of solution.\", \"As I understand it, the law does not see mentally I'll people as being competent enough to make such a decision. Even if they actually are\", 'It appears to be one of those Catch 22s we run across from time to time. In the case of a terminal physical illness, the patient can state, categorically, that \"being of soundmind\" he or she is giving informed consent to undergo the process. Unfortunately, the person with a mental illness is not in a position to do that.', \"Like everything someone is going to tell us that we don't know what we're doing. That we don't know what will make us happy, or haven't waited long enough. Or need to be more patient.\\n\\nOr take the other road and we're unstable and incapable of thinking rationally for ourselves.\\n\\nBecause people believe they know what's best. iMO it's none of anyone's business. \\n\\nBut you can't say that, it's not true, you're extreme and irrational. Ignorant or what have you.\\n\\nYou can't win, unfortunately. \", \"How can someone prove that mental illness is untreatable/incurable? The science and medical evidence for physical illness is just more solid and less of a grey area. I'm not for a minute implying mental illness is lesser, just that its more of a grey area in 'proving' its incurable\", \"It's very controversial, but it does happen in [Belgium](_URL_0_) and has happened in [the Netherlands](_URL_1_).\", \"I could be mistaken, but I think you've missed one of the criteria in the law. It has to be not only and untreatable illness, but also a *terminal* illness. I'd say that's the difference, as I am unaware of any terminal mental illnesses.\", 'Which mental illnesses are incurable? Is that even something you can scientifically demonstrate?', \"The distinction here is not that patients with incurable and untreatable physical conditions are allowed to die and those with incurable and untreatable mental conditions aren't. That is incorrect. Patients with incurable, untreatable, TERMINAL physical illnesses (usually with a prognosis of six months or less to live) are the ones who are allowed to utilize Death with Dignity. This is mostly because in this case, it is not seen as the decision to end ones life-- that is not a decision, they have a terminal illness and will not survive. The DWD act is used in these situations to hasten death and relieve the patient of suffering before an inevitable death. If a patient with an incurable, untreatable mental illness were to utilize DWD, they would be making the decision to die, not just to hasten a death that is six months off, because their illness, though in some cases equally as painful and difficult, is not terminal. This is for the same reason that in the US, despite how awful your physical condition may be, you can only use DWD if you are terminal and expected to live only 6 months more. Same argument applies for people with awful physical illnesses that will not kill them-- they suffer horribly too, but cannot use DWD. \", \"It's not that ALL mentally ill individuals are incompetent, it's just that when someone is suicidal, there is often more evidence than not, that the person's judgement is completely clouded. Therefore, it is probably not the best decision to allow such to be applied to those who are mentally ill. The difference here is that people with a diagnosis of an incurable disease have this option because they are guaranteed to die anyways. I believe it's that they have less than six months to live. So, the difference here lies in the fact that someone with depression for example, is likely not given six months or less to live because of cancer. Does this make sense? \", \"\\n > \\nIf they're capable of making a rationals decision, why are they denied that right?\\n\\nSimplified answer, they aren't considered rational decision makers in that area by virtue of a diagnosed illness. Suicidal ideation or aspiration is considered a symptom of the illness, not a legitimate rational desire.\", 'Mental illness is terrible. But it isn\\'t terminal.  Allowing people with mental illness access to assisted suicide would be like letting someone with fibro myalgia access to it because they have daily pain or other chronic diseases that really suck. We aren\\'t considering that they have access to assisted suicide are we? I think before we jump right to this issue we need to first focus on the state of mental health care in North America. People need to have better resources and access to care. We have still not recovered from de institutionalization and this needs to be addressed.  Cancer awareness is everywhere. But where is the mental health awareness? People with mental illness aren\\'t thought of as survivors or warriors. They are looked at as weird and crazy. We need to help the mentally ill live with a better quality of life before we ever consider a \"quality\" death. ', 'Often, depression  &  other disorders are caused by an imbalance in the brain, so is that a physical disease?  Depression also can cause physical ailments (pain, insomnia for example), so is that strictly mental?\\n\\nit\\'s \"assisted suicide\" that\\'s the issue, isn\\'t it? To be legally assisted suicide, there must be a doctor in attendance to administer a legal drug in the proper dose to ensure death. That\\'s the part that needs to change.  Realistically, anyone who wants to end their life can find a way but sometimes it\\'s ugly.  Ensuring a safe  &  sure passing should be the humane thing to do.', \"Everyone is talking about depression and curing it...  I pose this question, as someone who received manic depressive disorder diagnosis..\\n\\nWith 7 billion people on this earth, why not just let us out of the gene pool?  We don't want to be here, no one actively actually cares about our day to day, they just don't want us to make others sad by sharing our true feelings, hurt anyone else of course or end our own suffering because why?!\", 'Part of this is due to how psychology treated people in the past century.  Institutionalization, experimentation, and abuse/killing of those who were deemed mentally/intellectually defective was horrible.  It lasted until the 1970s in most countries.\\n\\nThe only reason that physically differently advantaged persons get a right to die is that society can easily admit that they are broken and not whole people.  One of the stupidest and most invalid arguments against suicide is that it has a social cost.  People who kill themselves reduce economic output and create direct medical costs.  It is bullshit, but people actually believe that those who can function should be forced to do so.  Arguments against suicide are always coming from selfishness, so you really cannot examine them logically.  Anti-choice advocates really believe that they can force people to live because the advocates are uncomfortable with the idea of wanting to die (which is part of the thought process of the majority of people and not limited just to those with mental disorders.)', \"sound of mind, unsound of body, suicide ok\\n\\nunsound of mind, sound of body, suicide not ok\\n\\nhear me out: there are some people with permanent, uncurable, crippling mental illness that is more of a sick body issue than a sick mind issue, yes\\n\\nbut people kill themselves for temporary mental problems: job loss, relationship loss, etc. and that is a huge problem\\n\\nso the point is to err on the side of life\\n\\n(don't shoot the messenger, i'm just explaining the rationalization here)\\n\\nuntil we get a better way to separate the two problems: temporary mental anguish versus long term debilitating mental illness, then people with mental health problems will face resistance and not acceptance to the idea of suicide\\n\", \"Disclaimer: I say this as someone who suffers from severe depression, and who is around others who suffer from it.\\n\\nOne of these types of illnesses inevitably leads to pain, suffering and death invariably.\\n\\nThe other is so difficult to definitively nail down in terms of diagnosis that the person may kill themselves literally a week before they may have just naturally started getting better.\\n\\nIt's easy to diagnose cancer. It isn't easy to diagnose depression.\", \"Honestly? Because our society (American anyway) does not understand mental illness and suicide. People assume that if you commit suicide, it was a rash, spur of the moment decision. Not a compounding of years filled with severe sadness, an acceptance of the fact you'll likely never be what society expects you to be and an overly thought out plan that you've been debating for years.\\n\\nSuicide is rarely a brash decision. Most people who do it successfully have been contemplating it for years but manage to convince themselves not to.\\n\", 'One of the concerns of advocates for the mentally iill or challenged is that a terminally ill person with a healthy mental state can make a decision that is both reasonable and rational.  A mentally ill person or one who is mentally challenged cannot be guaranteed to make a life and death decision that is appropriate.  \\n\\nIn fact a fear of advocates is that right to die legislation could be used by legal guardians of the disabled to end their lives as a convenience or as a way of removing the burden with no consideration to the dignity of the disabled or to their desires.   That is why right to die legislators are careful to insure that those options are not open.', 'I literally just had a debate about this (not that it makes me an expert, but I have an idea to explain it). When dealing with euthanasia, which is what these laws provide for, consent is the key criteria that needs to be met when allowing euthanasia. In order to give consent, one needs to be in a stable, sound mind and must give consent unwaveringly and consistently, and in the case of mental illness, that it very hard to achieve. \\nIt can be said that excruciating pain could do the same thing and prevent effective consent, but it muddies the issue, and physical pain is much easier to gauge than mental anguish. If we allow death with dignity for people with mental anguish alone, than depression would fall into that category as well, and evidence shows that many people with temporary depression that request euthanasia or physician assisted suicide revoke their consent when they received treatment for depression, indicating that mental anguish as a grounds for euthanasia alone may lead to decisions that are not in the best interest of the patient, that being one of the other major pieces of criteria.', 'Lets say, hypothetically, that mental illnesses are going to be incorporated into these laws. In my opinion, the main issue involves whether you can determine if someone with a mental illness really wants to end their life or is it a side effect of said illness?', \"Here is the thing.  If you want to kill yourself, who cares what the law says?  \\n\\nI am sure you are asking hypothetically.  You probably want it to be legal, or you are unhappy with the way society views mental illness.  \\n\\nOne reason I think we shouldn't make it any easier to kill yourself when you have a mental illness, is because the mental illness is what is making you suicidal.  Psychologists, medication, family, etc can sometimes help people with mental illness.  Inoperable brain tumor isn't going anywhere.\\n\\nAssisted suicide when it is medically proven that there is no way you are going to live, and by extending your life you will be causing more suffering is ethical.  (in my mind)  \\n\\nHelping a suicidal person commit suicide because the have a mental problem is different.  The disorder is causing the suicidal thoughts.  Modern medicine cannot determine the severity of a mental illness yet, and a lot of suicidal people get better.\\n\", 'Psychiatric resident here, and first time poster. I cannot think of a more Orwellian situation than for an individual with mental illness being given license to or even encouraged by a society to kill them self:\\n\\n(Keep in mind this scenario completely sidesteps the fact that over 1/5th of the US population can be diagnosed with a mental disorder at any one time)  \\n\\nImagine the hopelessness of a teenage boy leaving a psychiatric ward newly diagnosed with Schizophrenia. That\u2019s a lifetime of stigma placed upon his shoulders. He\u2019s not even a man, and yet he was given a burden which would fell heroes. His mind is reeling from the situation which lead him into the hospital along with all the life changes he has to become accustom to, such as taking several pills every day. Now, despite his illness he\u2019s not a stupid person, he knows he\u2019s likely never to become a professional as he dreamed, he\u2019s more likely to be incarcerated, addicted drugs, he\u2019s going to live roughly 20 years less than other people, and more likely to kill himself anyway\u2026so why prolong the inevitable? \\n\\nPragmatic members of society would be alright with this boy killing himself. His departure would save a lot of time, energy and resources \u201cbetter\u201d spent on other areas. I mean, who wants to go fix a \u201cbroken cog\u201d or \u201cdamaged person\u201d when it\u2019s a drain on society?  (Trust me, the boy has thought of this)\\n\\n Statistics show that a person newly diagnosed with a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia is most likely to commit suicide after being discharged from the hospital. Many theorize this is because the patient is \u201cwell enough\u201d to realize what a terrible hand Mother Nature has given them.\\n\\nNow, is this boy rational in his ability to choose to kill himself? I think he would be; he would kill himself for the same reason most others do \u2013 to escape pain, to escape humiliation and defeat. If he was stabilized upon medications and committed a crime, he\u2019d be held accountable right? Why should he not be afforded the right to kill himself at a young age in order to not only save himself a lifetime of misery and save society the trouble of putting up with him?\\n\\nMy answer is this \u2013 no person is a broken cog. No person is a cog. There is no \u201cmachine\u201d and there is no greater goal of society than to serve its members \u2013 ALL its members. You are not a \u201clesser\u201d member of society because you have a mental illness. I do not want to live in a society where the mentally ill see themselves as a burden and society is unwilling to tolerate them.  Great men and women in our society have mental illness, (Robin Williams is a recent example) and there is no guarantee that this boy will not be one of them. If he was allowed to kill himself, not only would he be losing his life, society would be losing someone invaluable as well. \\n\\nThank you for reading my rambling response.\\n\\n**TL;DR** \u2013 The idea that someone is incurable or untreatable is complete nonsense and society would be less if someone kills them self due to mental illness.\\n', 'I know if I Would want to die with dignity rather than slowly lose my mind to a number of mental illnesses. It frightening to even think that I could easily lose myself.', \"I think one aspect is that generally the law shifts slower when the stakes are higher, and when reason is at odds with historical societal values (the war on drugs, for example). Suicide and the right to die under any circumstances has for centuries been widely regarded as taboo in the West. Our will to live for as long as possible is tested by our increasing longevity though, and attitudes a changing. Slowly but surely, our laws are catching up. Probably we will one day be at the point where it is entirely legal to end your own life even if you are free of mental and physical disability.\\n\\nI'm certain though, that however our laws on assisted suicide progress, there will always be some kind of review in place to differentiate between rational and irrational desires to die. I don't believe that we are anywhere near able to perfectly assess for that distinction yet, which is why we're not ready for such a legal shift.\\n\\nThat doesn't really answer your question though; why make that distinction? In a word, consent. It's a potentially contentious issue in even the most straightforward procedures, that\u2019s complicated immensely by even the suggestion of diminished responsibility. As soon as someone makes their mental health the business of the state, the question arises repeatedly; *is this person capable of making sound decisions*. If the subject is suicide, things are complicated further, because of the possibility of coercion.\\n\\nA person deciding if they want this operation or that procedure, if it is life-saving, or it improves their quality of life, is obviously acting according to their own interests. A person deciding *not* to receive life-saving treatment can under certain circumstances be forced to do so by the state. A person choosing to seek death though; are they acting according to their own interests? It really depends on how you look at it, and that's not nearly clear cut enough for the doctors who would be signing off on the procedure.\\n\\nAnd of course there\u2019s another reason any state would be hesitant to introduce assisted suicide for non-terminal patients. It would make for a stark, damning statistic. No political party is going to jump at the chance to have their term in office plotted against that particular performance indicator.\", 'In some countries, that does happen. The Netherlands has had cases where people with chronic clinical depression have ended their lives legally. Belgium reported [52 cases](_URL_0_) of euthanasia for psychological reasons in 2012 alone.\\n\\nOthers who have replied are correct that the American (Oregonian) law requires that the illness be terminal, but such a requirement does not exist in all countries. A depressed Dutch teenager (18+) could choose to end her life if she meets the rest of the requirements (repeated requests, and two physicians have to sign off).', 'This is such a bizarre law/argument. Nobody can stop you from killing yourself but you, man.', 'Someone with a botched sex change operation was granted the right to die in Belgium, so mental anguish is grounds for it in some places.\\nsource:_URL_0_', 'anyone should be able to kill themselves at any point for any reason. it really doesnt make a difference and you will be forgotten anyways. everyone dies.', 'People who can be happy think \"oh we all were depressed or get depressed sometimes cheer up things will change\" when that\\'s not the case.\\n\\nYes there is treatment, drugs and other things. However some things have no treatment and some people would like the treatment of a dignified and respectful death. While I am in the same boat suicide is never the answer I only take this so far, and that is when other means have been tried and the person realistically understands and wants to end their suffering.\\n\\nI know people who are also happy and want to end it, bored and want to end it, see no reason to life but are happy and want to end it, and people who are severely depressed that can\\'t be fixed and want to end it.\\n\\nWho are you to force someone to live. I hate everything about suicide, but if someone truly wants it who are we to force otherwise.\\n\\nP.s. Don\\'t anyone reading take this as a reason to commit suicide. Seek help, exhaust all options and treatment and it may get better. Hopefully it does. If all else fails however, I understand you and want to respect your ultimate choice.\\n\\nThis post isn\\'t to explain the answer to OP but people who keep posting they are irrational or shouldn\\'t be allowed.', 'i think the courts think along the lines of:  \\nphysically ill people are still within their mental capacity to make right minded choices.  \\nthose who are mentally ill might not be able to make a logical decision ', \"I think you make a fair point. We should question why we don't allow everyone the right to a peaceful death at the time of their choosing. If that's what an individual wants to do they should be permitted to do it.\", 'One problem with mental illnesses is that of consent. If a mental illness is bad enough that a \"normal\" person might choose euthanasia, they probably aren\\'t with it enough to consent to euthanasia.\\n\\nMental incapacitation comes into play in other areas of a medicine. For example, for EMTs, if someone is high and doesn\\'t want to go to the hospital, that\\'s too bad -- they legally cannot make that decision -- so they have to go, and they\\'re either going in the ambulance or the ambulance in protective custody.', 'As someone who has always had incredible depression I wish what you were suggesting was possible.  I\\'ll explain why.\\n\\nPeople talk about putting their pets \"out of their misery\" or \"ending their suffering\" all the time, so why not people?  Why is a human being, a creature with much greater mental ability unable to make that decision for themselves?  If you asked the dog, and it was able to respond, would it say yes or no?  How is it crueler to make that offer to a human, than force it on an animal?  That\\'s my logic for death with dignity laws for people who are sick, but that also extends to mental illness.\\n\\nHere\\'s the truth, I\\'m 28 and I haven\\'t enjoyed being alive since maybe 12.  At least that\\'s the earliest I can remember wanting to die, it may have been earlier..  More than half my life has been spent wishing I didn\\'t exist.  Have there been stretches that were good?  Of course, but never good enough where I had any happiness at life in general, only momentary fleeting happiness.\\n\\nAnd here\\'s the dark truth no one wants to say, it\\'s never going to change.  Whatever it is that happy people have, I don\\'t have it.  Over time it\\'s lead to me being even more disinterested in everything.  Lack of ambition to further career, lack of confidence with women, lack of desire to improve myself in mostly any way (for some reason working out seems to be the exception though).\\n\\nDo I want a nice job making good money?  Do I want a wife?  Kids?  Do I want to find passion in some more complex hobby than TV and video games?  Of course, but the truth is, I\\'ll never have any of that.\\n\\nYou never hear about people being cured of depression.  You only hear \"manage\", \"I\\'ve learned to deal with it\", ect...  You don\\'t get better, you just manage it.  It will haunt me until the day I\\'m lucky enough to die. \\n\\nSo why haven\\'t I killed myself yet?  A few reasons.  First there\\'s the family issue.  Suicide is incredibly tough on the family of the person who kills themselves.  Obviously there is the natural fear of death, and that holds me back.  Finally, and I think this is the biggest reason, there\\'s no way to do it.  Pills don\\'t work, you just get sick and often have more problems after the attempt due to lifelong damage.  Cutting wrists?  Fuck no, I\\'m terrified of blood, and it would be extremely painful.  So obviously any other painful way is out.  Jumping?  Takes to long, and I don\\'t think I could actually force myself to jump.  Gun?  That must be easy?  Can\\'t afford one, and very hard to buy a handgun where I live.  Also, guns aren\\'t even a guarantee.  I could just blow off part of my brain and live the rest of my live with brain damage.  On top of that, failure in any way leads to a lifetime of questioning, therapy, maybe even being institutionalized.  So no realistic option for me.\\n\\nIf it was legal for people like myself to go to a doctor, have him make a cocktail that would put me to sleep for good, I\\'d be all over it.  No worry about botching due to fear/lack of knowledge/luck.  No one walking in on my body.  No questions.  Just a rational, sound of mind human making the decision to no longer be alive.\\n\\nWhy isn\\'t it legal?  Religion is a big part of it.  Most religions consider suicide to be a terrible sin, and even extremely liberal countries still have morals guided by religion.  A general human abhorrence of death is probably a major contributor.  Obviously the fear that people rushing into the decision is a valid one as well.  Also, people would rather someone live in misery quietly, than feel guilt for what they could have done.\\n\\nSo yeah, I\\'ll probably get crushed for my opinion, but that\\'s my opinion on the issue.  But in the end the happiest day of my life will be the day I finally do kill myself, and it would be wonderful if a legal means to make that happen sooner was available.', \"It does seem inhumane to force somebody to continue living with a crippling mental illness. However, there are a million ways to take your own life, and the government can't realistically stop you from doing any of them. \", \"I think the right to end your life should be legal regardless of your mental or physical condition.  I had a friend recently take his life. I knew this person for 20 years and for about 10 of those years he was depressed and had anxiety issues. He came from a  poor family and due to his mental issues he had no personal relationships or upper level connections for education or career paths.  \\n\\nHe left a note outlining his reasoning for taking his own life and I completely understood why he did it. He tried every medication and therapy technique to attempt to resolve his issues. After 10 years of getting nowhere, he honestly had no other logical decision.  He used a quick and painless method at the end. He scheduled an email to the local authorities and wore a tux so he would look decent when he was retrieved. When he did it, I had a deep sigh of relief because I knew he was in a better state. \\n\\nI think a law should be introduced which allows a person to either take their own life or allow doctors to anonymously assist the person by providing necessary medicine for a painless and quick death.  The criteria should contain items from the following:\\n\\n* Proof of a diagnosis of a mental condition from a certified professional\\n* Documents which show the person's mental condition having negative effect on the person's life. This can include a poor work history, poor financial management, bad credit score, poor grades, etc.\\n* Notarized signature of at least one immediate relative\\n* No legal issues (Active court cases, alimony, active warrants, etc)\\n* Enough money to cover any costs associated with the voluntary death and the processing afterwards or insurance which would cover it\\n\\nIf I were in a situation where my mental state would not allow me to be successful or happy after years of medication and therapy, instead of burdening my family or tax payers for medical bills, I would rather just end it and be happy.  I would rather see the tax payer money saved put into scholarships to reduce the cost of education for those who will be successful.\\n\\nYou could argue that someone in enough physical pain could not be in the right state of mind to end their life with a terminal illness.\", 'Several countries including [The Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland](_URL_2_) allow assisted suicide in these cases. It is highly controversial (as the linked article indicates) but the arguments in favor are not easily dismissable. One of the main reasons against it is the stigma of mental illness and the fact that in some situations patients are not considered able to make rational choices and may overestimate the amount of suffering they experience during the rest of their lives. However in cases where a death wish exists over a long period of time and does not simply appear during an episode of the illness, such a choice may be rational and it would even be unethical to not help the person carry out that wish.\\n\\nCurrently, the Netherlands appears to allow euthanasia for [dementia](_URL_1_) while Switzerland also allows non-nationals to use the service of local organizations such as Dignitas and Exit. This law in Switzerland has been used in [multiple cases also by foreign patients with mental illness](_URL_0_).', \"They do in the Netherlands, but it's quite new. Problem with mental illnesses is that the patient is not always mentally fit to make this decision so that's why mental issues are treated differently when it comes to euthanasia.\", 'Powerful people have an overwhelming need to decide what is or is not acceptable for other people.', \"I would assume the nature of many mental illnesses voids a person's ability to rationally judge whether they want to die or not, at least in the eyes of the law.\", \"My first guess is that they're not seen as being able to make that decision for themselves.\", 'Except for the fact that there are few mental illnesses that are untreatable. Depression, acute schizophrenia, mild psychosis, etc can all be treated with lifestyle changes and medication.\\n\\nFor those that are not treatable, they generally leave someone in a position where they are mentally incapable of making the rational choice to end their life.', 'They have to be suffering with an incurable *terminal* illness as other posters said. However there is a case in Belgium a man with incurable violent pedophilic urges is being allowed the \"right to die\". It\\'s because he\\'s suffering with the urges and has had several psychologists tell him it\\'s incurable and he can never be released into society (he\\'s in jail).\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'A person with mental illness here.\\n\\nFact of the matter with Mental Illness is that we don\\'t understand it. There is a lot of speculation as to reasoning in this thread, but it\\'s pretty far off.\\n\\nThere are forms of mental illness that cause near unlivable conditions for the sufferer. Schizophrenia is a perfect example. The only treatment available more or less numbs you, and that state itself can be pretty horrible.\\n\\nThe question was why aren\\'t people with mental illness allowed to end their lives? We don\\'t know what is medically wrong with people who suffer from these conditions. We can\\'t say \"Oh yes, Bill\\'s Schizophrenia has progressed too far.\"\\n\\nDoctors would rather attempt to treat the patient rather than allowing them to end their life.\\n\\nWhen your brain doesn\\'t work properly people don\\'t trust your judgements, and for good reason at times. Don\\'t think that people with mental illness aren\\'t given a choice on life, they just aren\\'t understood, so it makes that choice more difficult.', \"A better question might ask why the state has any right to say I can't end my life for any reason whatsoever.\", \"Here in The Netherlands it's for mental illness as well. You have to be able to prove there is suffering without prospect of relief. I guess that is harder to detemine for mental illnesses, but it is allowed.\", 'Response to your edit\\n\\n > People who make one attempt are statistically unlikely to try again, but for people who have attempted multiple times, I think there\\'s a much higher probability of additional attempts and eventually a successful attempt, so that may factor in to how likely their illness is to be \"terminal.\"\\n\\nTerminal means you are going to die. 100% no doubt in anyone\\'s mind. A high probability of dying isn\\'t the same as absolutely dying. It means you\\'re going to die because whatever is killing you can\\'t be cured or stopped. If we could stop cancer cells from killing you, euthanasia would no longer be an option. So these people don\\'t want to kill themselves, they\\'ve just accepted death is inevitable and they\\'re deciding how and when it happens. If they could not die, they would choose that route which means they\\'re in a healthy state of mind. \\n\\nWe can stop you from killing yourself, suicidal tendencies are not incurable, you\\'re not accepting an inevitable death, you\\'re actively seeking it as a solution which says you\\'re not in a healthy state of mind. \\n\\nSo I can\\'t have life anymore, I might as well die how I want vs I don\\'t want life anymore, I might as well die \\n', \"There are a few requirements to this. The patient must be TERMINALLY ill and diagnosed by two different physicians. They want to make sure the person is actually terminal, so a second opinion is needed. The application process is stepwise and over the course of a few months. The reason for this is to 1: get all of the diagnostic materials in order and processed and 2: to give the patient time to contemplate the choice they are wanting to make. Suicide isn't something you come back from very easily.  The patient MUST be decisional. This is why many mental illnesses are not qualified for PAS. The decision for suicide must be the patients and disorders such as schizophrenia or severe depression will hinder a patients decisionality. Also, the patient must be physically functional. Kevorkian (spelling?) went to prison because when an ALS patient could not push the button thimself, he pushed it for him. So the patient needs to be able to self administer the lethal drug combo. \", \"Even drawing the line at terminal cases can be complex. I reported on this issue just last week on PBS NewsHour Weekend (_URL_0_). A doctor we spoke to (who has been a longstanding opponent of assisted dying) discussed the case of his wife who well outlived an initial terminal diagnosis. But we also spoke to the state health authority in Oregon, and we learned that the majority of those who follow through with the state's DWD protocol are principally older and suffering from the end-stage of debilitating cancers and similar diseases. Most interestingly: about a third of people who've received life-ending prescriptions in Oregon actually didn't take them.\", 'Because there is no such thing as an incurable, untreatable mental illness. Additionally, the people covered under the law are going to die very painful and drawn out deaths in the immediate future. People with mental illnesses are not.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/how_my_mother_died', 'http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/03/the-dutch-debate-doctor-assisted-suicide-for-depression.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24373107'], [], ['http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10346616/Belgian-killed-by-euthanasia-after-a-botched-sex-change-operation.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/switzerland/', 'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779624/Number-mentally-ill-patients-killed-euthanasia-Holland-trebles-year-doctors-warn-assisted-suicide-control.html', 'http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557817'], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.newsweek.com/belgian-murderer-granted-assisted-suicide-request-270414'], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/right-die-movement/'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 102, "q_id": "t5g42", "title": "In regards to a black hole, what does it mean for space to be moving faster than light?", "selftext": "I'm talking about [this video](_URL_0_) at about 1:05 he explains that the event horizon is where space is moving faster than light. I don't understand this means, like the vacuum of space is (sucking? expanding?) faster than the speed of light? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/t5g42/in_regards_to_a_black_hole_what_does_it_mean_for/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c4jozyl', 'c4jti1b', 'c4jtv7e'], 'score': [6, 2, 2], 'text': [\"I'm not sure what they're referring to because I don't have sound on this computer, and that's a weird way of phrasing things. Around a rotating black hole there's a region called an ergosphere, in which it is impossible to stand still. In effect, the space around the black hole is rotating with it, and to resist that rotation and stay in the same place you'd have to move faster than the speed of light.\", 'That is not a good way to describe what is happening. The gravity of a black hole (and all other mass) curves space. At the event horizon the curvature of space is so great that any direction of travel is towards the singularity for an object of any velocity, including light (especially light, since light has no choice but to travel with the curvature of space).\\n', \"Honestly, I think this is a very poor description of the physics. I wouldn't read too much into it.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYKyt3C0oT4']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 32, "q_id": "13vqke", "title": "How is it determined which direction objects in space will spin?", "selftext": "Thought about this while watching the toilet water go down the bowl and remembered how in the southern hemisphere he goes counterclockwise. Is there anything that determines which direction things like galaxies, black holes and planets turn ?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13vqke/how_is_it_determined_which_direction_objects_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c77lb4y', 'c77lfx1'], 'score': [19, 9], 'text': ['water in your toilet does not spin the other direction in the southern hemisphere. \\n\\nThe direction your toilet flushes is 100% defined by the way it was designed. \\n\\nCoriolis force only acts appreciably on large areas or high velocities while \"on\" the surface of a spinning object (planet, merrry-go-round, etc)\\n\\neverything in the universe which has a spin got that spin based on whichever direction the angular momentum of initial conditions dictates. \\n\\nThere is no rule of rotation out in the universe. \\n\\n', 'More or less at random. Take a star, for example. It forms from a cloud of gas floating out in the galaxy, when that cloud collapses under its own gravity. But all the different parts of the cloud have slightly different velocities, so the velocities that they have relative to the center of mass will induce some spin as the cloud collapses down, and suddenly you have a spinning ball of gas. Similarly for galaxies which form in a similar way.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2190, "q_id": "6h5ug8", "title": "Is there a maximum\u200b amount of light that a black surface can absorb?", "selftext": "Can there be enough incident photons that saturate the surface? If so, what happens to the extra photons? What would we see? Would the black object get damaged?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6h5ug8/is_there_a_maximum_amount_of_light_that_a_black/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['divt7bk', 'divtfiy'], 'score': [8, 10], 'text': ['Light is energy and as something absorbs energy it will heat up unless it can dissipate that energy. The hotter it gets the more radiation (blackbody radiation) it will emit. An object absorbing everything in the visible spectrum (like [this](_URL_0_) very nearly does) will still be radiating away thermal electromagnetic infra-red radiation. If it heats up enough that radiation will shift into visible areas of the spectrum.', \"An ideal black body absorbs all photons. And at the same time radiates at a constant temperature. This means that the black body remains at thermal equilibrium, that is to say, that the rates of absorption of radiation and emission (not to be confused with reflection. The ideal black body doesn't reflect anything) of radiation from the black body are the same.\\n\\nSo there is no upper limit on the number of photons it can absorb. Because it keeps radiating them out to remain in thermal equilibrium.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.sciencealert.com/this-object-has-been-sprayed-with-the-world-s-blackest-pigment-and-it-s-freaking-us-out'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1134, "q_id": "1huu9g", "title": "when you \"sell\" stocks, who is buying them? what if nobody wants to buy them? what if nobody wants to sell them? how do they work?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1huu9g/eli5_when_you_sell_stocks_who_is_buying_them_what/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cay52mi', 'cay56lr', 'cay5797', 'cay8ras', 'caya1oi', 'cayaxw7'], 'score': [21, 66, 5, 29, 2, 2], 'text': [\"The purpose of the market is to match buyers to sellers. If fewer people want to buy, then the price goes down until people want to buy again.\\n\\nIf you think about just your transaction on its own, it seems like this wouldn't work. But because there are hundreds of transactions in each stock per hour, it works well.\", 'When you sell a stock, as in you\\'ve hit the \"sell\" button on your trading platform or called in an order, you\\'re selling it to someone who has hit the \"buy\" button on his trading platform for the same price. \\n\\nIf you sell and no one wants to buy, then your order will just not be filled at that price. Then, depending on your choice of broker or personal settings, your order will be canceled, wait to be filled at the price, or fill at the next available price(s).\\n\\nSo pretty much, when you sell a stock, you\\'re selling to some guy who happens to be buying at that moment. If no one\\'s there to buy from you, you\\'ll be left hanging. And vice versa.', 'When you sell stocks other people are buying them. If nobody wants to buy them at any price they have zero worth. If nobody wants to sell them at any price they have infinite worth.\\n\\nIf nobody wants to sell at a *given rate* then the stocks are just worth more than that. If nobody wants to buy at a given rate the stocks are worth less than that.', 'It\\'s important to remember, that the \"price\" of a stock is not like the price at a store.  The \"price\" that you see reported for a given stock is actualy just a reflection of the most recent trades of that stock.  That\\'s why the price is always changing.  The ticker price is just a reflection of the actual price that things are bought and sold at.  Not the other way around (the stock is not bought and sold at the ticker price).\\n\\nSo when you sell a stock you are selling to another real person.  If you are selling a stock for $110 and no one wants to buy it, then you offer it for $109, then $108, then $107 until finally someone does buy it.  The next instant the ticker shows a drop in the price of that stock from $110 to $107.\\n\\nThe same could be said when you want to buy a stock.  Assume the ticker price is $107 and you decide you want to buy.  But no one is willing to sell, then you offer $108, then $109 then $110 and finally someone sells at $110.  So the ticker price is then updated with this new information. ', 'Assuming we are discussing common stocks, how selling and buying works depends on what market your is trading on. If you are trading on a larger market like the Nasdaq or the NYSE owned markets it could work two ways. The people who help run those markets are called Market Makers. Now both exchanges work a little differently and what it comes down to is whether or not those Market Makers hold their own inventory of shares or not. But in the end the purpose of the Market Maker is to maintain an orderly market. They will match orders with buyers and sellers in an actively traded security. In the case where there may not be a buyer or seller on the Nasdaq, the Market Maker will do their best to buy or sell shares from/to you from/to their own stock inventory. The only time that this is not the case is when it comes to ECN or OTCBB/Pink Sheet (Over The Counter Bulletin Board) trading. ECN means Electronic Communication Network. Many people use these for after hours trading. They are just computers that match trades peer to peer, no one is watching them typically and can only match buys and sells on the same price level. OTCBB/Pink Sheet markets are just lower level, unlisted securities that still trade peer to peer. This is what causes price differentiation and volatility on those markets.\\n\\n**TL;DR: Big brand name markets have \"Market Makers\" who make the market work, lower level markets work peer to peer.**', \"When you're ready for something beyond the ELI5 limit, I strongly recommend the book [*Dark Pools*](_URL_0_). It explains in excellent clarity (but without skimping on substance) how the stock market has changed in the last 30 years. (TLDR: It's totally different because of computers!)\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://books.google.com/books/about/Dark_Pools.html?id=geCHWBx-e9EC']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 772, "q_id": "1tsiuq", "title": "How do animals that pant regulate their blood pH to prevent themselves from passing out?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1tsiuq/how_do_animals_that_pant_regulate_their_blood_ph/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ceb9dph'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"A buffer solution is used\\n\u2022\\tA buffer solution minimises pH changes on addition of an acid or base\\n\u2022\\tBuffer solutions are important for controlling pH in blood (so that enzymes are not denatured) but they are also used in shampoos (so that eyes do not sting and skin is not damaged)\\n\u2022\\tThe pH of blood is kept in the range 7.35-7.45 \\n\u2022\\tThis is achieved by dissolved carbon dioxide acting as a buffer solution\\n\u2022\\tThe relevant equations are:\\n\\nCO2 + H2O  < -- >  H2CO3\\nH2CO3  < -- >  HCO3- + H+\\n\\n\u2022When the blood pH is too acidic, the H^+ ion concentration is too high so must be decreased. We thus breath more CO2 out and as a result, the equilibrium of the first equation shifts to the left because the CO2 concentration has decreased. This then decreases the H2CO3 concentration. The equilibrium of the second equation then shifts to the left as well to counter act the decrease in H2O3 concentration and hence the H^+ concentration decreases and the pH decreases.\\n\\n\u2022 When the pH is too high, above 7.45, the concentration of H+ must be increased to increase the acidity. Less CO2 is breathed out and hence the CO2 concentration decreases. (without boring you with the full explanation) Both equations then shift to the right and hence the H+ concentration increases.\\n\\n*[This is just A2 level understanding (United Kingdom) so I'm not sure whether it is fully accurate but it may be what you're looking for]*\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2705, "q_id": "1h6ghq", "title": "Why does the Erie Canal parallel Lake Ontario? Why not just go through Lake Ontario? (Thanks!)", "selftext": "There MUST be a good reason . . .", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1h6ghq/why_does_the_erie_canal_parallel_lake_ontario_why/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['carbap4', 'carbfar', 'carbzdt'], 'score': [9, 93, 15], 'text': ['I apologize in advance: I do not have a professional knowledge of this subject.  However, your question made me curious and I spent some time looking it up online.  Here are my conclusions.\\n\\n[_URL_1_](_URL_2_) mentions that an earlier plan *was* to link up to Lake Ontario, but the company doing so ran into problems:\\n\\n*\"The Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, chartered by the New York legislature in 1792, was the ancestor of the Erie Canal. The goal of this company was the creation of an uninterrupted water transportation route from the Hudson River to Lake Ontario by improving and linking the Mohawk River, Oneida Lake, and the Oneida River. After experiencing immense technical and financial difficulties, the company only created a one mile canal to by-pass the Little Falls of the Mohawk River. Although the company collected tolls for use of its canal, this revenue barely provided enough funds to keep its lock in working order.\"*\\n\\nA second web page, [An Economic History of the Erie Canal](_URL_0_) confirms this: \\n\\n*\"The initial thinking was to link the Great Lakes System to the Hudson River by way of a canal connecting with Lake Ontario. There was traffic on the natural rivers south of Lake Ontario which empty into the Hudson River.  The beginning of the Erie Canal project can be traced back to the creation of two Inland Lock Navigation Companies, a Western and a Northern version, as corporations in 1792. A corporation was a relatively rare form of business at that time and had to be created by special legislative act. The purpose of the Inland Lock Navigation Companies was to establish a water route connection between the Hudson River on the east and Lake Seneca and Lake Ontario on the west. The Inland Lock Navigation Company built dams and locks but was not able to build more than two miles of canal during the rest of the 1790\\'s.\"*\\n\\nDue to this costly failure, investors could well have been wary of a second plan to link up to Lake Ontario.  This second source had the most information about the planning of the canal that I could find online (in a short time).  Unfortunately, the actual decision about where to build it is never fully addressed anywhere I could find, except to note that it was based on a survey and meant to link up New York city with Lake Erie. \\n\\nI have three speculations that probably do not belong in this subreddit.  \\n\\n1) The canal was, at first, very shallow and was designed to allow horses to pull cargo.  Such barges might not have been able to deal with the deeper waters of Lake Ontario.  \\n\\n2) New York City was a major port city trading with Europe, and may have worried that shippers could bypass it by heading up the St. Lawrence river (however, the St. Lawrence Seaway was not yet built at the time).  \\n\\n3) The decision could have been a political one; cities along the railroads (and later, highways) grew, while those bypassed by them shrank or disappeared.  The Erie canal connects many cities and towns in New York State.  The history of the canal is full of proponents seeking funding from the federal and state governments, and it was finally the governor of New York who began it.  He could have been thinking about winning or rewarding voters in those towns.  ', \"In addition to the political reason of benefiting New York City and not Canada, there were good technical reasons.\\n\\nThere are also good technical reasons for going the way that they did. Going via Lake Ontario would have been much harder than going overland. Lake Ontario is at lower elevation than Lake Erie (577 ft above Sea level for Erie, 243 feet above Sea level for Ontario), and the lakes are only a few miles apart at the narrow point. There would have to be locks straight up and down that difference in elevation. To give you a sense, that's where nature put Niagara Falls.\\n\\nThe Canadians actually did build a canal to do just that -- the [Welland Canal](_URL_1_), started around the time Erie was built. It runs just 26 miles and connects the two lakes through massive locks. The original Welland Canal cost more than the entire 363-mile Erie Canal -- [$8 million](_URL_0_) compared to [$7 million](_URL_2_). And it only got you as far as Lake Ontario -- the Atlantic Ocean was still blocked by the Saint Lawrence river, which wasn't navigable without additional improvements at additional cost. The whole system wasn't finished until 1871, almost 50 years after the Erie Canal.\", \"Simple. While the canal and the lake both end at the same point in the West (Buffalo more or less) they don't START at the same place in the East. Lake Ontario connects to the the Atlantic through the [St. Lawrence Seaway](_URL_1_) which as you notice dumps out far to the north. This would add a considerable amount of travel time for ships wanting to use the seaway to access the lake. It also doesn't connect to the US anywhere before northern NY. It is however still the most important route in and out of the Great Lakes because even very large ships can make it through. \\n\\nNow if you look at a [map of the Erie Canal](_URL_0_), you will observe that it connects to the Hudson River in Albany. This is extremely important because the Hudson River connects to Long Island. New York City was, and still is, the most important trade hub on the East Coast. Prior to the Erie Canal any goods brought into NY could move north or south very easily but moving them west was a problem. The Erie Canal connects NYNY to the Great Lakes above Niagara Falls. \\n\\nThe significance of this cannot be overstated. The Erie Canal means you can go from NYNY, through the [Sault Ste. Marie Locks](_URL_2_) all the way to the tip of Lake Superior in Minnesota by water. If you really wanted to then you could sail down to New Orleans on the Mississippi River. Before the spread of railroads this was bar none the fastest way to ship goods so far across the country. And even with the trains it was more efficient to move bulk cargoes like timber and iron ore. The Erie Canal connected the East's busiest port with the entire North East. \\n\\nAs for Albany itself it is a low point in the mountains and the state capital so it was a good place to connect to the Hudson. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.applet-magic.com/eriecanal.htm', 'Canals.org', 'http://www.canals.org/researchers/Canal_Profiles/United_States/Northeast/Erie_Canal'], ['http://www.wellandcanal.com/hist.htm', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Welland_Canal', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_canal#Proposal_and_logistics'], ['http://www.eriecanal.org/maps/canal_system-1903.jpg', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grlakes_lawrence_map.png', 'http://www.exploringthenorth.com/soo/locks.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2260, "q_id": "22bzex", "title": "Why didn't Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey become English counties, with territories fully integrated with England?", "selftext": "The islands are very near England, I can't understand how they become mere dependencies.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22bzex/why_didnt_isle_of_man_jersey_and_guernsey_become/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cglplsh'], 'score': [33], 'text': [\"The reasons why they didn't become fully integrated with England were different between the Isle of Man and the channel Islands.\\n\\nThe Isle of Man had never been part of England before the Norman conquest, and it was not part of England after the Norman conquest.  It had been ruled by Norsemen or Vikings since about 850 AD.  From about 1079, Man was part of the Kingdom of Man and the Isles.  This Kingdom was split in two in 1164.  Both these Kingdoms were nominally subject to the Kings of Norway.  \\n\\nIn 1266, there was fighting between the Norwegians and the Scots and the  Norwegians ceded the islands to Scotland in return for some money.  The Manx did not really recognize this shift in overlords until 1275 when they were defeated by the Scots in the Battle of Ronaldsway.\\n\\nIn 1290, King Edward I of England seized Man, and it remained English until Robert the Bruce of Scotland took it back in 1313.\\n\\nMan was kicked back and forth between England and Scotland.  \\n\\nIn 1405, King Henry IV granted the island to the Stanley family as a feudal fief (the feudal fee was to render homage and give two falcons to the Kings of England when they were crowned - which was not a very burdensome relationship.)\\n\\nThe Stanley family governed the island until the English civil war, when they were briefly ousted  by the Parliamentary side, but the Stanleys recovered control with the restoration.\\n\\nBy the 1700s, Man had become a smuggling base.  In 1765, the British Parliament, to suppress the smuggling purchased the Stanley family rights (but not the 'National rights') pertaining to the Isle of Man.  This allowed Parliament to control foreign policy, customs duties and trade laws.\\n\\nThe laws and customs internal to Man remained largely unchanged.\\n\\nIn short, the Isle of Man, though owing fealty to the Monarchs of England since 1405 (and in various earlier periods), was never part of England (or Scotland, though it owed fealty to the Scottish Monarchs at various times). \\n\\nWhen the British Parliament gained some control over the external and trade affairs of the Island, they never incorporated it into Britain, and its internal laws and governance structures remain distinct.\\n\\nThe Channel Islands are two separate 'bailiwicks' or administrations (The Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey), each with separate laws and legislatures.  The Islands were annexed to the Duchy of Normandy in 933 AD.\\n\\nIn 1259, King Henry III surrendered his claim and title to the Duchy of Normandy, but retained the Channel Islands, which, since then have been possessions of the Crown, but not part of England.  (The Queen is often referred to as the Duke of Normandy in her role as sovereign of the Channel Islands, but this has not been formally true since the Treaty of Paris of 1259.)\\n\\nThe Channel islands have been invaded, and briefly occupied by the French and the Germans on several occasions, but have always reverted to the English Crown.\\n\\nThe Channel Islands have been possessions of the Crown of England since 1066, but have never been part of England.\\n\\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2949, "q_id": "4t9lgn", "title": "why do manufacturers make different types of screw heads?", "selftext": "[Image of some types of heads](_URL_0_)\n\nWhy there has to be these many types? Why not only one type so we dont have to use many screw drivers?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4t9lgn/eli5why_do_manufacturers_make_different_types_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d5fltw7', 'd5fm3mn', 'd5fmr7d', 'd5fprhq', 'd5fqoit', 'd5fz5aj', 'd5g0imp', 'd5g1lwa', 'd5g1qk4', 'd5g3myv', 'd5g42ja', 'd5g543v', 'd5g5eym', 'd5g6343', 'd5g7y58', 'd5g8hyy', 'd5gbd56', 'd5gbfed', 'd5gc922', 'd5gf6f0', 'd5gfl82', 'd5ginxo'], 'score': [14, 2103, 7, 88, 3, 2, 3, 2, 14, 440, 2, 14, 2, 12, 9, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9, 2, 2], 'text': [\"It's a balance between strength of the connection and cost. Screws with a flathead connection are extremely cheap to make, but the flathead connection 1) is difficult to deliver a lot of force to and 2) doesn't handle repeated insertion/removal well. The philips head connection, on the other hand, can easily delivery significantly more force and can handle repeated insertion/removal, but it costs more. When you can get away with it, you'd rather use the flathead to save money, but the philips head (or something even stronger) may be required depending on the application. \\n\\nThere's other factors as well, such as size/shape of the screw head and, as /u/SinkTube mentioned, security concerns. \", 'The format (apart from the tool standard) follows function and/or aesthetics - conic flat heads for when they need to be flush with the surface for example.\\n\\nNow, for the tool standard, they differ due to cost, application, evolution, competing standards, etc.\\n\\nThe old simple slotted head is cheap to make and good for hand turning, but when you use an electric tool, they make it dufficult to keep the driver centered, so you start needing something different.\\n\\nThe phillips type was developed with this in mind; it\\'s self-centering, but they are also more prone to get damaged if the tool slips or a lot of torque is needed. For this case, the allen is better (albeit not self centering, but good for automated robot assembly).\\n\\nBut hey, with excess torque it\\'s also possible to damage the screw head - specially with the wrong size due to the metric/imperial mess of allen tools. Let\\'s come up with an evolution - torx. No slipping, single size standard, more self-centering than allen (IMO, the best, we should only have torx). But that\\'s more expensive to make than the old single slot, I guess, and relatively \"new\".\\n\\nThen there are the ones specifically made to avoid tinkering (require special, not easily available tools), and the opposite: ones made so you can use either a phillips or a standard slot screwdriver (I suppose for stuff designed to be self assembled by the average consumer who doesn\\'t have dozens of screwdrivers).', '[This search](_URL_0_) answers your question.', \"Remember that items like screw head formats are a product of hundreds of years of evolution, with each new generation/system improving on the previous standards and having issues of their own...\\n\\nFlat headed screws were simple and basic, but annoying to centre.\\nPhilips used modern/improved production techniques to make a more easily driven screw (albeit at the expense of being more easily stripped)\\nHex head made a system that allowed for a more positive connection, but had more reliance on correct sized drivers (which gives issues and potential problems when you also add a mix of metric and imperial)\\nTorx and Robertson introduced more upgrades and simpler sizing, but are currently more of a niche product and typically more expensive...\\n\\nYou also get the additional collection of less common systems designed as tamper proof or for specific uses like tri-wing screws or security bits.\\n\\nThe biggest issue is that we don't instantly switch standards - we have old products requiring old standards, different systems will be more suitable in different products and even when there are clear benefits, big companies are slow to adapt thanks to costs, backward compatibilities and a whole myriad of other reasons, so we end up stuck with a myriad of competing and incompatible systems.\\n\\nWhile it would be lovely to come to a planet wide agreement to use torx, somehow I can't see us getting rid of the whole array of screwdrivers anytime soon...\", 'There are so many different head designs because of the huge number of applications in machinery like automobiles, aircraft, etc.  The head type is going to be dependent on the characteristics of the joint you are trying to assemble with the installation of the screw.  You can torque socket head cap screws more than a Phillips head screw which will result in more tensile preload in the joint.', \"I csn semi-answer.\\n\\nI work in automotive manufacturing, and we use weird screws for any exposed screws\\n.... it's to save people from themselves.\\n\\nYou need a semi-hard to find screwdriver head to remove them.... it's to prevent anyone besides proper mechanics from taking their car apart. Also on a warranty front, a customer could damage their automotive part and then claim the warranty for repairs. They could claim the screw was improperly assembled in the plant. \", \"And why do they put flat head screws on socket covers?  One slip and you're done\", 'Lots of reasons.\\n\\nFlatheads generally need to keep the torque low. Fine for little plastic pieces, but bad for anything that\\'s gonna need to be tightened down hard, you know, stuff that would take a beating, like cars, bikes, etc. But they\\'re simple to use, difficult to strip, and cheap to make.\\n\\nPhillips tend to run into the same issue with *higher* torques. But generally are a lot better than flatheads. But they\\'re easier to strip, slightly more costly to make, but still simple to use.\\n\\nHex/Alan can withstand a lot of torque, pretty useful for your rough and tumble applications. But will get stripped real easily if you use the wrong bits, generally slightly more costly to make, and also use the least common type of bit.\\n\\nAnything Else: Security reasons. They\\'re frequently called \"security screws\" this has the potential upside of no one being able to undo it and fuck with your stuff. It has the down side of you can\\'t fuck with your own stuff, and who is gonna fuck with something rather than just steal it in that sort of situation anyway? To be fair, sometimes the security bit is included in the packaging. However, some companies use these *cough cough* APPLE *cough cough* so that home repairs or upgrades are impossible and you have to take them to a licensed repairs shop to actually work on it. ', \"Honestly it's all preference of the engineer who designs it. I'm a mech engineer who makes control panels that are commonly serviced by clueless service techs. So any fastener that is going on something like plastic has to be Philips otherwise it will be over tightened and crack the plastic. I mostly design sheet metal structures so I use machine bolts (hex heads) for just about everything. But thats only because I used to be an auto tech so anything I design has to have machine bolts, because that's my preference. Yea you could also use torx or allen keys for high torque application but it's not efficient to have your service tech switching tools so often, and they are less likely to have them on hand. \\n\\nThat's why I love Japanese vehicles. Everything is a 10mm. Have you ever worked on a Harley? That's why I design fasteners as consistently and conveniently as possible. \", ' > Why there has to be these many types?\\n\\nLots of reasons. For example, I believe Phillips head was created to solve the problem of your driver slipping out of a slot head screw. Phillips head is the most common, probably just from being grandfathered in as much as anything, but there\\'s a more modern drive geometry called [Torx](_URL_1_) (or generically \"hexalobular\"). \\n\\nOne of the big advantages of Torx drives comes from a design feature of the Phillips head drive. Phillips head screws were designed so that your driver bit will slip out of the screw when you apply too much torque in order to prevent over-torquing your screws. This was a great feature at the time, but in the modern era of torque-controlled electric screwdrivers, it\\'s a pain in the ass more than anything else. Torx-style screws were designed to prevent your driver from slipping out with too much torque, and also to allow more efficient torque-transmission in general.\\n\\nAnother type of screw that intentionally causes your screwdriver to slip is the [one way screw](_URL_2_). This geometry allows you to tighten the screw without difficulty, but your screwdriver will slip right out if you try to loosen it.  \\n\\nMost other drive types are primarily to prevent people from tampering with things. For example, I work for a company that makes traffic products that go out on the street, and we use a security screw called [pinned torx](_URL_0_) (which are just torx but with a pin in the center to prevent people from using a regular torx driver) to prevent some punk-ass kid with a screwdriver from taking our stuff apart. There are all kinds of weird drive types out there, but for the most part their purpose is to prevent tampering. \\n\\nMy only other observation is about the screw in the OP\\'s picture with the embossed \"+\" and \"-\". I\\'m guessing this attaches to something like a potentiometer--i.e. an electrical resistor whose resistance changes when you turn a knob. Potentiometers are often used for things like volume knobs, so the \"+\" and \"-\" tell you which direction to turn to make things louder or quieter. The point on one side gives you a reference so you can tell which positions of the screw give maximum and minimum volume. \\n\\n > Why not only one type so we dont have to use many screw drivers?\\n\\nEven if there were only one drive type, there would still need to be different *sizes* of screwdriver due to the need for different sizes of screw. For the most part, you can get away with using whatever screwdriver is lying around for a Phillips head screw, but using the wrong size will make you more likely to strip out the head. In some contexts this doesn\\'t matter too much, but there are a lot of situations where it does. Also, other drive types (e.g. torx) are quite a bit more sensitive to using the wrong driver size. \\n\\n**EDIT:** Just a couple more, I promise... Two more notable ones are an inset hexagon screwhead and an embossed hexagon (or embossed square--both are in OP\\'s picture). The inset hexagon allows you to drive with an Allen wrench, and the embossed hexagon/square allow you to use a socket wrench/ratchet, both of which give you a much larger lever arm than a screwdriver would. This means in theory they can drive more torque than a regular screwdriver--the issue is a little more subtle than this due to the rather inefficient way that a hex driver transmits force, but for socket and Allen wrenches the answer is to make your lever arm long enough to offset the inefficiency.', 'I\\'ve worked in a factory with a lot of automation and injection molding machines and 90% of all the screws are socket heads or \"Umbrako\" as we normally called them. They are versatile because there are various wrenches designs that you can choose depending of the work you are doing.  \\n\\nEven the molds that I worked with, only had socket heads, but in that case you have to choose the best quality screws, otherwise if you damage the screw head (like when using a pneumatic screwdriver), then it\\'s a pain in the ass to remove them.', 'There are a few reasons.\\n\\nFirst, innovation.  For most purposes, the Phillips screw (+) is an improvement on the slotted screw, because the Phillips will stay centered on its own.  Robertson (square), Torx (star) or Allen (hexagon) screws are all improvements over Phillips for most purposes, because they are less likely to slip, but these each came from different sources who probably didn\\'t consult each other and each had different ideas on how to solve this problem.\\n\\nSecond, \"security\".  A screw head might have an rare or modified form to it that is hard to work with unless you have the right special screwdriver.  There is, for instance, a modified Torx screw that has bump in the middle that keeps a regular Torx bit from being able to fit in there far enough to turn the screw.  For the same reason, there are things like Apple\\'s infamous \"pentalobe\" screws, which look like a flower.\\n\\nThird, purpose.  In some applications, it may be okay for a screw head to sit up on the surface of the thing it is screwed into, in others you might want it to sink partway into the surface, or all the way, or even below the surface in order for you to be able to put a cap on top of it to give it whatever look the designer thinks is appropriate.\\n\\nEdit: Some of the screws in your photo are actually designed to be driven by more than one kind of screwdriver, as well.  Notably, the second and third in the top row can be driven by a Phillips or by a coin, and the middle two in the bottom row can be driven by a flathead, or a nut driver, or a wrench, or in the one more to the right, a Phillips.', \"To add to the answers already posted, the type of screw head that is best for the job depends on a few factors. Type of material (wood, metal, plastic, composite, etc...) is a big consideration. If you want the screw to sit flush, but you're not going to fill the hole, you'd want something like a square head or Torx bit. [This illustration shows the benefits of Torx screws](_URL_0_). \\n\\nWhen I worked construction, we would use size M 25 screw heads to fasten deck boards to the floor joyce that underneath the boards. We used a really nice, very hard type of wood called Balau. Torx screws were chosen because they can handle an immense amount of torque without stripping. Moreover, the Torx design allows the screw head to be very small in diameter compared to a Phillips screw of the same length (about 3 inches). The Phillips screw head would have to be much larger diameter to handle the amount of torque necessary to drive the screw down flush with the wood. You would also have to countersink the hole before drilling the Phillips screw since the screw head would be a cone, and the base of the cone is the circumference of your screw head. On a deck surface, you don't want any screws poking their heads up, and Torx screws were the best choice in our case. My favorite decks are made with hidden fasteners. Those are a bitch to construct, but they look so great when complete.\\n\\nPhillips screws are very common and inexpensive conspired to their newer, sexier screw-head counterparts. They are best for all-around applications like drywall, where you're using a lot of screws, but the screw heads won't be visible. \\n\\nSo for me, the biggest considerations when choosing a screw head are type of materials, location, and cost. \", 'Relevant [xkcd](_URL_0_)\\n\\nBut jokes aside, different screws are less/more prone to stripping at different levels of torque (say, torx vs philips), do/do not self-center (flathead vs allen), and also offer security due to irregular shape (all of the apple ones or security torx).', \"I sell fasteners for (mostly) old Euro car restorations, so can help with the answer...\\n\\nWhen you need a screw in most industries, it needs to be the same screw as the one that was broken/lost....\\n\\nA lot of times, machines and equipment have spec sheets that call out for (example) a slotted.counter sunk screw. You could easily use a phillips drive, counter sunk, or robinson, or pozi drive, or hex drive etc..but in these instances, the person sourcing the fasteners MUST stick to what was required.\\n\\nAnother example is the classic auto industry. People want what was time period correct.\\n\\nTo summarize - We didn't always have 15 different types. The slotted head, preceded the phillips, and the phillips the torx, and so on...\\n\\nIt only appears that we now how this huge choice as fastener suppliers still make the old styles as there is still a demand for the above reasons (and many more).\\n\\nNow...go find me a pentalobe drive cheesehead nickel over brass screw for my 19th century telescope...!!!\", 'This is more of a history lesson, but the real question should be \"Why do manufacturers STILL make many different screw heads?\"\\n\\n\\nUnfortunately, in this modern world, there are still idiotic countries, like the cocky (ignorant) assholes in America, my home country, and very nostalgic ones in other countries, and legacy industries that figure, \"if it ain\\'t broke, don\\'t fix it.\"\\n\\nIn America, we\\'ve refused to adopt the MUCH simpler, universal Metric system.  The metric system was created to standardize everything in the simplest way possible. They chose what was the most cost effective, yet functional design across the engineering spectrum.\\n\\nNearly every other design came from the legacy industry that they originated in.  Slotted screws can be easily blacksmithed, so they were first.  Then people realized they sucked to use, so put an + so they screw driver wouldn\\'t slip out.  Then they stripped, so they came out with a socket head.  Then, those stripped, so they came out with Torx.  Those are the best we have commercially available.  But, for the most strength, there\\'s always been the bolt, which needs a wrench.  \\n\\nBut, only because of America, do we have so many stupid sizes that you can\\'t remember.  They refuse to give up on the imperial system, when even the country that invented them, England, thought it was stupid in the modern age.  It just makes everything more expensive to keep going with two systems.  ', 'Some are more suitable to a task than others. In most cases, its to screw with you, like manufacturers that insist on using proprietary connectors for their electronic devices. ', 'And for that matter, why do car manufacturers use different size bolt heads on the same part of the engine?\\n\\nI mean, why do I have to swap sockets three times when removing an engine mount?', 'cause the guys selling the screw heads are selling the screw drivers too. The real question is what type of head is at the top of this conspiracy. ', \"Originally there was the flat type screw and driver which had a number of problems such as camming out which damages the screw head. A Canadian inventor, P. L. Robertson created and patented his square drive screw and driver manufacturing process that uses a cold forming double press on the screw head in 1908 that solved the camming problem as well as made the screw stay on the tip of the screw driver as well.  Additionally he gave away the screw driver as a method of boosting sales.  Henry Ford liked the design so well he offered Robertson $10,000.00 for the patent but Robertson refused to sell.  Ford then said he would insure that no Robertson screws would ever be sold in the U.S. and used his influence to make sure that happened.  The Phillips design was created to work around the camming problem but that didn't allow the screw to stay on the tip of the driver either so it was only a partial improvement. \", 'If the world was a sane place where everyone used the superior Robertson bit, everyone could live in harmony. ', \"Once upon a time all screws were flat head, flat head screws are easy to make you just cut a grove on top. Then Philips thought with a self centering design it would be easier to keep the screws in line with your screwdriver and came up with the cross head, with a magnetised head the screw stays just where needs to as you line it up with your holes. But cross heads slip easily which can quickly turn a stubborn screw into a cone head which is imposible to remove. So people came up with more durable desighns and this happened: _URL_0_ Then there are companies which deliberatly use proprietry screw heads to stop their customers from fixing their devices themselves. Such as those awful one way screws if they don't even want to fix it themselves.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://previews.123rf.com/images/lior2/lior21108/lior2110800042/10348194-Vaus-screw-head-slot-XXXL-Stock-Photo.jpg']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=different+screw&amp;sort=new&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;t=all'], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/SG4MzYP.png', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torx', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#One-way'], [], [], ['https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torx-hex-contact-angles-forces.svg#mw-jump-to-license'], ['https://xkcd.com/927/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://xkcd.com/927/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2010, "q_id": "1k5vn1", "title": "Could You Keep a Superconducting Wire Cool by Surrounding It With Thermoelectric Material?", "selftext": "Pretty much the title. I'm curious if thermoelectrics would be sufficient to keep a superconducting wire superconductive so long as it was cooled to a sufficiently low temperature beforehand.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1k5vn1/could_you_keep_a_superconducting_wire_cool_by/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbloum7', 'cbm95j1'], 'score': [2, 2], 'text': ['This would only be possible if the thermoelectric generator was 100% efficient. Not only is this physically impossible, modern TGs are only around 8% efficient at best.  It would be better than nothing at all, though.  ', 'No.  No thermoelectric material can be 100% efficient at converting heat to electricity.  So some ambient heat would get through the thermoelectric material and warm the superconductor.  If the ambient temperature was above the critical temperature for the superconductor, then Tcrit would eventually be reached. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 527, "q_id": "1arhed", "title": "why is there any controversy involving drones?", "selftext": "They use less fuel than normal planes and keep our pilots out of danger. Why is a bomb dropped by a drone any worse? Why is a terrorist getting killed by a bomb a problem to anyone?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1arhed/eli5why_is_there_any_controversy_involving_drones/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c902g8k', 'c904hqk', 'c905atv', 'c9081r6', 'c909m1g'], 'score': [12, 11, 9, 4, 4], 'text': ['The controversy over the drones is not really about the drones themselves. The controversy is that Obama used a drone to kill a US citizen. US citizens should be provided due process (a trial, the opportunity to offer a defense, etc.). This drone strike violates that principle, even in the most narrow readings of the law.', 'It comes down to questions of whether they are, or will be, used ethically.  \\n\\nMilitary drones are often used in counter-insurgency/counter-terror operations, where the enemy is out of uniform and surrounded by non-combatants.  People claim that drones have injured or killed civilians during these missions.  Collateral damage is always bad press, not to mention that these are essentially assassination missions.\\n\\nDomestic use of drones for surveillance and pursuit is controversial as well, which seems to be mostly based on a lack of trust in police using them ethically.  There is also the possibility of using them to expose and persecute people for \"morality\" crimes, such as homosexuality or failure to uphold religious mandates.\\n\\ntldr; People are pissed about drones because they don\\'t trust the people using them.', \"A few other things that haven't been mentioned:\\n\\n1. Surveillance. Unweaponized drones can engage in espionage, and that's difficult territory to work out (especially in the framework of Geneva).\\n\\n2. Some guy can drop his kids off at school, drive to work, press a button that kills a person on the other side of the world, and come home for dinner. It skews the psychological balance of warfare to an arguably unfair degree.\\n\\n3. [Double tapping](_URL_0_) and other tactics that are at best legally and ethically questionable.\", 'Because in general international law and human custom goes like this \\n1) Killing people you\\'re at war with is okay \\n2) killing people you\\'re not at war with is not okay\\n3) sending your army into someone else\\'s country is an act of war\\n4) using a neutral third party as a battlefield in a war your fighting with somebody else is very much not okay\\n\\nSo, are we at war or not, and who with? We declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq, so nobody much minds if we try and kill people there. We also say we\\'re in a \"war on terror.\" What the fuck that means, nobody really knows. You can\\'t be at war with an idea. You can be at war with a defined group of people, and Congress also passed a bill after September 11th saying that the president could take any steps necessary to kill or capture the people behind the September 11th attack, or in other words, Al Qaeda. We have, for the most part. Is Congress\\' declaration still good to let us go around killing whoever the fuck we want as long as somebody, somewhere, is still using the name \"Al Qaeda\"? Nobody knows. \\n\\nIf you take the view that it is not --- that is, the view that has held for pretty much all of civilization, which is that just going around and killing anyone who might pose a threat to you someday is fucked up and should be illegal --- then drone attacks are a problem. \\n\\nAs a general rule, crossing other country\\'s borders with your military and killing people is regarded as an act of war. The reason we\\'re getting away with it is that we have this vague \"war on terror\" fig leaf and also we\\'re the richest country in the world and have the biggest military, so no matter how much other countries don\\'t like it, there\\'s really very little they can do to stop it.  \\n\\n2, terrorists aren\\'t the only casualties of drone attacks. Civilians are often killed. Sure, you might argue that they\\'re often somehow connected to the terrorist --- their wives and children and cousins, people sheltering them. Sometimes though, it\\'s just someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or the intelligence was wrong in the first place. If we\\'re at war, then this is maybe legal. If we\\'re not, this is murder. \\n\\n', \"The issue isn't necessarily drones themselves, but extra-judicial killings without oversight or even disclosing the legal framework behind the killings. Flying killer robots just puts a face on the issue.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.policymic.com/articles/21070/predator-drone-double-taps-highlight-possible-war-crimes-by-obama'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2307, "q_id": "335ota", "title": "why don't the parts of our skin that are always touching, like our toes, get contact sores?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/335ota/eli5_why_dont_the_parts_of_our_skin_that_are/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqhrmow', 'cqhrorr', 'cqhsg03', 'cqhswky', 'cqhvxmh', 'cqhymle', 'cqhztau', 'cqi00fg', 'cqi021l', 'cqi0rdf', 'cqi1l5c', 'cqi1wpc', 'cqi22wv', 'cqi3evz', 'cqi4dzf', 'cqi6296', 'cqi68ja', 'cqi7f2r', 'cqiceht', 'cqicruy', 'cqidlnt'], 'score': [117, 18, 235, 1496, 664, 7, 6, 4, 11, 6, 3, 2, 4, 3, 20, 2, 3, 6, 2, 2, 4], 'text': [\"They aren't in constant contact unless you've bound them together, your toes move quite a bit even inside shoes and socks\", 'Chafing can and does happen to people. \\n\\nAlso skin in those areas usually heals quickly or is smother in order to reduce friction.\\n\\n', 'What about the inside of our butt cracks?', 'Go hiking for several miles. Blisters and hotspots are a common injury. Many native people who walk barefoot, and long distance walkers develop a thick layer of hard dead skin on their feet to protect themselves.', \"Simply being in contact isn't enough to cause a pressure sore. The force of the pressure on the skin is a much larger factor in determining whether or not a sore develops.\\n\\nPressure sores typically form over bony prominences in your body (think of your knuckles or tailbone) and are caused by prolonged periods of pressure on the skin. For example, the act of sitting places you at risk of developing a pressure sore on your tush due to the weight of your upper body pressing down on the skin and reducing the blood flow to the skin and tissue, leading to tissue damage or death (depending on the weight and the length of time). To increase the likelihood of developing a sore, you could increase the weight (force) pressing down, increase the time, or decrease the surface area supporting the weight.\\n\\nIf you were to press your toes together tightly for a great length of time, then they might be a small risk of developing a pressure sore, but even then the amount of force (in this case, weight) that would be pressing on the skin is probably unlikely to do any damage.\", \"The real question is why our dicks don't get blisters. \", 'The skin in that area is constantly being replenished via epitheliazation. Also when you are younger and healthy the skin is held together with strong connective tissue. Elderly people are a different story, their skin is usually thinner and does not have as much water as a younger person. This causes the skin to replenish slower, and can become injured simply by putting pressure on the area.', 'Like a callus or blister?  Jesus christ', \"I'm in decent shape but I get rashes in my pits from everything even just driving whether I wear deodorant or not like wtf\", 'In the past before we wore shoes our toes were splayed out. Not all scrunched together like they are now. \\n\\nThis actually really bothers me and I hate how my toes look all molded together. ', \"They are making contact but do not have pressure forcing them together. If they do, it's generally not for an incredibly long time. In order to get a contact sore similar to a bed sore, you'd need a ton of pressure smushing them together for an extended period of time (like days to weeks) and that would cut off the blood supply to the skin in that area and cause the skin die from the lack of oxygen that is found in the blood and it would break down, which would create a sore. There's also not much of them rubbing against each other unless you run a lot or are regularly on your feet for hours in shoes that don't fit correctly.\", \"Yeah I get that by walking in heels.. :(  doesn't look very feminine when I take my shoes off haha\", 'Wait... im the only one who gets fucked up between the toes after a lot of walking?', 'I would like to know why is it when I go to the beach and play in the sand and water, I get chaffed around my scrotum and thighs? It hurts really bad, is it from the sand, salt and grit? Or is it something different?', 'All skin is not created equally!\\n\\nSkin on areas of high contact (soles, palms, digits) is called thick skin and it is a bit different than skin elsewhere on our body.\\n\\nAll thick skin is \"keratinized\\' which means that in addition to the normal other skin layers, it has an a large outermost layer of dead skin cells.  \\n\\nThese cells all hooked together during their growth, then died and remain as the outermost layer of skin.  They\\'re literally dead so they have no blood supply and no nerve supply and thus are pretty resistant to pain and prevent bleeding from occurring when there is friction on their surfaces.', 'I sometimes get them between my pinky toe and the one next it, and the one next it and its mate as well.  This most often results from not changing shoes/socks after sweating a lot or getting feet wet.  But sometimes it is just from having to wear my dress shoes several days in a row, which don\\'t breath as well as sneakers that I usually wear.  I actually make a habit of trying to pull my pinky toes away to make a \"gap\" just because they are so buried into the next to normally.', \"Maybe not contact sores, but the parts that are always touching are at risk for fungal infections!! (Molds/yeasts love sweaty creases and confined areas!)\\n\\nLike Athlete's Foot, Candida infection in the fat creases especially in diabetics, jock itch (Tinea cruris), etc... \", 'I just looked at my foot to see if my toes are touching each other!!', \"You obviously don't work very hard/get very physical.\", 'What about buttcheeks?', 'There are 5 possible layers of the epidermis- most outer layer of the skin. These are the stratum corneum, lucidum, granulosum, spinosum and basale. The fourth layer (stratum lucidum) is only found on the soles of your feet and the palms of your hands, it is composed of dead kerinocytes and allows for the extra contact\\n-med student']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2250, "q_id": "3v5gbl", "title": "why is gerrymandering, a seemingly blatant grab for votes, not a bigger deal or not a public concern?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v5gbl/eli5_why_is_gerrymandering_a_seemingly_blatant/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxkfn56', 'cxkfrfq', 'cxkfw2a', 'cxkg147', 'cxki3wx', 'cxkjw6p', 'cxkkxg7', 'cxkmv4k', 'cxknsa5', 'cxko2dz', 'cxko3zo', 'cxkoqu7', 'cxkppt6', 'cxkqa9n', 'cxksbut', 'cxkt5e8', 'cxktppo', 'cxktuvs'], 'score': [4, 162, 2, 416, 7, 28, 6, 3, 9, 6, 6, 49, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3], 'text': [\"In a word, apathy.\\n\\nFar too many people never learn how our government operates. Many of those that do, don't care enough to be vocal enough to enact change. In addition to this, though, is that our districts have all grown so large that you need to assemble a seemingly impossibly large group just to be heard in the first place. The large hurdle makes many just not want to try, which brings us back to apathy.\", ' >  Why is it allowed?\\n\\nFor every time that \"they\" gerrymander in a way that hurts your party, your party gerrymanders in a way that helps your party.  Both sides do it for the \"right\" reason, at least as far as their supporters are concerned.\\n\\nRealistically, though, it\\'s hard to police or prevent \"gerrymandering\".  One guy\\'s gerrymandering is another guy\\'s proper representation.  The best way to combat gerrymandering would be to make voting districts set and scientific - but people would argue(correctly) that such a thing doesn\\'t actually reflect the needs of the people.  ', ' >  It seems like gerrymandering could lead to crazy corruption, and it clearly misrepresents the political affiliation of the people. Why is it allowed? Is it not obviously bad? Or is there some major thing which makes it good, something I\\'m overlooking? If it IS bad, can it be changed?\\n\\nIt *does* lead to crazy corruption and it *does* clearly misrepresent the people.\\n\\nAs far as changing it or outlawing it, the question becomes how.\\n\\nFirstly, to regulate or outlaw something, you need to enact legislation. Who\\'s going to enact that legislation? The party currently benefiting it? Good luck! The party who aren\\'t benefiting it? They don\\'t have a majority.\\n\\nSecond, there aren\\'t really any clear and simple answers for fixing it. We acknowledge that the government rightly reserves the ability to draw the political subdivisions for the purposes of representation, but the only numbers that matter are population. How could you define requirements for demographic make-up of any political unit? And that\\'s not to say that any solution wouldn\\'t be subject to different kinds of abuse that are worse.\\n\\nThird, while there are [\"obvious\" cases of gerrymandering](_URL_0_) it\\'s the grey areas that are going to be the problem. Just because a district doesn\\'t *look* gerrymandered doesn\\'t mean it isn\\'t and the opposite is just as true. So each time there is an attempt to redraw district lines, there will be heated battles among parties about which lines are gerrymandered or not.\\n\\nIn short: it\\'s a problem, most people recognize it as bad, there is little incentive for the government to change it, and even if there was there really isn\\'t a clear solution.', 'Ok, lets take your questions one at a time:\\n\\nIt\\'s not expressly allowed, but many states have \"built it in\" or actually codified it into their laws. Illinois for example is blatantly gerrymandered, but there is nothing we can do about it, because the law makers made a law that says they get to do it, which especially in Illinois\\' case, leads to the crazy corruption you correctly assumed would accompany the practice. \\n\\nIt\\'s not obviously bad from the view point of the law makers, who do it to ensure an easier path to office for members of their party. If the repubs here drew the map, it would look vastly different than how it is now, and if a computer drew the map, it would be a 3rd version. The ensuring that your political party optimizes the possible number of votes in their district is the good of it, for them. There is no good for the people, you are overlooking, when it comes to gerrymandering. \\n\\nCan it be changed? That is a state by state question. I believe there are only a handful of states that currently draw their districts by \"impartial\" computer programing. And I say that, because the program is only as fair as the math used to create it, and it keeps evolving. \\n\\n[I submitted this post](_URL_0_) about fixing the map in Illinois, specifically, with a computer program. The links within can show you any state you want, how it is versus how the computer would do it, and you can see for yourself - given what the law makers think is fair, versus what raw numbers think is fair. \\n\\nHope this helped. \\n\\n\\nEDIT: Thank you /u/NotABoxSocial! I will pass along the kindness. \\n', \"It's probably not a bigger deal because for many decades now, both of the major parties have engaged in it.  Currently, the Republicans probably benefit from it more than Democrats but that wasn't always the case.  Plus, the Supreme Court has upheld gerrymandering.  Or rather it has defined permissive gerrymandering and unconstitutional gerrymandering.  \", 'It is a big deal, but we all convinced that only the *other* side is guilty of gerrymandering. ', \"I want to jump in and try to answer why its not necessarily bad. \\n\\nThere are two types of gerrymandering, diluting and packing. In general the former is worse than the later. However, most gerrymandered districts in VA are the result of packing. Virginia has a diverse population, but its spread out. If you were to just draw squares you might find yourself without proper representation. So for example, Virginia created the [3rd district](_URL_1_) to be a minority majority district. This groups all the major black population centers together so they have their own representation. If you just drew squares they might have zero representation, which wouldn't be fair. Now they have someone to represent their interests where they might not have otherwise, I tend to see this as a good thing.\\n\\nThe opposite of this, would be Maryland's [6th district](_URL_1_). This is comprised of the very rural panhandle and the very densely populated suburban Montgomery country. This created controversy as it was seen as an obvious attempt to dilute the wants of the rural (read: more likely to be republican) parts of the state. The 6th district used to look like [this](_URL_0_), representing the majority of those rural, though not Eastern Shore interests. \\n\\nLong run gerrymandering can have some positive outcomes, however it can and is often used to dilute dissension. Which would be a negative.  \", 'Best answer is going to come from [CGP Grey](_URL_0_). Popular video explains why gerrymandering exists and some solutions for it. Short and extertaining, but be warned, you may end up spending a lot of your day watching the rest of his videos. They are really good! ', 'Because of population shifts, the boundaries of voting districts are adjusted periodically using census data.  There isn\\'t really a way to do it automatically, so human intervention is required.\\n\\nUsually, it\\'s done by whatever people are currently elected.  So, the charge is always that the \"party in power\" unfairly draws lines to benefit themselves.\\n\\nIt\\'s subjective as to when it\\'s \"gerrymandering\" and when it\\'s fair and balanced.   And it\\'s not as widespread as people think, since most areas of the country usually lean heavily to one side or the other anyway.\\n\\nThat said, there are places now where voters are working to switch to a neutral third party committe to draw these lines in areas where gerrymandering was particularly obvious.  Can\\'t remember where it was/is, but Google probably remembers.\\n\\nCheers :)', \"It's not so much that it is allowed as that it is impossible to eliminate bias in redistricting- obvious gerrymandering is bad, of course, but the question is how do you draw the line between dividing communities that oppose you in to larger districts of your supporters vs. dividing a large community in to districts based on population density(which may naturally split up communities) vs. dividing up based on racial groups in an attempt to preserve communities at the expense of carving cities to pieces where they might have had more in common as a city community than as a racial community.\", 'One thing I don\\'t see mentioned here is that even when Gerrymandering is done for the advantage of one party, politicians from the other party still benefit. (Even if their party doesn\\'t).\\n\\nThe basic \"packing and cracking\" method produces districts that are very safe for politicians on both sides. Sure the minority party can\\'t accomplish anything, but if they keep getting elected without much effort... Many politicians don\\'t care.', \"It can and does lead to damage to democracy - but can also help. Think about it this way - let's say that there's a group of 100 pieces of fruit. There are 80 apples and 20 peaches. They're going to elect 10 pieces of fruit to represent them.\\n\\nIf you split them into 10 even groups to vote - you'll have 8 apples and 2 peaches in each group. If they all vote for their own type the representatives will all be apples.\\n\\nIf you split them up into 8 groups of 10 apples and 2 groups of 10 peaches - and again all vote for their own type - then you'll have 8 apples and 2 peaches as representatives - which is actually proportionate.\\n\\nSo, while gerrymandering can be a negative - it can also be used to make government more representative. It's a complicated issue.\\n\\nHere's a picture representing the same thing:\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nOf course, applying this to the real world and actual geographic areas is super complicated and difficult.\", \" >  it clearly misrepresents the political affiliation of the people.\\n\\nWhy do you think so? Think of the alternatives.\\n\\nSuppose 49% of the people support one party and 51% support the other. How would you divide the districts?\\n\\nIf you do it in a totally homogeneous way, the majority party will elect 100% of the representatives, because they will get 51% of the vote in every district. Would you say it's fair? How do you propose to do it otherwise?\\n\", 'For those like me who needed a crash course on gerrymandering, [this video](_URL_0_) by CGP Grey helped a ton.', \"Many gerrymandered districts are expressly drawn that way to give under represented minorities a voice and something approaching proportional representation. It's a necessity in a diverse country. \\n\\nIf you have 10 districts in your state, and the population is split 70/30, it is better for the minority to have 3 representatives due to gerrymandering than i it is for them to have 0 because you just drew a bunch of compact squares. Now even if the state government isn't adequately representing them, at least their direct representative (and perhaps other local government) does. \", \"I've always found it weird. We have a similar system for electing parliamentarians in Canada (like all Westminister Countries) and our ridings (districts in US-speak) are basically rectangles and squares. I think the weird freakin' geometry the US sees is just ridiculous. Obviously people are cheating. We use non-partisan panels made up of professional bureaucrats to draw the ridings. They are completely reasonable. Politicians are kept away from this sort of thing. Similarly, the whole supreme court judge politicization in the states is ridiculous. You hand it off to non-political bodies to make the recommendations. You don't elect judges. This is how you get judges who follow the law, constitution and conscience and not freakin' popular opinion. The US system is stupid. It used to surprise me that parliamentary elections in China were more competitive than US elections-and there is only one party to vote for there...but they get bigger turnover of parliamentarians than the US gets of congressmen. That is insane. Gerrymandering causes the creation of these ridiculous safe seats, and all it is doing is getting crazier and crazier extremists into congress. It is nuts. Democracy is basically dead in the US, because no matter what, almost no congressmen will be defeated in an election.\", \"It's allowed because it cements strongholds of both parties so neither raises a stink about it until it disproportionally favors one of them.  \", 'Politics is nothing but vote grabbing.\\n\\nFree Healthcare? Vote grabbing. \\n\\nBorder wall? Vote grabbing. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/crimes-against-geography.png&amp;w=1484'], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/illinois/comments/3m5xbb/computer_programmer_designed_algorithm_to_end/'], [], [], ['https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/United_States_House_of_Representatives%2C_Maryland_District_6_map.png', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia%27s_3rd_congressional_district'], ['https://youtu.be/Mky11UJb9AY'], [], [], [], ['https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/03/gerry.png&amp;w=1484'], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY'], [], [], [], []]"}], "non_defining_instances": [{"Unnamed: 0": 2524, "q_id": "9uqu8t", "title": "What is the role sugar plays in our bodies in relation to cancer?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9uqu8t/what_is_the_role_sugar_plays_in_our_bodies_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e98793u'], 'score': [2], 'text': ['Grad student going over a neoplasia unit in my pathology class right now. For context, there are several characteristics of tumors that allow them to grow uncontrollably. They sustain proliferation signaling which means the body recognizes that they\u2019re growing and need more nutrients to sustain their growth. That being said, our bodies have growth suppressors that prevent tumors from forming; cancer cells evade those and continue to grow. T-cells, part of our immune response, target cancer cells for destruction \u2014 cancer cells avoid t-cells and resist cell death. A very important component to tumor cells is their promotion of angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is the production of new blood vessels. Tumors promote angiogenesis so they can have a rich, constant supply of nutrients so they can grow and grow and grow.\\n\\n\\nThere are two different types of tumors: benign and malignant. Benign tumors grow slowly and do not outgrow their blood supply. Malignant rumors, however, grow rapidly and will outgrow their blood supply so the center of the tumor becomes necrotic. Keep in mind that all the while the tumor is growing larger. \\n\\n\\n\\nNow, the sugar. While there are different kinds of sugar (sucrose, fructose, lactose, etc.) glucose is the most easily broken down sugar by our body for energy. Carbohydrates are the chief source of glucose and our body efficiently shuttles the molecules wherever it is needed which, in this case, includes the tumor. The tumor has factors that avoid destruction, sustain is growth, and signal to the body that it \u201cneeds more nutrients\u201d. These factors, along with the creation of new blood vessels specifically for the tumor, equal a mass of cells that grow uncontrollably and are constantly supplied with the nutrients it needs to grow.\\n\\n\\n\\nIn short, sugar is energy and tumors need energy to continue growing. They have factors that promote their own growth and prevent the body from destroying them. \\n\\n\\n\\nSource: Robbins basic pathology (10th edition) but Kumar, Abbas, Aster (2017) ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2559, "q_id": "412zym", "title": "why do aboriginal australians have it worse of than other natives people in developed countries?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/412zym/eli5why_do_aboriginal_australians_have_it_worse/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cyz4y8j', 'cyz56o8', 'cyz9j9k', 'cyz9km8', 'cyzb3fi', 'cyzb8xu', 'cyzd0gh', 'cyzd4p3', 'cyzetas', 'cyzf9ig', 'cyzifzk', 'cyzjunl'], 'score': [21, 57, 125, 4, 3, 10, 6, 18, 4, 2, 4, 4], 'text': ['I was going to type a really long reply to this...covering a lot of the historical abuses suffered by the Aboriginal people of Australia but I honestly think it\\'s because those in charge don\\'t give a shit.\\n\\nI live in Australia but I\\'m English so have a different perspective on things compared to my Aussie husband and friends. They say they\\'re against the abuse of Aboriginal people but they really just turn a blind eye.\\n\\nIn the remote communities where some Aboriginal people live, there are little to no provisions for them such as medical help and education is poor.\\n\\nAussies usually come up with an explanation such as \"Well they don\\'t want to be helped\" or \"They don\\'t mind living like that...\"\\n\\nWhen in fact, all it is is that they don\\'t have access to the same shit that my children do....we live in a white, middle class community...the schools are good, there are plenty of hospitals and doctors. \\n\\nThey also seem to segregate here...I\\'ve seen medical centres specifically for Aboriginal people...in CENTRAL ADELAIDE which is a metropolitan city!\\n\\nThe locals say \"Well they have different needs...so they need their own place...\" as though there are no alcoholic white people here!\\n\\nYes, alcohol abuse is rife in Indigenous communities but that\\'s because there is generations of abuse to get over...and that doesn\\'t just happen over night.\\n\\nAs I say, I am white, English and living in a middle class suburb and I never see any Aboriginal people here. They all live in the \"poor area\" Why? Because their education is neglected\\n\\nEDIT. I\\'ve just looked it up...why Aboriginals need a separate health centre and I feel very ignorant. It\\'s because many Aboriginal people have such bad memories and fear of institutions due to their being stolen from their parents and made to live in orphanages and abused, that there had to be special environments set up where Aboriginal people could feel comfortable and happy to visit. :(\\n\\nThe abuse is very recent...in the 1970s children were still being stolen and abused by the authorities.', 'Canadian here.   Indigenous people in Canada are in the same boat.\\n\\nSome tribes opened casinos but other tribes in remote areas have it rough.\\n\\nWe make the same claims here too.\\n\\nThe new PM is working to make some headway...', \"I don't know much about the situation in other countries, but I know a reasonable amount about the situation here, although I am a white Australian so I won't pretend to understand the full situation.\\n\\n\\nThe biggest problem is that indigenous Australians aren't one people, there's something like 300 separate nations. While they obviously share common ground, each group has different wants and needs so rather than trying to solve one problem you're trying to solve hundreds. There are various indigenous spokespeople, but some people don't like them either because they're from a different tribe or because they feel they've been whitewashed. All in all, even just organising a proper meeting to discuss the injustice indigenous Australians face (with all stakeholders involved) is a hard task, let alone actually solving the problems.\\n\\n\\nIn terms of actually solving the problems, a lot of indigenous people distrust whitefella institutions like hospitals and the like. Up until 1970 the government stole indigenous people from their families to be raised by white families, foster homes and the church. Since it's so recent, a decent proportion of the current indigenous population were involved in that and understandably don't want that to happen to their kids/grandkids. On a similar note, a big problem in indigenous communities is child abuse, which is normally solved by removing the child from their abusers. Obviously after the horrors of the stolen generation this is avoided wherever possible, which means the abuse continues and can propogate through generations.\\n\\n\\nAnother big thing is that Australia is so barren that some indigenous communities are so remote that it's hard to provide support, even where it's wanted. That said, a lot (but not all) of the more remote communities are happy living the way they do and we generally let them just do their thing.\\n\\n\\nDeath in custody is a big issue too. Obviously there's cases of police brutality and the like, but there's also a high suicide rate too. Indigenous Australians have a VERY strong connection to the land and their extended family and depriving them of that by incarcerating them causes extreme mental anguish, often driving them to end their lives.\\n\\n\\nThose are just a few of the things that I could come up with off the top of my head. I don't pretend to fully understand the problem, but it's 2.30am in Australia. Hopefully someone who knows a bit more will reply in the morning.\", \"I think at the moment the problem comes from both sides. \\n \\nUp to the '70s the Australian government treated the aboriginals abhorrent. That has changed now. \\n \\nHuge amounts of money are poured into the aboriginal communities. Some laws, to right the wrongs of the past are even completely over the top. However, all this hasn't worked very well yet. There are quite a few individuals that have done great, but not the majority.\\n \\nPartly because aboriginals don't trust the white people anymore. Partly because they are indifferent and as long as they get handouts they don't give a f.\\n       \\nThere are a few aboriginals on r/Australia and they seem to know that in order to move forwards, both parties have to pick up their game. The government has to work smarter, not just throw more money at it, and the aboriginal community has to realise that they are not just victims of the past anymore but have to work towards a better future. \", 'No idea about australia, but the natives (indios) of central america got it pretty rough as well\\n', \"Government assistance to the indigenous of Australia is often literally enough have for them to not work and still have enough to eat, a house to live in, tobacco to smoke and beer to drink on the weekends (restrictions apply).\\n\\nIt's harsh to say but in small towns that's all many of them do. Alcohol and drug abuse rates are high, and work rates are low. Children are often taught to do the same.\\n\\nI'm mainly talking about the town-camp style areas, and have only the NT as my reference. I do realize that the indigenous are normal people and am not saying anything about race, merely groups and culture.\", \"Fundamentally I'd argue it is because the technological gap between them and their colonizer was the widest of any of those relationships.  In, say, the American colonies the English settlers had to at least pretend to deal with the American tribes as something like equals.  The level of English technology, on the other hand, was vastly higher in 1787 (First Fleet lands in Australia) while the level of technological sophistication (and social sophistication for that matter) among the Australian aborigines was much lower than North American Indians.  It would have been impossible, for example, for the American colonists to have treated North America as terra nullius as happened in Australia.\\n\\nEdit: and just to add a bit, this was true even within Australia.  The Tasmanian aborigine population, for example, was the least technologically advanced of all the native populations in Australia (they had lost the ability to make stone tools, for example) and were completely wiped out.\", 'Australian here, my Mother was Stolen Generation.\\n\\nShe was taken from her family at 5, put into abusive orphanages and foster homes, denied access to her biological family for decades and treated as an outcast by many. Nobody ever truly apologized for what happened to her, her story is not unique.\\n\\nIndigenous Australians are the oldest surviving culture on earth, descending from those who left Africa 75,000 years ago, when they arrived Australia was lush and full of mega fauna. Over thousands of years they changed the landscape, created hundreds of languages and over 250 separate nations. \\n\\nThe vast majority of Aborigines died as a result of white settlement due to disease, of those remaining many were massacred, put into slavery, bred out or hired to hunt other indigenous people as trackers.\\n\\nIndigenous Australians today face issues arising from the denial of education, the mental health issues and substance abuse that stem from those traumatic circumstances and the racism that paints such a horribly inaccurate depiction of many Indigenous Australians. The statistics for incarceration, substance abuse and violence in the indigenous population are shameful.\\n\\nOther countries have schemes in place to create awareness and fix the issues that were created in less accepting times. Australia has put little effort or funding into the areas it should, education and rehabilitation. In recent years they have done the opposite, they threatened to throw many communities off their land, cut funding to many schemes to help young indigenous to create a better life for themselves and closed others schemes that were beneficial but not important enough to keep according the Abbott government.\\n\\nI really love my country, but I hate how little they have done to right these wrongs, they seem to put more effort into sweeping these issues under the rug than actually creating solutions to bring back quality of life for the founders of this land.', \"One of my best friend, until recently, used to work very closely with Aboriginal communities. He's a Redditor so would be more than happy to do an AMA I'm sure. He's got some... interesting stories.\", 'there\\'s several things and it goes both ways. One is the Indigenous communities lack of education. The Australian Government WANTS indigenous Australians to go to University, get well paying jobs, good educations and improve their conditions but many Indigenous people don\\'t take these offers, instead preferring to live off Centrelink.\\n\\nSecondly, welfare is an issue. The government provides more generous welfare towards Indigenous communities which is fine, many communities are in the middle of the barren Outback and require additional assistance but there are also a significant number of Indigenous Australians who take advantage of welfare which can be seen in some of the poorer suburbs of the main cities (Melbourne, Sydney etc.) where I can see this myself, many Aboriginal people abuse substances and just bum around not doing much.\\n\\nThird, there was an insane amount of mistreatment given to Indigenous Australians behest of the Australian Government many decades ago (Aboriginal Australians were considered \"native fauna\" until the 1960s) which adds to tension between the Government and the Indigenous communities and also kind of puts many Indigenous Australians in a repeating circle of low-income, laziness, vagrancy etc.\\n\\nFourthly, Indigenous Australians do receive a lot of shit from almost everyone here (although I notice it more in non-Anglo Australians) that they\\'re shit-kicker junkies who drink goon (cheap bagged alcohol), smash darts (smoke cigarettes), hit the sniff (sniff petrol) and steal your shit. The problem is, this isn\\'t actually a stereotype, a lot of Indigenous Australians (\"Abos\" or \"coons\" from the racist fuckwits) live like this which leads to high suicide rates and lots of substance abuse. This all falls into that whole repeating circle of Indigenous life that I mentioned.\\n\\nIn America, you really wont hear white people, Hispanic people or anything refer to African Americans as \"Niggers\" to their face, nor will you hear it out loud, Indigenous Australians can and almost always do get insulted non-stop just for walking past someone, it\\'s actually fucking insane how much shit they get. People will move away from an Indigenous person and if they try to talk to someone, they\\'ll get called a dirty abbo and told to fuck off.\\n\\nReally, there\\'s motivation behest of the Government to get the Indigenous communities off the ground and get Indigenous Australians into well paying jobs and a successful life but they staunchly refuse to help themselves and they also get an un-godly amount of shit from almost everyone. They pretty much get decent money from the government and don\\'t have to do shit for it, it\\'s not too hard for them to get so they usually just end up going to that.\\n\\nI\\'m afraid I might come off as a racist or someone who hates Indigenous people but that\\'s not the case, I grew up with a lot of Indigenous people and I used to have a family sleep in my father\\'s truck because the father of their family would kick them out of the house. He eventually sold their mattresses for drug money then they moved in with us, that\\'s the kind of life many Indigenous children go through (in regards to substance abuse) and am actually half Aboriginal myself (one of my parents were Stolen Generation).', 'I live in the suburbs about an hour South of Perth, Western Australia, unfortunately some of the seamingly racist comments are very accurate for about 80-90% of the Aboriginal population around here.\\nDon\\'t get the wrong idea, I have met a very nice Chirstian Aboriginal family, but they are very much in the minority around here.\\nHell, there\\'s actually an Aboriginal \"mafia\" who tried to break into my friends house with axes.\\nThis kind of reputation can make it very difficult for people to trust Aborigines, whether that particular person is a criminal or the nicest person in the world.', 'It\\'s a tough problem, and \"why\" can\\'t simply be answered. If you had to look at broad reasons, I\\'d suggest the following. I now believe (I used not to) that the way to begin to address this is a formal treaty with the Aboriginal and Torrest Strait Islander people. Not all Australians would agree with me.\\n\\nBut a successful [referendum](_URL_0_) on constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants will be a fine start, and one I think will be successful.\\n\\n* Erosion of cultural identity through loss of land (either it being appropriated or the people forcefully moved)\\n* Linked to this is loss of spiritual identity, closely related to place\\n* Forced removal leading to a loss of practical parenting skills as well as the loss of opportuntity to practice traditional parenting\\n* Clear past and present discrimination, leading to social and economic marginalisation\\n* Grief and anger at these lead to mental issues, alcohol abuse, violence which is handed down across the generations. Patterns of behaviour establish themselves.\\n* Sexual and physical violence (including genocide) perpetrated by whites to which aboriginals were powerless to respond\\n*  All leading to trouble with the law, continued disadvantage\\n* A basic misunderstanding (or refusal to understand) Aboriginal culture in the past leading to destructive policies that may well have been well intentioned.\\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.recognise.org.au/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2443, "q_id": "71w1ci", "title": "why is it bearable to look down from thousands of feet in the air, but terrifying to look down from only about 50 feet or so?", "selftext": "When flying in a plane, it seems to be easier to look down at the ground without feeling nervous or scared (at least for me). But when up on a roof, rock wall, or other \"medium\" height, my vision starts swimming and my legs start shaking.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71w1ci/eli5_why_is_it_bearable_to_look_down_from/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dndweba', 'dndx491', 'dndxc7d', 'dndxx3v'], 'score': [10, 13, 6, 2], 'text': ['Part of it might be the angle you are looking down from.  Off a roof or rock wall you might have the opportunity to look directly downwards whereas in a plane you are restricted to looking from a certain angle.\\n\\n\\nAnother aspect might be the conditions.  In a plane you are sitting in a cushioned seat in a temperature controlled area.  Out on the roof or rock wall, you are possibly exposed to the wind and other elements making you feel more like you will take a fall.', 'Possibly abstraction.  At 50\\', you see a likely fatal fall.  At 40,000\\' you see an abstract landscape which is pretty.  At some point your mind may turn \"oh shit, I\\'m going to fall and die because I\\'m high up\" into \"that\\'s interesting.\"', 'Being on an airplane is so high it barely seems real, not real enough for your self-preservation instincts to kick in.\\n\\nAlso, you are not standing, there is no uneven surface, or open air, which are also cues to be afraid you might fall.', 'Not everyone is like you, some people freak out at both, and some don\\'t mind either!\\n\\nTypically in a plane you feel somewhat safe - you don\\'t feel like you will suddenly fall.  You are usually also sitting down which does feel more secure.\\n\\nIf you are on a balcony looking down, or standing by a window in a tall building, you are feeling somewhat less secure and in your mind you may feel more likely to \"fall\" which causes the strange sensations of fear.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 822, "q_id": "64wtef", "title": "why do some americans distrust the mass media so much?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64wtef/eli5why_do_some_americans_distrust_the_mass_media/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dg5mibe', 'dg5mlrp', 'dg5nyny', 'dg5o6oq', 'dg5onyy', 'dg5qr1w', 'dg5qw49', 'dg5r6cj'], 'score': [12, 8, 10, 4, 9, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['One of the primary personality types of those that settled the US was that they did not trust government, nor did they trust media. Everyone is always trying to manipulate what you see and think and so everything has to be taken with a grain of salt and tested for its validity. ', \"Several major publications (namely CNN and the Wall Street Journal as the most recent) have been shown to be editing the news out of context to serve a narrative, and a political agenda, instead of presenting factual information.\\n\\nThere's always been some news outlets like this, but these two were considered to be less biased than the others, so them doing this is a huge betrayal of the public trust, and has affected other outlets as a result.\", 'Could it be the long history of the mass media peddling outright lies to serve a political agenda?', 'news corporations are businesses. they make more money from fearmongering the audiences, and pandering to the political agendas of their investors.', \"They have a pattern of pushing stories with false narratives in order to support a political agenda. Both the right and the left are guilty of this. \\n\\nCase in point: CNN hadn't stopped in demonizing Donald Trump ever since he announced his candidacy. Some was valid, some were semantics, some was slander, and some was absolutely false. \\n\\nHowever, they did not do the same respect against Hillary Clinton, even though this election has revealed much dirt on her. Some of their reporters and contributors who were starting to criticize her, their feed would suddenly have their feed cut. They continually pushed for Donald Trump's tax returns, yet heavily discouraged anyone from looking into the leaked Podesta emails. \\n\\nThis led to what is called Fake News, as in a news organization with the purpose of habitually pushing half-truths or non-truths narratives intentionally for the sake of an agenda. \\n\\nThe reason we don't trust them? We see it as clear as crystal. \", 'So, there\\'s an old meme about news coverage:\\n\\n* **The Story:** Obama drinking a Pepsi\\n* **CNBC:** Obama appeals to Pepsi Fans\\n* **Fox News:** Obama declares war on Coke!\\n* **CNN:** In an hour, we have live coverage of the President\\'s views of his favorite drink\\n* **BBC:** Dozens dead in Iraq drone strike\\n\\nIt\\'s a bit of an exaggeration, but it illustrates part of the point. Each news site, whether left, right, or center, has its own spin. Whether it\\'s because the owner wants to push a certain viewpoint, or the viewers want a certain news type of news, etc. News in the US is business - so they have owners or shareholders that have a vested interest in getting more viewers/advertisers etc. And that means you have to actively appeal to a certain viewerbase to try to win their loyalty, by coming off as \"their\" news source. So you have news that will tailor what and how it reports to certain biases. Sometimes it\\'s not a huge deal, it might just be omitting a small story or focusing on some event at the expense of another, but during elections or high profile cases it really starts to come out.\\n\\nEven ignoring the Clinton/Trump race, even when it was the primaries with Clinton/Sanders, the media tended to focus much more on Clinton, largely \"assuming\" she was going to be candidate, rather than give both equal coverage.\\n\\nAnd, unfortunately, because of how busy and how much of a barrage of information there is, some people will take what they see as read and just move on with their day. \"I saw it on the news\" has gone from something legitimate to a phrase with a lot less meaning, because now the news sources are much more biased. Everyone of every direction is guilty of it, of pushing some narrative or commentary on a story, rather than just reporting the story itself. Because of so many 24/7 news sites and sources, they have to move beyond just reporting the news, they have to report stories about what they\\'re reporting on. So what should be a five minute segment about some small incident becomes hours-long coverage with views from pundits or callers, or opinions from \"experts\" that lean towards what they want to tell. It\\'s why many stories add on some extra comments - instead of \"X happened at Y,\" it becomes \"X happened at Y, what does this mean for Z?\" And it\\'s that last part that becomes the focus, rather than the event.', \"Back in the day it used to be that when reporting on stories the goal was to be as even-handed as possible.  The idea was that you wouldn't know the opinion of the author or the publication, their job was to bring you the facts, nothing more.\\n\\nThis has changed.  Now many most outlets believe they have to explain the news to you, rather than present the unbiased facts.  Once you get into this territory you start bringing in the biases of the authors and the media outlets.\\n\\nNow that it is the norm to include commentary and explanations of the news you bring in the personal views of the author.  Journalists are overwhelmingly liberal/Democrat in America.  In the last presidential election, of the journalists who donated to a presidential campaign, 96% of them donated to Democrats/Hillary Clinton while only 4% donated to Republicans/Trump.  The actual vote of America ended up being pretty close to a 50/50 split in the Presidential races and the local/state races had majorities to Republicans, yet nearly all political donations from the media went to Democrats.\\n\\nThis bias means that conservatives largely distrust the media outside of a few media organizations that are clearly biased towards their ideology such as Fox News.\\n\\nSome Democrats tend to distrust the media because they don't feel the media is biased enough towards their ideology.  These people tend to get their news from highly biased new sources such as Comedy Central and MSNBC.\\n\\nModerates and Independents look at both Fox News, MSNBC and see them as being the same thing, just opposite ends of the political spectrum.  So they try to find unbiased news by turning to media organizations like CNN.  But if you watched the Presidential results the evening of the election you'd have seen Wolf Blitzer's head exploding because Hillary Clinton wasn't winning and a panel of journalists who looked like their dog just died as states continued to go to Donald Trump.  It was embarrassing.  CNN has become very politicized and left-leaning, and let's not forget it was CNN's employees who leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton.\", 'The media only give us what they wanna us to believe instead of the truth. They try to guide public opinion instead of listening to what we really care. They are misusing the power of media and serve for certain purpose, politics, economy, social etc. \\n\\nThe thing is increasingly people start to see this by lots of things happened to them. Not only political issues but also some social news, they try to manipulate us or influence the social consensus by providing the false news or inaccurate info. \\n\\nThe principle is that media supported by people, and that neither can exist effectively without each other. Why we distrust mass media so much, we need to consider our roles in this game too.  ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1704, "q_id": "83ukwd", "title": "why human cloning is considered unethical?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83ukwd/eli5_why_human_cloning_is_considered_unethical/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dvklh75', 'dvklhrw', 'dvkm8rt', 'dvkmhva', 'dvkr2fm', 'dvks7d9', 'dvkzi6w'], 'score': [26, 3, 12, 3, 2, 6, 3], 'text': [' >  So for me cloning sounds like an amazing opportunity to start from scratch and have a normal life.\\n\\nYou do know cloning doesn\\'t work like that, right? Cloning is just a way to make a baby with the same DNA as its \"parent\". This baby is an entirely separate individual, it still needs to grow, and despite having the same DNA it can still have a completely different personality, based on its life experiences.', 'While this might not directly answer your question, one thing you might want to consider is that your clone wouldn\\'t be *you*.  You\\'d still be you.  Your clone will just have the same genes as you, but that\\'s only a tiny part of who you are - and, more importantly, even if you had an exact copy of yourself, your consciousness is still *yours*, so you wouldn\\'t consider that copy as \"you\".\\n\\nIt\\'s like having a child.  They might have half (or more!) of your genes, but you don\\'t think of a kid as \"you having an opportunity to start from scratch\".  People want their children to have a better life than they did, of course - that happens with *any* children, though, not just clone children.', \"First, just a note, there's a lot of different kinds of cloning (single tissue, single organ, whole individual, etc). Whole individual is the one considered unethical, and what we'll talk about. \\n\\nAnyway, there's a couple issues here:\\n\\n1. Cloning technology has a long way to go. . Clones don't live nearly as long as naturally conceived members of the species, and have all kinds of health problems. To create a human clone would be to deliberately create a living, thinking individual who will never have a normal life due to health complications caused by the cloning process. That is considered very unethical. \\n2. Some are concerned that clones wouldn't have the same rights as regular humans, and may be created only to provide genetically-identical replacement organs and the like for transplant into the original. \\n3. What you're describing - creating a new individual to give a better life to than you had - applied to just having children normally. Whether or not they're genetically identical to you, or even related at all, you have an opportunity to give them a better, happier life. You don't need cloning for that. \", 'Have you heard that some scientists are currently attempting to help PTSD and depression by eliminating bad memories from your brain?  That might be something you wanna try rather than cloning.\\n\\nBut to answer your question people think cloning is going against god himself.  In addition, people don\u2019t like that science could potentially mess up and make a deformed clone or something.  I think it\u2019s more about doing the research and getting it to work and I\u2019d be fine with cloning.', \" > I suffer from depression and anxiety because things that happened when I was a kid (PTSD). So for me cloning sounds like an amazing opportunity to start from scratch and have a normal life. \\n\\nYour depression and anxiety could be due to genetics, though. Therefore, your clone may still develop depression and anxiety.\\n\\nI believe the reason why it is unethical right now is because it fucks up the genetic pool. The main reason why we reproduce with another person is because it allows your genetic mixing and produce a new organism. If you have 100s of clones of a few people, you severely limit the genetic variation. You'll effectively hinder evolution.\\n\\nAt the same time, cloning human is also unethical because it will be limited to those who can actually afford it. So imagine 100s of hitlers or DJT walking around.\", 'Some reasons.\\n\\n1) Religion. If cloning succeed, it either means that soul does not exist, either that human successfully created souls, either than not every human-like has soul, either that God created a soul for the clone and approved that kind of scientific experience. And most likely, there is no way of saying which one is \"right\", leading to a lot of morality questions.\\n\\n2) Human experimentation. Experience mean failures, and sometimes failure that look like success until too late. Animal experimentation are already at the limit of the morality, so human experimentation...\\n\\n3) Human great replacement fear. People fear that immigrants them. They fear that AIs replace them. So of course they fear that clones might replace them.\\n\\n4) Eugenisme. If clonage is possible, most likely you can make \"improved clonage\", with better capacities. Why \"improving humanity\" by genetic selection is unethical is another (quite complex) question, but it is currently considered as unethical.', ' > A opportunity to start in a better place.\\n\\nBut it wouldn\\'t be your opportunity, just some random other kid\\'s.  What is so special about your DNA? Why can\\'t the \"normal life\" of any random child fulfill this desire for you?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 210, "q_id": "h91jc", "title": "How close are we to adopting robotic technology for many, if not all, minor and major surgeries?", "selftext": "The lack of doctors means that patients have to travel quite a bit for a needed procedure, or vice versa. And also, developing countries without adequate medical care becoming a thing of the past is a goal shared by many.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/h91jc/how_close_are_we_to_adopting_robotic_technology/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c1tk0t6'], 'score': [4], 'text': [\"Doing surgery in remote locations isn't really the reason for the development of robotic surgery.  You still want a surgeon on-hand in case of complications that are best managed without the robot.  Practically speaking, these robots are very large and expensive, and getting these to remote locations is more difficult than getting a surgeon to the patient, or even better, your patient to a surgeon.  It's not a solution for a surgeon shortage, because you still need a surgeon to operate the machine.\\n\\nThe main attraction of robotic surgery is the degree of very fine control that it offers over a surgeon's hands.  I think it offers a real benefit for prostatectomies (in the spirit of r/askscience, I should add that the benefits are not proven), and perhaps some cardiac surgeries, but for most of the other things I see surgeons using a robot for now, they seem to just lengthen the procedures without much observable benefit, and are mostly a marketing tool.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1601, "q_id": "jhvm7", "title": "What is the highest number of beats per minute that the human ear can discern?", "selftext": "How many beats can the human ear discern before it just sounds like one, continuous note/sound. And is it different for different sources of sound?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jhvm7/what_is_the_highest_number_of_beats_per_minute/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2c8rgs', 'c2caayy', 'c2cd1hh', 'c2cie70', 'c2c8rgs', 'c2caayy', 'c2cd1hh', 'c2cie70'], 'score': [19, 5, 2, 3, 19, 5, 2, 3], 'text': [\"Not a scientist, but a musician. 20Hz is about the lowest tone most people perceive as a, well, tone.  Lower than that and you hear the individual cycles as beats (or you hear nothing at all). Similarly, if you take a percussive beat and play more than about 20/second, it will transform from a beat pattern into a tone. There's electronic music that uses this to great effect.\\n\\nI believe this 20Hz cutoff is independent of the source or type of sound - it's more a result of how our ears work. \\nMaybe a scientist can chip in on *why* this happens?\", \"I think ogxela pretty much answered your question; this is just a bit more detail. The human ear is an awesomely complex series of parts that collect, amplify and analyze sound. However, ultimately, the sensation of sound occurs in the cochlea. This is a snail shell shaped organ covered with tiny hairlike protrusions called stereocilia which vibrate in response to sonic waves allowing us to detect sound. The 'hairs' have different lengths depending on where they are located on the cochlea causing differing tones to stimulate cilia in differing regions. This is how we detect tone. Magnitude of sound is decided by the amount of vibrating the cilia do in response to the sound. The human cochlea has an overall range of about 20hz-20,000hz (1hz=1beat/sec). To answer ogxela's question, when a series of waves of lower than 20hz is heard (or not heard rather), the frequency is low enough such that the cilia in that range are moved then have time to stop moving before the next wave hits more than 0.05sec later. In this case, each wave is perceived individually. As the frequency approaches and exceeds 20hz, the cilia do not have time to stop moving between waves causing them to vibrate perpetually. This gives a continuous signal and is perceived as a tone. If you want actual specifics as far as the mechanics of the signal propagation I can do that as well but I've already gone on pretty long for this question. Hope I answered your question.\", \"Miller and Taylor (1948) turned a white noise on and off, and found that for rates of 100 - 250 Hz the sound was reported to have a 'pitchlike quality'. To some extent it would still sound like a sound being turned on and off though - though there is a large grey area between 'beep beep beep' and 'beeeeeeep'.\\n\\nMight be best to try this for yourself and see what you reckon.\\n\\nEDIT: Just to add though that such pitch sensations are not massively strong, and some people barely report hearing them at all. For more info check out page 220 of [this](_URL_0_) book.\", \"People on here seem to be confused between the terms acoustic frequency and beats per minute. Beats per minute is a musical term for the [tempo](_URL_1_), or speed, a song is supposed to be played at, typically used in electronic music. OP is asking, how fast can you set the tempo of a song before it becomes smeared into a continuous sound.\\n\\n\\nThe simple answer, which petejonze pointed out (including references, awesome), is somewhere less than 100Hz. 100Hz is equal to 6000 beats per minute. Once you get to around 100Hz (6000BPM, or 16th notes at 375BPM), you stop hearing beats and you start to hear a buzz with the same pitch as a 100Hz tone.\\n\\n\\nHowever, there is a huge difference in timbre (sound quality) between a buzz and a continuous tone. Since you hear a buzz, you are still perceiving a beat, it's just that instead of hearing each beat your auditory system groups them together into a buzz. You can still perceive the beat, as a buzz, up to the rate your auditory neurons can encode changes in level over time, around 1500Hz. 1500Hz is 90000BPM, or 16th notes at 5625BPM. Once you get over 90000 you will actually hear a continuous sound with no traces of the buzzy roughness caused by the beats.\\n\\n\\nFYI, your vocal chords release bursts of air each time they open and close when you are speaking. Those bursts are like clicks, and if you slow them down (electronically or by doing a [glottal fry](_URL_0_)) you hear individual beats. When you speed it up to normal speed you hear a normal human voice (well, maybe not for glottal fry). The same auditory mechanism that turns your vocal chord beats into a human voice with a strong pitch is what turns a fast rhythm into a buzz. The lowest pitches humans can sing are right at the limit of the fastest BPM you can hear as individual beats. In other words, our auditory system is optimized to pick out human vocalizations in the range that they can occur, and outside that range the optimization is totally different.\\n\\nEdit: forgot to carry the two.  \\nEdit2: actually, the math makes more sense if you say it in terms of 16th notes. 100Hz, or 100Hz clicks per second, is the same as 16th notes at 375BPM.\", \"Not a scientist, but a musician. 20Hz is about the lowest tone most people perceive as a, well, tone.  Lower than that and you hear the individual cycles as beats (or you hear nothing at all). Similarly, if you take a percussive beat and play more than about 20/second, it will transform from a beat pattern into a tone. There's electronic music that uses this to great effect.\\n\\nI believe this 20Hz cutoff is independent of the source or type of sound - it's more a result of how our ears work. \\nMaybe a scientist can chip in on *why* this happens?\", \"I think ogxela pretty much answered your question; this is just a bit more detail. The human ear is an awesomely complex series of parts that collect, amplify and analyze sound. However, ultimately, the sensation of sound occurs in the cochlea. This is a snail shell shaped organ covered with tiny hairlike protrusions called stereocilia which vibrate in response to sonic waves allowing us to detect sound. The 'hairs' have different lengths depending on where they are located on the cochlea causing differing tones to stimulate cilia in differing regions. This is how we detect tone. Magnitude of sound is decided by the amount of vibrating the cilia do in response to the sound. The human cochlea has an overall range of about 20hz-20,000hz (1hz=1beat/sec). To answer ogxela's question, when a series of waves of lower than 20hz is heard (or not heard rather), the frequency is low enough such that the cilia in that range are moved then have time to stop moving before the next wave hits more than 0.05sec later. In this case, each wave is perceived individually. As the frequency approaches and exceeds 20hz, the cilia do not have time to stop moving between waves causing them to vibrate perpetually. This gives a continuous signal and is perceived as a tone. If you want actual specifics as far as the mechanics of the signal propagation I can do that as well but I've already gone on pretty long for this question. Hope I answered your question.\", \"Miller and Taylor (1948) turned a white noise on and off, and found that for rates of 100 - 250 Hz the sound was reported to have a 'pitchlike quality'. To some extent it would still sound like a sound being turned on and off though - though there is a large grey area between 'beep beep beep' and 'beeeeeeep'.\\n\\nMight be best to try this for yourself and see what you reckon.\\n\\nEDIT: Just to add though that such pitch sensations are not massively strong, and some people barely report hearing them at all. For more info check out page 220 of [this](_URL_0_) book.\", \"People on here seem to be confused between the terms acoustic frequency and beats per minute. Beats per minute is a musical term for the [tempo](_URL_1_), or speed, a song is supposed to be played at, typically used in electronic music. OP is asking, how fast can you set the tempo of a song before it becomes smeared into a continuous sound.\\n\\n\\nThe simple answer, which petejonze pointed out (including references, awesome), is somewhere less than 100Hz. 100Hz is equal to 6000 beats per minute. Once you get to around 100Hz (6000BPM, or 16th notes at 375BPM), you stop hearing beats and you start to hear a buzz with the same pitch as a 100Hz tone.\\n\\n\\nHowever, there is a huge difference in timbre (sound quality) between a buzz and a continuous tone. Since you hear a buzz, you are still perceiving a beat, it's just that instead of hearing each beat your auditory system groups them together into a buzz. You can still perceive the beat, as a buzz, up to the rate your auditory neurons can encode changes in level over time, around 1500Hz. 1500Hz is 90000BPM, or 16th notes at 5625BPM. Once you get over 90000 you will actually hear a continuous sound with no traces of the buzzy roughness caused by the beats.\\n\\n\\nFYI, your vocal chords release bursts of air each time they open and close when you are speaking. Those bursts are like clicks, and if you slow them down (electronically or by doing a [glottal fry](_URL_0_)) you hear individual beats. When you speed it up to normal speed you hear a normal human voice (well, maybe not for glottal fry). The same auditory mechanism that turns your vocal chord beats into a human voice with a strong pitch is what turns a fast rhythm into a buzz. The lowest pitches humans can sing are right at the limit of the fastest BPM you can hear as individual beats. In other words, our auditory system is optimized to pick out human vocalizations in the range that they can occur, and outside that range the optimization is totally different.\\n\\nEdit: forgot to carry the two.  \\nEdit2: actually, the math makes more sense if you say it in terms of 16th notes. 100Hz, or 100Hz clicks per second, is the same as 16th notes at 375BPM.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tkbOivKH2HkC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=moore+introduction+to+the+psychology+of+hearing+pitch+perception&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=0J9HToPyDoS5hAealugv&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moore%20introduction%20to%20the%20psychology%20of%20hearing%20pitch%20perception&amp;f=false'], ['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1zGQ4iUApo', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo'], [], [], ['http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tkbOivKH2HkC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=moore+introduction+to+the+psychology+of+hearing+pitch+perception&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=0J9HToPyDoS5hAealugv&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=moore%20introduction%20to%20the%20psychology%20of%20hearing%20pitch%20perception&amp;f=false'], ['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1zGQ4iUApo', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1314, "q_id": "19moay", "title": "what is a tilde (~) used for, and why have people started to use it at the end of sentences, particularly teenagers?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19moay/eli5_what_is_a_tilde_used_for_and_why_have_people/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8pewhq', 'c8pf6ql', 'c8pfcul', 'c8pfrmz', 'c8phoa0', 'c8pj9pj', 'c8plfna', 'c8po27t'], 'score': [14, 98, 25, 60, 28, 3, 6, 2], 'text': ['The tilde sign generally means \\'about\\' or \\'approximately\\', and when used at the end of a sentence it\\'s intended to convey a cute warbling trail-off rather than an abrupt stop. Like the sort of sound an excited teenager would make.\\n\\n\"Oh my goooood~!\"', 'It specifies your home directory.', 'In Japanese culture, it makes a sentence \"cute\" just like \"?\" makes a question. I\\'m assuming anime has brought it over to English.', 'I just use it as an estimation symbol. \\n\\n\"I had the busy shift but I made ~200 bucks in tips.\"', 'Strictly speaking, this is a [swung dash](_URL_0_). A tilde is the similar-looking symbol \u02dc used as over certain letters in Spanish, Portuguese and other languages to show a change in the way the letter is pronounced.', \"~ is often used to activate a developer's console in many mainstream video games (Source Engine.)\\n\\nI know this isn't what you were looking for, but the other explanations in this thread were pretty on par.\", \"Well, in Spanish, a\u00f1o means year. Ano means anus. Without a tilde, you'd be wishing someone a happy anus.\", 'This one might be a little bit ELI12...\\n\\nIt is used in many modern programming languages as an operator called \"NOT\" which performs bitwise negation. [More info here](_URL_0_), but I\\'ll give a quick summary:\\n\\nYou can represent numbers in binary using ones and zeroes, as you probably know.  It\\'s a lot like counting the way you\\'re used to, which is called base 10 or Decimal, except, instead of getting all the way up to 9 before you have to use another number to show how big something is, you do it after counting just one.  Binary numbers are typically represented using the same number of numbers at all times, like this:\\n\\n| Binary Number | Decimal (Regular) Number |\\n|:--------------|-------------------------:|\\n| 0001 | 1 |\\n| 0010 | 2 |\\n| 0011 | 3 |\\n| 0100 | 4 |\\n\\nWhen you perform a bitwise NOT, you turn all the zeroes into ones and vice versa, so using the table above:\\n\\n| Binary | Decimal | Binary NOT | Decimal NOT |\\n|:------|:---------|----------:|-----------:|\\n| 0001 | 1 | 1110 | 14 |\\n| 0010 | 2 | 1101 | 13 |\\n| 0011 | 3 | 1100 | 12 |\\n| 0100 | 4 | 1011 | 11 |\\n\\nIf the way that binary numbers are counted doesn\\'t make sense, here\\'s a quick breakdown: when you count in decimal, for every \"column\" of numbers (going left) you multiply that number by a larger factor (or power) of 10; this is very natural for us, so we don\\'t even know we\\'re doing it.  Example:\\n\\n| 1 |,| 2 || 0 || 5 |\\n|--|-|--|-|--|-|--|-|\\n| 1 x 1,000 (10^3) |+| 2 x 100 (10^2) |+| 0 x 10 (10^1) |+| 5 x 1 (10^0) |\\n| 1000 |+| 200 |+| 0 |+| 5 |\\n||||||=|1,205|\\n\\nIn binary, we count the same way, but with bigger and bigger powers of 2, so\\n\\n| 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 |\\n|--|-|--|-|--|-|--|-|\\n| 1 x 8 (2^3) |+| 1 x 4 (2^2) |+| 0 x 2 (2^1) |+| 1 x 1 (2^0) |\\n| 8 |+| 4 |+| 0 |+| 1 |\\n||||||=|13|\\n\\nFor more information on how computers (usually, these days) treat binary numbers, including handling negatives and such, check our [this page on Two\\'s Complement](_URL_1_).']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swung_dash#Swung_dash'], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwise_NOT', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twos_complement']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2562, "q_id": "9dlnoe", "title": "The movie 'Apocalypse Now' mentions socialist weapons manufacturing workers in France intentionally sabotaging ordinance as an act of solidarity towards the socialist North during the Vietnam war. Is there any truth to this?", "selftext": "I'm talking about the scene when the main protagonist comes across a small French colony in the heart of the jungle and the host at the dinner table is recounting his experiences of the Vietnam war.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9dlnoe/the_movie_apocalypse_now_mentions_socialist/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e5ihr1o'], 'score': [42], 'text': ['I wrote something on the French perception of the Indochina war (to call it the \"First Vietnam War\" is not common in French historiography, and could be said inaccurate as a lot of fighting was in places where the ethnic Vietnamese are a minority) [here](_URL_0_).\\n\\nThere was a relative indifference of the French population to this conflict, but the French Communist Party (PCF) and left-wing movements and intellectuals were quite involved in antiwar activism. To quote the 1952 op-ed of the March 6th, 1952 communist newspaper *l\\'Humanit\u00e9* : *\"F\u00e9licitations au succ\u00e8s du Vietminh. Nous sommes de c\u0153ur avec lui. Nous envoyons aux troupes du Vietminh notre fraternel salut et notre t\u00e9moignage de solidarit\u00e9 agissante.\"* (Congratulations to the Vietminh success. We are with all our heart with them. We send to Vietminh troops our brotherly regards and tokens of acting solidarity). Sabotage was not unheard of in communist trade unions (remember that we are only a few years after the R\u00e9sistance developped an entire art form of sabotage) : an example during the hard social conflict of 1947 (mostly unrelated with the war in Indochina) is the sabotage of the railway between Paris and Lille (which led to a train accident and 16 dead) : you can see  [here](_URL_1_) a very interesting newscast of the time. Later on, during the Algerian events, there would be a famous group of left wing French anticolonial militants that would engage in actively helping the FLN (called *porteurs de valise*, most famously with the *R\u00e9seau Janson*, defended in their trial by a renowned left-wing lawyer, R. Dumas).\\n\\nThere were strong rumors of sabotage among the troops, who deeply resented this : to quote an example, in the memories of Jacques Jauffret (a veteran of the 1er REC in Indochina in 1953-1955), titled *Crabes et Alligators dans les Rizi\u00e8res* :\\n\\n*\"A mon arriv\u00e9e en Indochine, en f\u00e9vrier 1953, mes camarades me mettent tout de suite au courant : il faut v\u00e9rifier tout le mat\u00e9riel venant de France: des ouvriers politis\u00e9s de nos usines d\\'armement ont pris l\\'habitude de saboter les armes et des munitions destin\u00e9es aux combats contre des communistes, nos adversaires en Extr\u00eame-Orient.[...] Nous sommes d\\'autant plus furieux que le mat\u00e9riel am\u00e9ricain nous parvient dans un parfait \u00e9tat. Il nous arrivait m\u00eame souvent de d\u00e9couvrir dans une culasse de canon de char, une cartouche de cigarettes Chesterfield, plac\u00e9e l\u00e0, \u00e0 notre intention par les ouvriers des usines de Milwaukee. \"*\\n\\nWhen I landed in Indochina, in Feb. 1953, my comrades put me in the know : one must check any ordnance or equipment coming from France : politically-minded workers in armaments factories took the habit to sabotage weapons and ammunitions to be sent to fight communists, such as in the Far East.[...] We are all the more furious that american supplies always come in impeccable condition. We even sometimes found in a tank cannon a carton of Chesterfield cigarettes left there for us by the Milwaukee workers\".\\n\\nSuch sabotages and their intentional nature (could also have been that the French postwar industry was lacking in quality) have been accredited in historical literature^1 yet both remain a matter of debate in France (the topic is obviously politically laden). \\n\\nIn any case, the scene in Apocalypse Now is definitely realistic and the result of sound historical research as it depicts the resentment towards the Metropolitan French Left-Wing such colonist hold-outs would have felt, and the idea of sabotage would have been a rumor frequent in former veteran circles.\\n\\n----------\\n\\n^1 : Pass\u00e9s \u00e0 l\\'ennemi. Des Rangs de l\\'Arm\u00e9e Fran\u00e7aise aux Maquis Vi\u00eat-Minh 1945-1954, Adila Bennedja\u00ef-Zou, Joseph Confavreux, Tallandier\\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98osk6/do_the_french_regret_the_vietnam_war_as_much_as/e4ig609/', 'https://fresques.ina.fr/jalons/fiche-media/InaEdu01014/deraillement-d-un-train-a-arras-suite-au-mouvement-de-contestation-de-l-automne-1947.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2143, "q_id": "83tu5a", "title": "why do people get motion sick while being a passenger in a car, but don't get that same sickness if they were to be the driver of that car going to the same location?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83tu5a/eli5_why_do_people_get_motion_sick_while_being_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dvkh3bm', 'dvkiahe', 'dvkj0pc', 'dvkj4ux', 'dvkqypg', 'dvkwe02', 'dvl9qxo', 'dvle76o', 'dvlhrhl', 'dvlssn3'], 'score': [8, 476, 71, 6, 10, 3, 3, 15, 2, 3], 'text': [\"I think it has something to do with the inner ear. If you're a passenger you might be looking at your phone or something and your periferal vision sees outside of the car so your brain gets confused. I don't really get carsick just from looking out the window so I'm not sure why that happens to some people \", \"If you're the driver you're in direct control of the sensations you're experiencing. Its your input on the steering wheel or throttle pedal or whatever that's causing the things you're feeling now; being pulled to one side, or being pushed back in the seat, or being shifted forward into the seatbelt, whatever.\\n\\nIf you're a passenger, this stuff just happens to you, and some people can deal with that better than others. \\n\\nMotion sickness is theorised to be caused by a disconnect between what you're feeling and what your eyes are seeing; your brain thinks there's something wrong, so makes you throw up to at least limit the possibility of poisoning. \\n\\nSome are more sensitive to that disconnect than others and it can work in both ways. I know people who can quite happily sit in the back of a car and read a book and I also used to know someone who played the original GTA, (yes [this one](_URL_0_)), and got motion sickness from that. Of course in that case he was still and what he was seeing wasn't. As I say how sensitive an individual is to it will vary. \", 'If you read a book in the car your visual system is looking at something that isn\\'t moving but your balance system is reporting that you are moving.\\n\\nThe body assumes that if two senses give conflicting information, something\\'s malfunctioning, and the most likely reason is poisoning. So the brains trying to make you sick to get rid of any more \"poison\" that you\\'ve eaten.\\n\\nBeing a passenger is a car isn\\'t something evolution ever dealt with.\\n\\nIn the drivers case, they\\'re (hopefully) watching the road. So the visual and balance systems matchup.\\n', \"I generally drive everywhere. But was riding as a passenger paying attention to the road (other people driving scares me) and even sitting in front looking at the same thing the driver does not reading or phone browsing. It hits me pretty hard and I just don't understand how just holding a steering wheel and having a foot moving on a pedal keeps me from not being sick. O.o\", \"From my own experience as a person who gets *very* motion sick if I try to read, etc. as a passenger: \\n\\nMy motion sickness is triggered by trying to focus on something that's stationary inside the car, while things are zooming past me outside in my periphery. When I'm driving, my visual focus is almost 100% on what's outside (aside from the meters in front of me), so my brain isn't struggling so hard to process both the stillness and the movement at the same time.\\n\\nI'm not sure if that makes sense, it's kind of hard to explain. \", \"Motion sickness is a discussion between your eyes and body. So your body feels like it's moving while you look around and things are still or vise versa (that's why VR has motion sickness) so when you lessen that disconnect (like looking at the moving road or having a wider range of view of moving things) it lessens the motion sickness effect\", 'For me it is a battle between mind and body. I think much of what\u2019s discussed here insofar as a disconnect between sensation and cognition is true, but I also think if you\u2019ve got OCD or anxiety, it can largely influence the embodied response of a \u201clack of control\u201d causing physical discomfort. I used to get real sick as a kid to where I\u2019d have to lay down in the back, but now I just get sweaty and anxious to where I need Xanax. I think for me the motion sickness has transformed the older I get. It used to be more physical now it\u2019s more mental. Strange ', 'Thanks to something that went haywire during my first pregnancy, I can now get car sick both as a passenger AND a driver! It is absolutely as fun as you might imagine.', \"our brain knows to expect things and prepare for them. the Drivers brain knows it is about to turn, when and how steep it's going to be. so the input revived checks all the boxes. the passengers mind is not expecting motion and the signals are contradictory to that causing nausea.\", 'Generally motion sickness (whether car, boat, or video game) is caused by a disagreement between your eyes and the semicircular canals in your ears.  In nature there\\'s usually no reason for your eyes to see violent motion that is not being also perceived by your ears (or vice versa) so your body will decide that it is being poisoned (eg: the \"spins\" when you\\'ve borderline poisoned yourself with alcohol).  The body\\'s only real remedy for poison is to purge so you get nauseous then, if that doesn\\'t solve the problem by making you stop making yourself dizzy, throw up.\\n\\n If you find yourself getting seasick or carsick watch the horizon like it\\'s the most exciting thing ever.  Since the horizon is not moving, focusing all your attention on it will make your eyes and ears agree.  It also helps to look forward since we\\'re used to looking forward so looking backward or sideways still has things (especially close things) tilting and moving the wrong way for what your balance expects.\\n\\nWith video games, you can move farther from the screen or use a smaller screen so that the stationary room provides a frame that anchors you visual perception of motion.\\n\\nsource: a sailor prone to seasickness and a gamer prone to gamesickness.\\n\\nThe driver has the advantage that they are looking forward with the best view and all of their attention is focused on the farthest things they can see.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.myabandonware.com/media/screenshots/g/grand-theft-auto-44n/grand-theft-auto_6.png'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1669, "q_id": "3agzvu", "title": "In game of thrones Varys is known as the master of whispers. Essentially the head of an espionage group. How did ancient spymasters manage such networks?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3agzvu/in_game_of_thrones_varys_is_known_as_the_master/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cscp78k', 'cscv1be', 'csd0ko0', 'csd2565'], 'score': [40, 31, 32, 29], 'text': ['If I can ask a follow up question, Varys\\' \"little birds\" are loyal to him and him alone, not the current head of state. Is that consistent with organisations like the CIA, MI5/6, KGB etc?', \"Sort of a follow-on, but were 'ancient spymasters' even a thing? Did ancient espionage exist in a form similar to modern espionage? If so, would there have been a single person in charge of it?\", 'This isn\\'t *ancient*, but I\\'m assuming it\\'s the kind of information you\\'re looking for.\\n\\nHenry VII was the first Tudor King of England, reigning from 1485 to 1509. He was a justifiably paranoid man. He\\'d won his crown on the battlefield, and through the years he\\'d faced multiple rebellions, conspiracies, and insurrections.\\n\\nThere wasn\\'t just any one spymaster. Instead, Henry\\'s multitude of advisers, in addition to their official roles, collected information for him.\\n\\nSpies were kept in-line through a variety of methods. There were professional, paid royal informers. When Sir James Tyrrell was arrested, his servant Robert Wellesbourne was the key witness in his trial. It was unclear how long he had been an informant. His family had close ties to Sir Thomas Lovell, who was Chancellor to the Exchequer as well as an informal spymaster.\\n\\nIn any case, Robert Wellesbourne was granted a half-year\\'s salary of 60s 10d, an extremely generous sum, and continued serving as a spy.\\n\\nThen there were those spies who worked for free. Sir John Wilshire was sent down by Henry to monitor the books at Calais. He was also expected to cultivate a spy network, keeping a close eye on Henry\\'s exiled enemy Suffolk. Wilshire did so by promising pardons to Suffolk\\'s associates in-return for information.\\n\\nSome spies didn\\'t have employers. Often times, men came forward to the king with information on their own initiative, either hoping for rewards or just trying to destroy their political rivals.\\n\\nIn one conversation, Sir Hugh Conway, the treasurer of Calais, complained about disloyalty in the Calais garrison. In response, Sir Sampson Norton told him to talk to the king about it.\\n\\nConway refused, stating that the king would suspect him of, \"envy, ill-will and malice\" and that he would have, \"blame and no thank, for his truth and good mind\". So many men went forward to the king with information that he had become deeply suspicious of them. Henry\\'s problem wasn\\'t that he had too little information - it was that he had too much. In fact, Henry sometimes personally interrogated suspected traitors. Presumably he wanted to cut through the rumor mongering that dominated his reign.\\n\\nThe reason we know about Conway\\'s complaints is because one of the men involved, John Flamank reported the conversation to the king. Flamank had gotten into an argument with Sir Richard Nanfan, one of the men present in the discussion, and had decided to inform on everyone.\\n\\nTo summarize: Henry VII had multiple competing spymasters. These spymasters maintained their networks through official salaries, bribes, or promises of pardons. In addition to these networks, many informants came in on their own initiative. All these different sources of information were used to double-check each other.\\n\\nSource: Penn, Thomas. *Winter King: Henry VII and The Dawn of Tudor England*. New York: Simon  &  Schuster, 2012. Print.', \"First post here. Let me know if I haven't done something properly :)\\n\\nThe Neo-Assyrian Kings well understood the benefits of using spies and did so on numerous occasions (we're talking 9th to 7th centuries BCE here btw).\\nOne example is in the usage of spies in an ongoing power struggle with the Urartians, a kingdom to the North of Assyria that threatened to overtake them as the dominant power in the region.\\n\\nThe image we have of spies in this particular ancient setting is very reliant on the type of evidence that is available from the period. We have a vast quantity of cuneiform texts from the major Ancient Assyrian cities that record correspondences between the Assyrian Kings and his higher level administrators. It's a bit hard to navigate but I encourage you to have a look at some of them if you want a glimpse at the sort of evidence that survives this period. Large amounts of it can be found online in the State Archives of Assyria series. Because what we see is the what is presented to the King or his central administration, we only get a  glimpse of what was more than likely an extensive network of spies. Only the most important matters deserve to reach the King.\\n\\nDubovsky talks about information reaching the king in three ways 1. Ambassadors visiting his court, 2. People being sent on independent missions to his court and 3. Through 'provincial information hubs'. These information hubs were managed by his centrally appointed Governors (think Member of Parliament but with full authority over the region) within the empire. So rather than ancient spymasters, intelligence was within the common remit of the provincial administrators within the empire. Outside the empire we have examples of delegates appointed within client kingdoms known as 'Qepu' who would report on the activities within the kingdom. These people could do so in any number of ways. Interrogation of prisoners, paid spies, interception of messengers/ messages, informers etc.\\n\\nSo what can we take away from this? Both of these positions I've posted were roles within the Assyrian state structure. Any intelligence networks that existed, while they may not themselves have been formalised, entered and followed a similar path to the administrative state hierarchy at the provincial level with the Governors taking on the closest we have to the role of a 'spymaster.'The question then becomes about the loyalties of the state officials to the King and this is something which the Assyrian system also addressed... often by chopping off their gonads.\\n\\n--Dubovsk\u00fd, P., Hezekiah and the Assyrian spies: reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian intelligence services and its significance for 2 Kings 18-19 (Biblica et orientalia 49), Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006 \\n\\n--_URL_0_\\n\\nI also highly recommend this resource for anyone looking to find out about the Neo-Assyrian Empire:\\n--_URL_1_\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/corpus', 'http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2587, "q_id": "2kpowy", "title": "What exactly are anti-bonding electrons?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2kpowy/what_exactly_are_antibonding_electrons/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clnlqas', 'clntfll', 'clo8kar'], 'score': [7, 2, 3], 'text': ['Atoms have orbitals. When atoms combine to form covalent bonds an orbital forms which covers the both atoms (molecular orbital). \\n\\nThe molecular orbital has energy states just as atomic orbitals do. \\nThe electrons from an atom will fill the lowest energy molecular orbitals first. \\n\\nIf the electrons go into molecular orbitals that are lower in energy than the electrons atomic orbital, the electron has lowered its energy. This favours the atoms sticking together.\\n\\nOther electrons can go in molecular orbitals that are higher in energy than the electrons atomic orbital. These electrons would rather not be in the bond (anti-bonding electrons). \\n', \"What you are thinking about are actually anti-bonding orbitals, which are occupied by electrons. You can think about orbitals as being waves. Remember when you would rock back and forth in the bathtub to make the water level get higher and higher? You were constructively interfering with the wave. Sometimes you might rock at the wrong time and the water level would go back to almost normal, this is destructive interference. It turns out electron orbitals behave similarly in terms of constructive and destructive interference (they are described by wave equations.) It turns out that bonding happens when the orbitals constructively interfere and bonding is not favored when the orbitals destructively interfere. Plot sin(x) and then add it to another sin(x), the amplitude will double. Now add sin(x) to cos(x + pi/2). You'll see the latter addition results in 0 which is destructive interference. Destructive interference destroys the wave equations that describe orbitals, and this we understand to be energetically unfavorable. \", 'An electron is an electron is an electron.  All are identical fermions; none different - within the same orbital (I use this term \"orbital\" pretty fast and loose throughout) they are identical except for *spin* - no two electrons in a single atom can have the same four quantum numbers.  Note that much like the **electrons** are *not really particles*, the **orbitals** are *not really places*; they are EIGEN STATES of the energy operator. An electron does not have a position but occupies all space with based on a probability distribution. \\n\\nThat said, bonding and anti-bonding orbitals are basic ideas for describing atoms which come together to form molecules. Bonding orbitals contribute to the formation of a molecule, whereas anti-bonding orbitals weaken the bonding and destabilize a molecule. Normally, bonding orbitals are more stable than anti-bonding orbitals in terms of energy and thus a molecule is stable unless sufficient electrons occupy the anti-bonding orbitals. \\n\\nTo help understand bonding and anti-bonding *orbitals*, it helps to have a basic understanding of molecular/orbital symmetry and point groups.  Then you will be able to interpret MO diagrams and also understand orbital hybridization/bonding, electron filling of lowest energy ground state, and also how excitations work with regards to certain types of spectroscopy (e.g., UV/Vis).  Ultimately, the allowed states of electrons are determined by the symmetry properties of their states. Particles which exhibit antisymmetric states are called fermions (i.e., an electron is a Fermion). Antisymmetry gives rise to the Pauli exclusion principle, which forbids identical fermions from sharing the same quantum state. \\n\\nRead this:  _URL_0_\\n\\nIf the bonding orbitals are filled, then any additional electrons will occupy anti-bonding orbitals. This occurs in the He2 molecule, in which both the 1s\u03c3 and 1s\u03c3* orbitals are filled. As you can imagine, this isn\\'t very stable. The two electrons in the He2 bonding MO will achieve some stabilization relative to their position in the AOs, but the two electrons in the anti-bonding MO will achieve greater de-stabilization relative to their position in the AOs. Another interesting case is Graphene, where the bonding and anti-bonding orbitals are degenerate. \\n\\nHOMO/LUMO is also important to understand when studying why molecules form, and also why reaction mechanisms occur the way they do (e.g. *why* does an SN2 reaction proceed at all?)\\n\\nSo again, an electron is an electron is an electron ... and to complicate things further, the angular momentum of the electrons themselves cause splitting of the energy levels they occupy!  That\\'s a different topic. \\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://depts.washington.edu/chemcrs/bulkdisk/chem312A_win09/notes_lecture_07_MO.pdf']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2836, "q_id": "2lwvhi", "title": "why have humans not evolved to enjoy the foods that are best for their health?", "selftext": "I'm trying to eat healthy.  Not just calorie-counts or dieting, I'm trying to eat foods that are recognized as very healthy foods  The best foods for your body never seem to be the best tasting. Why? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lwvhi/eli5_why_have_humans_not_evolved_to_enjoy_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clywet2', 'clywik9', 'clywo6l', 'clyx01i', 'clz1zvu', 'clz2kfq', 'clz4zdt', 'clz8im8', 'clz9pf1', 'clzkrpq', 'clzmai0'], 'score': [4, 255, 30, 3, 7, 2, 3, 9, 7, 2, 2], 'text': [\"The ones who don't eat completely healthily still reproduce. That's what I always thought, but I'm no expert.\\n\", \"We have.\\n\\nHumans and their ancestors spent millions of years on the dry plains of central Africa.  Food was scarce and we've evolved to like calorie dense foods that best prepared us to survive food shortages.\\n\\nFor most of human history slamming as much food as possible into your face *was beneficial*.\\n\\nOnly recently has it become an issue due to an overabundance of high calorie food.\", \"Remember, we evolved to be hunter-gatherers. \\n\\nIn that situation, fats and sweets are rare and calorie-dense; it makes sense to seek them out (and gorge on them and stock up on calories when we find them). So we evolved to really really like them.\\n\\nMeanwhile, nature didn't have to worry about us eating our vegetables: veggies were everywhere, they didn't fight, and they didn't run away. So it wasn't as important to love them in the way we do fatty and sweet things.\\n\\nToday, fats and sweets are just as easy to acquire (often easier) as vegetables and our hunter-gatherer habits get us into trouble.\", 'Evolution takes time and the current climate of having to many calories available is a relatively new development. The human body is still in the mindset of eating more calories and calorie dense food. ', \"Something nobody has touched on is that certain foods aren't 'good for you' or 'bad for you'.\\n\\nHaving X calories, Y protein, Z vitamin B12, etc. is good for you. It doesn't matter how you get there.\\n\\nAs an addendum, 'why not' questions about evolution are often pointless. Maybe no human was ever born with the random mutation that made vegetables taste like cocaine chocolate. Maybe they were, and they died in a car crash before they could reproduce. There are too many unanswerable variables.\", \"Evolution is an extremely slow process, the 200 thousand years that humans have been around is but a mere super fast blink in the context of all life on earth. If you look towards nature today the animals that survive are the ones that take every opportunity to eat (which is especially important to us warm blooded mammals as most of our energy is used just to try and regulate our body temperatures.) The ones that eat survive, the ones that survive reproduce, the ones that reproduce pass on their genetics into the future.\\n\\nWhere it sits right now we are slaves to our current brain chemistry which tells us fatty, rich, high caloric foods are what is most desirable to us because the more calories we take in, the more fat reserves we can store letting us live longer until we find our next meal. Because of agriculture we stopped our hunting gathering ways staying put in a single place letting us build large societies, much larger then any band of forging nomads would be able to sustain without things like crops. This all happened so fast in terms of world history, that what was best for us has now tipped in the exact opposite end of the scale and our diets are now killing us in terms of obesity, heart and liver disease and various other autoimmunities tied to diets too high in calories, sugar, and bad fats like trans fats. We are victims of our own outrageous success at survival.\\n\\nNow, one could speculate that if we don't blow ourselves up first, ruin the earth with global warming, overfish the oceans, or run out of the means to produce fresh drinking water along with a myriad of huge unforeseen obstacles we will most undoubtedly face that maybe in a million years people who aren't able to control themselves and binge on junk food until they develop life threatening diseases will suffer from drastically shorter life spans. Leading to less opportunity to reproduce meaning the fit people who are able to control what they eat and even come to enjoy it will, over the course of many generations, pass on enough of these healthy diet traits that maybe your great, great, great, great to the power of 10 grand kids will love their asparagus and kale and for desert will choose a cut up grapefruit over ice cream not because it's the healthier choice but because their brain chemistry is wired to push them towards that food source over others. But we are far way off from seeing any of this develop and the hurdles we as a species face is great.\\n\\nSorry this response got way out of hand.\", \"I read this while shoving a Reese's in my mouth. \", 'We have. \\n\\nWe have only had stable surplus in food supplies for give or take 200 years, and that is not even true for all of the planet. In nature we live in near starvation like most animals and so evolved to seek out foods that provide the most nutrition for the lease amount of effort. That type of food is fat, sugar, and salt. ', 'To put a coevolutionary spin on it, vegetables have expended a great deal of effort evolving to taste bad to us and other herbivores*. All of the compounds that give vegetables their distinctive flavors have been selected for by their ability to discourage herbivory, and incidentally, are likely at least part of the reason pregnant women become taste and smell averse, that is, because they are toxic. Fruits are sweet, in many cases, to be eaten and encourage seed dispersal.\\n\\n*before anyone tries to \"correct\" me, by herbivores, I mean anything eating vegetative plant structures, exclusively or otherwise.', 'Natural selection doesn\\'t select the characteristics that are \"healthier\" for the individual (whatever this means). It selects traits that are likely to make you 1) have kids and 2) not die before having said kids. \\n\\nIn order not to die before 15-20 you just need to eat whatever it is that you have available. And being overweight doesn\\'t immediately and dramaticaly make you less likely to have kids in your teenage years.', \"There's a few reasons\\n\\n-Evolution takes longer than a few years. Humans have only had a concept of eating healthy for maybe 2 generations if that. Really since the 60s-70s. That's not nearly long enough of a time line.\\n\\n-Evolution means there is a trait that is 100% meaningful to our survival. Like black polar bears in the artic dying out because their prey could see them from miles away. Eating badly isn't something that as of yet has significantly reduced the human population. Plus with things like Insulin, we can medicate people who have diseases due to poor eating habits.\\n\\n-Also while people who live healthier lifestlyes are in theory more sexually desirable, thus more likely to reproduce there are just as many overweight people of each gender willing to procreate with each other\\n\\nRealistically we probably won't see any evolutionary affects from poor dieting for at least another few decades.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1781, "q_id": "1ujty2", "title": "why do i get sleepy after reading 2 hours or studying but my scumbag brain can play skyrim all night without getting tired?", "selftext": "Why do I get tired after I have been reading for a while and my eyelids get heavy while I can pull an all nighter playing videogames and not be slightly tired until I stop playing? Neuropsychologists of Reddit, help!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ujty2/eli5_why_do_i_get_sleepy_after_reading_2_hours_or/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ceisvqo', 'ceiudzw', 'ceivny8', 'ceiwebr', 'ceix7z9', 'ceizx0y', 'cej0iib', 'cej0jn6', 'cej0o6d', 'cej1hq9', 'cej1pjk', 'cej1uj5', 'cej2ll3', 'cej2nmw', 'cej3rem', 'cej3sj9', 'cej3v1h', 'cej41eo', 'cej5mpk', 'cej5rlf', 'cej5srt', 'cej8767', 'cej87s3', 'cej8pyz', 'cej8yzd', 'cej92el', 'cej99qc', 'cej9b5v', 'cej9d2c', 'cej9vgp', 'cejahsj', 'cejbefw', 'cejbinn', 'cejdo0a', 'cejfeft', 'cejfzkq', 'cejg0a4', 'cejh1ea', 'cejhr6h', 'cejisgl', 'cejjncw', 'cejkn3s', 'cejkxpx', 'cejyq6f'], 'score': [342, 223, 2, 2, 53, 11, 3, 2, 3, 2, 12, 1065, 15, 4, 2, 3, 88, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Because your brain releases small, constant spurts dopamine and adrenaline when you're playing a video game that excites you. You feel tired due to constant dopamine being released, but you stay up because of the constant adrenaline being released. When you study...you're bored. Nothing is really being released other than you just getting tired because of a tough day.\\n\\n\\nI'm sure somebody can provide a lot more information on it!\\nCheers!\\n\\n\\nSource: wrote a report on it. (Junior in highschool and a gamer.)\\nEdit: spelling. Wording.\", \"Also assuming that you study with a book instead of a computer, the light source is most likely affecting the suprachiasmatic nucleus and your circadian rhythms. Looking at a LCD screen can trick your brain into thinking it's the daytime, and thus you're less tired.\\nSource: _URL_0_\", \"I'm going to agree with the people that are saying that its mostly to do with circadian rhythms and bright light. Specifically that its the blue light spectrum that affects you more. Red light will generally make you feel groggy.\\n\\nHere's some related info:\\n_URL_1_\\n\\n_URL_0_\", \"Check out the work by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He wrote a book called 'Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience'  The goal of a good video game such as Skyrim is to get a user into this mental state.  _URL_0_ \", 'Because exploring caves is more fun than calculus. ', 'Video games are specifically designed to counter this. They keep changing environment, stratgies, lullsi nhte action etc to keep you interested. The diablo 3 team talked about changing the color palette of the environment every 30 minutes of gameplay. (before the D3 hate, its a well designed game, it was just saddled with a greedy vision.)', \"A video game provides immediate feedback, appropriate skill challenge, goal, a beginning, an end, and the ability to get better at it. Reading or studying is often done for the sake of studying/reading with little of the previously stated elements. It's largely why it's best to learn by doing rather than learn by studying; when you do, those elements come at you naturally. \", 'Another thing you should consider is the fact that your screen is really bright. Because it is so bright and you stare at it directly, it can mess with your sleep cycle. For that reason, it is recommended to not use the computer for a few hours before you are planning to go to sleep.', \"Here is a possible reason (maybe I'm wrong?).\\n\\nAre you studying in a bed, perhaps laying down.  Are you reading in bed, perhaps laying down?\\n\\nWhenever you do anything where your body is programmed to sleep, you are more likely to fall asleep.\\n\\nI got this information from my wife when she took Psychology courses as part of her Psychology degree.\\n\\nI wouldn't mind being corrected if I'm wrong.\", 'TIL make studying intense as fuck to release adrenaline and go all night', \"2 hours? That's like a marathon!  I get sleepy after reading 20 mins.  \", \"dopamine / Adrenaline stuff doesn't sit well with me, it doesn't really play a role in WHY you feel sleepy. 2 Hours of studying requires extensive use of the brain centers which releases a host of different kinds of neurotransmitters that stimulate long term potentiation. Skyrim on the otherhand, does not really utilize the brain at all that much. All you are doing in skyrim is the same old practiced routines over and over again. Probably the first couple times of playing skyrim, you had trouble playing for 5 hours a day, until you practiced it enough to be easy. It's kind of like a baby walking. First couple of times, only 2 minutes a day. Now, you can walk for hours. Same stuff, just practiced until you aren't really thinking anymore. \", \"A lot of these answers are completely in favor of video games, like they were a werewolf, or some other mystical personal trainer. The answer is that you are not realizing what joy other activities can bring you. Video games are great for understanding what mastery means. If you apply the same routine, but create the task, you are basically doing the same thing as Skyrim. \\n\\nIf you are not able to focus on real work for very long, do not over analyze it. An example of this dilemma may be reading for a class. The way to work through this type of work, most efficiently, is to rest or recover by writing. \\n\\n1. You read, enough to where you comprehend, not over-doing it, spurring a wild day dream instead. \\n\\n2. You recover, by writing a note or anything that pertains to further comprehension. \\n\\n3. Repeat until assignment is finished. \\n\\nThis technique works just like how walking does, left foot, right foot. Just think of what you are really trying to do by tackling an entire reading assignment, all at once -- It's like hopping all-day on one foot. \\n\\nThe key part of the reading technique is, the studying picks up momentum as the subject gets completely engrossed by your attention. \", 'Because of the light from the screen hitting your eyes, which then tells your brain to not secrete melatonin.', \"*bunch of scientific words dopamine, adrenline, hormones\\n\\ntl;dr - because you're bored\", \"Because while your are playing Skyrim, you are RUNNING FOR YOUR LIFE IN A FOREST AND OH MY GOD LOOK A DRAGON WHERE DID YOU CAME FROM? OH SHIT I DIED!\\n\\nWhen this happens, your brain keeps you awake. You can't kill a dragon while you sleep.\\n\\n(Also, your monitor is as bright as day light. Use _URL_0_ to dim it)\\n\", 'Because studying is boring and Skyrim is fun.', \"When studying, you're not getting immediate rewards for reading 3 chapters instead of 1 - just improved education, which is hard to quantify. In Skyrim, you probably get a trophy, and see a lot of cool scenery and enemies in the process.\\n\\nStudying is not a game (unless you're a great student who knows how to take satisfaction from studying). Skyrim, like most games, gives you points and simulation experience for most things - even if you don't achieve anything worthy of mention.\\n\\nThis is actually more related to the concept of gamification in particular, than neuropsychology as a broad field.\", 'For the same reason they say if you do what you love, you will never work a day in your life.', 'the best way to study for me (in med school)\\n\\nstudy for 20-30 minutes stop when sleepy/bored.  facebook or play bejewled or redit for 5-10 minutes and study again for another 20-30 minutes with reddit reward for 10 min.\\n\\ni used a whole 8 hours that way and aced shit.\\n\\ni was failing when i was cramming hours and hours before. ', 'I am just taking an educated guess and also based on my own observation:\\n\\nLet\\'s say you are studying. After an hour, you will probably get bored out of your mind, you get easily distracted by the slightest thing (sleepiness, \"tired\", headache, etc). Maybe you *are* sleepy or tired. But maybe you are subconsciously making yourself tired or sleepy because you need a valid justification to stop studying. Its like a defense mechanism. Studying is perceive as a danger and to get out of that danger, you are initiating your defense mechanism.\\n\\nThe opposite happens when you are playing Skyrim. You *want* to play. You want to *keep* playing. So, not matter if you are tired of sleepy, your desire will fight off your needs.\\n\\nBasically, its what you **really** want to do.', 'Reading = Ben Stein roll call...\\nVideo games = Katy Perry on a trampoline in a tube top.', \"Have you considered you just might be reading the wrong books? I read all of the time. Some books I could read all day and night, finish, and immediately re-read. I will never get tired of them. Other books will put me to sleep before I'm 100 pages in. \\n\\nI'm sure there are games that bore the hell out of you. You enjoy Skyrim, but would you enjoy Gran Turismo? Madden? Starcraft? \", \"Your brain uses more than 20% of the energy you use.  When you're reading/studying (or doing other high willpower activities), you burn tremendous amounts of glucose and you can get tired. Skyrim, however, doesn't require the same sort of mental energy. Much as you may level up your willpower in the game, none is required to play. Try keeping your blood sugar up when doing high willpower activities!\", \"Another thing is that an LCD screen is basically a big light. Staring at a screen at night makes your brain repress melatonin and keeps you up. Reading on the other hand doesn't hinder melatonin and allows you to get drowsy and fall asleep like normal. \", \"The explanation I was given that in regards to lighting, LEDs are especially bad in regards to keeping you awake due to their ability to simulate light spectrum. This specific spectrum apparently tricks your brain into assuming it's daytime, thus making it harder to fall asleep.\", 'Because you WANT to play Skyrim, and you HAVE to study. ', 'Aside from what\\'s been mentioned below, RPGs tend to deliver challenges in small, discrete chunks. You fall victim to the \"just 5 more minutes\" syndrome for hours. ', \"Because you care about your character progression in Skyrim.\\n\\nAnd you don't care much about knowing differential equations.\", 'Because playing video games is more fun than reading your chemistry textbook.', \"Your scumbag brain is trying to keep you alive.  It cares about stuff like getting attacked by dragons and walking across the land looking for potatoes to eat by the hundreds not just because it's cool, but because it keeps changing the sort of stimulus you get.  Your brain thinks that just maybe you're about to be attacked by a tiger and it wants to be ready.  \\n\\nBy contrast, then you read one book and page after page is the same, your brain knows you're not about to be attacked by a tiger so it wants to go to sleep so it can keep you from being attacked by a tiger even better tomorrow (and maybe score because it likes that, too).  \\n\\nProtip:  to keep your brain interested in studying, use different approaches:  flashcards, audio, charts, pictures, etc.  Change it up and your brain will stay interested longer.  \", 'ELI5: I would suspect reading and vidya games use different parts of the brain, one has to translate the written word into the imagination and memory, the other presents you with everything pre-imagined but sparks the part of the brain that makes choices.\\n\\nI feel sleepy after 2-3 hours of study but I am told this is my brain needing to sought and file the info, and it does not need me moving about so much and getting in its way.\\n\\nI have read some novels that have kept me up all night, but they are generally the type that require less brain power to get through.\\n\\nI have played vidya games for days at a time (everquest I am looking at you)... no idea why or how my body could keep going, cannot do this any more but I suspect I wasted my best years of my brain doing it.', \"Occam's razor: studying is boring, boredom makes you sleepy. Skyrim is fun, and you want to keep doing fun things. It's purely psychological. \", 'Books are not backlit by giant lightbulbs...', \"I can't believe everybody's glossing over the obvious reason here.\\n\\n**It's because you find reading boring.**\\n\\nThe things that bore you, fail to stimulate your brain. Your brain begins shutting off, and eventually there's not enough energy for it to sustain itself. **That's one of the factors.**\\n\\nThe other factor is effort. In Skyrim, you're merely exploring. That's easy for your brain to do. Studying, on the other hand (different from merely reading) requires your brain to expend resources in trying to comprehend matter and store it in an organized manner. That's a huge strain on the brain, because it doesn't really like storing information in ways that it isn't used to storing usually. It's like the difference between lifting 5lbs and 40lbs with your hands.\", 'Dude. video games are such a compulsive experience.', \"Reward. There is little instant reward in studying. There is though, when playing Skyrim, a constant stream of immediate and short term goals and rewards. It is not correct that you are not tired while you are playing, indeed, when you get up immediately afterwards, you probably notice that you quickly feel tired. Instead, with a constant reward structure, your mind simply ignores your body's cues. \", 'Outside of all the pseudo psychological BS that everyone is spouting, the real answer is much simpler and well documented.\\n\\nThe light from the computer screens prevents the production of melatonin which is required for sleep.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nELI5 version:\\n\\nThe heavy amounts of blue light coming from your electronics makes your body think that it is still time to be awake.\\n\\n_URL_1_', \"Bright and blueish lights, such as natural sunlight, inhibit the creation of melatonin in the brain to signal the beginning of the day. \\n\\nMost computer, tablet, and touch phone displays, however, also emit a blue light that triggers this inhibition, affecting the user's ability to sleep and potentially disrupting the user's sleep cycle. \\n\\nPrograms like f.lux, which runs in the background of your computer and when night time arrives, f.lux automatically adjusts the color temperature (making whites appear reddish or salmon), thus reducing the display's brightness to match the room's lighting. The change is noticeable at first but turns imperceptible after a few seconds.\\n\\nI get tired when playing a video game as much as reading a book after an hour or two when f.lux is running.\", \"serious genuine studying uses a lot more brain than playing skyrim.\\n\\ni'm an avid gamer and love skyrim.\\n\\nbut if you break it down, skyrim takes little intelligence. all you do is get a quest, kill a bunch of shit, chuck potions, retrieve item. Rinse and repeat.\\n\\nEspecially with modern games where you are handheld and instructed with great detail.\\n\\non the other hand, playing sc2 competitively will tire you very fast.\\n\\nwhich is why in WCG, a pro sc2 player is scheduled to play 5 games roughly daily.\", 'One word: flux. ', \"Oh you are tired after Skyrim, that's why you sleep through you next day of classes and exams :P\", 'Because you enjoy Skyrim...', 'Congratulations on making it to the Front Page of Reddit!  _URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_therapy', 'http://www.news-medical.net/health/Light-Therapy-for-Depression-and-Sleep-Problems.aspx'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://justgetflux.com/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249592.php', 'http://chriskresser.com/how-artificial-light-is-wrecking-your-sleep-and-what-to-do-about-it'], [], [], [], [], [], ['www.redditpage.com/badges/1ujty2.png']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1041, "q_id": "17g2ax", "title": "How do astronauts weigh their own bodies in space?", "selftext": "Hello, I've just read about how being in space in is very damaging to human muscle and bones and that's why they have to exercise daily etc. I bet they have to measure their loss/gain of mass from time to time, right? \n\nOn Earth we measure weigh using scales which basically uses Earth's gravitational force to measure your weight, in space or on the orbit that seems impossible, since you're always freefalling while orbiting the Earth.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17g2ax/how_do_astronauts_weigh_their_own_bodies_in_space/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c855hqx', 'c855lft'], 'score': [9, 5], 'text': ['The [Space Linear Acceleration Measurement Device](_URL_0_)', \"Slight clarification in terms: weight refers to the ~~downward force from gravity~~ reactionary force against gravity\\\\*. Since the astronauts are in free-fall, they don't have a weight as such. They have mass, which is a cause of weight in a gravitational field, but not the same concept.\\n\\nNow that that is out of the way, there are two methods. I believe the one they use is a fairly simple spring. The period of a spring depends on the mass of the system attached to it, so you have the astronauts hold onto a spring, and by measuring the period you can get their mass.\\n\\nAlternatively (and a similar principle) you can apply a known force and measure the resultant acceleration (since F=ma). I don't believe this is usually done (measuring the acceleration and creating a constant known force is not necessarily trivial), but it would also work.\\n\\n\\\\*Edit: see Olog's point and my response below, weight is an imprecise term is my end point\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://blogs.esa.int/promisse/2012/02/10/measure-body-mass-in-space/'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 271, "q_id": "191d5a", "title": "Can the brain imagine itself into real physical pain?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/191d5a/can_the_brain_imagine_itself_into_real_physical/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8jxayr'], 'score': [2], 'text': ['Real physical pain is difficult to pin down. \\n\\nLook up the experiment with the thermal bars of alternating temperature. Very interesting ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 710, "q_id": "10d0gi", "title": "Is it possible to transplant teeth? ", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10d0gi/is_it_possible_to_transplant_teeth/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6cem8a'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"Yes it's possible but not with high success rates\\nIn the olden days, rich people bought teeth from poor people and they would basically swap their dentition with each other. Rich people tended to have worse teeth because they could afford sugar.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1252, "q_id": "48k5la", "title": "How come crystals like Diamond don't conduct electricity?", "selftext": "If a current works by the flow of charge down an atomic lattice why not in crystals which have a symmetrical structure?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/48k5la/how_come_crystals_like_diamond_dont_conduct/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d0kcafh', 'd0kkq2f'], 'score': [5, 5], 'text': ['Because of a lack of free electrons. Electricity travels through atoms and ions that can accept and give up free electrons. Unless the crystal has lots of impurities there are no free spots for those electrons to grab onto.', \"Well an atomic lattice is a crystal as well, there's no difference in that part. The difference is whether the electrons are free to move around in the material, rather than being localized to a single atom or bond between a pair of atoms.\\n\\nWhere an electron is in space is related to their energy state. To be able to move around, they have to be able to change states. Now, the [Pauli principle](_URL_1_) doesn't allow electrons to share the same state, so there has to be unoccupied states for the electrons to use.\\n\\nNow there are _always_ unoccupied states. The question is rather whether the electrons have enough energy to reach them. We talk about a 'band gap' between the occupied states with the highest energy and the unoccupied states with the lowest energy. If there is no band gap, then the electrons don't need any additional energy to move to an unoccupied state, so they can move around and the material is a conductor.\\n\\nIf there is a large band gap, then the electrons can't move and the material is an insulator unless you give the electrons enough potential energy to reach the unoccupied states (the _breakdown voltage_ for insulators). Semiconductors are materials with a small band gap, allowing its conduction properties to be manipulated.\\n\\nIn the case of diamond, all valence electrons are used in forming the four single bonds, and there's a significant band-gap. You could contrast that to graphene (or graphite or benzene or any sp2-carbon), where each carbon atom has two single and one double bond, and the double bond can be moved around analogously to [benzene](_URL_0_). (resonance) Moving the bonds around doesn't change the energy, as the structure are the same, just rotated. So you have multiple electron states with the same energy, not all of which are occupied at the same time, and so graphene and graphite conduct electricity. \\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Benzene_resonance_structures.png', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 592, "q_id": "6mlrww", "title": "how do resealable aluminum cans work and why aren't they the norm?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mlrww/eli5_how_do_resealable_aluminum_cans_work_and_why/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dk2jpf2', 'dk2jy87', 'dk2k79t', 'dk2k8mx'], 'score': [48, 49, 4, 6], 'text': ['The one I saw had a plastic tab that could be popped out to drinking the pushed back into place to close the can.\\n\\nOther option is those aluminum can bottles that have a twist off cap that can be screwed back into place.\\n\\nIn both cases they are rare because of increased cost to manufacturer.   Your standard aluminum can is an engineering marvel that has developed over the last 100 yrs or so.  It takes the absolute minimum amount of aluminum to make the can and still be strong and durable enough transport.  Every aspect of it has been engineered for a specific purpose.', \"As /u/TorturedChaos says the cost of manufacturing is just too high. So the cost/benefit is way out of whack. An ali can fits it's intended purpose so well, you should really check out this video:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThey really are a fucking cool example of modern manufacturing and the evolution of a single product over time.\", 'Because things in aluminum cans are single serve and generally consumed in one sitting.  There is no need for the extra expense to make something resealable when 99% of the people will never actually need to reseal it.', \"Some energy drinks and half litter beverages has a resealable lid, that rotates over and off the hole. \\n\\nThe reason they aren't the norm is that they are more expensive to produce, and often you don't need to reseal a 33cl can, as you will drink all of it in one sitting.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUhisi2FBuw'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1896, "q_id": "2de7rj", "title": "Can radiation spikes, such as those caused by nuclear weapons, really be detected by satalites?", "selftext": "In many films, nuclear weapons are detected by some government agency through satellite imaging. How based in reality is this?  ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2de7rj/can_radiation_spikes_such_as_those_caused_by/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cjooh4q'], 'score': [9], 'text': ['It is reality.  Check out this page on the [Vela satellites](_URL_0_).  You basically take astronomy satellites that are pointed away from the earth, and point them towards the earth.  They have x-ray and gamma ray detectors.  Since a nuclear explosion emits lots of gamma rays, it is easy to see.  In addition, due to the gamma double flash, it is easy to distinguish gamma rays from a nuclear weapon from gamma rays due to natural sources.  ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_\\\\(satellite\\\\)']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 591, "q_id": "21cn88", "title": "Why is Hercules commonly referred to as Hercules as opposed to Heracles? He really seems to be the only figure from Greek Pantheon that favors his Roman name in the modern age.", "selftext": "More often than not we hear the Greek Pantheon referred to as Zeus, Athena, Hephaestus, and Ares by their Greek names instead of Jupiter, Minerva, Vulcan and Mars. Asides from Hercules it usually stays pretty Greek but at this point we really just seem to use their Greek names+Hercules and nobody really seems to notice.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21cn88/why_is_hercules_commonly_referred_to_as_hercules/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgbznxf', 'cgc2jj0'], 'score': [28, 67], 'text': [\"I'm not sure you fully understand the difference between the Roman and Greek Pantheon.\\n\\nThink of it more as an adaption and an assimilation rather than just just renaming. The Roman's respected the Greek's and traced their roots to common ancestors and drew analogies between their religion and the Greeks but this all fitted inside the Roman religion. Much in the same way that a modern Christian has reinterpreted god from the Jewish faith, one could not say that the god of Chritianity is just the renamed Jewish god. For example you don't find the Lares or Penates in Greek mythology. \\n\\nIt is very bad practice to substitute Zeus for Jupiter, the only place it is appropriate is in a situation where one cannot tell the difference. For example a statue from the Roman period found in a villa on the Greek mainland.\\n\\nI would hazard that Hercules became the more commonly used name because throughout the medieval and renaissance period Hercules was still a popular figure and as the bible was in Latin people were reading the Latin myths rather than the Greek ones. This meant most medieval allegorical and mythological texts were written in Latin.\\n\\n\", 'It depends on what circles you move in, really. I rarely hear people refer to \"Hercules\" except when talking about the 1997 Disney film.\\n\\nIn the not-too-distant past it was standard to use Roman names for all Greek mythological figures: this is why, say, Alexander Pope\\'s *Iliad* features Jove, Minerva, and Ulysses rather than Zeus, Athena, and Odysseus. That practice has been gradually diluted over time, but it\\'s a half-life kind of thing: most names are more-or-less Greek now, but some Roman forms have persisted to the present. A chapter of Kenneth Graham\\'s *The Wind in the Willows* (1908) is entitled \"The return of Ulysses\" (not Odysseus); Agatha Christie\\'s detective Hercule Poirot performed a set of *Twelve Labours of Hercules*  in a book of that title (1947) (not Herakles; of course that would miss the wordplay, anyway). Even in your post, you refer to \"Hephaestus\", writing the Greek name with Latin spelling, instead of \"Hephaistos\"; and there are other figures who still regularly go by Latin names in ways that go beyond typographic conventions: \"Achilles\" is still more common than \"Achilleus\", and I\\'ve never heard anyone referring to the god \"Apollon\" in English.\\n\\nIn some cases, the Latin names get periodically re-solidified in the popular imagination by high profile media depictions. A decade ago, the Spartan king who died at Thermopylai was known as \"Lee-ON-ee-das\" in my part of the world (and also in the part of the world that the actor who portrayed him comes from), but I\\'ve heard \"Lee-on-EYE-das\" becoming gradually more common lately. (There\\'s nothing very Greek *or* Latin about either pronunciation, by the way: it\\'s simply that popular culture is changing the names, for whatever reason.) In Herakles\\' case, the Disney film has had a similar effect, cementing him as \"Hercules\" for people who were born in the 1980s and 1990s. (I may be misremembering, but I have a vague recollection that Disney was even planning on releasing the film *in Greece* under the same title until popular backlash changed their minds -- I may have muddled that in my head with some other backlash, though.)\\n\\nNow, aside from these quirks of arbitrary tradition reinforced by popular culture, there are some circumstances where it\\'s genuinely important to draw a distinction between Herakles and Hercules. Of course Herakles was an important figure in Greek myth; but Hercules was fairly important in specifically Roman myths too. This is because *some* figures of Greek myth were incorporated into the Etrusco-Latin imagination from a very early date, thanks to Greeks settling and trading in Italy from the 8th century BCE onwards. Figures like Hercle/Hercules, Uthuste/Ulixes (Odysseus), the Dioscuri (Dioskouroi), and Aineias came to have important roles in the native Italian mythologies, and were later recombined with their Greek counterparts. I notice that Wikipedia has separate entries for [\"Heracles\"](_URL_0_) and [\"Hercules\"](_URL_1_) (though, bizarrely, the \"Hercules\" article still focuses on *Greek* stories about him and ~~ignores the Roman ones~~ **edit:** just mentions the Cacus story in passing).\\n\\nIn Hercules\\' case, the two most important Roman stories would be the story of Hercules and Cacus (a villain that Hercules, on his way home from killing Geryon in the far west, encountered in Italy and killed); and the story of Acca Larentia, a prostitute who was given to Hercules (the god, i.e. after his death and deification), and who was later reimagined as the mother of Romulus and Remus.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 520, "q_id": "1k0sfj", "title": "what do military medals (purple heart, medal of honor, various service crosses) actually do for you after you are discharged?", "selftext": "Not trying to be disrespectful, but what do these war honors actually do for someone that gets them? I'm sure it's mostly about prestige and esteem, but from what I've seen they just pin some metal to your shirt and send you on your way.\n\nThat same guy could be homeless and begging for food in a year or two because most places won't hire ex-military types and can't pay for the medical attention they desperately need.\n\nEdit: thanks for all the answers guys. And for taking me to the front page, haha.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k0sfj/eli5_what_do_military_medals_purple_heart_medal/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbk6qbk', 'cbk6te0', 'cbk6wez', 'cbk6xb1', 'cbk6yrc', 'cbk7di9', 'cbk7go8', 'cbk7kgj', 'cbk7pd7', 'cbk7r0g', 'cbk7ut6', 'cbk7ynm', 'cbk82k7', 'cbk86wj', 'cbk86xe', 'cbk8a3h', 'cbk8bpu', 'cbk8cye', 'cbk8sfi', 'cbk8tc8', 'cbk8tnz', 'cbk8tzx', 'cbk9a6s', 'cbkabmb', 'cbkacyu', 'cbkaili', 'cbkamo7', 'cbkc9rp', 'cbkd0iw', 'cbkdnze', 'cbke5s1', 'cbkeo4f', 'cbkfpfq', 'cbkgnni', 'cbkhqum', 'cbkie4l', 'cbkk1e0', 'cbkkuf1', 'cbkmtb9', 'cbkrd0e', 'cbkrtss', 'cbkrvcx'], 'score': [2, 325, 99, 596, 20, 8, 2, 21, 78, 2, 2, 4, 13, 2, 18, 3, 109, 49, 5, 18, 2, 9, 16, 5, 2, 2, 2, 9, 12, 4, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 9, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['Most men who earn those medals aren\\'t doing it for the recognition.\\n\\n Your right. They do nothing. They can get medical through the VA, but that\\'s a crap shoot. There\\'s the biblebelt \"support the troops\" circle jerk and a few discounts at restaurants, but that\\'s about it. College money is the most useful thing, but none of this has anything to do with medals.', \"A purple heart will usually get you some kind of disability payment related to the injury and a sweet new licence plate. A Medal of Honor will get you stopped at airport security by a bunch of dumbfucks who don't know what a Medal of Honor is, like what happened to Joe Foss.\", 'It might help you get a job with the US Federal government or the District of Columia. The preference for qualified candidates is  \\n\\n1. Native Americans\\n2. Disabled Veterans\\n3. Combat Veterans\\n\\nBut the candidate still has to be qualilfied. ', 'Certain medals will let you receive benefits such as compensation, medical preference, educational (for yourself or family), and lower rates on things like license plates, free access to state parks. A lot of it varies by state, though. \\n\\nI wouldn\\'t say \"they mean squat\" (especially coming from someone who didn\\'t serve in the US military).\\n\\n[Purple Heart Benefits](_URL_0_)\\n\\n[Medal of Honor Benefits](_URL_1_)\\n\\nEdit: Just wanted to address some of the other comments:\\n\\nYes, all service members get to use Tuition Assistance while in. Once you get out, you can use the GI Bill. You can transfer those benefits to a family member if you\\'ve been in at least 10 years. I know California and Indiana your child can attend a state school for a certain amount of credit hours (in Indiana where I live it\\'s enough to get a Bachelors), but you often have to have a disability rating--not necessarily a Purple Heart of Medal of Honor. For example, in Indiana you only need a 10% rating. \\n\\nThe medals OP asked about do have additional benefits. The stuff above is essentially a given, provided you meet the Time in Service requirements and the disability rating requirements. It does help with your medical preference so you have a somewhat easier time getting treated, as if you were given either of these, you\\'ll probably need future treatment.', 'The Medal of Honor is really the only one you listed that has benefits after service.\\n\\nFrom: _URL_0_\\n\\nRecipients receive a 10% increase in retirement pay, and they receive invitations to all future Presidential inaugurations and inaugural balls. Most of the other benefits most all other service members already receive such as being buried in Arlington or using military transport.\\n\\nOtherwise everything looks good on a resume.  ', 'Purple Heart:\\nFree license plates for life in the state of Ohio (likely others as well).\\nHigher tier of VA care.\\nDisability payments based on the severity of injuries received.\\nFree food/drinks (if you are willing to advertise your award, most consider that disrespectful, myself included).\\n', 'In some states, having marksmanship medals and ribbons will count for exams in concealed carry classes as well as law enforcement. ', 'Prisoners of War are exempt from paying many forms of taxation in many different places (up to state/local governments).', 'You are wrong. Most places love to hire veterans. I work at a fortune 500 company and we make it a point to. They tend to be disciplined and hard workers. They also tend to be natural leaders.', \"Beyond what these medals do for the recipient, they also tell us how we should act, in ways such as jobs, general help, or whatever. I'd gladly allow certain medals to move ahead of me in a line, or I'd gladly sacrifice in some big or small way, if it improves the medal recipient's position.\\n\\nTake purple heart guy there. I don't get to check out of the grocery store before him (if I know). I get my stuff and I just move out of the line to back behind him. I don't bother him unless he asks why, I just do it. For those that would abuse this system, there are ways of correcting such dastardly behavior :)\", 'they command huge respect from knowledgeable civilians.', 'Once upon a time military honors meant knighthoods or other traditional medieval military titles. Compared to what they used to mean you are not wrong in that their value is partly based on a military culture and tradition that goes back to the age of chivalry, and in the context of the 21 century military awards are of dubious social value. But remember that military honors and titles come from a military culture that has its origins hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.  ', \"This doesn't explain anything, but all the purple hearts awarded today were manufactured during WWII in anticipation of the invasion of Japan.  There are still 120,000 left, even after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.\", \"I cannot speak for the individual who receives them, however, here it can mean a lot to the family.\\n\\nMy Grandfather was in WW2, but he never talked about it.  Wouldn't really talk about is a better way of saying it, he just refused and everyone was OK with that.  He had several medals and honors, but we didn't know why or what they were.  They got destroyed in a fire when he and my grandmother were younger and he never wanted them replaced.\\n\\nAfter he died I got curious so i sent out some emails, and i was able to get his record, explanations for why he received the medals and I was able to get reproductions of them.\\n\\nWhen I gave them all to her, it was like my grandmother had a piece of him back.  I mean she always knew he was a good person, and she obviously loved him, but reading about him being courageous in ways she had never heard about.... it was pretty meaningful.\\n\\nSo there is more to them then just tangible benefits.  it creates a legacy and a link to the past for the family as well.\\n\", \"When i got out i didn't care what happened to mine, stuck them in a box and when i found them 8 years later i gave all of them to my 5 year old daughter. She has them sporadically pinned to stuffed animals in the house, its weird seeing a stuffed purple gorilla and thinking about dragging a dead guy but hey, whatever makes her happy.\", ' > Not trying to be disrespectful, but what do these war honors actually do for someone that gets them?\\n\\nFor the really prestigious awards, you get respect while you are still in the military.  Once you leave the military, you can\\'t expect much except from other veterans.  It\\'s like winning the \"employee of the year\" at your job... nice but you\\'re only hot shit while you still work there.', 'I was awarded a Bronze Star in Afghanistan, and I am hoping  it cuts a little bit off of the prison sentence I am about to have to serve.', 'Retired Army SFC here.\\n\\nIn the civilian world, when you do something extraordinary for your business, they give you money.\\n\\nIn the military, when you do something extraordinary, they give you a medal.  \\n\\nPersonally, I like cash better.  ', 'Fuckin nothin. No metal earned, nor awarded will put food on the table.', 'I have a BSMV (bronze star w/ valor) and a Purple Heart. The bronze star doesn\\'t mean anything to anyone but me really, it means a lot that my guys thought I deserved one. Not letting them down is really the only thing that got me through the worst times. It doesn\\'t do anything when you get out though, no one really knows what it means, what the \"V\" device means, but I mean, if you\\'re looking for recognition then you\\'re probably not gonna have a great time with it. \\n\\nThe Purple Heart on the other hand.... The real perk is the license plates. I\\'m a safe driver and I don\\'t like to abuse the power of the plates but you\\'re going to have less issues with police. They know at least one thing about you when they run your plates. You also have free vehicle registration with the plates (or its 3 bucks or something). \\n\\nIt took me a long time to even get the plates, it weirded me out to display that kinda shit but I mean....yea, you hear of people getting pulled over for ridiculous stuff all the time and I\\'d rather avoid it.\\n\\nI\\'ve also heard my son will get free college at when he gets older. I\\'m not sure about the details but I have 16 years or so to figure it out. ', 'A significant paper trail follows each award or medal you earn. Those awards and medals provide a significant amount of credibility.\\n\\n\\nExample:\\n\\n\\nLiberation of Kosovo NATO medal - means the recipient very likely went to Kosovo or was in direct logistical support somewhere else in the world. Also, the *NATO* portionmeans that in some way you were part of a joint effort with many nations and probably had to work with, communicate or support military personnell from other countries.\\n\\n\\nEarning a NAM (Navy and Marine Achievement Medal) can be for any reason. You could have worked countless hours tirelessly coordinating the distribution of millions of toys for the Toys for Tots program (Public Relations/community service)\\n\\n\\n\\nA Combat Action Ribbon likely means you were in a highly stressful military battle, maneuver, action... anything where bodily harm or death was immenent.\\n\\n\\nMilitary people  who earn these things, get out of the military and prove themselves as marketable can be seen as fairly valuable to many companies.\\n\\n\\nEdit: (read your last sentence and it is completely false) I am a 15 year Marine and current. The only Marines I have seen get out and not find a job is because of their own personal issues, not because of their military service. Most of them have great jobs or are enjoying retirement. Also, Vets who are homeless actually rate many benefits but either choose to ignore them or are ignorant of them. There is always an initiative by certain entities to find these veterans and make sure they are aware of their benefits.', \"The history of military rewards is interesting.\\n\\nBack in the middle ages, war was a racket. Piracy. One bunch of aristocrats, with their army of indentured slaves (called serfs) would attack another bunch of aristocrats (to whom they were related), and the winners would take the losers land.\\n\\nThe reward for winning a battle (if you were an aristocrat) were real and material - you got a cut of the profits from the war. So new land, a new castle, new slaves. If you were a serf of course, you got nothing. Blenheim Palace for instance, where Churchill grew up, was given to his family when an ancestor of his chopped the heads off a bunch of Frenchmen.\\n\\nHowever, sometime about the late middle ages, the Germans (I believe) realised that their nobles were doing quite well out of war, and this was a bunch of money that the King could keep for himself. Also, with the rise of professional armies, the serfs started to be used to organise the battles themselves and could rise through the ranks. Still, giving away a bunch of estates to commoners was, of course, unthinkable.\\n\\nSo, quite suddenly, the rewards for helping win a war were changed from being a cut of the war profits - land and castles and so on - to a worthless piece of tin you pinned to the poor idiots chest. I imagine the first guy to win one of these new medals instead of an estate and a comfortable life was incredibly pissed off.\\n\\nSo war is far more efficient nowadays. You don't hand the profits to the participants any more, it goes to the organisers instead, which everyone seems to have been persuaded is a far more sensible way of running things. Not a racket at all any more.\", 'Where in the world do you get the idea that \"most places won\\'t hire ex-military types\"?', \"I am a combat vet, 11B, certified disabled (gunshot wounds). I have a CIB and a Purple Heart. It has never been of any use other than a little respect in meetings and with colleagues. So, to answer the OP, they are worth a little respect but nothing else.\\n\\nThe US Army pays me $125/mo for the gunshot wounds. That's something.\", '10 year vet - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING', 'Not sure, but I know the \"Hero of the motherland\" medal in the USSR got you a butt-load of free stuff, example being you got a paid vacation every year or so, you could use the thing to get free rides anywhere, better retirement benefits, priority for your family in stuff, blah blah blah.', \"My buddy got his top front teeth blown out and his lips torn up because a garbage truck filled with explosives exploded 20 feet from his guard tower. He saved a completely unprepared base of 150 soldiers from a huge wave of insurgents; killed numerous hostiles, pulled his comrades to safety, resupplied medics and other defenders after he was pulled from the line by his C.O., almost bled out, was medevac'd to Germany, came back to reality after a few weeks, got a Silver Star.... and now he has to fight the VA for any medical treatment at all. GG.\", 'I would have to say your statement \"most places won\\'t hire ex-military types\" is false considering there are laws against discriminating veterans and laws that actually give them preferential treatment. No doubt there are some who get around this but saying most has to e a complete overstatement. ', 'A lifetime of regret and PTSD.', \"I'll tell you what they get from me:  My undying respect and pretty much anything you asked of me.\", \"Two specific benefits I haven't seen yet: \\n\\nIf you receive the Medal of Honor your children will receive a special nomination if they are applying to one of the Service Academies.  Normally somebody would have to get a nomination from their congressperson or senator, however they can skip this process if their parent has been awarded the Medal of Honor.\\n\\nAdditionally, Medal of Honor Recipients may request a parade in their honor when they visit the service academy. (I don't know if this applies to all military bases.  I have also never heard of someone actually requesting a parade in their honor, but the option is still there, which is what counts.) \", \"Your wee ones will look at you one day with admiration and a deep newfound respect when the find your medals stashed away in a box in the garage and read the citations. Everyone thinks their dad is a hero when they're little. Then they get a little older realized he's flawed. Then they find the stuff he did when he was your age and realize he really was a hero, a deep, honorable man they could respect and admire regardless of all the shit life has dealt him.\", \"Most places won't hire ex military?  Where did you get that from?  It's actually the opposite.  Also, if someone in the military gets hurt or has issues when they get out, the military pays for their care through disability.\", 'You\\'re looking at it wrong.  First of all... That\\'s EXACTLY what those medals are meant to do.  Recognize you for some certain exemplary or exceptional aspect of your service.  You did \\'X\\', which most people/service members have not done.  GOOD JOB.  Seriously, that\\'s the whole point.  Now, there are literally TONS of programs implemented by states, federal agencies, private companies, organizaitons, etc... that are designed to demonstrate appreciation for the actions that earned someone those medals, but that\\'s all third party stuff.   The thing is,  \"showing appreciation and recognition for extraordinary sacrifices and accomplishments\" isn\\'t, especially in a morale dependant organization such as the military, a silly or frivolous exercise.  There are occasions where it BECOMES that (Soldier X pulls 3 people from burnning vehicle and gets Medal Y.  Soldier Z mans a desk for 15 months in Iraq without screwing it up too bad and recieves same commendation), but that\\'s it\\'s own issue that needs to dealt with independantly of what OP is talking about.  \\n\\nMore to the point, I think, is this:  You\\'re not going to DO the sort of things that would merit those commendations (outstanding acts of bravery, etc..) because you want a better parking spot at the Social Security Administration building downtown, or whatever.  Silly little economic incentives like that don\\'t really factor into it, because stuff like that will never be worth the risks involved.  If you\\'re taking those risks, it\\'s because you\\'re the kind of person to do that sort of thing anyway. ', 'Military service actually looks really good on a resume, I have no idea where you are getting your information about not hiring former military members from.', 'When my brother got a purple heart he said, \"Can\\'t wait to get my purple heart license plate.  A lifetime free speeding pass.\"\\n', 'Does the Presidential Medal of Freedom have any sort of benefits?', 'If you earn a Medal of Honor your son or daughter can automatically get into West Point or the Naval Academy.  That education is valued at ~500,000 USD.  ', \"After my 7 years in the Marines I worked at Hanscom AFB at the gate.  We were always told to notify base Commander so he can escort the Medal of Honor recipient around the base.  Something I don't know if mandatory but was happy to see.  \", \"It's meant to be a mark/badge of honor, not a materialistic reward. It's meant to signify that you are among the best humanity has to offer.\", 'The Medal of Honor confers special privileges on its recipients. By law, recipients have several benefits:\\n\\nEach Medal of Honor recipient may have his or her name entered on the Medal of Honor Roll (38 U.S.C. \u00a7 1560). Each person whose name is placed on the Medal of Honor Roll is certified to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs as being entitled to receive a monthly pension above and beyond any military pensions or other benefits for which they may be eligible. The pension is subject to cost-of-living increases; as of 2011, it is $1,237 a month.\\n\\nEnlisted recipients of the Medal of Honor are entitled to a supplemental uniform allowance.\\n\\nRecipients receive special entitlements to air transportation under the provisions of DOD Regulation 4515.13-R. This benefit allows the recipient to travel as he or she deems fit across geographical locations, and allows the recipient\\'s dependents to travel either Overseas-Overseas, Overseas-Continental US, or Continental US-Overseas when accompanied by the recipient.\\n\\nSpecial identification cards and commissary and exchange privileges are provided for Medal of Honor recipients and their eligible dependents.\\n\\nRecipients are granted eligibility for interment at Arlington National Cemetery, if not otherwise eligible.\\n\\nFully qualified children of recipients are eligible for admission to the United States military academies without regard to the nomination and quota requirements.\\n\\nRecipients receive a 10 percent increase in retired pay.\\n\\nThose awarded the medal after October 23, 2002, receive a Medal of Honor Flag. The law specified that all 103 living prior recipients as of that date would receive a flag.\\n\\nRecipients receive an invitation to all future presidential inaugurations and inaugural balls.\\n\\nAs with all medals, retired personnel may wear the Medal of Honor on \"appropriate\" civilian clothing. Regulations specify that recipients of the Medal of Honor are allowed to wear the uniform \"at their pleasure\" with standard restrictions on political, commercial, or extremist purposes (other former members of the armed forces may do so only at certain ceremonial occasions).\\n\\nMost states (40) offer a special license plate for certain types of vehicles to recipients at little or low cost to the recipient.\\n\\nThe states that do not offer Medal of Honor specific license plate offer special license plates for veterans for which recipients may be eligible.\\n\\nAdmiral Eric T. Olson salutes Sergeant First Class Leroy Petry at a ceremony at The Pentagon.\\nAlthough not required by law or military regulation,[95] members of the uniformed services are encouraged to render salutes to recipients of the Medal of Honor as a matter of respect and courtesy regardless of rank or status and, if the recipients are wearing the medal, whether or not they are in uniform.[96] This is one of the few instances where a living member of the military will receive salute from members of a higher rank.', 'The children of Medal of Honor recipients receive admission into one of the military academies without having to meet the standard academic quotas of said institution.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://military.answers.com/military-benefits/explanation-of-purple-heart-recipient-benefits', 'http://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/the-medal-of-honor.html'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor#Authority_and_privileges'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1615, "q_id": "ft0gi8", "title": "AITA for losing my temper with my husband?", "selftext": "My (35F) husband (45M) and I have had a pretty difficult road to happiness. He started pursuing me while he was still married, but he was really serious about our relationship \u2013 it took seven years for their divorce to go through, but it definitely wasn\u2019t for lack of trying on his part! Not only did he have to break things off with his first wife, he went through some major shifts in his way of living and was forced to choose between making a new, happy life with me and keeping ties to the Pope, Catholic countries/people, and his ex-wife\u2019s powerful family. His life is definitely better now, though, and I think a lot of those people weren\u2019t good for him anyway. We share so many interests and a lot of passion!\n\nBut things have been kind of rocky. I\u2019ve never been able to get on with his daughter from his first marriage, for one thing. Probably not too hard to guess why. A lot of people who don\u2019t even know us are badmouthing me all the time, and blaming me for everything unfortunate that happens in the kingdom. I\u2019ve had several miscarriages, which really troubles my husband as he\u2019s always wanted a son. (Don\u2019t get me wrong, he loves our daughter, who is just like a little version of him.) And lately I\u2019ve noticed him looking at and flirting with my ladies in waiting \u2013 one in particular \u2013 which has led me to lose my temper and instigate some knock-down drag-out fights.\n\nIt\u2019s just all so *stressful*. But my husband is really ticked off with me, and there\u2019s definitely something going on with some of his councillors \u2013 I\u2019ll come up to them talking quietly and then they all shut up when I get close. AITA? Am I being too hard on him?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ft0gi8/aita_for_losing_my_temper_with_my_husband/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['fm6ai3c', 'fm6f4e6', 'fm4aqit', 'fm4e4eu', 'fm4q4ib', 'fm53tfq', 'fm5eai9', 'fm5mx1c'], 'score': [6, 6, 31, 43, 7, 13, 6, 3], 'text': [\"ESH, only polyamory can save this marriage. Except for you, you're not allowed to have any polyamory. STOP LOOKING AT THAT LUTE PLAYER.\", 'ESH I know you\u2019re just trying to have some fun and didn\u2019t mean to hurt anyone.  But you gotta expect if a man cheats WITH you, he\u2019ll also cheat ON you.  Sorry, not sorry.  Don\u2019t lose your head!', 'NTA - sounds like you all have been thru a lot.  Don\u2019t lose your head over it, Anne!', \"So let me get this straight. You broke up his first marriage and now you're pitching a fit every time he looks at another woman?\\n\\nESH (besides the kids of course). Sure your husband's being a jerk for openly flirting with other women, but you can't be surprised when your whole relationship started as an affair.\", 'NTA. Imean, what were you meant to do?', 'YTA. I think your husbands first wife posted as well. Poor Catherine is in bits because of you!', 'NAH--sounds like a rough time all around! You mentioned your husband has \"councillors\"--like therapists? Have you thought about seeing one together? I\\'d hate to see people losing their heads over these kinds of squabbles if it can be avoided.', \"ESH, enjoy your puunishment... the worst PL team in London naming their stadium after you\\n\\nAs for why he's an AH... it's obvious, isn't it?\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1478, "q_id": "2hvclz", "title": "British artillery could have shot at Napoleon during the Battle of Waterloo but Wellington refused the opportunity and said \"It is not the business of commanders to be firing upon one another\". Why did he say this?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hvclz/british_artillery_could_have_shot_at_napoleon/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ckwg8d8'], 'score': [100], 'text': [\"There was a similar controversy during the Civil War in which an artillery barrage ordered by General William T. Sherman killed Confederate General Leonidas Polk (in fact, Polk was cut in half by a shell). Sherman goes to deliberate lengths in his memoir to say that this was not intentional but simply meant to scatter the cluster of officers who were observing his troops. As I think your question implies, this is somewhat strange considering the strategic advantages inherent in killing the leader of your opposing troops. You would think he would claim credit for it! \\n\\nI would venture to say that aside from the general notions of honor and military protocol prevalent among military elite at that time, another part of it is that leaderless troops aren't exactly *good* for anyone, even for their opponents. The chaos and the disorder that go along with such an event do not necessarily make for decisive victory, can lead to slaughter and uncontrollable troops, nor always settle the conflict as it needs to be settled. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2910, "q_id": "4awvq1", "title": "99% of western europe don't fluoride water, yet the us still does, why?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4awvq1/eli5_99_of_western_europe_dont_fluoride_water_yet/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d1471uy', 'd147bca', 'd14fkuj', 'd14g3n4', 'd14g821', 'd14i2zu', 'd14i55n', 'd14iy8r', 'd14j2zb', 'd14j3zx', 'd14jffr', 'd14jpck', 'd14k41n', 'd14k9wi', 'd14kos1', 'd14l3ij', 'd14lvc8', 'd14mi1z', 'd14n39k', 'd14n8py', 'd14oe4g', 'd14okrd', 'd14oly4', 'd14ortm', 'd14ot0s', 'd14p5h9', 'd14pyr0', 'd14q7pf', 'd14qc2s', 'd14qem1', 'd14qmms'], 'score': [2953, 364, 278, 9, 16, 3, 15, 3, 4, 33, 11, 3, 5, 3, 2, 22, 3, 2, 3, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 7, 3, 3, 2, 6], 'text': ['Much of Europe has natural levels of fluoride high enough to net the benefits of fluoridation. Many regions of the US do not. ', 'Water fluoridation never caught on in much of Europe. It was held back by the same ethical question as in the United States, whether it is permissible to use the public water supply for what is effectively distributing medication. But it\\'s certainly not true that \"99% of Western Europe don\\'t fluoridate water\"--Ireland has national water fluoridation, and some people in other countries live in communities with artificially fluoridated water as well. Natural fluoridation must also be mentioned.\\n\\nThat said, it\\'s not really universal in the United States either. Only two-thirds of the population receives fluoridated water (natural or artificial). About half of Canadians have fluoridated water, with it being very common in some provinces though nearly absent in others.', 'From _URL_0_ :\\n\\nstartquote\\n\\nIn fact, more than 13 million people receive fluoridated water in England, Spain and Ireland. A few European countries have fluoridated milk programs. And fluoridated table salt is sold in nine European countries, reaching more than 80 million people in Germany, Switzerland, France and elsewhere. Most European countries fund programs that provide fluoride varnish and/or fluoride rinses to school-age children. One reason that Italy lacks a national water fluoridation policy is the fact that a number of areas in Italy have water supplies with natural fluoride that reaches the optimal level.\\n\\nSalt fluoridation reflects the position of the World Health Organization, which has recommended that \"salt fluoridation should be considered where water fluoridation is not feasible for technical, financial or sociocultural reasons.\" Fluoridated salt reaches the largest percentage of residents in Germany and Switzerland. Interestingly, these two countries have among the lowest rates of tooth decay in all of Europe. Of course, people on salt-restricted diets won\\'t receive the full benefits of fluoride, which is one reason why fluoridating water is a better approach.\\n\\nendquote', \"We do it here in my province in Canada and I'm very thankful for it. It's been scientifically proven to be a great benefit for all of our citizens.\", \"Just curious, is it possible to intake too much flouride through drinking a few gallons of unfiltered tap water daily? When I was living in Charleston, SC for college I drank so much unfiltered tap water and am worried if I have done any long term damage to my brain/body? I know my question may sound uniformed or ignorant, but I feel that I have never really received any straight answers on the subject. Google doesn't seem to be a reliable source for flouride information, there is a lot of conspiratorial talk about how it can lead to cancer etc. \\n\\n TL:DR- Can you overdose on flouride by drinking shit tons of unfiltered city tap water, specifically in the lowcountry of South Carolina? Truly curious, thanks. \\n\\n\", \"Do you know the reason Americans make fun of British peoples teeth is because the American Government doesn't provide free Universal health care to its tax payers and the British Government does so the Americans put out a bit of spin  about how bad our teeth are to detract from the fact that we get dental care that is nowhere near as costly as theirs. \", \"I never really understood water fluoridation because it only helps prevent cavities when used topically, not systematically (through ingestion). When consumed systematically over time at higher levels, it has been known to cause fluorosis of the bones and other tissues. Also, a lot of it is going unutilized in showers or when we flush toilets.  I know here in Des Moines, IA, they spend over $120,000 annually to put fluoride in the water while they're  needing more money to upgrade their filtration system. The topic came up on whether they wanted to stop water fluoridation three years ago but because so many dentists came to speak out against the idea saying children would be negatively impacted, they only lowered the levels. You'd think some of the money saved could be used to help get toothpaste (the topical, effective method) to those in need. \", \"Because we don't believe in the mind control capabilities that fluoride has... Your government is poisoning your water supply and turning you all into robots *dons tinfoil hat*. (_URL_0_)\\n\\nIn all seriousness, I think it's just because we don't need it...\", 'for good dental health. And also because fluoride is the by product of industry and some schmo was able to rope the us government into buying it. ', \"I'm not in Western Europe but in Europe nonetheless (Estonia). The town where I live, Tartu, uses ground water for the local water supply. The level of fluoride in tap water is between 0.2 and 1.06 mg/l which means you don't really need to add any more. The recommended level in the US is 0.7 mg/l. \\n\\nThe level of fluoride in tap water can even vary within a single city. In Tallinn there are areas which get their tap water from a lake. In these places the level of fluoride is between 0.04 and 0.2 mg/l. Other areas, which use ground water have a level of fluroide between 0.4 and 0.8 mg/l.\", \"This is a somewhat misleading statistic. For instance, (some regions in) Spain doesn't do potable tap water so floridating it would be a waste of money. It's not that they don't think people should be getting fluoride (in fact my school made us use fluoride mouthwash every morning) but that it doesn't make sense for the water system they have. \", 'Have you seen the teeth of Europeans?\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'A related question: why is fluoridated water, milk, and salt deemed safe to swallow while flouridated toothpaste is not?', \"Ever hear the term 'British teeth'?\", \"Not all people have to do the same things. 99% of people can do one thing and the remaining 1% can do something else, regardless if they are from Europe or the US. Even other splits are possible, any number of people can do one thing and that doesn't mean that any other people must also do that thing.\", \"Most people seem to think it was proposed because it strengthens teeth, but that was just what could sell the bill. It was proposed and isn't discussed today because it saves money on preventing corrosion in pipes while still being considered safe to drink, by at least politicians. \\n\\n_URL_0_\", \"Anyone know if the fluoride that binds to teeth can come off again, and if so, how hard is it to break off?\\n\\nAnd does it bind within that tiny time it typically stays in the mouth? \\n\\nAnd if it's only for teeth, but most water/drinks don't actually get swished around our teeth, isn't it missing the point? \", 'How do they get the fluoride percentage correct in the first place? ', 'Once a gravy train gets rolling in the US it is virtually impossible for it to stop because all the lawmakers work for the gravy train. ', 'Quote from the late Col. Jack D. Ripper - \"Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children\\'s ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It\\'s incredibly obvious, isn\\'t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That\\'s the way your hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.\"', \"Because fresh water, unlike salt water, doesn't immediately precipitate out heavy metals, like gallium, strontium, or cobalt. This presents a danger in that fresh water inherently allows such ions to travel the full distance from the reservoir to your sink. However, fresh water with even the tiniest amount of fluorine atoms dissolved in it, acts very rapidly to bind heavy metals.  \\n\\nSeeing as how we've done a drastic amount of above ground testing in our own backyard, we really shouldn't question it. WWIII, or not, such isotopes exist scattered across the land and get carried into streams and ponds every time it rains.\\n\\n**TL;DR** it's a cold war safeguard which protects our drinking water from nuclear fallout \", 'Have you seen those Western European teeth?', 'Keeps everyone in line.....call me crazy\\n....??? same as the \"chemicals\" in your food.........  mind reporgramming in your tv...sound crazy to you.....?? Look it up.....gov\\'t already keeping tabs on population.. _URL_0_', 'Because the companies that provide the fluoride to water facilities want to hang on to that revenue stream? No pun intended.', \"The US is all about mind control.  Haven't you been paying attention to our presidential election?\", 'In my city (Calgary,Alberta) we ha flouride in the water a few years back and people got mad. They took out the flouride (cost a ton) and noticed people teeth got worse as flouride is used for cleaning, now the people want it back :))))', 'Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of fluoridated water, Mandrake?', 'is fluoride actually that bad for us?\\n\\ni heard a lot about it, but never looked into it really', \"If the only reason flouride is good for you is the teeth then I don't know why we consume it. They should just hand out free flouride mouthwash packets instead.\", 'Europe is strongly influenced by a sense that certain things are unnatural and therefore undesirable.  Compare European and New World attitudes to genetically modified organisms.', 'I live in an area of high natural fluoridation and yet an application was made by some unknown company to add more, for free.\\n\\nThe local council was all for it. The local paper ran articles from the dentistry people saying how good it was. Then our corrupt local MP (Conservative) went on record to say that it was getting his full support and think of the children.\\n\\nSo the local newspaper got all suspicious and dug deeper, and found that the fluoride is a waste product from some industrial process, and its disposal is heavily regulated and expensive. Shoving it into the drinking water was making this company a handsome profit, and guess what? The local MP was a non-executive director of this company. That pretty much sank the whole project.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://www.cdhp.org/blog/262-fluoridation-what-a-real-debate-requires'], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy'], [], [], [], ['http://images.amcnetworks.com/bbcamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/460x300_austinpowers.jpg'], [], [], [], ['http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/corrosion.htm'], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/01/30924-secret-fema-death-camps-already-at-a-location-near-you/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2409, "q_id": "6t1r0o", "title": "why is it instinctive to use a specific higher pitched voice when talking to young children/pets?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6t1r0o/eli5_why_is_it_instinctive_to_use_a_specific/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dlhb1hr', 'dlhm3gf', 'dlhnc5g', 'dlhospt', 'dlhqadf'], 'score': [160, 200, 49, 4, 33], 'text': ['Deep voices are more intimidating. Testosterone is associated with both deeper voices and aggression, so by contrast higher voices are less scary to vulnerable creatures and children. ', 'Why did I get a notification for this?', 'The fuck is wrong with reddit notifications and \"trending\"? No offense to OP, personally I find your question interesting, but this certainly isn\\'t trending', \"Because biologically babies are more receptive to higher frequency sounds as their hearing abilities are still maturing. Thus through behavioral adaptation parents  &  older humans found better results in getting the attention of babies through high pitched voices. \\n\\nNot sure why we do the same with animals but I'm guessing that in many ways we see cute animals that we care for as analogous to babies and thus we unconsciously speak to them in a higher pitch too. Whether they are more receptive or not to higher pitches, you'd have to ask a veterinarian or zoologist. \", 'Just posted this in response to a comment but wanted to post again so OP can get their answer: It\\'s part of how the baby learns to speak. We speak to children in higher voices because it emphasizes the phonemes (the sounds that each letter makes) and when you talk higher it is softer on their eardrums and allow them to properly listen to the phonemes and understand every letter in the word. If you\\'ve ever been talking to somebody and had them say something you don\\'t know how to spell, you know what I\\'m talking about. Babies don\\'t know how to read or write yet so they can\\'t identify what letter is making what sound. Because of this, they have to hear the sounds separately and concisely. Say hello to yourself in a high pitched \"baby\" tone and then a low pitched tone. The higher pitch will emphasize the sounds of the word, allowing the baby to better understand what sounds are present in what is being said. This allows them to better be able to make connections between speech and surroundings as well as replicate the sounds they can identify. As for dogs, we see them as dependents and \"teach\" them the same way. Completely instinctive. (Qualifications: BS in behavioral psych with concentration in psych of language)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 343, "q_id": "6hfnqm", "title": "If a sea dries up, would the land be more fertile due to the decomposition, or would it be less fertile due to the salt?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6hfnqm/if_a_sea_dries_up_would_the_land_be_more_fertile/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['diygaeb'], 'score': [10], 'text': [\"Well, that depends on where it happens. One example of this occurring in the past is the Mediterranean Sea drying up about 6 million years ago in what is officially called the [Messinian Salinity Crisis](_URL_0_) (crazy, huh?). There were widespread deposits of various salts, so most of the land would not have been fertile. On top of that, because the basin is well below sea level, temperatures would have reached scorching levels similar to those in Death Valley today. The major problems with agriculture in such a setting would be the heat and the lack of fresh water. That, and the [catastrophic floods](_URL_1_) that would refill the basin at some point.\\n\\nIn a different scenario, we can imagine what would happen outside a restricted basin. If sea level were to fall globally, as it did in the last glacial advances, the continental shelves would be exposed. Initially, a lot of the soils would probably be too acidic for many plants because pyrite would oxidize and lower the soil pH dramatically. Pyrite forms in anoxic/reducing conditions in mud under water. But when it is exposed to the air, it will oxidize, forming sufuric acid. This lowers soil pH to about 2-3, which kills any plants that we like to interact with. These are referred to as acid suphate soils (or ASS) in pedology, and makes for many fun puns.\\n\\nGive some time, though, the soils would neutralize as a result of mineral weathering and deposition of fresh sediment from river systems. Eventually we'd gain a whole lot of nice real estate for farming and living, but it might take a few hundred to a few thousand years for that to happen.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6745/abs/400652a0.html', 'http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7274/abs/nature08555.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1673, "q_id": "1i2q7y", "title": "how is the earth's core still hot 4.5 billion years into its existence?", "selftext": "I mean, I get that it's pressurized and all, but how does it maintain enough heat to keep iron melted?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i2q7y/eli5_how_is_the_earths_core_still_hot_45_billion/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cb0dqyd', 'cb0drum', 'cb0fbyw', 'cb0gq9f', 'cb0js9n'], 'score': [118, 13, 24, 67, 2], 'text': [\"The earth is actually still heating itself. We're not just a bunch of rock, the core and mantle actually have atoms breaking down, releasing heat. We are effectively sat on a nuclear reactor set to slow.\\n\\nEarly earth was hotter, and has lost a LOT of heat over time, but the amount we have left isn't just here form the start, our planet is effectively burning fuel to keep active.\", '1. Leftover heat from when the rock were smashed together by gravity - ~~As MCMXCII points out, the rate of heat loss is likely to be quiet small.~~ Looked it up, heat loss is about 44.2 TW.\\n\\n2. Nuclear decay - isotopes undergoing ~~fission~~ nuclear decay releasing more heat. Rate of heating is about 30 TW\\n\\n[See here for more info.](_URL_0_) \\n\\n', 'Turns out thousands of miles of rock are great for insulation.', 'Put a hot pocket in the microwave for 5 minutes. That shit takes forever to cool down.\\n\\nThe earth is a giant hot pocket. ', \"For perspective, white dwarfs are stars that stopped producing their own heat and energy.  They're just sitting there, cooling down.\\n\\nIt's estimated it would take them 1,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quadrillion) years to cool down.  \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1927, "q_id": "1knyht", "title": "why is 0.9999... equal to 1?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1knyht/eli5_why_is_09999_equal_to_1/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbqufod', 'cbqugcs', 'cbqujvo', 'cbqv528', 'cbqxc7r'], 'score': [6, 7, 2, 3, 6], 'text': ['The simplest explanation I\\'ve found is this:\\n\\nCan you think of any number that is between 0.999... and 1?\\n\\nNo, you can\\'t, because there aren\\'t any.  And if there are no numbers between two given numbers, then those two numbers are the same.\\n\\nTo go into a bit more detail, \"0.9999...\" and \"1\" are two different ways of writing the same number, just like \"0.333...\" and \"1/3\" are two different ways of writing the same number.  Or just like \"0.25\" and \"1/4\" are two different ways of writing the same number.\\n\\nIn fact, if you accept that \"0.333...\" and \"1/3\" are the same, then \"0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333...\" must equal \"1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3\", and thus \"0.999...\" must equal \"1\".', 'Because Math\\n_URL_0_...  \\nBasically there are many proofs to show .9999... = 1 the simplest is :  \\nLet x = .999...  \\n10*x = 9.9999...  \\n10x-x = 9.9999... - .9999...  \\n9x = 9  \\nx = 1  \\nQED  \\nThere are a lot more complex and rigorous proofs on the wiki page if you have the mathematical background to understand them.\\n', \"1/9 is .111..., right?\\n\\nIf you don't believe me, think about it for a second. It's 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 and so on, because there's always that pesky remainder.\\n\\nSo, what's .111... times 9? .999..., naturally.\\n\\nWhat's 1/9 times 9? 1, naturally.\\n\\nYay!\", 'to sum up: infinity is a confusing concept', 'So far the answers are about proving that 0.999... equals 1, but after you accept that you may still be left with the question, \"but why does it work that way?\".  While math is completely universal, how we represent that math in numbers is completely man made.  We use a base 10 system, mostly because we have 10 fingers (some cultures finger count differently and they tend to use a different base for their number systems).  All base 10 means is that we represent the number 10 by place a 1 in a new column, and start our counting again at 0.  \\n\\nNow for any given base some fractions are going to be easy to represent, and some are going to be hard to represent.  In Base 10 the fraction 1/9th is hard to represent, which is why it ends up as the awkward 0.111... .  This leads to what looks odd, and that is that 9/9 = .999... = 1.  But there is nothing special about base 10 math.  If we take one common way to show how .999... = 1:\\n\\n1 / 9 = .111...\\n\\n2 / 9 = .222...\\n\\n...\\n\\n8 / 9 = .888...\\n\\n9 / 9 = 1 = .999...\\n\\n\\nNow if we convert all these numbers to base 9 (remember that in base 9 the number 10 represents the base 10 number 9), you can see how all the confusion simply goes away:\\n\\n\\n1 / 10 = 0.1\\n\\n2 / 10 = 0.2\\n\\n...\\n\\n8 / 10 = 0.8\\n\\n10 / 10 = 1 = 1.0\\n\\n\\nTL;DR It\\'s only confusing because 1/9th looks weird in base 10.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1106, "q_id": "8o2ajp", "title": "how does overtime work? how is it profitable for a company to pay it and why is it offered?", "selftext": "Thinking of working for a private ambulance company and they offer a lot of overtime (up to 60+ hours a week). Why would they pay me 1.5x my base salary during my overtime hours, when they could just have someone else do the work for 1x? In addition, why not just give me the extra hours and pay me 1x as usual? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8o2ajp/eli5_how_does_overtime_work_how_is_it_profitable/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e0040t4', 'e0041og', 'e0047hs', 'e004gxu', 'e005k6u'], 'score': [8, 4, 10, 52, 6], 'text': ['I believe that less employees equals less secondary costs, such as health insurance\\n\\nAlso, how many vehicles do they have in their fleet? Another fully equipped ambulance may run hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they may only have enough employees to staff the ambulances they have. \\n\\nThey may be waiting for enough profit to but another one. Then they can hire the other person and your overtime may go down.', 'Because in America, employers are required to pay hourly workers time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours in a week. They\u2019re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts', \"In the US, hours worked over 40 in the defined work week must be paid at time and a half. Some states, CA, require overtime pay after 8 hours in a day. It is more efficient to pay overtime because additional employees cost more to train, onboard, recruit. Employer would have to pay more in benefits and employer tax as well. It's easier to manage a smaller team as well. And there are many more factors relating to labor I haven't mentioned. \", \"Paying overtime past 40 hours a week is required by law, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. People died to get labor laws like this to be passed so don't take it lightly.\\n\\nStaff cost money to train and maintain. Secondary costs like training, benefit, uniforms, insurance, etc cost money and the company has likely done the math and determined that paying staff overtime is cheaper in the long run then hiring more staff.\\n\\nIt's also possible they are just badly understaffed and have to pay overtime because they can't get/retain enough people.\", \" >   Why would they pay me 1.5x my base salary during my overtime hours, when they could just have someone else do the work for 1x?\\n\\n* because they aren't going to pay that all the time, just some of the time, and don't want to hire the extra people\\n*  it can be hard to find and retain qualified people\\n* there is no easy way to fit 24x7 coverage into 40-hour work weeks, overtime can be more cost-effective than having too much overlap between shifts (this happens with nurses a lot)\\n* even though they are paying you more in salary, the cost of your benefits remains fixed, making fewer people on overtime more cost effective in some situations\\n\\n >   In addition, why not just give me the extra hours and pay me 1x as usual?\\n\\nUS labor law requires any non-exempt worker to be paid overtime past 40 hours.  Most all shift work is non-exempt.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1952, "q_id": "dd6hz8", "title": "How evenly does CO2 spread out in the atmosphere, and are there regions were the level is a a significantly higher levels?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dd6hz8/how_evenly_does_co2_spread_out_in_the_atmosphere/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['f2g19a0'], 'score': [3], 'text': [\"This [video](_URL_0_) helps answer your question. It's a computer generated simulation, but I would be surprised if the trends in observed values varied dramatically. \\n\\n* Larger concentrations are found in areas with more CO2 producing sources, like industry and automobiles. \\n* The variations are also seasonal due to CO2 uptake by vegetation in the spring and summer. \\n* The concentration does depend on the wind patterns, but the model indicates the winds are not strong enough to disperse CO2 such that it's evenly distributed across the globe.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2574, "q_id": "6vrdvt", "title": "Between 1865 and 1901, three American Presidents (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley) were assassinated. In 20th century terms, that would be equivalent to Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton dying by assassination. That would cause 20th century people to freak out. What was the feeling toward this in the 1800s?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6vrdvt/between_1865_and_1901_three_american_presidents/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dm2xwgy'], 'score': [17], 'text': [\"To add on to this question, to what extent would the freak out (or lack thereof) be tied to the president's popularity? i.e. OP cited JFK, Reagan,  &  Clinton as possible presidential assassinations, but these are 3 supremely popular American presidents; Lincoln obviously has a certain legacy to him, but would Garfield or McKinley be more akin to a Jimmy Carter or Lyndon B. Johnson, thus setting off different reactions upon their assassination(s)?\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1562, "q_id": "5pqhe5", "title": "why is the french revolution considered more important than the american one in world history when it came later and had many of the same themes?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pqhe5/eli5_why_is_the_french_revolution_considered_more/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dcszz2o', 'dct0er1', 'dct1g9s', 'dct3c8q', 'dct3fm2', 'dct9y0r'], 'score': [19, 3, 3, 8, 8, 6], 'text': ['Mostly because the American one was about a part of a nation becoming independent with a new rulership and associated laws.\\n\\nThe French one was about getting rid of monarchies, which changed power structures all over Europe, which, even Eurocentricism aside was a huge factor of influence on how the world is today. You can still see monarchies in place in countries where the revolution did not happen, so it also doesn\\'t count as a \"would have happened anyway\" thing.', 'At the time of the American Revolution, the soon-to-be USA consisted of 13 colonies. Those 13 breakaway colonies did not even comprise the whole of the British interest in the New World - Newfoundland, Quebec and several more substantial colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. France, on the other hand, was an established global empire, with many far-flung political and economic interests. When some of their colonies revolted against British rule, it rattled the British. When the French revolted against monarchic rule, it rattled the wider world - with other nations and rulers considering their own position.  ', 'In addition to what others have mentioned, the French Revolution led to the rise of Napoleon and what could arguably be called the first truly global war.', 'Because the American Revolution was a limited rebellion against a limited monarchy in a far off colony. The French Revolution was an absolutist revolution against an absolute monarchy in the most powerful nation in Europe. It rocked the European monarchs to the core, and terrified them that these revolutions could occur in their backyards, hence why they acted quickly to suppress the revolution (and failed). \\n\\nNot to mention, it put the left-right dichotomy into place, introduced the concept of mass conscription (which would lead to the bloodbaths of the American Civil War and the World Wars) and inspired the revolutionary waves of the 19th and 20th centuries. ', \"The French Revolution was actually a revolution--the social order and government in France completely changed. \\n\\nThe American Revolution isn't consistently considered a revolution by scholars, but rather a war of independence and separation from a colonial master. The government of Britain was not overthrown and social order did not change; America (simply) stopped being a part of Britain.\", \"Rebellion against a colonial power is nothing new.  It was practically a national sport in Ireland for centuries before the US existed.\\n\\nOverthrowing a long standing monarchy, especially one as entrenched as France's, and replacing it with a democracy, that was something quite new.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1186, "q_id": "saj4y", "title": "Do all the planets in our solar system orbit the sun at the same level (on the same plane) as us, and if so why? I recently was taught that objects in orbit are just falling through space so fast they do not crash into the planet/star so why are all our planets falling at the same level if they are.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/saj4y/do_all_the_planets_in_our_solar_system_orbit_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c4cg2ej', 'c4cg3qh', 'c4cg73c'], 'score': [2, 3, 2], 'text': [\"All of the eight remaining planets orbit in approximately the same plane (the ecliptic). Pluto doesn't.\\n\\nSupposedly, it has to do with the formation of the solar system: it began as a swirling cloud of dust. Portions of that cloud collapsed and became the sun, while smaller parts out in the edges collapsed into planets, asteroids, moons, and all the other junk floating around out there. So, the original spin of the dust turned into the orbit of the planets (and the spin of the sun, for that matter).\", \"The planets orbit in roughly [the same plane as Earth](_URL_1_) because that's what [the stuff they were made out](_URL_0_) of did.\\n\\nThe planets in the solar system (and any other objects in orbit) can sort of be described as falling towards the Sun, in that they're constantly accelerating towards it. Take the Earth: at any given moment its direction of travel is pointing *away* from the Sun but the Sun's gravity continually accelerates it *towards* the Sun, [changing its direction](_URL_2_) (the gif I've linked to shows the moon's orbit around the Earth, but the principle's the same.)\", 'This question and related answers is currently on the front page here _URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_plane', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbital_motion.gif'], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s9fje/is_our_solar_system_flat/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2019, "q_id": "10twax", "title": "[Physics, Quantum Optics] Help needed understanding Electromagnetically-Induced Transparency (EIT)", "selftext": "I'm doing reading for an undergrad research project on electromagnetically-induced transparency, and I keep coming across the term 'resonant' in regard to light (a laser) causing a change in quantum state. [This](_URL_0_) is a paper I am required to read and understand, among others, which uses the term. Also could anyone help elucidate how atoms are 'trapped' in a higher energy state and why this leads to lack of absorption of the probe laser?\nI'd be really grateful for any help, thanks.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10twax/physics_quantum_optics_help_needed_understanding/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6go818'], 'score': [4], 'text': ['\"Resonant\" means that the energy carried by the photons in a laser beam matches an atomic transition. In figure 2(a) for example, the incoming field \\\\omega_c is resonant to the 2-3 transition, because the arrow meets the line. If it ended up below or above that line, we would call that \"off-resonant\" driving (\"blue-shifted\" or \"red-shifted\", depending on whether the photons have more or less energy than the transition). \\n\\nPopulation trapping means that in the three-level scheme they show in figure 2(a) or 3(a), the electrons are trapped in the lower lying levels 1 and 2, despite being excited to level 3 with two slightly off-resonant pump fields. The trick is to tune the intensity and phase of the two driving fields such that they cancel each other out.\\n\\nNow, one field is the probe field, one field is the coupling field. The probe field is chosen such that it measures an absorption spectrum, i.e. in the absence of the coupling field, it would simply measure the spectral width of absorption of the transition it is tuned close to. Once you add the coupling field (and only if you choose your atom correctly), the transition probed by the probe field couples to a third level, which, as described above, forbids any transition into the higher energy level at a certain frequency. This creates the transparency window detected by the probe field.\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.stanford.edu/group/harrisgroup/PAPERS/review.pdf']", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1670, "q_id": "c4widz", "title": "Does \"Child Benefit\" incentivize child birth?", "selftext": "Countries like Canada and Australia provide and income to their citizens that are parents or guardians of children. At first glance it naturally sounds like an incentive and like it could impact child birth rate to go up. What I'm looking for of course is scientific evidence and studies in this topic.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/c4widz/does_child_benefit_incentivize_child_birth/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['es04tlu'], 'score': [7], 'text': ['Not for Singapore it doesn\u2019t. You get USD 5,500 cash for your first baby with a Government dollar-for-dollar Child development Fund (you contribute 10 K govt contributes an equal 10 K, up to USD 10 K). You also get an initial USD 2 K in your first CDA account. \\n\\nThe cash bonus increases per additional child you have, up to a maximum of USD 7 K cash for your 5th Child.\\n\\nThere are other benefits (child care subsidies, kindergarten subsidies, maid subsidies etc) that you become eligible upon the birth of your first child.\\n\\nHowever, despite the above slew of cash payouts and subsidies, Singapore\u2019s birth rate hit a 7-year low of 1.16 live baby/thousand females in 2018\\n\\nMain reasons for not proactively procreating are: 1) no suitable partner, 2) no dating opportunities (due to fast-paced lifestyle) and 3) passive attitude towards dating.\\n\\nSociety mindset needs to change in order for the alarming trend to stabilise and eventually reverse. However, this cannot change overnight so the planned steady influx of foreigners actually helped to mitigate the unwillingness of Singaporeans to have children.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1330, "q_id": "33qjiy", "title": "why does it seem that the more religious a society is, the more anti-sex it is?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33qjiy/eli5_why_does_it_seem_that_the_more_religious_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqnf7vh', 'cqnfa4g', 'cqnfu7a', 'cqnhd78', 'cqniv9o', 'cqnj72l', 'cqnlc6x', 'cqnlh0u', 'cqnma4l', 'cqnmeav', 'cqnmej6', 'cqnmpbk', 'cqnmsxe', 'cqnne0e', 'cqnnl6i', 'cqnnmfz', 'cqnnmip', 'cqnnp60', 'cqnnrok', 'cqnnwj4', 'cqnnycp', 'cqnnyxj', 'cqno19o', 'cqno231', 'cqno4hc', 'cqnod49', 'cqnos08', 'cqnp0pf', 'cqnp4gf', 'cqnp660', 'cqnpe6u'], 'score': [276, 4, 70, 13, 120, 42, 2, 3, 11, 4, 3, 9, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 2, 11, 5, 2, 3, 11, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5], 'text': [\"All major religions, well the Abrahamic religions anyway. Teach that sex before marriage is wrong. Hence being 'anti-sex'. \\n\\nEdit: When I said 'anti-sex', I was assuming that OP meant societies attitude towards sex before marriage. I didn't mean that any Abrahamic religion forbids sex. \", \"It's just another method of control. If the only sex that is allowed is in a church approved marriage, that gives the church a lot of power over people.\", \"Well, at least with Christianity, this is how it works:\\nChristianity's main selling point is that you are saved from all your sins if you will only accept Jesus Christ into your heart, because he died for your sins. So if you repent, and accept him, and try not to sin so much, you'll be saved.\\nUnfortunately, you can only convince people that they need a savior from their sins if you can convince them that they've sinned (that they are sinners). If your only sins are things like murder, not very many people need Christianity to save them--only murderers. So, you have to expand sin to cover a whole bunch of things that people LIKE to do... like have sex with each other, or masturbate.\\nSo yes, as another user commented, it's a method of control. There are just a few different layers to it.\", 'A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that religious people are anti-sex. We\\'re not. We love sex. Sex is great. \\n\\nThe difference is that we believe sex is also sacred. It is the power to create life and strengthen a bond between a husband and wife. Using it outside of that context is what is discouraged. \\n\\nIt\\'s difficult to draw a comparison between a secular and religious level of doing something sacred outside its prescribed context but I might liken it to someone playing taps over Arlington National Cemetery. It\\'s a tradition meant to honor and pray reverence to the fallen who may have been volunteers, or may have been drafted, but answered the call to defend this nation and died in the course of their duty. It is extremely sacred (whether you\\'re religious or not you can tell the feeling and weight of the act when you\\'re there). Now that, performed properly can be likened unto sex within marital bonds. \\n\\nSex outside of marriage can be likened to someone who decides to play \"Tequila\" on their horn instead of Taps. You just shouldn\\'t do that. You\\'re in the wrong setting, you\\'re doing something you shouldn\\'t, and you\\'re offending everyone involved. \\n\\nSex outside of marriage has been made a norm by society, that doesn\\'t mean it should be acceptable. This is a case of, \"What is popular isn\\'t always right, and what is right isn\\'t always popular.\" \\n\\ntldr - Religions - Mine in particular - Aren\\'t anti-sex. We just believe it is a sacred act and should be performed within the bonds of marriage. To do otherwise cheapens it and perverts its purpose. ', \"What about the Mormons? Catholics?  I feel like in those religions, once you're married it is expected that you bang and make babies until you die. \", 'It has to do more with \"sexual immorality\" than anti-sex. Sex within the confines of marriage is always celebrated and accepted.', 'It comes from a tendency of most religions to adopt a sort of ancient Greek \"dualism\" which is some kind of philosophical separation between flesh and spirit, usually dichotomizing them as evil and good respectively.', 'Lot of cynicism in this thread. Can I offer an alternate explanation? Because I feel the issue of \"control\" is being read from some profoundly anti-religious premises.\\n\\nI think it\\'s more fair to say that most religions have as a goal to inspire their followers to positive collective actions (however some have perverted this goal). A fundamental aspect of this is that it requires individuals to learn how to be in possession of their own individual desires and instincts, so those may be directed toward a greater good rather than for their own sake. In other words, to rule their desires rather than to be ruled by them.\\n\\nEach faith approaches this in its own way. Alcohol consumption, for instance, is a powerful and addictive physical pleasure that may, in moderation, promote eusocial behavior but in excess causes socially undesirable things. So religious followers are encouraged to drink in moderation or to abstain altogether not because the church relishes mind control, but because alcohol abuse can compromise an individual\\'s ability to positively contribute to their community.\\n\\nSex being one of the most powerful human instincts, it shouldn\\'t be surprising that religious people are encouraged to rule their sexual desire rather than be ruled by it. Again each faith approaches this differently, but historically most western religions have seen too little eusocial benefit to sex beyond its capacity to strengthen the bonds of a heterosexual marriage and to produce new babies to grow their communities. Weighed against some pretty negative possible consequences of unregulated desire (STIs, unwanted pregnancies, not to mention rape) it followed that teaching belIevers to master their desire by restricting sex to within marriage was the right bumper-sticker message.\\n\\nWhere this misses the boat, of course, is that it neglected the eusocial benefits non-marital and non-hetero sex can have. As some Christian denominations came to realize that their communities functioned better when committed gay couples were welcomed instead of shunned, or when children were trusted with factual sex education, some have softened their positions. The calculus should have been clear from the beginning: that repressing non-marital sexual behavior actually had an anti-social effect (unwanted and teen pregnancy) and so did persecuting homosexuals for their sexual orientation (the 80s AIDS crisis, gay suicide, and anti-gay hate crime). All of these hamper the ability of a community to come together and work for the common good-- which is why I\\'m na\u00efvely optimistic that in the long run, we\\'ll see most mainstream religions evolve to have more positive attitudes about sex that see or more inclusively as the social good that it is... But they will still teach their followers to rule over and channel their sexual urges so that it stays within the boundaries in which it remains beneficial to society.\\n\\nTL;DR: Religions teach followers to master their physical desires, so that they can be assets to collective good - in the same way defensive driving or gun safety classes train the eusocial uses of potentially anti-social behavior.', \"_URL_0_\\n\\n* Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.\\n* Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)\\n* Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.\\n* Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)\\n* Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)\\n* Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)\\n\\nThese are thought to be the values behind morality. Conservatives and liberals prioritize different categories.\\n\\nAuthority, Purity, and Ingroup correlate together. These people are more prone to religiousness (as they respect authority and value their ingroup). So it's not so much that one causes the other. Rather, people who tend to be religious also tend to emphasize purity.\", '1) Religious people tend to follow interpretations of their religion, rather than the Word of God.\\n\\n2) The people who create those interpretations seek power.\\n\\n3) The need to have sex is extremely strong in humans.\\n\\n4) Controlling that sexual need (and the feelings surrounding it -- guilt, for example) gives the controller *enormous* power.\\n\\nSo it\\'s not so much about \"religion dictates that sex is bad.\" It\\'s that \"I want to control you, and a great way to do that is to control your access to and attitudes regarding sex. My interpretation of your religion accomplishes this.\" ', 'The root of anti-sex in abrahamic religions really has nothing to the with sex but with denial of this worldly sensual pleasures, which has its roots in platonic thought and most likely made its way into Christianity through Augustine of hippo (an ex platonist). The line of reasoning is more or less this world is ever changing and false, thus, we should deny our senses and place the utmost faith in the unchanging godly realm that we come from and will some day return to (ie realm of platonic forms or heaven).', 'I find it interesting that the two things religions like to control most are sex and food (fasting/forbidden foods etc). So, our two most basic needs, and they control those.', 'This is a larger issue: Abrahamic religions are anti sex because they see matter and flesh as a degeneration of the divine.\\n\\nThey consider what remains after death the only worthy part of the human experience.\\n\\n\"Non-Dual\" schools of mysticism (Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Tantrism...) on the other hand tends to have a more sane approach to sexuality since they consider enlightenment to be the union (Yoga) of the grossest parts of your manifestation to the most refined part of your being (Brahman), realizing unity in the very flesh,  they even consider sexuality as a tool for \"spiritual transformation\".\\n', 'Human nature, in its most primal form, is the male trying to get exclusive rights to a female. Religion is a way to enforce this desire. Religion is not anti sex, its anti multiple sexual partners. ', \"I've been raised Catholic and consider myself a pretty conservative one at that but, if was in a meaningful relationship right now, given the way I currently feel, I'd definitely be having sex with her. Why? \\n\\nI'm a 19 year old sexually frustrated young man. \", \"Not so much anti-sex as anti sex that isn't for having babies by two members of the same religion. A baby born to two parents from a religion is a new member automatically. It's all about filling pews. It's best to get them young.\", 'Yet they want women to marry and pump out as many fucking little shitholes as possible.\\n', '[Children of God] (_URL_0_) member here. WTF are you talking about religion being anti sex?', \"The simple non judgemental answer is that all western faith-based religions and many eastern religions have strict restrictions on sexuality, marriage customs and gender roles within families and societies.\\n\\nConsequently, more religious societies are more driven to follow these proscriptions and judge others harshly for not doing so. \\n\\nThey don't view this as being anti-sex. Indeed, many devout Christians, Muslims and Hindus are consumed by the desire for and love of sex - the latter invented the Kama Sutra. Instead, they view their beliefs and demands about sex as both a submission to god's will and a, frankly, limited demand hardship because within marriage sex is just as expected as it is forbidden prior to or outside of marriage, whether for procreative reasons or simple beliefs about gender roles.\\n\\nThis doesn't always work out well for everyone and I think it's ridiculous, but that's why from Karachi to Mumbai to The American South, ultra religious societies come off as wildly anti-sex.\", \"There are two (predominant) creative macrosystem circuits in the brain that humans rely on to convert limbic tension. \\n\\nOne is fast, funny, sexy. \\n\\nThe other is big picture, futuristic, transcendent. \\n\\nWe usually rely on one over the other, we almost NEVER use both at once. \\n\\nBy focusing on the transcendent function, you reduce the attention, focus and importance on the sex function.\\n\\nClassic Apollonian man vs Dionysian man. \\n\\nNeither is more important. But don't ask religious folks that. \", 'Religions are against sex outside of marriage, so you could say religion encourages marriage at younger age.', 'Control sex and you control social norms. By creating social norms you control the behavior of the people within a society, and deviance from those norms cause the people to look at you for answers, imbuing you with power in the process. Power is then wielded in political spectrums, allowing those with power to further enforce the norms and punish deviance.\\n\\nReligion inherently seeks to attain and exert power over people, this is just one way of accomplishing that.', \"Nietzsche discussed this in his critique of 'slave morality'. Nietzsche prescribed religion as belonging to the 'slave caste' as resentment of life and those who enjoy life. The 'masters', who the slaves saw as evil, enjoyed their power, their health, their wealth and their sex. Slaves, who rarely could get any of these for long, became jealous and through cunning created religion as a way to undermine the values of the masters. Virtues like wealth, power, strength, independence and sexual virility became 'sins', and chastity, poverty, meekness and obedience became virtues. Thus, much of religion's virtues are a direct consequence of the slaves' ressentiment of life and their desire to subjugate those who enjoy life through an underhanded morality. The slaves achieved their revenge, fuelled by envy, by convincing the world that character traits like virility, strength and independence were to be shunned and considered evil.\", 'This is maybe a bit cynical, but anyways: Religions who promise an afterlife have a problem with non-monogamous relationships. As you are supposed to be reunited with all your loved ones for all eternity, complex family structures could be really awkward. Combine this with a world without birth control, and you get concepts like bastards and chastity. These concepts live on in religious traditions. ', 'Most popular religions are very old.\\n\\nUntil very recently, sex outside of marriage caused everyone a lot of problems: Unwanted pregnancies and STDs. \\n\\nSo most popular religions were correct to impose beliefs that discouraged sex outside of marriage. It was beneficial for everyone. But times have changed.', 'The more anti-sex they are in childhood, the bigger freaks they turn out to be as adults. \\n\\nIt just seems like they are anti-sex, in reality those people are mostly about keeping the women in their control. ', 'To put it in general sense: All religions have their own ideals they believe people should follow, and so *in general* the more religious a society is less tolerant they are over differing or conflicting beliefs.', \"The 3 of the biggest religions of the world (well, Judaism **used** to be one of the biggest religions in the world before all of that Hitler hullabaloo) stem from basically the same faith.\\n\\nAlso, they have always been controlled by men. And how do you make sure that men keep controlling your religious institution? By making women subservient. To this day, you cannot be a female prelate in any of the aforementioned faiths unless you subscribe to particular sects of Christianity. Notice how almost all of the prophets were men and how lineages are traced from man to man.\\n\\nWhy did I mention all of this? Because if you study their holy texts closely, you'll notice how they only placed restrictions on **female** sexuality. If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she must be stoned to death. Absolutely nothing is said about the men, though. In fact, I'm pretty sure the concept of male virginity didn't exist back then. If a woman's husband dies before she's given him an heir, she has to fuck all of his brothers in turn 'til she becomes pregnant. If you're a soldier, it's A-OK to slaughter anyone on the opposing side, male, female or child, but you should capture, rape and marry the female virgins. Then there's Islam, where most sects believe that you become a woman and can give consent (and get married) as soon as you begin menstruating and that if a married woman is raped, she probably brought it upon itself and must be killed because she committed adultery (at least the rapist will also be killed for the same crime).\\n\\nTL;DR: Religions founded by and controlled by men perpetuates a cycle of oligarchy for men by controlling women through guilt and stigmatization.\", 'Because sex makes you feel good, and if you already feel good, what do you need religion for?', 'The Duggars are about as christan as they come. And look at Michelle, i know she fucks like crazy.\\n\\nSo anti sex, no. Just anti sex before marriage.\\n\\nOnce that ring is on POPULATE THE FUCKIN EARTH!', 'Sex is at the root of so much evil that men and women do to each other. After all, animals -- including apes and monkeys -- kill competitors (and their children) to have the best mates. Humans developed (or it is natural) an ethos that sex must be regulated to maintain healthy relationships between people and to raise children and families in a healthy home with less conflict.\\n\\nSex creates conflict between humans.\\n\\nReligion creates rules and boundaries to eliminate conflict by regulating our conduct. When humans break these rules, as we often do, conflict abounds.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_International'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1965, "q_id": "72f57i", "title": "why does leaving your phone on a charger overnight degrade the battery?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72f57i/elif_why_does_leaving_your_phone_on_a_charger/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dni1s4j', 'dni2jei', 'dni34ul', 'dnialii'], 'score': [214, 67, 9, 6], 'text': ['It really doesn\\'t.\\n\\nThe trouble with battery advice is that people keep repeating stuff that was written for entirely different battery types several decades ago. Sometimes they even refer to the \"memory effect\", which is something that which only applied to NiCD (a battery type that\\'s been almost completely extinct for more than a decade and isn\\'t used in phones or laptops), a very particular type of them at that (so not nearly all of them), and required such a regular usage pattern to reproduce that it\\'s not seen outside of laboratories and satellites.\\n\\nYeah, overcharging batteries is bad. But given that lithium tends to explode or light itself on fire when abused, and that it costs companies big $$$ and it makes the news when anything of the sort happens... a bad lithium charger is pretty much nonexistent outside of really cheap junk from China. ', \"I didn't read the article but this is basically how it works:\\n\\nPhones have chips in them that detect the power being put into the battery and regulate it. When the phone detects the battery is full and that there is still a charger connected, it kind of turns the battery off. Instead it just powers itself directly and skips the battery. \\n\\nOvernight charge degradation hasn't been a thing for a long time.\", 'And wow the contradictions here are many and frequent. How is anyone to find out what is the right way and wrong way to charge your phone/tablet from these comments ? ', 'Op did you even read the article you posted?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1796, "q_id": "rnsfw", "title": "why does april fools' day end after midday?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rnsfw/eli5_why_does_april_fools_day_end_after_midday/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c479ivn', 'c479kg8', 'c479r6n', 'c479uao', 'c479zro', 'c47a0tq', 'c47a1je', 'c47a1zf', 'c47ace4', 'c47alx1', 'c47amt1', 'c47b92m', 'c47br05', 'c47bst6', 'c47btlw', 'c47bueb', 'c47c8ul', 'c47cl5s', 'c47d9qm', 'c47d9qu'], 'score': [77, 42, 10, 8, 87, 37, 142, 224, 4, 41, 72, 35, 15, 5, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2], 'text': [\"..Because it's annoying as hell.\", 'So people can get shit done instead of having to second-guess everything someone tells them, or peak around every corner. That crap gets old, fast.', 'It doesnt for me. And that is why no one wants to hang out with me entire april. :(', 'because everyone gets bored of it around midday. ', \"after midday everyone already knows it's a fools day. so they just stop.\", 'I see what you did there.', \"Because that's the time when everyone's worked out it's April Fools day, and then the people who have been tricked try to do their jokes, only to be told it ends at midday.\", 'When mummy and daddy get sick of silly pranks pulled by their children they make up rules such as this one.', \"What's even worse is that it's going to hit on Monday next year.  I think I'm just going to take a vacation day.\", \"You don't want somebody to explain it like you're five, you just want them to answer your question. \", \"I'm sorry but... [/r/answers](/r/answers)  or even [/r/AskReddit](/r/AskReddit) at a stretch. But this question is not for this subreddit. Really, just no.\", \"A lot of people are taking this to be an April Fool's day prank... just to be clear, April Fool's day *does* end after midday (here in the UK at least), so I don't think the OP is trying to fool us.\", 'I was told (UK here) that if you fool somebody after midday it is you who is the fool or something. ', \"Everyone that says it ends at midday is just jealous because they're not awesome enough to think of funny shit to pull, and use it as a defense.\", 'I\\'ve always hated the \"ends at midday\" thing since I first heard about it a few years ago. Why take something as great and precious as April Fools\\' Day and end it so much earlier than necessary?! A full day is barely long enough to begin with.', \"Because Game of Thrones Season 2 starts tonight and it better not fucking be an April Fool's Day joke or there will be riots.\", \"r/explainlikeimfive has drifted a long way from where it started. It's become no different from r/answers.\", 'When did r/explainlikeimfive become r/circlejerk?', \"This is a prime example of the kinds of posts that don't belong here! This has nothing to do with explaining like you are 5. This belongs in [/r/AskReddit](/r/AskReddit) \\n\\n\\n[See this post...](_URL_0_)\", \"Because fool me once, shame on you. Fool me after midday... you can't get fooled again.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive//comments/jqy5x/attn_this_subreddit_is_for_explaining_complicated/'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 562, "q_id": "2a6qme", "title": "do astronauts at the iss get \"private\" time?", "selftext": "They're up there for 5-6 months.  Do they get permission or allotted time to have, well, \"private\" moments?  \n\nEjaculation is a part of human nature and also a healthy exercise for men, though I can see it being a logistical nightmare on board.\n\nDo they just go inactive for 5-6 months?  Or is there a contingency?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a6qme/eli5_do_astronauts_at_the_iss_get_private_time/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cis15qq', 'cis3ig1', 'cis5jny', 'cis5nvw', 'cis6da1', 'cis7gbf', 'cis7wjp', 'cis9iq6', 'cis9tid', 'cish8ya', 'cisn8gr'], 'score': [76, 43, 15, 2, 20, 5, 3, 8, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"They have private bathrooms and while the station isn't big there are not constantly people around every square inch of it.\\n\\nHowever I don't think they get special jerk-off time they can probably find private time in the bathroom or in their bunk.  Of course it is space so you have to take extra precautions for anything that might go flying off and float around.\", 'I sailed across the Pacific with my old man once.  Just the two of us. Not a sexy time.  But trust me,  you find a way.  It gets unbearable after a while. ', \"I don't think this is an appropriate conversation for 5 year olds.\\n\\nBut on a more serious note, IIRC there was post a while back about whether anyone has had sex in space and it seemed that the general consensus was that there was at least one married couple on the ISS at the same time that probably did.  \", \"The two pump chump skill requires intense mental focus. I'd hope there would be a formal whack hour or signal as to allow for a distraction-less self-rape.\", \"I don't think I would stay sane after 6 months. I have the romantic/sexual life of a particularly impotent snail, and *I* would have a need to bed the first human being I make eye-contact with after landing.\\n\\nOn to the question, I assume they would have a way of 'relieving' themselves every so often. It just might not be talked about much in public outreach, due to America's fear of penises.\", '\"In space, no one can hear you scream.\"', \"Now I'm thinking about this. Do they bring their porno magazine stash or a HDD full of porn? I've been in the military on deployments, the imagination can only take you so far. \", 'Apparently your penis is smaller in space when erect because of the blood flow or something.', 'Shoulda asked Buzz Aldrin on his ama', 'The book \"Packing for Mars\" explained that the astronauts have various moments of free time and an understanding to spend some of that time \"alone\", but dedicated time is not to be specifically allotted because if they have to schedule it then it goes in the official flight log which is available in public records and they didn\\'t want to list \"jerk off time\"\\n\\nIn addition, if it goes in the flight log then they have to do tests to account for it which means timing the astronauts during their \"sessions \" on earth. ', \"This was asked in an astronaut's AMA a while back. I believe the answer he gave was (and I'm summarizing here) that the space station is big and the inhabitants can find an out of the way place for 'private' time. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2869, "q_id": "27a31a", "title": "do black holes \"move\" through space?", "selftext": "I've read that our universe is expanding as a result of the big bang. I've also read that it's accepted that most galaxies have a supermassive black hole at its center. Does that mean that black holes are also \"moving\" through space? If so how? How does something that has such a massive gravitational pull that not even light can escape move? I would think that something like that would act like an anchor in space. Please explain this to me.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27a31a/eli5do_black_holes_move_through_space/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['chyt730', 'chytnp9', 'chywwzu', 'chywzew', 'chyy2mx', 'chyz4rb', 'chz1nd8'], 'score': [13, 338, 54, 2, 2, 6, 2], 'text': ['Note: Movement through space is entirely relativistic. One can only determine the movement of objects in relation with another object. For example , on Earth , if we were to observe the universe , we would come to a conclusion that we are stationary - that we are not moving in space, and that everything else is. The same goes for black holes. If one were to observe the universe at the location of a black hole , one would conclude that it too, like the previous observation , is stationary, and that other objects are rotating around it. \\n\\nTherefore, as to wether or not black holes are moving through space depends on the perspective in which one is observing through.', 'What many people dont understand is that black holes are not more \"powerful\" when it comes to their gravitational effect on other objects than any other object in space. If you would take 1kg of matter and compress it as much as matter is compressed in a black hole, you would get an event horizon and all that but standing next to this 1kg black hole would not affect you in any other way than what the same mass already did to you before it was compressed.\\n\\ntl;dr black holes are just dense matter, they move around in space like everything else.', \"Black holes have a lot of mystique and awe around them, but they really aren't that complicated. If you live somewhere with snow, you have probably played around with the basic concepts.\\n\\n\\n\\nImagine we start with a cloud. It is really big.\\n\\nThen the cloud gets compacted. Parts of the cloud condense. It turns into snowflakes. Same amount of stuff, smaller space. The snow falls to the ground. What was once a very large part of cloud has the same mass, but is now a smaller pile of snow.\\n\\nThen you compact it some more. You start with a small pile of snow, compress it, and you have a snowball.  Same amount of stuff, smaller space. It might be the size of a baseball.\\n\\nCompact it some more, you have a small iceball. It might be the size of a golf ball. Same amount of stuff, smaller space.\\n\\nThat is exactly what happens with a black hole.\\n\\nThe same is true for planets and for stars, black holes, and even the super massive black holes in a galactic core.\\n\\nLet's see how.\\n\\nStart with a big gas nebula.  It can be hundreds of millions of miles across. But it is very sparse, like a cloud.\\n\\nCollapse part of the nebula and you get a star, some planets, asteroids, comets, and other material. It is much like collapsing your cloud to snowflakes. Perhaps a big star, perhaps a yellow giant or a blue hypergiant. Let's say it is a 10 million mile diameter yellow giant. The Sun is about one million miles across for comparison.\\n\\nPush and compact a giant star and eventually it will collapse into a neutron star. Just like collapsing your pile of snow into a snowball.  It is very small and whitish, but has the same amount of stuff as the star before it.  It has the same amount of gravity, just squished a bit more.  The star collapses from roughly ten million miles down to roughly five miles. It shrinks to about a millionth of the size, but it still has the same amount of mass. The planets and other objects will still orbit at the same distance, assuming they survived the giant explosion that took place when it collapsed. When you read online about a supernova, it can be caused by one of the giant stars collapsing this way.\\n\\nThe big difference with a neutron star is that since it is compressed so much, it shrunk from ten million miles to just five miles, things can get MUCH closer to the central mass. If a comet or asteroid or planet gets too close, it won't be able to escape and will eventually crash into the star. Other than that, it still has the same amount of mass, the same amount of gravity, the same amount of matter that the giant star had.  It is just squished together tighter.\\n\\n\\nCollapse it again and it turns into a black hole. It still has the same gravity, but because it has collapsed the things near the center are able to get closer to the central mass.  What started as a ten million mile star, or a hundred million mile nebula, or a five mile neutron star, has been squished down to the size of a large marble, probably just a few inches across. It still has the same amount of stuff in it, and again any nearby planets or other objects orbiting it that survive the explosion will continue to orbit exactly the same.\\n\\nIt gets so small, so tight, that now stuff that could have only come within a few miles of it can now come within inches of it.  Just like before, things that get too close cannot escape, and will eventually crash into the star. The difference is that at some distance near the star, perhaps only a mile or two away from the tiny marble, not even light can escape directly. But these very tiny objects still have the same mass, 10^32 or 10^33 kg of mass, just squished down really tight.\\n\\nBlack holes are just really squished stars. A cloud that was once millions of miles across has been squished down to the size of a marble. They still move around, they still do what stars do, they are still just a really tightly compacted iceball. The only difference between a black hole and a star is they are just so squished that light has a hard time escaping.  \\n\\n\\nAnyway, the centers of galaxies are super massive black holes.  They are like thousands of stars that have been squished down, just like you can squash a whole yard worth of snow into one snowman. The stars are squished and squished and squished, maybe down to the size of a basketball or the size of a small building. They might have a mass of 10^36 kg, give or take an order of magnitude. They have so much mass that millions of stars (including black holes) orbit around them. These galactic cores also move around.\\n\\nWe have a local cluster of galaxies that are all moving around.  The galactic cores, those collections of super massive black holes, are moving in their own dance around the universe.  We have the Canis Major Galaxy, and the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, that are already crashing into the Milky Way Galaxy. We are on a collision course with another, the Andromeda Galaxy. It was just on the news that scientists updated when the Milky Way is expected to crash into Andromeda. We still have around 3 billion years, so we'll be long dead, but our Sun will likely entering old age when the Milky Way collides with Andromeda and will probably become a big elliptical galaxy. \\n\\nOur local cluster of galaxies is part of an even larger dance with other clusters of galaxies, all moving around crashing into each other.\\n\", 'Think of it this way. Everything in space is \"falling\". You, me, the stars, planets, comets, dust particles, etc are all in a big free fall in a vacuum. Through observation, everything seems stationary because of the incomprehensible amount of empty space in the universe. Since mass warps the fabric of space, large objects influence smaller object\\'s trajectory (this includes matter and light or energy) influencing them and creating orbits. But still even with gravity, everything is \"falling\". Black holes, even with their copious amount of mass twisting and distorting the space-time fabric, are not an exception to this principle. They still follow Newton\\'s laws of motion. So yes, there is no \"anchor\" so to speak and they are moving along with all the other matter and energy around them.', 'Absolutely. There\\'s a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy right now. In fact, there\\'s one at the center of every galaxy, and it\\'s theorized that galaxies formed because of stars and debris being attracted to these black holes - basically, everything in the galaxy orbits the back hole the same way everything in our solar system orbits the sun.\\n\\nAs all galaxies move through space, so do their centers. In fact, it could very well be that the black holes are the primary objects being moved; the rest of the objects in the galaxy follow. Think of it like this: when you make a model of the solar system, all the planets are attached to the sun. Now make a model of the solar system where the sun model is a weather balloon and let it go. The weather balloon is moving, and because of that, so are the objects attached to it.\\n\\nAlso, as others have noted, a black hole should not be thought of like a literal hole. The \"hole\" portion of the name likely comes from it\\'s dark appearance. It\\'s really a sphere of matter, similar to a star or planet. You don\\'t get to see the matter though, you can only see the event horizon, which is the gravitational field around this sphere of matter. It\\'s black because the matter is so densely compact that the gravity is too strong for light to escape.\\n\\nOf course, I\\'m not an astronomer or cosmologist, so I\\'m only stating my somewhat limited knowledge here. If any of the information is incorrect, feel free to correct me!', 'A few misconceptions here.\\n\\nFirst, the expansion of the universe is not motion.  It\\'s space itself that expands, not objects that move through space.  You can think of it as two ants on an inflating balloon: even if the ants don\\'t move, the distance between them will increase.  Similarly  it\\'s possible for two black holes to drift apart due to space expansion, while staying \"motionless\".  But that leads to our second point:\\n\\nThere is no such thing as a motionless reference in the universe.  There is no favored reference frame to which you can compare objects and determine if they are moving or not.  There is nothing you can anchor to.  It\\'s all relative.  A black hole that is motionless relatively to a specific reference frame will be moving compared to an infinity of other equally valid reference frames.\\n\\nThird, mass doesn\\'t prevent *motion*, it only makes *acceleration* more difficult.  That is, a black hole that is moving will keep moving at the same pace until you apply a force to it.  Also the mass of black holes may be very big but it is not infinite, meaning a force applied to it will have a small effect, but it will have an effect.\\n', \"People seem to think of black holes as sort of 'holes' in space, when they are really not.\\n\\nAll a black hole is, is a massively dense clump of matter.\\n\\nIt could be bright, or orange, or red for all we know, but it looks like a hole because it sucks up all the light that passes near it.\\n\\nIt doesn't break any laws of physics, it is just a super dense ball of matter.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 3003, "q_id": "klo04", "title": "Can a bullet made of ice feasibly be fired into a person to kill them?", "selftext": "EDIT: Also, would an ice arrow on a crossbow fare any better?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/klo04/can_a_bullet_made_of_ice_feasibly_be_fired_into_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2l9akh', 'c2l9fv9', 'c2l9yse', 'c2lb6cp', 'c2lbpu6', 'c2lddh8', 'c2l9akh', 'c2l9fv9', 'c2l9yse', 'c2lb6cp', 'c2lbpu6', 'c2lddh8'], 'score': [15, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 15, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3], 'text': ['Not perhaps a properly scientific answer, but it appears [MythBusters suggest: no](_URL_0_)', \"In answer to your edit: Yes, an acceleration method that isn't as violent as a gun would stand a better chance of success.\\n\\nI'm of the opinion that a slingshot or a sling would be the best choice.\", 'An ice arrow on a crossbow would fare better, yes.', 'Are you asking for a bullet or a general projectile? I would guess that you could feasibly kill someone with an ice projectile from a sling shot. Take it a step further: a giant ice ball and a trebuchet. ', 'Taking the most liberal interpretation of the question, I don\\'t think that there could be any doubt that the answer is yes.\\n\\nCreate a railgun in the vacuum of space that accelerates slowly enough not to shatter the ice \"bullet\" with a barrel long enough to get it to lethal velocity. \\n\\nIf you mean just sticking some ice into a modern gun, then MythBusters probably have you covered.', \"Every time this kind of question has come up I've asked myself, why? As in why would you want to use something other than a normal bullet to kill someone. I realise the answer may along the lines of tracing the gun that fired the bullet would be impossible. \\n\\nThe hypothetical argument is that the use of an ice bullet would result in the ice evaporating. But what evidence does this actually erase? If the projectile had enough structural integrity to act like a bullet, then it will produce a wound just like a bullet so it would be elementary to deduce that the person was killed by a projectile, so that peice of information is not destroyed. What is missing is the trace.\\n\\nSo yes I've seen the MB episode where they try this, and there may be problems. \\n\\nSo why not pykrete? very strong, much more likely to survive the firing and impact. Not going to provide any recoverable information on the gun that fired it. Will melt down to a woody pulp if not completely disappear.\\n\\nNot an expect in material science but on first insepction the numbers [here](_URL_0_) look more promising. Seems to do the job with the same benefits\", 'Not perhaps a properly scientific answer, but it appears [MythBusters suggest: no](_URL_0_)', \"In answer to your edit: Yes, an acceleration method that isn't as violent as a gun would stand a better chance of success.\\n\\nI'm of the opinion that a slingshot or a sling would be the best choice.\", 'An ice arrow on a crossbow would fare better, yes.', 'Are you asking for a bullet or a general projectile? I would guess that you could feasibly kill someone with an ice projectile from a sling shot. Take it a step further: a giant ice ball and a trebuchet. ', 'Taking the most liberal interpretation of the question, I don\\'t think that there could be any doubt that the answer is yes.\\n\\nCreate a railgun in the vacuum of space that accelerates slowly enough not to shatter the ice \"bullet\" with a barrel long enough to get it to lethal velocity. \\n\\nIf you mean just sticking some ice into a modern gun, then MythBusters probably have you covered.', \"Every time this kind of question has come up I've asked myself, why? As in why would you want to use something other than a normal bullet to kill someone. I realise the answer may along the lines of tracing the gun that fired the bullet would be impossible. \\n\\nThe hypothetical argument is that the use of an ice bullet would result in the ice evaporating. But what evidence does this actually erase? If the projectile had enough structural integrity to act like a bullet, then it will produce a wound just like a bullet so it would be elementary to deduce that the person was killed by a projectile, so that peice of information is not destroyed. What is missing is the trace.\\n\\nSo yes I've seen the MB episode where they try this, and there may be problems. \\n\\nSo why not pykrete? very strong, much more likely to survive the firing and impact. Not going to provide any recoverable information on the gun that fired it. Will melt down to a woody pulp if not completely disappear.\\n\\nNot an expect in material science but on first insepction the numbers [here](_URL_0_) look more promising. Seems to do the job with the same benefits\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282004_season%29#Ice_Bullet'], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete#Durability'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282004_season%29#Ice_Bullet'], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete#Durability']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 153, "q_id": "8jf0lg", "title": "When did the \"Cleopatra haircut\" appear? Did Cleopatra ever hairdress like that?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8jf0lg/when_did_the_cleopatra_haircut_appear_did/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e56ulrb'], 'score': [2], 'text': ['Not to discourage any further answers but you\\'ll probably enjoy this older post:\\n\\n[On Cleopatra\u2019s hairstyles and the origins of the \"Cleopatra cut\"](_URL_0_) \\n\\n[Insider look at Cleopatra\u2019s fashion routine](_URL_1_)\\n\\nby /u/cleopatra_philopater']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7gwxeb/did_cleopatra_vii_always_cut_her_hair_short_at/dqmu1zw/?utm_content=permalink&amp;utm_medium=user&amp;utm_source=reddit&amp;utm_name=frontpage', 'https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/88kk50/cleopatra_gives_rare_insider_look_at_her_fashion/dwlga9q/?utm_content=permalink&amp;utm_medium=user&amp;utm_source=reddit&amp;utm_name=frontpage']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2510, "q_id": "1jcguf", "title": "do clip-on mosquito repellents work? if so, how?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jcguf/eli5_do_clipon_mosquito_repellents_work_if_so_how/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbdb46d', 'cbdbzd0', 'cbdc7rk', 'cbdcife'], 'score': [12, 45, 7, 3], 'text': [\"As one with severe mosquito allergies, as well as an unfortunate ability to attract them from miles away.... they don't work at all for me.\\n\\nThe only thing I've been able to find that actually works is high quantities of DEET (80% or more) applied to clothing or skin... even then it isn't very effective.   Sucks for long term exposure but honestly anything else just hasn't worked.\\n\\n\", 'My understanding is that the word \"repellent\" is a bit of misnomer.  \\n\\nYour body gives off various chemicals that mosquitos have evolved to sense.  They see them almost as you\\'d see a neon \"FREE CAKE\" hanging somewhere.  These \"repellents\" are designed to mask those chemical signs so that the insects don\\'t see you as a potential target.\\n\\nUnfortunately, even if that neon \"FREE CAKE\" sign has been taken down, and the cake has been hidden away in a fridge somewhere, when you walk into the room, you  might see some other cake indicators, such as paper plates, forks, napkins, and milk.  Once you\\'ve gotten that much info, you might start thinking to yourself, \"Hey, there might be cake here.\"  The same happens with the bugs.  The \\'repellents\" won\\'t prevent them from flying near you or even landing on you, they are just meant to mask the fact you have delicious cake hidden somewhere in your veins.', 'Good luck getting a mosquito to stay still long enough to clip something to it! ', \"Here's something that you already have in your house that actually does work:\\n\\n_URL_0_\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/science/a-low-tech-mosquito-deterrent.html?_r=0']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 375, "q_id": "1yvztp", "title": "why do some people find gmo controversial when farmers have been modifying crops for centuries?", "selftext": "So, my understanding is that corn is a perfect example of a GMO, since it has been selectively bread to increase yield.\n\nWhy is there a modern push away from GMO?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yvztp/eli5_why_do_some_people_find_gmo_controversial/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cfo8rjj', 'cfo93du', 'cfo95ly', 'cfoak1t', 'cfoar33', 'cfoayer', 'cfoc66p', 'cfofs6n', 'cfovgx3'], 'score': [40, 14, 3, 13, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3], 'text': ['There are several reasons:\\n\\n* There\\'s an aversion to food that \"comes from a lab,\" as it were.\\n* Selective breeding is generally between crops that are the same or very similar. Genetic modification allows traits from other species to be incorporated into the crop (if you want a tomato that doesn\\'t freeze in a cold snap, you could take genes from a fish that lives in frigid Arctic water, for example). That freaks people out.\\n* GMOs are largely controlled by a handful of corporations, the most notable of which is Monsanto. These are companies that people aren\\'t too fond of, and they use some pretty heavy handed business tactics to shut out any smaller competitors.\\n\\n*Edited for word choice*', \"Most people also don't understand the science behind genetic engineering, whereas selective breeding sounds safe and familiar (even though GMO foods have undergone way more safety testing) - fear of the unknown.\", 'Selectively breeding is different than GMO. selectively breeding can theoretically happen in the wild with cross pollination, so is viewed in a good light. \\n\\nGMO. Crops can never be replicated in the wild. Literally Genes are spliced together in the lab, so it kinds of freaks people out. ', 'It\\'s the \"round up resistant\" crops that concern me. Round up is an increasingly ineffective weed killer and all around toxic chemical. Instead of dealing with evolution and developing better weed killers they created RUR crops allowing farms to use ridiculously high levels of roundup on commercial food crops which then us runoff into the groundwater. ', \"I think most of the push away stems from ignorance.  This logic applies to any concept that is hard to grasp technically like nuclear energy, fracking, etc.  The further a concept becomes from something simple like making mud pies, the more likely you are to hit an ardent militant person that feels their feelings are more pertinant than facts.  I don't profess to know, but I'm smart enough to know that since I don't have a fact based arguement, I'd better shut my piehole.  Also, _URL_0_\", 'GMO and selective reproduction are not the same thing.\\n\\nSelective reproduction means selecting a crop/animal and breading that exclusively. Select the best from this again and plant/bread again. Rinse and repeat. Best compared to \"survival of the fittest\" which is largely natural.\\n\\nGMO on the other hand changes the DNA; fundamentally changing what the crop/animal is or can do. The thing is that we don\\'t know how this impacts what it grows and if it has any impact on human health. It also could be very damaging economically. The main concern is that this may not be a short term issue; it could take 10s of years of constant usage that results in some fatal disease/cancer.\\n\\nOn the economics side here is a possible scenario. To increase the yield of a crop, the crop is genetically altered to scare away/kill any bugs that typically eat it. The crop is a success and is sold everywhere. 5 years later a bug has become immune to the implanted defense mechanism and starts to eat the crop. The immune bug multiplies faster than it can be irradicated and entire crops are lost to the bug. No harvest, no money - >  bankruptcy with no one being able to buy the older crop as it is now too expensive to produce.\\n\\nWhile i am pro-gmo on a small scale for long testing, there are definitely concerns.', 'The only reason there is controversy at all is because people are irrationally afraid of the word \"genetically modified.\" There\\'s been a lot of unnecessary scaring of people uneducated on the topic that has led to all GMO crops being labeled as bad for you.\\n\\nWhile there are most certainly some cases where the genetic modification is under-tested or executed for reasons other than producing a better, healthier crop (anything and everything Monsanto comes to mind), not all genetic modifications are bad, and branding them as so is putting down a field of science with a healthy body of research that could one day put a serious dent in world hunger.', \"In general, it's because of the psuedo-science available on the internet. \\n\\nIf you look long enough, you can find enough 'internet evidence' to support just about any position.... like creationism.\", \"There's also a very wide misunderstanding of GM.  Let's take one example, let's say I develop a crop or fertilizer that kills all other crops, or takes over all others that don't contain a certain gene or property.  Perhaps I instead created one of either that requires you to use my super expensive Formula X to continue to grow the crop.\\n\\nNow suppose Joe Idiot hears about this - and makes the ridiculous assumption that ALL GM has this property.\\n\\nIt's lunacy at it's finest, but largely what happens when you mention GM.  Yes, there are without question ethically questionable products that come out of the industry. Sadly, people paint the entire industry in this way because of a few dodgy products, and this is the kind of rumour and scaremongering that just spreads like a plague and is near on impossible to stop spreading.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2403, "q_id": "fotgyh", "title": "Where does the patient breath go after breathing out while on a ventilator? Does it just vent into the room (hopefully filtered), and ventilated out by the room's HVAC extraction, or is it somehow pushed directly to the outside.", "selftext": "Additional questions while I am here :\n\nAre the air used by the ventilator the piped medical air, or just the air in the room pushed into the lungs?\n\nAre there oxygen added to the air?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fotgyh/where_does_the_patient_breath_go_after_breathing/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['flj1mwj'], 'score': [20], 'text': [\"The ventilator uses room air with added oxygen. \\n\\nThe amount of oxygen can be varied based on what the patient needs. It can be as low as 21% (plain room air) and as high as 100% oxygen. Very high oxygen concentrations are used only when necessary, because too much oxygen causes harm over time, but that is much less dangerous than having too little oxygen. \\n\\nThe ventilator also warms, humidifies, and filters the ingoing air. The body normally does that as the air passes through the nose and mouth, but the ventilator tubing bypasses the necessary structures, so the ventilator has to perform those functions instead. \\n\\nExhaled air comes back out of the patient through the ventilator tubing. It is filtered to remove bacteria and excess moisture, to prevent those things from collecting inside the ventilator and gunking up its delicate parts. Then the gas is released to the room. \\n\\nA regular hospital room has fairly normal HVAC, similar to what your house has. If there's concern about a severely infectious respiratory disease, the patient is instead placed in a *negative pressure* room. That means the air is constantly sucked out of the room and vented outside. The suction causes a steady flow of air from the hallway into the room, preventing any airborne microbes from floating the other way and infecting the rest of the hospital.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1361, "q_id": "33z5zz", "title": "is it true that hanging towels, clothing, etc. out in the sun naturally deodorizes it? if so, how does that work?", "selftext": "Trying to figure out whether or not this is just an old wives tale or if there's some kind of chemical change that comes in the sunlight that destroys odors.  Also, is the deodorizing effect only temporary, or permanent?  Does the sun actually destroy or just mask odors from mold, etc?  Thanks in advance!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33z5zz/eli5_is_it_true_that_hanging_towels_clothing_etc/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqpqgo5', 'cqpqtdy', 'cqprm7w', 'cqpsrzm', 'cqpuk2u', 'cqpuke4', 'cqq6gal'], 'score': [26, 5, 15, 2, 21, 30, 2], 'text': [\"My understanding is that it's just a good, effective way of sanitizing towels. A lot of the musty odor of some towels is that they were too wet for too long and are thus teaming with some smelly little lifeforms.\\n\\nA good, long exposure to fresh air and bright sun will thoroughly dry out the towel and probably kill almost anything living on it, thus removing the smell they make.\", \"If you have tomato stains on your clothes, hanging them in the sun with erase them.  I've even put shirts on the dash of my car and the sun takes out the stain.\", \"I was taught that it's that the thorough drying + fresh air which is the main thing, and also the UV radiation kills a lot of the molds and bacteria that can cause odours. \", 'The simple explanation is that the sun bakes out the funk and can permanently get rid of odors.  This works really well with shoes. ', \"Generally, odors in clothing are caused by bacteria. The sun's UV rays kill the bacteria, thus eliminating the odor permanently. The sun also does a pretty good job of bleaching clothes.\", 'The \"livestock\" living on your towels/clothing need a warm, wet and semi dark to dark environment.  \\n\\nPlacing them in the sun removes the water. Water is very necessary for life. \\n\\nImagine if you got lost in the middle of a desert. No water, too much sun, little to no food. Your ability to survive would be dependent on finding shade and water. \\n\\nSo basically putting clothing or towels in the sun causes desertification of their little ecosystem. ', \"Do you mean hang them out instead of tumble drying ? Cos we just moved to a small house with a back garden and since hanging out our clothes - we've noticeably smelled fresher. All our clothes smell like fresh air and fabric softener. Its lovely especially since my bro and I used to smoke indoors a lot and grew used to our clothes smelling smoky or worse, funky from a broken tumble dryer.\\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 892, "q_id": "31fotp", "title": "Has Otto von Bismarck really said \u201cIf there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans\u201d?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31fotp/has_otto_von_bismarck_really_said_if_there_is/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cq185d0'], 'score': [206], 'text': [' >  Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal \u2026 A single spark will set off an explosion that will consume us all \u2026 I cannot tell you when that explosion will occur, but I can tell you where \u2026 Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it off.\\n\\nComment by Otto von Bismarck during the Congress of Berlin in 1878, as quoted in \"European Diary\" by Andrei Navrozov, in Chronicles Vol. 32 (2008)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 409, "q_id": "4ji8ef", "title": "why are some animals tasty and some not? would we be tasty if prepared properly?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ji8ef/eli5why_are_some_animals_tasty_and_some_not_would/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d36ss27', 'd36svon', 'd36sxcu', 'd36sz1t', 'd36uvsl', 'd373n9q'], 'score': [7, 28, 8, 4, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Which animals are not tasty? I'm pretty sure that's entirely a matter of personal preference and you could find someone who enjoys any kind of meat.\", 'In terms of meat I would imagine it\\'s down to the consistency and texture of the cut as well as the amount of fat to be found.\\n\\nHuman beings may or may not be delicious, depending on whether or not you\\'re a fan of veal.\\n\\n[William Seabrook](_URL_0_) was a guy from about a hundred years ago who got to try out some human meat while on a trip to Guinea. He had this so say: \\n\\n\"It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable.\"\\n\\nVeal is really tender and flavourful and fatty, so if you\\'ve got taste buds like most of the rest of us, you\\'d probably find TASTING your BUD to be a pretty yummy experience. ', 'I\\'ve eaten a ton of non-traditional animals including bear and lion.\\n\\nYou know how when you get some spicy food the smell comes out of your pores? Animals eat stuff that is way more \"flavorful\" shall we say than curry so you would never want to eat vulture or possum. Some animals (a lot) have a natural \"gaminess\" and this is just species-dependent. Like elk, it is gamey but it just eats the same thing a cow might eat. Other animals have tasty parts but are by and large too lean and tough to eat (horse is a good example). Some animals like bear and wild boar are far too parasite-ridden to \"prepare properly\" (from a culinary, not safety standpoint).\\n\\nPeople taste like pork apparently.', \"I remember reading, years ago, that lions in Kenya etc. developed a taste for human flesh because we're saltier than their typical prey. If that's true, then how we taste would depend on how much salt you like in your food. \", 'Taste is subjective. What one person finds tasty, another finds disgusting and vice-versa. Assuming it is fresh meat from a healthy animal, that is not toxic, odds are good someone, somewhere finds it delicious. There are people who would tell you that guinea pigs are the single most delectable meat there is. I\\'ve had some things that a lot of other people haven\\'t tried. I can tell you the animals diet makes quite an impact, as does how active they are. Some are stringy, sinewy, and the texture is just unpleasant. Some are succulent and juicy but have a very irony, liver-y taste that I find unappealing. Then again, others will disagree. \\n\\nAs far as human flesh, there are those who say it is quite tasty. I haven\\'t eaten any, so I cannot say...but I\\'m thinking there\\'s a reason human meat is referred to as \"long pig\". ', 'There is a video out there where these two men have parts of their body surgically removed like a small chunk of skin from their butt or leg and prepared for the other person to eat. It was conducted on live television in some European country either Sweden or Switzerland. I am not really sure about the country to be honest. Both of the men said that it tasted good.  ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Seabrook'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 482, "q_id": "3yx1rb", "title": "Contemporary spy novels were popular in the west during the cold war - did the eastern bloc have an equivalent?", "selftext": "Considering the popularity of the format, and the opportunity to portray 'the other side' how you wish, were there novels about brave Soviet agents trying to get home across the Berlin wall, albeit in the opposite direction?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3yx1rb/contemporary_spy_novels_were_popular_in_the_west/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cyi3dfh', 'cyi9h6k'], 'score': [2, 2], 'text': ['Leaving open the possibility of new responses, you might also find [this earlier thread on a similar question helpful](_URL_0_).', '\"The Soviet James Bond\".\\n\\nBBC R4 Documentary.\\n\\n_URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/188xka/during_the_cold_war_did_the_soviets_have_their/'], ['http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v59h9']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2174, "q_id": "605jh2", "title": "where did the asian yellow skin thing come from? maybe it's just me, but their skin doesn't really look even remotely yellow to me.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/605jh2/eli5_where_did_the_asian_yellow_skin_thing_come/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['df3mz05', 'df3nk2b', 'df3nvb0', 'df3shji', 'df3sqix', 'df3tb41', 'df3thiu', 'df3uoee', 'df3vn6j', 'df3vy5h'], 'score': [16, 79, 120, 28, 38, 2, 54, 13, 28, 4], 'text': ['Because back in the day China used colors for cardinal directions. China often considered itself the center of the map, which was identified by the color yellow.\\n\\nAlso China was said to be founded by the \"Yellow Emperor\" so that probably contributed too.', 'it actually is sort of yellowish in southern China and Southeast Asia, not so much in Korea, Japan and northern China, they are as white as Caucasians and of course Indians are brown', '_URL_0_\\n\\nApparently yellow has been repeatedly been used to refer to Asia as a whole since the 400s BCE (Greco-Persian Wars, when \"Persia\" encompassed a bunch of different peoples). It could be similar to how society shifts it\\'s perception of color (i.e. red hair is more orange to us today, or that the ocean was \"wine colored\" in Homer\\'s Odyssey). The world yellow is also etymologically close to gold, and I would say that you could accurately describe some Eastern Mediterranean skin tones as \"golden.\"  \\n\\nEdit: New source of info and we\\'re back to square one. \"Applied to Asiatics since 1787, though the first recorded reference is to Turkish words for inhabitants of India.\"\\n\\n_URL_1_', 'I\\'m no expert but I\\'m half-Japanese half-Chinese; and most of the east asian people I know look distinctively yellow-brown tinged, especially in the light and when compared to the pink-white hue I see in \"white\" skin.  I\\'m wondering if it looks that way simply because my mind is incorporating the stereotype, or if the melanin actually reflects some shade of yellow.', \"I myself am asian, and I used to think the same thing, however, if you actually compare skin tones side by side, the difference can be seen. Most of the time, I can spot a slight yellow tint, but from a distance, it's hard to tell. This doesn't apply to all asians, but it definitely exists.\", 'Oh it does, but obviously there is a spectrum that goes from brown to pinkish white, but most in my eyes fall in the light brown to yellowish tinge. I remember a Korean girl, in hs sitting next to a pink whitish friend, who would best be described as yellowish.', 'I\\'d say some Asian people are as \"yellow\" as some white people are \"white\" or black people are \"black\"', 'It\\'s not that complicated really, look how accurate other slangs referring to skin color are. Do all white people look like white A4 letter paper? Do all black people have a complexion like black construction paper? No of course not, but humans have always had heavy motivations to categorize and label everything in our world. When we were closer to caveman it was for safety purposes really, and even the words themselves were simpler, who is looking to \"invade my tribe\" if you will. Just like there was \"deep blood\" before there was \"purple\", before there was \"mauve\", and etc.\\n\\nTLDR: We, as dumb humans, have a biological imperative to separate ourselves in a variety of ways, and create \"us vs them\" narratives. One of the easiest ways is to call on a visual image, our databank for visual \\'stuff\\' is quite large because it serves an evolutionary purpose. Just like white people can be more red in skin tone, black people more light in skin tone, asian\\'s can have a more yellow skin tone.', \"Well, if you're talking undertones, we generally have yellow undertones. As opposed to a white person with pink undertones. When shopping for foundation we'd pick one with a yellow undertone or else we'd end up looking orange.\", \"It's probably due to the fact they have slightly thicker skin than Europeans, which is also why Asians seem to age less. It might not seem to be that different now but back when the upper classes of the world were in a race to become the pastiest the slightest variation from milk white was noted. It also may seem strange now because while the west have embraced tans many counties in Asia are still aiming for palour with huge sales of whitening creams, you aren't currently seeing fully natural skin tones in either area. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril?wprov=sfla1', 'http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=yellow&amp;allowed_in_frame=0'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 217, "q_id": "8c3jo6", "title": "How do Lasers burn objects? Do the stream of photons actually impart energy in the form of heat upon absorption, or does the act of hitting a surface create some sort of friction-based heat?", "selftext": "I\u2019d imagine it\u2019s not friction-based or else glass would heat up as light passed through it, plus, someone once told me that light cannot generate friction because it lacks the mass, although I have no idea whether that\u2019s true or not. It doesn\u2019t sound right, but I\u2019m far from being an expert.\n\nAlso, I know that dark surfaces are meant to get hotter in the sun than lighter surfaces because they reflect less light and absorb more -  I\u2019m guessing this would be the same for a laser beam, the absorption of light generating the heat?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8c3jo6/how_do_lasers_burn_objects_do_the_stream_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dxcbclf'], 'score': [15], 'text': ['The molecules absorb energy in form of photons, which are the quanta, or packets of energy. This energetic molecules jiggle more strongly, which gives rise to the phenomenon of heat. Although glass looks transparent, it absorbs light of some parts of the frequency spectrum, but most of the visible light is unabsorbed, it depends upon the energy states of the atoms/molecules. \\n\\nGenerally dark surfaces absorb and also radiate heat more quickly than shiny surfaces. So dark surfaces heat up and cool more quickly.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 57, "q_id": "3ek3j5", "title": "why are kitchen sinks mostly made of stainless steel, but bathroom sinks made or ceramic, porcelain or enamel-coated materials and white?", "selftext": "Yes, I know they also overlap, but traditionally there has been a clear distinction between the two.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ek3j5/eli5_why_are_kitchen_sinks_mostly_made_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctfnujx', 'ctfnvhx', 'ctfpnuq', 'ctfv3jj', 'ctfxxt8', 'ctg6lda'], 'score': [15, 31, 9, 14, 6, 2], 'text': ['Did you ever drop anything with an edge into a ceramic sink? You have a very very good change of chipping out a part. Stainless steel is much more resistant than that which is quite a good thing considering you dump a lot of stuff into your kitchen sink.', \"Stainless steel is less likely to be affected by foods and liquids that stain or leave residual odors, and it's less likely to be damaged by heat, heavy cookware, metal utensils, and abrasives used for cleaning.\", 'The steel is strong to hold all the stuff in the kitchen sink, the ceramic is to look good and be easy to clean', \"All the comments are for why stainless steel is so awesome. If it is so much better, why don't we just ditch porcelain for the bathroom sinks too?\", 'Stainless steel in the kitchen because it can handle the abuse of heavy dishes or pots and pans being tossed into it etc. They are also much more resilient to stains and smells.\\n\\nPorcelainor whatever in the bathroom because it looks a lot nicer and it matches the toilet. Imagine having to sit on a stainless steel toilet in the morning.', \"In addition to what others are saying about toughness and impact resistance, another important aspect is that it is resilient and has a bit of bounce.\\n\\nIf you've ever washed plates and glasses in a rigid sink like concrete or porcelain, you'll find you end up breaking them way more often.  A stainless sink will allow you to bump and occasionally drop fragile items without them breaking.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 537, "q_id": "666tcy", "title": "Did ancient Polynesian civilizations actually use such decorated sails as depicted in Disney's Moana?", "selftext": "So sadly I only just now got around to watching the latest Disney animated movie. And this part honestly confused me slightly. As per my understanding, sails were really prone to breakage, falling apart, getting holes and such. And thus spending so much time on sails that were so finely and artistically decorated seems... pointless ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/666tcy/did_ancient_polynesian_civilizations_actually_use/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dgrcave'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"I'm a tad late for it, but anyways. Your question has been replied here before _URL_0_ by /u/b1uepenguin\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5fev2n/are_the_boat_designs_in_disneys_moana_accurate_to/?ref=search_posts']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2667, "q_id": "49tbty", "title": "what's the reason behind the \"corned\" in \"corned beef?\"", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49tbty/eli5_whats_the_reason_behind_the_corned_in_corned/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d0upekj', 'd0uqs9i', 'd0urrsk', 'd0urz6g', 'd0us97b', 'd0usb4k', 'd0usfw8', 'd0ushqv', 'd0utrp3', 'd0uvaqx'], 'score': [63, 53, 36, 31, 2, 18, 8, 3, 14, 2], 'text': ['Most weird terms are explained similar to this:\\n\\n > The word corn derives from Old English, and is used to describe any small, hard particles or grains\\n\\nThe meaning of the word changed over time. Your gran used to have lots of gay moments when she was a child, and she would have proudly told anyone and nobody would have found that strange. Nowadays, \"gay\" can still be \"happy\", but it usually is a different kind of happy.  \\n\\nThis is similar to the old English word \"apple\", which used to refer to any fruit:\\n >  Old English \u00e6ppel \"apple; any kind of fruit; fruit in general,\"  \\n _URL_0_', 'All my life I have never heard the term \"Corn of Salt\" only \"Pepper Corn\" and today it\\'s like a commonplace term that everyone\\'s throwing around. Wikipedia, you ruin everything.', 'I like ELI5 as much as the next guy, but the answer to this one is literally the second fucking sentence in the [wikipedia article on corned beef](_URL_0_). ', 'It\\'s derived from \"cornered beef\".  Its the way they kill the Cow by cornering her in the barn.  This creates an extra tender cut of beef due to all the fear being locked in the meat.', \"To add to what another commenter said, corn for the longest time meant any kind of grain, or anything with that shape/texture, hence peppercorn, barleycorn etc. Corned beef used salt corns, which is where it got its name. The use of corn for maize caught on in the US, and now it's more often thought of in that regard by many.\\n\\nSomething else to note, the Irish don't really eat a lot of corned beef, even though in the US it's generally associated with Irishness and St Paddy's (notice the Ds) Day. Corned beef was cheap and plentiful in the States, and its thought that Irish immigrants starting substituting it for other meats (such as the traditional bacon and cabbage becoming corned beef and cabbage).\", 'The the word \"corn\" used to be a general term for things that look like granules - whether it be grain, salt or what we called corn today. Later on, this general umbrella term was used for the corn plant in North America (Maize). Corned beef is coated in rock salt (called corn back-then). So there is no actually \"corn\" on corned beef.\\n\\nNote: This is my first time trying to explain - sorry if I\\'m bad', 'From salt corns, which are used in making it.  \\n\\nA faster way to find this would have been to google \"how is corned beef made\", which shockingly says exactly why the corn reference is used, at the top of the screen, even BEFORE any search results.\\n\\nELI5 is not a replacement for looking at least a tiny bit first.\\n\\nedit - in case anyone is wondering, I only put remarks like that if the answer is a Giant, **Obvious** first hit google search, that is not even a bit tricky or hard to understand, as in, not needing ELI5 at all.  In THIS case, it is the Google TIP, and answers it clearly. If you are trying to share your stuff with others, ELI5 is not the place to do it, there are many subreddits to share your newly gleaned info with others.  It says right in the rules...\\n > ELI5 is for explanations of complex concepts - No questions that are just looking for straightforward explanations', \"As an aside, I used to wonder if maybe CorningWare was meant to originally have been used to make corned beef, but it turns out it's named for the company that makes it that's named for the city it was founded in, which is named after a guy with the last name Corning. TIL\", \"Real corned beef doesn't come in cans, only the crazy processed shit. Corned beef is a cured piece of beef brisket\\n\\nEdit: I don't know the actual answer to the corned part of the question but the canned part irked me a little\", \"It's called corned beef because during the early part of the 20th century Italian potato famine the Irish immigrants used to make fake beef with corn (kind of like soy bacon) and add enough salt to mask the corn flavor before sending it as part of the rescue package to the starving Italians. The Italians wised up to the deception and assassinated the Irish PM, starting World War I. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apple&amp;allowed_in_frame=0'], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corned_beef'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1037, "q_id": "oox5p", "title": "Is it possible to fashion a \"stone\" for a ring from graphite?", "selftext": "Some Background: As a chemistry nerd-girl at heart I've grown up in meager conditions and have always joked with my boyfriend that an engagement ring with graphite would mean more to me than one of diamond. \n\nI am curious though, *is this possible*?\n\nNo luck through searching google about such items. Plus, I'd like a little more explanation about the science behind it :)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/oox5p/is_it_possible_to_fashion_a_stone_for_a_ring_from/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c3ivffi', 'c3iw0a6', 'c3ix72i', 'c3iyuq2'], 'score': [6, 5, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Graphite is extremely soft. \\n\\nI suppose that you could encase it in a transparent shell, but otherwise it wouldn't last long. \\n\\n[Edit]  Go with Buckminsterfullerene  ....\", \"You could go halfway - [Mossianite](_URL_0_) (silicon carbide), which is carbon and silicon atoms mixed in a somewhat diamond-like lattice. \\n\\nIt's very close to diamond in a lot of its material properties (read: very hard). As a mineral it's very rare, and the gemstones are entirely made synthetically, which I'd think would add to the novelty for a chemist, really. \\n\\nI'm not a big fan of diamonds either; they're highly overpriced (due to De Beers monopoly), and a bit boring. One of the reasons they're so popular isn't because they're so unusually pretty, but because they're so relatively homogenous and consistent. In other words, you can buy diamonds in a certain size and mass-produce diamond jewelry. Other gemstones (especially emeralds) are more often flawed, and need custom-designed jewels/mounts to look good.\\n\\n\", 'I see that covalent vs. ionic bonds, graphite\\'s (lack of) hardness, and graphene/other alternatives have been discussed. I have no additional science to offer.\\n\\nHowever, I have some practical advice: graphite will leave marks *everywhere*. That\\'s one of the easiest ways to identify it. \"Looks a little like galena but is quite light and leaves schmutz on your fingers? Yep. Graphite.\"\\n\\nOf course, it leaving marks everywhere is a result of those weak ionic bonds; that is to say, the schmutz is just graphite that\\'s broken off.', 'There are a handful of graphite [compounds that are machinable.](_URL_0_) One of these might be more-or-less useful in making a ring one could wear, but I suspect the properties (softness or brittleness) would ultimately cause it to break or wear away.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite'], [], ['http://www.ceramisis.com/carbons_graphites_a1.htm']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2319, "q_id": "9cizs2", "title": "Would Jesus Have Thought Himself A Roman?", "selftext": "Would most of his original followers considered themselves Romans? What about most Jews? What about the other peoples of Roman Palestine?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9cizs2/would_jesus_have_thought_himself_a_roman/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e5byyvi'], 'score': [30], 'text': ['Doubtful, only because the various peoples living  in the Roman Empire were not consider Roman unless they were citizens, and outside of Italy only a small percentage of the population were.  Citizenship was not broadly granted until Caracalla in the third century CE.  The peoples across the Empire generally considered themselves part of their ethnic background, or place of origin (Gauls, Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, etc.)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1312, "q_id": "3pauqe", "title": "Why were nightcaps used and when did the practice die out?", "selftext": " ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pauqe/why_were_nightcaps_used_and_when_did_the_practice/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cw4wiqc', 'cw4xs71'], 'score': [52, 38], 'text': ['Are we talking about the clothing that goes on your head, or the drink served after dinner?', \"A large part of it was just a lack of central heating in a lot of homes prior to the 20th century. Night caps are very effective for keeping warm, but not usually necessary these days. \\n\\nThere's more to it, though. A history teacher of mine once told me they served a secondary purpose. He claimed that oily hair products like pomade were very popular for a time in the 19th century and nightcaps were used to keep bed sheets cleaner. I followed up on it and according to *Encyclopedia of Hair: A Cultural History* by Victoria Sherrow (p. 323) the explanation is essentially correct.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 595, "q_id": "a76u7k", "title": "Considering there is a finite number of words in the English language and that there are rules of grammar, does this mean there is a finite number of possible sentences in the English language that are grammatically correct? Is there a way to even estimate as to what that number would be?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a76u7k/considering_there_is_a_finite_number_of_words_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ec2sqq3', 'ec2syyl', 'ec2tfm9', 'ec2tvpf'], 'score': [8, 2, 12, 17], 'text': [\"This isn't a direct answer to your question, but a good site to check out is _URL_0_ Every possible combination of 3200 letters, commas, spaces, and periods that can ever exist is on this site.\\n\\nCheck out this particular page:\\n\\n_URL_0_bookmark.cgi?cbeards\", 'I think the real question to answer your question is whether you can have a gramatically correct sentence that is infinitely long.  According to Wikipedia ([_URL_0_](_URL_1_)), that is indeed, theoretically possible.  So, there would be an infinite number of sentences possible as well.  An example the Wikipedia article gives for an infinitely possible sentence is \"*Someone thinks that someone thinks that someone thinks that...*\".  You could see how that alone could give you infinite sentences as you abstract the original thought further.', 'There isn\\'t, because certain sentences can be written recursively infinitely.\\n\\nFor example\\n\\n\"I said that I liked him\"\\n\\n\"He said that I said that I liked him\"\\n\\n\"She said that he said that I said that I liked him\"\\n\\n\"I said that she said that he said that I said that I liked him\"\\n\\nThis sentence is just one example of a sentence that can be recursively written in an infinite amount of ways, but you can surely think of others.', 'In fact there are an infinite number of sentences that are *grammatically correct*, because you can make arbitrarily long sentences with a few simple constructions.\\n\\nFor example, we can take the sentence \"He said yes.\" and repeatedly lengthen it according to simple rules, such as appending additional hes and shes. Then you could get:\\n\\n\"He said that she said yes.\"\\n\\n\"He said that she said that he said yes.\" \\n\\nA key observation is that while there are no infinitely long sentences (since a well-formed sentence must terminate with a punctuation mark by definition), you can always make arbitrarily longer sentences. Thus, the set of all sentences is infinite in size.\\n\\nWhat if we chose to restrict ourselves only to the set of *semantically meaningful* constructions? Even this is an infinite set, since the set of all numbers is infinite and we can create well-behaved, semantically meaningful sentences such as:\\n\\n\"My favorite number is 0.\"\\n\\n\"My favorite number is 1.\"\\n\\n\"My favorite number is 2.\"\\n\\nand so on for every natural number.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://libraryofbabel.info/', 'https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?cbeards'], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest\\\\_English\\\\_sentence', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_English_sentence'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 622, "q_id": "37n5s2", "title": "why doesn't the body use up its fat reserves before it gets hungry and dizzy?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37n5s2/eli5_why_doesnt_the_body_use_up_its_fat_reserves/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cro4c80', 'cro524g', 'cro88ve', 'crodw98', 'crojd7j', 'crou843'], 'score': [41, 249, 33, 7, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Fat is meant as an emergency energy store, a relic of a time when eating every day was by no means guaranteed and you had to have some way to keep energy around between infrequent meals. Burning through your emergency stores when food is plentiful is a bad idea, so we don't do that even now when there are more obese people in the world than starving people.\", \"Historically, fat was meant for emergencies only.  A last-ditch reserve to maintain life when food is scarce.  The hunger motivates you to eat so you don't have to dip into this emergency reserve.  The dizziness is because you take as little energy out of your reserves as is needed to maintain life.  Having low energy makes you feel dizzy and faint.  Your body doesn't know whether you're going a few hours without food or a few days, so it plans on the worst case scenario.\", 'I\\'ll answer from the physiological viewpoint here.\\n\\nImportant Fact 1: In terms of energy sources, the brain uses glucose, and **only** glucose (we\\'ll ignore Ketones since those only really play a role in prolonged starvation).\\n\\nLet\\'s go into the energy counts of a normal 70kg male, the average person requires 2250kcal every day. \\n* 15kg fat - Worth 141,000kcal\\n* 6kg protein - Worth 24,000kcal\\n* 225g of Glycogen - worth 900kcal\\n* TWENTY grams of free glucose and fats - worth about 100kcal\\n* Total energy content: ~170,000kcal\\n\\nYou will notice that the amount of free glucose is bupkis compared to the requirement. For now, let\\'s assume that there\\'s no food intake (so we can see how fat is mobilized); this is known as the fasting state. \\n\\nThe body\\'s goal is simple: Keep blood glucose concentrations at about 3.9 to 5.8 mM/L. It accomplishes this through two methods, either convert glycogen to glucose (easy and fast, glycogen is essentially \"prepacked\" glucose), or convert fat to glucose (much slower and longer metabolic pathway, knocking fat down to build glucose again, a la chumbawamba).\\n\\nThis is where we get to your question: The body does use fats before it gets hungry and dizzy, it just prefers glucose whenever possible. Is it pleasant to feel a bit hungry? Not really; Is it unhealthy to go hungry for a bit? No too. \\n\\nHave you ever heard of the \"second wind\" phenomenon in marathon runners? You know, that thing where they seem to have a fresh burst of energy after a long running race where you would expect them to get tired out? That\\'s a phenomenon known as metabolic switching, in this case, it\\'s the body finally having turned on the pathways needed to use fat as energy..\\n\\nIn prolonged starvation, the body can indeed utilize fats instead of glucose to supply the brain (via ketone bodies, but let\\'s not go there), but the problem is that it takes up to 10 days for fats to be fully mobilized, in fact, at this point, appetite can often be suppressed (no, don\\'t try this; yes, it can be harmful; no, you will not get acid superpowers; no, I will not be held liable; yes, I will be taking your stuff).\\n\\nSo, TL;DR: The body DOES use up its fat reserves before it gets hungry and dizzy. Being hungry and dizzy is NOT always a sign of starvation. What makes you feel bad is not necessarily unhealthy. The reason the body doesn\\'t always use fats immediately is that fats take a while to be mobilized.', \"It's not because fat was meant for emergencies only as said below.\\n\\nYour brain obligately requires glucose (or ketone bodies) for energy sources. While other organs can rely on fat for energy, your brain cannot. When you run out of glucose, your body needs to synthesize more glucose for your brain. However ironically fat cannot be used as a glucose precursor (only muscle and other 3 or more carbon substrates). So you start to become dizzy from lack of sugar and also an increase in acidic ketone bodies and doesn't burn fat\", \"Because being hungry isn't actually bad for you. It's just a signal from your body that to maintain your current level of food supply, you need to eat now. \", 'Its a hormonal mechanism. When you are on glucose as your fuel source, insulin is telling your body to store fat. Its like a switch though and you have to suppress insulin by withholding carbohydrates in order to produce the hormone called leptin. Leptin tells the body to eat from its fat stores but if you are on a standard american diet (SAD) then you are only producing insulin and you are suppressing leptin. If one goes on a low carbohydrate diet and switch your fuel source from glucose to leptin then you are able to eat from your fat stores when you are out of energy and to the point of being hungry. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1869, "q_id": "6h897x", "title": "why is the united states so hesitant with stem cell treatment when it, so clearly, could revolutionize modern medicine as we know it?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6h897x/eli5_why_is_the_united_states_so_hesitant_with/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['diw8uyg', 'diw8x3h', 'diwfmwp', 'diwluyv', 'diwmt12', 'diwo8vy', 'diwofru', 'diwoj3g', 'diwokvc', 'diwpj48', 'diwq2vq', 'diwq6xx'], 'score': [2, 166, 29, 2, 13, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 5], 'text': ['Stems cells can come from aborted fetal tissue. The U.S. is very touchy around abortion and anything that can be tied to it faces large public resistance (see Planned Parenthood).', 'Human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research is ethically and politically controversial because it involves the destruction of human embryos, since the embryonic stem cells, being so early in development, are able to differentiate into any type of cell unlike type-limited pluripotent stem cells in later stages of life. As a matter of religious faith and moral conviction, some people believe that \u201chuman life begins at conception\u201d and that an embryo is therefore a person', \"There might be the feeling that once stem cell treatment becomes common place, there will be a larger demand for embryos. A demand that the current supply of unwanted embryos cannot accommodate. It isn't that much of a stretch to imagine less than ethical methods of meeting that demand.\", \"I think stem cell research should give everyone pause, and I say this as an atheist, a pro-choice-er, and someone who holds an advanced science degree.\\n\\nThe issue is this: Even though I am pro-choice I do not believe a 3 month old fetus is of zero moral worth.  I think the mother's physical autonomy is more morally worthy than a 3 month old fetus, but the fetus isn't a nothing.\\n\\nAnd I am not sure when moral worth starts moving up from zero.\\n\\nStem Cell treatments/research have the potential to involve multiplications of millions or billions on whatever that moral sum is.  So I think it is very, very, important that the moral sum be zero.\\n\\nAs I understand it there are ways of making stem cells that do involve zero moral worth it is just these methods were a bit less convenient in the early 2000's than other options which might have engaged some kind of non-zero moral worth.\\n\\nSo I do think a moment of hesitation and consideration is appropriate.\", '1. To the extent that the US is \"hesitant\" with stem cell *research*, this has mostly to do with *embryonic* stem cell research. Why? Suffice it to say that, simply as a matter of fact, the issue of embryonic stem cell research is closely linked to the issue of abortion, which has been a political hot-button for the past forty years. But stem cell research based on non-embryonic sources continues apace with very little controversy. \\n\\n2. To the extent that the US is \"hesitant\" with stem cell *therapy*, it is hardly unique. Other than bone marrow transplants (which have been performed for quite some time now), there really aren\\'t all that many actual stem cell *therapies* that have been approved for clinical use anywhere in the world. The technology still in its infancy. [Very few usable therapeutic applications/uses have been definitively identified and perfected.](_URL_0_) From that link:\\n\\n > The list of diseases for which stem cell treatments have been shown to be beneficial is still very short. The best-defined and most extensively used stem cell treatment is hematopoietic (or blood) stem cell transplantation, for example, bone marrow transplantation, to treat certain blood and immune system disorders or to rebuild the blood system after treatments for some kinds of cancer.\\n\\n > Some bone, skin and corneal (eye) injuries and diseases can be treated by grafting or implanting tissues, and the healing process relies on stem cells within this implanted tissue. These procedures are widely accepted as safe and effective by the medical community. All other applications of stem cells are yet to be proven in clinical trials and should be considered highly experimental.', 'Something else to remember is that embryos are not the only source for stem cells for research, they can be derived from adipose and other kinds of tissues, too. There is a lot of stem cell research that is conducted everyday with these cells, and there are several treatments in use that employ them. ', 'Better question ELI5: Why does separation of church and state only go one way. Why is there legislation to protect religion from government, but none to protect government from religion?', \"It's worth noting that Adult Stem Cells are actively used in treatments. And, when conservative types here are explained what they are (not embryonic), they have no problems with those treatments. \\n\\n\\n\", \"The United States is peculiar in that there are a significant number of people who care more about human embryos than actual humans. In fact, once you're old enough to go die in a war your life has lost all the holiness it once had. Life is most sacred when it's an embryo or a foetus, and least sacred when you're ready to go die in Iraq or if you turn out gay or worse. \", 'Did you just watch Dan Bilzarians snap chat ?', \"My honest opinion is that the right wing nut job excuse is just that... \\n\\nI think big corporations, especially big Pharma do not want these kinds of testings and procedures done here because it does the one thing a pill doesn't.\\n\\nIt actually cures your ailment!!\\n\\nCan't sell you pills if your problem is fixed.\\n\\nThat and other countries are way ahead of us in that development, so if it ever was legal, all the foreign companies would come in and we wouldn't reap the benefits of those dollars...\\n\\nThis is based on nothing except that I am on reddit to much and everyone is out to screw everyone and we can trust the Hospital networks, and Pharmaceutical companies about as much as we can trust the MSM.  I am in the Insurance world... which gives me a basis for my bias.\", \"As the sidebar says:\\n\\n >  Don't post to argue a point of view.\\n\\nYou want /r/changemyview.  This post has been removed.\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://www.closerlookatstemcells.org/stem-cells-and-medicine/nine-things-to-know-about-stem-cell-treatments'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2032, "q_id": "76z1m1", "title": "Why did Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht continue to fight even in the face of overwhelming defeat in late 1944-45?", "selftext": "In history, when most nations are faced with obvious military defeat, either the defeated's leaders call for an armistice/peace and end the war to prevent any further pointless deaths, or the army themselves desert or mutiny to force a surrender, as what happened in Germany during World War I.\n\nSo what kept the Wehrmacht fighting to the very end even when the situation was obviously hopeless? I know the party's inner circles secretly disobeyed Hitler such as Speer's refusal to execute the Nero decree, or even plotted against him to end the war such as the July 20th plot. But what kept German soldiers fighting all the way until even Berlin was a pile of rubble, rather than mutinying or deserting when defeat was obvious around the time the Soviets smashed Army Group Center in August of '44, or the failure of the Ardennes counteroffensive later that winter?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/76z1m1/why_did_nazi_germanys_wehrmacht_continue_to_fight/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['doizwzf'], 'score': [23], 'text': [' >  But what kept German soldiers fighting all the way until even Berlin was a pile of rubble, rather than mutinying or deserting when defeat was obvious around the time the Soviets smashed Army Group Center in August of \\'44, or the failure of the Ardennes counteroffensive later that winter?\\n\\nWell, the Ardennes counteroffensive failed, but the fact that the Germans could muster such an offensive that late in the war and still cause serious concern on one front shows that the Germans themselves didn\\'t think their forces were on the verge of imminent collapse and indeed still had strength left.\\n\\nLet me give you something from a military perspective on warfare. Remember a couple things:\\n\\nFirst, just because you\\'re retreating on all fronts, doesn\\'t mean defeat was obvious. You know the enemy doesn\\'t have infinite troops and supplies (just as you don\\'t), you\\'re likely motivated to defend your homeland while their forces are farther and farther away from their own homes, and you the soldier assigned to a front may not have a full grasp on just how actually desperate the situation is. \\n\\nHow much knowledge would someone assigned to the Western Front have of how crushing their losses were on the Eastern Front? What awareness would, say, ground forces - who are being told to regroup to fight on better ground - have of the utter destruction of their naval forces and air forces?\\n\\nAs long as the chain of command remains intact, and you are getting communications and command  &  control from HQ, you\\'re still given orders and thinking the war is being prosecuted. Meaning, you have a chance.\\n\\nA historical example of this is the Persian Gulf War: why did Iraqi forces surrender en masse once the ground campaign started? Well, a month of constant airstrikes that decapitated command and control and left many units without guidance from above would leave troops wondering whether the war was even being prosecuted fully anymore. If you\\'re not even sure your nation is intact anymore, what impetus do you have to keep fighting?\\n\\nSecond, those who do have the full picture - the leadership - are thinking far more political in nature. Remember, warfare ultimately supports some sort of political goal. In late 1944, just because you are losing a war doesn\\'t mean you are guaranteed utter defeat and Berlin in rubble - you may start thinking that sure, the war is lost, but you can bleed the enemy enough or make yourself unappealing enough for an invader that they settle for a peace that doesn\\'t involve the dismantling of your country and giving up your sovereignty.\\n\\nYou also see this all over history. A particularly pertinent example to today is the Korean War: the course of the war ebbed and flowed as the US/UN entered the fray and then China entered resulting in a stalemate. The US/UN ultimately felt that they had achieved their goal of defending South Korea and didn\\'t want to escalate the war into China. On the other hand, China had supported North Korea and kept them from capitulating. In the end, both sides agreed to a cease fire and pulled their forces back, creating the situation we have today. \\n\\nI do, however, want to point out one other thing now, from a historian\\'s perspective:\\n\\nThe Wehrmacht DID start surrendering in larger numbers in late 1944/early 1945, but particularly so to the Western Allies, who treated POWs far better than the Soviets did.\\n\\nIn Eisenhower\\'s *Crusade in Europe*, he stated that over 10,000 German POWs were taken by his forces *per day* in March of 1945. All told, over 300,000 German POWs were taken in March of 1945 alone to bring the total haul of German POWs to 1.3 million, and in April this was even more staggering: over 1.5 million more Germans surrendered to the Western Allies, the same month that nearly 100,000 German soldiers died resisting in the Battle of Berlin. By contrast, the Western Allies since D-Day suffered around 160,000 KIA and 70,000 captured\\n\\nUsing the *Biennial Reports of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War, 1 July 1939 - 30 June 1945* by General of the Army George C. Marshall. [PDF link here](http://www.history._URL_0_/html/books/070/70-57/index.html), note that this is an official _URL_0_ link, some important points:\\n\\n* Page 149 of the report (160 in the pdf) states: \"During the month of March nearly 350,000 prisoners were taken on the Western Front\"\\n* Page 189 of the report (200 in the pdf) states: \"Following the termination of hostilities in Europe our forces were holding 130,000 Italian prisoners and 3,050,000 German prisoners as well as an additional 3,000,000 German troops who were disarmed after the unconditional surrender. \"\\n* Page 202 of the report (213 in the pdf) has the following table on German AND Italian losses in campaigns the US was involved in, in Europe:\\n\\nCampaign | Battle Dead | Captured\\n---------|----------|----------\\nTunisia | 19,600 | 130,000\\nSicily | 5,000 | 7,100\\nItaly | 86,000 | 357,089\\nWestern Front | 263,000 | 7,614,794\\n---------|----------|----------\\nTotal | 373,600 | 8,108,983\\n\\nNote that captured on Western Front includes 3,404,949 disarmed enemy forces after the unconditional surrender\\n\\nConsider those numbers in this context:\\n\\nFront | Germans Killed | Germans Captured | Total\\n---- | ---- | ---- | ----\\nEastern Front | 4,300,000 | 3,100,000 | 7,400,000\\nWestern Front | 370,000 | 8,100,000 | 8,470,000\\n\\nGerman forces were far more likely to surrender to the Western Allies, and there are even cases of [German troops fighting West](_URL_2_) to surrender to the Western Allies.\\n\\nSo consider that there were those who chose to take the chance to fight and possibly die rather than surrender and be guaranteed to be treated brutally, like those who surrendered at Stalingrad, of whom only a fraction returned years after the war ended.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['army.mil', 'http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-57/index.html', 'https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pv49h/ive_often_heard_the_myth_about_german_troops_at/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 922, "q_id": "31m33z", "title": "how could the 'butterfly effect' literally work?", "selftext": "*The name of the effect, coined by Edward Lorenz, is derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a hurricane being influenced by minor perturbations such as the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier.*\n\nI've always found this metaphor very interesting, but I've only ever taken it metaphorically. However watching Neil deGrasse Tyson mention it recently got me thinking: Since these are scientists using the expression, it must be based in actual literal fact.\n\n**Could someone explain to me a literal sequence of events that would cause the slight movement of a butterflies wings to cause a hurricane on the other side of the globe?**", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31m33z/eli5_how_could_the_butterfly_effect_literally_work/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cq2t9ht', 'cq2taa0', 'cq2tiba', 'cq2tmvc', 'cq2ur79', 'cq2v8fe'], 'score': [8, 5, 8, 14, 3, 3], 'text': [\"There's no literal hurricane. The name just refers to events where a small change early on can have a huge influence on the outcome of a chaotic event. \", 'This is just a metaphor symbolizing the importance of infinitesimal paramaters (aka the flap of wings of a butterfly) in the simulation of macroscopic events (aka the hurricane). ', \"Easy:\\n\\n1) Butterly lands on God's nose, causing him to sneeze (he's allergic to butterflies). \\n2) Hurricane\", \"The butterfly wafts some pollen off a flower. The pollen gets in a herd animal's nose, causing it to sneeze. The sneeze startles the herd, causing it to panic and stampede. The stampede raises a dust cloud. The dust cloud causes a local weather change that eventually leads to a hurricane. (I forget the steps after the dust cloud.)\", \"[Chaos theory] (_URL_0_) is the name of this theory, and to summarize (I'm not a mathematics pro so I don't fully understand the details of the theory or even parts of the theory but I'll try to give a general idea of the title of this particular paper), the [butterfly effect] (_URL_1_ in particular), which is named after the paper with this title states that the initial conditions of an occurrence can completely change what possible occurrences there are.  \\n\\n\\nSo according to the article:\\n > The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in another location. Note that the butterfly does not  > power or directly create the tornado. The butterfly effect does not convey the notion\u2014as is often misconstrued\u2014that the flap of the butterfly's wings causes the tornado. The flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't.\\n\\n\\nThis is pretty much what the article states for how the butterfly's wings are an initial condition and since small changes to an initial condition can widely change the outcome, a butterfly's wings can eventually lead to a hurricane on the other side of the globe. \", \"it's just a descriptor for what's called *chaotic systems*, which is just a system what, while it is deterministic and obeys classical physics (ie. not quantum), is in practive unpredictable because of *sensitivity to initial conditions* (too many variables, many of which are tiny and easy to miss like the butterfly). Any seemingly small variable can influence the behaviour of the system in an unpredictable way\\n\\nA good example of such a system is Earth's climate \u2013 our best science and technology can only 'predict' a few days in advance and not very accurately at all\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 934, "q_id": "3kfsn9", "title": "\"clutch\" in car. why we have to press clutch to change gears? why can't we directly change gears?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kfsn9/eli5_clutch_in_car_why_we_have_to_press_clutch_to/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cux2aj1', 'cux2z2c', 'cux3rzy', 'cux3sco', 'cux53qq', 'cux65q4'], 'score': [40, 9, 203, 3, 2, 3], 'text': [\"This is how the clutch operates:\\n\\nWhen your engine is running, its job is to turn the up-and-down motion of the pistons into a circular motion. There are a whole series of linkages and feedback mechanisms, but ultimately the important part is that there is a *crankshaft* -- you can think of this as a long metal rod that rotates lengthwise.\\n\\nNow this turning motion of the crankshaft needs to be applied to the gearbox, so that the right amount of power gets ultimately sent to another long metal rod -- this one's called the driveshaft -- and ultimately to the wheels.\\n\\nSo far, so straightforward. As always, the devil is in the detail.\\n\\nWhen the engine is running the crankshaft is rotating thousands of times per minute. This means that the gears are also rotating thousands of times per minute. If you were to try to shift gears (i.e. move from one rotating cog to another) at this speed, it would be almost impossible to do without grinding the gears against one another.\\n\\nSo what's needed is a mechanism to slow down the gearbox rotation, which can be achieved if we temporarily disconnect the gearbox from the crankshaft which is giving it power. This mechanism is called the clutch.\\n\\nThere are many ways in which a clutch can be designed, but the most common is very straightforward. At the end of the crankshaft is a large flat disk (picture it as a plate attached at the end of a broom handle). This disk obviously rotates with the crankshaft. Crucially, the disk is covered in a very rough material, which means it creates friction with whatever it touches.\\n\\nIn the gearbox is another similar disk, also covered in a rough material. Now, when the clutch is disengaged (i.e. when you're not pushing the pedal down), the two disks are pushed against each other by a powerful spring. Because of their high-friction coatings this means that when the disk at the end of the crankshaft rotates, it also causes the gearbox disk to rotate, which transmits power to the gears, and your car moves forward.\\n\\nNow you push the clutch pedal down. The spring is forced away from the disks (this is why you need quite a strong left foot to push the clutch!) and the two rotating plates move apart from each other. We've now successfully disconnected the rotation of the crankshaft from the gearbox; the gear rotation slows down and you're able to smoothly shift into a different gear. \\n\\nAs you gradually bring your foot up the clutch plates start to touch each other, and if you do this smoothly and gently then they begin to rotate in sync again. Bring your foot up too quickly however, and the speeds of the two disks are mismatched and the car could lurch forwards or even stall.\\n\\n(There are a number of additional complexities and refinements that I've left out, but this is the basic principle of how a clutch works and why you need it).\", 'You can directly change gears, you just have to match the revs since the new gear is not spinning at the same speed as the current gear.  Clutching eliminates having to match the revs.', \"Here's a way to mentally visualize it. Imagine a bunch of treadmills lined up side by side, each going at different speeds.  \\n\\n You're on one treadmill running, and you want to move over to the next treadmill, but in order to move over,  you have to make sure your legs are running at the speed of the new treadmill, otherwise you'll fall off. \\n\\nYou can try and run directly onto the next treadmills, but you probably won't be able to change your running speed fast enough, and you'll fall down (Grind gears).   \\n\\nOr you can step off the current treadmill (disengage the clutch), grab the rails of the new treadmill and hold yourself over the rotating belt until you're confident that your legs are running at the correct speed (modulate the clutch) , and let go of the rails (engage the clutch) and continue running. \", \"There's a gif floating around somewhere that shows the mechanism of a manual transmission. I'll try and find it. Edit. nevermind just watched it doesn't show how the clutch works.\", \"Technically you can shift without a clutch.  Think of the drive train as 2 halves joined by a clutch.  The front half is the engine that provides the power, the back half is the transmission, driveshaft, axles, and everything else down to the wheels.\\n\\nThe contact point of the 2 halves (for simplicity - the clutch is the contact point) are spinning at the same speed at the moment you want to change gears.  When you want to change the gear ratio (shift up or down), the different gear will be spinning in the transmission at a different speed than what it previously was.  \\n\\nFor example, if you are in 1st gear, the gear ratio might be 3:1.  That means for every 3 revolutions of the engine, the transmission is turning 1 revolution.  When you shift to 2nd gear, the gear ratio might be 2:1.  So, you have to let the engine rpm drop down to a ratio of 2:1 to match the rpm of the back half of the drive train, before you can slip it into 2nd gear.  For simple math, if you are running 3000 rpm in first gear, you would need to pull the transmission out of 1st gear, and then wait until the engine dropped to 2000 rpm to slip it into 2nd gear.\\n\\nThe clutch allows you leeway in matching the rpm's between the two halves by slipping until friction holds it in place.\", 'You can drive without the clutch, nothing requires its use.\\n\\n1. With the ignition off, put the car in first gear. Use the starter to get the car moving. After a few moments the car will be moving fast enough that it won\\'t stall, and the engine will run.*\\n\\n2. From there, \"slip shift\" through the gears. Basically you jam them in there. If you can\\'t get gears to mesh, then put the car in neutral and \"hunt\" with the throttle. Eventually you will happen upon a point where the engine speed and the transmission speed match; the next gear will then mesh. Lots of grinding but with a light touch you won\\'t hurt anything. Probably.\\n\\n3. Downshift the same way (hunting, slip shifting). Try not to come to a complete stop. If you have to stop, let the engine stall and start the process over with the starter motor.\\n\\n*Modern prissy nanny-state cars have an electronic lockout which prevents the starter from engaging if the car is in gear. Because of pussy-ass panty waisted considerations like safety. If you really wanted to though you could defeat this simple safety switch and strike a blow for Freedom and America and drive without a clutch.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2320, "q_id": "3toyep", "title": "Can hitting your muscles make them stronger?", "selftext": "Hey AskScience!\nI was just reading about Wollf's law and was wondering if the same thing applied to your muscles? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3toyep/can_hitting_your_muscles_make_them_stronger/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cx8uqbt'], 'score': [6], 'text': [\"Wolff's law applies to bone, stating that your bones will adapt to withstand an increase in physical stress, up untill a certain point. In a way muscles and a lot of tissues in your body do the same thing. Higher demand=organ grows in size and/or produces more to meet the higher demand. The higher demand (stimulus) for bone is physical stress. For muscles it's basically muscle contraction, which you can effectively train by working out. \\nKept this simple, hope it helped!\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1953, "q_id": "y5384", "title": "why do dogs start kicking their legs or can't stand up when you scratch that one spot?", "selftext": "For my dog, she can't seem to stand straight when I scratch her hind legs", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/y5384/eli5_why_do_dogs_start_kicking_their_legs_or_cant/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c5sf97n', 'c5sf9kf', 'c5sf9oa', 'c5sfli5', 'c5sfmmv', 'c5sfqa8', 'c5sgx7q', 'c5shuqm', 'c5slq4l', 'c5sneu6'], 'score': [3, 20, 245, 5, 10, 18, 9, 4, 2, 7], 'text': ['Kind of like us being tickled, but it feels good', \"Nerves.\\nThere are nerves that trigger muscle responses and when you excite these nerves, the leg twitches. It also does it in the ear usually.\\n\\nYou know that test the doctor does to test reflexes on the knee by hitting it and your leg kicks up? It's the same as that, but since the dog is physically different, especially with her legs, the reflexes are different.\\n\\nShe can't stand up when you do it because her leg is preoccupied with reacting to the nerve being excited; The scratch you are giving her is overwriting any signal the brain is sending the nerve / muscle that would help her balance.\", \"First result on google says it's a scratch reflex.\\n\\n[Literally the first result](_URL_1_)\\n\\n[Seriously](_URL_0_)\", 'If its like being tickled, then it must suck for dogs when they cant tell us they have diarrhea, and we start tickling them :/', \"When my wife scratches my head, I'm instantly immobilized :-P\\n\\nIt probably works the same way for dogs.\", \"On the same topic... my friend likes to rub his dog's balls. He said his dog loves it and there's no shame in doing it in public. So he does it in public all the time.\", \"So this has changed from 'explain something complicated in an easy to understand way' to 'ask a fucking retarded question and get pointed to google'?\\n\\nGood riddance.\", 'Motorcycle kick start reflex', 'This also works on Tapirs.  I have visual evidence!', \"Okay, since it's ELI5, I'll try to make it that way, since the article's a little more adult than 5.\\n\\nSo, first, poke yourself.  You can feel it when you poke yourself because you have nerves.  Now, poke your dog, not too hard though.  Notice he felt it, and reacted, because he too has nerves.  Now, the dog has nerves in large bundles in some places, which make those places more sensitive.  You have nerves in large bundles too.  One of those places is on your knee.  If you tap your knee, firmly but not hard, you might notice your leg kicks out a little.  That's your muscles reacting to something that your nerves felt.  Well, when you scratch that section on the dog, his muscles in his leg react to something that the nerves on his belly feel.  In this case, he's trying to scratch at the itch he feels, or to kick away whatever's poking him there.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.google.com/#sclient=tablet-gws&amp;hl=en&amp;tbo=d&amp;site=&amp;source=hp&amp;q=why+do+dogs+kick+their+back+legs+when+you+scratch+them&amp;oq=why+do+dogs+kick+the&amp;gs_l=tablet-gws.1.1.0l3.1609.7277.0.8697.20.12.0.7.7.0.417.1724.8j2j1j0j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1ac.tq8ip15wjoA&amp;pbx=1&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;fp=98601f0a8328f047&amp;biw=1024&amp;bih=673', 'http://animal.discovery.com/guides/dogs/dog-training/behavior/why-do-dogs-shake-their-legs.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2769, "q_id": "42tb8b", "title": "why are eye colors only blue, green or brown and not other colors like purple, orange or yellow?", "selftext": "EDit 1: Wow, front page! Also, can genes be manipulated to change the melanin content itself?\n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42tb8b/eli5_why_are_eye_colors_only_blue_green_or_brown/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['czcwtle', 'czcxkfa', 'czcz0s1', 'czdal15', 'czdjdv6', 'czdno2r'], 'score': [10, 670, 64, 2, 18, 2], 'text': [\"There's only one color that's ever present in people's eyes and that's brown- it's the same pigment that makes people's skin dark. Blue eyes are caused by the same effect that makes the sky look blue. Eyes look green (or hazel) because of the same light-scattering if they have a little, but not a lot, of pigment in them. People with brown eyes have a lot of pigment.\", 'Eye color comes from the amount of a specific pigment/dye in your iris called *melanin*.  Melanin is a brown pigment found in many places throughout your body, including your hair and skin.  The more melanin in your skin, the darker it is.\\n\\nWith a few exceptions (I\\'ll get to them later), every eye color comes from a different level of melanin in the topmost layer of the iris.  The more melanin, the darker and browner the eye.  The less melanin, the lighter and bluer the eye.  Green eyes are just blue with a slight tinge of brown.  Hazel eyes are a moderate amount of brown.\\n\\nThe reason that no melanin = blue is the same reason the sky is blue.  It\\'s an optical effect called [Rayleigh scattering](_URL_0_).  The light waves get mixed up and \"scattered\" by the tiny transparent molecules of the top layer of the iris.  Blue light is scattered more than other colors, making the whole area appear blue.  There isn\\'t actually any blue pigment in the eye (or in the sky); it\\'s all an optical illusion.\\n\\nThere are eye colors that are outside this blue < - > brown spectrum, though.  These are amber (gold-ish), gray, and violet.\\n\\nAmber eyes come from a different pigment called lipochrome.  \\n\\nGray eyes are \"cloudy\" blue eyes.  The molecules in the iris have banded together into larger \"clumps\".  The optical effect of this is the same as water molecules clumping together into water droplets and forming a cloud, creating a gray sky.  \\n\\nViolet eyes occur only in albinos.  There is so little pigment in the iris (not just the topmost layer is pigment-less, but the lower layers as well) that light can actually shine through from inside the eye.  This gives you an eerie highlight of the blood vessels running through it, which can appear red or violet depending on the lighting conditions.', \"What determines your eye color is primarily influenced by the presence of melanin in the eye.  To put it very simply, melanin effectively makes things darker.  Although, the colors you mentioned do exist rarely.\\n\\n* Brown Eyes: These are the easiest, tons of melanin!  The melanin darkens the eyes to a brown shade.\\n\\n* Green Eyes: Melanin is present but, in smaller amounts than you would see in brown eyes.  One interesting thing is that melanin still creates brown pigment, there is no actual green pigment in green eyes.  The reason that the eyes appear green is because of the way light scatters after being reflected by the eye.\\n\\n* Blue Eyes: Very little melanin (but, not necessarily none).  There is still no blue pigment, appearance of blue eyes is caused by the same light scattering mentioned for green eyes.\\n\\nNow for the rarer colors, including the ones you mentioned! \\n\\n* Hazel Eyes: Hazel isn't an agreed upon color but, hazel eyes are usually between brown and green in terms of melanin production.  The light scattering explains a lot about how people with hazel eyes tend to seemingly have blue or green eyes depending on lighting.\\n\\n* Grey Eyes: Very little melanin, like blue Eyes but, also thought to contain collagen deposits in the colored part of the eye that influences how the light is scattered.\\n\\n* Amber/Golden Eyes: This would be the orange/yellow eyes that you mentioned.  Animals have this a lot more than we do but, it's not unknown in humans.  It's caused by a pigment called 'Lipochrome', the eyes also have melanin but, not as much as someone with brown eyes would have.\\n\\n* Red Eyes: Severe albinism can cause you to have near zero melanin.  This can result in eyes appearing to be red in the right light.  This is caused by the underlying blood vessels showing through.\\n\\n* Violet Eyes: Violet or Purple eyes can also be caused by albinism/near zero melanin.  There is a theory that a separate genetic trait called 'Alexandrias Genesis' can cause violet eyes.  Elizabeth Taylor is thought to have potentially had this trait, but, others believe it may have just been a trick of the lighting.  There are a tremendous amount of positive traits connected to 'Alexandrias Genesis' that make it seem like pseudoscience, it is most likely just a very mild case of albinism.\\n\\n**tl;dr**: Eye color is primarily determined by melanin which works on a scale of less brown - >  more brown.  Extra colors are caused by light scattering combined with the brown of the melanin but, some other factors exist to produce rarer eye colors.\", 'Eyes are blue, the move through different colors towards dark brown the more melanin is in them. \\n\\nThey are blue for a similar reason the sky is blue.  Melanin is also what makes skin darker. ', \"I saw an African American female back in the early 70's at a department store that had gray eyes. I've never seen anything so beautiful \", \"Black eyes. I'm a black woman with eyes so dark people almost always think they're black. But they are in fact brown, just a lot darker than brown eyes seen on white people.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2570, "q_id": "iw376", "title": "Status and thoughts on brain computer interface science?", "selftext": "Brain computer interfaces, or BCIs, how much of a reality are they? Are some of them illegal in the US?\n\nYears ago Wired ran an article where a man who lost both eyes but still had a healthy visual cortex was given cybernetic eyes by patching a web cam into his brain. And lots of people every year get cochlear implants that I presume patch directly into their brain for audio. And I've heard that people have wired into a monkey's brain to control robot arms.\n\nSo my question is: who's working on this? And how far are they getting? I assume this is sort of 'mad science' from the perspective that you can't just round up volunteers and cut into their brains. If you're a quadriplegic or blind can you even volunteer for this type of implant? Wired mentioned that the eye-cam surgery took place in sweden because the FDA had banned that type of procedure. \n\nWhat's a real scientist's take on this field?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/iw376/status_and_thoughts_on_brain_computer_interface/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c273ca8', 'c273tt1', 'c2748um'], 'score': [2, 18, 2], 'text': [\"This got caught in the spam filter.  With hesitation, I'm going to let it out.  **While legalities and politics thereabout are *not* questions science can talk about**, the question about brain-computer interfaces might be an interesting one.\", 'This field is very much alive and expanding, and as far as I know a few devices have been approved for human trials in Europe.  FDA approval for human trial in the US seems to be a little more complicated but we\\'re getting here.  However, all of these devices remain quite rudimentary and we\\'re still very far from the bionic implants you would see in a sci-fi movie.  \\n\\nThe best-known neural prosthesis are cochlear implants.  They work very well when implanted in young patients despite being very rudimentary, and have inspired a number of other neural prosthetic devices such as visual prosthesis, prosthesis for paraplegic patients.  As far as I know all of the \"working\" devices rely on the same basic principles.  Neurons in the brain propagate signals electrically, and it is possible to measure neuron activity by putting close to the cells microelectrodes.  By sending electrical currents through these electrodes it is also possible to stimulate the neurons and elicit perception.  This is how cochlear implants work:  they have a little microphone and typically 12 microelectrodes that sit next to the cochlea, and the sounds picked up onto the microphone are translated into electrical currents.  Power is delivered to these implants by inductive means:  a coil sits under the skin of the patient, usually behind the ear, and a matching coil with a battery is on the outside of the patient. \\n\\nAmong current prosthetic devices those I\\'m most familiar with are [Visual Prosthesis](_URL_0_).  In this field the problem being addressed is degenerative retinal diseases, in which patients progressively lose the photosensitive cells in their retina (so their eyes lose the ability to convert light into signals the brain can understand).  However these patients retain some basic neural circuits in their eyes and an intact optic nerve, and it\\'s on these neural circuits that you implant the microelectrodes and try to elicit response from the neurons.  I\u2019m aware of two groups (one academic, the other one a Silicon Valley startup) having started human trials with their devices.  Their initial findings seem to confirm that it is possible to partially restore sight in patients, however many very weird effects show up in these patients, so it\u2019s definitely not natural vision that\u2019s being restored.  Color vision was thought to be impossible to restore with this technology, but interesting results from Second Sight seems to indicate there could be ways to trick the brain into seeing colors, basically by trying to reproduce optical illusions.  As you can guess though, most of the research is not being done on humans.  Animal models, especially rats that have been genetically engineered to exhibit similar symptoms to human patients are the research subjects of preference. \\n\\nMotor function restoration in paraplegic patients is also something that people have been researching for a while now.  What has been proved in this area is that by implanting some microelectrode arrays into the premotor cortex of paraplegic patients, you can associate patterns of neuronal activity to movements.  It is what\u2019s going on in this [monkey moving robotic arm]( _URL_1_) video.  The Nature paper is linked in the video description if you want to read more about it.  To sum up quickly what\u2019s going on, when the monkey thinks of moving his arm to the left some neurons start being very active while others become quieter.  When the monkey wants to move his arm to the right different neurons become active and those that were previously active would typically become quiet, so you can decode these activity levels and relate them to arms movement.  After some positive reinforcement training the monkey becomes able to move the robotic arms fairly well and perform basic tasks with it.  For these types of prosthetic devices, monkeys are the subject of choice as they can be trained to perform basic tasks in a repetitive manner.  A few human patients have been implanted with the devices too, there was a Nature cover paper on it a while ago and if you\u2019re interested in it I can probably track it down.  \\n\\nOverall though, all these devices remain pretty rude.  We are nowhere near fabricating devices that can replicate the exquisite complexity of the brain, and we have no idea how the brain works anyway.  We don\u2019t even fully understand how the eye works.  But these things are promising, and I would expect to start seeing more of them in human patients in the next decade or so (this is wild guessing on my part).  It\u2019s also a little scary; people are putting stuff in brains without understanding exactly all that\u2019s going on so there could also be a few bad surprises in the field.  Other obstacles such as long-term stability of the implant have yet to be tackled.  For example in the monkey experiments usually after 5 years or so the microelectrodes have become completely covered in glial cells, the cells that protect the brain from the outside world.  So after a couple of years the implants become useless.  \\n\\nAnother promising field could be optogenetics, where neurons are genetically modified to be light-sensitive.  So neuron activity could be controlled using LEDs or lasers.  I know a quite a few people are trying to link these optogenetic experiments with brain-computer interfaces, but I have no idea what state their research is in. \\n\\nAnyway, I hope this helps a little, feel free to ask questions if you want clarifications on something. ', \"As a related question, how feasible is it to use on of these interfaces to transfer one persons experience from his/her brain into another persons brain?  This idea is explored in the film Strange Days and would make a wicked entertainment platform.  I'm never going to attempt a wingsuit flight, but it would be fun to relive someone elses experience of it from the safety of my armchair.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_prosthesis', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnWSah4RD2E'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2673, "q_id": "y3tdl", "title": "Why did NASA not include a microphone on Curiosity?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/y3tdl/why_did_nasa_not_include_a_microphone_on_curiosity/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c5s2q4o', 'c5s3zne'], 'score': [4, 8], 'text': [\"Very faint sound would be conveyed through the thin atmosphere, but space and weight on spacecraft is precious; unless an instrument has clear scientific goals it isn't going to be included.\", \"The idea of sending a microphone to Mars is one that NASA has considered and, in fact, implemented in the past; unfortunately, in both cases, this was unsuccessful.\\n\\nThe Mars Polar Lander that traveled to Mars in 1999 had a microphone on it, the [Mars Microphone](_URL_0_). Unfortunately, the mission was unsuccessful, when it appears a malfunction during the descent phase caused it to crash. The microphone was then incorporated into the Phoenix lander; this mission was successful overall, but because of problems with the subsystem of which it was a part, the microphone was never used.\\n\\nAs indicated [here](_URL_0_whatisit.html) on the web site of the Mars Microphone project,\\n\\n > While the atmosphere on the surface of Mars is indeed very thin, amounting to less than 1% of the pressure on Earth, laboratory experiments and theoretical calculations show that it is possible that sounds on Mars could be detected by standard microphone technology.\\n\\n >  Nevertheless, during the MPL mission we demonstrated that a low-cost ( < $100,000), small (25 cc) and lightweight (50g) instrument could be constructed for a major NASA planetary mission.\\n\\nSo why not on this machine?  It's just a choice.  For everything you launch, there is something you don't  launch.  For everything you include, you not only include the instrument, but the software and hardware to support it; that's more things that can go wrong, and could even affect other components of the mission (that's what happened in reverse to the microphone in the Phoenix lander mission).  So you have to balance possible payoffs against direct costs, opportunity costs, and risks in deciding what to include.  NASA apparently decided that the mission they went forward with was the better choice.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/marsmic/', 'http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/marsmic/whatisit.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2160, "q_id": "3i10px", "title": "why are stimulants used to treat adhd?", "selftext": "What is happening in the brain and how does the medication alter it?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i10px/eli5_why_are_stimulants_used_to_treat_adhd/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cuccc0f', 'cuccet3', 'cuccstf', 'cucd0tf', 'cuce42k', 'cuce9pw', 'cucf24a', 'cuch4b0', 'cuciiwx', 'cucj43d', 'cucjd72', 'cuckdq8', 'cucke1i', 'cucl12f', 'cucl219', 'cuclekc', 'cuclga9', 'cuclz3w', 'cucngdh', 'cucnvc4', 'cucoeby', 'cucohz2', 'cucoz1k', 'cucpah4', 'cucqqlg', 'cucrcel', 'cucrznx', 'cucs2jq', 'cucsi9i', 'cucsomt', 'cucsrda', 'cuctsxs', 'cucv92i', 'cucw6yr', 'cucwmel', 'cud02sk', 'cud2l0p', 'cud84fo', 'cuddi8z', 'cudjg6j'], 'score': [955, 127, 17, 2, 11, 117, 3, 2, 2, 24, 2, 4, 3, 3, 9, 4, 15, 9, 29, 3, 7, 561, 25, 2, 12, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 3, 2], 'text': [\"The dominant theory regarding adhd is that its caused by a lack of dopamine in the brain. Stimulants correct this imbalance by causing a temporary increase in the production of dopamine,  allowing the patient to focus better.\\n\\nEdit: the above is apparently now believed to be an outdated theory, /u/ibelieveindogs and a few other users below have offered more up to date concepts\\n\\nsee one example at the link below:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nI've disabled reply notifications for this post, lots of people below have made corrections and shared anecdotes, and I replied to some, I wasn't expecting this to get so popular and I frankly can't be bothered to keep checking and replying. Please don't be offended if I don't reply after this edit, if you want to discuss it further there's plenty of great replies and information following my post by other people, but I'm really not interested, I just wanted to share what I was told, I'm not an expert or doctor by any means.\", 'Stimulants, as a whole, are not used to treat ADHD.  The medications that happen to help with the symptoms (they sure as hell do not alleviate them) also happen to be stimulants.  I have ADHD.  Caffeine is terrible for me.  I never consume it.  My medications (Adderall, Concerta, etc.) do technically raise my resting heart beat, but they help me to simply \"zone out\" and focus on one thing at at a time.  Without the medication, I could never read a short paper in a room full of people talking, let alone just coughing and making random noises.  I am always on hyper-alert.\\n\\nThe medication does in fact speed up my metabolic rate and makes me heat up and sweat more, but the fact that it helps me to drown out all the background noise and just focus on one topic is what is often described as the \"relaxing\" factor.', 'ADHD is thought to be caused by underactivity in the frontal cortex, and thus, it is believed that stimulants such as ritalin increase activity in this part of the brain which help treat hyperactivity and lack of attention. ', 'When you are really tired, you have a hard time concentrating on one thing.  People with ADHD\\'s brains behave kind of like tired people\\'s brains.  Stimulants help \"wake\" their brains up so they can concentrate on things better.  ', 'Stimulants have a paradoxical reaction in people with ADHD. When \"normal\" people take stimulants they get wired, but when people with ADD take stimulants it actually calms them down. Meth will make someone with ADHD tired.\\n\\nSources: Psych degree and Rehab.', \"I've had ADHD since I was 7 years old, and I'm 26 now. I've been taking Adderall for a very, very long time. I can honestly say that it's very different for each person, so each individual situation can be catered to. For a majority of people with ADHD, stimulants affect them different than other people. For example, if a person without the disorder were to take Adderall, they would probably talk a lot, get really excited, bounce off the walls, etc.\\n\\n\\n\\nBut when I take my Adderall, I get very quiet, I don't talk, and I don't engage in unnecessary conversation with people.  You can obviously see how stimulants help me in this aspect. It literally forces my focus, and I have yet to meet someone else who doesn't have ADHD that has my same kind of reaction to stimulants.\", \"I've been on Dexamphetamine for a very long time. It helps tremendously with the concentration element of ADHD, but in no way with the anxiety or stress parts. \\n\\nMedicinal cannabis has been a brilliant treatment. Which I can look forward to being legal in Australia in 2098.\", 'I heard that if you have ADHD, medications with pseudophedrine in them (such as Advil Cold  &  Sinus) will make you feel more \"relaxed\" and \"focused\", and that this is a good way to see whether you might have it and should go talk to a doctor. Is that true?', \"ADHD makes all the boring stuff you have to get through to live a responsible life extra unbearable. The extra shot of dopamine the meds provide tricks your brain into thinking whatever you're occupied with is actually somewhat interesting. Any stimulants or lifestyle changes that increase energy help because you need extra mental discipline to fight the symptoms and that gets tiring quickly.\\n\\nI'm in the process of weaning off Adderall because it didn't help much and has negative personality and physical effects. Trying to make my environment more stimulating by changing careers and trying to increase physical stamina with exercise. I have the inattentive type + fatigue with no known medical explanation so this is probably a fool's errand, but long-term stimulants use is no good either, would rather have that a tool for short periods of overwork if my career requires it.\", 'I have been diagnosed with ADHD hyperactive with impulsivity three times, maybe four, I can\\'t actually remember. Doctors have been telling my parents I need to be on amphetamines since I was 13 years old. And the difference between me being off meds and on them is pretty stark. \\n\\nOff medication it\\'s as though my mind and ability to concentration are susceptible to the most minor distractions. I could be in a class lecture about something I\\'m deeply interested in, hear the ac click on, and I\\'ll spend the next ten minutes wondering how the ac unit in the building works, how\\'s it\\'s plumbed, how much air it has to move, and how much refrigerant it must take to cool a college building. When I was a teenager a piece of music could come on while I was driving, and if I really enjoyed it I would just inexplicably start hauling ass, and occasionally try to match my up shifts and down shifts to the tempo. It\\'s a nightmare when I play guitar because I\\'ll try to learn a song, think it sounds like something else, and then start trying to play that, until I\\'m reminded of something else. If I hear a door open I frequently start wondering about how the lever works. If I hear a car pass in the distance with a loud exhaust I will try to figure out the engine configuration, (was that a V6 or I6) often in the middle of a conversation. \\n\\nIt\\'s like reading the first paragraph of a wikipedia page and clicking on the first link that follows in perpetuity. \\n\\nOn medication the crazy and intruding distractions are reduced to almost non-existence, and I can at least ignore ordinary stuff that would normally set my mind wandering. Although my friends complain that I seem irritable. One friend calls me \"Angry LAULitics\" when Im on them. But Im not actually angry, Im just frustrated because I see and can focus on problems I can\\'t fix when I decide to zero in on them. I think I only seem irritable because I have less tolerance for small talk and bullshit when I\\'m medicated. If you want to tell me a story about a specific event, you had better get to the point quick, and not spend 15 minutes giving me a backstory or I\\'m going to inevitably and perhaps rudely ask you \"Are these details relevant to the story?\" Medication makes me from my perspective, feel hyper efficient, but I suspect, that in some sense this is what normal *is* to people without the disorder.\\n\\nI actually use ADHD to my advantage sometimes. I came up with a strategy in college when I couldn\\'t afford my meds, that if I wanted to force myself stay on subject I would read articles or the wiki page about whatever the class was discussing so I could put it in a larger context. By loading my brain with an additional relevant source of stimulation it helped keep me from thinking about pointless shit, like how the desks could be better designed or arranged, or how shitty and unreliable dry erase markers are most of the time, and what could be done to fix them.\\n\\nADHD is weird, I still don\\'t know what it is exactly, or all of it\\'s ramifications, because I\\'ve had it my entire life. Hell Im not even sure if I have a disorder because this is a *normal* frame of reference to me. But I know it makes me absurdly curious about mundane things, which isn\\'t a bad thing in of itself, in fact its actually quite helpful at times; but when your interest in mundane stuff takes precedence over shit you need to be able to force yourself to focus on thats when it becomes an issue worthy of medication. It\\'s like being locked into a state of perpetual and often annoying curiosity about whatever is most stimulating moment by moment. \\n\\nI also like caffeine a lot, but mixing that with adderall is too much. Caffeine is my go to if I don\\'t have my medication, and I drink about 4-6 cups of coffee in an hour or two to get dialed in.\\n\\n', \"My psychiatrist, who relies heavily on 2 minute diagnoses, decided I had ADHD and prescribed Dexedrine. I do have ADHD-like symptoms,  but that drug made it feel like time was standing still, and I felt completely paralyzed on it. I felt nearly suicidal,  so I stopped taking it. I don't get what it was supposed to accomplish. \", 'because curing the disease with genetic testing is not as profitable as giving some one speed and turning them into a zombie, and then a drug addict when they mature. \\n\\n/source.... i was raised thinking i had adhd, and on Ritalin... grew up in the system... eventually had genetic testing and treated the CBS mutation i had....all the symptoms went away.... and can be recreated at will if I play with the variables  that effect the CBS mutation.  its actually very neato... i can induce low level mania at will and stop it when ever i want.\\n\\n', 'The part of my brain that helps me pay attention to one thing is too quiet sometimes. When I take my stimulant, it makes the part of brain that helps all of my brain work together louder than the other parts that keep distracting me. ', 'Sorry what? I got distracted\\n\\nSource: ADHD', \"Because, for a person with ADHD, the front part of the brain is a little slow. This isn't good, so the brain compensates by speeding up all the brain, which makes the front thinking part work like it should, but the rest of the brain is working too hard. This drug speeds up that part of the brain, letting the rest of the brain relax. \", \"ADHDer here...  I honestly forgot the medication I took when I was younger/I didn't even care... but I recently (within the past two years) started taking medicine for it again to help my focus.  They started a mix of Adderall and Ritalyn... though I hated every moment of it. It made me super uneasy and filled me with anxiety, also lost all apetite. Though recently my new Dr. switched me to Bupropion and it works wonders, no anxiety, feel relaxed but focused, and hungry like the wolf. I take it in the morning with some coffee and I am a focusing machine.\\n\\nThis has nothing to do with your question, but I... I dunno just wrote it down... so enjoy\", 'It takes a certain kind of effort to focus. Most people don\\'t notice this until they start to get fatigued from working too long. \\n\\nPeople with ADHD don\\'t notice it because our brains don\\'t flex that way.  Certain stimulants can help us focus normally, because they kinda \"prime the pump\" for that process.\\n\\nIt\\'s worth noting that for folks like me who were never treated until adulthood, having the power to focus is no replacement for the lifetime of practice we missed out on.', 'ADHDer here. You know how once you get in the groove of doing something, it becomes easier? How if you\\'re on a run, the first step is the hardest?\\n\\nWhen I\\'m not on my meds, *every* step feels like the first step. I literally *don\\'t have the ability* to get \"in the groove\" of working on anything. There is no positive feedback from making a little bit of progress, and in fact, I have no feeling of \"making progress\" as I work, unless I change gears and go quantitatively check how far along I am in whatever task I\\'m working on.\\n\\nI can\\'t sit still because I\\'m always \"taking the first step\"- I\\'m always fidgeting and squirming around because I\\'m always getting comfortable in my chair for the first time. Most people might shuffle around in their chair a little bit to get comfortable before settling down, but I never settle down.\\n\\nAnother thing is that it\\'s very difficult to filter out which details and sensations are important. Without meds, the very act of existing is like drinking from a firehose- way too much input to handle. At this very moment, you are probably actively filtering out 1) your physical tactile input stimuli associated with sitting or standing or whatever position your body has been in for the past few minutes 2) irrelevant audio input (there almost always is something - a fan humming, a train going by in the distance, background music) 3) irrelevant taste input (yes, you are ALWAYS tasting something) 4) irrelevant visual input (your eyes are probably focused on a screen of sorts) 5) irrelevant olfactory input (yes, you are ALWAYS smelling something...even if it\\'s a \"neutral\" smell).\\n\\nWithout meds, I am bombarded by all of that at once, because I can\\'t filter what stimuli I pay attention to. I\\'m hyperactive, so instead of paying attention to none of it (zoning out), I pay attention to ALL of it!\\n\\nEnter stimulant medication. Disclaimer time... the explanation to follow might not be totally medically accurate, but it explains my experience from the ADHDer\\'s perspective: You\\'d think that stimulants make my fidgety, going-over-everything-too-fast-to-pay-attention manner of thinking even worse, but the stimulants help me to have a longer attention span. That means I can really get comfortable in my chair *the first time*, so I don\\'t have to keep doing it. And I don\\'t keep noticing how uncomfortable I am, because I\\'m locked onto whatever I\\'m trying to focus on (i.e. I\\'m not distracted by the sensory influx of my body constantly pressing against a hard chair). When I do math with meds, I have a long enough attention span to switch back and forth between the plan and whatever step I\\'m carrying out, without getting lost as to where I am in the problem (without meds, I get lost often and have to start over from scratch whenever I get lost).', 'My father is one of the leading psychiatrists who specializes in the treatment of ADHD, specifically in adults. There are a lot of misconceptions about all of this, especially the mechanism by which psychostimulants alleviate the symptoms of ADHD. There was a video posted awhile ago about an explanation of Adderall might work: by keeping dopamine in the synapse longer . I showed it to my dad and he immediately said \"that idea was dismissed in the 70\\'s. This isn\\'t true or even all that modern.\" \\n\\n\\nThe main question should be \"why would a stimulant help a person with ADHD slow down and focus? How does that make sense?\" And on the surface, it doesn\\'t. But what if, and give me some time to explain this, the medications didn\\'t act as stimulants? What if they acted as something else? As some background, out of all the stimulants we have at our disposal, there are only two that have any effectiveness in treating ADHD: amphetmamines and methylphenidate (and methamphetamine, but that is usually a last option treatment for obvious reasons). These molecules have a property called chirality, which means that even though they\\'re connected the same way, they are oriented differently in space, like mirror images. The most common analogy is the human hand: they are exactly the same but mirror images (a right hand won\\'t fit in a left glove). Anyway, only 3 of these forms have shown benefit for those with ADHD: both R- and S-amphetamine, and R-threo-methylphenidate. So, amongst all the stimulants we know, only two have shown any benefit for ADHD treatment and, of those two, only three of the six isomers show any efficacy. So we\\'re talking a very narrow range here. \\n\\n\\nNow, if these drugs worked by central nervous system stimulation, theoretically any stimulant should work right? But they don\\'t. Case in point: caffeine. Anyone with ADHD will tell you caffeine doesn\\'t help. So what else could be happening?  The theory my father subscribes to is one of a so-called \"replacement model,\" where people with ADHD are deficient in a naturally occurring molecule and the medication will mimic that molecule as a replacement. For instance, there is a testing program called TOVA which is used to test a person\\'s attention. Patients with ADHD will usually score very low when compared to the general populace. However, if you give the patient 5 mg of an ADHD medication, their scores jump. Give them 10 mg, it will jump even more. Give them 15 mg, even more. Remarkably, these jumps are linear in fashion. This is where it gets interesting: it only happens up to a certain point. After a certain dosage, the scores begin to drop off dramatically. If a person\\'s optimal dose is 20mg, by the time they\\'re taking 40mg, they\\'re actually doing worse than they were doing without any medication at all. If they worked by a stimulation mechanism, then the more you gave somebody the better they would do. But this isn\\'t the case. This is similar to a person with diabetes who doesn\\'t produce enough insulin. If you don\\'t give them enough, it won\\'t be effective. Give them too much, there will be health hazards. Give them just the right amount and they will function normally. And this is what ADHD medications do: allow the patient to function like a person with a typical nervous system. Pills don\\'t give skills. They are a means by which to even the playing field.\\n\\n\\nSo, if we assume that they act as a replacement/supplement for a naturally occurring molecule, where does it act? A lot of people think it is the prefrontal cortex which is associated with attention and so this would be the place that ADHD medications operate. But this may not be true either. It a very interesting experiment performed in the early 1990s (I\\'m a little iffy on the time period, I can find the paper if people are interested), a doctor was interested in where the main area of action was for methylphenidate. To determine this, she \"radiolabeled\" methylphenidate, meaning that one atom in the molecule was replaced by a radioactive isotope and when it decayed, it could be detected measured. After creating this special version of methylphenidate, she injected it directly into the carotid artery of volunteers. What she found was that it accumulated almost exclusively in a part of the brain called the corpus striatum. According to Wikipedia, the corpus striatum is associated with \"multiple aspects of cognition, including motor and action planning,decision-making, motivation, reinforcement, and reward perception.\" All of these things play a role in ADHD. So if the ADHD brain is deficient in a molecule that acts upon the corpus striatum, it\\'s activity will decrease and all of the above aspects will be impaired.\\n\\n\\nThis is a very basic version of this. It\\'s currently 3am so I don\\'t have many of these sources in front of me, but if people are interested, I might be able to get my dad to write up a full discussion of this. It goes much deeper and gets way more complex, but since  this is ELI5 and I\\'m tired, this will do for now.\\n', \"Stumbled upon this while high as fuck on speed. I find it's a great buzz that doesn't necessarily distort your senses as much as it heightens them. Prolonged use tends to wear you down but the initial use tends to make me very sharp and able to articulate what would normally be difficult to express thoughts and opinions. Although sometimes it can lead to excessive stimulation which can derail the positive effects seen from a smaller dosage.\", 'I don\\'t know any of the real science based theory of how it works. I can tell you I\\'m prescribed it and I take it as I\\'m supposed to. The best way I have ever been able to explain how it works with me is to imagine you\\'re thinking about 10 different things at once. Not like a scatter brained schizophrenic way but like maybe a normal person would feel if maybe they frank to much caffiene. Able to focus on one idea for a second then another pops in maybe you\\'re a little chattery. That was my life for awhile. Once I got an adderal script that normal way of thinking and functioning changed for me. The way I can best describe it was like once I could tell my addys kicked in I felt like a giant broom swept my brain clean of everything but the immediate important thing. Here\\'s the thing though. I experimented with alot. Especially during college. Any amp was my fav. So like coke, kitchen speed even just dirty stuff like psuedophedrine (it wasn\\'t so tightly controlled back then). the weird thing was while all those things made my friends grind their teeth, act creepy and talk to much I instead felt more and more steady the more I did (there was a tipping point o found out one terrible night). But essentially all amps made me actually feel in control and confident. I would stop second guessing I said to people and was so confident. I felt like it was my \"nutty professor\". Those nights were great and like everyone else that has taken amps know I could drink like a monster.  But what killed me was besides my prescribed Adderall dose any other hype drugs I took I had absolutely god awful come downs. Most often those super depressed two or so days when you felt like shit bit were smart enough to know it would pass. But when I took the \"sketchy\" kitchen crank or psuedophedrine I would become like a different person and go through like a 2 day paranoia period where I\\'d convince myself I had blacked out and committed a bad crime like robbing a bank. I only needed like 3 of those come downs before I quit all amps except my prescribed \\n\\n\\nEdit: this post looks like im off my meds lol. I think for people who need it (adderal/ritalin etc.) does have the real affect of dropping dopamine when our brains aren\\'t good at doing it. Science has figured out that Adderall is the safest way to make it a therapeutic dose. My explorations into elicit drugs that also elicit dopamine dumps always ended in dangerous and scary withdrawals.', \"My cardiologist sister explained it best...\\n\\nFor reasons we have yet to fully understand, the ADHD brain is demanding an abnormal amount of stimulation all the time. So whenever you're not being bombarded with stimulation (sitting in class, a meeting, or doing repetitive tasks), your brain will start sending you signals demanding that you either find something stimulating, or start creating it yourself, leaving you no other choice but to focus only on things that stimulate.\\n\\nGiving an ADHD brain a chemical stimulant is feeding it the stimulation it's demanding, which literally frees you from having to seek it out or hyperactively create it yourself. Once the brain gets what it needs, it leaves you alone, free to suddenly CHOOSE whether you want to pay attention and focus or not.\\n\\n**TL;DR: An ADHD brain is constantly DEMANDING an abnormal amount of stimulation. Giving it a chemical stimulant frees you from that constant demand.**\", 'ELI5 Answer:\\n\\n**Orchestra and Conductor**\\n\\nIn the ADHD brain the orchestra is playing, but the conductor is asleep.  Stimulant medication wakes up the conductor to get the orchestra back under control.\\n', 'Stimulants make you more motivated to do useless shit the majority has  conditioned you to believe you need to do. ', 'Literal ELI5 for the curious :\\n\\n   Imagine a class room,  with a dozen of noisy active kids,  a good- tough- teacher is the only thing stopping these brats from wrecking the class room,  \\n\\nteacher is very tired today , and  he naps on his desk,  kids goes CRAZY!,  Principal comes in, wakes the teacher, and situation is under control again. \\n\\nClassroom : brain. \\n\\nTeacher: cerebral cortex(higher functions). \\n\\nKids: subcortical functions. \\n\\nPrinciple : stimulant. ', \"I live in Australia.  And in the area I live in there aren't any doctors that treat or believe in ADHD at all.  I'd have to travel 2 hours and pay around $1000 just to prove that I have ADHD when I was diagnosed as a child.  It's more then that, when I was a kid I showed such typical ADD results I would get all these requests to go into studies, the belief in Australia is once you hit adult hood you instantly grow out of it.\\n\\nAs a full time student/part time working independent.  I literally can't afford it unless I save.  But the amount of shit you have to go through just to get an appointment is INSANE that it is deterant enough.  Begging doctors to write stuff etc.  poving that you aren't a drug addict.  Sitting through doctors lying to your face when they know you know they are lying.\\n\\nIt's like trying to convince you're sane in a mental asylum in the 19th century.\\n\\nEdit:spelling.\", 'If you look at the different explanations here, you see that they don\\'t add up. The top comment doesn\\'t really explain anything: \"ADHD is a lack of dopamine and therefore it can be treated by adding dopamine\".\\n\\nBut what is dopamine?\\n\\nWhy is there a lack of it in ADHD?\\n\\nYou see stuff about how the front part of the brain isn\\'t active enough. But what is the function of the front part? What does it mean that it isn\\'t active?\\n\\nI think these explanations are hollow, and I believe this is because our understanding of ADHD is hollow as well. Methylphenidates are working really, really well. Discovering why they work so well is harder than experimenting to find that they work. That being said, I think there are some clues that can help connect the dots.\\n\\n**The amygdala**\\n\\nThose who have heard of this structure may refer to it as \"the thing that controls fear\". That\\'s totally off the mark, though. And it\\'s such a boring explanation for the fascinating almond-shaped structure that is the amygdala. While the function of the amygdala remains, to this day, disputed, it is obviously related to what we think of as willpower. If you remove one of the two parts of your friend\\'s amygdala^1, she will become lazy. Ask her to do the dishes, and she will say \"meh\". She won\\'t study, do chores, or do anything where the result requires her to wait. She will also not be willing to make a real effort. She will choose the easy way out instead.\\n\\nShe will behave as if she was running low on dopamine.\\n\\n**The locus coeruleus**\\n\\nAnatomical terms often sound pretty intimidating, but they are really just descriptions of what things look like. This one translates to \"blue spot\" because it\\'s a spot that looks sorta, well, blue. Again, this structure is known for something boring: arousal. If you look beyond that, it becomes much more interesting. This blue spot fires a signal^2 whenever something weird happens. It tells almost the whole brain that \"something happened that we totally didn\\'t expect, guys\". Now, surprise can be either good or bad, depending on the circumstances. When you\\'re watching a movie, you would scratch your eyes out if it was completely predictable. You want some surprise, or else you will be bored. Yet, too much surprise is awful. It\\'s confusing and strange and scary.\\n\\nWhat would happen if you started messing around with the blue spot? Well, if you partly removed it, you would almost always be bored. Life would feel like the most boring and predictable thing ever. You\\'d run around trying to make something interesting happen.\\n\\nYou would be hyperactive.\\n\\n**The basal ganglia**\\n\\nThe name of this set of structures really demonstrates how neuroanatomical naming conventions tend to be pretty banal. Basal is fine; it just means it\\'s at the base of the forebrain. Ganglia, though, is pretty dumb. When a lot of neurons are clustered together and seem to serve some common function, they are called a ganglion, or ganglia. But we don\\'t call them that in the brain. In the brain the very same concept is called a nucleus, or nuclei. So this name just means \"it\\'s sort of a lot of different little things and it\\'s at the base\".\\n\\nStill, this is a very, very interesting place. This is the only place in the brain that the locus coeruleus *doesn\\'t* signal to. Why? Because it is responsible for the exact opposite function: signalling when something happened that you *wanted* to make happen. It remembers what you did when you did something that made something good happen. In other words, it is responsible for habits. And, as you probably guessed, dopamine is heavily involved.\\n\\nWhat is the deal with dopamine? Again, people tend to only know something off the mark and boring. What\\'s with this tendency? Well, anyhow, people think of dopamine as the \"feel good\"-chemical or the \"pleasure hormone\". This can be ruled out easily: many drug addicts take narcotics that increase dopamine in a certain neural pathway^3, but without experiencing any pleasure. At all. They\\'re miserable before they take them, and miserable after. Which is because dopamine is not about pleasure. What is dopamine about, then? Expectation.\\n\\nDopamine codes for what you expect will happen (how good or bad something will be), and makes you do more of the stuff that leads to good things. It is a confirmation signal that you are doing the right thing, and that you should do more of it. Which is why doing drugs that stimulate the reward pathway makes you take more drugs that stimulate the reward pathway.\\n\\n**Prefrontal cortex**\\n\\nThis is the thing we are the most proud of, for some reason. Laymen and scientists alike rave about this part of our cortex, but it is completely useless in isolation. It needs the amygdala. It needs the locus coeruleus. It needs the basal ganglia. It also needs other structures that I haven\\'t mentioned. It\\'s a really needy structure, to be honest. Still, it\\'s a pretty sweet thing.\\n\\nHow can I explain how it works? Well, it\\'s in fact pretty simple. It lets you move around. \"Oh so it lets you walk?\" No! That\\'s not the idea. Moving around physically is fine and dandy, but there\\'s another place that is often more interesting: your mind. And in fact, moving around in your mind works exactly the same way as moving around physically. It\\'s just that we call it \"thinking\".\\n\\n**The cerebellum**\\n\\n\"Oh for crying out loud!\" I hear you say. This is the last structure, I promise! Hang, on this one is pretty cool. To put everything in perspective, I need to talk about this one a little bit as well, or the big picture will be incomplete.\\n\\nScientists used to treat this structure with a \"meh\" attitude. But that was only until they realized that it is maybe the most important one of them all. In retrospect, it seems pretty obvious: there are more neurons in the cerebellum than in the rest of the brain combined. Yes, you read that correctly. It takes up only 10 percent of the space but has more than 50 percent of the processing power. While the cerebellum is still subject to hot debate, it is clear that it is responsible for timing. With the cerebellum, you get clumsy. You walk clumsily, and you think clumsily. The cerebellum makes your behavior and thoughts flow smoothly rather than tumble along awkwardly.\\n\\n\\n**Conclusion**\\n\\nWhat do we get when we put all of this together? We get explanations for the commonly observed behavior of people with ADHD, and insights into why stimulants work so well.\\n\\nThe amygdala is, as was mentioned, important for willpower. A way to show how this fits together with the rest is to say that the amygdala is about uncertainty. It motivates you to go from \"I don\\'t want to be in this state I\\'m in now\" to to doing something about it. So the locus coeruleus sends a signal that you are surprised. This is also uncertainty. It alerts the amygdala to the fact that you are uncertain. The prefrontal cortex explores your mind to find a way to remove this uncertainty. The basal ganglia receives signals from the prefrontal cortex about what we should do in the form of *expectations*. The logic is as follows: the locus coeruleus tells the brain that there is uncertainty detected. The amygdala doesn\\'t like uncertainty. The prefrontal cortex offers a way out of uncertainty. It tells the basal ganglia \"I expect to do such and such\". Since the basal ganglia\\'s job is to do what is expected (habit) and to monitor whether it manages to do this through dopamine, it tries to reduce the uncertainty. The cerebellum makes sure the timing for all this is right, so it flows uninterrupted.\\n\\nIn ADHD, every single one of these structures are affected. And if you postulate that ADHD is about reduced dopamine and/or norepinephrine signalling, it all makes a whole lot of sense.\\n\\nThe inattention-part of ADHD can be explained thusly: every strategy the prefrontal cortex comes up with will be registered as failures. Because of this, the amygdala is pissed off. Everything you try to do fails in some way, and you can\\'t control yourself. The rest of your brain won\\'t \"listen\" to your prefrontal plans, because in their experience, they always fall flat.\\n\\nThe hyperactivity part can be explained like this: because the locus coeruleus is never telling you that you are surprised, you are constantly bored and starved of excitement. You run around looking for something interesting. Something to do. You run around physically, you run around in your mind. Always looking for excitement, but rarely finding it. Sitting still is torture. It is inhumanely boring.\\n\\n\\nNow, this is obviously not a complete description or explanation, but it helps me to think about ADHD, and I hope it is of help to others as well.\\n\\n^1. The basolateral complex.\\n\\n^2. Noradrenaline/Norepinephrine.\\n\\n^3. The ventral-tegmental-nucleus accumbens pathway, or VTA-nA pathway, mesolimbic pathway, or simply: the reward pathway.', 'Shameless plug for /r/ADHD. \\n\\nIt may seem like a lot of ranting at first, but when you read some of the answers from some folds who are suffering from it, it helps with an understanding. ', 'Psychologist here. ADHD people have an underperforming frontal lobe, which is responsible for things like concentration and impulse control. A stimulant like Ritalin boosts the frontal lobe functioning back to a normal level, thereby increasing impulse control and concentration. I think other answers in this thread have been a little off base. ', \"I'll explain it in common terms: \\nStimulants are used because the brain is taking in so many stimuli that speeding it up allows it to receive and process all the stimuli and then focus on the stimuli chosen.  \\n\\nSo instead of bouncing from one stimulus to another, you can take them all in quickly and not have to devote brain power to each one individually. \\n\\nMake sense?\\n\\n(I have ADHD and have asked my doctor/ dad who is a doctor.)\", 'let me explain the big problem with the \"dopamine imbalance\" theory. If this was true, the absolute worst thing to do to treat a dopamine imbalance would be to introduce a drug that causes dopamine levels to fluctuate. That is like seeing a see saw and saying it is unbalanced and the way to balance it is to set it bouncing it up and down. Its stupid. Everyone who reads this, fails to understand, gets upset and downvotes it is stupid. ', \"Cousin is autistic and has ADHD. I just asked his Habilitive Therapist this.\\n\\nShe says it's because the synapses in our minds fire off, causing thoughts and actions and such. When you have ADHD, these synapses misfire and rapidfire, and often they don't hit the other synapses like they're supposed to. This causes erratic, distracted behavior, thoughts, and movements.\\n\\nStimulants correct these synaptic discharges and make them able to complete their connections.\", \"I'm a mid 30s adult who has dealt with ADHD his entire life. I always resisted medication because I didn't feel like I needed meds to change a part of me that was just another part of what made me who I am. I got a promotion at work that required me to be very detail oriented and to have to sit through multiple meetings and technical discussions. I began to have real difficulty keeping on task and being able to function at a higher level of demand, so I talked to my wife and my doctor about options. I'm now on a 20mg daily dose of adderall XR (that's the 24 hour extended release version) and the change is amazing. The best way to describe it is that everything still moves at 900 mph in my head but now I can pick and choose which items I lock down on and use in a situation. \", 'Thanks for this post! (This is a throwaway account)\\n\\nI am in my late 30\\'s and while I would say I have always been on the depressed side, low energy, no motivation, I never considered myself \"depressed.\" The last couple years I have had a couple instances where the depression has significantly taken over my life. I finally decided I need to seek help and ended up seeing a wonderful Psychologist. Within 15-20 minutes of him asking questions and me explaining my life he determined I have one of two diagnosis. I either have ADHD of the inattentive type or an information processing disorder. I remember sitting there and feeling relief, it felt good having someone identify what it is I have struggled with up until that point. \\n\\nAs a child I was able to function just above the radar and do well in school. As I got older it became harder and most of my mental energy went towards making myself \"fit\" in and seem normal. Eventually I became so tired and drained I developed a coping mechanism - Avoidance. The past few years I have gradually sunk lower into depression as my life consists of work, and then going home to try and be a good husband and father. I have no energy left for anything else and can barely manage those things...\\n\\nBack to the present. I am awaiting a referral to see a local doctor who specializes in ADHD. My best case scenario is I have ADD (not the information processing disability for which there is no meds or cure) and we find meds that work and allow me to live. To reach my potential at work, or find a new career path. To be a better husband. A better father. Also, to be able to network and have friends again. \\n\\nAgain, thanks for this insightful post. Wish me luck!\\n', \"ADHD primarily Innatentive here, it's almost like ADHD with some depressive symptoms. Didn't get caught in school because hyperactivity was down and I was decently smart. One hour of work was equivalent to three hours for others. The buildup in order to do that hour was horrible, and made me frustrated because I knew I was capable of more.\\n\\nWorking on a paper due the next day was like playing one of Jigsaw's games. Graduated in physics with a 3.58. Would I do it over? No, but I wish I had gone on meds from the start. I was better in a crunch because I also had anxiety, and when the going got tough, my body would self medicate with some of the transmitters adderall helps to increase.\\n\\nOur brains are like a computer with an overclocked processor on a 32 bit OS. I would have to be told three and four times what to do, only to forget when I got to the task. Instructions were the bane of my existence (didn't help ADHD also causes you to misplace things, like grading rubrics).\\n\\nMy therapist told me the neurotranmisters help to stimulate metabolic processes in the parts of the brain with low activity (prefrontal cortex mostly). This is why we can focus on something we enjoy, have impulse problems, and only think about our interests. It's like only using the instinct driven portions our brains. Men are diagnosed more than women due to our hunter-gatherer hard wiering, that's not to say women have it less, but their symptoms are less apparent.\\n\\nAdderall allows us to use the logical/decision making portions of our brain to greater effect, as well as areas where we have less natural ability. Motivation is easier to muster, and activities outside our interests fell less like banging our head against a wall.\", 'I had to give a 15 minute presentation on Adderall when I was in college; its been almost two years now but i remember most of it. Adderall is prescribed to those with ADHD and ADD, and this is how I remember it working: your 30 mlg extended release capsule is composed of 25% dextroamphetamine and 75% levoamphetamine. The dextro (25%) does two things: it closes off some of the dopamine receptors in the brain which causes a surplus of dopamine to build in the synapse, as well as boost the levels your brain is already making. The levo (75%) also causes a major boost in dopamine release as well as increases your heart rate and blood flow. So your brain is getting more blood flow and at the same time feeding on this larger-than-normal dopamine release, its similar to plugging the drain and turning the faucet on. The result is the feeling of elevated mental sharpness and the giddy apprehensive feeling you get when you know something good is about to happen. I know this because I stayed up a whole week on Adderall while researching Adderall and writing the most in depth study of my life about Adderall. ', \"Thank you for this thread.  One of my 10 yr old sons has ADHD and he's been on ritalin for 2 yrs.  I am always looking for information on how others act and react to see what kinds of adjustments I need to make to help him out.\\n\\nFor him, we noticed the issues before he was 1 yr old.  His behaviorial issues had not responded to therapy and it was a night and day difference when we decided to put him on meds.  His reading ability shot straight up and he's outstanding at math and he has friends.  There are still bumps with behavior problems but not as extreme as they were previously.  I am glad he is able to be calm and interact well with others when he is taking medication.\\n\\nIt's hard looking on the outside to try to help him because I don't experience what he does.  These explanations and anecdotes help a lot.\", '**ELI5: Why are stimulants used to treat ADHD?**\\n\\n   Late to the party OP, sorry. But I felt it was important to answer your question. I am 58, have ADHD, and have been studying this disorder intensely for over 10 years. My goal is never to present the \u201cright\u201d solutions to others, it is only to share my experience, and the hope that others may benefit. Based on that, I would like to share my thoughts about what, and how I might tell a 5 year old child about their ADHD, and how a treatment such as stimulants might work.\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  And, this is similar to what I told my 11 year old son when he was diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed Adderall - which I was also taking at the time. The following example is also a roughed out excerpt from a book about Adult ADHD that I have been working on for several years. It is still in development *[please forgive me, I promise this is NOT self-promotion.]*\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  If you have a young child with ADHD, who doesn\u2019t understand what is happening - and why they may have to take stimulant medication \u2013 please consider using this story example when attempting to help them cope with the concept. I\u2019ve been there - both with my son, and with myself. This may be long, but it\u2019s worth taking the time to share this with a young child who is almost certain to feel confused and frustrated about why they struggle so much, or why adults yell at them, or why they feel so different from the other kids at school, or why they feel stupid, or why they have no friends, or why they have to repeat a grade, or why it is so hard to read and study, or why they have to go to a psychologist or psychiatrist and, of course, why they may have to take stimulant medication.\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  As you read the following explanation - that I believe a 5 year old might understand - please think about how you might change or distill it to be more effective or appropriate for your own child, and in your own situation. I sincerely hope it can help someone deal more effectively with this incredibly frustrating and misunderstood disorder.\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *\"Son / Daughter, I want to talk with you about your ADHD and about the medication the doctor wants to prescribe. But first, I wanted to tell you a story. Is that OK? Great, try and listen closely. But if you need to get up, move, feel bored or wanting to do something else, we can put the story on pause for a minute while you do it. I\u2019ll even help. But then we must come right back to the story, because it\u2019s really important. Is that a deal? Thanks. \\nOK, so imagine tons of really big traffic intersections with 1000\u2019s of roads entering them \u2013 and they are extremely busy all the time. AND, all of the cars going through them are being driven by people traveling to their jobs - and these are jobs which are important to keeping the world safe and healthy.*\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *BUT, because of the unpredictable traffic that change constantly, the city had a great idea. Instead of using the normal red, yellow and green traffic signals to organize the flow of all the cars, they hired really awesome, cyborg policemen with perfect programming. By watching the changing flow of traffic over millions of years, they have become experts at deciding WHEN each car should go through the intersection AND can even tell some of the more confused drivers WHERE they are supposed to go. With the policemen\u2019s direction, the traffic moves and flows perfectly, with each car moving through the intersection without being hit, cut-off by another car, or lost in the city. Everyone gets to the right location, and arrives at their jobs at the right time, and in the right order. The cyborg traffic policemen\u2019s awesome skills allow these people to work together perfectly with all of the other workers on whom they depend. Do you understand how this works? Good!* \\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *NOW, imagine that these policemen have a spell put on them. You\u2019ve seen different spells in the movies, and heard about them in the books I\u2019ve read to you? Anyway, the spell hurt our awesome traffic cyborg policemen. All of sudden, they either slowed down a lot, stopped working, or didn\u2019t work right. Guess what happened? Yup! The traffic goes crazy. All of our drivers are still trying to get to their jobs, but most of them really don\u2019t know when they are supposed to go through the intersection, or in what order. AND NOW, the more confused drivers still don\u2019t know where to go. The people in the cars eventually get to their jobs, but mostly not at the right times or in the right order, which makes it really hard to do their jobs well \u2013 no matter how hard they try. Sometimes their work doesn\u2019t even get done at all - which is super frustrating. Does this make sense to you?  So, what do you think might help us correct this problem? You\u2019re Right! We should try and take the spell off the awesome cyborg traffic policemen so they can get back to doing their important jobs, like they were programmed to do - properly directing the cars through the intersections.*\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *Now as you think about this story, I want you to imagine that this traffic, these intersections, and the awesome cyborg policemen are really, really tiny \u2013 and they are inside your brain, helping make things work right. Because your brain actually has really cool things like these inside it. There are millions and millions of interconnected pathways that help move electricity and important chemicals from one place to another \u2013 at super-fast speeds. These are like the roads in our story on which the people in their cars move in order to get to their jobs. BUT, like in our story, the cars have to go through intersections \u2013 which are like the connections in our brain where the electricity and chemicals pass through, which also have things like the awesome cyborg policemen who properly direct the traffic.*\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *So, remember when you went to the doctor, and he told you that you had ADHD. He also told you that ADHD is a disorder \u2013 or problem that messes up the connections which allow electricity and chemicals to travel properly inside your brain. With ADHD, your brain works very differently than most other people. It\u2019s not always a bad thing, but it usually makes it harder for your brain - and you - to do many things that, for most people who don\u2019t have ADHD, are easier or simpler. Everyone struggles sometimes, but with ADHD, these struggles happen way more often, and usually to the point that a bunch of things in your life get much harder to do - which can even make you frustrated and sad. Have you ever felt this way?*\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *Well, let\u2019s go back to our story. Since ADHD is a problem that messes up the connections which allow electricity and chemicals to travel properly inside your brain - what does this mean? In our story, what allowed the cars and traffic to move well? Yup, the awesome cyborg policemen at the intersections \u2013 who are like the things in the connection of your brain - through which the electricity and chemicals must travel. So, if ADHD messes that up, then that must mean that ADHD is like the spell that messed with our awesome cyborg policemen.*\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *So, the only thing we didn\u2019t discuss in our story, was how they were going fix the awesome cyborg policemen. Well instead of going back to our story, let\u2019s keep talking about your brain, and your ADHD \u2013 which is kind of like the spell on the awesome cyborg policemen. What do you think might help allow the awesome cyborg policemen in your brain to do their jobs the way they are supposed to, and allow your traffic to move correctly? Yup! The stimulant medication that the doctor wants you to take. It helps correct that part of your brain that is like the awesome cyborg policemen. It reduces the power of the spell. Whenever you take the medication, they can do their jobs more effectively without slowing down, stopping, or directing traffic in the wrong order. Does that make sense? Do you have any questions (of course you do.) Now does it make more sense? Great!*\\n\\n-------\\n\\n  *And remember, ADHD is a very confusing disorder that almost everyone has a hard time understanding - even doctors. So, if anyone tells you that you shouldn\u2019t be taking this medication, or makes you feel guilty or bad because you are taking it, they probably haven\u2019t heard the story I just told you. And, some people may have heard the story, but don\u2019t accept it because they think they are smarter and have all the right answers. They are not smarter, and there are no \u201cright\u201d answers for everyone. The only right answers, are the ones that work right for you. But that means they would have to know you as well as we do. And they never will. And, since they don\u2019t know you as well as we do, they can\u2019t possibly know the right answers for you. Does that make sense? The other, more important thing they don\u2019t understand is that - like the cyborg policemen in our story \u2013 even when things get difficult, you will always be AWESOME! And ADHD will never change that!*\\n\\n--------------------------------\\n\\n**[FOOTNOTE: There is, however, one aspect of ADHD that I would not discuss with your 5 year old; ADHD can last a lifetime. And without a medical breakthrough, or a flexible, encouraging, positive environment in which their ADHD is understood and accepted - where they can have a happy and productive personal and work life - they may be taking their medication for a very long time.]**\\n\\n    Thanks for reading!  \\n', 'As an adult with ADHD I describe it as my brain being a television, but someone else has the remote control..  Stimulants put the remote back in my hands and help me dictate what I focus on.  It\\'s disappointing when others treat you like it\\'s not a true disorder and that I just need to \"grow up and discipline myself\".  People without the diagnosis don\\'t understand how much it effects my behavior and activity. ', \" Your brain is actually a bunch of different systems, that are each trying to go in a different direction and do different things. It's total chaos, like a big flock of sheep.\\n  \\nFortunately, we have a part of the brain - called the **executive system** - that is in charge of making sure the different parts all work together. In a way, it's like the sheep dog herding the sheep.\\n  \\nIn people with ADHD, the executive system can't keep up with the rest of the brain, so there's a lot of mental chaos and distraction that happens. It's like the sheep dog is sleepy and keeps falling asleep, so the sheep keep escaping.  \\n  \\nStimulants that treat ADHD specifically target the executive system and give it enough of a boost that it can catch up to the rest of the brain. Those stimulants are like giving coffee to the sleepy sheepdog - now it's awake and can do its job!  \\n  \\nSource: Have severe ADHD (combined type), spent last several years studying to understand my condition.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i10px/eli5_why_are_stimulants_used_to_treat_adhd/cucra3i'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 820, "q_id": "3iws8a", "title": "why are new models of cars released the year before the actual year of the model? (i.e 2016 cars released in 2015).", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iws8a/eli5_why_are_new_models_of_cars_released_the_year/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cukbghy', 'cukeqlt', 'cukgkec', 'cukk0wz'], 'score': [6, 5, 7, 3], 'text': [\"Cars' age us dictated by their model year. The year it was built.\\n\\nSo if you're building/releasing a car towards the end of the year, it will appear to be a year old in only a month or a couple months. \\n\\nCars depreciate in value steeply each year, so if you find a car that was 2014 December and another that was 2015 January, you will mentally consider those cars to be a year different in age, even though it's only a couple weeks.\", 'They can call it anything, there is no law saying it has to be the actual year. They could release a 2020 car.', \"It's typically based on the year it ends production, not starts. For instance many 2015 models start production in mid/late 2014 and stop production in early/mid 2015. There's a lot of exceptions to this and it's largely marketing driven more than anything. \", \"Yarr, ye forgot yer searchin' duties, for ['twas asked by those what came before ye!](_URL_0_)\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=car+model+year&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;t=all']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2507, "q_id": "5i74ml", "title": "aleppo and the syrian war", "selftext": "With the recent news regarding Aleppo, we've already had a decent amount of posts on the subject pop up in the new queue. Please consolidate those questions into this thread.\n\nPlease note that if you are looking for a summary of the recent news, you can try a subreddit like /r/OutOfTheLoop. Additionally, this is not the place for wild speculation. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5i74ml/eli5_aleppo_and_the_syrian_war/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['db5x0th', 'db5xom5', 'db5xtdm', 'db5yy0o', 'db6217e', 'db6an91', 'db6dzx9', 'db6g7r8', 'db6h9gk', 'db7aanl', 'db81owl', 'db85fi4', 'db8wc02', 'db9om39', 'dbcyjur', 'dbd7637', 'dbdz1i9', 'dbgk6vw', 'dbglamg', 'dblinab', 'dblxt1f', 'dbsm4ry'], 'score': [10, 2, 9, 60, 226, 201, 3, 6, 3, 14, 39, 3, 2, 20, 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 58, 2], 'text': ['Who is fighting who, and why?', 'How many groups are fighting in Syria? ', 'Why is no one doing anything? I get the argument that no one wants to be world cops, but this looks like a massacre. Why is no one but the Russians (on the side of Assad) getting involved?', 'As a reasonably irrelevant and pretty ignorant-to-the-situation American, is there anything at all that I the single person, (as opposed to we the entity), can do to help these individuals? I hate reading these stories and then going back to my life having made no action to do something, anything. ', 'Been watching this from the beginning. \\n\\nIt started out, as attempted revolutions do, with protests against the Assad Regime. It quickly escalated to an armed conflict. America backed the rebels and Assad responded with destruction of neighborhoods.  Many people fled and many people were killed. \\n\\nEventually a branch of al Qaeda started fighting Assad as well. When they had Damascus surrounded and it looked like the government might fall Iran sent troops in.\\n\\nSeeing an opening, ISIS moved in and seized a lot of territory in Syria and then Iraq. With the money they were making by selling oil they brought a lot of foreign fighters to the region. When ISIS was close to toppling Assad Russia joined the fight. \\n\\nAnd here we are. ', 'I think it\\'s important to point out that in the beginning, yes the \"Arab Spring\" was happening in other countries, however it took a while to get to Syria.  Of all the countries in the area, nobody really thought something like that would happen there, because of many factors, but including just how repressive the state was.  And when people did start protesting, they were lackluster at best, and were not even really against the regime, but rather protesting the bad economy, high unemployment, lack of oppurtunities, etc.  People by and large were asking for reform, not total regime change.  There was growing resentment and anti-government feeling but it bubbled well below the surface.\\n\\nHowever, that changed with Daraa.  In the city of Daraa, at some point, a group of school children were arrested by the government for painting the same anti-government slogan being chanted in other parts of the Arab world: \"The people want the downfall of the government.\"  A slogan they would have heard on television or radio.   The children were arrested and tortured, with reports of at least one being brutally killed, with his mutilated  body sent back to his family.  \\n\\nThis was a spark that sparked other sparks, and ultimately contributed to the growing seriousness of the protests.  The government\\'s violent and disproportionate response, directed at children , their disregard for life in such a blatant way.  This was it for people who had had it and endured great difficulties and a brutally repressive government.  There was nothing left to lose once people saw so clearly that even the lives of their children had no value in the government\\'s eyes.  \\n\\nThis is so simplified, but I thought it important to add.  \\n\\nEdit: spelling\\n\\nEdit (12/20/16): It should be noted that the arrests of the school children led to protests and came before the Seige of Daraa, and that the death of Hamza Ali al-Khatiib occured after the seige began.  ', 'Who held the city of Aleppo, ISIS or the rebel forces? ', 'Okay so I read through a lot of these comments and I understand everything except one thing: What was Assad doing that made people rebel? Was he being an evil leader?', \"Why didn't the USA do more to prevent the human carnage?\", 'Why does Russia support Assad? What do they get from it?', 'Please explain what is happening in Aleppo. I have read some of the news but the stories are very confusing. First and foremost, can someone explain the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of this \"conflict\"? Is this a 2 sided proxy war between US and Russia? Is this a 3 sided war? 4 or even 5? I see a lot of players in this conflict and I do not fully understand each one\\'s interest(s). There is the ruler Assad who is being backed by Russia but then there is Iran. There are rebels who are fighting against Assad and the US is backing (?) the rebels? But then there are Al Qaeda and ISIS who are also fighting Assad? So is the US supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS? That makes no sense. Anyways, I am really confused and would love to hear a simple break down on whose is fighting one whose side and how many sides are there (apparently more than 2 but correct me if I am wrong).', 'How many of the rebels are \"moderates\" who oppose the government and how many are what we would consider extremist Jihadis?\\n\\nDo these groups want to create an Islamic government in Syria? Do they also share goals with ISIS like wanting to attack the West?', \"One of the main things I'm confused about is the United States' stance. At first Obama was backing the rebels because of the way Assad treated his people with chemical warfare and he was helping the rebels with ISIS. But just recently in Aleppo when the Syrian government had the upper hand and were going to take over the rebel territory, the US and Russia made negotiations that insinuated the US is with Assad in having the rebels surrender. Also, Russia had said that anyone who didn't surrender would be treated like a terrorist against the Syrian government. I looked on so many timelines/news articles today about this and Aleppo but haven't seen anything to explain this question yet.\", \"US Involvement.  \\n\\nThere are at least four sides in the war.  It can be understood that the US is both for and against each side. \\n\\nAlthough one can say that the US policy is to be 1) against ISIS   &  2) for the Kurdish SDF  &  3) for the Syrian rebels/Islamists \u2013 at least until recently.  Each of these sides may not see it as such.  \\n\\nThe Kurds\u2019 see that the US is providing them with support against ISIS but is also providing their Islamist opponents with a lot of arms and training.\\n\\nThe rebels see that the US is arming them, training them, and supporting them diplomatically, but also sometimes bombing their best fighters,  Jabhat al-Nusra, although without fanfare or media attention, so that Turkey and KSA don't get too upset\\n\\nThe Assad Government sees that the US is arming and training and diplomatically supporting the Islamist rebels, but it has also shared some useful intelligence with it and has killed off some of its enemies in ISIS and al-Qaeda and Nusra.\\n\\nISIS see that the US is bombing them and boosting their enemies, but has also helped arm them by equipping FSA\\xa0groups, which shared trenches and supplies with ISIS.\\n\", \"Would it really be such a disaster if Assad won and Syria stabilised, much as it was 5-6 years ago?\\n\\nI mean yes, I know he did terrible things. But at this point, isn't it just the best thing for everyone if this war finally ends.\", 'Can someone explain to me why so many people are against Assad if he won the elections democratically?', 'Can somebody explain all the outrage in media about the conquest of aleppo?\\nas far as I know there are no more fights in aleppo, unlike the last month and years.\\nmy question is: in how far is there a humanitarian crysis that didnt exist before?', 'so after spending my french lesson reading this very informative thread i drew a graphic to make it easier to understand. maybe it will help someone! :) [Syrian War Graphic](_URL_0_) ', 'Why was the Russian ambassador assassinated? Was the killer an Islamist, a rebel (whatever these terms mean).', \"I read several answers... n I might have been late as the correct answer might alrdy be out...but here goes nothing. .\\nYear 2011 - peace full protest (Arab spring) demonstration being brutally crushed.. \\nCauses several Syrian army to defect and join NOW VIOLENT protestor to form FREE SYRIAN ARMY ... PROTEST NOW BECOMES CIVIL WAR . Extremist from other Arab nations join rebels. ( 2 party confrontation so far )\\n\\n2012 - suppressed Kurdish groups of North East uprise and break away from Asad regime  and starts fighting Asad.  Iran now intervenes as Syrian gov is Shia and Iran backs shia muslims... ( 3 party war so far )to reduce Iran influence almost all sunni states specially saudi arabia starts financially  backing rebel group (by now Al qaueda has made Syrian force ...name I don't rember ) this money mainly flows through Turkey Nd Jordan. .. conflict now is not limited to syria as entire middle east gets involved.. still 3 party war rebel , Asad and Kurds. \\n\\n2013 - hezbollah - lebanese Extremist shia group joins Asad. . As Asad was loosing ground.  Usa intervenes .. asks CIA to secretly train rebels..\\nAsad uses chemical weapons on civilians.. usa full fledged back rebels now, Russia requests Asad to give up chemical weapons to un..but backs Asad unconditionally , mostly coz saudi russia oil competetors is against it and mostly coz usa ...it's super power competetors is against Asad. \\n\\n loads of Iraq troop of old Saddam army are also amongst the rebels..Due to some internal politics and conflict this troop parts away ..becomes isis and take huge land mass and oil fields forcibly in Iraq and syria. Now there are 4 parties.. isis fighting rebels more than Asad.  Kurds fighting Asad and now isis as land was forcibly taken. rebels ... now fighting Asad and isis and Asad. .. well happy coz isis came up as it was loosing ground. \\nNow usa really gets mad and focuses more towards isis than Asad. . Full fledged military support starts from usa to rebels now.. and focus is towards end of isis. Us Bombing of isis happens...now there r 4 parties.. rebels backed by saudi led sunni Arab nations  &  usa , Asad backed by hezbollah , Iran and Russia ( no monetary or military support yet) \\nIsis and Kurds. .\\n\\n2014 .. turkey starts attacking Kurds. ..their long time enemy in a way. Turkey doesn't fight any other participating force apart from Kurds. .\\n\\n2015 Asad loosing major ground. ..rebels and isis gain ground... russia intervenes on behalf of Asad. ..says it wants to bomb isis ..but bombs rebels including us backed specific groups..\\n\\n2016.. isis loosing ground coz usa and Russia both attacking it. . Asad gaining grounds.. rebels disintegrating or changing sides.. Kurds in bad shape and battling Turkey as well now. \\n\\nAleppo major strong hold... soon about to fall but none of the above forces are wiped out or have surrendered ...so this Syrian war is far from over...even if allepo falls. \", 'You have many sides to this conflict all in support of a main objective which remains unclear for the most part.\\n\\nBattling groups:\\n\\nSide #1: Syrian Government,Iran,Iraq,Russia,Hezbollah and to a small extent China, Kurds\\n\\nSide #2: Saudi Arabia,Israel,United States,Qatar,Turkey, Moderate  &  extremists Rebels(Hard to separate),other western actors such as France And U.K,Kurds\\n\\nSide #3: Straight up Al-qeada and ISIS\\n\\nAll these groups are battling in some form or another. \\n\\nSide #1 has U.N legitimacy, but viewed negatively\\n\\nSide #2 has Popular support in media but no legal standing and is seen as an occupying force\\n\\nSide #3 Mixing in and out with rebels making it very hard to differentiate Moderates from I.S.I.S and Al-Queda  \\n\\nImportant Note:\\nSanctions Placed on Syria in 2011 for continuing escalation of violence against the people of Syria through Executive Order 13573 by side #2 (Very early into the conflict worsening the economic situation arguably adding fuel to the fire.\\n\\nObjectives: \\n\\nSide #1: Maintain Syria as is, with President Bashar Assad in power, And keep a key geopolitical alliance destroy ISIS and rebels who Flip-Flop and ultimately re secure Syria to pre-2011 standing \\n\\nSide #2: (U.S,France,U.K)Regime Change, Dismantle I.S.I.S-(Israel)Secure Golan Heights and get rid of hostile bordering government.(Turkey) Destroy I.S.I.S but mostly destroy Kurdish entities on southern boarder. (Saudi Arabia)Greater influence divide \"Shia Crescent\" and partner Oil pipeline into Europe, (Qatar) Route Pipeline into Europe.(Kurds) Create Autonomous Kurdish state(Against Turkey but allied with U.S and Assad, tough to put on one side or another),also destroy ISIS.\\n\\nSide #3: Kill anyone who fails to agree with their extremists interpretation of Islam and create a 21st century Caliphate.\\n\\nThese are the Main points you can try to figure this debacle out but make sure to follow what the U.N is saying and various news outlets both those for the government of Syria and those against it. To try to get a clearer picture of whats going on. \\n\\nPro-Rebel new sources are CNN,Fox News,BBC, Aj+\\n\\nPro-Government news sources-SANA,PressTV,RT,Southfront\\n\\nIts very hard to find a neutral media outlet, all have an agenda they want heard. Its important to decode and read between the lines and determine which side you believe is justified.  ', 'Some interesting reading (some self-promotion)\\n\\n- [Kevan Harris](_URL_1_) on the economic and cultural back story to the war from a leftist perspective\\n- [Fractured Lands](_URL_3_) Fascinating NYT long read on the rise of Isis, but I do mean long, it\\'s 43,000 words and the format doesn\\'t work at all.\\n- The book \"rise of Islamic State\" by Olivia Wilde\\'s uncle is very good. Cynical, but very good.\\n- [UNA](_URL_0_) statement on Aleppo war crimes, captures my view.\\n- [Here\\'s something I wrote](_URL_2_) 3 years ago. Bits of it have aged better than other bits, but I still think it\\'s worth a read.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://m.imgur.com/sfNSttP'], [], [], [], ['https://www.una.org.uk/news/una-uk-russian-war-crimes-east-aleppo-are-stain-its-reputation', 'https://newleftreview.org/II/101/kevan-harris-making-and-unmaking-of-the-greater-middle-east', 'https://medium.com/freds-blog/firdous-e-bareen-1f4ee393bd03#.2umne32js', 'http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/11/magazine/isis-middle-east-arab-spring-fractured-lands.html?_r=2']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2439, "q_id": "5vw0xq", "title": "Time Dilation from the perspective of a Muon?", "selftext": "Hello everyone. I've been trying to wrap my head around this fully for the past couple of days, but I haven't found a clear answer on this specifically. In regards to time dilation,we know that on earth, we observe a much longer lifetime for the muon than they do, with their proper time being around 2.2 us. From the muon perspective, though, shouldn't it also see us as being slower as well? Mathmatically, would it observe a time dilation of t/gamma^2, where t is the original measured time by a a stationary observer on the earth? If not, what am I missing, as I am still struggling with this.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5vw0xq/time_dilation_from_the_perspective_of_a_muon/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['de5gbi0', 'de5it82', 'de5km1s', 'de5tm95', 'de68crj'], 'score': [8, 3, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['It is not about perception, but about the spacetime intervals between events.  Take two events, A) The muon is created in the upper atmosphere at point **R_A** at time t_A and B) the muon is detected at the surface at point **R_B** at time t_B.\\n\\nThe phrase \"We observe a longer lifetime\" simply means that the elapsed time in the muon frame of reference is shorter because of time dilation. You could also argue that for the muon the atmosphere is Lorentz contracted to be much thinner, so it can traverse it before decaying. Either way, you find that the two events A and B will happen, the rest is \"interpretation\". \\n\\nIf we had evolved in world where relativistic effects have a bearing on our everyday lives (when throwing rocks or jumping off trees etc.), we\\'d never think to confuse the spacetime distance between events A and B with either the time or the spatial distance alone.\\n\\n ', \" > From the muon perspective, though, shouldn't it also see us as being slower as well?\\n\\nYes.\\n\\n > Mathmatically, would it observe a time dilation of t/gamma^(2), where t is the original measured time by a a stationary observer on the earth? If not, what am I missing, as I am still struggling with this.\\n\\nWhy gamma squared? The muon sees our time dilated by a factor of gamma, and we see the muon's time dilated by a factor of gamma.\", \" >  ... . From the muon perspective, though, shouldn't it also see us as being slower as well? ... If not, what am I missing, as I am still struggling with this.\\n\\nWe're so used to thinking that time is the same everywhere and for everyone that it seems impossible for two observers to both be slowed down for each other, but that's the way things really are.\\n\\nYour understanding is correct, and the confusion is - most likely - because you're still making assumptions that are true in Galilean relativity (where there is a universal clock), but not in special relativity (where there is not).   If you keep dealing with special relativity, it's not that hard to develop the habit of keeping track of which frame of reference each observation is in.\", 'lenght contraction. from out pov the distance from the point of creation to earths sruface stays constant, but the muons time ticks slower so it has enough time to reach earth.\\n\\nfrom the muons perspective its time ticks normally, but lenghts in the direction of its movement are contracted, which means that the earths surface it closer and so it can reach it even though it doesnt experience time dilation from its own pov.', \"I guess what you're missing is that you're thinking of muon time and Earth time like two parallel axes, one of which (the muon, as we see it) has time intervals marked out in a more sparse fashion:\\n\\n---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|--- (Earth)    \\n------|------|------|------|------| (muon)\\n\\nSo at first glance it seems like the muon must see Earth's events happening **faster** than normal, if Earth sees the muon's events happening **slower**.\\n\\nBut the reality is (slightly) more like this:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nNote here that I've used a simple rotation to show the same scene from the two reference frames - this leads to the non-realistic impression that each sees time passing **faster** for the other. The reality, of course, is that each sees the other go **slower** - but this simple diagram is just to demonstrate the symmetry of the situation.\\n\\nI hope this helps - I'm not entirely sure I've correctly interpreted your confusion.\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/MUsAtRa.png']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1831, "q_id": "16whkh", "title": "If the year was 200 AD what could I buy with a single 'silver denarius'?", "selftext": "Jeweler here. Making a custom necklace for a customer who brought in a roman silver denarius. Just curious as to what it's value was 1800 years ago. (the coin is small, 18mm. And features Septimius Serverus. Coinn was minted 200-201 AD) thanks reddit :)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16whkh/if_the_year_was_200_ad_what_could_i_buy_with_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c801ex8', 'c8027ok', 'c803vba'], 'score': [10, 67, 4], 'text': ['Rendering the value of ancient coins in modern day terms is tough.  I just looked at [Wikipedia](_URL_1_) and discovered a denarius might be about $20 of bread.  [The Dictionary of of Roman Coins](_URL_0_) says it was a daily wage.\\n\\n So let\\'s assume that\\'s correct for the 3rd century.  There\\'s still no reason to think Romans valued bread as we do, or that all labor was equally valued.\\n\\nI\\'ve got a question for you: how do you know it\\'s not a forgery?  An ex girlfriend gave me a sestertius of Trajan.  I have no idea where she got it, and my limited experience with coins gives me no reason to think it\\'s fake.  I\\'ve found parallels in the manuals.  However whenever I tell someone about it the first question is always \"how do you know it\\'s not fake?\"  Any suggestions?', \"History major, Antiquities focus here. \\n***\\nThroughout the Severan reign, the currency went through yet another round of devaluation, bringing its silver content down once again, but this time, *VERY* drastically. It fell to exactly 50% silver purity in the standard silver denarius, down from roughly 80% silver purity. To put it in perspective, during much of the early Principate (first Emperors) the silver denarius was roughly ninety to high-eighties percent purity. \\n***\\nSo in simple terms, your customer got short-changed, heh. Well, relatively speaking. Later denarii have even lower silver content. But the Severan denarii stand at an economic crossroads of a sort, as they were the first time when the Roman coinage took a large-scale and severe hit (from which it would not recover). Severan denarii are as common as dirt on the current market - they are the most common denarii you can buy and the cheapest - as low as $40-60 per coin. In contrast, the earlier denarii were more pure and less of them survived to us, though that is not always true however - part of their rarity, I suspect, is due to the current market taking greater interest in Augustian or Caesarian denarii which represent the 'classic' Rome that they know rather some Late Principate/Dominate emperor they've never heard of. Of course, no doubt the current deluge of Severan denarii also has something to do with the sheer number that were minted - the Severan dynasty put in an admirable amount of effort into quantitative easing. I am somewhat of a numismatist and I collect Roman, Hellenistic and Chinese coins. Most Chinese and Roman ones, since they are cheap, plentiful and more standardised, so there is more fun categorising them and building progression collections. \\n***\\nNow, for the coin's actual value, we would have to know the relative date it was minted - there are several ways to check this, but the mere presence of the Emperor Septimius Severus may not be enough, as his descendants minted coinage with his likeness as well. Septimius Severus went through several coinage debasements, with even more devaluation overseen by his successors of the Severan dynasty. Furthermore, the wages were raised for important state-maintained occupations, such as the army (the most notable under the unpopular Caracalla went up to 700d mean wage of a legionary). These two factors in addition to the increase in the quantity of coins minted all resulted in falling value of coinage. One has to understand that the situation was that of the aftermath of the Second Crisis, or the Year of the Five Emperors (193-194 CE) and immediately prior to the Crisis of the Third Century. A time of severe political and economic instability it was and the difficulty with times such as these is that one cannot easily and accurately assess the value of coinage. There are hundreds of sources detailing the value of coins in the early Principate, for instance, but sources detailing the purchasing power of the Severan denarii are a bit harder to find. I will dig around and see what I can stumble upon. Of course, the legionary wages are somewhat of an easy 'gold standard' when it comes to determining the worth of a coin. If 700d is what an average legionary of common rank was paid every year, we are looking at 2d per day. Day labour would earn between 1-3d for the more manual labour and 4-7d for the craftsmen (these are middle Principate figures, right before the Second Crisis). \\n***\\nThe nature of Imperial coinage was such that a significant amount of imperial power and authority was based on something as simple and common as the value of a coin - strong coinage was a strong reinforcement of Imperial sovereignty and authority. Inflation was a much graver concern in a society lacking a fiat currency and instead based upon a fixed-value bullion-based currency. Decreasing the bullion content presented problems as all denarii were in theory equal value and the Emperor releasing the said denarii most certainly expected his to be taken at the same face value - such as when paying the persons under his upkeep their fixed salaries - salaries fixed under a previous standard of bullion content of coinage. You can certainly see the precarious nature of the situation here. Changing silver content of the denarius presented a governmental as well as an economic problem to the Romans and a historical problem for us as the economy reacted to the shifts in coinage value. These shifts were strictly speaking informal too, at first, as the primary aim of debasing coinage was to allow the Emperor to satisfy debts with less silver - and in order to achieve this aim, the amount of denarii paid had to remain the same. Therefore if Caracalla were to debase the denarii to 50% from 56%, the increase in army wages would nullify the entire logic of the debasement, at the first glance. On a closer examination, the Emperors often debased coinage (which affected everyone) but only increased the wages for the most crucial elements of their Imperial 'machine', such as the army.\\n***\\nSource: here is THE BEST quick easy reference source on coin purity that I have been able to find so far in my research: _URL_0_ As you can see, it incidentally comes from Tulane at New Orleans, which happened to have been one of the Unis where I took classes. (*I attended Loyola New Orleans before moving to Virginia; Loyola and Tulane were literally right next door to each other, with a small fence separating the two campuses - it was very common for students from both to take classes in either Uni*). Hell, I bet I still have this handout in one of my old binders from those days - I had a class on Later Roman Society that used this source.\\n\\nAnother very helpful source is the '*Archaeology of the Roman Economy*' by Kevin Green, which I used in my final paper project for that said class. It's not as boring as it sounds - the book is actually a pretty lively discussion of the Roman economy, not just a turgid description of minor archaeological finds that probably lacked much significance anyway unless one's subject is immeasurably narrow (which is sometimes my impression of books of this like).\", \"* You could buy just under one litre (1.56 sextarii) of beer!\\n* With 20 of them, you could buy a pair of sandals!\\n* With 15, you could buy a kilo of goat!\\n* And most importantly, with 3 of them, you could buy a litre (dry measure) of barley, beans, or rye. \\n\\nHow i got this is below: \\n\\n\\nDetermining the purchasing power of ancient anything is difficult, but approximation is very possible. So here goes: \\n\\n301 is going to be our baseline year, because an 'edict of prices' was released in that year, which denominated pay scales and price ceilings for consumer goods/services.  Using that edict, we can calculate the value of the denarii, in 200. \\n\\nIn 301, a legionaire earned 1800 denarii annually; in 200-201 (under Caracalla), they earned 700. \\n\\nThis price difference is almost entirely attributable to inflation. The manpower requirements/force structure of the legions were largely identical in those two years; it was only beginning with Diocletian that the army began morphing into the integrated field corps which differentiated it from the marian army it was in 200. \\n\\nThus, there was roughly 247% inflation in those years...which is to say, that your denarius would be worth only 40% of one minted in 301; when prices were laid out. And, as the empire made sure to maintain anapproprate supply of commodities throughout the urban areas of the empire(practical self-preservation), the relative prices of items like grain/wine/olive oil would have remained [relative to the market] stable. \\n\\nAnd, relatively stable prices would have meant that the only differences would be due to inflation*, which means that whatever something cost in 301, it would have cost .39 times the price in 301, as deliniated in the aforementioned edict. \\n\\n*Romans didn't understand economics, at all in the modern sense. This is part of the reason extrapolating prices is such a crapshoot - prices weren't indicators of the market's assigned value as we now understand it. They didn't exactly have a fed maintaining price stability, but a series of despots who lowered the value of money when they needed some, or lowered it when they felt like it, by killing people who tried to obey market prices. \\n\\nEdit: formatting\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=denarius', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius#Comparisons_and_silver_content'], ['http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1924, "q_id": "5aoa4m", "title": "do i even read anymore, or has my brain memorised all the words/patterns that i need and recognises it automatically ?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5aoa4m/eli5do_i_even_read_anymore_or_has_my_brain/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d9i14q2', 'd9i2waw', 'd9i5dzb', 'd9i5hm8', 'd9i5phv', 'd9i7opz', 'd9ihzt2'], 'score': [473, 39, 47, 8, 5, 28, 4], 'text': ['You are reading this reply right now. You\\'ve never seen this particular combination of words before, yet you somehow understand my meaning anyway because I\\'ve arranged them in a way that makes sense to you.  This is called reading, you\\'re doing it.  \\n\\nYou cannot possibly store in your brain the near infinite possible arrangements of all the words you know.   You are stringing together words to infer meaning on the fly. Your brain has to a degree some hard wiring for language, earned through millions of years of evolution, that makes you capable interpreting arranged letters as words, and those words fit together to form larger concepts.  With these tools people can take thoughts from their own heads and put them in other people\\'s heads.  It\\'s fucking amazing when you think about it.\\n\\nThe reason we know this language (and reading by extension) ability is hard-wired is we see it develop independently all over the place.  It\\'s been studied extensively.  When you look at people from remote areas that have had little to no contact with other civilizations, you see they\\'ve created language with mostly the same rules and constructs.  When you put people together that can\\'t directly communicate (which was common during the international slave trade), you see that they develop crude \"pigin\" languages, and then those pigins get more complex in the next generation to form a \"creole\", and those higher level languages seem to wind up operating the same way (for the most part).   Groups of deaf people will independently develop their  own language with each other that operations mostly the same way everyone else\\'s language works.  I\\'d recommend Steven Pinker\\'s The Language Instinct for more on this.\\n\\n\\nEIDT: Who to for thanks many to gold from is, yo!\\n', 'Reading is absolutely an active skill.  However, it is a skill that requires a framework to be most effective.  Speech is very similar--We start making sounds long before we understand what any of them mean, but little by little we build that framework so we understand word meanings, word order, spelling, and pronunciation.  Much like how we must crawl and walk before we can run, we must babble and play with letter blocks before language makes sense.\\n\\nLet\\'s try a magic trick.  Hear me out:  A fully-fledged language must, among other things, be able to discuss things that are not present (pointing at something and making noises isn\\'t quite language, but it\\'s heading in that direction).  Imagine a tree.  It will almost certainly be a single brown stalk leading up to a puffball of green.  Let\\'s take it one step further:  Imagine a pine tree.  The amorphous, tree-like smudge has taken on better definition--still a single stalk, but the greenery is triangular, serrated/terraced.  Let\\'s take it even further:  Touch your nose.  (This example works better in person; it\\'s much easier to be obstinate on the internet).  If you actually touched your nose, then I caused you to hallucinate two distinct images and move your body *with the power of language alone*.  \\n\\nFor my magic trick to work, however, you need to have all that framework where \"tree,\" \"pine,\" \"imagine,\" \"touch,\" \"nose,\" and \"your\" all makes sense.  This takes exposure, practice, and time.  The neat thing, though, is that exposure to multiple languages can be beneficial to children, contrary to decades of focus on monolingual education in America. But that gets a bit complicated, so the short version is this:  Language is magic, because sounds and pictures become other sounds and pictures in your mind.', \"There's two great replies from /u/GlamRockDave and /u/CthonicProteus, so I won't go over that stuff again. However, I do have something add to that. Although reading is most definitely an active skill, you don't necessarily read all the words, if the first and last letter are correct in a word, you can change the order of the middle letters and still be able to understand it. That's how we miss typos.\\n\\nFor example: I am stitnig at hmoe gvinig emxalpels of wrod rcegointoin.\\n\\nYou would have been able to read that (I hope!) despite the many errors in it. This happens because the brain naturally attempts to optimise everything we do. When it comes to reading, it's too much of a task to recognise every combination of words possible, but we know how to spell the words. This means that based on context and a correct spelling, we make educated guesses at what the word is, to speed up the rate at which we read. This is also why it's so hard to read someone's work if their grammar is appalling, as it ruins our ability to understand words quickly based on context.\", 'There\\'s some conflation going on here between language and *reading*.  Language seems to be something that humans develop \"naturally\", as already mentioned. But *reading* isn\\'t natural. And the system that we use,  where graphemes (marks) represent phonemes (speech sounds), is always happening in our brains as we read.  Studies have shown how fluent readers are still scanning words left to right,  they are just very accomplished at it, so the feeling is of absorbing whole words. ', 'Awesome replies in this thread. I would just like to add that we do a lot of our reading by sight- meaning we automatically recognise certain words unconsciously which helps us a lot in reading faster. This is how we are able to scan texts- many of the words are recognized on sight. \\n\\nIn learners who are learning to read, there is a conscious effort to sound out the words. However with enough practice and exposure, familiar words go into our ventral stream in our brains and it becomes an automatic process in order to optimize and speed it up, something that a previous poster mentioned ', \"Some really good comments here.  I would add we recognize words pretty well even when they're jumbled, as lomg as the first and last letters are correct, suggesting we dont necessarily read every letter, we look for patterns that match what we've  seen on multiple occasions. .  Can you read this paragraph?\\n\\n >  I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.\\n\\n\\nEdit: My typo was completely unintentional.\", 'You\\'re doing a little of both. Your eye will take in key info in words and chunk them together. It\\'s almost like you\\'re sampling the visual data and sorting the meaning quickly in your mind.\\n\\nThis assumes you have a lot of reading practice. You use the words \"recognize it automatically\" and that is literally what happens. In fact, in reading we even call it *automaticity*\\n\\nThis also assumes you are encountering totally familiar words. \\n\\nAs you read more difficult text with more complicated vocabulary/syntax, your automaticity drops. You have to slow down and even re-read to come to an acceptable comprehension rate. \\n\\nIn a way, reading is like any skill. You get much much more efficient with practice. So, with familiar words/syntax, the whole process becomes effortless/automatic. As textual complexity increases, you slow down. \\n\\nSource: Am Reading Specialist\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1463, "q_id": "4nohtf", "title": "why are we taught that we must be tolerant of cultures that are different from ours, but at the same time we are told that the practice of child marriages around the world must be stopped?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nohtf/eli5_why_are_we_taught_that_we_must_be_tolerant/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d45l25h', 'd45mtqz', 'd45pvbf'], 'score': [27, 24, 7], 'text': [\"Raping is also a part of some cultures. So is cutting hands off for theft, so is death by stoning for homosexuality. Doesn't make those things right/respectable just because it's a different culture. Respecting a different culture is generally said in reference to differences in clothing, language, lifestyles, food, appearance etc. \\n\\nGetting two children married to each other basically takes away their right to make an informed, rational decision by themselves. Arranging a marriage without informed consent is one of the worst things you could do to a person. It is simply wrong whichever way you look at it. A practice like that doesn't enrich any culture in any way, it's simply evil and unnecessary in this day and age.\", 'I\\'m going to do a little bit more than ELI5, let\\'s say ELI15. When we talk about culture and tolerance we are generally using a lens of cultural relativism. That is to say, generally speaking that from our framework we may not understand another culture\\'s practices or behaviors and that\\'s fine so long as we don\\'t judge. That statement could mean one of two things. Either 1. There is no objective measures by which to judge culture and as such, we can\\'t make an objective comparison between the two cultures. Or 2. that we as an individual can not(or at least ought not) make direct moral judgments. \\n\\nThis distinction can best be summed up separating the discussion into two tiers. The second example I gave is tier one, the tier we make direct moral judgments about something and the first example I gave is actually the second tier, a meta tier (one in which we are effectively talking about talking about another culture). \\n\\nPhilosophical, if we learn that there is no objective \"right\" culture we are effectively learning the meta, 2nd tier. This teaches us that things we may not understand or that might even make us morally uncomfortable can potentially be entirely justified from another framework. However, we are still moral actors and cannot function in day to day life without making moral and normative judgments (that is to say, judgments inflected by our own society). It would literally be impossible. So, we must acknowledged that in practice we must still be able to make moral judgments against practices we find particularly morally repugnant. \\n\\nIn short, there is no objective right when it comes to culture (which is a 2nd tier truth). However, some things are so repugnant to our day to day truths (1st tier) that we override our awareness of the 2nd tier and need to act at the first tier. \\n\\nSo, the child marriage example. Those in the west believe in certain notions of consent/agency theory as well as certain post-romanticism notions of sex. While we can appreciate certain societies might view the will of the individual or love differently than we do and that\\'s fine (2nd tier thought), the idea of child marriage is so repugnant to our 1st tier beliefs that we will still have to challenge it because it breaches our notions of agency (children are too young to fully be able to commit to a marriage), and post-romanticism views (children haven\\'t developed the capacity to love in the way that is necessary to properly pick a mate). So while we can tolerate the idea that societies are different this, hits us at fundamental presumptions. ', \"Because it kills, injures and maims young girls and stunts their opportunities in life. \\n\\nThese children are married to grown men and their bodies aren't developed enough to cope. \\nA 13 year old dying from internal injuries caused by her adult husband. \\n_URL_0_\\n\\nGirls under 16 are more likely to die from childbirth or develop fistulas (Awful tears between the vagina and bladder (or rectum) which cause awful infections, pain, incontinence, and social shunning). \\n\\nIf you look at a girl of 12-13 and compare her with a 16-17 year old and then with a young woman of 19-20 there is a huge difference in their physical appearances.\\nThe hips widen, the body becomes stronger - the girl grows. All these things are essential to make reproduction safer.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264729/Child-bride-13-dies-internal-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 339, "q_id": "ake76r", "title": "How did so many people survive the Hindenburg disaster?", "selftext": "When you see the famous footage of the Hindenburg going up in flames, it seems impossible to imagine that *anyone* got out alive. But most of its passengers did make it out. Why was the death toll so (relatively) low?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ake76r/how_did_so_many_people_survive_the_hindenburg/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ef4p7en', 'ef4q7cr'], 'score': [58, 18], 'text': [\"The generally accepted reasons for the relatively low death toll is three-fold.\\n\\nFirst, the Hindenburg was relatively close to the ground when it ignited, as it was coming in for landing.  Additionally, it fell relatively gently, as you can see from the movie footage of the disaster.  Not all of the hydrogen ignited at once, maintaining some buoyancy for critical seconds, lowering the craft a bit more slowly than freefall.  This allowed many of the passengers and crew to jump to the ground.  Though many of them were injured severely by the fall, they were able to escape the fire.  If you look at the [diagram](_URL_1_) of crew locations, you'll see that most of the survivors were located near the bottom of the craft as well as being near windows they could egress from.  Most of the crew located in the inner portions of the craft died as they were too high up to survive the fall at the point when ignition occurred or unable to get out quickly enough.\\n\\nThe second reason is that the majority of the fire was caused by burning hydrogen.  Hydrogen is extremely low density, especially as it heated up from combustion.  As you can see [here](_URL_2_), the hydrogen is rising relatively harmlessly as it burns.  Obviously, this didn't do the crewmembers in the forward parts of the vehicle any additional favors (The vehicle buckled and so the nose of the Hindenburg ended up going into the column of burning hydrogen), but it did avoid most of the passengers or crew who were concentrated along the bottom.      Burn injuries were extremely common, but most of this is attributed to burning debris and diesel fuel raining down on everyone.  \\n\\nThird, the disaster occurred at the landing site.  There were numerous Navy ground crew in place to secure the Hindenburg who were able to rush in and help survivors clear the area before burning wreckage crushed them as well as providing emergency medical aid at the scene.  Also, there was a road, casualties could quickly be evacuated to nearby hospitals.  Large sections of New Jersey are filled with dense, marshy forest, which would have greatly complicated access to the crash, had it happened away from the landing zone.\\n\\nAll in all, it's very lucky that this occurred when the Hindenburg was so close to the ground and landing.  Other incidents such as the Akron had few survivors.  If the Hindenburg had ignited even a few minutes earlier, it's quite likely there would have been few to no survivors.\\n\\nThis is an excellent source:  _URL_0_  It has copies of both the US department of Commerce as well as the German disaster reports.\", 'The footage is somewhat deceptive due to exposure and our unfamiliarity with airship operations, and the whole story is known as a famous disaster in no small part because it was a famous flight caught on film in an era when smartphones and video cameras were not ubiquitous.  It\\'s possible that this was the [first example of a live disaster recording](_URL_2_) played on-air for a national radio audience in the United States, and in any event it was easily the most well known example in at time when this wasn\\'t common.  Both of these factors set an expectation of the disaster death toll that isn\\'t entirely in-line with reality.\\n\\n >  Today, coverage of such a cataclysmic event would almost instantly be broadcast out over the\\nairwaves. But, in 1937, satellite relay and other such options did not exist. Furthermore,\\nat that time, NBC maintained a policy against the airing of recordings on their network. It was a\\npolicy they relaxed the day after the Hindenburg tragedy in order to air some of Morrison\u2019s\\nremarkable, eye-witness account.\\n\\n >  The effect of the Hindenburg recordings on audiences was startling. Never before had such a\\nlarge audience heard such a blow-by-blow description of such a horrific occurrence. For\\nlisteners, the news of the day suddenly became active, proximate, real.\\n\\n >  News gathering and reporting was altered too. Though reporters had been witnessing\\ndevastating events for decades, previously, they had the benefit of time and distance\u2014both\\nemotional and geographical--between the things they observed and what they eventually wrote\\nfor publication or broadcast. \\n\\n[This Pathe film](_URL_1_) shows quite a bit more context than the usual short clip, particularly as the Hindenburg circles to release ballast.  You get a much better sense, with the proper exposure and framing, of the altitudes scales involved.\\n\\nIt\\'s important to remember that the Hindenburg was at low altitude (no more than 90 metres altitude at any stage) and in the process of mooring when it caught fire and, in spite of the fact that the fire consumed much of the hydrogen, it didn\\'t ignite instantaneously.  Thus the Hindenburg settled onto the ground rather than dropping without any lift at all (the official German report estimates 30 seconds from the initial fire to the first contact with the ground).  For the most part the passengers and crew suffered horrific burns, even those who survived, but they didn\\'t tend to suffer the kinds of impact injuries that we would normally associate with an air crash.\\n\\nIf you read the [German report on the disaster](_URL_0_), it goes into further detail as to the locations and actions of the crew and you can see that the entire crew was at mooring stations at the time and this doubtless reduced the death toll as well, simply because everybody was awake alert during a potentially dangerous evolution.\\n\\nIn essence it was a low speed crash followed by a short but intense fire fuelled by a lighter than air gas that quickly dissipated when the gas bladders were ruptured by the impact and fire as opposed to the sorts of air crashes we\\'re more familiar with today.  So combining this with a bit of \"luck\" and you can start to see how it was a crash that resulted in serious injuries for nearly everybody but killed a smaller number than it would seem.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/', 'https://3iz4pu1r2cxqxc3i63gnhpmh-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/crew-locations21.jpg', 'https://3iz4pu1r2cxqxc3i63gnhpmh-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/hindenburg-disaster-hull-buckle.jpg'], ['https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/german-investigation/', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgWHbpMVQ1U', 'https://www.loc.gov/programs/static/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/Hindenburg.pdf']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 253, "q_id": "cvem0i", "title": "Who was the real Bruce Lee, and was he a \"good\" fighter compared to his contemporaries?", "selftext": "The last Tarantino movie makes Bruce look both arrogant, and a weak fighter. This unsurprisingly caused some controversy. Tarantino also said this is how Lee acted in real life.\n\nWhat was his personality really like?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cvem0i/who_was_the_real_bruce_lee_and_was_he_a_good/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ey5t855'], 'score': [23], 'text': ['I will steer clear of commenting on Bruce\\'s personality and focus on his fighting ability and legacy.\\n\\nBruce Lee is a very complicated figure in the martial arts community. As one of the highest profile martial artists of all time, he did more than anyone to spread the good word of eastern martial arts in the west. His movies, his philosophy, his brand aided in the explosion of eastern martial arts in the United States and abroad.\\n\\nIn many ways, Bruce Lee was a man ahead of his time. His denunciation of dogma, his appetite for techniques from different martial arts, his approach to training, his integration of strength, conditioning, and nutrition into his overall philosophy, all of these things are reflected in the Modern Martial Arts landscape. \\n\\nUnfortunately, his status as a pioneer in the mixing of martial arts is what makes him so difficult to evaluate as a fighter. The same year Bruce Lee arrived in America in 1959, a brazilian family called the Gracies began producing a Rio-based TV show called \"Her\u00f3is do Ringue\". While mixed rules, catch as catch can fights had long been carnival mainstays, it would be decades before the establishment of promotional pioneers such as Shooto, Rings, and Pancrase. The first regulated Mixed Martial Arts bout in California wouldn\\'t occur until 2006, many years after Lee\\'s death.\\n\\nSimilarly, American Karate competition was in its infancy when Lee arrived. Following the end of the second world war, Karate began to appear in the continental US, brought back from the Pacific and Hawaii by servicemen such as Robert A. Trias. Trias is credited for organizing the first Karate competition in the US, the 1955 Arizona Karate Championships. The first national competition in 1963 at University of Chicago\\'s Fieldhouse and the subsequent U.S. National Karate Championships in Washington, D.C were disorganized and limited in scope. American kickboxing also had yet to find its feet. The PKA and WKA would be formed in the mid 70\\'s, coming too late for Bruce, who passed in 1973.\\n\\nThere are many anecdotes on Bruce\\'s personality, his fighting ability, and his philosophy. Perhaps his most legendary meeting was with Chinese-American martial artist Wong Jack Man in 1964.  It is very much a story of two sides, with neither side presenting much in the way of evidence. Bruce\\'s wife Linda said \\n > The fight ensued, it was a no-holds-barred fight, it took three minutes. Bruce got this guy down to the ground and said \\'Do you give up?\\' and the man said he gave up\\n\\nOthers, including Wong Jack Man, allege that the fight ended after 20-25 furious minutes due to Lee\\'s \"unusually winded\" condition, as opposed to a decisive blow by either fighter.\\nWhat is not up for dispute is that Bruce Lee changed his fighting philosophy following that day, formed Jeet Kune Do, and in the process changed the story of American Martial Arts.\\n\\nBruce Lee was not a professional fighter. Unlike his student Joe Lewis, we do not have an extensive list of bouts won and lost. He was never a champion, he never defended a belt, and he never retired from professional sport. He was an actor, he was a teacher, and he was a life-long martial artist. Without  competition record, there is very little we can definitively say about how good a fighter Bruce Lee was. At 5\\'8\\'\\', 141lbs, Bruce was no heavyweight. Common sense indicates that two equally skilled fighers, all other aspects being equal, the larger man will win most bouts. \\n\\n**Conclusion**\\n\\nI think it reasonable to conclude that Bruce Lee could defeat well-trained period martial artists near his weight, and larger, untrained opponents. However, it is equally reasonable to conclude that he would struggle to defeat larger, well trained period opponents such as his student Joe Lewis (heavyweight kickboxer with training in wrestling, karate, and boxing).\\n\\nAs an aside, I believe Bruce would struggle to compete with modern top MMA of any size. The number of participants, the level of training available, and the evolution of technique over time has changed the sport into a form that would be unrecognizable to earlier audiences. If a young Bruce Lee walked into a gym in San Jose or Huntington Beach tomorrow, now that is a completely different story.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 996, "q_id": "5hln2v", "title": "what is the \"war on christmas\"?", "selftext": "I hear this phrase thrown around a lot during the holidays.  Just curious as to what it is and what it's advocates or skeptics have to say.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hln2v/eli5_what_is_the_war_on_christmas/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['db12m1m', 'db12pam', 'db12qd5', 'db1668i', 'db16e12'], 'score': [12, 3, 5, 4, 5], 'text': ['It is pretty much Christians who feel that Christ is being taken out of Christmas by people who say things like Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. They feel that Christmas is about Jesus etc and people of other religions/holidays should just accept this. ', 'It\\'s mostly just Christians getting upset when businesses, organizations and people try to be inclusive of all religions. They get all bent out of shape if someone says happy holidays instead of merry Christmas. \"Why are you making Christmas go away? It\\'s a war I tells ya. Jesus is crying. Herp derp.\"', 'It\\'s an exaggeration.  Increasingly, stores, offices, and various organizations are beginning to realize that not everyone celebrates Christmas, so many of them have taken to using the phrases \"Happy Holidays\" or \"Seasons Greetings\" instead of \"Merry Christmas.\"  Likewise, they use decorations and events of a more ecumenical nature.  None of this, of course, takes away from a person\\'s ability to celebrate Christmas themselves, or to decorate their homes as they see fit.  Nonetheless, some people feel threatened by this, and claim that non-Christians are trying to abolish Christmas in order to push their secular agenda.', \"Just as an aside; the phrase Happy Holidays is over 100 years old and started with advertisers.  It has nothing to do with Hannuke.\\n\\nIt started as a shortening of 'Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.'\\n\\n\", 'I\\'m a skeptic.\\n\\nIt is the idea that there are people who intentionally would like people to stop celebrating Christmas in public, because they believe that Christians should not be allowed to celebrate their beliefs publicly.\\n\\nIt is called a \"war\" because the idea is that although right now, it is happening through legal action, it will eventually turn violent.\\n\\nMuch of the \"evidence\" for this \"war\" comes from lawsuits that generally center around the use of *public funds for private religious events* such as nativity scenes or religious decorations on Christmas trees. It is actually not possible to get a private individual or business to take down any religious paraphernalia related to Christmas, because of the 1st Amendment. However, to keep life exciting for people, some individuals claim that lawsuits to keep public money from being spent on a statue of Jesus, is actually somehow a violation of free speech and part of the war on Christmas.\\n\\nLife is confusing for some people.\\n\\nThe same goes for workplace rules. I live in the #1 city for atheists in the US and there\\'s Christmas decorations and parties and tinsel all over the place. We have a ton of celebrations and a huge Christmas tree downtown. However, apparently the nominal inclusiveness aimed at assimilating everyone to the general culture calling it a holiday tree is a big war. I don\\'t really think the people calling this war have been in a war before. Because having the mayor call a tree a holiday tree is actually nothing like getting your roof torn off by an RPG. But hey, life\\'s boring, maybe by pretending to be in a war we can feel important!\\n\\nEmployers can call their parties whatever the hell they want:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nGovernments can\\'t use public monies to sponsor a religious event. So when I worked for a government agency, we had a holiday party. Everyone wore green and red and gold, even people who celebrated Kwanzaa (and this was Seattle, and there were black people, and yes people celebrated Kwanzaa AND Christmas). But we just talked about the season, the non-snow, and the spirit of giving and forgiveness. Working for a private company with no government contracts we just had a Christmas party. Yes, Christmas. A bible verse was quoted. Because it\\'s private. And you\\'re allowed. So who fucking cares, this guy pays me, he\\'s a great guy, his religious is his prerogative and it\\'s not hostile because I would also be allowed to share my personal beliefs.\\n\\nSo, that\\'s the war on Christmas. A non-issue in which some people who were used to pilfering public coffers to support their personal religious ideology are being asked not to do so and therefore flipping the hell out and screaming \"war\".']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/uncategorized/planning-your-workplace-holiday-party-you-must-read-this/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2634, "q_id": "fbwe9", "title": "How does ear piercing affect hearing ?", "selftext": "So the [pinna](_URL_0_ amplifies a range of frequences, and is like an audio filter. \nThere must be a small modification in hearing the sound, when you dig holes in the cartilage. Not perceptible, of course, but a modification nonetheless.\nI couldn't find any research on the subject.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fbwe9/how_does_ear_piercing_affect_hearing/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c1erzxh', 'c1esn0h', 'c1eswlo', 'c1etvls', 'c1eumnk', 'c1ey00v'], 'score': [7, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2], 'text': [\"The only thing I've heard like that is hearing loss that can accompany a [dermal punched conch](_URL_0_). This, obviously, stems from having a gaping hole in your ear...\", \"You can adjust to much larger changes in pinna structure rather quickly. I don't know about how the brain reacts to smaller changes though.\", \"I've had several cartilage piercings including a daith and a conch piercing and haven't found any change in my hearing whatsoever. I think the only time an ear modification affects hearing is with a large conch dermal punch or a large, stretched tragus piercing. \", ' >  Not perceptible, of course, but a modification nonetheless.\\n\\nIf it is imperceptible, I am not sure we could consider it a modification to our hearing.', \"I'd say that most modifications cause negligible (if any) changes in audition. As you may have read in that wiki article and in any basic auditory physiology text, the pinna assists in funneling sound toward the external auditory meatus and assists in amplification of certain frequencies.\\n\\nI'd imagine (though I have no literature to support it) that minor modifications would affect your auditory localization abilities, probably most along the mid-saggital plane. As sophophilic kind of alludes to, the brain learns to cope with these changes in a short amount of time, and the amount of time perhaps varies with the extremity of pinna modification.\", \"I asked the professor of an Auditory Perception class this question today. She said that it would probably produce a small (maybe noticeable) change in sound localization for the first few days, but you'd quickly adapt to it. She said that there have not been any real studies of it done.\\n\\nI mentioned that I might be getting a cartilage piercing, and she offered to test my sound localization before, immediately after, and a while after. Using that data, she could publish the first account of it ever.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinna_(anatomy)']", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.obscure.org/~nosx/conch0.jpg'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2870, "q_id": "1iq01h", "title": "if tears are a natural lubricant, why do our eyes sting so badly after crying?", "selftext": " I know our bodies naturally produce tears to clean and lubricate our eyes, but why does crying cause so much irritation when the day-to-day tears we produce don't?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iq01h/eli5_if_tears_are_a_natural_lubricant_why_do_our/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cb6w4mk', 'cb6wgeg', 'cb6x96e', 'cb6yrcp', 'cb70jh8'], 'score': [18, 6, 3, 8, 3], 'text': [\"Crying makes your eyes sting?  Never makes mine sting.  Wonder if something's wrong with you or with me?\", \"One possibility is that you may have rubbed your eyes a lot while you were crying, which can give you very small cuts on the front part of your eyes. These are called corneal abrasions and can hurt a fair amount.\\n\\nDoes the stinging usually happen after you've been crying a while or more at the beginning/during? If it's the second one, your problem might be dry eye. Some people's eyes don't make enough tears, or the tears aren't made properly. This can cause your eyes to get dry really quickly and it can hurt. When this happens, a signal goes to the brain telling it to make more tears. But it often goes overboard and makes way more tears than you need, so you cry for a little bit until the stinging goes away.\\n\\nI don't know of any reason why just tears would make your eyes sting.\", 'It may be the higher concentration of Saline in tears when they are being over produced.', 'Am I the only one here that wants to try and masturbate with tears now?', \"Maybe it's stuff on your face (sweat, oil) that gets into your eyes when you wipe the tears.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2434, "q_id": "dktb9s", "title": "How do lemons grow?", "selftext": "I'm sitting in a pub, relatively drunk, staring at the lemon on my cup, thinking about how it grew. The cross section of a lemon consists of a number of pie slice shaped sections which are made of the juicy part, for lack of a better word. On the outside is the skin which extends in a somewhat vein-like way into the juicy part. My question is \"how does a lemon grow?\" Does the skin become the juicy part as it matures? How do the seeds develop inside the lemon? Just under the surface of the lemon there are a number of small holes which look like they contain more juicy bits; do these expand as the lemon grows? Why does it grow into pie slices?\n\nSorry if this is kinda incoherent or if this is the wrong sub; this is the kind of stuff I think about after a few drinks and I am really curious about this thing that does not matter at all.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dktb9s/how_do_lemons_grow/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['f4qqx8u'], 'score': [8], 'text': [\"This is actually a pretty complicated question, and not one I am entirely qualified to go into. I can give you the perspective of someone who only knows about it because of how it relates to stem cell differentiation, a physiologist could give you a better answer.\\n\\nEssentially the juicy bit around the lemon is the ovary for the seed inside of it (the ovule). Most seeds have something around the ovule to give it some starting food when it first arrives at wherever it is going to start growings, though this varies pretty widely across different plants and different dispersal strategies. Some plants have developed a system to try and entice things to eat the fruit, thus dispersing their seeds (see fruit).\\n\\nThe skin is already in place when the plant first starts to make what will become the fruit. It then waits until it is fertilized (pollinated) and then the carpels ('female' reproductive organ) grow into the fruity bit surrounding the now fertilized ovule. \\n\\nThe pie slices are called locules, and their development is actually pretty heavily studied in tomatoes. The number of locules you get is dependent on some complicated gene regulatory mechanisms, but the short answer is that the carpels fuse after pollination and that results in different locules. humans have selected for more locules over the years because it makes bigger fruit.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2301, "q_id": "kscdh", "title": "what exactly is time?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kscdh/eli5_what_exactly_is_time/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2mszp1', 'c2mt2iu', 'c2mulaw', 'c2murrq', 'c2mvv53', 'c2mszp1', 'c2mt2iu', 'c2mulaw', 'c2murrq', 'c2mvv53'], 'score': [6, 4, 6, 3, 15, 6, 4, 6, 3, 15], 'text': ['Oh boy.\\n\\nThere are a few ways you can think about what time is. Simply, time is the change from one event to another. \\n\\nThere is a concept called the \"arrow of time\". I find this idea helpful when thinking about what time is. Basically, time flows in the direction of disorder. What I mean is, let\\'s say you build a house. A nice, orderly, clean and crisp house. Eventually, over many years, that house will slowly decay and crumble and at some point, collapse into rubble. It went from an ordered state to a more disordered state. That\\'s the direction time flows in. If time didn\\'t pass, that house would never collapse (one could argue that it would never have been built, but...meh). \\n\\nI may edit this later. I found this question a little tougher to describe as I began typing. \\n\\nJust think of it using the \"change from one event to another\" definition.\\n\\n', 'This thing all things devours. Birds, beasts, trees, flowers. Gnaws iron, bites steel. Grinds hard stones to meal. Slays kings, runs town. And beats high mountains down.', 'Hoboy. In my metaphysics class (and no, that doesn\\'t mean metaphysics like astrology and shit - it means \"relevant to the works written by Aristotle after the Physics\") we spent about a month on this. \\n\\nBasically there are two perspectives in the philosophical literature, called the A theory and the B theory. The A theory states that \"time is a thing that goes\", that there is such thing as \"now\" and objectively the universe moves from one \"now\" to the next.\\n\\nSpecial relativity and other evidence from physics suggests that this can\\'t be true. So, instead there is the B theory, which is more akin to \"time is a thing that *is*\", or a dimension along which to exist just like space. In the B theory it\\'s hard to understand why the present moment is special, or more real than other moments. I think we are only capable of experiencing each point along the time dimension as \"now\", so even if all times are effectively simultaneous, we still perceive them in a linear fashion.\\n\\nI wrote a five page paper on this...it\\'s buried within the depths of my deceased computer, back in my natal home, where I am not. I wish I had some way of calling it back up, but I guess I don\\'t.\\n\\nEdit: I found a copy buried in my emails! Let me know if you happen to be interested. It\\'s not a very good paper, but it\\'s an introduction to some very cool ideas.', 'Time is simply what prevents everything from happening at once. ', '**Like You Are 5:**\\n\\nYou are *always* moving through Time at approximately the speed of light. When you speed up, you begin to move through time less slowly. This is why it is technically possible to time-travel (though we can only go into the future at this point).\\n\\nTherefore, Time is our relative experience of moving through the fourth dimension. We can alter it by going faster and faster. If you were theoretically to accelerate yourself to 99.99% the speed of light, you would experience time-travel, where a few seconds go by for you, and perhaps tens to hundreds of years go by in the \\'outside\\' world.\\n\\n**Like You Are 12:**\\n\\nWhen people call time \"the fourth dimension\", they are being technically correct. Basically, try to imagine the following in your head.\\n\\nIf I wanted to, using some coordinate system, find a specific moment in space and time, I could write it as so: (X,Y,Z,T) where X,Y,Z are the dimensions you are familar with (height, width, depth). It is important to note that our distinction of X,Y,Z are completely arbitrary and based solely on our perception of the world. For the sake of this next part, just imagine that moving from place to place is simply moving in some direction (let\\'s just say X). Time is the fourth dimension, as stated above. Essentially, what makes time \\'time\\' is the fact that at this very moment, you and I are both moving through the \\'time\\' dimension at *the speed of light*. \\n\\nNow when I move in the X-axis dimension (which again is an arbitrary direction), I am taking some of my speed away from Time, and giving it to the movement in the X-axis. If you want a visual, imagine a compass in your head where the needle is pointing straight ahead. In this image, you are sitting still, but still flying through time at the speed of light in the Time direction. When you start to move in any other direction (e.g. our spacial dimensions), you start to take some of your speed away from the Time direction, and give it to the spacial direction. Visually, this would look like the needle on the compass creeping left/right away from being perfectly straight.\\n\\nIf I am on the space station moving 5 km/s, I am moving a tiny fraction of the speed of light. In the above compass scenario, my compass needle is slightly to the left/right. Thus, I am moving more slowly through time. This is why you have probably heard of something along the lines of time-travel and astronauts.\\n\\nAstronauts who spend a sufficient amount of time on the space station come back to Earth having aged ever so slightly less (I am talking microseconds less here). This is, again, because they were moving in the spacial dimensions at a fraction the speed of light. Thus, in the Time direction, they moved ever so much more slowly.\\n\\nOur perception of time stems from this phenomenon, which now that you have reached the end, I am proud to say that you now understand the bare-bones basics of Einstein\\'s Theory of Special Relativity.', 'Oh boy.\\n\\nThere are a few ways you can think about what time is. Simply, time is the change from one event to another. \\n\\nThere is a concept called the \"arrow of time\". I find this idea helpful when thinking about what time is. Basically, time flows in the direction of disorder. What I mean is, let\\'s say you build a house. A nice, orderly, clean and crisp house. Eventually, over many years, that house will slowly decay and crumble and at some point, collapse into rubble. It went from an ordered state to a more disordered state. That\\'s the direction time flows in. If time didn\\'t pass, that house would never collapse (one could argue that it would never have been built, but...meh). \\n\\nI may edit this later. I found this question a little tougher to describe as I began typing. \\n\\nJust think of it using the \"change from one event to another\" definition.\\n\\n', 'This thing all things devours. Birds, beasts, trees, flowers. Gnaws iron, bites steel. Grinds hard stones to meal. Slays kings, runs town. And beats high mountains down.', 'Hoboy. In my metaphysics class (and no, that doesn\\'t mean metaphysics like astrology and shit - it means \"relevant to the works written by Aristotle after the Physics\") we spent about a month on this. \\n\\nBasically there are two perspectives in the philosophical literature, called the A theory and the B theory. The A theory states that \"time is a thing that goes\", that there is such thing as \"now\" and objectively the universe moves from one \"now\" to the next.\\n\\nSpecial relativity and other evidence from physics suggests that this can\\'t be true. So, instead there is the B theory, which is more akin to \"time is a thing that *is*\", or a dimension along which to exist just like space. In the B theory it\\'s hard to understand why the present moment is special, or more real than other moments. I think we are only capable of experiencing each point along the time dimension as \"now\", so even if all times are effectively simultaneous, we still perceive them in a linear fashion.\\n\\nI wrote a five page paper on this...it\\'s buried within the depths of my deceased computer, back in my natal home, where I am not. I wish I had some way of calling it back up, but I guess I don\\'t.\\n\\nEdit: I found a copy buried in my emails! Let me know if you happen to be interested. It\\'s not a very good paper, but it\\'s an introduction to some very cool ideas.', 'Time is simply what prevents everything from happening at once. ', '**Like You Are 5:**\\n\\nYou are *always* moving through Time at approximately the speed of light. When you speed up, you begin to move through time less slowly. This is why it is technically possible to time-travel (though we can only go into the future at this point).\\n\\nTherefore, Time is our relative experience of moving through the fourth dimension. We can alter it by going faster and faster. If you were theoretically to accelerate yourself to 99.99% the speed of light, you would experience time-travel, where a few seconds go by for you, and perhaps tens to hundreds of years go by in the \\'outside\\' world.\\n\\n**Like You Are 12:**\\n\\nWhen people call time \"the fourth dimension\", they are being technically correct. Basically, try to imagine the following in your head.\\n\\nIf I wanted to, using some coordinate system, find a specific moment in space and time, I could write it as so: (X,Y,Z,T) where X,Y,Z are the dimensions you are familar with (height, width, depth). It is important to note that our distinction of X,Y,Z are completely arbitrary and based solely on our perception of the world. For the sake of this next part, just imagine that moving from place to place is simply moving in some direction (let\\'s just say X). Time is the fourth dimension, as stated above. Essentially, what makes time \\'time\\' is the fact that at this very moment, you and I are both moving through the \\'time\\' dimension at *the speed of light*. \\n\\nNow when I move in the X-axis dimension (which again is an arbitrary direction), I am taking some of my speed away from Time, and giving it to the movement in the X-axis. If you want a visual, imagine a compass in your head where the needle is pointing straight ahead. In this image, you are sitting still, but still flying through time at the speed of light in the Time direction. When you start to move in any other direction (e.g. our spacial dimensions), you start to take some of your speed away from the Time direction, and give it to the spacial direction. Visually, this would look like the needle on the compass creeping left/right away from being perfectly straight.\\n\\nIf I am on the space station moving 5 km/s, I am moving a tiny fraction of the speed of light. In the above compass scenario, my compass needle is slightly to the left/right. Thus, I am moving more slowly through time. This is why you have probably heard of something along the lines of time-travel and astronauts.\\n\\nAstronauts who spend a sufficient amount of time on the space station come back to Earth having aged ever so slightly less (I am talking microseconds less here). This is, again, because they were moving in the spacial dimensions at a fraction the speed of light. Thus, in the Time direction, they moved ever so much more slowly.\\n\\nOur perception of time stems from this phenomenon, which now that you have reached the end, I am proud to say that you now understand the bare-bones basics of Einstein\\'s Theory of Special Relativity.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2978, "q_id": "b41p7c", "title": "If a person is unconscious from a trauma for several days, is there a way to forcefully wake them up?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b41p7c/if_a_person_is_unconscious_from_a_trauma_for/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ej3unfg', 'ej43eff'], 'score': [5, 8], 'text': ['There are ways to chemically or physically stimulate their central nervous system, and that might make them wake up, but not only is the chance slim and the dangers way higher than the chance of success, why would you do that? Let them heal.', 'As someone trained i really have to say: this. Isn\u2018t somethings we would. I can\u2019t picture a situation of life and death where this would be necessary or feasable. First of all, depending on the cause of the coma, there might be no way. If it\u2018s physical trauma induced, the coma is either due to severe damage of the brain, and you can\u2019t wake someone from thatjust like that, even if there was a drug to do that, you wouldn\u2018t get a wide awake patient. People emerge from coma gradually, over the course of days and weeks, most likely agitated, disoriented, hallucinating. If the damage is permanent you may get wake-sleep cycles, but without consciousness. Thst\u2018s called persistent vegetative state. \\nMost of the time though, after some severe physical trauma that doesn\u2019t involve the brain (crushing injury, burns, etc.) patients are held in induced coma to spare them pain. That one can, depending on the agent used, be reversed.\\nA constant perfusion of propofol and remifentanyl can basically just be turned off and after a few minutes the patient emerges, but usually very confused. Ketamine is tricky, because it requires longer to wear off, and in the emergent phase patients have strong dissociative hallucinations. Because of that they are usually held asleep with midazolam or similar until the ketamine is gone. Those are two very common drugs. Actual reversals are only gesred towards muscle relaxants in general anaesthesia, so likely irrelevant to your idea.\\n\\nOnly thing i can imagine for your idea is that the patient is, for some reason, uninjured, but was given a dose of diazepam or similar to knock them out of an agitative and combative state.\\nThose drugs can be reversed fairly instantly via injection of a drug called flumazenil.\\nThis would happen mostly in psychiatry settings, emergency personnel called to a drug overdose (xanax, eg) or in general anaesthesia if some calculated his midazolam doses wrong.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 464, "q_id": "21fby3", "title": "How did Judaism's 'Satan' (Heaven's Attorney-General) become the evil ruler of the world in Christianity? (X-post from DebateReligion)", "selftext": "(I have posted this in DebateReligion first but have been advised to put it here. I am subscribed to r/AcademicBiblical but the community on there is very small and I figured you guys might also be able to help).\n\nHello,\nI would like to ask anybody who knows about the history and theology pertaining to the existence of the devil in Christianity and specifically how the concept of a malevolent supernatural evil ruling the physical world superseded the portrait of 'Satan' in the Hebrew Bible as a heavenly prosecutor who presented sinners before God to accuse them. I've read much of The Birth of Satan but I am still at a loss to how the Jesus movement in the 1st century CE, from the apostles to the Gospel writers and Paul's Gentile converts, came to believe in an 'evil one' who opposed everything God did and actively fought against the work of the Lord. The idea of the devil is so central to Christianity that one may say that as one must believe in Christ in order to be saved, one must also believe in (the existence of) the devil as an evil being in order for the entire narrative to make sense. I know some Christians have reinterpreted the devil to be an allegory for personal temptation and shortcomings, but ultimately the New Testament is very clear: the devil is real, the source of everything that is evil, the 'father of lies' and he will eventually be destroyed in the Lake of Fire.\nThis picture seems so contradictory to everything about 'Satan' in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible that it defies belief. The amount of projection involved in reconciling the two pictures does little service to Christianity, in my opinion. How many Christians believe that the serpent in Genesis is the devil or a servant of him based on a single vague reference to 'the ancient serpent' in Revelations? The Lucifer/king of Babylon/Satan elision is a similar problem. The amount of reinterpretation involved almost resembles retconning in fictional canons and for me, it presents great difficulty in believing the central tenets of the Bible.\nPopular folk beliefs that the devil 'rules hell' or will be responsible for torturing sinners himself are rooted in mythology and popular culture and are of course not in line with Christian orthodoxy. But then again, are these popular folk beliefs really that out of tune with the original role of Satan compared to Christian orthodox understanding of him? The 'movie Devil' who torments sinners in hell is at least serving a purpose for God in punishing the wicked, closer to his original Jewish perceptions than the world-ruler presented in the New Testament.\nIf anyone can shed light on this it will help a lot. How common was belief in the \"devil as evil world-ruler\" before the ministry of Jesus? Had Second Temple Judaism produced a wider new understanding of 'Satan'? How influential were books like Enoch and the Life of Adam and Eve on the early Christians and the Gospel writers (bigger question I know but if it helps what I'm looking for)? And why didn't this understanding of the devil emerge earlier in the Hebrew Bible, if it is the correct understanding?\nI am seeking dates, places, books, specifics of who believed what and when. I read the Epistles and the Gospels and they seem to presume prior knowledge of the devil and what he does.\nThanks for any and all perspectives\n\nEDIT: Wow, was not expecting this level of a response, thanks everyone!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21fby3/how_did_judaisms_satan_heavens_attorneygeneral/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgcm4e6', 'cgcmiz0', 'cgcqgks', 'cgcsjmf', 'cgcum6b'], 'score': [14, 76, 2, 12, 12], 'text': [\"It was under my impression that when Jews were exiled from the Holy Land and sent across the Middle East into a diaspora, Zoroastrian influences entered the religion and the idea of Good versus Evil came into being, but that happened far before Christianity, so I'm curious as to whether it was because of that or not.\\n\\nSo to add to the original question, did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and add the conflict of good versus evil or did it influence early Christianity and add the conflict of good versus evil? I'm expecting that whoever can answer OP can also answer this question too.\", 'Note that, regardless of whatever the earliest function of (a) \\'satan\\' was, even in the Hebrew Bible this was conceived of as a being that could simply take up \"certain less pleasant aspects of the deity\u2019s work\" (to quote Strokes 2009, writing about the ambiguity of the term in the Hebrew Bible). But not only did this satan take up the unpleasant work of the deity, but could also be the one \u201cresponsible\u201d for leading someone to commit a sin or make a bad decision (cf. [this](_URL_2_); and in the New Testament, see Luke 22:3 and Acts 5:3). In fact, there\\'s a [post](_URL_0_) still at the top of AskHistorians that\\'s a good example of this, about the so-called \u201cSatanic verses\u201d of the Qur\\'an. In this case, there were some verses originally present in the Qur\\'anic text that early Muslims considered highly embarrassing \u2013 and so later apologists ascribed their original composition to \u201cSatanic\u201d influence.\\n\\nThese functions transfer over quite easily to several different ideas. For one, this need not be limited solely to *individuals*. One could imagine *groups* of people being collectively misled by this evil force. Second, a range of negative things could be ascribed to this evil being: which is where we can see a tie-in with demonic possession and such (Mk 2:23, \"How can Satan cast out Satan?\").\\n\\nWhat motivated these innovations is a complicated question. In early Judaism and Christianity, we could perhaps imagine that Iranian (cf. Zoroastrian) ideas had some influence on the idea that a large portion of humanity can be \u201censlaved\u201d to forces of darkness. Qumran (the DSS) is a good place to look for stuff relevant to this. There could also be tie-ins with Greco-Roman astrology, or the idea that people (or even entire nations!) could have their own supernatural \u201cguardian\u201d (which, in the case of the \u201cenemy\u201d \u2013 like Rome \u2013 would be thought of as a malevolent being). You might also want to look into [Mastema](_URL_1_) from the book of Jubilees.\\n\\nI gotta run for a second, but I\\'d be happy to expand on any of this soon. As for some of the more specific things you mentioned: the Book of Enoch certainly had an enormous influence on more general demonological ideas in the mid/late Second Temple period. The only mention of Satan (Sataniel, IIRC?) comes from the Parables/Similitudes, which was the latest written section. This is the earliest instance in which the serpent in the garden is explicitly associated with Satan.\\n\\nAs for the *Greek Life of Adam and Eve*: these days, this is usually held to have been composed quite a bit later than the writings of the New Testament. So it\\'s probably not of great relevance here (though some of the ideas that appear in it certainly have a longer history).', 'Anyone have suggestions for academic texts, articles, etc. addressing this question?', 'It\\'s important to remember that there really is not a consensus on the origins of satan within the christian church. Some denominations do not even recognize the devil as a real entity. Others, especially presbyterian reformed members, believe that satan is very real and is very active in todays world. \\n\\nAccording to reformed theology satan held, as you had mentioned, a high position in heaven. This concept as well as the reason and subsequent fall, can be seen in Isaiah 14:9-20. Though the hebrew scriptures mention satan only 14 times in the entire old testament, only three of those occurrences fall outside of the book of Job. Most reformed people will sight those verses in Isaiah as one one those instances.\\n\\nContemporary understanding of satan is that he is the author of evil and temptation. However, in ancient hebrew days, the jews understood god to be the sole mover and shaker of all things. Including evil and temptation. God gave you fortune and he took it away.\\n\\nThe concept of satan really started in Babylonia while the jews were in captivity. Persian religion was strong in duality deities and the concept of a dark lord dishing up famine, illness and general shit was strong. The Israelites were quick to adopt this given there current misfortunes. The book of job was likely written during this time.\\n\\nA full description of who and what satan is wasnt really presented until the new testament. There he is a very prominent figure. He tempts christ, he unleashes demons and is credited as the cause of judas betraying jesus. Notice that in all new testament scripture that no one had issues with satan being in the mix of all this. This tells us that satan, as the evil doer, is very present and highly accepted with in the jewish culture by this time. The new testament is said to have been started about 400 years after the last book of the old testament was written.\\n\\nThe book of revelation makes several references to satan. Even calling him the \"snake\". This is where people start to put two and two together. This is the same snake that was in the garden of eden in the book of genesis. This is the guy that tricked eve into eating the apple and in doing so introduced sin into the world. \\n\\nThen you bring in the doctrine of original sin. This is where the dispute really starts. Not to go into it much here but most take one of two sides, original sin (total depravity) is scriptural proof that all need christ as savior since we are all born in sin. Or their was no original sin (not born into sin) and there fore christ is a gift of redemption for all despite everything. Thats a severe over simplification, but you get the gist.\\n\\nIf you buy into total depravity then you sight gen 3:15 as the covenant of grace, the first promise from god and the first hint at christ coming to earth. You need this because your sinful blah blah blah....\\n\\nThat all being said, I am not a historian, I have just had the displeasure of being around some fundamentalist reformed/puritan christians quite a bit and so this is mostly a regurgitation of things I have picked up.\\n', 'I\\'m a Jehovah\\'s Witness who has done extensive research on this and other subjects. Allow me to shed some light on the information I have found on the character known as \\'Satan\\':\\n\\nFirst off, I will quote a few scriptures to show what information the Bible itself gives on this figure. I know this subreddit is about historical documentation but as this is a somewhat religious question hopefully this will be okay.\\n\\nIn many places in the Hebrew Scriptures, the word sa\u00b7tan\u2032 appears without the definite article. Used in this way, it applies in its first appearance to the angel that stood in the road to resist Balaam as he set out with the objective of cursing the Israelites. **(Nu 22:22, 32)**\\n\\nIn other instances it refers to individuals as resisters of other men. **(1Sa 29:4; 2Sa 19:21, 22; 1Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25)**\\n\\nBut it is used with the definite article ha to refer to Satan the Devil, the chief Adversary of God. **(Job 1:6, 2:1-7; Zec 3:1, 2)**\\n\\nThe verses in Job and Zechariah are perhaps the oldest recordings of Satan used as a definite article. These passages refer to Satan acting out against God\\'s interests by attacking one of his servants in Job and Satan being rebuked by an Angel of God in Zechariah.\\n\\nThe name \\'Satan\\' isn\\'t exactly a name either, and whatever his real name is we don\\'t know it. As I said earlier, \\'Satan\\' by itself is defines as a sort of \\'resistor\\' or \\'rebel\\'.\\n\\nThe examples in Job and Zechariah show that even in the Old Testament Satan was not an \\'idea\\' or a symbol of evil, but was an actual person.\\n\\nAs far as modern beliefs regarding hellfire and eternal torment these are teachings that were adopted from non-christian origins. \\n\\nThe *Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205)* under \u201cHell\u201d says: \u201cHindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment.\u201d\\n\\nIf you check out _URL_0_ you can see that numerous religious bodies had their own concept of hell. The Bible itself does not include a \\'Hell\\' but certain churches added and encouraged this concept. It is not a coincidence that the Norse underworld as well as its ruler were named \\'Hel\\'. \\n\\n*-Cleasby-Vigfusson, pg. 255, s.v. \"hel-viti\"; pg. 718, s.v. \"viti\"*\\n\\n*-Hensleigh, pg. 233, s.v. \"Hell\"*\\n\\nAs far as the other modern interpretations of Satan in regard to his position as an evil ruler of the world, **1 John 5:19** says: \"We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.\" This verse along with the previous ones I quoted could easily lead Christians to believe that Satan is the evil ruler of the world.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21ejqe/how_much_truth_is_there_in_the_book_by_salman/', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastema', 'http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1a7rtb/any_insight_on_the_apparent_contradiction_of/c8uvand'], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1416, "q_id": "4z1rt0", "title": "Is the mayan godess of suicide Ixtab legit ?", "selftext": "I've been interested lately in the pre-columbian history of Latin America, especially about the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayas and Aztecs. I've bumped randomly while reading a webcomic on a mention of a Mayan godess of suicide. So I've searched and found the wikipedia page. Ok. Then, I've started reading a book about the Maya writing system, where the gods where mentioned. And she wasn't. When I've typed \"Ixtab\" into Google Images, most images that popped up where... Modern. Whereas when you type \"Ach Puch\" (Or God A) or I dont know, Kukulkan, you have a shitload of various representations.\n\nSo, this is my question: Is this godess legit, or is this some kind of misenterpretation gone mainstream ?\n\nThanks for any answers !", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4z1rt0/is_the_mayan_godess_of_suicide_ixtab_legit/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d6sg3ro'], 'score': [85], 'text': ['Ix Tab is probably not a real goddess. [Here\\'s a good little abstract specifically addressing the question.](_URL_3_) For those unwilling to click, I will summarize: there is no Maya goddess of suicide, and reference to her can be traced to the writings of Spanish bishop Diego de Landa immediately post-contact. \\n\\nLanda was a resident of Yucatan 1549-1579 and in his latter days the Bishop of Merida. He was a primary chronicler of Maya civilization directly post-contact. He is also a controversial and (to me, at least) repulsive figure, as in 1562 he burned every piece of Maya paper writing he could get his hands on -- and this was just about every codex still in existence. Everything Landa has done for our understanding of Maya writing, he undid a thousand times when he burned the original codices.\\n\\nAs for the iconography associated with the modern-day legend of the \"suicide goddess,\" let\\'s take a look!\\n\\n[This is the panel](_URL_1_) of the Dresden Codex which features the image commonly credited online as \"Ixtab.\" \\n\\nThe image appears in the Dresden Codex on page 53b. [Here is a link to the full online version of the codex.](_URL_4_) More to the point, here is a link to [the section of interest.](_URL_2_) This part of the codex is sometimes called the Eclipse Table, as it has long been thought to contain astronomical data. It seems to span a recorded or projected 33-year period, including the dates of multiple putative astronomical events. [(Source.)](_URL_0_)\\n\\nThe picture on 53b shows a Moon Goddess hanging by her neck from a sky band, the Maya visual convention for the sky. The Moon Goddess does appear to be dead; her eyes are closed, and her body is spotted in a way similar to the body of the Death God seen above her in 53a. Alternatively, she may be an unconscious captive. Given the placement of this Moon Goddess within the Eclipse Table, it seems reasonable to say the \"dead moon hanging in the sky\" is a reference to lunar eclipse. The \"hanging\" element is not so much about the method of death as it is about connecting the dead moon to the sky bar above. Accordingly, while images of graphic demise are common in Maya art, death by hanging is iconographically all but absent (see first reference). \\n\\nSo from where did we get this association of the hanging Moon Goddess with suicide? Probably from the depths of Diego de Landa\\'s brain. Suicide by hanging is a much more common image in the Spanish culture Landa hailed from than it is in the Maya culture he was chronicling. I think the perception that this goddess has hanged herself is most likely just a Spanish misreading of Maya iconography. \\n\\nI am not at all an expert, just a hobbyist, so I will gratefully accept any corrections to my rambling if an expert sees fit to stop by.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0001910/Beck_William_E_200712_Mast.pdf.pdf', 'http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--HaQagvHPkA/UNN5G11HIvI/AAAAAAAANY0/RBZWahFtg1Y/s640/dresden-codex-maya-goddess-ixtab.jpg', 'http://www.famsi.org/mayawriting/codices/pdf/5_dresden_fors_schele_pp46-59.pdf', 'http://ethnohistory.dukejournals.org/content/63/1/1.abstract', 'http://www.famsi.org/mayawriting/codices/dresden.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2265, "q_id": "1it10m", "title": "Given the technology, political institutions, and social structures in the Game of Thrones series, which century does it most closely resemble?", "selftext": "I imagine there'd be some inconsistencies in these factors, and not all real world nation states were equally developed, but if we were to place this on earth, which time era would it be? (Not counting the dragons)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1it10m/given_the_technology_political_institutions_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cb7rts9', 'cb7t7ts', 'cb7vmn9'], 'score': [213, 19, 3], 'text': ['This is mostly a ramble - I\\'m inserting things as they occur to me reflecting back on the shows and books. \\n\\nAt first glance, what we see in Game of Thrones is a bit of a mish-mash of various regions and periods of real-life Earth. The political structure of Westeros is strongly feudal, with the power very decentralised. The King of the Iron Throne is almost entirely dependent upon his immediate vassals, the Lords Paramount of the Seven Kingdoms, for actual troops, funds, and goods, having no standing army and only the tiny Crownlands as a personal demesne from which to draw his own military forces. There is essentially no real merchant class in Westeros, with all wealth passing through the hands of the noble families or their factors. The strength of the various duke and count equivalents relative to the king (do we ever hear of any ranks of landed nobility beyond Lords in the series?) means that the stability of the realm is highly dependent upon the personal qualities of the monarch and his relations with his vassals. Even within the series, we\\'ve heard about Robert\\'s Rebellion, the Greyjoy Rebellion, the War of the Ninepenny Kings, and the War of the Five Kings, all happening within a single lifetime. All of this points to a kingdom in the equivalent of the Early or High Medieval Period.\\n\\nAt the same time, Westerosi bureaucracy is at a stage about equivalent to Europe in the 1600s - you have public debt (to the throne rather than to the king personally), an elaborate system of taxation and tolls for roads, customs, trade, etc, public works such as the Kingsroad, and the governmental post of \"Master of Coin\" overseeing the whole process. \\n\\nReligion does not occupy the same pride of place in Westerosi society that it did at any point in Europe. It seems to be largely a private affair - the Kingdoms tolerate worship of the Seven (the state religion) as well as the Old Gods in the north, and don\\'t particularly seem to persecute (beyond a vague mistrust) foreign religions such as Rh\\'llor. We don\\'t hear of any prominent schisms or heresies within the Faith of the Seven, nor is there any indication of persecution of interpretations differing from the orthodoxy. None of this bears any resemblance to the Catholic treatment of heathens or heretics within Christendom, though this can probably be put down to there being relatively little political friction between Westeros and the foreign heathens of Essos. \\n\\nMarriage is a religious affair in the South, requiring blessing from a septon to be valid. The state does not get involved in the process at all. Divorce doesn\\'t seem to be possible, though you can break off a betrothal given sufficient cause (eg. Joffrey/Sansa). Marriage didn\\'t become a religious sacrament in real-life Europe until roundabout the 13th century. The state and legal system began getting involved in the process by the end of the 17th century.\\n\\nJousting seems to be a particularly popular pastime amongst Westerosi nobility, and the form we see in the show (a single pair of warriors tilting at one another with a lance across a wooden barrier) only appeared at the turn of the 15th century. Prior to that it was mostly a general melee or a contest of a series of people trying to \"get past\" a single defender. Tilting finally disappeared in the early 17th century, but had been dying out for a long while.\\n\\nTechnology in Westeros is more comparable to the Early Modern Period than to the Early Medieval. We see windmills, watermills, and wheelbarrows. Castles are highly advanced, with the most impressive (such as Winterfell) able to hold off armies many *many* times the size of their garrisons. Barbicans, murder holes, very very thick walls and rounded towers, deep wells, etc etc all point to a long tradition of castle-building. Civic structures are shown with flying buttresses, gothic arches and vaults, as well as stone bridges with impressive spans such as at King\\'s Landing. All post-12th-century in Europe (though Roman architecture had made use of arches and vaults, the technology had been lost for several centuries). And supposedly these castles have been largely unchanged for hundreds (or indeed thousands) of years. \\n\\nMetallurgy, particularly steel production, also appears to be well-established. Knights are invariably in full plate, which historically peaked in the 15th and 16th centuries. Even the common soldiery seem to be using steel armour and weaponry (rather than iron), which is particularly impressive/strange given the expense and difficulty involved.\\n\\nWe see plenty of examples of glass, both coloured and clear, in the TV series. Glass lanterns, glass windows, mirrored glass, \"far-eyes\" or telescopes. Primarily in the South, but still present and unremarked on as being particularly rare.\\n\\nLikewise the Wall. Ok, it\\'s \"magic\", which is a good fudge factor, but just look at that elevator system in Castle Black, and consider the sheer logistics involved in repairing and maintaining a structure that size. Hauling blocks of ice to that height would be difficult without a vast slave army, let alone with the skeleton crew we\\'ve observed. Westerosi engineering is highly advanced, it seems.\\n\\nShipbuilding is somewhere between the 14th and 16th centuries. We see carrack equivalents, as well as cogs with forecastles and gigantic sails. We also see very large galleys in the east, equipped with catapults, ballistae and scorpions. Also, bizarrely, the longboats of the 9th-11th century Vikings dominate the northern seas.', 'I think the author has stated much of it is loosly based on the houses of Lancaster (lannister) and York(Stark) in the [War of the Roses](_URL_0_) period of English history (late 1400s).', \"[Tiako notes the influences he sees in this thread here](_URL_0_). It's quite a mish-mash.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses'], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ecbg1/what_wrong_ideas_about_medieval_europe_might_one/c9z0y4x']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1635, "q_id": "295oms", "title": "why can't a person with alzheimer's have a fact sheet in front of them at all times reminding them of every truth about them, including the fact that they have alzheimer's, and that they are expected to be constantly confused?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/295oms/eli5_why_cant_a_person_with_alzheimers_have_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cihnm4p', 'cihnwe3', 'cihoiuf', 'cihojez', 'cihop1l', 'cihop89', 'cihoqy6', 'cihotoa', 'cihp4b6', 'cihp91f', 'cihplif', 'cihpr3c', 'cihqa3j', 'cihrhpp', 'cihsjjy', 'ciht2t1', 'ciht5wb', 'cihtt5w', 'cihu2vb', 'cihu50a', 'cihuaa4', 'cihudxr', 'cihuf7i', 'cihui86', 'cihuyub', 'cihv1vm', 'cihv2rs', 'cihv78r', 'cihvsrp', 'cihvu6b', 'cihvuhm', 'cihx1pc', 'cihxm9e', 'cihxou3', 'cihxqla', 'cihxt30', 'cihxwtu', 'cihxxlt', 'cihxz7t', 'cihy0hn', 'cihy6pp', 'cihy8jv', 'cihyame', 'cihydsn', 'cihyfi0', 'cihyfyg', 'cihyp4t', 'cihyqnv', 'cihywtt', 'cihyyea', 'cihyzc6', 'cihz6ex', 'cihzyo1', 'cii0dnl', 'cii11xm', 'cii12pc', 'cii1fou', 'cii1i3j', 'cii33ik', 'cii3h1i', 'cii42gq', 'cii4n3c', 'cii6h61', 'cii6vo5', 'cii7f9r', 'cii7qz0', 'ciia2mj', 'ciiajr8', 'ciibhka', 'ciibvqt', 'ciibw23', 'ciic7we', 'ciicabw', 'ciicznl', 'ciid2sc', 'ciih6kr', 'cij15jj'], 'score': [3, 1155, 90, 15, 4, 16, 308, 308, 48, 39, 2, 2, 2, 10, 30, 2, 21, 4, 8, 11, 2, 4, 7, 8, 6, 21, 6, 3, 3, 2, 72, 25, 3, 2, 5, 9, 2, 22, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 7, 5, 2, 4, 8, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 9, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['What if they move? Like physically get up and walk somewhere?', 'Because it will add to their misery. This is not like the forgetting that non-sufferers may experience as a result of an injury or hangover; it goes much deeper and has a shorter cycle. You can tell an Alzheimer\\'s patient a \"fact\" one minute and it\\'s gone in 30 seconds. The *truth* for advanced patients may bear absolutely no resemblance to fact, because a humane approach most often involves meeting their uncertainties with whatever words bring comfort, not pounding them with proof that they\\'re wrong.', \"Alzheimer's is more than simply forgetting; that's just the side effect that non-suffers see most.  The sheet would be meaningless to them.  \", \"Alzheimer's disease isn't just a sitcom-like trouble with memories.   There is a hell of a lot more going wrong with their brain.  The placard you place in front of them will probably just confuse them more...you know what?  Yah I'm for it, get them tattoos memento style.  \", 'Why not just tattoo your body with info about your life...', \"When you're doubting everything else, why would you believe a piece of paper? \", 'My grandmother is in a nursing home and has what I\\'d have to imagine is fairly advanced Alzheimer\\'s / dementia. She thinks she\\'s in her fifties, that her parents are alive, and that she owns extensive properties in Florida. Not only that, but she believes not that she is in an elderly home, but that she works at the facility as a manager of some sort. She talks about all the people that have come to visit her lately, many of them years deceased. She has told me, to my face, that she doesn\\'t see my mother very often because of her young children, which she says she understands. I am obviously said child, and I\\'m 29, and my mom is there three times a week. My grandmother is 85 and hasn\\'t walked in three years, much less been outside.\\n\\nWe\\'ve been advised to pick and choose what to tell her about reality as we know it. If she\\'s frustrated, telling her her parents are 25 years dead and that she couldn\\'t walk if she wanted to doesn\\'t help anybody. Even when you do decide to correct her, there\\'s the chance that she\\'ll argue. And the arguments are pointless. *Of course I can go down to the bar for a drink, I\\'ve lived here since the Carter administration! I have the clearance to do it!* And so instead you say stuff like \"Oh, really nan? That\\'s great you got to go into the city and get your hair done - it looks great!\"\\n\\nIt\\'s sort of depressing, but you just roll with it because you want to cause them less grief than more. Quality of life is sort of hard to rationalize in a nursing home, but you do what you can to make them comfortable. ', \"If you had a fact sheet in front of you saying your kid has had another kid who is also a gangster and the year is 2070, you'd be really reluctant to believe it.\", \"Because it's not that they forgotten the information, it's that they can't process memory correctly. They essentially have been displaced in time. So even when presented with facts about their life, they wouldn't see them that way. Because they have no frame of reference for those memories. \", 'Ah, the \"Memento\" method. Unfortunately Alzheimer\\'s goes a bit deeper than just memory loss - it\\'s an actual cognitive impairment. Even if they\\'re able to read the sign there\\'s still a pretty good chance they\\'re not going to understand it. ', \"My grandmother could only read the most basic sentences in the final stages of Alzhiemers, and she couldn't write. \", 'Tagging on to this ELI5: reading comments and stories about people having Alzheimer\\'s, why is it that their story is more or less the same every time they \"wake up\"?', 'Imagine being told that everything you think is going on is a lie.  Would you believe it?', \"This wouldn't work. Someone with Alzheimer's might not remember the beginning of the page once they get to the end of it. Even if they did manage to read through it and understand they would most likely forget shortly after.\\n\\nAs well as this although someone with Alzheimer's can't remember their feelings remain. If I had Alzheimer's and were to read that many of my relatives were dead I would be upset, then forget, and then wonder why I'm upset which would just confuse me and frustrate me even more.\\n\\nThe best way I found to deal with Alzheimer's is to agree with the person suffering.\", \"Imagine right now having a fact sheet in front of you telling you that it is like 2050 right now and you have Alzheimer's. You would be really confused, too. To them, it's just like this, because they perceive their own reality. \", \"They may at some point also forget how's to read and write as well\", 'Please kill me if this ever happens to me. ', 'This would make a great film. They could cast Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore as the lead roles', \"I work at a long term care facility that has a dementia unit. I tried this tactic with one of the ladies who repeatedly asks the same  things over and over.  Where am I? How did I get here? Where is my family? What day is it? Etc.... Over and over and over all day long. I made her a paper saying she is at such and such facility,  the date,  the fact that her son lives down the road and visits often etc. It worked for this particular lady,  she would look at it and read it out loud all day long and it seemed to calm her.  You have to remember  though that this won't work for some or most alz  patients becuase some of them,  depending on where they are in the disease process, have even lost the ability to read. \", \"My grandmother has vascular demetia (behaves much like alzheimer's). She cannot speak in coherent sentences, cannot read, cannot even focus on something like a picture or a card. She hasn't recognised us, her family, in a few years. Sometimes she thinks she is a little girl. Sometimes she asks where her mother is. Sometimes she thinks she lives in a house on her own, and that she goes to work in the city every day. She doesn't know that her brother died a few weeks ago. She couldn't even go to the funeral because she requires so much attentive care. \\n\\nMost of the people in her area of the nursing home also cannot speak coherently. Many cannot speak at all. They have a large tv that plays old movies, but none of them can focus on the tv at all. They just don't process the sensory material. \\n\\nIt is a very, very sad way to die, and for some people, it is a long decline. It has been 10 years now, for my grandmother. \", \"I've heard that is an accurate representation of Alzheimer's. (Related)\\n_URL_0_\", 'You can\\'t have a three sentence conversation with my grandmother. She can respond to a question or ask one and seem to be aware of the answer, but the next sentence might as well be about something entirely different for all the connection she\\'ll make between it and the first. Like, \\'Do you like peas?\\' \"Yes!\" \\'Would you like some?\\' \"Some what?\"\\n\\n\\nThis note would be less than useful. She might read it out loud repeatedly all day long, like she will the headline of a newspaper or the titles of books on the bookshelf, but it wouldn\\'t mean anything to her. By the time she reads the second sentence she\\'s entirely forgotten the first, and that\\'s assuming she ever processed it to begin with. \\n\\n\\nOne of the big things with trying to talk to someone with dementia is to not further their confusion by talking about things they have no understanding of. If they\\'re having an exceptionally good day and are able to carry on a short conversation, the first time they seem to get confused you just sort of shuffle to the next thing, gloss over it. It keeps them calmer and happier. The brief moments they are aware of how much they are missing/how muddled their world is are the saddest. Thankfully my grandmother doesn\\'t have those anymore. ', 'You cured Alzheimers! Bravo!', 'Sounds like somebody\\'s been watching \"50 First Dates\"...', 'Because they would believe it as much as you would believe it if I handed you one right this second.', 'Alzheimer\\'s type dementia, although the most visible symptoms are confusion and memory loss, they are just the surface of what\\'s really going on.  There are \"plaques and tangles\" that form in and around the neurons of the brain. This manifests itself in memory loss to us, the bystanders, but really it\\'s a progressive and irreversible degeneration of all cognitive or \"thought\" functions, in which memory is just one aspect. That would include, seeing the fact sheet as something significant, reading it, understanding what was read, and if an AD patient got that far (they were lucid at the time), the most significant hurdle would be accepting it and coping with it. But that is just a temporary fix until the next episode came along.', 'One of the passengers in my shuttle told everyone about his dad. Apparently this guy\\'s dad has the Heimers and said, \"Son, at least I can hide my own easter eggs.\"', \"Reading the comments, I can just pray that my mom never gets this. She was in a nursing home for a month about a year ago because of a bad staph infection in her foot that left her unable to walk until it healed, and she says that she'll kill herself before going back to one.\", \"Sometimes it better that they forget. There was a man with alcohol-related dementia in a nursing home i used to work at. Both of his parents were dead, but he didn't remember that. And every day he asked all of us, over and over, where his parents were and when they were coming to get him. He was so upset and it was just awful. For a while, someone broke the news to him every day, resulting in fresh grief and agony for him. Finally we figured out to make something up about their being delayed for some reason. It pacified him temporarily and by the next day he'd forgotten everything again and the whole thing repeated. \", \"Reading all these stories makes me glad that my own grandparents retained their mental faculties pretty well for the last years of their lives. \\n\\nThe last one to go was 92, and until the last several months, she had been living at home with in-home carers. She had Parkinson's and had had spondylitis for years, but her mind was still in good shape (it may have started to slip in the last weeks or something, but there was certainly no dementia). She lived overseas; I saw her several months before she died and said a very awkward goodbye, knowing it would probably be my last. It was a short visit, as I was traveling, but she knew who I was and could share her views, identify people in old photos for us, and all that stuff.\\n\\nAll but one of my grandparents died in homes, actually, in their sleep (two from being old and one from prostate cancer), still *compos mentis*, as far as I know. The fourth had a massive stroke at the breakfast table. I'm certainly hoping my own parents at least maintain their mental faculties as their parents did (and that I can do the same!).\", 'I work in a nursing home, and we\\'re taught to essentially \"come to them\" with whatever they\\'re talking about. \\nAnd rather than force truths that could potentially aggravate, confuse, and/or upset the resident, I generally give vague answers that aren\\'t technically lies, but sort of ride that line.. for example:\\nA resident asks me if I\\'ve seen their mother, who I\\'m sure has long since passed away.. Instead of trying to make them understand that they\\'re dead, I always just say \"Nope, but if I do, I\\'ll be sure to send them your way\" \\n\\nWhat\\'s important isn\\'t trying to reverse things or force them into a reality that\\'s more comfortable to you, but to embrace their confusion and make it easier for them to exist day to day.', 'Since my wife has memory problems I will explain this. Our cats Smoke and paint died over a decade ago. When she is having memory problems she does not remember this. When having a bad memory day if she asks about these two longtime beloved pets I redirect her and put her focus on something else. In time she will forget about her question or non-emotionally remember these two pets have died. \\n\\nIf I tell her immediately or if she has a card that tells her she feels all the emotion as if it had just happened. She would relive a very painful part of her past again. Having her cry for hours (which also makes her memory worse) only servers to make her grieve all over again and me feel like an asshole.\\n\\nImagine you wake up from your nights sleep and ask about your loving wife of 45 years only to hear that she has been dead for 10 years and you suck for not remembering.....The pain can be unbearable and it would be repeated needlessly over and over.', \"I once treated a patient who's family would remind him that his wife had recently passed away and it destroyed him every time. \\n\\nIt was their way of coping with it, not meant to be malicious in the slightest but it was still  difficult to observe.\", \"If I had alzheimer's, I would listen to my favorite song over and over and over and over and over again.\", 'Remember Sammy Jankis', \"Their hippocampus is decaying. A fact sheet can't fix that.\", \"The worst phase of any type of dementia is the phase in which the person has an awareness that something isn't right.  It's so hard to watch because you can see and feel  the terror they are experiencing.   For a while, as nurses,  we were told we should constantly reorient them.  I never felt good about doing that and for the most part said and/or did for them anything that decreased their anxiety.  \", 'Trying to reason with a person who suffers from  Alzheimer\\'s is like telling a baby to stop crying; frustrating and useless.\\n\\nMy Gramma thought she had lead weights in her legs preventing her from walking.  It took almost an hour to get her to walk to any room in the house because she refused to lift her legs up due to the mysterious weights.  No amount of reasoning would make her believe the weights weren\\'t in her legs.\\n\\nMy Gramma finally found love in her delusional state of mind with a fellow senile old man in her care home.  My mother and his son had to sign \"permission slips\" to allow them to have a relationship.  It was hilarious.  She was single and alone for 50 years and was able to get a boyfriend at almost 90 years old!  ', \" > every truth about them\\n\\nTo cover everything someone has forgotten because of Alzheimer's, you'd need an incredibly dense fact sheet, like an encyclopedia, of the last few decades of their life. \\n\\nEdit: Obviously, this doesn't apply to all cases. In the instances of my family members, they lost so, so much I wouldn't even know where to begin.\", 'I used to work as an HA in an Alzheimer\\'s ward. It\\'s like dealing with people whose brains keep resetting. Could be five minutes ago, could be 30 years ago, could be it\\'s completely fragged where nothing makes sense. And then their bodies start shutting down. Memories go, ability to do actions go, social interactions go. Just a slow shut down of body and mind as they just sort of drift off.\\n\\nHaving a cheat sheet of \"I am Joe Somebody. I have Alzheimers. I might remember this, I might not. Your wife was named Irene, she\\'s been dead four months now. Your kid is Joe Jr and he\\'s got a wife, Debbie, and two kids.\"\\n\\nSo you remember this note or you might not. You might not even register the note. It doesn\\'t do anything for you short term or long.', 'it just hurts them to much to know what\\'s going on for the short time they remember what they\\'ve learned. in our family we tried to fight it when my grandmother showed signs we tried correcting her and my mother couldn\\'t handle it well but sometimes they realize whats going on. I\\'ll never forget my mother was bring her to a bath and getting frustrated and my grandmother looked my mom in the eyes and said \"do you think i like being in this fog\" and then she was gone again. reading these comments of stories their loved ones remembered a few months after that incident the only thing she remembered was a greeting she knew in high school,we\\'d say \"beez you got bugs?\" and she\\'d say in her horse little voice\"sure i are everybody do\" it was heart breaking', \"Lists and calendars work well for early stage memory loss but as it progresses, it gets bad enough that it can't be grasped. Many Altzheimers patients become angry and blame others for what they are going though. \\n\\nWe are still trying to get my mother in law diagnosed and it's almost been two years. \", 'They are only confused because of what the world is telling them. Alzheimer patients are pretty confident in their delusions. ', \"*Don't believe his lies.*\", 'The simple answer is that it is unlikely that they would need the same information all the time, and it\\'s likely that they would not be able to read it. Dementia is like forgetting your keys; Alzheimers is like staring at your keys and forgetting what they are for. People with Alzheimers don\\'t just forget stuff, their brain does not know how to do stuff that they didn\\'t even think about before (like read simple words, sign your name, feed yourself or control bladders and bowels). Scientists can\\'t even be sure how much people with advanced Alzheimers understand about their surroundings. My grandmother basically died of alzheimers (her body essentially \"forgot\" how to function) and her language ability degraded in a very gradual way that we didn\\'t even notice at first, but before she was completely unable to speak had her reduced to a few short phrases that made sense in the context of the conversation, but she couldn\\'t say anything else. She did understand speech- she knew what was happening to her but didn\\'t need \"reminding\" of anything other than to do things like take her dentures out, chew her sandwich etc. When she could still speak, she was obviously aware of who people were in our family, but she called us all by the wrong names, not because she had forgotten- it was more like the connection in her brain was telling her \"I know who this is, it\\'s blah\". She called my mum and my aunt her sisters\\' names, and me and my sister my mum and my aunt\\'s names but she knew that we were not her sisters and her daughters, but her daughters and her grandchildren, so we just got used to what our \"Granny\" name was and she knew who she meant.\\nTerry Pratchett said in an interview a while ago that he was staring at his keyboard and couldn\\'t work out where the A (or something) was (sorry I don\\'t have a source), so that\\'s the kind of thing Alzheimers causes. Your solution could possibly work with early dementia but it\\'s just not how Alzheimers works.', \"Because they will probably lose the sheet and/or not know it's for them. \\n\\nI tried this already with my grandmother.\", 'I had an epiphany when I read a story called \"Flying Polar Bear Spray.\"\\nAs a caregiver for 36 years, I recommend it. \\nYou get into their reality, things work better that way.\\npeace.', \"Alzheimer's is the slow destruction of neurons due to build up to toxic proteins Tau and Beta-amyloid.  These neurons die and are no longer replaced by new ones (through a process called neurogenesis).  Therefore, it's not as simple to say they are losing their memories, but in fact, their entire brain is slowing dying.  This affects other cognitive functions, such as judgement, reasoning, motor coordination, pattern recognition, as well as memory.  \", 'As soon as they look away they will forget it. Also, abuse.', 'what is this, 50 first dates?', \"Even if this worked it wouldn't grant them the ability to remember faces. From my understanding this is one of the largest negatives of alzheimers, you can't recognize your family even if you remember you have one.\", 'Speech pathologist here. Basically, this can be done, and sometimes is. However, at later stages of the disease, your ability to understand language receptively will degenerate as well. It  can simply be too much into for you to take in. The words and sentences may be too much for someone to comprehend, leading to more confusion. Abstract thought becomes difficult.\\n\\nThere are systems that therapists use with the patient that are similar to what you just described, but are simpler. For example, one can point to a picture to communicate, things such as yes, no, going to the bathroom \"I am hungry\", etc. Eye gaze boards can be used as well.\\n\\nIt all depends on each individual patient as the disease progresses differently for everyone.  ', \"Nothing like realizing you are diagnosed every time you look down, why don't we just keep putting fake winning lottery tickets in front of them, they would be so happy all the time. \", 'My grandmother has Alzheimer\\'s disease. Before she went to the nursing home, she had a little dog she loved. This little dog was also old and sick. Finally, I knew it was time to take the dog and put it to sleep.\\n\\nThat evening my grandmother asked where her dog was. I told her the dog was very sick and I had to take her to the vet to be put down. She said \"oh no\" and began to cry. \\n\\nAfter a while, we were watching TV and my grandmother asked where her dog was. I told her the dog was very sick and I had to take her to the vet to be put down. She said \"oh no\" and began to cry. \\n\\nThe next morning at breakfast my grandmother asked where he dog was. I told her the dog was visiting my house and everything was fine. She finished breakfast and went on with her day.\\n\\nThere was nothing to be gained by telling her the truth. The only result of honesty would be repeated emotional pain for my grandmother.\\n\\nEventually, she stopped asking about her dog.', \"The easiest way I can put it is this: could you imagine if you woke up to someone telling you everything about your life, and none of it is true? That would upset you pretty well, wouldn't it? It's the same thing with them. \", \"On the surface it seems like a good idea, but on a deeper level it causes more pain.  Imagine having to relive being told you have a mental degenerative terminal illness every day, having to relive that moment constantly and never getting the chance to come to terms with it.  \\n\\nTo illustrate, my great grandfather was a brilliant man, a veteran of WWII and an inventor of heavy duty machinery.  My great grandmother passed away and soon after he began developing Alzheimer's.  He could no longer care for himself and we moved him to a home to ease his final days.  We would visit him often and he was more likely than not bedridden.  My mother would talk to him and he would call her 'Barbie', the pet name for his daughter.  At first we would try to correct him, but we quickly realized that it brought him a great amount of pain and confusion because he couldn't recall my mom's name.  In the end my mom let him call her Barbie, even though it was wrong it made him happy even for that brief moment.\\n\\nThe sad thing is a factbook might help I'm the early stages, but down the road it won't.  They'll forget to check the book, they'll forget the book even exists.  You can't fight Alzheimer's, as much as you might want too it's easier to just let it run its course and make the patients days easier as best you can.  \", 'My mom used to work in a senior center and they had a woman who had early stage Alzheimer\\'s. The only real problem they ran into was that she kept asking where her husband was. He had died several years prior, and her daughter (who brought her daily to the center) would remind her in the car that he was gone. It meant this poor woman got dropped off in misery because she was feeling the grief freshly. It was terrible. Finally, the daughter began to tell her mother that \"dad was at the store\" or that \"he was working on the house.\" It allowed this woman pleasure and didn\\'t end up hurting her.\\n\\nHaving a fact sheet like that that could remind a person of their situation could only add to their suffering. It\\'s not like The Notebook. You don\\'t suddenly get lucid everyday after hearing a nice story.', \"Alzheimer's is not Amnesia.\", '\"Losing your memory\" is a simplistic layman\\'s explanation of what happens with dementia/alzheimers. As Alzheimers progresses, the brain loses mass and vital neuron connections. Their brains misinterpret things and lose the ability to decipher context from their surroundings. That is why sufferers in nursing homes often think they are in hotels, or on cruises, or in prisons. Their brains are trying to interpret their surroundings but can\\'t do it anymore with any accuracy. Words on a page become unreadable or incoherent. They forget context and social norms. Even if they could read the message about their lives, they wouldn\\'t necessarily think it applies to them. \\n\\nIn early stages of Alzheimers people do these things sometimes to help cope with their symptoms, but gradually these messages become like lecture notes for a class the person doesn\\'t remember taking. \\n\\nTLDR: \"Losing your memory\" is a simplistic explanation of what Alzheimer\\'s does. Alzheimers is a slow decay of the brain.', \"Well for one if it were my grandmother she would lose the fact sheet and stick it with her bill statements from 2008. She has suffered for years from Alzheimer's and there's a certain face and look she gives me when she has these realizations that this is the life she lives. I live with her and take care of her and i have learned, telling her the reality of the situation only makes her cry. Like today she asked why she was so tired and i told her we had a doctors appointment. She clearly didn't remember we'd already gone and she gave me that same scared face, and i had to leave her alone while she just sat there, re-remembering for the 100000th time that her life really has changed. I posted a poem on her fridge that really has helped me in frustrating times i swore i wouldn't get through.\\n\\n _URL_0_\\n\\nI read it every single day.\\n\\n\", 'It would only confuse the them more and make them sad. Some are stuck in a belief that they are living in the past and are still young. Bringing up issues that make them scared does not help. Some of our patients think they are in their apartment, some think they are at work and some think I am their son. From what I have  encountered many still can live a happy life. I try to go with the flow, hold hands and soothe their days. \\n\\nSource: Maintenance guy in a nursing home that gets talked to a whole lot!  \\n\\nAs a side note, if you have a loved one in a nursing home pay a visit. Get to know the other residents too. Many do not have relatives to visit them and it really brightens their day. Especially the memory loss ones. So much can be gained for you too. ', \"My dad has Alzheimer's and I take care of him. He is only a stage 3-4. His short term memory is the first to go it seems. I had a serious what-the-fuck funny moment the other day. I'm studying GRE vocabulary words. Hell if he didn't know every single word and definition. I thought he had some crazy break through. Then asked him what day it was and he didn't know what year it was. And that's how it goes. He can't learn new tasks or new information at all. And fuck no I'm not going to remind him everyday about his disease. \", \"It is more comforting to just go along with what they say in a conversation even if it doesn't make sense. They can get very agitated, sad, irritated if you try to correct them or explain the correctness of a topic.\\n\\nsource: Mom had dementia before she died.\", \"I spent years working in an Alzheimer's ward. It's not just gets they lose, but the ability to render basic things like toileting, personal care, (what do I do with this toothbrush?) How to eat, how to chew and swallow. Eventually they have problems swallowing and have to be out on pureed foods and thickened liquids. Let me tell ya, you haven't lived until you've spoon fed someone pudding thickened water. As far as reorienting them daily, so you want to be the one to tell a person daily that their spouse who they love is dead? Watch them go through that grief every day? It's cruelty. You tell they have gone to visit their brother/sister/mother whoever.\", \"My wife put up a big sign in her mother's apt telling her that this was her home and that she was safe there.  All of her mother's worldly possessions were in that apt.  Her mother still called her at least once a day asking her why she was in some strange hotel room  &  saying that she was scared to be there.  She just wasn't really seeing what was in front of her much of the time (who knows how many times she actually read the sign and was comforted by it before forgetting it all again).  She's pretty much in a constant state of fear  &  agitation, so she can't be expected to be aware of her surroundings.  It's a horrible disease.\", \"They tell you not to contradict Alzheimers patients because it will only upset them. For example I know someone whose Nan always thinks they're going on holiday whenever her family take her out somewhere. In the end they just had to tell her that wherever they go is somewhere they're visiting on holiday, even if they're just going to the park. \", \"Alzheimer's is not soley memory loss, it is a cognitive deterioration that happens because of plaques and tangles within a persons brain. Therefore, a persons cognitive, behavioral, and emotion memory/functioning will often also be hindered or affected. \\n\\nSo, although reminding them of certain things may seem like a logical fix (even though reminding someone, of their life, can also be emotionally devastating. EG: imagine you forget your mom has died... and someone keeps telling you. You have to live that over, and over again) unfortunately, it is not only their memory that becomes faulty, it is also their senses. \\n\\nUnfortunately, an Alzheimer's patient will slowly become less of who they are as a whole, and therefore, queing someone who no longer recognizes such ques, does not work.\\n\\nTo summarize, Alzheimer's is very complicated, and affects more then memory.\\n\\nMe= social worker who worked with Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers for a year during a practicum, not an expert.\", \"Imagine you have terminal cancer, but every day you wake up thinking you don't. Each day is the same, living like you don't have cancer. Then imagine waking up every day learning you have terminal cancer and living that way. Somewhat like that. \", \"Alzheimer's is just the worst fucking disease.  Such a horrible way to end your life.  I hope Alzheimer's patients have some form of internal peace.\\n\\nMy grandmother had it.  She was the smartest person I ever knew.  She was absolutely brilliant.  I saw it take her from us while I was in high school.  She forgot my brother and I, then she forgot my dad (her son), then forgot my mother (who visited her every day), then forgot how to speak, then presumably forgot how to breathe.\\n\\nMy only real regret in life is that I once told her she had Alzheimer's.  Nobody else was around, and I felt it would help some of her confusion.  She got mad at me and said I was wrong.  I know she forgot about that soon after, but I really wish I never did that.\", \"I was a caregiver to an elderly parent with Alzheimer's for over 10 years. I've tried that, and others have tried that. I regret even trying it. All it does is lead to arguments and confrontations. When what you ultimately should do is just try to keep them as happy and safe as possible.\\n\\nCorrect handling of an alzheimer's patient is more akin to improv, going with the flow and yes/anding everything to steer things in a healthier direction. In my personal experience, they should not be left alone for more than a moment, with obvious exceptions such as if they are in care facility. Basically, from my experience, guard their safety as you would a toddler.\\n\\nIf there's one bit of advice I'd give to people struggling with taking care of someone with this that worked for me it's this: regular flattery and kindness can make them a lot less grumpy over time. Remember, they are scared and feel alone, and building trust is the goal.\\n\\nI'm aware that got off track from the initial question but I'm just trying to help anyone reading this who might be struggling.\", 'My grandma has Alzheimer\\'s and she spends most of her day reading her diary to see what has happened that day.\\n\\nIt could be something like:\\n\\n\"Today is Tuesday and my daughter Andrea visited me before dinner. My grandson commentssortedbynew is coming later on.\"\\n\\nWhen I\\'m there she will read the sentence over and over and the conversation will be something like:\\n\\nDid Andrea come today?\\n\\nYes, she came this morning and now I\\'ve come to say hello too.\\n\\nOh yes it say here, she came this morning.\\n\\nThat\\'s right, she said you were looking well.\\n\\nThat\\'s nice of her. Was that today?\\n\\nYes it was this morning.\\n\\nOh yes it says so here, and that you\\'re coming later, are you coming later.\\n\\nWell I\\'m here now, it was later but now that time has come.\\n\\nRight so you\\'ll be going then?\\n\\nYes in a bit. So what did you have for dinner?\\n\\nI don\\'t know, a sandwich probably. Is your mum coming?\\n\\nShe came earlier yes.\\n\\nRight, lets see what I\\'m doing to day.\\n\\nAnd so the circular conversation starts again. If you were to put down all the questions they needed, it\\'s just not possible.', \"Because it is just impossible,no matter what and everyday its gonna be worse for them.I work in a retirement home that specializes in seniors with Dementia and alzheimer and honestly the last thing you wanna do is tell them something like that.You'd probably confuse them more and theyd ask you what the hell are you talking about?When you have patience for people like this it can be one of the most amazing things you can be doing for someone!!!Im a server and the littlest things like remembering to put choco syrup on ice cream,or bringing cranberry juice or chopping their food up because they can't chew can really really make their day or feel special,iving them one on one attention is a really huge important thing.\", 'I have read a lot of comments saying \"kill me if I get like this\" or \"I hope I die before I get like this\". Obviously there is a tipping point where there is more pain and confusion than happy times. However that is in very advanced stages. My mothers short term memory has gone it frustrates her and our family. Yet she still gets so much enjoyment from life. Doing her garden, seeing her grandson, watching trash t.v. and chatting with her sisters and friends. Despite the fact I am her carer she still takes a lot of pride in thinking she is looking after me and my brother (I am 39 he\\'s 41) .. There are medications now which really do slow the advancement of dementia and by the time most of the commentors in this thread get to that age there will be outright cures or prevention. My tip to all is. \\n\\nBe aware of what the early symptoms are and get into treatment a.s.a.p.', \"1. That list will be insanely huge, unwieldy, and inconvenient\\n2. They patient will likely just forget to read it, or not notice it after it's gone from memory.\\n3. If they did read it, it's incredibly depressing. It's not like going into a room and forgetting what you went in there for. It's a constant cycle of your brain realizing that its trying to get information that is no longer there. This confuses them. It creates fear because they are aware they can't remember something, even if they don't know what. Emotions run high. Panic can set in. And then the cycle starts again. It's like this constantly. \\n4. There is no point in the end. Telling them they're ill won't solve help the issue. They won't care in 30 seconds. It's like repeatedly telling them 'this is your life now, accept it.'\\n5. For less aggressive Alzheimers, it's not a case of constantly telling them they're sick (as stated above.) It could just be them doing silly shit. Like for example, I'd pour my uncle a cup of tea, and he'd just forget it was poured, and then spill it everywhere on his lap. It's at this stage where you don't necessarily know he's ill or not, you don't fully understand how far gone he is. Or how long he has left until he goes full blown. It's horrible. \", 'They will:\\n-not realize that the sheet is something they are supposed to read\\n-not believe it\\n-begin reading it, forget they were reading it, get distracted, and then lose it, and then maybe come back to it and then the whole thing will start all over again\\n-they may have lost the capacity to read\\n-they may get very upset upon reading it and each time they see it, the information will be as if they are reading it for the first time. ', \"My dad died from Alzheimer's in 2012.  He couldn't walk and could barely talk. He couldn't understand us that well either. He didn't know who he was or who any of us were. He would cry about having to go fight in the war and thought his wife was his mother. Maybe someone in early stages could benefit from this but I really think it wouldn't help much. It would have made things more confusing for my dad. \\n\", \"If I had Alzheimer's,  I would want those facts laid before me, every last one of them.  And then, once I knew my reality was crumbling,  I would hold onto every last one of those horrible truths, and try to use them to tether myself to reality.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/634905'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.alzheimers.net/2013-08-05/do-not-ask-me-to-remember-poem/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2671, "q_id": "64522r", "title": "How would the energy of an explosion or bomb be dissipated in space if there is no medium to carry a shockwave?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/64522r/how_would_the_energy_of_an_explosion_or_bomb_be/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dfzqb7d', 'dfzt00a'], 'score': [11, 2], 'text': [\"The energy would dissipate as an expanding ball of hot gas or whatever debris is left.       \\nThe sockwave from a blast magnifies the damage but it isn't essential. If there isn't a medium to carry a shockwave the energy simply stays in the explosive.\", 'The molecules that are produced in the chemical reaction of the explosion would move away from it at high speeds without hitting any other gas molecules. While in a medium the kinetic energy of those molecules is transferred to medium molecules, when there is no medium the reactants do not loose kinetic energy, so there is no dissipation.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 890, "q_id": "2b4ifz", "title": "Richard Winters, of the 101st Airborne, is now perhaps the best-known US front line combat leader of WW2, in the public eye at least. How exceptional was he, and how remarkable were his leadership achievements?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2b4ifz/richard_winters_of_the_101st_airborne_is_now/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cj1wnqb', 'cj22x91', 'cj23v2c'], 'score': [4, 65, 6], 'text': [\"Here's a previous thread on him\\n\\n_URL_0_\", 'Pretty much the only reason you\\'ve ever heard of him is because Stephen Ambrose chose him and his unit as the topic for one of his books.  If that hadn\\'t happened, he would only be remembered by the people he served with, his family, and perhaps a very small number of military officers who would have regarded him as an extremely minor footnote in the Normandy Invasion.\\n\\nIt\\'s a bit bizarre, but Ambrose, who was legitimately an excellent writer and a sound historian, will nonetheless be best remembered for his most irresponsible and shoddily researched work *Band of Brothers* (in turn largely remembered because of the successful and popular HBO miniseries that used it as source material).  It\\'s a book that has almost as much in common with fanfiction as it does with history.  It\\'s unabashedly biased and relies almost entirely upon what amounts to war stories for its sources.  Due to the popularity of the book and even more so the miniseries, a practical cult of personality has sprung up around Winters and the other members of Easy Company.              \\n\\nIn the book Winters\\' personal opinions on a number of topics are presented as fact.  He insults a variety of people and Ambrose makes absolutely no effort to find alternative sources to either verify or debunk Winters\\' claims about those people.  So as not to be guilty of the same crime as Ambrose, I will admit that I don\\'t currently have access to my copy of the book, and so am working from memory.  However I am completely able and willing to verify the claims I make as soon as I return home for anyone that doubts my statements.  Examples of the mud that Winters slings include:\\n\\n-Completely trashing the previous CO of Easy Company, Herbert Sobel, up to and including accounts of what can only be described as mutiny (although it is made clear that while Winters commiserated with the motivations of the soldiers involved, he did not openly encourage it, and in fact took efforts to stop it).  Additionally in Winters\\' defense, he does credit Sobel with ensuring discipline in the unit, which in turn served them well in combat.  However that is the entirety of praise that Winters gives to Sobel, and everything else is negative.      \\n\\n-Winters makes several statements throughout the book that either state or imply that Easy Company was head and shoulders above other Companies in the 506th.  While it\\'s good that Winters took pride in his unit, it didn\\'t have to be done by denigrating other units that Easy Company served with.  It becomes even more questionable when you realize that all historical inquiries into Easy Company\\'s record show that it was pretty much an average unit in the 506th, and certainly not the exceptional outfit Winters would have you believe.  \\n\\n-Winters charges the pilots of the C-47\\'s that were used in the Normandy Invasion with both cowardice and incompetence.  Ambrose makes absolutely no effort to investigate their performance, and in fact further research shows there were a great many valid reasons for difficulties the pilots encountered.\\n\\n-At one point in the book Winters openly admits that he has no interest in being unbiased in his story-telling.  The exact details elude me, however there is absolutely one part in the book where Winters is saying something negative about one of his superiors (I believe it was Colonel Sink, although it might have been someone else).  Ambrose is a bit taken aback by the venom Winters has towards this officer, and specifically asks Winters if he is being unfair/unbalanced/unbiased.  Winters spits back something along the lines of \"I\\'m not interested in being balanced\".  Out of all the charges, this is easily the most heinous and the most telling, since it directly demonstrates that Winters had some axes to grind, and was not shy about doing so.  This should have been a MAJOR red flag to Ambrose, and it\\'s mind-boggling that Ambrose doesn\\'t address it in any shape or form.  A major failing on Ambrose\\'s part as a historian.\\n\\n-Winters was recalled to service during the Korean War and his record during this time is hardly distinguished.  During the time that he was called up, he traveled to Washington D.C. in an attempt to convince the Army not to send him to Korea.  When they declined his request, he seems to have become disillusioned and did not seem to be particularly enthusiastic about his job of training officers, citing their lack of discipline and poor attendance as the reason for his lack of enthusiasm.  He was finally discharged under a loophole that allowed officers that had served in World War II to take a discharge instead of deploying to Korea.  It\\'s not hard to understand and believe that Winters was sick of military service by the end of World War II, and indeed had earned the right to a bit of pacifism after all that he had survived.  However it is a bit unsettling to think that he was perhaps a bit lackadaisical in his duties, particularly since he had first hand knowledge of the rigors that the soldiers he was training would have to be prepared for.  It\\'s one thing to be reckless with your own personal preparation for risk, but something entirely different when your lack of enthusiasm could easily cause others to be ill-prepared.  It\\'s even more unsettling when he doesn\\'t take responsibility for his actions, but rather blames his trainees for his lack of enthusiasm.  Blaming others starts to seem like a pattern with Winters.      \\n\\n-There\\'s a few other inaccuracies and inconsistencies throughout the book, and a few more lost in the translation from book to miniseries.  For example one scene in the miniseries has a soldier who is returning from being wounded in the Normandy Campaign being shunned upon his return to the unit (presumably due to perceived malingering/cowardice which resulted in his missing out on Market Garden and Bastogne).  However this was a complete fabrication of the miniseries, and in fact in the book the soldier is greeted with camaraderie and is brought up to speed without any rancor, and it is never even suggested that others thought the soldier guilty of anything.  Another error that I recall in the miniseries was the claim that a soldier had died shortly after the war, when in fact the person lived for several decades after his supposed death.  Certainly not huge errors, however enough to remind trained historians that they are watching a tv show, not a documentary.\\n\\nSo all this brings us back to your original question.  How exceptional and/or remarkable Winters was is an extremely subjective question.  However despite all my focus upon his negative traits, it would be absurd to claim that Winters was without merit.  Indeed he was obviously a very good leader.  His men clearly admired and respected him, and that\\'s usually the only benchmark a good leader cares about.  From an official standpoint, he was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross for his actions in the Normandy Campaign, a decoration that is only one rank below the Medal of Honor (which he was nominated for, and might still be awarded if interest groups get their way).  He was also awarded two Bronze Stars.  Two Bronze Stars and especially a Distinguished Service Cross are NOT the sort of decorations one gets for merely showing up.  Furthermore, he was also awarded a Purple Heart, which is earned by being wounded in action by the enemy.  While some people have pooh-poohed this medal in the past, or the circumstances under which it has been rewarded (a fairly recent example would be the scorn that some people laid upon John Kerry due to their belief that his wounds were so tiny as to barely warrant the award).  There have also been cases where people received the medal due to self-injury brought about by negligence, or other questionable circumstances.  However I\\'d retort that ANYONE that has ever received the Purple Heart was at the very least serving in circumstances that are more dangerous than average.  Simply being present in a war zone puts you at greater risk than the average person.  There is not a doubt in my mind that Winters\\' life was on the line, and probably with some regularity.  That alone is admirable.  While the wound he received for the medal was superficial at worst, it would be disgusting to claim that he did not rightfully earn it.\\n\\nIn conclusion, I would say that Winters was an above average officer who did his best and served with admirable courage and skill.  He was also a human being, with all the faults and warts that that entails.  He was certainly not a flawless saint, as some believe him to be.  However he did all that his country asked of him, and then some.  If fault needs to be assigned, it should be to Stephen Ambrose, who should have known better than to paint him as a perfect hero, as well as to those cult of personality types who would rather obsess over insignificant details (\"What shade of brown was Major Winters\\' excrement during Operation Market Garden?\"), rather than attempting to understand the bigger picture, or heaven forbid, study *any* of the other 16 million Americans that served during World War II, about 99.5% of whom did NOT serve in the Airborne, but who have stories that are potentially just as interesting and important.', \"Thank you. I really appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response. As a documentary filmmaker I deal regularly with similar issues arising from using an individual's story to represent that of a wider group. It requires great care.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16pcws/major_dick_winters_certainly_a_war_hero_but_i/'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1552, "q_id": "10dy38", "title": "Hey r/AskHistorians! I'm an illustrator doing a portrait of Boudica of the Iceni for an exhibition. Anyone have any pointers on what she would have worn? (x post r/history)", "selftext": "I know she probably would have worn a torc and possibly a fur cloak with a celtic brooch, but beyond that i'm stumped! And I'm not even sure if that's correct! Any pointers would be much appreciated!\n\nEdit: you guys are amazing! I'm so thrilled with all the information you've proffered, thanks so much! I'll post here with my final so you guys can see how it goes! Thanks again :')\n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10dy38/hey_raskhistorians_im_an_illustrator_doing_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6cp6po', 'c6cpe8p', 'c6cph0x', 'c6cpt2z'], 'score': [67, 4, 24, 27], 'text': [\"There's some controversy over whether Boudica was a real historical person or whether she was a mythological figure (a bit like an early, female  King Arthur.) _URL_0_ \\n\\nAssuming she did exist, she would most likely have dressed like a typical Celtic noblewoman. \\n\\nYou have some poetic licence here since we've barely more than Roman written accounts for how the costumes themselves were assembled (google image for jewellery as much survived) but your 'fur cloak' idea alone sounds way too crude. The Celts were renowned for their textiles, the upper class had imported linens and silks as well woollen and fur garments and they had elaborate weaving and dying techniques which the Romans had to import since they couldn't recreate them. Even the poorest celts would have worn loosely woven garments, probably woollen ones and the richest celts would have had closely woven silk or linen garments, complete with embroidery and an optional fur trim. \\n\\nDon't think 'cave woman' think 'these people wore clothes so nice they were sought after by rich Romans.'\\n\\nInterestingly some of the surviving archaeological evidence shows that the Celts were able to produce tartan/plaid cloth so you can totally use that.  \\n\\n_URL_1_ \", 'Accounts of her refer to very long red hair and a \"multi-colored\" dress, which could have meant the plaid-like weave that did exist then (please note that the modern Scottish kilt is a creation of the Renaissance and does not have its roots in antiquity. Sorry Mel Gibson). Celts often fought nude or nearly nude, and almost always with bare feet. I would think Boudicca would have been sleeveless and her hemline would not fall far below the knees. ', \"Here's a paper by an undergraduate student of Art History: [\u2018Celtic\u2019 Clothing \\\\(with Greek and Roman Influence\\\\)from the Iron Age-a Realistic View Based on What We Know](_URL_0_). It has lots of pictures of surviving bits of textile and other apparel and some reconstructions.\", \"You may want to ask /r/fashionhistory if you don't find your answer here. :) Good luck!\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://suite101.com/article/the-evidence-for-the-historical-boudica-a309102', 'http://ua-huntsville.academia.edu/heathersmith/Papers/1544116/Celtic_Clothing_During_the_Iron_Age-_A_Very_Broad_and_Generic_Approach'], [], ['http://ua-huntsville.academia.edu/heathersmith/Papers/1544116/Celtic_Clothing_During_the_Iron_Age-_A_Very_Broad_and_Generic_Approach'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 907, "q_id": "1nhpdl", "title": "At what period in time would the human population have passed 1 million?", "selftext": "2000 years ago it would have apparently been around 300 million so we'd already have been quite busy by then. When did it finally tip a milion? How spread out on the globe were we by then? Where did it go from there?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nhpdl/at_what_period_in_time_would_the_human_population/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ccj702b'], 'score': [4], 'text': [\"This is really a tough question to answer because the only evidence we can extrapolate from is the archaeological record and modern genetic variation.  \\n\\nWe can make some estimates of population density based on archaeological remains, but those estimates will be *very, very* rough over such a widespread area and time frame.  For example, we could use evidence of material remains to tell us humans arrived in X area, then extrapolate the [carrying capacity](_URL_2_) for X area at that time (these estimates are usually based on demographics of modern foraging populations), then add up all the maximum values for all the areas we know humans inhabited, and run with that total as the human population at that time.  Obviously, we are making so many assumptions by the time we have our population estimate that the number is virtually useless.\\n\\nWe can use modern human genetic variability to understand our population history, but, again, the timing and exact numbers will be very rough.  (As a caveat to the following discussion, I'm not a geneticist by training.  I took several graduate level genetics and population genetics courses, but if anyone finds fault with my interpretation of the genetic data please correct me.)\\n\\nSo what does the genetic data say?  The evidence points to a low overall population for our hominin ancestors.  When we first started examining the genetic data researchers noticed a theme of recent population expansion in the *H. sapiens* lineage.  Dates for this expansion ranged from 400,000 to 20,000 years ago depending on the genetic information and statistical analysis used.  A [recent mtDNA study](_URL_0_) indicates the story is slightly more complex than overall expansion.  The researchers examined 4 African mtDNA haplogroups. Two of the groups showed steady exponential expansion from 213,000-156,000 years ago.  One haplogroup showed substantial expansion at 12,000-20,000 years ago, and the final group showed substantial expansion 61,000-86,000 years ago.\\n\\nWhat does that mean?  It means that by ~200,000 years ago our population was growing exponentially (starting from a very low number).  The haplogroup that expands at 86,000-61,000 predates some estimates for the migration out of Africa (and may indicate that population expansion in Africa was a driving force for the migration out).  The [effective population size](_URL_1_) (which does not equal census population size) for sub-Saharan Africa crested one million by ~30,000 years ago.  Since humans had, by that point, spread over a substantial portion of the Old World (and census population size is greater than effective population size) we could likely push that date back to ~60,000-50,000 years ago for reaching the one million point.\\n\\nAgain, these are super rough estimates.  It is an interesting, if ultimately unanswerable, question.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1655/367.full', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_population_size', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1099, "q_id": "2uvtvp", "title": "According to Wikipedia, the University of Bologna is the oldest university in the world. Why are Islamic schools of learning not counted?", "selftext": "Reading about Al-Azhar University, whose page says it dates back to the tenth century, making it older than Bologna. Why is it not counted as a university?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2uvtvp/according_to_wikipedia_the_university_of_bologna/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['coc7owu', 'coc87kh', 'cocfdkr'], 'score': [75, 188, 12], 'text': ['Because \"university\" is not synonymous with institution of higher education. While there are many different types of higher learning institution and several predate the university, the university has its origins in the High Middle Ages.', 'Because many of those universities, including European universities, are quite dissimilar from what we understand to be a university. University and center of learning are not synonymous, and the University of Bologna is the first university in the modern sense of the word, and was the institution to coin the term.\\n\\nAl-Azhar was originally built as a mosque. Fatimid Caliphs encouraged scholars to study in the mosque, and soon these scholars began to teach classes. On the other hand a university is a guild/corporation-like organization that has a unified curriculum or objective in its classes. There\\'s a group of people who decide \"Okay, this is how this institution will be run, we\\'ll have this guy teach astronomy, this guy teach rhetoric, we\\'ll charge this amount of money etc.\" While Al-Azhar has converted over to a secular university in the modern sense in the last century, the University of Bologna was founded as such, making it the oldest. It was also autonomous, and awarded degrees. Otherwise, we would call the schools of Socrates and other ancient/medieval schools. ', 'As has been said before, a university is not the same as a school of higher learning. Because nobody stated explicitly what qualities designate a university, I will give a short definition:\\n\\nI quote Walter Ruegg, wo paraphrases a university as \"_[...] a community of teachers and taught, accorded certain rights, such as administrative autonomy and the determination and realization of curricula (courses of study) and of the objectives of research as well as the adward of publicly recognized degrees_\" [[volume I, page xix]](_URL_0_).\\n\\nInstitutes in the Islamic world did e.g. not adward degrees, hence they can not be considered a university. This doesn\\'t devalue the quality of their teaching though! Calling an institution \"university\" is more a question of nomenclature and terminology.\\n\\n\\nSources: The four volume History of the University, Hilde de Ridder-Symoens and Walter R\u00fcegg (eds.), Cambridge University Press, between 1992 and 2011']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://books.google.de/books?id=5Z1VBEbF0HAC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=A+History+of+the+University+in+Europe&amp;hl=de&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=EOPTVLX6O4fcaqm-gGA&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1800, "q_id": "6zcgnw", "title": "why are we able to see where child predators live nearby? what about murderers, rapists, or robbers?", "selftext": "What makes child molesters so special? Why do even need to see where they live doesn't that endanger them? I personally feel like that's counterproductive for someone who just wants to move on as well as dangerous. Still I don't understand why it's even a thing.  At least in the US\n\nalso aren't they supposed to go door to door explaining themselves? again this seems counter productive I'd like to stay as far as away as I can from someone with a criminal record.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zcgnw/eli5why_are_we_able_to_see_where_child_predators/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dmu8h1g', 'dmu8q7z', 'dmuew6o'], 'score': [29, 9, 9], 'text': [\"It's because of Megan's Law. A 7 year old child named Megan Kanka was raped and killed by a paedophile. He was a repeat offender. The family fought for sex offenders to be documented and for people to be able to see who lived nearby so they can protect their children.  \\n\\nHer mother argued that if she had known a sex offender lived on their Street her daughter would have never been attacked.\\n\\nHowever, many studies show that it actually has no impact on the number of attacks. \\n\\nAs to why no such list is in place for murderers. Most murderers do not reoffend. There isn't the public support for such a scheme. \\n\\nSource: am forensic psychologist \", \" > What makes child molesters so special?\\n\\nThe fact that people who molest children are much more likely to do it again than a murderer is to murder again.\\n\\nPeople who murder usually do so for reasons like revenge, or a heat-of-the-moment situation where they walk in on their spouse having sex with someone else.  They're generally not serial killers, and aren't likely to ever kill again.\\n\\nBy contrast, molesting children is usually done because the person is a pedophile, and that's a trait that they have that will never go away.  They'll always have the urge to have sex with children, even after serving their time.  \\n\\nFrom [this article](_URL_1_):\\n\\n > Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period. Out of those 988, she said 1 percent were arrested for new crimes, and 10 percent were arrested for violating parole. She found **none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined**.\\n\\nAnd from [this other article](_URL_0_):\\n\\n > The 15-year recidivism rate is 13 percent for incest perpetrators, 24 percent for rapists, and 35 percent for child molesters of boy victims.\\n\\nWhether or not it's *right* to have a perpetual punishment (e.g. being permanently put on a list) is a conversation for a different subreddit, but the above is why it happens.\", 'Because there was a national outrage over an innocent victim and America is categorically incapable of doing anything in any other situation.\\n\\nSo someone came up with the idea of perpetual punishment of \\'child predators\\' and the definition has been extensively expanded to include people who got caught pissing in bushes or who got drunk and googled the wrong phrase.\\n\\nAs with any \\'police state\\' punishment it can never be rescinded or lightened by individual politicians seeking re-election because that would invite their opponent to find the one person impacted by the event and run a commercial \"REP X FREED HER KILLER! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!\".\\n\\nIn a backward political system such as set up in our Constitution this is a one-way ratchet. You should expect to see murder lists and thief lists set up in the future, and you should expect to see shoplifters eventually put on them.\\n\\nIn fact some states are working on murderer and domestic violence lists as we speak.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/', 'https://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2915, "q_id": "2xpjyu", "title": "if fires go out when oxygen is removed, how is the sun burning?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xpjyu/eli5_if_fires_go_out_when_oxygen_is_removed_how/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cp2768u', 'cp276ox', 'cp27752', 'cp29wof', 'cp29x8b', 'cp2huc8'], 'score': [5, 103, 15, 20, 2, 5], 'text': [\"The sun isn't burning. Stars are heated by nuclear fussion in their cores. Hydrogen and Helium are under such high pressure (due to gravity) that they begin to fuse into heavier elements, releasing tons of energy in the process.\", 'Short answer: the sun is not burning.  It is too hot to burn.\\n  \\nThe sun is a nuclear fusion reaction (mostly hydrogen into helium), which is far and away a higher energy than simple oxygen combustion.', \"The sun **isn't** burning.  The core of the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion.  The intense pressure is enough to force hydrogen atoms to fuse together into helium atoms, and that reaction releases energy.\", \"The sun isn't burning. Nor is it exploding.\\n\\nThe sun is *glowing*.\\n\\nNuclear fusion is what keeps the sun going. As the gas rises towards the surface it cools off quite a bit, but is still very hot. The light you see coming from the sun is due to the exact same physics behind why that metal pot you left on the stove glows red.  \", 'Basically, the sun takes a couple smaller atoms and puts them together into bigger ones. Doing so releases a lot of energy, which we see as light/electromagnetic radiation.', 'Like everyone says, the sun is not burning. \\n\\nBut another thing to realize is that there are fires here on earth even that do not need oxygen to burn. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2666, "q_id": "5x34xa", "title": "If general relativity is true and an orbit is just a straight line in 4d space-time and there is no preferred frame of reference isn't the geocentric model of the universe just as valid as the heliocentric?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5x34xa/if_general_relativity_is_true_and_an_orbit_is/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['defam30', 'defivgn'], 'score': [12, 6], 'text': ['Yes.\\n\\nBut you should clarify what you mean by \"geocentric model\". There is a clear difference between what we usually mean by \"geocentric vs. heliocentric model of the solar system\" and \"geocentric model of the universe\". The geocentric model in both senses is valid, but for different reasons.\\n\\nThe statement that a geocentric model of the universe (i.e., Earth or our galaxy occupies a preferred central point in the universe) is just as valid as the current standard cosmology also offends the sensibilities of a great many people. That is probably because support for a geocentric model is often born out of some sort of appeal to religion. Also, frankly, many people, even those who have studied cosmology or general relativity, often don\\'t come across a consistent geocentric cosmology. It\\'s just not talked about too commonly.\\n\\nHaving said all of that, for all of the details, I refer you to [this old post of mine](_URL_0_) in response to a similar question, which I have copy-pasted below for convenience. (I suggest reading the follow-up response to /u/ididnoteatyourcat as well for more clarifications.)\\n\\n---\\n---\\n---\\nA similar question came up a few months ago, which I answered [in this thread](_URL_4_). For convenience, [here is my top-level response](_URL_2_) and a [relevant follow-up response](_URL_1_). You should also see [this followup response](_URL_3_) that explains two distinct realms in which we use the phrase \"geocentrism\": in celestial mechanics and in cosmology. When people say they object to geocentrism, they generally mean they object to a geocentric cosmology. But they could also mean that they object to the notion that the Sun revolves around Earth. It\\'s important to make the distinction.\\n\\nThe main point, and what a lot of popular science and grade school science gets wrong, is that a geocentric theory is perfectly fine as a physical and mathematical theory. The theory makes the same predictions as, say, a cosmology in which Earth is not at the center of a spherically symmetric universe. The geocentric theory is also consistent with all observational evidence. There are certainly *good reasons* we choose to assume the Copernican principle (CP). For instance, some calculations are certainly easier in a non-geocentric frame. There is also evidence that strongly suggests our planet does not occupy a special place in the universe (the Sun is an ordinary main sequence star, solar systems are common, the CMB is isotropic about Earth, etc.) **But there is no way to definitively prove the CP.** At some point we must appeal to philosophy to choose our model, whether we invoke parsimony or the CP.\\n\\nNow having said that, I must make it clear that when I talk about a geocentric theory of, say, the universe, I mean a cosmology that models the universe as spherically symmetric with Earth (or our galaxy) at the center. We can also talk about a geocentric theory of the solar system in which the Earth is at the center and the Sun and other planets orbit Earth. That is also a perfectly acceptable theory.\\n\\nI emphatically do not mean that Earth occupies a specially *chosen* place in the universe, as if by some divine or supernatural edict. That is nonsense and what is often espoused in pseudoscience documentaries on geocentrism. In particular, such documentaries often purport that geocentrism *must* be correct by way of some non-scientific or faith-based reasoning. In particular, they often claim that the CP is incorrect... I suppose by fiat. As I said, geocentrism is perfectly fine as a mathematical and physical theory. But just as we have no evidence (nor can we really ever have such evidence) *for* the CP, we have no evidence strictly against it either. So it makes no sense to say that geocentrism must be wrong or that it must be right, by whatever reasoning you give, scientific or not.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n', 'I mean both the \"geo\"centric, in the sense of a pin holding the Earth in place, and the \"helio\"centric, where the pin is in the sin, have both always been wrong.  Gravitational systems orbit around their center of mass, there are no pins:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nAs a result, if you\\'re sitting on the sun or earth you\\'re constantly accelerating.  If you vehemently claim you\\'re stationary then you\\'ll notice weird \"fictitious\" forces representing the fact that you\\'re wrong about being stationary (or more importantly, non-accelerating).\\n\\nSo, saying the sun is the center of the universe is a frame of reference you\\'re free to adopt, but you\\'re going to have to put up with all kinds of unnecessary corrections.\\n\\nWhen reference frames are equivalent one does have the freedom to say: \"this one! This is my favorite reference frame\".  It doesn\\'t break anything.  Such a reference frame is however much more, needlessly, complicated relative to a number of other choices (like an inertial one)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4cdqav/how_valid_is_the_theory_of_geocentricism/d1haxpg/', 'https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3qsiy7/why_doesnt_a_geocentric_model_of_the_universe/cwi4mvk', 'https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3qsiy7/why_doesnt_a_geocentric_model_of_the_universe/cwi3eut', 'https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4cdqav/how_valid_is_the_theory_of_geocentricism/d1inmxt', 'https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3qsiy7/why_doesnt_a_geocentric_model_of_the_universe/'], ['https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File%3AOrbit4.gif']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2838, "q_id": "dgeepe", "title": "How do I explain to a FLAT EARTHER friend that gravity exists and what we experience is not just an effect of density?", "selftext": "So I have a friend who is a flat earther and he believes that gravity does not exist and what we experience is due to only density I have tried to explain to him that density is not a force but he does not understand or believe me. What else can I do to help him believe in gravity.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dgeepe/how_do_i_explain_to_a_flat_earther_friend_that/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['f3bbf39', 'f3bbome', 'f3bcdqo', 'f3bcqyd', 'f3bcv8o', 'f3bd1bc', 'f3bfies', 'f3bfqhp', 'f3bgnea', 'f3bi6la', 'f3bj4qj', 'f3bxyul', 'f3c8tkr', 'f3edh7r'], 'score': [24, 54, 20, 4, 3, 5, 3, 10, 2, 2, 4, 6, 21, 3], 'text': [\"If I suck all the air out of a box and drop something inside it, that object still falls. Not only that, the density or even mass of that object is completely irrelevant. It all falls at the same fixed 9.8 m/s^(2) acceleration.\\n\\nYour flat Earth friend might not appreciate it, but you might enjoy one of my favorite science experiments ever: Astronaut David Scott dropping a hammer and feather on the Moon,\\n\\n* _URL_1_\\n\\nHere's the same experiment on the Earth, done by Brian Cox,\\n\\n* _URL_0_\", \"You probably cant. Conspiracy theorists move the goalposts. However, density and buoyancy don't have a vector. If you release a stone that's more dense than the air around it then it should logically go left or right or diagonal sometimes. It doesn't, instead always traveling downward. This vector could be explained several ways but the only way that appears consistent is a force towards the earth. \\n\\nMost fe people hate math but you can show that. Otherwise ask why the rate of fall is universal if it's about density. (After removing air resistance of course.)\", \"That depends on whether he's just naive or whether he wants to believe this.\\n\\nIf he simply lacks knowledge, you could tell him about experiments that have detected gravity, such as LIGO. You could tell him about demonstrations routinely done by high school students showing that objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum, which rules out any effect of density or buoyancy. You could tell him about the observation of gravitational lensing during solar eclipses.\\n\\nSadly, if he's a flat Earther, he probably refuses to accept anything that doesn't fit his worldview, and you will not get through to him. All those experiments could be a NASA conspiracy, even the ones done by high school students and the one in 1919. These people want to believe that they see a reality to which the rest of us are blind, because that makes them feel special and gives them a sense of agency in an indifferent world, and reason will not penetrate that kind of thinking.\", \"The density thing is easily disproven. Just find a chunk of lead or something really dense and ask to compare the gravity of that dense object to Earth.\\n\\nYou'll probably (hopefully) get a response that notes the size (volume) difference. At which point you just point out that what you're talking about is mass.\", \"You can present all the evidence you want but these people usually have their mind set and don't want to change no matter how much evidence you provide. \\nMy main suggestion is to be kind. No one changes their mind when its seen as an attack on their core values, in fact presenting evidence makes them dig in their heels more.  Its complicated but it takes a conversational intelligence I dont posses to make them come to the conclusion on their own.\", 'An earthbound experiment directly demonstrating gravitational attraction between large masses other than the earth is the Cavendish experiment, published in 1798, using a torsion balance in which weights at the end of a stick are attracted to large stationary weights sitting on the ground.  This [Scientific American story](_URL_0_) includes a video of a version of it set up by high-school students.   That video might help your friend, or you might set one up yourselves.', \"We have a 9.81 m/s\\\\^2 acceleration downwards due to gravity. Disregarding air resistance, all objects on Earth fall with that acceleration, no matter their density or any other material property.\\n\\nIf gravity doesn't exist, and instead things fall because of density, ask him to derive you a mathematical function that takes in densities of two interacting objects as an input and gives 9.81 m/s\\\\^2 as an output for all combinations of densities.\", 'I mean, he believes the earth is flat. A belief which he could easily disprove with his own experiment. He has already established himself as too lazy and science-averse for you to waste time trying to teach him. You will be using words and phrases which he will not understand and will not want to understand. He has essentially just renamed gravity \u201cdensity\u201d because he is rebelling against the perceived authority of scientists and it is easier than learning the actual concepts those words represent.', 'It isn\\'t clear why this is an avenue of approach that would have any positive results. If someone says \"belief\" or faith transcends empirical observation and experiments, no amount of logical reasoning would be effective. Just cut your losses, see if you can agree to disagree and never discuss this topic again and maintain some kind of friendship. Don\\'t get your ego involved in these matters - there is no \"winning\" or \"I am better/smarter/more correct than you\" involved in this. I\\'d also advise against a \"noble\" pursuit of \"improving someone\" - ultimately (despite the idea of \"we are a village\" or loyalty etc) we make our own choices as individuals, especially in this age where education and information (from reputable sources) is so easily accessed.', \"It might be best to have him work through things instead of telling him. Like ask him what he expects his density theory to behave in a certain experiment. Then do it and try to have him figure out why what his theory predicted wasn't what happened.\", 'You can\\'t really tell conspiracy theorist they are wrong. If they are insistent they believe it they are usually so deep that they have a prepared response to everything. Or they will default to \"you blindly believe x or y, it hasn\\'t been proven.\" Literally you would have to show them. The only way to really do that would be to take them to space of course. Or alternatively if you are near a beach, it is somewhat possible. \\n\\nI\\'ve never had the chance to try it but supposedly if you wait until sunset, probably when the waves are calm, you can see an interesting phenomena that shows that the earth has curvature.\\n\\nLay on the ground, completely prone, as the sun starts to reach the horizon. Wait until the last bit of that giant glowing orb disappears behind the horizon, and stand up IMMEDIATELY. You will see the top edge of the sun again, and you will watch it set a second time. \\n\\n\\nAs far as I understand, it\\'s this subtle phenomena that allowed Eratosthenes to calculate the approximate size of the earth, like 2,000 years ago.', 'Ask them why, when the air around an object has the same density on all sides of it, it would know to fall *down* in particular. Why not left, or up? Actually the air upwards is *slightly* less dense, so it really should fall up.', 'Well, I once tried going back to basics with a guy online and he stopped replying. That doesn\\'t mean anything of course, but here\\'s what I did. \\n\\n1. Newton\\'s Laws are the model that we mostly use. They will most likely agree that \"Yes, scientists believe in this model\"\\n2. Tell them of the three rules  \\n Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving  uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change  its state by force impressed.   \\n Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive  force impress\\'d; and is made in the direction of the right line in which  that force is impress\\'d.   \\n Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or  the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and  directed to contrary parts.   \\n\\n3. Explain what the first Law REALLY means. A thing that isn\\'t moving won\\'t suddenly fly away and a thing that is flying in the air won\\'t suddenly stop midair. They will most likely agree to this. If they say \"but what if..\" then just explain that if NOTHING is messing with it, it will continue in motion or not start moving. \\n4. Explain what the second Law REALLY means. A thing will move equally much as the force that was applied. If you kick a ball really hard, it will fly really far, if you kick it really lightly, it will move really short. They will mostly agree to this as well. So far everything can be tested. \\n5. Explain what the third Law REALLY means. Every time a force is exerted on something, it will experience the same amount of force. You can test this by standing feet together a few feet from your friend and then push on their hands, both of you will fall over if you don\\'t adjust your legs. If you punch a wall, it will hurt. If you run into something heavy it will hurt. They will most likely agree to this. \\n6. Now drop something in front of them. IF the Laws are true, which we tested, what is pulling the thing down? If the first rule is true, then gravity must exist to pull it down. If the second law is true then that force must be towards the middle of Earth. The third law doesn\\'t really apply in that example. \\n7. Now give up as they will most certainly have moved the goal posts.   \\n\\n\\nThis was all for my first post, thank you for reading.', \"Ask what causes the more dense item to sink. Without a force pulling it down, why doesn't it just stay in place? Newtons laws are pretty universal. Why would F=ma work for your car or pushing a heavy box or your computer (electronics don't work if F=ma isn't true), but not for gravity.\\n\\nThere is a documentary on Netflix about the flat earth movement called *Behind the Curve*. The take away is that the flat earth conspiracy becomes such a core belief that giving up on it would push believers away from the only community and friends they have left. It might be frustrating, but now might be your chance to save your friend from this fate. (That is, unless they also believe much more dangerous conspiracies, then it might be too late.)\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs', 'https://youtu.be/5C5_dOEyAfk'], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 758, "q_id": "7hmd8m", "title": "how does \u201cactivated charcoal\u201d work and why has it become so wildly popular in beauty/cosmetic products?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7hmd8m/eli5_how_does_activated_charcoal_work_and_why_has/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dqs4f2u', 'dqs7rir', 'dqs9rq6', 'dqsa6ih', 'dqsbva9', 'dqscmgs', 'dqsdcf4', 'dqsff1a', 'dqsfmhc', 'dqsgnu2', 'dqshcva', 'dqshj7n', 'dqsjj99', 'dqsjnld', 'dqsmbqw', 'dqspl1v', 'dqstaxv', 'dqsv7rk', 'dqt3pkk', 'dqtsmj6'], 'score': [6589, 362, 176, 13, 498, 153, 6, 3, 25, 5, 57, 2, 4, 3, 7, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['\"Activated charcoal\" is carbon - which, you know, is what charcoal is made out of, mostly. They press it into smaller bits with more surface area.\\n\\nCarbon like that has a lot of porous area where chemical *adsorption* can occur. Adsorption is like absorption, kind of, in that your material is \"sucking up\" something from a liquid or gas. In the case of adsorption, atoms and molecules stick to the surface area of your material. Charcoal, particularly activated charcoal, has a *lot* of surface area, so it can adsorb a *lot* of stuff and it can do it quickly and efficiently, and also cheaply.\\n\\n~~That\\'s why they use charcoal to pump your stomach when you have alcohol poisoning. The carbon sucks up all the alcohol, then they remove the saturated carbon from your stomach, bringing the alcohol with it. What carbon remains to go through your digestive tract contains the alcohol so you can\\'t absorb it into your blood.~~ [^^Or ^^not ^^maybe?](_URL_0_) ^^I ^^dunno, ^^point ^^is ^^it ^^sucks ^^up ^^poisonous ^^stuff ^^in ^^your ^^stomach.\\n\\nIt\\'s also used in aquariums to suck up waste in the water so it can be removed when you change your filter. It\\'s especially good at removing heavy metals, which are sometimes present in your water at concentrations that are not high enough to hurt you but high enough to hurt your livestock. Similarly, it\\'s used in water purification systems (like your Brita filter) to similarly suck up some stuff in your tap water that you are trying to filter out. EDIT: And some gas masks, and industrial air pollution scrubbers, and a number of similar filtering applications. It\\'s quite good at actually sucking up toxic chemicals. Just, you know...not out of your face.\\n\\nThat tendency to suck up heavy metals has created a mystique about it, that it sucks up \"toxins\". If it can purify your water, why not purify your skin? It can suck up \"toxins\" out of your face! (Pro tip: it doesn\\'t.)\\n\\nEdit: when they make you swallow charcoal for a pill overdose or swallowing poison, *it does nothing to the drugs or poison in your blood*. If you still have some left in your stomach, it soaks that up so that your OD or poisoning doesn\\'t get any worse. What\\'s in your blood is still there and has to be dealt with in other ways. ', 'Take a piece of wood. Now heat it to very high temperatures in the absence of oxygen (no combustion) - this creates a very pure carbon, a charcoal. Now, expose this to an \"activating\" agent (like carbon dioxode) that creates a very porous structure that gives it a lot of surface area. The more area you have means you can adsorb (sort of like a sponge) more contaminants. Activating also alters the surface such that it is more attractive toward, specifically, organic compounds. Examples of organic compounds that would be of interest include oils and grime in your skin, tea/coffee stains on your teeth, and taste/odor compounds and organic contaminants in your drinking water (think fridge filter). Activated carbon is in the adsorbent family of treatment options. There are other options, but carbon is cheap and it can be sustainable if one uses resilient sources like bamboo or waste products such as coconut shell. A great invention would be turning waste plastic into activated carbon, something many are working on!\\n\\n*How much surface area? The amount of AC that fits in your palm (or half a banana, if you must) is equivalent in surface area to about five football fields. ', \"Carbon is porous and acts like a filter that small tidbits will stick to. \\n\\nIt doesn't actually do anything, for your skin,  better than washing.\\n\\nThe reason it's so popular in skin care is because of marketing. \\n\\n\", 'The charcoal serves to absorb toxins and stains but will not actually whiten your teeth. Teeth color comes from the color of \u201cdentin\u201d which is a layer underneath the surface of your teeth. Things like whitestrips will bleach/stain the dentin white. Almost everyone has naturally off-white/yellow natural teeth. Active charcoal will just get your teeth as \u201cwhite\u201d as your teeth naturally are, but won\u2019t give you that Hollywood smile.', 'Serious question. Does activated charcoal brushing powder actually do shit? On amazon i always see before and after pictures. I figured your average joe would just upload two seperate images. But these people always have a single image divided up. Seems to professinal. Seems fake. Not buying it. Seems like its all a scam. ', 'Can anyone confirm if this actually works for beauty products? Mostly interested in the effectiveness of whitening your teeth with it? \\n\\nI always heard baking soda works but then my dentist told me it scratches your enamel (which doesn\u2019t heal) because baking soda is too rough and not ground up finely enough. \\n\\nSo then, what are the cons of charcoal teeth whitening, if it does work?', \"Activated Charcoal is porous and it attaches to other molecules.  It is used to neutralized poisons in an Emergency room. \\n\\nThe Efficacy on it's use everyday for hygienic reasons is most likely that it is has harmful effects.  I would not purchase these products.   \\n\\nActivated Charcoal would make other topical and internal medicines less effected.  \", 'Is it okay to use charcoal toothpaste very sporadically? Like weeks before another use?', \"Unlike a fine silica gel which attracts very polar oils and chemicals, charcoal (carbon) is very non polar and attracts very non-polar oils and chemicals to it, including some stains as well. Pharmaceutical companies use it while making certain drugs to make their pills more uniformly white since people would rather take a white pill than a tan or brown pill.\\n\\nFor cosmetics I assume for cleaning purposes it adds a benefit of adhering to and eliminating certain otherwise stubborn lipids or oils that don't clean up well with soap and water; also maybe to eliminate the oil built up in natural creases in the skin crafting the illusion that someone looks younger due to their wrinkles being less prominent.\\n\\nWanting to look younger is a thing right?\", 'Regular carbon (charcoal) has small nooks and crannies that capture impurities. Activated carbon is charcoal that has been  crushed, soaked in acid and baked. This process makes the carbon bits smaller and the are now microscopic if not smaller nooks and crannies that can now capture even more impurities. Like a billion times more crevices and also captures smaller impurities. Not sure about it being in makeup though.  ', \"So, lots of comments asserting that activated charcoal doesn't actually adsorb toxins off the skin.\\n\\n'Toxins' is, of course, a nebulous, sort of meaningless term in this context, so that doesn't surprise me.\\n\\nBut does charcoal in a skin-care product really not adsorb things like the bacteria that can cause ance, or excess sebum and oil that can block pores and cause breakouts?\\n\\n\\nIn my own experience, some charcoal face-wash scrubs I've tried were quite potent at cleaning oily skin. Maybe even too strong.\", 'Alright so brushing is bad for the enamel. \\n\\nBut what about oil pulling with charcoal? ', 'Activated charcoal: Its a marketing term for \"activated carbon\" which is a processed form of carbon thats more poreous than other forms of carbon, thus allowing certain thigns to be absorbed into it easier. \\n\\nWhat it is used for in cosmetics: It has been in use for hundreds of years and has become more available in modern times for use in hospitals etc. It can be used as a cleanser, mask, and many other products. \\n\\nWhy is it popular: Marketing has rediscovered this term for use in cosmetics. People who don\\'t know any better are paying a few extra dollars on something that is not necessarily more effective than other cleansers. \\n\\nPeople will buy anything that are marketed to make you look younger without really doing any solid research. ', 'Is this why my whiskey says triple-filtered with active charcoal?', \"Taking charcoal pills regularly is very much NOT recommended outside of prescribed medical use. If you are on any kind of daily medication, activated charcoal can prevent your medication from being absorbed properly - antidepressants, birth control, antihistamines, etc, can all be rendered less effective by taking charcoal along with your prescribed dose of medication. Furthermore, taking activated charcoal internally has never been shown to provide any medical benefit as part of a daily routine, and can actually be harmful if taken with food as it may prevent essential nutrients from being absorbed. It's just another marketing fad selling you snake oil. Don't be fooled!\", \"As a layman, where do i read stuff about what's really good for our health/skincare? is there a kind of honest ebook i could look up to?\\n\\nI highly sceptical of those product marketing or people claiming a particular compound is secret for everlasting beauty.\", 'Wendy Zuckerman did a good show on this on [science vs](_URL_0_).\\n\\nIt has become wildly popular in beauty/cosmetic products because it\\'s easy to make wild claims that are plausible-sounding enough to get people to part with their money. It is used medically to treat certain poisonings and overdoses following oral ingestion. If you can convince people that their self-perceived flaws are caused by something as intensely unlikable as \"toxins\", you can easily convince them to spend their money on your activated charcoal. It\\'s benign enough not to hurt you, so why not?\\n\\nThe reason it\\'s effective for things it\\'s *truly* effective for is that the process of \"activating\" it gives small particles a large surface area that allows it to absorb a much larger amount of contaminants than it would otherwise, so you can get away with using much smaller amounts. ', 'Part of the *why* it is used so much is that it is just carbon. Almost completely non-toxic and - best of all - dirt cheap. It is almost pure profit for the cosmetic companies, they would be crazy not to use it with margins like that.\\n\\nThe how does it work side of things is a bit harder to answer - but the super short version (since I am at work) is that it is like a chemical sponge - there is a HUGE amount of surface area on a small amount of powder, so when contact is made between the carbon and other organic materials things tend to get caught in the carbon more easily than they can leave it - thus it scrubs away small organic molecules.\\n\\nThe biggest issue in my mind is that when the carbon is dispersed in a cream or face-wash most of its free binding sites for adsorption (a relic of how it is made mostly) will be occupied by the oils and fragrances it is packaged with. Using a cream with dispersed carbon will not have NEAR the efficacy of rubbing powdered activated carbon on your face. Most likely a good thing- but brings to mind the question of whether it has any real capacity to absorb anything.\\n\\nTLDR: Carbon is cheap and has a good reputation as a \"purifier\" - I.e. good marketing strategy mostly.', 'We make this at work, in fabric form. It\\'s used for all sorts of stuff from wound dressings to chemical warfare suits to \"flatulence pads\". It\\'s so porous 1 meter of cloth has a surface area of 180,000 meters. All those pores are great at attracting other chemicals to the surface using Van Der Waals forces. \\n\\nThe top comment says that the carbon is pressed into small bits but that\\'s not actually the case. The cloth is converted in furnaces at 1000\u00b0C from rayon(modal) or polyacrilonitrile while the granular stuff is made from wood pulp, or coconut shells or various other things.\\n\\nLast thing I\\'d say is that the carbon can be impregnated with certain chemicals that make it useful for absorbing other things. For instance a copper oxide impregnation reacts with hydrogen sulphide to form water and copper sulphate. This is useful for ostomy bag filters and other things.', \"Skincare global marketer/product developer. \\n\\nCharcoal is a trending ingredient that will likely die soon. A lot of brands were using it because of the black color it gives products as a point of difference.  It doesn't do anything special. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7hmd8m/eli5_how_does_activated_charcoal_work_and_why_has/dqs6r6a/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://gimletmedia.com/episode/detoxing-cleanses-work/'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1872, "q_id": "34mymv", "title": "why is nudity such a big deal?", "selftext": "I never understand how nudity became such a big deal that seems to impact virtually every culture. In Europe there is a more relaxed attitude about it. And in some tribal cultures I guess nudity is OK. So why in the modern cultures is nudity such a taboo? You can go to jail for being naked in public - and it all just seems normal. I don't understand this. Most ethics seem to agree this is how it \"should be\" from atheist or theist, from communist to capitalist - there does not seem to be any real **movement to decriminalize nudity**. Will humans ever move beyond this? We see ourself nude every day. And we see our spouse - or other people in locker rooms. It seems like such a strange and narrow cultural regulation. It seems irrational but fixed.  ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34mymv/eli5why_is_nudity_such_a_big_deal/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqw5z76', 'cqw69a6', 'cqw71m3', 'cqw75zk', 'cqw942n'], 'score': [8, 9, 27, 5, 2], 'text': ['One reason is that nudity is associated with sexuality.  In the USA in particular, sexual situations and actions in public are considered taboo (largely because of the high level or religiosity in America).  Nudity taboos are largely cultural, but I think that in less religious countries/cultures the taboo is a good deal weaker.', 'Coverage, or primitive clothing was probably more a utilitarian thing to keep us warm. Over time then that became the norm and that resulted in a sense of modesty, when you felt weird being the only naked one and its all built on from that.', 'When some female animals are in heat, they undertake actions known as presenting, signaling readiness for intercourse, which in some species triggers hormonal cascades in males, basically turning them into horny fuckbunnies.  Human females are fecund year round, and human males get turned on by all manner of displays, some instinctual, some conditioned.  There are all kinds of maladaptive behaviors men undertake when they posit that a female in their vicinity is signaling sexual readiness.  Some joke that men can think with only one head at a time.  And fathers of many human females will be damned if they let her get nude before that high school dropout junkie who likes to sweet talk her.  In most modern societies, being nude before a male of the species typically IS a signal of readiness for intercourse and vice versa.', 'Because people 200 years from now need something to look back at and say \"lol I can\\'t believe how primitive they were.\"', \"I think that TODAY, it is very hard to decriminalize nudity. We have become sensitized to bodies being inherently sexual. To make the next generation desexualized to bodies we would expose older generations to it. And the issue isn't laws as much as it is our brains. When you have people like Niki Minaj posing IN CLOTHING in a way they people find sexually appealing, it hard to imagine Tue majority of the population deciding nudity isn't sexual. People use sex appeal to their advantage so people who do that would want to keep their sex appeal. Nudists are a small group in a world using sex appeal to their advantage. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1645, "q_id": "6h2n30", "title": "why is it when i'm somewhere like the mall or other public place you sometimes see people wearing surgical mask?", "selftext": "Also, is it just coincidental they all seem to be of Asian decent.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6h2n30/eli5_why_is_it_when_im_somewhere_like_the_mall_or/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['div0rby', 'div1ef8', 'div1g2p', 'div44cy', 'div83jn', 'divf2zp'], 'score': [12, 21, 2, 2, 7, 2], 'text': [\"This is predominantly an Asian culture phenomenon where people will wear the masks to protect themselves against flu and cold outbreaks, as well as air pollutants.\\n\\nThe practice dates back to the early 20th century, when a number of events - huge influenza outbreaks prior to 1919; the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 and the ensuing inferno that shot massive amounts of ash into the air; another global flu epidemic in 1934; etc - made use of face masks fairly common in Asia. People assumed the masks offered protection against disease and pollution (air quality gradually became horrendous during the post-WWII industrialization of Japan and China), so their use became widespread and continues to this day.\\n\\nThere's a good read on the subject here: _URL_0_\\n\\nEdit: interesting point here:\\n\\n >  The reality is that the woven-cloth surgical masks provide minimal protection from environmental viruses anyway. (Surgeons use them to protect patients from their mouth-borne germs, not the other way around.)\\n\\nThe benefits to protecting oneself from other air pollutants is not mentioned, but unless the mask has an air seal around the face and prevents unfiltered air from getting to your orifices, its actual benefits may be limited. That is, other than protecting *others* from *you*.\", 'I have heard that it is considered respectful to wear a surgical mask in public when you are sick to limit spreading your illness in very dense cities. ', \"The people wearing them could have some form of communicable disease (such as tuberculosis, or the flu) and don't want to accidentally infect others.  \", \"People wearing them could be immunocompromised and being exposed to even seemingly healthy people could make them sick. Just because a healthy person doesn't show symptoms doesn't mean they aren't carrying something like the flu virus, it may not be strong enough to make them sick, or they already may have immunity to the specific invader but can be easily passed on to someone who has  compromised immune system such as someone with lupus, aids, or chemo patient.\", \"Reading all of this makes sense but since I live in a rather clean city (it's pretty small) I'm just going to look at them and think to myself how thoughtful, they don't want to get others sick, Every time. Nothing wrong with being positive right? Lol \", \" >  Why is it when I'm somewhere like the mall or other public place you sometimes see people wearing surgical mask?\\n\\nBecause you're filthy.\\n\\nJK lol. It is not coincidental that these people you've seen are all Asian. It's quite common in East Asia for people to wear facial masks when out and about. It's mostly out of health concerns.\\n\\nFor instance, in some places (e.g., China) people are very aware that the air quality is horrendous, so they wear masks as an inexpensive way to protect their lungs. Similarly, people are very sensitive to airborne germs in places like subways or buses where many people are crammed into a confined space. So many people in such situations wear masks to prevent themselves from getting sick or, if they're sick themselves, avoid spreading germs to others.\\n\\nCasually wearing facial masks in Asia is sort of the Asian equivalent of hand-washing in the West. Where westerners are much more cognizant of hand sanitation than dirty air, East Asians are much more cognizant of airborne pathogens and pollutants than dirty hands. So westerners wash their hands but never wear masks, while Asians wear masks but don't wash their hands (as often). *[And before anybody takes issue with that last point, I dare you to visit a public restroom in any East Asian country other than Japan - there is rarely ever hand soap, and when there is,  < 50% of people actually use it.]*\\n\\nOf course, everything I just said is an enormous generalization and there are obviously plenty of exceptions at the individual level. But as a general cultural trend, the above is all true.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://qz.com/299003/a-quick-history-of-why-asians-wear-surgical-masks-in-public/'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2895, "q_id": "1f2pgy", "title": "the islam situation in europe.", "selftext": "Those people on /r/worldnews seem really mad.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f2pgy/eli5_the_islam_situation_in_europe/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ca682ee', 'ca68bpk', 'ca6a71b', 'ca6a7d1', 'ca6a7t5', 'ca6am1h', 'ca6aq6u', 'ca6cwy3', 'ca6mgj5'], 'score': [67, 30, 58, 15, 32, 12, 4, 5, 2], 'text': [\"Muslim immigrants to Europe aren't really assimilating very well. This makes a lot of native Europeans scared; they think that Muslims are going to stage some sort of cultural takeover.\", \"Muslims, an extraordinarily large and diverse group of people, have been migrating to Europe, and a combination of the entirely normal problems that people have when two different cultures collide and post-9/11 islamophobia has lead to a growing fear among some that Muslim extremism will be the collapse of the Western World.\\n\\nI'm sure that when Catholic Irish or Italians migrated to the US they were treated with similar hate and forced into their own insular societies, and people would claim the 'Catholic tide' was going to overwhelm Protestantism.\\n\\nPersonally, I don't think it's anything to be too worried about.  /r/worldnews really is a cesspool - don't go there for an objective opinion on Islam in Europe.\", 'Sikhs/Hindus/Poles/Chinese and almost all other immigrants all make an effort to integrate into the society they *chose* to move to and live in.\\n\\nA large number of Muslims don\\'t, and want special laws and special treatment which rubs people the wrong way. Especially considering Islam has a certain \"Reputation\" in the west nowadays as violent  &  hate preaching.\\n\\nOversimplified, but this is ELI5.', 'Okay, many people seem to forget that there is also a political perspective in there.\\n\\nFrom what I can tell about Germany, immigrants are usually alienated by putting them somewhere in the outskirts and leaving them to themselves. They get little financial support but that\\'s about it. \"Integrating\" isn\\'t usually easy if you don\\'t even get the chance to visit a language course as they can\\'t pay for them themselves and the government doesn\\'t really seem to care.\\n\\nOnce the immigrants move into their new homes they are usually surrounded with other immigrants. They know little or nothing about the life in Europe and usually stick to the people with a similar cultural background and who speak a language they can communicate in.\\n\\nSo the Muslims \"not willing to integrate\" don\\'t even get a real chance and often Germans don\\'t even want them to integrate because they don\\'t want to have to deal with \"foreigners\" anyway. \\nIn Germany we even have something called \"Residenzpflicht\" for some immigrants which means that they are only allowed to move in a certain radius and if they leave that radius they commit a criminal offense. So even if they tried to get to know their new country they can\\'t even get outside the town they live in.\\n\\nSo all this then leads to districts where Muslim immigrants are kept to themselves and build up their own habitat, including things like Mosques. Of course they have it harder to learn the language because they don\\'t really need to know German when they are surrounded by people who all speak Turkish or Arabic or some sort of mix between those two and German.\\n\\nIt is basically a vicious circle for them because the conditions they have to live in are very poor and there are very few jobs and the educational system fails entirely. Getting out of those \"Ghettos\" isn\\'t easy as well because they face institutionalized racism (from police and other government agencies to landlords who won\\'t rent their apartments to immigrants) pretty much everywhere and just don\\'t get the money to get out of these conditions.\\n\\nThat of course leads to problems like criminality, drugs, prostitution etc. And although many people have been put in those situations politics and media did a great job making THEM the scapegoats. So what you now have is major parts of Europe blaming most of the national problems on Muslims and their unwillingness to adapt to a living in Europe. And since it is a popularizing issue some political parties of course jump the bandwagon more or less successfully (in the Netherlands for example [Geert Wilders](_URL_0_) right-wing populist party PVV).\\n\\nWhat happens now is simply immigrants being fed up with their situation, tired of being treated as second class citizens  and not been given a chance that their frustration can turn into violence. People too long didn\\'t give a shit about those people\\'s problems and needs and now they wonder that the immigrants are frustrated and won\\'t adapt.\\n\\nAlso, many people here don\\'t seem to understand that \"integration\" is a reciprocal act and not just \"them\" living how \"we\" want them to. People are only fine with foreign culture if it benefits them directly (like Kebab houses, cheap kiosks or water pipes) but if they don\\'t benefit they go crazy and think that the Muslims want to turn their country into a sharia state and everything that has got to to with Islam seems an imminent threat.\\n\\nOf course there are plenty more aspects but I think this should suffice for now. I just wanted to give you another perspective away from Muslim demonising. ', \"If I can just speak for the UK here, a guy killed a soldier in London the last week, killed him on a busy London street using a knife and a machete. He then, hands and knives covered in blood went over to a news camera and tries to justify why he had done. He apologised women had to see what they had seen but that 'women in our lands have to seen the same'. \\n\\nHe went on to tell us to get rid of our government and such. This was broadcast on TV. \\n\\nIt obviously got to a lot of people. As someone who still has a fair few college and high school aged friends I have noticed a massive increase in racist and derogatory comments towards Muslims and 'foreigners'. I will not quite but the things some people are posting are actually quite scary.\\n\\nAnyway this is escalating. The EDL (English defence league) is staging demonstrations and marches as well as, I believe in an unrelated way, the BNP (British national party) are too.\\n\\nIn the news today, or yesterday it has been reported of people attacking mosques and helplines for victims of racial or religion based abuse have had a massive increase in incidents.\\n\\nThere have been claims (of which I cannot find the source again) by the EDL I believe that there is a risk of a predicted civil war between different cultures breaking out over this.\\n\\nMy personal opinion is that the problems in the UK are all down to a lot of people getting massively confused with Muslims and extremists. There's a lot of tension, anger and very inappropriate comments being made towards people who have had nothing to do with the murder.\\n\\nThere's always been a lot of anger towards illegal immigrants and people again very wrongly assume just because someone is of a different descent, color or otherwise that they 'shouldn't be here'. \\n\\nThe guy who appeared on national tv covered in blood made his claims with a thick south London accent. He is I believe not only legally allowed to be here but has a British passport.\\n\\nAgain people are picking Islam, pointing the finger and just blaming everything and anything on a lot of innocent people.\\n\\nIt's disgusting and it needs to stop, but a lot of people are so riled up they won't even listen to anyone but themselves.\", \"So this opinion of mine may or may not be relevant--I'll let Reddit decide--but here goes: in NY we have this place called [Kiryas Joel, an insular Hasidic Jew community.](_URL_0_) I work in construction, and very often have to do work for the Hasidics who live in this community because they're ALWAYS expanding. Whenever I go into KJ I pass the same sign (I should take a pic of it one day) and it explains that men who visit KJ should not wear shorts, tees, and that KJ maintains gender separation. Now they don't really say anything to a worker like myself because I'd just laugh at them and get back to swinging a hammer, but the point is the law is there and in their community they wholly abide by it. \\n\\nAnyway, the point I'm trying to make is this: for all the wackiness that KJ has going for it (can't work past 1PM on Friday, can't work there Saturday even though I'm not Jewish) it still manages to be a community that isn't destroying the fabric of the neighboring towns. Yeah, its customs are definitely foreign, its omnipresent apartments with TERRIBLE framing are ugly but life goes on. And if we're to assume the majority of Muslims are just normal people, I'd expect that to be the same too. Now I know people are going to say Sharia law is fundamentally disenfranchising women--I can't argue this because I know very little about it--but there can still be common ground when allowing these minority groups in, just as we here in NY have done. \", 'Sometimes the upvote/downvote comment ranking system is very good for sorting truth from ignorance, while other times it acts as a sort of \"filter bubble\" where the same ideas get promoted and dissenting ideas hidden. \\n\\nI suspect r/worldnews has fallen victim to the filter bubble effect and this is why we see a disproportionate amount of news about rapes in India and problems with Islam in Europe, etc.\\n\\nPersonally I have unsubscribed from r/worldnews, but haven\\'t really found a good alternative subreddit yet.', \"I heard this summary:\\n\\nMuslims leave stirct, oppressive middle eastern countries to find a better life. End up making their neighborhoods as strict and oppressive as the lands they left.\\n\\nI'm not sure how entirely accurate it is, but at a glance it seems to be the popular opinion.\\n\", \"You're probably hearing a very reactionary viewpoint. The majority of Muslims integrate very well here in the U.K. Put it this way: my M.P (Member of Parliament \u2014 think like a State Representative on a small scale) is a Muslim woman. There are Muslims of both genders in all professional roles, and there is rarely any problem whatever.\\n\\nThere is a significant minority portion, though, who would like to see their version of Sharia Law respected in the UK, and an extremely small portion who resort to violence to try to shake up the country.\\n\\nOn the other hand, the right wing press and some right to far-right parties and groups (anyone in the U.K will know exactly who I'm talking about!) seem to blow the situation out of proportional, probably a lot like the right wing press in the U.S.\\n\\nThe wider Muslim community has condemned the recent murder (the killer said \u2018Allahu Akbar!\u2019 after committing the murder), both online and in real-life demonstrations in the streets.\\n\\nThat said, there are some areas which are considered high threat for Islamist terrorism, and some towns like Luton with significant communities with active Sharia Law advocates and \u2018radical\u2019 clerics.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders'], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1825, "q_id": "3e1hl2", "title": "why is it that a fully buffered youtube video will buffer again from where you click on the progress bar when you skip a few seconds ahead?", "selftext": "Edit: Thanks for the great discussion everyone! It all makes sense now.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e1hl2/eli5_why_is_it_that_a_fully_buffered_youtube/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctanyhg', 'ctaowp3', 'ctapom5', 'ctaqohx', 'ctaqzsu', 'ctas1fw', 'ctasfd5', 'ctastb5', 'ctax6x6', 'ctax7ge', 'ctaxuxf', 'ctb1bw5', 'ctb37yp', 'ctb3i8l'], 'score': [12, 2650, 196, 174, 37, 9, 2, 3, 7, 4, 435, 2, 3, 2], 'text': ['would love to know why too. HTML5 seems to fix some of the issues however. i just wish they didnt load scrubber thumbnails before the video. dont show me what i cant see, dammit.', 'Since 2013, youtube doesn\\'t preload the entire video anymore thanks to a feature called \"DASH playback\" (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP). It makes youtube less of a bandwidth hog by only preloading a small portion of video at a time.\\n\\nYou might be able to disable DASH via a plugin: _URL_0_', \"They changed it because most of youtubes traffic came from videos which were  never watched. I have a 100 mbits internet connection. If im browsing the videos on the right side clicking here and there i would have loaded every video i clicked while searching completly in seconds in the highest quality. Their 'new' system ensures that isnt happening. Bit its annoying espacially if im on my phone where i have limited data usage\", \"As far as I can tell, when streaming a video it may start off at 480p. As the video plays, it starts to buffer a higher 720p. This process may have started 5 seconds into the video, but in an attempt to avoid interrupting your playback it starts loading the 720p video from the 20 second mark.\\nIf you happen to skip forward within that 20 second window of 480p video, it will attempt to load the video from that point in 720p, thus resetting the buffered video.\\nThis is a side effect of YouTube's adaptive streaming.\\nHope this answers your question!\", 'YouTube does not actually pre-buffer the entire video anymore. With the advent of HLS (HTTP Live Streaming) and DASH (Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP), most on demand videos are actually played back in the same manner as livestreaming.\\n\\nThe browser receives a manifest of all the chunks of video (usually 2-10 seconds in length each) along with different resolutions for each chunk. The player then loads the current chunk + a few more in advance but will not download the entire list. Previously it was one big video file and the browser would happily load the entire file.\\n\\nThe only different between live and on demand is that the manifest file for live streaming is updated as more video becomes available, whereas the manifest for on demand stays the same.', \"Disclaimer: I'm not a Youtube engineer and have no particular knowledge beyond what I have guessed and accidentally gotten right.\\n\\nNow then. There are a couple of reasons for this. As mentioned, Youtube no longer gathers a long buffer, as they determined that most people have enough bandwidth to stream their video instead. For the few people that don't have enough bandwidth, Youtube added an adaptive quality feature that automatically makes the video shit if your internet isn't as good as they think it should be. \\n\\nBecause the video quality can keep changing for people with sub-par internet, and because the people with fast internet don't care, Youtube figured that storing the video for seeking purposes isn't worth the effort to program or the space that buffer takes up. If they allowed you to skip a few seconds forward, would they then have to allow you to skip one second back as well in case you overshoot? It's just easier to toss everything.\\n\\n\", \"Well the same has been happening to me as well..and I can't really figure out why...I would rather let the entire video load..completely..before watching it rather than waiting for it to buffer everytime as I watch.\", 'Also, earlier when the whole video used to load, it got stored in chrome/cache and was very easy to copy in its entirety. The dash system also took care of that. ', \"A better question is, why do the ads always play through perfectly no matter what then the video you actually want has to buffer like you're on dial-up?\", \"What I don't understand is that no matter where I am or what computer I am on or what connection my internet is a 720p or 1080p video will never play without stopping from start to finish. \", \"I think OP is asking why if you click ahead in the progress bar to a spot that has already been buffered (eg 15seconds ahead in a 2min buffer) the buffering immediately starts again at the spot you clicked on, so that the other 1m45s of your buffer is gone and has to be redownloaded. And similarly if you click on a spot that's already been played (eg 15 seconds back), you lose the entire 2min buffer. \", \"Cost saving measures, both in the form of DASH and bandwidth throttling policies in the player.\\n\\nThis is why you can download the video for offline viewing 10x faster than waiting for it to buffer. \\n\\nThus, their throttling isn't on the whole video network but just when accessed through the default flash/html players.\\n\\ntl;dr : less bandwidth used is less $$$ paid to ISPs for peering/caching.\", 'On the topic of YouTube, why is it that sometimes, a video will load horribly slow to the point of being unwatchable, but after refreshing the page, it suddenly loads super quickly?\\n\\nOr sometimes it just refuses to load in the first place, and refreshing seems to fix it.', \"Compare it to having a book. You have the entire book in front of you (fully buffered), and if you read it front to back, you'll never run into a rebuffering issue.\\n\\nHowever, if you want to instantly skip to page 154, it takes you a few seconds to get there. You might guess about where it is and then refine it from there, but you most likely won't instantly open to that page.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://lifehacker.com/preload-entire-youtube-videos-by-disabling-dash-playbac-1186454034'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1130, "q_id": "9se19j", "title": "When reading about Caesar and Pompey's wars, we see them \"raising legions\" in places such as Greece, Africa, Spain, etc. How many Roman citizens would actually be present in these provinces during the Republic?", "selftext": "It seems Roman generals can summon legions out of thin air in every corner of the empire. I know Roman colonies were a thing, and citizenship was extended to Auxilia veterans, and that non citizens were also used as soldiers, but the bulk of a Legion's force was still largely citizens I assume. How come so many Romans seemed to already live outside Italy by the Caesarion Civil war? Citizenship had only recently been granted to all Italians, it seems the Roman diaspora was immense already by the Republic. How many Roman colonies were scattered throughout the Mediterranean world?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9se19j/when_reading_about_caesar_and_pompeys_wars_we_see/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e8p7z84'], 'score': [21], 'text': ['There were more Romans abroad in the first half of the first century than you might think. In this \"Roman\" category I also include those who had been \"Italians\" before the Social War (90-88 BCE) and instantly became Roman citizens under the *lex Iulia.*  The Italian merchant class had enclaves in every corner of the empire and beyond, though we only get scattered references to them. For instance, when Mithridates invaded the Roman territory of Bithynia in Spring of 88 BCE, he was persuaded to perpetrate a radical action: to kill all the \"Romans\" there. Our sources for this are pretty lousy (Appian and Plutarch), but Appian says 80,000 \"Romans\" (this includes \"Italians\") were killed in a single stroke. Even if he is doubling his figures, it still seems to be a significant number. Of course not all of these \"Romans\" were fighting men, but you get the idea.\\n\\nSimilarly: when Pompey fled to Greece during the Civil War, the backbone of the forces he raised were technically Roman citizens. We don\\'t know the percentage, and we do hear about distinctions between Spanish \"auxiliary\" infantry (vs Roman legions), but it isn\\'t exactly clear how that worked. I suspect every legion had a core of Romans, especially the centurions, and were filled in as best as could be managed.  A while ago I wrote on this topic in this subreddit, and said this about Pompey\\'s forces in the Civil War:\\n\\n > Lentulus Crus, technically a consul, had raised two legions in Asia. We know these were Romans because we know that Romans of Jewish descent were exempted in this conscription effort thanks to his decree, preserved by Josephus (Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, 14.228ff). Metellus Scipio was to bring two additional legions from Syria, and Pompey\\'s own son went to Egypt to round up what he could find. These legions might have, and probably were, under-strength, but they formed the citizen core of Pompey\\'s army. By the time of Pharsalus, we hear of legions from Cilicia on the right wing, supported by auxiliary infantry from Spain. We know he also sought and obtained massive numbers of auxiliaries from the various remaining client kingdoms in the East, and he even sent overtures to Parthia asking for support (Dio 42.2.5). Cicero was certainly disgusted by the notion of Pompey\\'s not-so-citizen legions bearing down on Italia: \" I\u2014whom some called the preserver of this city, some its parent\u2014I to bring against it armies of the Getae, Armenians, and Colchians! I to inflict famine on my fellow citizens, devastation upon Italy!\" (Cic. ad Att. 9.10) ([link](_URL_0_))\\n\\nEven back in 58, Caesar was bending the rules a bit as far as legionary recruitment. When the Helvetii made their move, Caesar tells us that he immediately began raising legions in the extant Gallic provinces. We know that he also recruited among the \"Transpadani,\" a group mixed Gallo-Italians living in the Po valley. They were not technically Roman citizens, though some communities there had various levels of Roman privileges, and we know that Caesar promised those recruits full citizenship after their service. \\n\\nAs to the number of Roman colonies: the short answer is \"a lot, but not nearly as many as would come later.\"  Before the 50s BCE, the biggest were in Spain (Italica, Corduba, Valencia, Segovia), France (Narbonne), and of course in Italia (Ariminum, Placentia, Salernum, Bononia, Aquileia, etc), and very very few in the East. That means that most of the legions raised in the east by Pompey in 49 were not from colonies, but from these elusive groups of \"Romans\" present for other reasons. The really crazy colonial period in Roman history comes after the second Civil War, the one between Octavian and Antonius, when Augustus settled tens of thousands (possibly over 100k) of troops in new colonies in places all over the Med, from Spain to North Africa to the Near East.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8arhr4/how_did_pompey_raise_legions_in_the_east/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 840, "q_id": "1jvr15", "title": "the concept of the 'demiurge'", "selftext": "I'm not going to beat around the bush - I've been listening to a lot of metal, and the concept has continued to pop up as a theme. I've done some research (read: wikipedia) but I'm not well-versed enough in theology to totally understand what it all means.\n\nFrom what I can grasp, the 'Demiurge' is the divine architect of the universe, but is not 'God' per se? I was hoping reddit could enlighten me.\n\nThanks!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jvr15/eli5_the_concept_of_the_demiurge/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbirb25', 'cbirjzz', 'cbisyde', 'cbitm4b', 'cbiua0e', 'cbiusmx'], 'score': [3, 43, 11, 8, 3, 3], 'text': ['It depends on the system of belief we attach the concept of the demiurge to. The christian God is a demiurge because he both created and shaped the Universe. In other religions, there is a primordial being that created the Universe from nothingness but there is also a god that shapes the universe into lands, waters, mountains etc. ', 'Namaskar!\\n\\nIn Christianity the idea is common due to the presence, seemingly, of two different gods in the Christian Bible. In the Christian Old Testament there is YHVH, the ineffable God of the Hebrews who selects them as His chosen people - and no other - and who, while merciful and slow to anger, is also violent and vengeful. Then there is the god of the Christian New Testament, represented by Jesus. This god is loving, kind, merciful, never (or rarely) violent, vengeful, and so on.\\n\\nThere have been attempts to reconcile these two depictions of the Christian idea of God and one of the earliest came from Marcion of Sinope; this idea would come to be known as Marcionism. Marcion proposed that there were actually two different gods: the true god, represented by Jesus in the New Testament; and the Hebrew god who was a separate and lower entity than Jesus and the god he represented.\\n\\nIn this idea, Marcionism shares a link with Christian Gnosticism. Christian Gnosticism is a separate following which believes that Jesus, as a manifestation of Sophia (wisdom), came from the true God\\'s realm to deliver mankind from the clutches of the tyrannical god of the Hebrews. The god of the Hebrews, as per Christian Gnosticism, is either ignorant at best or malevolent at worst; he believes that he is the only god and his works are all that are. He forces men to submit to his will and blinds them with the illusions that are our \"reality\". Jesus comes from the true world to share gnosis (knowledge, enlightenment) with mankind so that we can see through the illusion that the demiurge - the Hebrew god - pulls over our eyes. He shares this with us because the true god recognizes our potential as beings who possess wisdom and power the demiurge does not have and, as such, recognizes that it is unfair that anything with such capacity does not deserve the true hell that is the wise being ruled by the ignorant or incompetent.', \"The term isn't specific to just one religious system.\\nThe literal translation of the word is 'public servant'.  Sometimes it's used to mean a malevolent or misguided deity, others just to refer to a sort of genuine mystical public servant, sort of a architect or accountant for the universe.\\n\\nThe myth I heard goes like this, and if memory serves belongs before genesis time-wise:\\n\\nThere's this divine reality, comprised of a sort of divine family.  The thing at the top (a 'true' god sort of thing) spawned some of the 'family' (some male, some female), and the rest of the family spawned other members with the grace and guidance/permission of the head divine god-critter.\\n\\nOne of these members decided to spawn a new member of the family without grace and guidance from the big divinity on top.  Her name is Sophia, and this conception goes horribly wrong.\\n\\nAfter creating this sort of divine abortion/abomination, she stares at it and realizes she fucked up big.  In shame, she covers it with a sort of cloud/haze before it comes to and awakes.\\n\\nWhen it awakes, it sees nothing but itself.  Being of divine origin, it's certainly powerful and, so far as it is concerned, all powerful.  Spotting no cause other than itself, it assumes it's the causeless cause (in actuality this is the big divine head honcho) because if nothing exists but it, what else could it be?\\n\\nIn ignorance, it creates a host of servants  (angels), these servants help it build a world.  On this world, he and his servants create creatures to worship and love him.  But the spark that lets him create doesn't come from him, and his misuse produces beings that inevitably flee the cages he builds for them.\\n\\nThere's a number of failed worlds he builds, starting flowy and spirity and slowly coalescing over each failed model into the existing world in front of us today.\\n\\nAdditionally, this story comes with a modified version of genesis:\\n\\nSophia, realizing she fucked up big and that pieces of her own divine essence are getting misused by her bastard son (the demiurge), tries to repent and fix her mistakes.\\n\\nAn extra woman shows up in eden named lilith.  One who defies the demiurge and leaves after it demands she submit to Adam by invoking the name of the actual god.  The actual god also makes an appearance at one point, terrifying the demiurge; but the demiurge stays in denial about it's place in things and continues to believe it must be in charge of all; even trying to snatch at and steal the power of that head honcho god for itself.\\n\\nThat is rusty, and probably inaccurate as it's from memory.\\n\\nSooo...\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nhere are translations of the relevant original texts, in case you wish to pour over them yourself.\\n\\n:)\", \"The Demiurge is the creator of the physical world. He is, unlike God, a flawed being, either incompetent or outright evil. The concept of the Demiurge is an answer to the philosophical problem of why evil exists. Why do young children die of horrible diseases? Why do natural disasters kill innocent people? The answer is because the world was not created by an all-powerful, perfectly good being, but rather by a flawed creator.\\n\\nGnosticism posits a series of 'emanations' from God, each a being in its own right, becoming progressively more and more flawed, and ending with the Demiurge.\\n\\nHuman beings are part spirit and part matter. Our spirits are pure, but are trapped within flawed physical flesh, which is responsible for lust, greed, and other sinful desires. Our spirits are not the creation of the Demiurge, and long to be reunited with God.\", \"Like he's five....\\n\\nSome people think ideas, virtue and dreams are more real and good than the physical normal world. It's easier to imagine a perfect circle but real circles are always a little messed up. \\n\\nSome people believe a really good god or goddess made the world of ideas and dreams while another god, the demiurge, was jealous or something and created our world but he's mean and stupid so that is why there are bad things in the world.\", 'So far the answers here are making me have kittens.\\nThe Demiurge is not a religious concept, it is a philosophical one later co-opted by religious organisations. Loosely the Demiurge is a sentience that has fashioned (and has complete control over) the material world we live in. However the Demiurge exists as part of a greater existence, it itself is an inhabitant of a greater reality. \\n\\nAn adjacent thought is the idea of the Monad. A divinity that is connects all real things, not just material things but the ideals of things. The Monad is \"the One\", the soul that is everything. To Pythagoreans the Monad is the points and lines - the building blocks of existence. A point in space time is the Monad, a rock is (a slightly more complicated form of) the Monad, your consciousness is (an even more complicated form of) the Monad.\\nSo: the Demiurge (which may or may not exist) could be the creator of our universe but is itself (as we are) part of a greater existence which has no conscious creator or indeed creation event.\\n\\nFrom this point of view Abrahamic religions worship the Demiurge, their god is a conscious being which created the universe we live in. Some would argue that the Demiurge is some false creator god and the Monad is truly God as Christians, Jews and Muslims worship Him but this is just bullshit. The Demiurge and Monad philosophy is a complete rejection of that line of thought. The Monad is not a being, it just is.\\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2115, "q_id": "2yanj4", "title": "is it possible to just say \"im not apart of this country anymore\"", "selftext": "What I mean is when I was born in the US, I automatically became a US citizen. Is it possible to not be a citizen anymore, and therefore not being able to be persecuted by the US judicial system?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yanj4/eli5_is_it_possible_to_just_say_im_not_apart_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cp7r391', 'cp7r4cc', 'cp7r8ed', 'cp7r8pn', 'cp7x92n'], 'score': [4, 6, 16, 6, 2], 'text': [\"Yes, but to do so, you have to meet in person with someone at a U.S. embassy/consulate in another country. If you're on the run for a crime, it's not going to end well.\", \"As long as you're in the U.S, you're subject to U.S. laws regardless of your citizenship status.\", \"you can give up your citizenship and become a citizen of another country. However citizenship is not the deciding factor in being able to be persecuted under US law, being in the country is.\\n\\nIf you are in the US and commit a crime here the US has jurisdiction over you no matter what country you are a citizen of.\\n\\nYou can't for example travel to Canada punch someone and when the Canadian cops arrive to arrest you tell them that they don't have jurisdiction over you because you are an American citizen.\", 'You can renounce your citizenship so long as you are able to be a citizen in another country you cannot renounce your citizenship to make yourself deliberately stateless. Does depend upon if you meant prosecuted or persecuted, presuming the former you will still be subject to the legal process in the country after having served any required sentence you are then likely to be deported to your new country.', 'Anyone can be persecuted if they commit a crime in the US.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2865, "q_id": "5yev0e", "title": "how does a hacker or internal employee download such large amounts of classified documents from cia or nsa which are highly secured or are world's top intelligence agencies.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yev0e/eli5_how_does_a_hacker_or_internal_employee/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['depg64q', 'depg932', 'depgk9p', 'depiq7e', 'depj3lg', 'depjbqb', 'depjh5j', 'depjp7j', 'depjwka', 'depkcc1', 'depkd5j', 'depkgko', 'depkha4', 'depkqj1', 'depky13', 'depl1vq', 'depl4t5', 'deplf3n'], 'score': [102, 211, 7, 53, 119, 8, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 16, 5, 15, 3, 2, 10, 2], 'text': ['Short answers: These organizations hire incredibly smart people. These people who do this have the knowledge and access to the facilities needed to copy these large sets of files. And they know how to fly under the radar while doing it.', '\"\u201cOur whole system is based on personal trust,\u201d an exasperated Clapper said, adding that there were no \u201cmousetraps\u201d in place to guarantee there wouldn\u2019t be another Edward Snowden.\\n\\nThe NSA has enacted tighter restrictions on when and how agents can access classified documents since Snowden\u2019s heist, including a \u201ctwo-man rule\u201d requiring two administrators to work jointly when dealing with certain files.\"', \"A hacker doesn't.  An internal employee works with the data every day.  I don't know about American security clearances (Er nor do I know about any others, my friend told me) but most employees working in these situations all require the highest level.  Security in these instances relies on heavily vetting employees before hire.  They work hard to narrow it down to people who won't drop leaks, even if they aren't the best and brightest candidate, if you don't get that clearance, too bad.  Edit, like another person has posted here, there's a huge amount of personal trust involved, plus a bit of fear.  Edit 2, hehe I can't believe I'm getting downvoted for this.\", 'The security team needs to get it right 100% of the time. An attacker only needs to succeed once.', \"I work at a research site. A few years back an employee pulled all the drives out of the machines in his area and was in the wind for a year. Only got caught because he tried to sell them to an undercover FBI agent.\\n\\nThe reality is that stealing data is actually fairly easy. It's the getting away with it that's hard.\", 'Your security is only as strong as your most idiotic employee.. it only takes one dumbass to compromise the whole thing. Something as simple as a cell phone with hotspot on and connecting to that while on their internal network... many reasons people can be stupid on the job.', 'Having had several Secret clearances, a top secret goes back even to childhood friends and info to prove you existed.  The problem with clearances are that they cannot determine the future and even a ploygram is not a real time graph.  They can be fooled.  Smart IT people are many times loners and introverted, and humans let down their guard, even the smartest and especially if they do not feel positive about the acts done with data.', \"Stuff like this is usually accrued over a very long period of time, there often a lapse in security, and people usually don't escape 100% clean. We're also talking about some of the best minds in the field and as others pointed out, due to the very nature of what they do there's a lot of trust placed on the individual. The highest levels of national security are politicians and strategist, not hacking experts. They could be watching these contractors steal information and would be none the wiser. These contractors were hired because of their expertise so if they find an exploit chances are the CIA doesn't have the fail safes to stop them until the information is released and by then hindsight is 20/20. \", \"Excerpts from Stratfor's internal jargon file:\\n\\n**CIA**: [...] Imagine the Post Office with a foreign policy.\\n\\n**NSA**: [...] Completely out of control. It is so\\ncompartmentalized they refer to other offices as B1 or D8\\nand genuinely don\u2019t know what anyone else does.\", \"The simple answer is that no security system can be 100% secure, ever. This has been proven. It's just a matter of time.\", 'With Manning what he/she did is fairly classic, sure they had all these secure pcs and terminals but with the ability to transfer files via USB and a unsecured terminal available it was as easy as \"just going to take a piss\" with a USB stick in their pocket. ', \"The simplest answer is that the information is not that secure to begin with. Many people have access to top secret data but don't leak it. \\n\\nAs for the size of the data they just take a small bit at a time over many months if not years. These days you can easily get a multi gigabyte micro SD card in and out of even the most secure places without much trouble. \\n\\nData security is very hard and the only reason we don't have even more leaks is because people don't want to put themselves at risk. Getting the data is pretty much the easy part. The hard part is finding someone willing to exfiltrate it and then leak it. \\n\\nI know it is set 30 years ago but the TV show The Americans does a great job of showing how people are manipulated to do such things. \", \"Well, for internal employees, it's because they trust people who are given access to sensitive stuff. There are very, very thorough processes you must undergo to get a secret or top secret clearance. But that's not perfect, there's no device for seeing into someone's soul. A trusted person would have a very easy time stealing data because of that very trust. All it takes is for someone to get disillusioned, or blackmailed, or something, and that person can steal whatever they have access to.\\n\\nThis is very simplified, but who would have a harder time stealing from your office, me or you? I'm external, nobody knows who I am, there are systems in place to keep me out. But you're supposed to be there, you indeed have to be there to do your job. Much easier for you to walk out with stuff.\", \"The Vault 7 leaks were from a piece of software called Confluence which is basically an internal wiki. Confluence is made by Atlassian and usually run on a local Atlassian server. Not only are the servers very tricky to secure (they are pretty notorious for this) but also Confluence itself isn't particularly secure. You can normally log in from anywhere rather than on local network, and commonly isn't linked to Windows' Active Directory where you would sign in with your company login details. It doesn't require mandatory password changes, and because it isn't linked to AD when someone leaves the business it requires someone to manually go and close the Confluence account separate from all AD accounts. It's not clear if that happened in the Vault 7 or Year Zero leaks but it could be. \", \"If you can't access this data easily, you can't do your job easily either. Restrictions are always away from something.\\n\\nI suspect that the data was simply downloaded from a central storage document by document. Probably anyone with a high authorization level could have done it fairly easily over a year or two.\", \"And why can't the same thing happen in order to get SOMEONE'S tax returns from the IRS??\", 'I consult at places with reasonably high security and the way I\\'ve seen these kinds of problems crop up is this way:  \\n\\n* You have a massive list of contradictory and incomprehensible rules no one actually understands.   \\n* You have organizational goals you can\\'t accomplish with these rules.   \\n\\nSomething has to give and in the end it almost always comes down to \"fuck the rules we need to get shit done.\" That happens because not being able to get something done gets you in trouble now for sure and breaking the rules only gets you in trouble if something bad happens because of that and you get caught. ', \"There are systems designed to find out when computer files are copied without permission, and to make a list of when the computer files are copied by users who are allowed to so the Government can keep track.\\n\\nThere is a person who's job it is to set up these systems, and to fix them if they break. They can control who gets permission, and whether or not to add this copying to the list. It's pretty easy for them to make copies of the computer files without anyone knowing, or help other people do the same thing. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2624, "q_id": "4yl58j", "title": "Is there any serious evidence for settled civilisations during the last glacial period (i.e., pre-12000 BCE)?", "selftext": "It's interesting that states formed in six different regions around the world at roughly the same time (3000 - 0 BCE) _URL_0_.\n\nFrom what I understand, it wasn't until the end of the last glacial period that changes in the climate enabled humans to develop agriculture and settle into permanent communities.\n\nIt looks like this led to steady population growth, with states developing independently in different regions of the world as population density increased to a point able to sustain complex societies.\n\nDuring the glacial period, most water was held up in ice caps, so more land was either desert or tundra than currently. On the other hand, it's not the case that everywhere was inhospitable for agriculture -- only that favourable regions were less common than today, and in different areas. That makes it seem strange that humanity collectively waited until the same time period in different areas of the globe to settle down.\n\nIs it possible that complex societies developed during this period, possibly in areas which are now underwater? I'm not talking \"Ancient Atlantis\" pseudoscientific theories, but perhaps societies on the level of North American chiefdoms, with multiple settlements and agriculture.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4yl58j/is_there_any_serious_evidence_for_settled/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d6os6q3'], 'score': [22], 'text': ['This is a frequently asked question, and we had a very similar thread recently. Take a look at [the answers](_URL_0_) by /u/Brigantus and myself. \\n\\nBy way of summary, it is **possible** that some society like that could have existed, but given everything we know currently is highly **improbable**. \\n\\nGiven that we have significant amounts of archaeological evidence for foraging societies, especially in the upper Paleolithic, it would be surprising for us to lack any evidence a society that should have a greater archaeological footprint (a chiefdom, like you postulate). That we should have so much evidence for societies with smaller archaeological footprints, yet none for societies with theoretically much larger footprints is pretty damning evidence from an archaeological stand-point. \\n\\nThe problem is that in archaeology we never seek to disprove anything - given the incomplete and partial nature of the archaeological record, it would be difficult to conclusively disprove any assertion. This is why I say that the existence of such a complex, Pleistocene society is **possible**. However, this doesn\\'t mean anything goes in archaeology: we can use the evidence available to us to describe the *most probable* explanation and the likelihood that is the correct explanation. This is why I say is is **highly improbable** that such a Pleistocene society could exist, given all the evidence we have available to us. Unfortunately, this lack of \"certainty\" in a more scientific sense leaves the doors open for the kinds of pseudoarchaeology you mention, where they claim that we can\\'t disprove that aliens built the pyramids, for instance. While they are correct in saying we cannot disprove that, that doesn\\'t mean we can\\'t say that is a highly unlikely explanation for the evidence we have.     ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_formation']", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4x3811/if_there_had_been_a_large_empire_like_the_mongols/d6d1k1p']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 547, "q_id": "3l5qp4", "title": "Why did the USSR reject genetics?", "selftext": "From the little I've read about it, the rejection seems to mainly be for ideological reasons. As in it didn't fit with the  communist ideas of equality and was too \"bourgeois\". Surely this can't be the whole story? Was there some economic benefit to it or some other type of pragmatic reasoning behind the rejection?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l5qp4/why_did_the_ussr_reject_genetics/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cv3fazs', 'cv3hzs2', 'cv3lmsk'], 'score': [10, 127, 6], 'text': [\"Just to clarify, I think he's asking about [Trofim Lysenko](_URL_0_) and I'm very curious about this myself.  I studied botany in college and am interested in the Soviet Union, and I never quite could figure this out.\", 'This is actually a very interesting case study for politics under Stalinism, and how Stalin\\'s ideas moved on from the purely political, the theoretical, to the practical. They didn\\'t so much reject genetics as adopt, for a time, a more politically convenient theory as their view of heredity.\\n\\nThe Soviets, and particularly Stalin, saw the Mendelian idea that competition was the basis for passing on genes as repugnant, *because he could not change them* as easily, and the parallels to capitalist *economic* theories were too inconvenient. There was an inherent competitive trait in both. Lysenko proposed a theory that somewhat sidetracked the idea of competition in genetics. It fit with Stalin\\'s and the political establishments ideas on many levels.\\n\\nIf you look at Soviet education theories from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, a period sometimes referred to as \"High Stalinism\", there was a theory that the minds of children, and to some extent the working classes, were like empty pots. This was convenient for the Soviets as they could create a whole new kind of man through education.\\n\\nThe Soviet Union under Stalin was a place where total political control was not only seen as necessary but also *positive* in the move towards a true communist state. This idea that total control was a requirement grew into a state of mind where *everything* could be bent to political control. Including plants, animals, and the transfer of genes. \\n\\nIt went hand in hand with the drive for the new man, sometimes called *Homo Sovieticus*, where education had to be correct ideologically so too it had to be for scientific theory. The idea that Lysenko presented was attractive to the politics of the time in the Soviet hierarchy. The idea that children, plants, and animals could inherit *acquired traits* rather than genes were great news because it would make the creation of the New Soviet Man, and his society *easier*, all the while giving more weight to Soviet political dogma. \\n\\nIt all contributed to the way of thinking in the Soviet Union, and in other dictatorships, specifically the Third Reich, that everything around them could be molded, everything they controlled was plastic rather than hard stone, that with sufficient zeal and obedience, you could bend even the fundamental structures of life to your politics was a gold mine for the Soviet or Nazi regimes. It gave them equal parts motivation, and legitimacy for their actions.\\n\\nNothing these regimes did happened independently from politics, nothing happened in a bubble. Everything was tied to politics, and there was some understanding that a good career came with good, aligned with the regime, politics.\\n\\nBut the Soviets also thought it really worked on crops. Initially, the Soviets saw yield increases from Lysenko\\'s theories, at least that\\'s what they *thought*. But they started trying Lysenkos theories when they also started using tractors and *chemical fertilizers*. That\\'s where the yield increases came from, but since Lyshenko was a favorite of Stalin, saying so was not only political suicide, but practical suicide too.\\n\\nSources include the following:\\n\\n*Iron Curtain: the crushing of Eastern Europe* by Applebaum, specifically chapter 13 *Homo Sovieticus* is of particular interest.\\n\\n*Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II * by Lowe \\n\\n*The Cold War* by Gaddis (not a lot from this one)\\n\\n*Revolutionary Russia* by Figes', \"This BBC show from a few years ago:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nis about that very subject. I found it really to be a fascinating story. I'd say the short answer is that the picture it suggested of reality was inconvenient, ideologically. The guests on the show are estimable experts and explain it much better than I could.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko'], [], ['http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00bw51j']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1284, "q_id": "2oowj4", "title": "Europe is becoming greener; what's going on here?", "selftext": "[Landscape changes of current-EU from 1900 til now.](_URL_0_)\n\nGif from r/gifs, I can see surburbanisation in the UK in the 30s-50s, and NL reclaiming land, but everywhere else seems to be becoming less settled, with less farmland, and more forested. This goes against what I thought was happening (though the rainforest reports might be skewing these expectations of europe).\n\nIs this gif/map to be trusted? If it is, is there a single pattern going on here, or it is many patterns, or is there no patten?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2oowj4/europe_is_becoming_greener_whats_going_on_here/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cmpfdnf', 'cmpfwo7', 'cmpfybp', 'cmpjhq7', 'cmpltjw', 'cmprbcj', 'cmpv8vy'], 'score': [9, 30, 7, 12, 8, 2, 3], 'text': [\"For Scandinavia at least, a significant portion of the regrowth in forests can be attributed to the shift away from using wood for heating to other fuels such as coal and natural gas.\\n\\nI'm still trying to remember where I read this, so give me a little while hunting down the source\", \"Another aspect to consider - especially in regard to Sweden - is the retention forestry model. In basic terms, instead of clearing every part of a forest during a harvest, some parts are preserved: single trees [dead and living], patches and strips. The goal behind that is to preserve the biodiversity of the area and to allow the ecosystem to still function. It also allows the forest to replenish itself over time. \\n\\nA study from 2007 noted that the number of living trees in Swedish forests have returned to 1955 levels, after a fall in the 1970s and 1980s. \\n\\nThis type of forestry has been practiced large-scale by Sweden for over 25 years. It's reflected towards the end of the .gif above by the increase of the rate of green over Sweden. \\n\\nThe change towards the retention forestry model came about as concerns over environmental damage and climate change increased. Countries like Sweden are very aware of the effects of climate change, as increases in temperature can be pretty dramatically seen on their landscape [i.e. melting glaciers, loss of tundra]. \\n\\n[Source](_URL_0_)\", \"I *think* that map may not depict exactly what you think it does, but without knowing the source I can't say for certain. It's titled 'Gross Land Change' which in the scientific speak you'd find among environmental scientists and climatologists, means it would be depicting the change in land use and not depicting the actual land use. Hence giving the illusion that Europe has gotten exponentially greener than it actually has. Though that's not to say Europe hasn't gotten greener as it absolutely has. \\n\\nAs to why, there are several factors. Europe has been subjected to heavy deforestation for millennia as people cleared land for new settlements, to expand existing ones, or for building or heating. The late 1800s also saw massive deforestation to fuel the industrial revolution, so the start of your gif is close to the minimum forested extent of Europe. \\n\\nI don't see any decrease in settlement from that series of maps and there certainly hasn't been much, nothing that would register on the scale of that map. To explain the decrease in farmland you need to look no further than farming techniques and yields that have improved drastically in the last few centuries, especially in the 20th century, meaning less cultivated land is needed to feed the population.\\n\\nThe 20th century saw conservation movements to preserve and expand existing forests and even plant new ones. Stringent environmental regulations mean what might have been a poisoned hillside downwind of a factory is today a thriving woodland. Similarly, what might have been land that was clear-cut by a lumber company in the 1890s was being selectively harvested and actively replanted. One of the few benefits of suburbanization is that it brings lots of trees to areas where there were previously few. \\n\\nA final factor is globalization. Lots of furniture marketed in the first world, for just one example, will be made with lumber sourced from Brazil or Russia. Even food isn't exempt, 100 years ago you might have been eating Porridge grown down the street for breakfast, now you're eating Bananas from Central America and Oranges from Florida. \", 'Forests =/= Wilderness\\n\\n99% of those forests you can see regrowing aren\\'t truly wild. They are \"farmed\" just like any other crop (with varying intensity) for wood.\\nOf course for that business to remain sustainable you have to replant the cut patches after every harvest, and this was indeed a 19th century innovation/paradigm shift, the result of which is visible in that graphic.\\nIt\\'s important to note that at the start point (1910) almost no old-growth forest that wasn\\'t cut sometime in the last 2000 years remained in that map, it was all second or third generation forest.\\n', \"It has one simple reason - the shift from agrarian economy to industrial economy and later economy based on services. People don't need farmland anymore, because there is an abundance of food at low prices, which can also be imported from outside Europe. So the less productive patches of farmland were converted to other purposes - woodlands, parks, reservations etc. \", 'To add to the other comments, I can tell you that in the middle of Germany, in hilly regions woodland is almost twice as much worth in revenues as farmland. The demand for quality hardwood is rising, and so do the prices. Hightech agriculture today only makes decent profit when you can put your huge GPS-steered tractors on really flat land.', '[Paraphrasing  &  Translating from a course I followed on deforestation at the KULeuven in 2013, can supply sources if needed]\\n\\nEver since the invention of agriculture 10.000 years ago, forests have disappeared in favour of crops. The increase in farmland (and consequently the decline of forests) sped up dramatically around the Industrial Revolution, in Europe from ~1700 until it stopped in ca. 1960, in North America it started around 1850 to 1970, in the developing countries this only started after WWII, and continues today.\\n\\nFrom the start of the Industrial Revolution, there is a clear correlation between rising population and diminishing size of forests. In Europe, starting in 1850, the size of forests started to rise again, which seems strange because population size kept rising too. (In France, forest size doubled between 1850 and 2000, from 12,5% to 25%)\\nThere are four reasons for this strange trend shift:\\n\\n* Fuel switch from wood to fossil fuels\\n* Transition from subsistence farming to intensive, market driven farming\\n* More import of agricultural products and wood\\n* Stricter management of forests\\n\\nI can elaborate if interested']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://i.imgur.com/24bpklA.gif']", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112713003174'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1132, "q_id": "5n3sfx", "title": "the differences between heavy metal, thrash metal, black metal, and death metal.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n3sfx/eli5_the_differences_between_heavy_metal_thrash/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dc8hzn0', 'dc8j4se', 'dc8l5l4', 'dc8ogpa', 'dc8tq8y', 'dc8u5d4', 'dc8u7qh', 'dc8unis', 'dc8w4ur', 'dc8w8n3', 'dc8xzqv', 'dc90lfb', 'dc91jsv', 'dc9f51c'], 'score': [8, 196, 37, 1648, 2, 8, 2, 2, 154, 3, 3, 3, 17, 2], 'text': [\"Heavy metal: basically Rock but with heavier, often more distorted guitars. Most of the vocalists have a more intense way of singing as well. Also the lyrics consist of everything; they are typically more fictitious or political though.\\n\\nThrash metal: take it up a notch from Heavy metal. The guitars are heavier, faster, more distorted and sometimes more technical. Again, the vocalists are intense, however, they have more of a growly way of singing, but they're still fairly clean and easy to understand. The lyrical content is often political or controversial in some way. (Jihad by Slayer, Laid to Rest by Lamb of God, Holy Wars... The Punishment is Due by Megadeth)\\n\\nBlack metal (from my understanding): A bit slower than Thrash, but more distorted. The vocals are normally squealing and growling in a way that isn't very easy to understand. Lyrical content as far as I know can be fairly Satanic, morbid and dark.\\n\\nDeath metal (again, from my understanding): it's like Black metal and Thrash metal had a love child. It has the intensity, and speed of Thrash but the vocals are similar to Black metal. I believe the lyrical content is the same or similar as Black metal as well.\\n\\nSource: I've been a metalhead for 9 going on 10 years. However, I'm more into Thrash, Classic/Heavy Metal and Metalcore. So the last two may be totally out of wack. Feel free to correct me!\", 'Its not easy to define precisely what counts as which genre in metal, especially with the large number of sub-genres. The lines between many are blurry and there are even many \"crossover\" artists or genres. I think its a bit better to take the bands that defined the sound of the genre as an example.\\n & nbsp;\\n\\n**Heavy Metal:**\\n\"Old-school\" Metal. This pretty much laid the ground for the many many sub-genres that now exist. Heavy Metal\\'s roots were from Blues/Rock, but was defined by the \"heavy\" sound of distorted guitars. Singing is still pretty clean but more \"powerful\" than traditional rock. \\nThink bands like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Led Zeppelin back in the 1960s-70s.\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\n**Thrash Metal:**\\nA generation of kids grew up listening to Heavy Metal and finally started to form their own bands in the 80s - this was the decade of Thrash. Heavy Metal, but heavier. Faster drums and more complicated and distorted guitars. Singing is more aggressive - shouts and screams are used. The defining bands of this genre are known as \"The Big Four\" of thrash metal: Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax. Lyrics are usually politically themed (influenced from Punk).\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\n**Black Metal:**\\nReally fast tempo songs - guitars are distorted and notes are tremolo picked (one note played multiple times really fast) to create a drone-like sound. Vocals are harsh and mostly screamed and are not always clear. Songs are usually longer than the average song length (5-10+ minutes). This is (probably) the genre that gave rise to the idea that metal is \"devil-worship\" or \"satanic\" because of the lyrics and the image portrayed by many of the performers. Famous bands are: Bathory, Emperor, Mayhem and Dimmu Borgir\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\n**Death Metal:**\\nThis genre is a bit more difficult to classify because of the multiple sub-genres it has spawned, however usually the sound is even heavier than the other genres mentioned above because the guitars are tuned to a lower pitch. Drums use blast-beats which is essentially playing two or more parts of the kit really fast (16th notes) in order to achieve an \"explosive\" sound. Vocals are also harsh and incorporate low pitched growling along with other extreme vocal techniques. Guitar solos are usually blazing fast and extremely complicated.\\nFamous bands are: Death, Morbid Angel, Cannibal Corpse and Entombed.', 'Here you go;\\n_URL_0_\\n \\nP.S. you must be using a PC with flash to use the interactive map of metal', \"I wrote my dissertation on this very topic and I don't think anyone's nailed it in their answers yet. \\n\\nEdit - I've only got a hard copy of the dissertation (I graduated years ago). Thanks to everyone who asked to read it, if I remember I'll try and scan it.\\n\\nCrash91 has got a lot right but has made a few points I disagree with.\\n\\nSo, \\n\\nHeavy Metal - This grew out of Hard Rock and used the same scales, rhythms and subject matter. Black Sabbath are widely cited as the first true Heavy Metal band, giving birth to both the Heavy Metal genre in general and the Doom Metal genre in particular. Led Zepellin, Deep Purple etc are Hard Rock and are only accepted as Heavy Metal bands in the US. In the UK Heavy Metal begins with Sabbath. Original Heavy Metal was fairly slow, gloomy, bluesy and lyrically dealt with subjects such as war, drugs, religion and occult themes. Vocals clean and sung.\\n\\nLater iterations in the 70s, such as Saxon, Iron Maiden and Judas Priest are also considered Heavy Metal but are sometimes referred to as NWOBHM (New Wave of British Heavy Metal) and were pioneers of the 'chugging' guitar sound people often associate with classic Heavy Metal as well as the use of twin guitar harmonised leads. Generally faster and more bombastic, the vocals of NWOBHM were more high pitched and the lyrics while dealing with similar themes, more fantastical. Hair or Glam Metal also grew out of this style (but it's awful!).\\n\\nThrash Metal - Thrash was a product of the 80s and metal's reaction to the aggression of Punk in the late 70s. The band that kick started the whole thing were Venom from Newcastle in the UK. They are sometimes classed as NWOBHM but they don't really fit in that category because they were pretty poor musicians. Their contribution was mainly down to aural extremity, though they sound fairly tame now. They had a 'heavier' sound than previous bands combining speed, harsher distortion tone on their guitars, faux satanic lyrics and shouted/growled vocals. They were a big influence on a lot of Thrash and Black metal bands but were pretty rubbish themselves (controversial opinion!).\\n\\nEarly Thrash was pretty loose and messy with a lot of poor musicianship, bands like Sodom, Kreator and Destruction (Germany) made an unholy racket and began to attract the punk kids as well as the metalheads. Later bands worked out how to play their instruments better and the drumming in particular became more accomplished. Classic Thrash as played by the big four (Metallica, Megadeath, Slayer and Anthrax) combines very fast drumming often using 'punkier' beats, NWOBHM guitar riffs played at faster speeds, more aggressive vocals and 'face ripping' (extremely fast and shrill) solos which are often atonal (not in any given key!). Lyrically Thrash was concerned with politics, nuclear war and occult/satanic themes.\\n\\nDeath Metal - In the late 80s there was a lot of genre cross pollination and this lead to Death Metal and Grindcore (as well as many other specialist 'cores). Death Metal ramps up the intensity, complexity, heaviness and obscenity of Thrash Metal. It downtunes the guitars (makes them sound deeper) and is characterised by a particular drum beat known as the 'blast beat', and the use of double kick pedals on the bass drum to achieve a rumbling, machine-gun like effect. The vocals are extremely low grunts, growls and roars and are almost impossible to decipher without a lyric sheet. Similar to Thrash, early Death Metal bands struggled to make their musicianship meet their intentions but later bands and a lot of modern bands play music of quite dizzying complexity utilising odd time signatures and even bizarre tunings (tuning the strings on their guitars differently) to make the sound more unsettling. \\n\\nThis is the overall 'heaviest' style of metal sonically and lyrically deals with all manner of things including but not limited too, gore, zombies, war, sexual perversions, horror movies, torture and ancient Egypt (that's just one band called Nile from the US to be fair). Death Metal's heyday was the late 80s and early 90s but there's still plenty of great modern Death Metal being made today. While Thrash is seen as a retro style that will always evoke the early 80s, Death Metal has evolved much further and incorporated far more styles including, doom, prog, industrial and middle eastern/oriental music.\\n\\nBlack Metal - This one's a bit unique as it all began with a small group of teenagers in Jessheim in Norway in the late 80s/early 90s. They wanted to be 'evil' and 'extreme' but they lacked the musical ability to rival the predominantly (at the time) Swedish and American Death Metal scenes. So instead they did what anyone would do (not) they started burning down churches, proclaiming themselves 'Satanists' and killing each other. They were influenced by bans such as Venom (UK), Mercyful Fate (Denmark) and Celtic Frost (Switzerland) all of whom had elements of NWOBHM and Thrash in their sounds but distinguished themselves by being 'Satanic' with varying degrees of seriousness.\\n\\nWhether or not they were serious, the kids in Norway took it all very seriously and out of that scene came what's come to be known as the 'Second Wave of Black metal', generally accepted as it's 'classic' phase. This style is typified by ultra lo-fi production values including lots of hiss, feedback and distortion a focus on treble rather than bass and vocals that were shrieked or screamed rather than grunted or growled. The music itself is far more primitive and basic than Death Metal and often utilises fast tremolo (rapid down/up strokes on a single string) guitar parts and minor scale arpeggios. Guitar solos are rare. \\n\\nDue to these production techniques the music can take on a hypnotic quality where it's passed through heavy on to something more languid on the other side. Critics say it's poorly played, badly recorded and the product of stupid teenagers with offensive views. The early Norwegian black metal guitar sound has often been likened to a swarm of angry wasps in a box but those who love it find something spiritual about it. The lyrics deal with Satanism of course but also a strand of Nietzschean elitism and an affinity with the Norwegian landscape (ice, frost, forests, mountains etc).\\n\\nLater Black Metal has evolved in myriad ways and incorporated allsorts of other styles including folk, celtic, oriental/middle eastern, prog, goth, shoegaze and traditional Nordic music. Offshoots include Blackened Death Metal, Viking Metal and Symphonic Black metal which combines the music with sweeping orchestral backing.\\n\\nHope this helps, I could go on for days. If you want recommendations, here are mine;\\n\\nHeavy Metal - Paranoid by black Sabbath\\nNWOBHM - British Steel by Judas Priest\\nThrash Metal - Reign in Blood by Slayer\\nDeath Metal - Demigod by Behemoth\\nMelodic Death Metal - Slaughter of the Soul by At The Gates\\nBlack Metal - Anthems to the Welkin at Dusk by Emperor\\n\\nSomeone asked for a tl;dr so;\\n\\nHeavy Metal - Clean vocals, bluesy riffs, witches, weed and war.\\nThrash Metal - Speedy guitar riffs, punk attitude, hardcore drumming, shouty vocals, political lyrics.\\nDeath Metal - Downtuned guitars, complex riffs, machine gun drums, grunting/growling vocals, lyrics about horror movies, zombies and gore.\\nBlack metal - Trebly guitars, simple riffs, atmospheric arrangements, shrieking vocals, Satanism.\", 'If you decide to dig further than ELI5 after reading the answers here, I highly recommend [Sound of the Beast: The History of Heavy Metal](_URL_0_)', '[Sam Dunn would be the way to go with his documentaries on the subject](_URL_0_)', 'TLDR:\\nHeavy metal - overarching classification for all the subgenres, though used to describe the classics (Preist, Sabbath, etc.),\\nThrash - talented, cleaner punk music,\\nDeath - Horror movie in music form,\\nBlack - horror movie punk music', \"Weird how that happens. Same with Mastadon and Akercocke, everyone raved about them and I didn't get it until years later.\\n\\nRepulsion are ok. They influenced a lot of bands I like (Napalm Death, Carcass, Pig Detsroyer etc).\", 'Heavy metal: Chug-a-wug. Slow, deep heavy stuff like Black Sabbath.\\n\\nThrash Metal: Chuggada-Wuggada. Faster, more rhythmic, usually with a bleeding fast meedlie-deedlie solo before diving back into a chugga-da-wuggada riff.\\n\\nBlack Metal: Meedlie-Deedlie. Squiddly fast high notes played super fast, with heavy chuggadas underneath.\\n\\nDeath Metal: Chuggada wuggada with meedlie deedlies in equal measure, and Cookie Monster on vocals.', \"[Uh oh](_URL_0_)\\n\\nFollow up question so bots don't remove me?\", 'Check this out, Metal 101 at MIT:   \\n_URL_0_    \\nIt\\'s an awesome site with great info.  \\n\"So what is Heavy Metal?  That\\'s a loaded question. Simply put, Heavy Metal is an ever-evolving genre of popular music and culture beholden to a fanaticism reminicient of religious devotion. That, and double-bass.\"', \"I would say as well there are new waves of 'avant-garde' black metal bands like Liturgy, Oathbreak, Deafheaven etc that are now being largely shunned by 'old school' fans for being 'hip'\", 'Easiest way to convey the differences are [this flowchart](_URL_1_).\\n\\nAnd [This Video](_URL_0_)', 'Trick is to listen to really key examples. \\n1. War pigs, black sabbath, heavy metal.\\n2. Kill or become, Cannibal corpse, Death metal.\\n3. Angel of death, slayer, thrash metal.\\n4. I am the black wizards, emperor,  black metal.\\n\\nFrom these 4 you can really hear the difference in vocals, music, and cadence of song.  Laymans identifier: singing notes? Heavy metal. Yelling mostly same note with slightly off time drums and solos? (This is on ourpose) Thrash. \"Cookie monster vocals\" (more complicated than this but yknow) death metal. Insanely fast precise drums and complicated score with cmv\\'s of death metal = black metal. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['Www.mapofmetal.com'], [], ['https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Beast-Complete-Headbanging-History/dp/0380811278'], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Dunn'], [], [], [], ['https://wronghands1.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/can-of-worms.jpg'], ['https://metal.mit.edu/'], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gHu02fJmU', 'http://forum.cakewalk.com/download.axd?file=0;1886138'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1655, "q_id": "44ns7s", "title": "why humans are relatively hairless?", "selftext": "What happened in the evolution somewhere along the line that we lost all our hair? Monkeys and neanderthals were nearly covered in hair, why did we lose it except it some places?\n\nBonus question: Why did we keep the certain places we do have? What do eyebrows and head hair do for us and why have we had them for so long?\n\nWouldn't having hair/fur be a pretty significant advantage? We wouldnt have to worry about buying a fur coat for winter.\n\n-\n\nedit: thanks for the responses guys!\n\n-\n\nedit2: what the actual **** did i actually hit front page while i watched the super bowl\n\n-\n\nedit3: *stop telling me we have the same number of follicles as chimps, that doesn't answer my question and you know it*", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44ns7s/eli5_why_humans_are_relatively_hairless/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['czrgkqa', 'czrgroa', 'czrgs4b', 'czrgt2l', 'czrn270', 'czrnfw4', 'czrnur0', 'czro7r3', 'czrp031', 'czrp4mj', 'czrp9gm', 'czrpegx', 'czrq39h', 'czrqbk4', 'czrrhnp', 'czrs969', 'czrsyb8', 'czrtag7', 'czrthzg', 'czru4mk', 'czru8ii', 'czrudcb', 'czruslp', 'czrvqp5', 'czrw0qg', 'czrw11a', 'czrwj1k', 'czrx1ul', 'czrx8tj', 'czrx96u', 'czrxoa5', 'czrxuyd', 'czrxxwv', 'czrybq4', 'czrymv7', 'czryraw', 'czrzaf7', 'czrzqs9', 'czs00zz', 'czs03lw', 'czs14gt', 'czs1loe', 'czs1pih', 'czs1w94', 'czs1zjf', 'czs2fhg', 'czs2ib1', 'czs3011', 'czs38ze', 'czs3q34', 'czs3w45', 'czs3w5j', 'czs43ma', 'czs43rb', 'czs5j4e', 'czs5kzf', 'czs5tf1', 'czs6111', 'czs61z9', 'czs7i7z', 'czs7ifh', 'czs9sld', 'czseoml', 'czsm602'], 'score': [3468, 34, 5, 1051, 54, 45, 468, 12, 9, 2, 1626, 13, 2, 12, 3, 4, 25, 12, 7, 2, 3, 137, 296, 2, 8, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 4, 2, 2, 5, 3, 5, 2, 3, 2, 2], 'text': ['Hairlessness allows us to regulate our body heat more easily. One of the main advantages humans have over other animals is our ability to run long distances, and hunt animals by tiring them out. If we were covered in fur, we would simply heat up too quickly and not be able to run for long. ', \"Humans have the ability to sweat which gives us legendary endurance for both continuous movement and the ability to withstand hot environments and even both at the same time. You can't properly sweat while covered in fur. As for warmth it wasn't really necessary since clothing was invented a very long time ago and if we could wear the fur of a mammoth then there is no need to grow our own. With this in mind fur actually becomes a hindrance, not to mention it is more costly in terms of time, effort and energy to maintain. On top of all that lice and ticks were a very real problem and still are for animals that have fur. \\n\\nThe reason that head hair was kept is because of sexual selection. Long wavy hair was seen as a symbol of someone so good at the caveman life that they can maintain nice hair in an era where hunting and farming was an absolute must. On top of that long hair does offer some protection against the sun and physical damage, and makes somewhat of a cushion for sleeping. \\n\\nEyebrows allows for non-verbal communication without resorting to hand symbols in humans and is vital for reading facial expressions. It is beneficial for teamwork and empathy for this reason. Eyebrows also keep water from dripping down into your eyes when it rains. Likewise eyelashes keep out dust and dirt from your eyes and help remove it if it does get in. \\n\\nHair on the underarms and butt region allows you to move your limbs without chaffing your skin. As for the last section of hair, probably sexual selection once again. \", 'It is down to a type of hunting called an endurance hunt which bipedal animals are more suited for and enables us to lose heat whilst running long distances, for more on this - _URL_0_', \"Our ancestors were essentially marathon runners that ran down our prey until it was exhausted. Humans aren't very fast. Nearly all our prey were faster in short bursts, but none possessed the endurance of our species. Sweat cools our body down. Losing the hair allowed the sweat to perform more efficiently and keep going for longer distances.\\n\\nEyebrows...I don't know for certain. Total guess here would be that they keep sweat from running into our eyes and are effective communication tools in facial expression.\", \"We are not hairless.  We have just as many hairs as other animals, it's just not as thick in some places.  I read someplace that we have as many hair follicles as chimps.\", 'I\\'ve not read yet about the \"swimmer\" hypothesis. Humans are pretty good swimmers and divers, and can hold our breathe well and other random stuff. There is an hypothesis, that we spent some time evolving near water, and relatively less hair is an adaption for that.\\n\\nEDIT:\\n\\n[Here\\'s the wikipedia article about it](_URL_0_). I should say that glancing at the article, it isn\\'t really well accepted. But it is interesting.', \"I just want to say that what the top comments in this thread aren't proven at all. They are theories with a lot of evidence supporting it, but almost just as much disagreeing or not supporting it. I'm not saying they probably aren't right, in fact I think the endurance running hypothesis is pretty good. But I'm just saying to keep an open mind as these are not 100% proven and we still don't have the whole picture (but probably never will due to gaps in hominin fossil record).\\n\\nHairlessness may have resulted because of sweating alone, but it could just as easily be due to a multitude of factors. One thing we dont know is at what point hominins lost their hair.\\n\\nAs an interesting sidebit, we don't actually have any definitive answer for the chin. Why do we have it? Other apes do not have chins, neither did Neanderthals. Studies show it has nothing to do with mastication. What is thought now is that it had to do with genetic isolation or sexual selection. Nobody ever thinks about the chin, so just thought I'd share.\\n\\nEdit: I actually expected to be downvoted to hell with this initial comment. I'm glad that there are a lot of you that think about these things objectively and formulate your own hypotheses! This is how science happens guys\", \"Here's a BBC 7 minute [video](_URL_0_) of an African Hunter-Gather group running prey down to exhuastion.\", 'The aquatic ape theory.  It explains just about every distinction between apes and humans. The \"hairlessness\" (although we have just as many hair follicles as chimps, only ours barely produce in comparison) aided swimming, nose shape, subcutaneous fat, saline tears, dive reflex, uprightness and others are all traits developed during our aquatic phase.  All of the traits that differentiate humans and apes also happen to be shared with marine mammals.  Humans are evolved down the aquatic scale more than otters but less than seals.  It\\'s interesting as hell to me. Plenty on YouTube, Elaine Morgan is the woman most active in the theory.', \"Are you saying I'm not human?\", \"It is difficult to ELI5 because no one actually knows the answer for sure.  Every answer presented as fact is really a hypothesis.  More than that, they are [just-so stories](_URL_2_), because they are almost untestable and thus unfalsifiable.  All of that being said, there are three major hypotheses, which are not mutually exclusive:\\n\\n- [The running man hypothesis](_URL_1_): Walking on two-legs helped us throw spears and see far, and also let us separate our breathing from our stride.  When most four-legged animals sprint, their bodies expand and contract such that their breathing is forced to follow their stride; we can decouple those two motions, which is a luxury.  Furthermore, hairlessness helps us to sweat, as hair would slow down evaporative cooling.\\n\\n- [The aquatic ape hypothesis](_URL_4_): Another idea holds that humans became bipedal because an elevated head helped them when wading and fishing.  Aquatic mammals tend to either have very dense hair or no hair at all (whales, dolphins, pigs - kinda, etc.).  This idea is not as crazy as it sounds, and some random observations support that we evolved to be in or near wet environments.  For example, you know how your fingertips get wrinkly when they're in water for a while?  Well, that reaction is regulated by your nervous system, and is not a direct effect of wetness.  Furthermore, those wrinkles have been demonstrated to aid your ability to grip wet rocks.\\n\\n- [The filthy fur hypothesis](_URL_5_): Fur is not as good as clothing, because you can remove and clean clothing.  Fur, on the other hand, is always full of parasites.  Consider the two hairiest parts of the body, the scalp and the crotch; both are subject to lice.  This argument holds that we lost fur because of the terrible parasite load associated with dense fur.  It also argues that the few remaining hairs can help you feel crawling parasites and impede their progress (I have a hairy back, and can attest to this.  Good luck, ticks!)  We either replaced fur with clothing gradually, or else picked it up later to cover our nakedness, especially as we went into colder climates, depending on the timeline (which I will admit isn't known to me).\\n\\nThe remaining hair may serve a number of purposes, but it seems to help prevent sunburn, demonstrate sexual maturity, channel water flow, filter air, increase sensation and sensory range, and possibly trap aroma (while many probably no longer find this desirable, [body odor was considered sexy even in historical times, and still is in some places](_URL_0_)).  Some people here have asked if (or argued that) a trait must have been selected for if we see it today, but that's not always the case.  As hard as it is to accept, some things are the way they are purely by chance.  Red hair is frequent in Ireland in spite of no known selective benefit.  Eyebrow shapes could be in the same category.  Again, [no one knows.](_URL_3_)\\n\\nEDIT: About 10 different people rightly pointed out a mistake in my language, which made it seem like I think humans evolved a certain way because it *would be* to their benefit, rather than that they evolved a certain way because it *was* to their benefit.  I hope I corrected it so that no one thinks I'm a Lamarckian or believe in directed evolution.  Thanks for the input, glad people like the response!  Remember to stay skeptical!\\n\\nEDIT: Thanks for the gold!\", 'I find the theory around [Neoteny](_URL_0_) quite attractive. It starts from acknowledging the fact that a lot of human traits are in fact juvenile traits that have been retained by the adults (large brain, flattened face, hairless body, no penis bone etc). It is something very interesting... So there are a lot of different explanation that are given but I will put this one, since it explains why female are more neotenous than male (those body hair):\\n > human evolution\\'s trend toward neoteny may have been caused by sexual selection in human evolution for neotenous facial traits in women by men with the resulting neoteny in male faces being a \"by-product\" of sexual selection for neotenous female faces. Jones said that this type of sexual selection \"likely\" had a major role in human evolution once a larger proportion of women lived past the age of menopause. This increasing proportion of women who were too old to reproduce resulted in a greater variance in fecundity in the population of women, and it resulted in a greater sexual selection for indicators of youthful fecundity in women by men.', \"in the most simple of terms I can think of, Its an adaption our ape ancestors underwent during the end of the age of apes when the forests in africa were retreating and the savannah was expanding, we've basically just savannah chimps\", \"Look at it, we're evolving without it! We came from the apes, and look at us now. One day we'll be completely without it... and totally pure.\", \"So is the reason I'm hairy (I'm Indian, not native literally my parents are from India.) is because my ancestors were largely farmers and vegetarian so they didn't have to participate in hunting and the such? but still they engaged in a lot of physical activity as farmers? Or is there a reason indians are generally pretty hairy. Granted some of the hairiest people I've seen have been white.\", 'You ever seen anyone from the Middle East? No one is hairless. I repeat no one is hairless.\\n\\nEdit: To the Middle Eastern Hairy Bitches Downvote brigade- get fucked. ', \"This will be buried, but there could be reasons that in some sense are non-adaptive.  For instance, if female sexual preference randomly evolved to favor less hairy males, then such males would beget less hairy children, who would likely inherit their mother's preference for less hairy males, forming a loop. \", 'We do not know how hairy Neanderthals or other hominid species were.\\n\\nIf you have fire and the fur of other animals to keep your warm at night. then you do not need fur to keep you warm at night. So during the day you can sweat more efficiently combined with bipedalism allows humans to run long distance much farther more efficiently than most other animals. Also helped by carrying water in containers. When not running fur actually helps mammals stay cool by shielding them from sunlight, but a human can make a cloak which is better shade combined with better ventilation. Clothing that you can put on and take off makes you much more adaptable than insulation that is permanently attached to your skin.', \" > Why are humans relatively hairless? \\n\\n[We're not, it just got very, very fine.](_URL_0_)\", \"Did we lose all our hair?  My genes definitely didn't get the memo.  On a related note, time for my fourteenth laser hair removal treatment for my back...\", 'Essentially, our need to keep cool by sweating was greater than our need to keep warm with fur', 'Middle Eastern guy here. What is this hairlessness you speak of?', 'I shouldn\\'t do this. But I\\'ve been drinking and watching football. So what the hell. \\n\\nI\\'m a PhD and study human evolution. The endurance running hypothesis (which is being promoted by several answers in this thread) is bunk. Eventually it will become consensus in the scientific and public community that Dan Lieberman and his co conspirators have over interpreted natural selections power and did so to fit a particular and biased agenda. \\nThe endurance running hypothesis is no more valid than the aquatic ape hypothesis. \\nThe best and most simple reason humans are hairless is because we are bipedal. Being bipedal having extra fat within our abdominal cavity could cause herniations or prolapses in our lower bowl areas. Moving the fat outside out abdominal wall released this risk. \\nHowever. Having this extra layer of fat on the outside also served to insulate. So we needed to ride ourselves of hair to prevent over heating \\n\\nYes. Over heating is the same root cause. But long distance running is a delusional dream of Lieberman that I can\\'t wait to trash once I have tenure. \\n\\nEDIT: sober follow up:\\n\\nIf you want to read a good peer-reviewed paper on why the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is just adaptive story-telling, find: Langdon, JH (1997) Umbrella hypotheses and parsimony in human evolution: a critique of the aquatic ape hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution Vol 33:479-494\\nThis is an excellent paper, and all of his points can be easily applied to the endurance running hypothesis. But to boil it down:\\n\\nAquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH) has no real evidence to suggest its true other than the appearance of parsimony. That is AAH purports to explain many strange features of humans all at once with a concise adaptive narrative. Features explained are: hairlessness, long hair on our heads, holding our breath, being able to speak, bipedalism, natural-swimming behaviors in infants, etc. The problem with AAH is that other than the ability to explain all these features at once with a single over-arching adaptive scenario, there is no evidence for it. We don\\'t find hominin fossils in marine deposits. The fact that some modern peoples swim/dive for their food is cherry-picking (its not a dominant behavior among modern humans), hairlessness and other features can be explained individually if maybe not collectively, etc. But the most damning part of the AAH is the double-treatment of evolutionary constraints.  \\n\\nFor those not in the know: evolutionary constraints are forces which \\'prevent\\' evolution. In general terms we think of there being 2 of these. 1st is the \\'constructional constraint\\' which boils down to the laws of physics. Why don\\'t humans have steel teeth? Or wheels instead of legs? These seem like absurd questions, but they only seem absurd because we intuitively understand the constructional constraint. A wheel-like mechanisms can\\'t be built with the biological building materials we have on hand AND steel cannot be forged and shaped within a biological entity. These things are beyond biology\\'s reach because of the laws of physics. 2nd we have the \\'phylogenetic/historical constraint\\' which is basically heredity at work. You look more like your parents than you do any other random person (save for dopplegangers, but you get my point). This is heredity and it can be applied to the species level as well. Our species looks more like its parent species than some random other. And so on up the tree of life into larger and larger clades. This has some important consequences. The first, which is not intuitive, is that without this restriction on form, natural selection cannot work. For it can\\'t be an effective filtering mechanism without there being some reliability of the outcome after reproduction. Second, and more intuitively, it restricts the types of forms organisms can take. You are bound by your heredity to stay within a certain range of features. Why don\\'t we have 6 arms and legs? It would be so useful in the kitchen while making dinner. Other animals do. Why don\\'t humans? Well because we are the descendants of tetrapod fish. That\\'s a lame answer, but the true answer. \\n\\n(Back to AAH) The thing that AAH does is it argues constraints 2 ways. First, that our ancestors apart from chimps were radically re-made (morphologically) because of natural selection working on our form while in the past aquatic niche. BUT we retained these features after this aquatic phase\u2014which we no longer have need for\u2014because of evolutionary constraints. So, constraints are weak and do nothing, then they turn around and do everything. This is theoretically bankrupt. (Sound familiar? yeah, I\\'m looking at you, all you at the top of this thread promoting your adaptive story-telling and making Dan Lieberman at Harvard seem so smart). \\n\\nTo some others in this thread. Dan Lieberman is part of the \"academic establishment\". When you\\'re a lowly post-doc like I am, you don\\'t take on the establishment since they can deny you job opportunities, funding opportunities, and publications. Waiting for tenure is the only way to really rock the boat on a popular idea. Tenure\u2014for all its imperfections and abuses\u2014is designed to give people academic freedom to pursue ideas/hypothesis/concepts without fear of backlash. It does work in that regard. But being a post-doc I don\\'t have that... yet. \\n\\nLastly, I apologize for using the argument from authority in my original post. It was lazy and un-necessary. Having the PhD in Evolutionary Anthropology does not entitle me to short-cutting claims/ideas/concepts. Also, thanks for the gold and the people who liked this post. But I think this will languish down at the bottom of this thread. I\\'m not sure if that is good or bad given the shots I\\'ve taken at Lieberman. ', \"I could be completely wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with us evolving into bipedal creatures.  Originally, while walking on all fours, most of the backside of our bodies was exposed to the sun, thus being covered with hair for protection. As we began to walk upright, we no longer relied on having that much hair on our bodies because much less of it was being exposed to the harmful rays of the sun.\\n\", \"Hairless? Speak for yourself. I'm like a freaking Wookie. \", \"There is no real evidence that neanderthals were hairier than us. Although it is probable.\\n\\nWe actually have more individual hairs on our body on average than a chimpanzee. Ours are just much smaller and thinner. If you look at yourself though, every inch of your body is covered in hair except your palms and soles of your feet. Even on your nose there are at least follicles.\\n\\nThere are several theories as to why. Obviously the trait(s) were selected for by environmental pressure.\\n\\n My personal favorite is the semi aquatic ape theory. The idea is that the earliest modern human populations can be found close to coastal areas, and even now that's where humans naturally happen to populate the most. We ate a lot of fish/sea creatures and we would swim/stand/dive in shallow water. This would be why there is still hair on our heads, the only part that would be likely sticking out above water. Our noses are hooded to allow us to hold our breath, like a diving bell. Our mammalian cold water reflex is stronger than other primates and comparable to aquatic mammals, and we are the only non aquatic mammal that stores almost all of our cutaneous tissue directly under our skin. It is also a good explanation for our flat feet and upright posture.\\n\\nOf course this theory is heavily debated and opposed. The prevailing theory states that we get all of these traits from hunting in grasslands and chasing prey, which we are very well suited for also. The lack of hair and sweating helps us to regulate temperature in hot conditions, but exposes us to sunburn, however all of the earliest humans had melanin to prevent that from happening. There are quite a few traits though that this does not explain, like the cold water reflex and cutaneous tissue.\\n\\nBut remember, the way evolution works, not every trait *needs* a reason. They don't come about because of environmental conditions, they are selected for due to environmental pressures. Big difference. Some traits may have just been on some specimens that had other traits that were selected for, and so through the process of evolution they stayed also.\", 'There are a number of theories:  \\n\\n1. body heat regulation as Schnutzel explains   \\n2. aesthetics (sexual selection)  \\n3. an aquatic phase  \\n4. to free our skin of parasites  \\n\\nThere are others. It could be simply a coincidental result of some other important genetic mutation. Nobody knows for sure which one it was or if it was a combination of two or more.  ', 'Probably way late for this, but \"The Human Animal\" by Desmond Morris is a great read for topics like this', \"There are more than a few theories to this evolution. As most have mentioned, hairlessness is great for body heat regulation which would aid our ancestor's long marathon hunts. I do recall reading somewhere, that a theory for our hairlessness is that we evolved from an ancestral ape to be more aquatic. Hairlessness is perfect for a semi-aquatic animal to hunt in the ocean and be able to swim more effectively. The water also would act as a back support which explains our ability to walk upright as well. If someone finds an article either disproving or providing more info on this, please post it.\", 'The answers here look pretty good, but if you want to explore the topic further, check out the book \"Why is Sex Fun: The Evolution of  Human Sexuality\" by Jared Diamond. Very short, easy read that discusses this topic specifically.', \"Paedomorphism. Men sexually selected women with more child-like features because the theory is that men are more protective of women who look more like children. It's why men have traits that in the ape world are adult traits, such as large brows, hair, heavy features, and women don't. \\n\\nBasically humans look like baby apes because we're more sexually attracted to those features. Look at a baby ape with the relative hairlessness, large eyes, big head, and flat face. \", 'I heard one theory on a TED talk that we might have been primarily aquatic somewhere down the line. The theory also supported why we walked upright as well as opposed to hunched over like gorillas and monkeys.  ', \"Thermoregulation. Humans haven't necessarily become hairless but share the same proportion of follicles as chimpanzees. The only difference between humans and chimps is the selective pressure to reduce follicle size to a microscopic level. In other words, it's still there just drastically reduced. \", 'We have more hair follicles than chimpanzees. The real question you want to ask is why our body hair is so much thinner.', 'I have hair on nearly every part of my body and it grows at a rapid rate. I have to shave my body twice a week to keep up with it.\\n\\nSide note, I have no hair on feet or hands which I think is weird for me', \"Animals with fur have an oily sweat. The watery sweat that humans use is much better at cooling than oily sweat is. But watery sweat mattes down fur which insulates the body. Losing the fur allows us to use watery sweat, which keeps us cooler. Keeping cool is a big advantage in the hot climates where we evolved this adaptation.\\n\\nWe have hair on our heads because they point up at the sun. It does hurt cooling, but that seems to be outweighed by damage from sunburn and the hair helps with that. It's also likely we have head hair because we find it attractive, and that makes you more likely to have offspring. Another adaptation we evolved to compensate for loss of fur is dark skin to protect against damage from the sun.\", 'We have more hair. Our hair are finer.\\n\\nEyebrows hair guide the sweat away. Pubic hair keep from infection. No idea about head hair.\\n\\nFurry body would have been good to stay warm. Might have happened if humans started in the colder regions. But we all evolved from the Africa which has a tropical climate. ', \"Last time this was asked, no one mentioned how our improved cooling system is not just good for long distance running but allows us to keep a large brain cool.\\n\\nAnd same thing again here. No mention of it.\\n\\nIt does seem that the sweating and loss of body hair came first, and then larger brains followed, but that doesn't mean we are only hairless for the long endurance. It is likely the evolution of large brains that followed is why our sweating, hairless trait followed while others that didn't evolve the largely brains died out, because the endurance alone wasn't enough of an evolutionary advantage to last hundreds of thousands of years.\\n\\nSo why did we evolve near hairlessness? Probably endurance, or something to do with living around water as well and requiring a lot of hydration.\\n\\nWhy did our species endure while also being relatively hairless? Probably since it and the need for lots of hydration also allowed us large brains.\", ' > What happened in the evolution somewhere along the line that we lost all our hair? Monkeys and neanderthals were nearly covered in hair, why did we lose it except it some places?\\n\\nThis has been covered, but the lack of hair is related to body heat. We cover ourselves in the cold because of the lack of hair to keep us warm like animals, but we have the ability to shed clothing and be cool due to the lack of hair during the hotter months. \\n\\n > Bonus question: Why did we keep the certain places we do have? What do eyebrows and head hair do for us and why have we had them for so long?\\n\\nEyebrows are related to communication. They convey horror, humor, seriousness, surprise, and disapproval just to touch on a few. They also play a factor in protection the same way eyelashes do for the eye. Eyebrows block and reroute sweat from dripping into our eyes, and prevents dirt and dust from either falling off our face into our eyes or sweat dripping dirt directly into them. Obviously not a perfect system, eyelashes and eyebrows end up in the eye themselves, but they do the job. \\n\\nNow, you may remember in science class - or if you live in a cold climate - a lot of body heat escapes from the head. Hair on top of the head keeps us warm. If humans would have evolved to the point where no hair or very little hair grew on our heads, the winter months would have been tougher, especially before clothing became a staple of the human race. Think about how much warmer you are just by putting on a winter cap or pulling up your hood. Or cooler the summertime is with a shaved head. \\n\\nAlso, we have head hair for the same reason certain animals have bright plumage or feathers and fur characteristics to begin with. Now, I don\\'t see there being an entire subgroup of our ancestors who were bald the entirety of their life essentially dying out because they were unable to find a mate because they were always bald, but head hair is a clear attraction standpoint, even if it comes secondary. \\n\\n > Wouldn\\'t having hair/fur be a pretty significant advantage? We wouldnt have to worry about buying a fur coat for winter\\n\\nSure, having a human fur coat would be advantageous in the fact you would be warmer and have an extra layer of protection against the elements... especially thorns, rocks, tree bark, or anything else that could cut or scratch you out in the wild, but the majority of life in this day and age takes place in an urban setting. And the benefit of having excess hair or fur would be outweighed by man\\'s natural desire to live in a warmer climate. Sure, if it was frigid and you also had access to grooming products so you could cut or shave your \"coat\" at your choosing, full body hair could benefit you, but what about every person who lives in a hot and humid climate who would be having a heat stroke in the jungle or desert. Man would naturally seek out a warmer climate even when their bodies were covered in hair because it wasn\\'t enough to completely negate a frozen winter. As hair-covered man moved to a warmer climate, the hair became less and less necessary. ', \"I haven't seen anyone say that we actually don't have less hair than monkeys or any other ape, in fact, humans have more hair per square inch, it's just that ours is much much thinner.\", \"I imagine that it has to do with hunting.  We would literally follow/chase herds to death.  Long distance and sustained running inevitably caused heat exhaustion and we would overcome our prey.  \\n\\nI'd venture to guess those of us with less hair allowed us to sustain travel further, faster and hunt more efficiently.  As was the same reason for us transitioning to bipedal. \", \"I'm in the aquatic ape camp. Climate change in Africa did away with forests (trees, our original habitat). We waded into the shallow remaining water to elude predators. Standing in water so much, we lost our hair (like dolphins). Big floaty breasts for breastfeeding while standing in water. Hair on head to protect the part exposed to the sun. Eyebrows ditto. \\n\", 'I would say that you need to include differences between people, there are some hairless people and then there are people with a lot of body hair naturally. I am one of the people who have more than usual. But pretty much all of my ancestors of the past couple of hundred years came from north.', \"If something isn't inhibiting survival it won't be lost. \\n\\nHair on top of our heads protects us from the sun and can be an indicator of health and good genetics. \\n\\nIf something becomes too specialized like the panda and koala they can't adapt when their food source is gone. \\n\\nBody hair that humans have signal sexual maturity as well.\\n\\n\", \"Not all of us lost being covered in hair. I should be in a damn zoo with how much hair I'm covered in.\", \"Most people believe that the biggest reason, based on natural selection, for the loss of fur was the fact that fur-less homonids were no longer breeding grounds for parasites like lice that lived in fur. Some scientists have different opinions, however. There is one theory that a lack of fur allowed facial expressions to be more distinguisable, promoting higher levels of social behavior. All in all, though, it's still something that's argued on by evolutionists and nobody's completely sure.\", 'Remaining hair makes sense, head-hair is there to protect the head against the sun, and later cold, notice big difference in hair between africans and non africans, african hair is this small curls which allow for air to pass under, and create a layer on top of the head that heats instead of the head.\\n\\nWhile euro/asian/NA hair is smooth and clings to the head (oil) providing a coating against cold/frost. \\n\\nHair on genitalia also makes a bit of sense, it provides a buffer to protect a fairly thin and fragile area of skin, as anyone who shaves will know, sometimes it causes issues. \\n\\nI imagine armpit hair also serves that function.\\n\\nBeard however, i have no idea why, for example NA and most Asians cant grow it or simply dont have it. (lucky bastards saving so much $$ on shaving blades). ', 'Vitamin-D.\\n  \\nHumans, chimpanzees and such use Vitamin-D a lot (bone health etc). It\\'s very difficult to find any foods with vitamin D. This affects many species health. A \"hairy\" ape like thing gets either a lot of sun or some fish. A non-hairy ape can use shelters and live away form sources of bright sun or fish.', 'There\\'s actually a lot of evidence for the \"water ape\" theory which would explani why we lost our hair, have our noses, why we\\'re pretty bad at holding water, why we walk up right, why we have a strong dive reflex, why we have \"water babies\", why our butts need wiping and not least of which explains HOW we got our big brains.\\n\\nEssentially there\\'s a \"gap\" in evolution between the trees and the savannah and many researchers agree on this theory, not least of which is Sir David Attenborough.\\n\\nSources: _URL_1_\\n\\nTED Talk:\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThere\\'s also a wonderful documentary series on yourtube called the Human animal I would also check out because it takes a documentarians view to humanity as a species. \\n', 'The main reason we lost our hair is because we started wearing clothes. The hair we have left is still rather functional. In your armpits and groin, for example, it prevents your skin from sticking together, allowing air to stream by. Eyebrows and nose/ear hair prevents dirt from blocking your senses. Other places where we have hair, like head, arms and legs, are the places we least cover with clothes.', \"I browsed over the answers and no one seems to have put forward my favourite loss of hair theory. We found a better way to use all of that protein building a giant brain. I'm on mobile so I can't back it up with link or quickly check the rest of the thread but if a real MVP wants to step up...\", 'I watched a really interesting documentary that disused the possibility that we were water apes at one point in our evolutionary history. It explains our relative hairlessness, the slight webbing between our fingers and toes, missionary sex,  our buoyancy and even the layout of the body hair we have. ', 'I don\\'t have references for any of this but what I remember, the purpose of keeping eye brows evolutionary was to keep sweat from dripping into your eyes while exposed to the hotter weather while humans were being nomads or whatever. I believe hair in the pubic region helps in preventing excessive bacterial growth and also decreases friction during procreation (which theoretically any rash or open area on skin is a \"Come on in the waters fine!\" to bacteria. ', \"What's all this evolution talk?  Didn't we emerge from the Garden of Eden in this form?  \\n  \\nOn a serious note, I've always been curious about the difference in evolution between male and female...why would males of our species have much facial hair, when females have mostly none?  I can't think of another species on the planet that has evolved that way...except maybe the Lion...are we evolved similarly to Lions in terms of comparing our male facial hair to a male Lion's mane? \", \"There's an interesting theory as to why we kept head hair, and specifically why our head hair continues to grow, rather than moulting after a certain length of time.\\n\\nBasically, to keep our head hair looking tidy, it needs to be cut regularly and groomed. Otherwise it forms a three foot long, shaggy mess that catches on bushes, can be grabbed by sabre toothed tigers, and is generally not helpful for survival. Our shaggy mops are unique in the animal kingdom.\\n\\nThe theory goes that cutting and grooming have been a marker of status, and so a means of sexual selection. Hair combs are some of the most ancient artifacts found.\\n\\nIn which case, hairdressing may be actually be the oldest profession. \", 'The aquatic ape hypothesis is the coolest one. The fact that my brain orders my finger tips to literally change shape and grip rocks better, makes me a mutant. ', 'when aliens injected their genes in us, we lost the hair on our bodies and started building ditches and pyramids and stuff', \"We actually learned about this in my anthropology class. A major factor that led to the loss of hair, believe it or not, was actually FLEAS! \\n\\n\\nThey were a huge nuisance to host and not only that but take into consideration the amount of diseases they carry.(remember they were also responsible for the Black Plague) Our early ancestors that didn't have as much fleas lived longer and were constantly healthier so lived to reproduce more often and pass along their hairless genes. After a few hundred generations....hairless monkeys, us. \", 'I was giving my baby a bath last night and when I rinsed his head the water spilled over and I freaked out for a second thinking I was getting water in his eyes. I look at him and all the water was stopped by his little baby eyebrows, just streamin off to the side.', \"Why is the so much hair in my ass Crack? I don't need those dingleberries so wtf... Explain that\", 'Hairy tits and asses? No thank you. ', \"Not that it's actually supported by any real science or by any real scientist but the aquatic ape is an interesting theory I think there is a ted talk about it. \", 'Somewhere along the line, I got it into my head that perhaps the hair on our remaining hairy areas is intended to be a sort of \"protection\" for important parts of our bodies (e.g. heads of hair \"protecting\" the brain, the genitals, arteries near armpits, chest hair for the heart (though obviously I couldn\\'t explain why females wouldn\\'t have it, unless it\\'s some evolutionary hunting thing for males). Is there any legitimate discussion/theorizing about this, or did I just make it up?', 'Less hair was caused by evolution wherein early humans were adapting to having to hunt on the extremely hot African plains. Early humans were neither fast nor strong in comparison to the animals they were hunting, so the most effective way to catch prey was to literally run it to death.  Most other African animals had much thicker fur and would die of exhaustion in the midday heat.  Humans, with less hair and more skin exposed to the air, could perspire to prevent heat exhaustion.  Evolution, adaptation, survival of the fittest all take place and over many generations humans become relatively hairless.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://youtu.be/jjvPvnQ-DUw'], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis'], [], ['https://youtu.be/826HMLoiE_o'], [], [], ['http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2007/12/personal-freshn.html', 'https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjpqNDohefKAhWK6RQKHYj3ABgQFggcMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEndurance_running_hypothesis&amp;usg=AFQjCNFeJXeXG_l4X42d_1PQxT6CrRBHRQ&amp;sig2=uNnmc27m0O_IzQUnp_5ufg&amp;bvm=bv.113370389,d.dmo', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s88r_q7oufE', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis', 'http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/'], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny'], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellus_hair'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes?language=en', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2884, "q_id": "5ezowd", "title": "why is it that some pregancies are described as the best overall feeling a woman has ever, and for other women, the worst they have ever felt? why is it great for some and terrible for others?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ezowd/eli5_why_is_it_that_some_pregancies_are_described/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dagb26e', 'dagb4kg', 'dagbmuh', 'dagbqzy', 'dageu2p', 'daggy4e', 'dagrjc4'], 'score': [9, 17, 31, 15, 8, 3, 2], 'text': [\"I've never been a pregnant woman, but I've been around two with very different pregnancies. Based on this ridiculous small sample size:\\n\\nEmotions seem to get ratcheted up. If you're in a good place while pregnant, like you're stable and have few worries and have good support, then everything feels great. If you are worried about things, or lack support, etc then you'll feel it more. Of course, even if you have all those things or don't, your biology may make you more inclined to be happy or sad as well so it's not strictly external factors. \\n\\nSo for some, pregnancy is a time of enhanced optimism, getting ready for the baby, looking forward to having the baby, etc. For others, it's a time of increased stress. \", 'Person A is lying in order to get others to think being pregnant is awesome in order to further the species. Person B is honest. ', \"Obnoxious hormones. It was novel to me to see such drastic changes. I liked that I became curvy, but just standing made me short of breath, and sleeping was a struggle. Depending on the hormones, I felt one way or another. It's similar to drinking in that you have happy drunks and angry drunks, and it's usually based on how they felt before they started drinking. \", \"Not an expert, but I have some experience here. My wife has been pregnant twice. The first time she felt really good, the second time was hell for 9 months. The biggest difference for her was her lifestyle before getting pregnant. \\n\\nBefore pregnancy 1, we were living in a warm climate; hiking, biking, and camping often. She was in great shape and handled the pregnancy well.\\n\\nAfter the first baby we moved to the city so I could get a better job. That change plus the addition of a child meant we were much less active. When she got pregnant again 2 years later, she wasn't in as good a shape as she was before, and she had a harder time with the pregnancy. \\n\\nNot sure if this info is relevant to your situation/question, but my wife and I felt it played a big part in her experience.\", \"One thing I've noticed as a labor nurse is that women who have gone to classes or educated themselves about the process tend to have more enjoyable pregancies. If nothing else, it seems like the less-prepared moms find everything stressful or scary (any twinge or ache or pain or symptom in general), whereas prepared moms understand what are normal things to feel during a pregnancy.\\n\\nThen of course you have things like HG (intractable nausea and vomiting, aka the Princess Kate disease) or PUPPs (ridiculous itching) which would make any happy, prepared pregnancy miserable.\", \"I would say a lot of it has to do with your state of mind. \\n\\nLast year was my first pregnancy, and i carried twins. I never had morning sickness, never had bad cramps until 4 weeks before delivery when they were just too big to flip around proper. Honestly the only time i felt like i had an issue was when i was not comfortable with the obgyn. He just didn't have the bed side manner i expected of the person to deliver my babies. I had 2 appointments with him, then switched. I was much happier and more comfortable with the woman i got, and any discomfort i felt went away. \\nI also refused to let people tell me about their negative pregnancy. I stopped them in their tracks and said i only wanted to hear it if it was positive, that their horrible pregnancy experience is not mine. \", 'I think it depends on a number of factors: genetics, weight, pre existing conditions, mental Illness, etc- and of course, how your body reacts to hormones. Every person and every baby is different and thus some people have fantastic pregnancies and others have challenging ones- this is coming from a woman who is at 34 weeks of her first pregnancy; I have had a lot of difficulties despite being generally healthy, so I have tried to research this extensively. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 133, "q_id": "3pmpi4", "title": "how do cemeteries continue to pay the bills after there are no more plots left to sell?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pmpi4/eli5_how_do_cemeteries_continue_to_pay_the_bills/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cw7k964', 'cw7kmsm', 'cw7r76a', 'cw7s6gi', 'cw7slco', 'cw7ukst', 'cw7umrl', 'cw7xavy'], 'score': [26, 54, 10, 6, 5, 5, 6, 3], 'text': [\"Eventually, they dig up old plots  &  resell them.  How long they have to wait depends on where you are.\\n\\nThe alternative, as you see with some historical cemeteries, is that they just *don't* make money.  Some church or the local government ends up eating the maintenance costs.\", 'The cemetery has to put some money for each burial into a perpetual care fund. This money is invested and used to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the cemetery. Some cemeteries are publicly funded by taxes.', 'In most jurisdictions, cemeteries are required to set aside money for an endowment that ensures they will be able to provide care indefinitely. ', 'So what happens when we run out o space for cemeteries? The world is only so big.', \"some cemetery plots are subscription based.  If you don't pay dues, your loved ones will be dug up and cremated so they can fit new bodies in the ground.\\n\\nsucks.\", \"When we bought my father's plot, we had to pay into an escrow account.  The money is held at a financial institution and the interest serves kind of like rent.\", 'Where I live what they do is you pay for the burial site. Body is there for 8 years. After 8 years they unburry the coffin to see if the body has decomposed yet. If not, goes back down. If it has, the family will have to either pay for a [\"drawer\"](_URL_0_) with a special box where they move the bones to, or they pay to cremate the bones and then you can keep them and do whatever you want. So the same body will bring in money twice (unless you cremate it to begin with which is the best anyway).', 'It really depends where in the world you live.  \\n  \\nHere in the Netherlands, a grave is usually rented for 30-40 years. After that time is over, the grave is cleared and the remains are put into a mass grave. Exceptions are rare - mostly to very old graves (historic value) or for those of important people.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.agencia.ecclesia.pt/netimages/old/cemiterio_gavetas.jpg'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 191, "q_id": "1mpljf", "title": "how does hypnosis work? does a person who is easily hypnotized not have as much of a powerful brain as someone who isn't able to be hypnotized as easy or at all?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mpljf/eli5_how_does_hypnosis_work_does_a_person_who_is/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ccbfdte', 'ccbgkwq', 'ccbicq6', 'ccbiim1', 'ccbjh4s', 'ccbjru2', 'ccbklzj', 'ccbl1ls', 'ccbv2ut'], 'score': [61, 5, 48, 4, 21, 7, 4, 4, 2], 'text': ['Hypnosis is largely misunderstood by a lot (perhaps even most) people.  Even by the experts it is not fully understood.\\n\\nIt involves taking a subject and working with them to open their mind to be more willing to accept and act on suggestions.  I cannot speak to the psychology or physiology of that interaction--I\\'m not a doctor.\\n\\nHowever, I can say, from having listened to a number of stage hypnotists, that it is an entirely voluntary act.  Hypnosis is not about the hypnotist taking control of a weak mind.  It\\'s about the hypnotist guiding a person to bring their mind to a very specific state.  Thus, according to some hypnotists, it is actually *easier* to hypnotize \"smart\" people (I will leave the defining of \"smart\" as an exercise for the reader; most likely the key characteristic is that the individual has a good awareness, an ability to follow instructions, and an ability to \"let go.\").\\n\\nIt\\'s also important to remember that a person under hypnosis still has quite a lot of voluntary control.  They cannot be made to go against their moral fiber or to ignore most basic instincts (\"you can\\'t hypnotize someone to death\").  Also (for fans of the movie Office Space) if someone is put into hypnosis and then the hypnotist leaves then they will come out of hypnosis relatively quickly (as in within hours, as opposed to being in a semi-trance for the rest of their life).  Hypnotic triggers can be activated decades later, though (in some cases).', \"As far as I know you have to 'accept' the hypnosis.  You're not meant resist it because the reason why you are being hypnotized is likely to get help i.e. hypnosis as a cure for irrational arachnaphobia.\", 'As a non-official expert on hypnosis ^^^and ^^^by ^^^that ^^^I ^^^mean ^^^a ^^^hypnofetishist \\n \\nREAL hypnosis is not at all like you might see in movies or stage(d) hypnosis. \\n \\nIt has nothing to do with someone\\'s intelligence or mental power or whatever. It does not grant complete control over someone. It cannot make you do anything you already are not willing to do. Hypnosis basically allows you to relax and become \"suggestable\". That doesn\\'t mean \"Will obey any suggestion\", it means that, when a suggestion is made by the hypnotist, your brain will consider the possibility of taking that action, as opposed to your normal inhibitions taking over and, for example, saying \"But that\\'s embarassing!\". In the same sense, if someone were to hypnotize you and suggest that you do something that you would never in a million years do... you won\\'t do it. That will usually cause you to snap out of trance, but even if you don\\'t, you won\\'t feel compelled to do something you absolutely would never do in the first place. \\n \\nSo, if you\\'re told to think you\\'re a chicken, and you start clucking, you probably don\\'t care if it makes you look a little silly, especially since stage hypnosis has a sort of \"magic show\" feel and you\\'re more inclined to accept silly commands. But if someone were to, for example, hypnotize you and tell you to have sex with them, unless you REALLY wanted to screw that person, you wouldn\\'t do it.\\n', 'I have notes related to this topic so let me just post it here: \\n\\n**What is hypnosis?**\\n\\nIt is the ability, using verbal direction, to lead someone into an altered state of consciousness (it resembles daydreaming), during which time they are much more receptive to suggestion. Once in this state, the hypnotist can make either direct or indirect suggestions to help the subject to break damaging or undesirable habits, such as smoking, over eating, anxiety, etc. This is where hypnosis becomes hypnotherapy.\\n\\nThe actual mechanism that makes hypnosis work is quite difficult to\\nquantify. Basically, the things that drive us and make us who we are, are\\ndeeply embedded in our subconscious mind. We don\u2019t need to carefully\\nthink about what we strongly agree or disagree with, what we love or\\nhate, or strongly desire, it is \u201chard wired\u201d into our mind. Some of this\\ncomes from personal experience, preference, and needs, and some from\\nour childhood from direct commands or suggestions from our parents or\\nauthority figures.\\n\\nNormally we process information via our 5 senses and our \u201chard wiring\u201d\\nforms something termed the \u201ccritical censor,\u201d which acts as a kind of\\nfilter to determine whether anything presented to us conforms with our\\ndeepest beliefs. The critical censor decides whether or not to accept or\\nreject the information presented to us. If it is accepted it is \u201cabsorbed\u201d\\ninto our subconscious and becomes either accepted knowledge, a part of\\nour belief system, a moral viewpoint, or an ambition/desire.\\nInformation or commands that are at odds with our previously accepted\\nknowledge, beliefs, morals, or desires are rejected by the critical monitor,\\nand they have no effect on our behaviour or actions.\\n\\nThis can be explained quite nicely by Freudian psychology. The Id\\n(subconscious) is the most powerful part of the mind, and it\\nautomatically, and without our conscious realisation, contains our deepest\\ndesires, and controls our behaviour. The Ego (rational, logical mind)\\nanalyses information to see if it makes sense, before passing it onto the\\nSuper Ego (critical censor). The Super Ego is like the gatekeeper to the\\nsubconscious mind, it decides whether or not to accept the information,\\ninstruction, command, and either sends it into the Id (subconscious)\\nwhere it becomes a component of our behaviour, or rejects it out of hand.\\n\\nAll problem behaviour, like smoking for example, are habits that are\\nembedded in our subconscious mind and have become a part of our image\\nof who we are, this is why they are difficult to break. We all know that\\nsmoking is bad for our health, but trying to make yourself stop is\\nincredibly difficult \u2013 the command that your logical mind gives yourself\\nis rejected by the critical censor and never makes it into the subconscious.\\n\\nThis is where hypnosis can help. By concentrating all of the subjects\\nattention onto a single object, their critical censor is gradually subdued\\nallowing the hypnotist to speak almost directly to the subconscious mind,\\nand overcoming the problem of the suggestion not being accepted.\\n\\n**Common Misconceptions about hypnosis**\\n\\n*1) You can be hypnotized and do things against your will*\\n\\nThe simple fact is that although you subdue the critical censor and speak almost directly to the subconscious mind, people will not respond to suggestions that are against their most deeply held moral beliefs.\\n\\n*2) Under hypnosis you are unconscious*\\n\\nThis is not the case. Hypnosis is an altered state of mind in which the\\nsubject is in a state similar to daydreaming. They are at all times\\nconscious and aware and in control of what is happening to them, and can come out of hypnosis anytime that they choose.\\n\\n*3) Only weak minded people can be hypnotized*\\n\\nThe opposite is true. Generally more intelligent people are easier to\\nhypnotise, possibly because they have a greater ability to inwardly\\nvisualise and not be distracted by other thoughts.\\n\\n*4) You can get stuck in Hypnosis*\\n\\nThis is impossible, if the hypnotist dropped dead after inducing the trancethe subject would either come out of hypnosis by themselves or drift off to sleep.\\n\\n*5) You can be made to reveal embarrassing secrets*\\n\\nThis is false for the reasons given above. The subject is aware of what is happening and can not be forced to do things against their will.\\n\\n*6) If you can hear the Hypnotist you weren\u2019t hypnotised*\\n\\nPeople experience hypnosis in different ways. Hearing and remembering\\nwhat the hypnotist said to you is completely natural, hypnosis is not\\nsleep, it is an altered state of consciousness. Although your subject may not have felt hypnotised, the hypnotist can usually visually see the physical changes, and of course the subjects modified behaviour is the ultimate proof.', 'Hypnotist here (on a hobby basis).\\n\\n**First question:**\\nThere are many theories to how it works, but the one I was taught is that your brain has a filter called the \"critical filter/sense/mind\". Hypnosis is ONE way to lower the critical filter to a point where commands are accepted without question.\\nThe \"concious mind\" is considered to contain this filter, so the general goal in hypnosis is to get you unconcious (not in the sense of being knocked out) but still listening. The most widely spread way of doing this is to put someone to sleep. Almost. That\\'s why hypnotists say \"Sleep!\", because we\\'re all familiar with that state and it helps to lower/disable the critical filter.\\n\\n**Second question:**\\n\"Powerful\" is a provocative word. It\\'s not that they are not as powerful, it\\'s that some people will respond better to authority than others. In classical hypnosis (aka \"direct\" aka. \"You are getting tired! You are sleepy!\") you are relying a lot on that people will accept your authority without question. In modern hypnosis (aka. \"indirect\" aka. \"You MAY feel your eyes are getting HEAVY\") you don\\'t rely on authority as much so it will work on more people. Your language is the key.\\n\\n(Third question - you didn\\'t ask, but you assumed something about hypnosis):\\nPlease understand that a good hypnotist can hypnotize anyone. Both \"Powerful\" or not. Some people make *easier* clients because they accept authority better but a good hypnotist can hypnotize anyone IF they are WILLING.\\n\\n**Some more info on the two methods:**\\nClassic: Forcing your will onto someone until they \"caved in\" either by having them look at a fixed point or repeating commands like \"Sleep! Your eyes are getting tired!\" etc. This is how hollywood usually depicts it. It can look and sound dramatic so it makes for good theater and movies.\\n\\n**Modern:** Use of indirect commands like \"You may feel your eyes are getting heavier, so it\\'s ok to blink and close them\" or \"As you sit in the chair and feel the weight of your own body dragging you down you may feel a relaxing sensation. It\\'s ok to go along with it\". This is not so dramatic, however this is the way most modern therapeutic hypnosis works. You can combine the methods since the classic method can be more effective and less time consuming.\\n\\n**Are there other methods than classic and modern?**\\nYes! There are a lot of \"instant-\" and \"almost-instant\" methods that work on the same principle as trick-theifes use: Confusion. Confusion means your brain is desperately looking for an explaination and will likely grab at whatever it gets. This is where you have a split second to throw in a command like \"Sleep!\". You can also use physical touch, turn people around, grab their hand and even bump directly into them to get a moment of confusion. In this moment, your attention will be misdirected and/or looking for explaination or direction. The idea is that you forcibly tell them to sleep in the moment of confusion to give them direction. It won\\'t always work. People are different.\\n\\n**\"Fun\" fact about confusion and misdirection (act of directing your concious attention):**\\nTrick-thieves use this method as they bump into you (initial confusion), then they grab you with both arms (extends confusion) and say sorry (explaination and misdirection) and perhaps grab your arm (confusion and misdirection) and shake your hand (extends confusion) to \"truly\" say sorry (misdirection) and perhaps even go further to ask for direction while talking quickly and saying contradictory things (further extending the confusion and misdirection).\\nMeanwhile, his hands are all over your wallet but you won\\'t conciously notice because your constantly confused and misdirected.\\n\\nLong write. I hope this helped someone. Let me know if you need any further explaination.', 'Your susceptibility to hypnosis depends on your ability to bypass your \"critical factor,\" not on your intelligence. \\n\\nSo what is the critical factor?\\n\\nEvery day, you have random thoughts, such as \"I really hope I don\\'t spill this cup of apple juice all over myself.\" Or \"I should go study now.\" Whether your subconscious mind automatically carries out these instructions depends on your critical factor. When you are child, you have not yet developed the critical factor. That\\'s why if you tell a small child: \"don\\'t drop that,\" they will invariably drop whatever they are holding (since the subconscious mind can\\'t understand \"don\\'t\" - e.g. if you read \"don\\'t picture a pink elephant,\" you tend to automatically picture a pink elephant). It\\'s because they have no critical factor. The instructions you give them go directly to their subconscious mind, and and their body implements them. As you grow older, you recognize that you can\\'t simply blindly follow every external instruction that you receive. However, you still need the ability to communicate with your subconscious. How else do you instruct your body to do things, like eat, drink, walk over to the bed, etc? Your critical factor parses which instructions you want to follow and which you do not.\\n\\nA hypnosis \"induction,\" which is said before any instructions are attempted, is supposed to induce the subject into a relaxed state and to distract the conscious mind so that the critical factor will be lessened (for the later instructions to come). \\n\\nFor 99% of the population, hypnosis places them in a relaxed state where their critical factor is not as strong. These people are more likely to follow suggestions. But for those 99%, when they are hypnotized, they still feel in complete control. If they are hypnotized by a stage hypnotist, for example, to squack like a chicken, they will report that they were aware of what was happening the whole time. They complied because they thought it would be funny and didn\\'t see any harm in it. The hypnosis induction made them relaxed and lessened their critical factor, so they were less worried in this state about embarrassment or the social implications of doing something stupid. The fact that everyone expected them to comply also lessened the social embarrassment from doing something stupid and in fact placed peer pressure to comply. So most people under hypnosis are still in complete control of themselves. They are simply in a state of heightened suggestiveness. However, one could choose not to be hypnotized. The induction won\\'t do anything to you if you think hypnosis is stupid or won\\'t work (this is your critical factor telling you not to pay any attention to the hypnosis). I have personally been under hypnosis and gotten an important phone call and decided to break out of the trance state and go back to my \"normal\" state so I could answer the phone. There is no such thing for most people that if they are not broken out of trance, they will continue to walk around like zombies.\\n\\nFor most people, also, unless they are completely skeptical of hypnosis, the longer you spend on the induction (relaxing their critical factor), the more susceptible they will later be to suggestions. \\n\\nSo for 99% of the population, hypnosis is not strong enough to alter your perception of reality or force you to do anything you would not otherwise.\\n\\nHowever, approximately 1% of the population are extremely susceptible to hypnosis. They can be hypnotized to *completely eliminate* their critical factor. They will accept all suggestions with critically evaluating them, just as a small child might. The hypnotist is giving commands directly to their subconscious, with no interruption for their conscious mind. These can be hypnotized not to feel pain. They can be age regressed so they can perfectly describe a memory from when they were 2 years old and can be led to believe they are actually still 2 years old. They can be hypnotized to forget whatever they have done while under hypnosis. \\n\\nThere are various measures of susceptibility to hypnosis, such as the Harvard Group Scale (HGSS). Hypnosis works better to treat some types of disorders because they tend to be more susceptible. For example, people with multiple dissociative personality disorders tend to be VERY susceptible to hypnosis and can be hypnotized to switch between various personalities to allow the therapist to talk to a certain personality.\\n\\nHere are some examples of what can be done to this hyper-sensitive 1% with hypnosis. They can be convinced to throw what they believe to be acid in someone\\'s face:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThey can be hypnotized not to feel extreme cold (to the point where they could die of hypothermia without ever feeling cold):\\n\\n_URL_3_\\n\\nThey can be instructed to forget what has happened (Derren has already hypnotized this subject at this point in the video not to remember anything he does when he sees polka dots):\\n\\n_URL_2_\\n\\nDisclaimer - Derren is an entertainer, but what he does in selecting a subject (narrow down to only the most susceptible person he could find) is done by many other researchers who have tested hypnosis theories. You can also see Derren himself being *shocked* at certain points in the video that his subject really doesn\\'t seem to remember anything. Derren himself is amazed at how far he can go with hypnosis with someone who is so hyper-sensitive to it, which leads to the conclusion that these videos are not merely staged for entertainment purposes. Derren even makes the subject take a polygraph to see if he is lying about being that deep in trance: _URL_1_', \"Hypnotherapist here (registered with the GHSC in the UK) and I also just graduated with my BSc in Psychology.\\nHypnosis is a deeply relaxed state of focused attention (e.g. The hypnotises voice). All hypnosis is self hypnosis, you are always the one who puts yourself in trance. I prefer to call a hypnotherapist a 'hypnotic operator'. For the sake of ELI5, hypnosis allows you to relax your conscious, thinking part of your mind and explore the realms of your unconscious which, when coupled with suggestions, can create powerful change. Hypnotisability is correlated to intelligence but int he opposite way you describe. People below a certain IQ (iirc 75?) cannot be/very hard to be hypnotised as an imagination must be present. The more creative you are, the more easily you can be hypnotised. Those who are more SKEPTICAL however have a harder time of letting go. While this may scream the placebo effect, there have been hundreds of clinical studies comparing the effects of hypnosis to a placebo, meditation and suggestions without trance. Hypnosis is almost always show to be better than the alternatives (the studies I recall were using hypnosis for both chronic and acute pain relief). Stage hypnosis is much different, very much based on social pressure of not wanting to be the one idiot on stage who doesn't go along with the suggestions. Also, these people are always volunteers and so there's a bit of a performer inside of them waiting to come out anyway ;)\", 'A few years back I attended a Hynotist stage show.  I was called on stage with my friends in tow. One by one each friend was hypnotized and suddenly performing silly tricks on stage like a bunch of circus monkeys. I was asked to leave the stage and ushered off quickly when the \"magic\" fell flat on me. Comments?', \"Hypnosis does not work.  It's a fraud.  Not withstanding the placebo effect and the power of suggestion.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=oC9J6O6soHA#t=452', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=oC9J6O6soHA#t=2138', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=oC9J6O6soHA#t=1793', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=oC9J6O6soHA#t=810'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1357, "q_id": "3foujq", "title": "I've always heard of NATO plans to defend the Fulda Gap from the Soviets during the Cold War, was there a Soviet plan to stop NATO from rushing east in the same manner?", "selftext": "Another way to look at it - were there NATO ground plans to be the aggressor in this scenario?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3foujq/ive_always_heard_of_nato_plans_to_defend_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctqvawk', 'ctr3bub'], 'score': [17, 18], 'text': ['Very much interested in this too. Also, where there any feasible NATO first strike options against the Warzaw Pact?', 'Yes, there was significant power concentration in the area to stop a NATO assault. In East Germany, the area was not called Fulda Gap, but instead \"Th\u00fcringer Balkon\" (Thuringian Balcony), emphasizing the role of Thuringia as the most western region of the Eastern Bloc.\\n\\nThe Thuringian Balcony was important for NATO because taking it could significantly shorten the front line in a conflict as well as provide elevated positions against soviet counter attacks.\\n\\nUp until 1990, strong soviet contingents were stationed in the region. HQs in Nohra and Weimar commanded four divisions and six brigades of the 08th Soviet Guards Army. \\n\\nAs an example, the 39th Guards Motorized Rifles had seven regiments in Ohrdruf, Gotha and Meiningen. They were under arms at all times and ready for combat in a very short time to defend themselves against the (as suspected) American divisions. \\n\\nThey had support from strong rocket and artillery brigades from Arnstadt as well as Gotha and Ohrdruf. \\n\\nThis was the Southern NATO route, the Northern Route was less protected by soviet troops, but instead focused on heavy NVA (Nationale Volksarmee, Army of the GDR) presence. \\n\\n[See map here [GER]](_URL_0_)\\n\\n\\nSoviets probably knew about the NATO plans, as evidenced by a German examination of  soviet maneuver \"October storm\" from 1965, where German officers concluded that it showed similarity to NATO plans Bercon Charlie. \\n\\nSource: Agency of Military History Research (Milit\u00e4rgeschichtlichen Forschungsamt), Potsdam, Germany.\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://media401.zgt.de.cdn.thueringer-allgemeine.de/008B6044_F535331EE8891FC2C52C3ED88866AFF6']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2802, "q_id": "3319gc", "title": "Why is one C=O bond stronger than two C-O bonds?", "selftext": "Current Orgo 2 student here. Ever since we started learning about aldehyde/ketone chemistry, our professor has said probably 100 times \"the carbonyl group is a special group in chemistry because one C=O bond stronger than two C-O bonds.\" And that's shown up constantly on all of our mechanisms, and especially now in enol(ate) formation and such. But why? What's special about C-O but not C-N or any other element?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3319gc/why_is_one_co_bond_stronger_than_two_co_bonds/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqh4hhf'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"There is a correlation between bond strengths and bond distances.  In general, shorter bonds are stronger bonds.  Double bonds are shorter and stronger than the corresponding single bonds, but not twice as strong, because pi overlap is less than sigma overlap. This means that a sigma bond is stronger (relatively speaking) than a pi bond, with the difference in energy being equal to the amount of energy required to cause rotation around the double bond.  The approximate bond energy of a C-O bond is 355-380 kJ/mol while that of a C=O bond is 724-757 kJ/mol. The bond length of a C-O bond is 1.3-1.4 A while a C=O bond is 1.1 - 1.2 (approximate numbers). You can even have CO triple bonds. In a carbonyl, the distribution of electrons in the pi bond is heavily distorted towards the oxygen end of the bond, because oxygen is much more electronegative than carbon. This distortion in the pi bond causes major differences in the reactions of compounds containing carbon-oxygen double bonds vs single bonds.\\n\\nAs far as C-N or C=N bonds (or nitriles), they behave much like the corresponding C-O, C=O bonds, etc.  Oxygen has a different electron configuration in its valence shell, and has different bonding and reactivity properties, of course. \\n\\nHere's a page with some interesting reactions for you: _URL_0_\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enamine']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1500, "q_id": "7v6yo7", "title": "why are criminal cases in the military processed in military courts instead of public courts despite the military being funded by taxes?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7v6yo7/eli5_why_are_criminal_cases_in_the_military/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dtpxtbq', 'dtpxvjk', 'dtpy4lm', 'dtpya9l', 'dtq0kg4'], 'score': [33, 157, 11, 8, 3], 'text': [\"I'm not sure what your purpose is in pointing out that the military is being funded by taxes.  All courts (military and civilian) are funded by taxes, too.  Why would the military being tax-funded mean that they should be tried in one type of court over another?\", \"It's ultimately because the military has many laws that are specific to the military; sedition, mutiny, and failure to obey a lawful order being just a few of them. These aren't civilian crimes, so the military needs legal authority to prosecute these charges. \\n\\nIn the event that a servicemember commits a typical crime, let's say getting drunk and assaulting someone, the civilian legal system will get together with the military legal system and determine in which court to prosecute (typically it will end up in the civilian court if the crime was not committed on a military installation). When the crime is committed off-base, the city/county has jurisdiction. They can then choose to hand over jurisdiction to the military, or they can maintain jurisdiction and prosecute normally.\", 'The military is subject to a separate set of rules. The military does not follow the constitution or bill of rights pertaining to military members, but rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It\u2019s a comparative document to the BoR, but it somewhat limits freedoms compared to the BoR. \\nExample: 1st Amendment of the Constitution says you can belong to a hate group (KKK) without recourse. The UCMJ says the same thing, but, it also says you cannot be a active member or attend protests, esp in uniform. Also, it covers rules and regulations during times of war and conduct of members while fighting. The UCMJ also covers what is called Rules of Engagement (ROEs) and Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC) during times of war. They govern your conduct, who you can and cannot engage, standard procedures during war, and the basic wartime rules (example- It\u2019s unlawful to use a .50 Cal machine gun on personal. They are anti-vehicle and material weapons, and using same against personal could make you subject to Courts Marshal action) \\n\\nThe UCMJ also covers conduct in regards to behavior and following lawful orders of NCO\u2019s and Officers, behavior on and off duty, order and discipline, and also allows for what is called Non-Judicial Punishments (NJP) or Article 15 action. Basically instead of going to jail or getting kicked out, you loose rank, get fined, and get extra duty (at the discretion of your Commander) \\n\\nAlso, the military does not have trials, but rather Courts Marshals. Military courts marshals are completely different in terms of prosecution and defense as the UCMJ is more in depth than the BoR. \\n\\nLastly, a Courts Marshal is composed entirely of other military members. The Judge, Jury, prosecution, defense and all other officials are Active Duty or Reserve. Civilians would be completely lost as far as rules and regulations of Active Duty, as well as everyday life of active duty. ', \"Because A) the military has jurisdiction over the individual and their workspaces and B) there are a whole raft of things that are trial-worthy crimes in the military that don't merit being called a 'crime' in civilian life.\\n\\nA comes up a lot because military personnel can get sent all over the place, including places outside what would otherwise be the jurisdiction of the nation's civilian courts. Say for instance someone is getting deployed and commits a crime during transit in international waters. A civilian government's jurisdiction doesn't cover that, but the military has them dead to rights. \\n\\nB is especially important; between internal codes of procedure and international treaties, military law is effectively a field of study all on it's own. For instance, say a civilian does a no-call/no-show at their place of work, they just fail to show up one day. They're in trouble when they get back. Most likely going to be disciplined. Possibly fired. If he had a contract, there might be financial penalties. An American soldier says 'fuck it' and skives off with no warning? He's 'Absent Without Leave' and in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He's committed a crime worthy of a trial, and could be looking down the barrel of a felony conviction and a multi-year jail sentence. \", \"It all comes down to one simple fact: for the general public, killing people is a crime.  For the military, it's part of the job.\\n\\nThere's a whole lot of consequences to this, including the idea that desertion isn't just quitting your job, it could get your coworkers killed, and that refusing orders isn't just going to get you fired, it could lead to the extermination of your country...\\n\\nThe point is that most governments have decided that the high-stakes, life-and-death nature of military service means that many of the rights and legal privileges ordinary citizens are entitled to don't work the same way in the military, so special courts are required.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1737, "q_id": "2z5rnt", "title": "if female orgasms last so much longer then males, why do men think/want sex so much more?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z5rnt/eli5_if_female_orgasms_last_so_much_longer_then/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cpfwrbm', 'cpfws35', 'cpfxgov', 'cpfxirw', 'cpg00t4', 'cpg00uq', 'cpg04nw', 'cpg0r73', 'cpg17dj', 'cpg1ig3', 'cpg5kb1', 'cpg6z7h', 'cpg6zoo', 'cpg7imm'], 'score': [57, 87, 44, 24, 21, 7, 13, 7, 44, 2, 5, 2, 2, 5], 'text': [\"While there may be some biological differences, a lot of it comes from our culture. If you tell one group of people: 'your worth is tied up in how much sex you can have' and tell another group: 'your worth is tied up in abstaining from sex', who do you think is going to think about and admit to thinking about sex more?\\n\\nAdditionally, more women are on drugs that lower the sex drive (namely hormonal contraceptive and SSRIs)\", \"It's not just about the orgasm. The sex thought process is also driven by the biological need to procreate and produce the next generation.\\n\\nWomen are fertile a few days of the month, but men are fertile pretty much all the time, and a guy can fertilize many many women. So biologically men's sex drive is higher and they think of it more often.\\n\\nAnd yes, there are lots and lots of individual exceptions. This is from a general trend perspective.\", \"I don't know. I think women want sex as equally as guys... we've just been conned to think otherwise. \", \"They don't. There is just as much variance in libido within men as there are within women and the ranges are almost the same between the genders. If there is a difference it is very slight and mostly due to hormonal birth control. \\n\\nMost of the idea that men think of sex more is a social construct that is false. \", 'There was a study that stated that men and women think about sex just as much as the other. Due to cultural influences when a woman expresses her sexual desire she is seen as a slut (or some other shaming word) and when a man does the same thing they are not looked at in such a way. So as a result women tend to be less vocal about their sexual desire making it seem that they think/want less sex.\\n\\nAlso I do not believe there is a connection between orgasm length and sexual desire. ', \"They don't. We all love sex just as much as each other. \", \"I'm not convinced it's anything other than a false generalization. As a male around people.\", '2 questions. Have you ever been in a sex toy store? And have you ever overheard girls talking when they think no guys can hear them? I disagree that guys think about sex more. ', \"I feel as though I may be In a unique situation, as a transgender man who is taking hormones (testosterone), I have both male and female perspectives on this question.\\n\\nWhen I had no male hormones in my system I did think about sex but in an entirely different way than I do now. It was generally localised around the 'time of the month' that I thought most about sex and it was more a need for that moment of closeness and connection with another person.\\n\\nNow I honestly think about it all the time, everything makes me think of it from a cute girl walking down the street to a flash thought in the back of my mind and it's more of an animal need for it.\\n\\nI am effectively going though a male puberty however, that could have something to do with it.\\n\\nDisregard if I am somewhat of an anomaly\", 'This goes against the general train of thought in these posts, but I think that men *do* think about sex more.  Consider the behavior of gay men versus lesbian women.  Gay men are much more sexually active.  I think that the traditional idea that women are more selective in regards to sex because they are the ones who get pregnant may sound hackneyed, but is basically correct.  ', \"Men want sex more because it's harder for them to obtain.\", \"Because if men didn't want to have sex with women they'd have less reason to protect and provide for them and the species would have died out.\", \"Horniness isn't a thinking about or wanting of orgasm. It's the desire for the sexual contact that leads to orgasm. \\n\\nIt's like saying that craving taco bell is having a craving for digestive problems.\", ' > why do men think/want sex so much more?\\n\\nSays who? Look at any female based tv show, its all about either sex or wine.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2233, "q_id": "1vgjrd", "title": "In the HBO series 'Rome' set during Julius Caesar's dictatorship and later Augustus' bid for power, the two main characters come to run something called the Aventine Collegium by appointment of Mark Antony. Was this a real thing, and if so what was it?", "selftext": "The series is very unclear about this. It *seems* to be some sort of state-sanctioned gang, conducting murders and running brothels - at one point they're tasked by Augustus and Mark Antony with killing a whole bunch of men that could warn Brutus of their alliance. The series takes a lot of liberties with history so it might not have been a real thing, but I'm curious to see if it was. The leader is referred to as a Captain, but I think in Latin that just means 'head' or 'leader'.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vgjrd/in_the_hbo_series_rome_set_during_julius_caesars/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ces3dfm', 'ces9v9c'], 'score': [37, 4], 'text': ['It was actually. Rome, in those times, actually had no police force. It was also illegal to bring active soldiers into the city under arms.\\n\\nDuring the political reforms of the later stages of the republic, physical violence and force became common tactics used by different sects in order to suppress opposition and enforce their own agendas.  In the show Rome you can see an example of this when Marc Antony is trying to get to the Senate to veto and is attacked by a mob of club wielding thugs. Those thugs are meant to intimidate and threaten participants in the forum to promote a political agenda.\\n\\nSenators and Consuls eventually clue up to the fact that having armed gangs full of guys like that running around the city bullying your political enemies was a great way to make sure you win elections and stay in control.\\n\\nOf course that would not be without some backlash for the prestigious and eventually the oligarchy turns to organizing the gangs under proxies. Two of the first and most famous are [Milo](_URL_1_) and [Clodius](_URL_0_).\\n\\n[Here](_URL_2_) is paper further explain their activities within the context of mob warfare in Rome with a bit of editorializing. There is a bibliography at the bottom with further source material if anyone is interested. A few sources, particularly *Mob Violence in the Late Roman Republic: 133-49 B.C* by J.W Heaton and *Violence in Republican Rome* by AW Linott would be relevant.', 'Great comment by /r/AFancyLittleCupcake\\n\\nAlso, when you they\\'re tasked with killing people on the \"list,\" that wasn\\'t actually murder, it was state sanctioned \"proscription.\" Like the original concept of outlawing someone, it was the state declaring \"hands off, you can totally kill this guy if you want.\"  They refer to this a few times in the show.\\n\\nAlso, there have been several threads here before about the historical accuracy of the show, which you might find instructive.\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Annius_Milo', 'http://papersiwrote.blogspot.com/2006/09/organized-gang-warfare-in-late.html'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 74, "q_id": "772x4c", "title": "Is there any evidence that Medieval ordeals were generally rigged by the priests conducting them? Are there any specific instances where the ordeal was rigged.", "selftext": "I ask this in response to [this](_URL_0_) dubious and very unscholarly article posted in your lazy step-brother subreddit /r/history.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/772x4c/is_there_any_evidence_that_medieval_ordeals_were/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dojahy8'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"While not directly answering your question [this](_URL_0_) post by u/TheFairyGuineaPig which has sources which may answer your question if you choose to read them. I remember seeing a similar post a while back and wanted to link it, but it didn't answer the question. I could link it though if you want.\\n\\nEdit: Formatting, and giving due credit.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['https://aeon.co/ideas/why-the-trial-by-ordeal-was-actually-an-effective-test-of-guilt']", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vw0ql/how_common_were_fatal_trial_by_ordeals_in/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2981, "q_id": "ccxzqp", "title": "What is the name of the first species?", "selftext": "I've tried to google the name of the first organism, but I just get Bacteria or Prokaryotes. What is the earliest classified species of life?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ccxzqp/what_is_the_name_of_the_first_species/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['etr4dyc', 'etuff2l'], 'score': [23, 2], 'text': ['Well they\\'re long dead, and no fossils exist, so they cannot be formally named. Working backwards from the genomes of modern organisms, we can make some inferences about the most recent common ancestor of all extant life--sometimes called LUCA for \"last universal common ancestor\". It would necessarily have been a prokaryote, and we can even infer some details of its metabolism--but without direct evidence, we can\\'t formally classify it.\\n\\nAnd LUCA was probably far removed from the actual first organism. In fact, in many models of abiogenesis there was no clear first organism, just a set of molecules that become more complex over time and gradually assembled the traits of all modern life. At this point we can do little but speculate.', \"The oldest organism for which we have a fossil is Stromatalites, which go back to about 3.6 billion years ago.  It's been though that life began over 4 billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms.  Unfortunately, single-celled organisms don't generally leave fossils.  The Stromatalites themselves are single-celled organisms, the only reason we have fossils of them is that they clump together into mats and excrete calcium (like building a reef).\\n\\nIn writing this I discovered that they have found possible microfossils in Northern Canada that are 4.28 billion years old.  These were only discovered 2 years ago, and are still being debated whether or not they are fossils or natural deposits (they are hollow iron tubes that were deposited around hydrothermal vents).\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2699, "q_id": "646sz4", "title": "how did the usa get the \"i have the right to be offended and you shouldn't offend me\" culture when they have protected free speech?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/646sz4/eli5_how_did_the_usa_get_the_i_have_the_right_to/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dfztgh7', 'dfztgr4', 'dfzthnd', 'dfztmio', 'dfzuaav', 'dfzuoap', 'dfzv5nv', 'dfzvbjg', 'dfzvdqr', 'dfzvfk6', 'dfzvhjq', 'dfzvhow', 'dfzvjmb', 'dfzvntc', 'dfzvo1z', 'dfzvotr', 'dfzvr6y', 'dfzvt2y', 'dfzvusr', 'dfzw11a', 'dfzw20v', 'dfzw3u8', 'dfzw5un', 'dfzw8vq', 'dfzw9kb', 'dfzw9qt', 'dfzw9x1', 'dfzwam0', 'dfzweex', 'dfzweyt', 'dfzwj4f', 'dfzwmt2', 'dfzwo26', 'dfzwp0n', 'dfzwp4g', 'dfzwp4n', 'dfzwpvy', 'dfzwtux', 'dfzwty7', 'dfzwukc', 'dfzwuwz', 'dfzx318', 'dfzx3mx', 'dfzx4pe', 'dfzxaqm', 'dfzzo2z'], 'score': [4, 11, 236, 31, 7, 652, 24, 28, 114, 16, 2, 48, 6, 84, 4, 2, 3, 201, 7, 4, 7, 4, 7, 19, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 3, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['Human nature. Look at the alt-right movement - one of their biggest gripes is they were talked badly about by those \"liberal elites\".  And they\\'re the ones crying about a \"PC culture\" and having to watch what they say. It\\'s hypocritical, but also human nature. ', 'Freedom of Speech is only with regard to the federal government. From the Constitution:\\n\\n > Amendment I\\n\\n > **Congress shall make no law** respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or **abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press**; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\\n\\n', 'Freedom of speech only means that the government cannot take away your right to express your beliefs. Other people may pressure you into not expressing your beliefs.\\n\\nWhen you have people who say offensive things and use freedom of speech to defend themselves, they\\'re wrong because the government can still censor anything without social value or anything inflammatory, ~~or anything hateful,~~ etc.\\n\\nNow, when people in America only want their opinions heard and not the other side\\'s, we take it as a normal day. It\\'s primarily because the US has been a country of combative ideals since the beginning, so people get really emotional over a lot of things.\\n\\nEdit: My bad, hate speech is not restricted unless inflammatory. Inflammatory speech is subject to the Brandenburg test, and so may or may not be restricted. \"without social value\" applies only to ~~offensive~~ expression, and is especially relevant when discussing the Court\\'s opinions on pornographic content.\\n\\nEdit 2: \"without social value\" is for *obscene* expression, generally pornographic in nature.', 'Think of it like this: *\"I dislike what you are saying, I really don\\'t want you saying it because it offends me. I will defend your right to say it though.\"*\\n\\nJust because we would rather someone not spout... say, racist rhetoric and hope for a day people no longer do, doesn\\'t mean we want it outlawed. We want the speech gone, but we do not trust the government to do so and we would prefer it to die naturally. The US is a society built on distrust of government: We made our government inefficient so each branch fights the other to make it harder for the government to fight us, Our constitution limits what government can do, etc.\\n\\n', 'Politicians in America play in this all the time.  They select a segment of society from which they would like to get some votes, then \"champion the cause\" of whatever offends said segment\\'s sensibilities.  For instance, Trump used the latent racism and xenophobia of Americans to become President. See: #BuildThatWall  &  #MuslimBan', \"Social media/media has made it appear there are assholes everywhere, when it's just that assholes are the most vocal. The majority of us, I would imagine, would seem pretty normal to you. \", \"What country are you form where people don't want to be offended? Is it Redditistan?\", 'Several people have explained how our first amendment only applies to the government, but so far I didn\\'t see anyone explain how we got to the \"right to not be offended\" status.\\n\\nSo... Let\\'s travel back in time to legal slavery, and before women\\'s suffrage, and maybe even as far back as handing out smallpox blankets to Indians. There was a lot of bad laws establishing landowners (exclusively white males) as the only people with any legal rights. Period.\\n\\nWell times changed as people slowly realized that treating any human as less than human was reprehensible. (Very slowly... Some people haven\\'t got the memo yet) ~~So laws against hate speech were established. Anything offensive aimed at a particular protected group of people qualified as hate speech.~~\\n\\n~~This was good. It allowed people to be backed by the full power of the government when often entire communities targeted them.~~\\n\\n~~The mistake was allowing people to take it as far as, \"What he said was offensive to me, it qualifies as hate speech.\" there\\'s a fine line of what should qualify.... And they missed the mark by a long shot.~~\\n\\n~~So now offending people in many cases is established as against the law... and~~ businesses don\\'t want to ~~spend money defending themselves against unwarranted hate speech charges~~ *drive off customers*, so they fire any employee that offends a customer. The customer feels this is how the world **should** be, so constantly ~~threatens to use legal action~~ *acts like it\\'s their god given right to get their way* every time they get offended in any situation.\\n\\nThere\\'s a lot of people like this now. ~~It\\'s an epidemic, and I think the laws need a drastic overhaul... But our government is only focused on what their owners tell them to focus on... Which is to exploit the people for the profit of big businesses.~~\\n\\n---\\nApparently I was grossly mistaken about \"hate speech\" laws being in america. Puts a large hole in my logic, but it still makes sense to blame it on businesses. Especially with the \"The Customer Is Always Right\" bullshit.', 'As an American, that right to free speech protects my right to tell you something you said was offensive as much as it protects your right to say it. It basically boils down to the old \"sticks and stones\" argument, with a few exceptions such as extreme and inciteful hate speech and [fighting words](_URL_1_).\\n\\nThe big thing that most American students learned about (in terms of free speech and the first amendment) is [the KKK marching in Skokie Illinois](_URL_0_). Obviously, the nature of their expression is noxious and anti-social - but distasteful is not *illegal*. So they marched, requiring police protection to keep the substantially more numerous anti-KKK crowds from expressing their distaste illegally (physically). The important concept behind all of this is that you can say whatever you want, but I can think whatever I want about it and tell you as much; basically, intelligent, thoughtful people have nothing to fear from a person spreading falsehoods or socially unacceptable theories...\\n\\n...And given the dearth of intelligent, thoughtful people in the US at this point, maybe the concept is also a little anachronistic.', 'People think that the freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want with no consequences. \\nOn the flip side, people get in their heads that they can say whatever they want and have it be right and truth. \\nThis is a much bigger issue than just being offended. ', 'Because my generation is full of entitled, virtue signaling, thin-skinned brats who yell so loudly about every little thing that everyone else realizes its easier to appease them then to try to reason with them. ', \"People who behave like that are actually a small subset of the population. It gets blown out of proportion on social media. Social media gives those people a voice so they get noticed more often. Then when they do get noticed, places like Reddit go off on them because everyone agrees they're annoying. There are more people complaining about the problem than there are people contributing to the problem.\", 'Can you give us some examples?', 'There\\'s obvious hypocrisy in anyone who espouses free speech while simultaneously wanting others\\' speeches censored, but I think your disconnect is-\\n >  Yet, from an outsiders perspective when looking in at the USA, it seems like different groups of people only agree with free speech when it is their opinions being voiced and to silence people who disagree with them - but doesn\\'t this go against free speech, the same free speech they are using?\\n\\nI imagine an outsider\\'s perspective is going to be very limited to what the media is telling them - on reddit, I frequently see things about \\'PC\\' and everything *but*, in real life, in my daily routine, with the people I ever speak to, I\\'ve never once met someone who\\'d advocate any legal restrictions on speech which is what I imagine you\\'re implying (because if you just mean \"some people are touchy and wish everyone would talk how they want\", well, that\\'s just a childish behavior that\\'s inherent in many humans, no matter what country you consider)', 'Sadly, it\\'s rooted in trying to stop people from using language meant to marginalize and oppress certain groups, but it was taken too far by some on a high horse, and who ultimately go on to hurt the original cause.\\n\"Niggers are destroying the country\" and \"you\\'re overweight, you should really go on a diet\" are two VERY different points, but the \\'snowflake\\' group sees the 2 as similar, in that they\\'re both simply \"offensive\". So suddenly everything can get lumped into being \"offensive\" so they become equally \\'wrong\\', when they\\'re not the same things at all. It sucks.', 'People use offense and outrage as a means of asserting power. It frees them from actually developing and supporting coherent arguments to support their views.', 'When you have certain groups saying, \"Halloween offends me\" and the school districts take that away so they don\\'t upset the one mom who doesn\\'t celebrate Halloween. Instead of celebrating the masses wishes they are afraid of liability and kiss the ass of the few so they don\\'t upset that one person, but they have no problem alienating the rest.', 'In the US, free speech is enshrined in the Constitution. The government cannot privilege any religion or school of thought over another, it cannot restrict the press, and it cannot put people in jail for saying whatever they want (with limits -- you can get in trouble for speech that incites violence, for slander, for fraud/perjury, or for causing danger by, for example, yelling \"FIRE!\" in a theater just to incite panic, not because there\\'s really a fire). \\n\\nSo basically, legally, you can say or write whatever the heck you want as long as you\\'re not lying under oath, lying for financial gain, or lying to incite a chaotic or dangerous situation. \\n\\nAs for people taking offense, well, America has a very long, complicated, and often ugly history of prejudice against all sorts of people. People are understandably touchy about a lot of things as a result of that history, though I\\'d agree that sometimes it does get taken a little too far. The time when people would brutally lynch black men for looking sideways at a white woman wasn\\'t too long ago. There are still Japanese-Americans alive today who remember spending World War II in camps in the Mojave Desert (George Takei, for one). We\\'re still trying to deal with a lot of very hateful attitudes and mindsets, and so when people get offended by things and want them eliminated, it\\'s a part of that larger societal shift. It can be a bit heavy-handed sometimes, but I think that it\\'s not necessarily an evil thing. \\n\\nThe other thing is that allowing everyone to have nearly unrestricted freedom of expression means that you get every shade of opinion imaginable, and extreme opinions tend to be the loudest, or, alternatively, the squeakiest wheels get the grease, so when an extreme or just very offensive thing is said, the offended people, unable to use the law to stop hateful things from being said, must use public pressure instead. \\n\\nWithout taking sides in the issue, it\\'s basically self-policing by society, since the law says that you can say and believe whatever you want. \\n\\nAnd if you want my actual opinion, I abhor hateful speech and I can get offended by things people say, but I also recognize that they have every right to say them, but on the flip side, I have every right to tell them why I think they\\'re wrong. So it evens out in the end. ', 'Internet, industries built on advertising, and boycotts. \\n\\n\\nThe internet has allowed for the easy organization of boycotts against advertisers. Most industries are reliant on advertising for revenue. Advertisers don\\'t want to be boycotted and thus won\\'t show ads on any program whose advertisers get boycotted. Programs don\\'t want to lose revenue so they curtail content so as to not instigate boycotts against their advertisers.\\n\\n\\nWe now live in culture where most of the media never says anything that offends people, thus creating the impression that offending people is bad. Learning from the media, people now treat offending people as a serious \"offense\". ', 'The right to free speech in the US means that the government cannot restrict your speech except in very limited circumstances.  Additionally, while we are free to speak our minds, we are not free from the consequences of doing so.  So while you are certainly free to go into a crowded shopping mall and scream racial slurs at people, you are not free from whatever consequences that might bring, to include other people shouting you down or the mall (a privately owned operation) ejecting you from the premisis.', \"This 'culture' is not nearly as common as the internet or media makes it seem. There is also some tasty irony going on when people get offended by others being offended. \\n\\nFree speech is purely about preventing government censorship and doesn't have much bearing on this.\", \"Frankly, life is too good here. There aren't enough actual bad things going on. People love having things to complain about, it makes them feel important and we have maybe the most narcisistic and individualistic culture in the world. Hence they actively search out for things to be offended by.\", 'Short answer: people within the culture of \"don\\'t you dare offend me\" have every right to protest and demand that they not be offended, that is part of free speech. You may use your freedom to demand that others have less freedoms, if that\\'s really what you choose to do. \\n\\n', 'I have thought about this one for a long time and it boils down to this... imho...\\n\\n1. Internet culture. To explain, I don\\'t think anyone knew what the internet would be capable of. We all used it, but for the time (early 2000s) there wasn\\'t  lot of communities.\\n2. Enter the age of the internet war sometime after 2005. Websites began having social conflicts between users stealing memes. I think the main of this conflict was Reddit, Tumblr, and 4Chan. Reddit was also just going through the Digg migration.\\n3. The meme wars escalate with the parallel rising of third generation feminism, social justice warriors, and flooding Facebook with political garbage during the first Obama presidential run.\\n4. Once politics got involved in the content wars, everything turned into a culture war fuel by proto versions of SJWs, Black Lives Matter, Alt-Right, etc. The biggest issues that still plague the culture was is hyperbole (over exaggerations).\\n5. Media saw this as marketable during the years of Obama\\'s presidency and over time it just got worse. That\\'s why we have seen large media shaken a ton after Trump. \"Fake News\" has made a huge wrinkle in media for every one because we really don\\'t know who to trust anymore.\\n6. Finally, Poe\\'s law, going back to hyperbole. This law essentially defines how people cannot tell parody from extremism which is dangerous. 4Chan parodied social movements a ton but only their worst qualities. Over time, these jokes that are usually going around the net as memes, lose their source. They may get picked up by actual extreme or fringe members of movements, and bam, you get a group of people who accidentally believe bullshit because they think its their \"team\\'s\" bullshit.\\n7. HOW DOES THIS ALL LEAD UP TO LIMITING SPEECH -- The thing about the social movements going on today is they have a good message. End racism, bring about equal rights for all sexes and beliefs, etc. Here is where it gets funny.\\n8. The rise of people against free speech -- the social movements mentioned above have the belief that the way we talk about things perpetuates the kinds of changes they want to see in the world. Things have gotten pretty bad where now in New York you can be fined for not referring to someone by their pronouns. People are choosing self censorship to avoid getting in trouble, but it\\'s sometimes like bending over too much for these crybaby extremists. Thing is, again, no one wants to get in trouble. Especially with a group of people who have been known to seek you out just to make you lose your job or something. The American government cannot easily destroy free speech but I do feel there are powers that recognize a way to limit it by influencing our culture and it appears to be working.\\n9. The ultimate blame is identity politics. People who believe they are owed something or have a right to something just by merit of their identity. Thing is, we all have an identity that we use to define who we are to be shared with other people. The issue became using this identity to get special treatment. Universities and public schools facilitated identity politics to create rules because they don\\'t want trouble from parents or losing students. Now, identity politics is a real power to be feared by people who live under the policies.\\n10. Tribalism by identity politics -- the real great thing about identity politics and I suppose you could say, identity psychology, is right now it\\'s divided people. You pick teams that match your beliefs. Political leanings, race, sex, or sexual direction groups. Pages on facebook, content creators, etc. They have grievances with other groups that they occasionally complain about and these complaints, existing in the group, make **echo chambers**. An environment where an idea get repeated too much and grows in its communal pathos, ethos, and logos. The thing is, they also tend to go unchallenged because of what can be arguably seen as \"Over Moderation\". Have an opposing view? BANNED. DELETED. HIDDEN. Then you post \"Some people these days. Crazy [descriptor here].\" And its championed.\\nFrightening stuff.\\n\\nIt\\'s a crazy multifaceted issue that is still developing today.       ', 'Poor parenting.   \\n  \\nThe last generation was raised being constantly told how great they are, how right they are, that everyone should like them, and that the world should be customized to their desires.   \\n  \\nThey were never taught how to deal with conflict, how to handle stress, or how to control their emotions.', \"Here's the real answer. It has everything to do with people giving validity to their feelings. They wear their feelings with pride and if you hurt their feelings then they are offended. It's a bunch of bullshit.\", 'After hundreds of years of oppressing certain people, the efforts to undo that damage included making the language related to past oppression unacceptable. \\n\\n\\nThen others with less to complain about saw how that worked, and used the concept for their own purposes.\\n\\n', 'There is no right to not be offended. It\\'s not wrong to ask people to not be jerks, but you have to understand that they may or may not comply. You don\\'t have the right to have your request abided. The only exception is if the offensive speech somehow falls under anti-harassment or discrimination laws. Hate speech and inflammatory speech (which is very subjective) are not protected. Harassment and discrimination acts are illegal. Basically, the First Amendment is a general outline for free speech, but Court precedence and subsequent laws determine how it is interpreted and applied.\\n\\nFrom The Declaration of Independence: \"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\" Unfortunately, there doesn\\'t seem to be anything self-evident and our legal history has shown many different sections of society being withheld those rights at various times. \\n\\nMy view on society right now: We are becoming more selfish and narcissistic so we think everything revolves around us. We are more offensive because we put our wants/needs as top priority and think we can do whatever we want if we deem it right and just. We rarely think of the greater good since we are operating from a personal, individualistic model. We think we know everything, ignoring the experts. However, society cannot operate this way without falling apart. There have to be some ground rules and a general respect and consideration of others. Truth is truth and fact is fact, regardless of whether an individual agrees or not. Until we can move out of this selfish, individualistic mind set, it will continue to get worse. ', \"Americans generally only believe in free speech for themselves, not for people they disagree with.  Americans are afraid that others will believe the people they disagree with, so they preemptively try to stifle their speech.  Since Americans are hypocrites, they will claim to believe in free speech because the government isn't doing the stifling.  However, this is incorrect because the concept of free speech is much deeper than the First Amendment.\", \"Because many Americans often confuse 'freedom of speech' with 'freedom of speech without consequence'. They prefer the latter.\\n\\nIn my experience, I have found that many Americans act on the basis that freedom of speech means that they can say whatever they want and others have to respect it simply because they have a right to say it. Which isn't true! People are perfectly entitled to respond to something however they like. \\n\\nFor example: If somebody walks into a room and starts saying horrible nasty things, and the other people in the room don't like what is being said, they all turn their backs on that person. They don't want or have to listen to what they disagree with. So the person who made those initial comments is shunned, and feels *societal pressure* to be silent, because people aren't responsive to their opinions.\\n\\nThat is the difference. Feeling shamed into silence or having opinions disagreed with by your fellow humans is different from being stripped entirely of free speech. If they had no free speech, the government wouldn't have allowed them to say those things in the first place.\", 'I would like to add something to this discussion. There are a lot of individuals who believe that our right to free speech only falls under the jurisdiction of protections from government intervention. But the principles that were used to found our country were those principles hailed by political thinkers such as bastiat or locke. Following their logic the government has three purposes that lead to the protection of its peoples: Protection from coercion by force, settlement of disputes between individuals(Land disputes back in the day), and protection from foreign enemies. \\n\\nThe speech argument would fall under the disputes category because of the changing face of our country and our problems. \\n\\nTo say that the constitution only protects us from government and not from each other is to disregard the principles that it was founded upon. We have free speech laws because it is an inalienable right that we should be able to speak our minds without fear of harm. That being said, my personal opinion is that our culture is a dependent one. We depend on the government to protect us, and as such we sling all our problems their way and expect to be done right. This is a silly notion because someone is always unhappy with the results. But hey, as long as we continue to try to create a majority that will be happy with the results eventually there will be no opposition right? ', \"Those two things are completely compatible with each other.  As an example, I have the right to be offended by Bill O'Reilly, and I'm perfectly happy to tell Fox news (the network that airs him) that they should not offend me because they're a commercial entity and I will refuse to support them (by way of not watching, and also refusing to do business with companies that advertise on his show).  That is my power as an individual.  If lots of people do the same, then that does not constrain O'Reilly's ability to speak, just his ability to make money doing it.  He's allowed to speak, but nobody is required to listen.\\n\\nWhat I can't do, and what almost everyone agrees is wrong, would be to pass a law that the government would enforce to make it illegal for him to speak.\", 'To add to the other comments, free speech pertains both to the person doing the speaking, and those responding to it. Lets say you come to reddit and say \"Dude, cat videos are just dumb.\" The government would violate my freedom of speech to prevent me from from saying \"you are wrong.\" This seems trivial, but during women\\'s fight for suffrage, the civil rights movement, the fight for rights for disabilities, the a lot of the arguments against why we shouldn\\'t have these was \"Dude, women are just dumb (too dumb to vote).\" And people stood up and said that they were wrong.', 'Can I ask where you you from? Despite have a rise in sjws lately America is by far the country with the freest speech in the world. ', 'Well whomever told you that about the US Constitution was wrong. Sort of. As an American we are protected for freedom of speech as long as it is not slanderous toward another. If I want to come out and say that I hate radical Islamic terrorists as an example and a radical Islamic terrorist who is also a citizen is offended by it well that\\'s tough shit because my freedom of speech is protected. These fucking cry baby snowflakes who are offended by everyone and everything nowadays is a direct result of the \"everyone gets a trophy\" mentality. Also these same people seem to think they are entitled to things without having earned them. As Clint Eastwood said, this is the pussification of America. The majority of foreigners who are coming to America to make a better life for themselves and their families understand (for the most part) that hard work and respect of others leads to success and prosperity. Those ideals seem to have been lost on this newer generation. ', 'I think people are neglecting the historical component of this. A lot of this change in public outcry is resulting from the history of treatment of women, minorities, members of the LGBT community in the US. \\n\\nIn decades past certain ways of speaking/treating members of these groups was\\u200b generally socially acceptable but we\\'ve progressed to the point where everyone, rightfully so, wants equal treatment not just under the law but socially. That\\'s where things get tricky. People who were previously able to do/say things without worry now can face social backlash for the things they got away with not long ago. \\n\\nFor example, when I was a kid (around 11-12 I\\'m 30 now) it was normal for our football coaches to tell us to \"stop acting like a sissy/girl/pussy\" if someone was being soft or complaining about being sore/tired. Now a coach would get in trouble if they said something like that to a preteen boy. Language like that makes it seem like being effeminate or a woman is outright a negative thing so women or members of the LGBT community would often take offense. \\n\\nWe\\'re also now living in an age where members of these groups can quickly and easily find thousands of peers AND be informed of injustices (real and imagined) that occur to members of these groups. So people can quickly pile on through social media.\\n', 'My pulled out of my ass theory (like most \"informative\" comments on Reddit) is that it\\'s just the result of rapid cultural change. The US went from an attitude of lgbt people being mostly not tolerated to lgbt people being very widely tolerated over just a couple of decades. I think this large swing in attitude simply got carried a bit too far and now there is a relatively small group of people that are a combination of stupidity and being high on fighting the good fight, resulting in the fact that they are completely unaware that doing things like making \"he/she\" pronouns illegal is insane and undermines every basic understanding of free speech that most of us still have. It\\'s also important to know that the crazies trying to alter freedom of speech are a vast, vast minority. Yes, if you go to the most liberal places around the country, it will be very easy to find plenty of people who are like this, but for every one of them, there are 1000+ liberals who completely understand freedom of speech and know not to undermine it. \\n\\nTL;DR When any large change in society happens, there will be people who take it too far. This is a relatively small group of people taking the rapid social change of the past few decades and carrying it way too far, trying to undermine freedom of speech in a horribly misguided attempt to help others. ', 'Born  &  raised in America.  Our political system blended with both mainstream  &  social media have led to this.  \\n\\nThe political system has polarized people instead of working to find common ground.  Each party provokes the other, then finds ways to paint a false picture that their conflicting point of view is somehow evil  &  manipulative - leading to a heightened sensitivity that has trickled into everything. \\n\\nMainstream media presents little bits of facts layered with strong opinions designed to provoke an emotional response - leading to viewers being \"hooked\"\\' on a story.\\n\\nInstead of embracing a diversity of ideas  &  opinions, we have a nation with a lot of entitled people who think that a different point of view is a declaration of war. That voice has been given a megaphone by the addiction to social media. \\n\\nMany parts of the world I\\'ve visited have zero issue accepting that a person\\'s opinion is their own,  &  who cares if we disagree, let\\'s talk about something else or have a discussion about it - while respecting where you are coming from. \\n\\nPlease don\\'t think the \"pussification of America\" you are witnessing represents all Americans. Unfortunately it is just some of the loudest voices. \\n\\nOptimistically, I think more people are coming around  &  rolling their eyes at the strong, rash reactions out there. It seems to be viewed more as a sign of immaturity (as it is)......kind of like not agreeing with everyone on a Reddit thread lol! \\n\\n', 'The most important thing to understand is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. So many people say stupid and offensive stuff, then try to claim you can\\'t get angry because they\\'re just exercising free speech. Wrong. You are free to say whatever you like, but the rest of society is free to impose consequences on you for that speech. Your speech can get you shunned or ridiculed. You could lose your job. So when you say offensive stuff, don\\'t be surprised if people take offense. The reason people say \"I have the right to be offended\" is because many people (and in particular the offensive ones) don\\'t understand this.\\n\\nNow for the \"don\\'t offend me\". The core belief that justifies free speech is that stupid and offensive speech is not dangerous because most people will identify it as such. So if neo-nazis decide to hold a parade, we don\\'t worry that much because most people will look on in disgust. But this applies to a lot more than hate speech. The people you are asking about, the so-called \"Social Justice Warriors\" are just as free to express their beliefs. They have a belief that people have a right to not be offended. The also are free to vociferously demand it. And the rest of us are just as free to ignore them.\\n\\nBut all free speech analysis aside, you have to understand that this culture of which you speak is a tiny, tiny portion of the overall population. They just happen to be very vocal. Also, you are learning about our culture through broadcasts, which tend to isolate the most \"interesting\" parts of society for discussion. Just like every cop show on TV deals with a murder (despite this being a relatively rare crime), news tends to focus on the extreme parts of society, giving you an imbalanced impression of how significant that part of society is. After all, it makes for boring TV when you have a streetside preacher, and everybody just keeps walking.\\n\\nSo to sum it all up, we have the freedom to be stupid (which the SJWs are), and a broadcast industry that likes to give stupid people a platform so the rest of us can laugh at them. But this can give you a false impression of the importance of this part of society.', 'The Internet has allowed for \"offensive\" statements to propagate further and attract the attention of a much wider audience, who are often also taking the statements out of context and making the offense that much deeper, or turning a statement that was designed for non-offense (like sarcasm or parody) into an \"offensive\" belief statement.  Having a wider audience means any statement encounters more people who believe in a \"duty\" to seek out the speaker and \"expose\" them to the full brunt of public opinion and ideally coerce society into shunning that individual, an Internet version of the old \"Scarlet Letter\", if you will.\\n\\nAnd to add to this, the very same Internet also allows for people with similar ideas to gather -- whether they have belief in the \"offensive\" ideas or if they are just into \"edgy\" humor or the use of sarcasm or even (what they consider) borderline \"offensive\" statements in order to get a real point across.  For any idea you can think of, there\\'s likely some website (even if just an isolated forum on Reddit) that has a following large enough to make a reader of that site think their mindset is shared by more people than society has revealed.  With that comes validation and boldness, such that the idea that society could still come down hard on individuals expressing those ideas is discounted.  This also includes those who believe in the \"offensive\" idea that society should be empowered to seek out speakers of offensive ideas and shut them down.  So more people \"agree\" with the small group demanding the original speaker facing severe social and (by way of losing their job in many cases) financial pressure.\\n\\nThese are not wholly new concepts -- expressing an unpopular opinion in the past would still carry the risk of being shunned -- but the size of the Internet... for lack of a better word, \"mob\" means even a small demand for an \"offensive\" person to face severe sanction is being responded to.  I would even suggest it\\'s not as horrible as it sounds, except for the fact that it can affect the innocent (ie, the so-called \"offensive\" speech is actually being misinterpreted and the speaker is having incorrect beliefs attributed to them) and the fact that it\\'s often a disproportionate response.\\n\\nOh, and let me add: people with social agendas thrive on this sort of material.  It keeps their agenda on the front burner, so calling out the \"offense\" keeps the underlying issues on the forefront of the news.  To ignore the offense or acknowledge a misunderstanding means one less time they can use someone\\'s words as a weapon with which to beat their adversaries down with.', 'Spoiled babies who got whatever they wanted growing up. Then grow up, get to the real world, and still feel they have the privilege to always get their way. ', 'I would guess its less people being upset easier and more people having a much better understanding of whats offensive.\\n\\n70 years ago it pronably wasnt considered blanketly offensive to suggest women cant be as smart as men. That right there covers a shit load of circumstances. Now implying a woman cant be CEOs, in congress, or in specialized positions are all considered offensive while being a subset of that first argument. Same with minorities. Same with the LGBTQ. \\n\\n\\nFor the the next argument i am going to assume something, that you are under 20. People under 20 and especially people under 17. Are hyper active shit posters with too much time who feel like they dont fit in anywhere so will jump on any group without regard to whether or not they should. \\n\\nThis is all over the political/social spectrum. 4chan, /r/the_donald, tumblr, and a lot of other groups are held together by these hyperactive shit posters with nothing else to do. The problem is that these people and groups do not accurately reflect the real world. It just so happens theyre comparatively loud so it seems like its representative. But once you get older you realize that getting drawn into an argument with hyper active shit posters never pays off. So we avoid them.\\n\\nFinally what everyone else here seems to be saying. 1st amendment is government action and never has been about private communication. Its not an ideal we strive for within our community. Its a legal necessity.', \"People want to conflate the meaning of 'freedom of speech' with the far different phrase 'freedom from speech'. In the same way, there is a desire to conflate 'freedom of religion' with 'freedom from religion'.\\n\\nAside from the above misuse of language, there is sometimes a basic misunderstanding about rights under the U.S. constitution. The 'freedom of speech' in the U.S. constitution simply means that the government cannot prevent your free speech. It is not a ticket to spew anything you want. Your employer can certainly censure your speech and terminate you if your violate the employer's standards. You can stand on the street corner and insult passing people. The government won't stop you, but someone will eventually take offense and put a stop to your activity.\\n\\nFreedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion all protect the citizen from oppression by the government. These freedoms do not compel the government to protect you from the consequences of bad behavior.\", '\"Protected free speech\" is a right defined in the Constitution, but this is meant to apply to the government and laws enacted by said government.\\n\\nConversely, when a person argues that you shouldn\\'t use offensive language, that is a request levied at a private individual or establishment. The target of the request has no legal imperative to be \"more polite\", and the requester has no legal restriction on making the request.\\n\\nThe confusion comes from attempting to applying the Constitution outside its intended scope. As an inverted example, the Constitution allows for the collection of taxes by the federal government, but if I as an individual came to your house and demanded you give me a share of your earnings for the year, you would be within your rights to refuse me, because the Constitution does not grant ME the individual that power.', \"As someone who is Non-American, it is clear you don't understand that the 'PC culture is ruining America' mindset is massively overblown. In real life it simply isn't a large factor. Reddit especially has been guilty of this. Essentially a relatively small sample of situations and people have been drawn out to  represent the larger trends in society. This is largely untrue, and PC culture has a pretty low affect on everyone's day to day life. \\n\\nNow, to explain in depth:\\n\\nFree speech *does not* give you leeway to say whatever you want wherever you want. Period. It only says that the government can't be the one to decide what you can or cannot say. \\n\\nIndividuals, businesses, and other organizations are not restricted in how they treat your speech. They are not required to ignore it. I don't have to interact with you, or do business with you, or vote for you, or anything else because of free speech. Which also means that we can influence each other's behavior. \\n\\nIf Target has a 'God hates gays' t-shirt for sale, I don't ever have to shop there again. Target has a broad incentive to not sell those shirts now. \\n\\nMoreover, your free speech doesn't stop my free speech, with which I can tell you I am offended and I don't like what you are doing. This is pretty adversive for most people and also incentive to change your behavior. \\n\\nThese are the reasons why PC culture exists. However, like I said, the concern reddit seems to have over PC culture is far more absurd than the actual culture itself. What *exact* behavior do they think is problematic due to this phenomenon? Why is that problematic? What exact things do you want to say or do that you feel are being punished due to pc culture? Why do you want to do those? Why does your right to be a dick supercede my right to be offended? Why can't I tell you I don't like what you are doing or saying? Why do you get a free pass to do whatever you want regardless of what it does to myself or others? Why do you get the right to say what you want about other people and I can't get offended, but you seem to easily get offended about me not liking your opinions?\\n\\nTo put it simply, most of what PC culture is is 'don't be a dick'. Exaggeration about it is as absurd as this image that some people have that Europe has turned into an ultraviolent shit hole. It just isn't true.  \", 'I got my first degree in the last 80s early 90s.  That\\'s when the idea of speech codes was being discussed seriously.  Why this was taken seriously is studies had come out showing that verbal harassment in the form of racial slurs, threats, and so on harmed the ability of the students on the receiving end to study, work, and graduate.  Back then a lot of people were crying \"Free Speech\" for whatever right they felt they had to yell obscene things at others.  \\n\\nEventually the removal of such language on campuses was successful to a point.  With the election of Trump, those who think saying those things has had a resurgence.\\n\\nNow to other types of speech.  Everyone can agree that stereotypes are harmful.  A black person can\\'t get a good job if people stereotype that person as a criminal.  A person of Asian decent wouldn\\'t get hired for a sales position, because they are stereotyped as math nerds. Actions that feed into these stereotypes I think are what are referred to as microagressions.  Not illegal, but anyone who has found their life affected by these things would be understandably upset.   \\n\\nNext, we have \"triggers\" which can force a person to relive a traumatic event.  This is commonly seen in vets with PTSD, but it is also common with rape victims or in children of abusive parents.  It\\'s seen as cruel to force people to have to continuously relive abuse.\\n\\nWhat this comes down to eventually is that it\\'s nearly impossible to discuss any of these issues, or to study anything that may have any of these things in them.  This is all free speech, so the government isn\\'t supposed to be getting involved, and some could construe a state university a government entity, but a school where one is constantly harassed is not a good learning environment.\\n\\nI don\\'t think anyone really knows what to do.  It\\'s excessive to kick someone out of school because they wrote something that suggests an Asian is a nerd and called a woman a bitch. It\\'s not excessive to kick someone out for making a lynching effigy (that\\'s a threat, so no, not free speech). \\n\\nHopefully this helps some.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie?redirect=free-speech/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie', 'http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2002/scene_rosen_mayjun2002.html'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 35, "q_id": "4fyf09", "title": "why does rain in the tropics come down heavy for an hour and then vanish, but in europe the rain is mostly light and can last all day?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fyf09/eli5_why_does_rain_in_the_tropics_come_down_heavy/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d2d24jj', 'd2d6to2', 'd2dbfnn', 'd2dh3t1', 'd2dk0m2', 'd2domme', 'd2dxhsi', 'd2dznhz', 'd2e0nx2', 'd2e54ki'], 'score': [53, 1670, 261, 3, 3, 13, 2, 3, 9, 8], 'text': [\"Because in the Tropics that rain is usually from the day's evaporation due to heat\\n\\nIn other cases, when humidity is brought by a front it keeps raining because it reaches land and condenses there\", \"Rain in the tropics is normally air mass thunderstorms and other downpours from vertical convection (heating at the surface causing air to rise).\\n\\nI think you're imagining Western Europe. In Western Europe the Atlantic is so warm it provides warmth to the land in Fall, Spring, and Winter--the tradeoff of supplying that warmth is steady, misty moisture as the warm moist air condenses on the cooler land.\", \"Everyone that has responded is more or less correct, but I would like give you a more in depth answer.\\n\\nAtmospheric stability is what determines the type of clouds and precipitation that will form on a given day. Lets break down what that means.\\n\\nStability is the ability of the air to resist vertical motion. Stable air will tend to stay where it is, whereas unstable air has a tendency to rise. When air rises, it becomes less dense and therefore becomes cooler. Hold on to this thought.\\n\\nAir contains water vapor. I am sure you a familiar with the term relative humidity, which is a measure of the amount of water vapor present in the air at a given time. Cold air can hold less water vapor than warm air, so relative humidity is how saturated the air is for it's given temperature (e.g. at 50% relative humidity the air is holding half of the total water vapor that it is capable of holding). 80% humidity at 5C (41F) feels much drier than 80% humidity at 30C (86F) because the air is simply not able to hold as much water vapor.\\n\\nIf air is cooled to the point where it is 100% saturated, which is referred to as the dew point, water vapor will condense back into liquid water, which is referred to as visible moisture. Clouds and rain are water vapor that has condensed out of the air into visible moisture.\\n\\nAlright, back to stability. In the tropics the sun is more intense, which heats the ground and causes water to evaporate. This creates very warm and moist air (high relative humidity). Warm and moist air is very unstable. The warm air will begin to rise, and as it rises, it becomes less dense and begins to cool. As it reaches it's dew point, water vapor begins to condense into clouds. As the water vapor condenses, it releases the heat energy that allowed it to be in a gas form, back into the surrounding air. The release of heat from the condensing water into the surrounding air, assists the air in continuing to rise. I know that was a lot to take in, but the point is rapidly rising air releasing a lot of energy and a lot of water vapor condensing. All of this condensed water becomes too heavy for the atmosphere to support, and it falls as rain. \\n\\nIn the case above, the whole process happens relatively quickly. The speed at which this action takes place, plus the large amount of water involved is what causes intense, but showery precipitation.\\n\\nLight and steady precipitation results from more stable air being cooled to it's dew point more gradually. \\n\\nEDIT: it seems as though the complexity of my response has caused some divisiveness _URL_0_\\n\\n\\n\", 'The rain in the tropics is caused by the water  evaporating alot due to the heat then condensing in the air until it reaches a critical point where it rains down fast because the condensed droplets are heavy. It keeps doing this in cycles during the rainy seasons.\\n\\nAs for the rain in europe, in the west, middle and northern europe it is mostly caused by cyclones which travel here from the atlantic ocean. In a cyclone there is a cold and a warm front, and the cold one is catching the warm one and making it rise up which causes it to rain at that point, which is quite large in ground area so the rain will stay on one point for quite a while.', \"Most of Western Europe (such as northern Spain, most of France, and the British Isles) has what's known as a _maritime climate_. This climate type is most typically found at higher latitudes where prevailing winds bring in air from warm waters. In the case of Western Europe, the warm water comes from the Gulf Stream.\\n\\nThe tropics you're talking about sound like _tropical rainforests_. These form [almost exclusively around the Equator](_URL_0_) This takes place because the trade winds meet here, forming a region of weak prevailing winds known (among other names) as _the doldrums_. The absence of strong winds to move moisture away in a reliable fashion causes erratic and often violent meteorological events, such as thunderstorms.\\n\\nSo in a word: climate.\", 'Hey,\\n\\nI don\\'t think anyone here has explained it enough, so I\\'m going to explain it a little bit more.  I\\'ll try to keep it in easy language, but it will probably extend beyond the average five year old\\'s grasp.  If you, or anyone else browsing, are really curious about the mechanism behind it, I hope this helps.\\n\\nOne commenter mentioned atmospheric stability, which is indeed the main difference, but he didn\\'t explain why.\\n\\nThe first step in producing rain is that the water vapor has to condense into liquid (or ice) drops. (If the air rises due to convection, the natural cooling of the air can cause this condensation.  So could the air moving over a mountain, or over a cold lake, or many other things).  \\n\\nBut this makes a cloud, not rain. When these drops form, they are not big enough to fall to the ground.  They can float about in the air, their terminal velocity is basically 0.  Clouds can stay clouds without becoming rain, happy as a clam.  The water drops need to grow somehow, and become big enough to fall.  They don\\'t grow naturally, because when a liquid water drop forms, the \"vapor pressure\" (amount of water vapor in the air) above the drop surface is equal to the vapor pressure in saturated air, so there is no driving force to move the water molecules from the ambient air towards the drop, and it can\\'t grow.\\n\\nHot air in the tropics is unstable, which usually means it has a lot of convection.  The air rises, and then can also fall, and then maybe rise again due to wind, etc... lots of \"churning\".  This churning makes the water droplets bang into each other, which is how they grow and become big enough to fall out of the cloud.  But if there is a lot of convection, it now has to get big enough to not just \"fall out of the cloud\", but rather to fall through the intense upward convective drafts.  It keeps banging into other drops and growing until its big enough to beat the convection, which usually yields big fat drops.\\n\\nIn colder, more stable atmospheres, where the air isn\\'t churning around, there is a different mechanism for droplet growth.  If the air is cold enough, there is some liquid water drops, but also a lot of ice crystals (the water vapor condensed into solid ice, not liquid water).  Liquid water has a \"vapor pressure\" (amount of water vapor in the air) that is HIGHER than solid water.  So there is more water vapor in the air around a liquid droplet surface than there is in the air around an ice crystal.  This difference in moisture content creates a driving force, where the water vapor migrates from the area of high content (the liquid droplet) to the area of low content (the ice crystal).  When it nears the ice crystal, it too condenses into ice, and the crystal grows.  If there are enough liquid droplets, the ice crystals keep leeching water from the droplets, and keep growing.  Eventually, they become big enough to fall, and then they melt on their path down through the atmosphere.  In this case, they fall down exactly when they become big enough to just \"fall out of the cloud\", which is usually much smaller than the drops that have to be big enough to fight convection.\\n\\nIf you are interested in this process and want to learn more, google \"Bergeron Process\"\\n\\n', \"I haven't seen rain last more then a few hours in ages.... and I live in Ontario... I remember sitting on the deck late at night listening/watching thunderstorms... so chaotic yet peaceful.\\n\\nNow a days it's  MASSIVE MOTHER FUCKING DOWNPOUR  for like 5 min and nice sunshine after... it makes no sense. Rain on a car roof used to put me to sleep now it doesn't have the chance to make me think of sleep... \\n\\n\\nStupid humans ruining the world...\", 'My reply is probably gonna get lost in all these posts but I will give it a try to clear some things out in this thread.\\n\\nAll the posters are answering the wrong question (in the correct way). That is, all the answers refer to the increased frequency of precipitation and not its duration.\\n\\nIn the atmosphere there are tiny particles (aerosol), that water condenses on. Practically all rain drops have a small aerosol seed (called cloud condensation nuclei if you are interested) where water vapor turns into liquid.  Water needs a surface to condense on under normal conditions - think f your mirror after a hot shower. \\n\\nLets take an example where the relative humidity is the same both in Europe and the tropics.Areas like Western Europe where there is significant pollution (industry, car emissions etc.) have lots of aerosol. On the other hand, the tropics do not have that problem and therefore less aerosol exists in the atmosphere. That means that there will tend to be more raindrops in Europe than the tropics.\\n\\nSince we have the same humidity (supersaturation) in both areas, and since there is less aerosol in the tropics, each aerosol particle in the tropics gets more water and it becomes a big droplet. In contrast, in Europe there are more aerosols and therefore each particle is assigned a tiny amount of water, leading to small droplets\\n\\nThe bigger droplets will precipitate faster than the smaller ones, leading to more severe rainfall (that depletes clouds faster) in the tropics than Europe, even though the amount of total rainfall (mass-wise) is the same.\\n\\nHope this clears it up for anyone that manages to find this buried', 'ITT: ELI(15). So here\\'s an ELI5 answer.\\r\\r**background**\\r\\rAir holds water. Examples: Steam, mist, fog etc. \\r\\rWhere does water in the air come from? Water on the \"ground\"\\r\\rWhat is a cloud? Water.\\r\\rWhen there is too much water the air drops it because it is too heavy. This is rain, if its really cold, this is snow.\\r\\r**So why does rain in western Europe last longer than rain in the tropics?**\\r\\rLets compare:\\r\\rWhere the water comes from\\r\\rThe temperature \\r\\rAnd what we get a a result\\r\\r**Tropics:**\\r\\rThere is a limited amount of water on the ground.\\r\\rIt get very hot during the day\\r\\rSo the water on the ground evaporates quickly (cause its hot), get heavy quickly, and falls in a big rainstorm. Sometimes a few times each day until it becomes night.\\r\\r**Britain:**\\r\\rThere is an ocean around Britain (example area)\\r\\rBritain is not very hot compared to the tropics\\r\\rA lot of water plus cold temperature means the water evaporates slowly, and gets heavy slowly and means it rains slowly. Since there is an ocean and its evaporating slowly there is always extra water being put in the air. So the air is constantly slowly dropping the extra back out and it drizzles all day.', \"I'm from Mobile, Alabama which is now the rainiest city in the U.S. We been through every kind of rain there is. Little bitty stingin' rain... and big ol' fat rain. Rain that flew in sideways. And sometimes rain even seemed to come straight up from underneath. Shoot, it even rained at night...\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/hzaJ4Hn.png'], [], ['https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Koppen_World_Map_Af.png/1920px-Koppen_World_Map_Af.png'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2090, "q_id": "3vgv7x", "title": "Why did General Longstreet appear to shift his views so radically after the Civil War?", "selftext": "I realize Wikipedia is not particularly reliable, but I'm going to presume that it gets basic facts correct like:\n\n* He became a Republican\n* Led an African American militia against a mob of white supremacists\n\nWhile I realize the dude is probably far from being considered progressive by modern standards, this seems pretty extreme for an ex-Confederate General. What caused this relatively drastic shift in beliefs?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vgv7x/why_did_general_longstreet_appear_to_shift_his/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxnxmb5'], 'score': [16], 'text': [\"Without commenting on Longstreet himself, I think it's worth noting that just because someone fought for a particular side in the Civil War that doesn't *necessarily* mean they were perfectly ideologically aligned with that side. In a society in which family and community ties were extremely important, people often fought for reasons of loyalty to their family/city/state to the exclusion of ideological considerations. Even Robert E Lee had complex and contradictory attitudes toward the issues of slavery and secession.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 877, "q_id": "1qvfzb", "title": "Why does helium-4 seem to be the only bosonic matter?", "selftext": "Most bosons seem to be gauge bosons for mediating the fundamental forces. \n\nBut, Helium-4 is able to form a bose-einstein condensate so it has integer spin. How do all the electrons in Helium-4 end up not obeying the pauli exclusion principle?\nWhat is going on in BEC situation?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qvfzb/why_does_helium4_seem_to_be_the_only_bosonic/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cdh168l', 'cdh1msx', 'cdh2kqn'], 'score': [4, 4, 4], 'text': [\"Well, there are a lot of composite particles that can form bosons.  For instance, Helium 3 also forms a condensate (superfluid).  Superconducting electrons form cooper pairs.  There are also lattice vibrations (phonons), electron oscillations (plasmons), electron-hole pairs, and so on that don't necessarily form condensates but do obey bose statistics.\", \"I'll add to the other responses by pointing out that, even within the elementary particles, the Higgs boson is not a gauge boson.\", \"As a general answer: It isnt. \\n\\nWhat you need to consider, is that a boson is composed of fermions (if it is not an elementary particle.) All fermions adhere to the Pauli Exclusion Principle - but if they form a boson together, then they do not need to do so anymore, since the pauli principle is valid only for fermions, and they form a boson now. Thus, there is no Problem with BECs. Dont think of the Pauli Principle as something that prevents fermions from ever coming close to each other. It is a mathematical Rule that describes the behaviour of fermions. Nothing more. As soon as we are not looking at fermions anymore, Pauli's Principle is of no importance anymore, and this is the case in Helium-4.\\n\\nAnother Example is btw. Lithium-7, which we can condensate just fine and is a Boson: 3 Proton + 4 Neutron + 3 Electron, all fermions on their own, form a Boson. \\n\\nSource: Physics Grad Student, did my Bachelorthesis on Condensates. \\n\\nEDIT: \\nAs /u/dampew pointed out, we can make condensates of fermions aswell. However, this works by pairing the fermions to something between bosonic molecules and cooper pairs by tuning via the feshbach resonance, and is thus in a way just a condensate of bosonic molecules. If you wish to take a further look into this topic, I recommend looking into the publications of Prof. Ketterle from MIT. Especially the Doctor Thesis of Martin Zwierlein is highly recommended.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2983, "q_id": "8c8sr9", "title": "Does space equipment get dirty in space ?", "selftext": "All kinds of equipment needs regular cleaning from things that get deposited on them, specific to which environment its in. Does the same go for the space station or the the canadarm? Would the effect of these objects in the vacuum of space be strong enough to attract dust and other things? Is there even enough stuff in space to deposit on the equipment for it to matter? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8c8sr9/does_space_equipment_get_dirty_in_space/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dxe2e5s'], 'score': [3], 'text': ['I assume you men the outside? The answer is sort of. The only thing that actually gets the station \"dirty\" is exhaust from visiting spacecraft. A few years ago, 2 Russian cosmonauts actually did a spacewalk to clean the outside of the station\\'s windows because over the years, they\\'d be covered in a layer of this exhaust, but that\\'s about it.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2035, "q_id": "5fpy11", "title": "what caused racial division and discrimination between hutus and tutsis in rwanda?", "selftext": "[deleted]", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fpy11/eli5_what_caused_racial_division_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dan1yg2', 'dam36g1', 'dam51i7', 'dameztp'], 'score': [6, 29, 15, 2], 'text': [\"So before the Europeans arrived Rwandan and Burundian society had a hierarchy with Tutsis at the top and Hutus and the twa at the bottom there was no clear racial distinction because most Rwandans have the same features and the system was primarily economic with the those who were rich considered Tutsis and those without considered Hutus. Then the Belgians came and colonized the region and they saw the hierarchical system as a way to effectively control the people. In doing so they added a racial dynamic in which those with lighter skin,narrow noses and tall height were considered Tutsi while those who had more negroid features were considered Hutu or twa.                                                                        The Tutsis who ran Rwanda weren't very nice to the Hutus and this sowed the hatred and resentment for the Tutsis amongst Hutus. This changed with the wave of African independence movements which made the Tutsis demand independence(because being upper class they were more educated and were more exposed to pan Africanist ideas spreading at the time).This resulted in Belgium switching its support to the Hutus because with Tutsi leaders pushing for independence there was a fear that Rwanda would become communist and Hutus were seen as easier to control. Eventually the Hutus would overthrow the Tutsi monarchy in Rwanda which was then followed by a purge of Tutsi leading many into exile and installing a hardline regime that ruled until it was overthrown in 1994, by The Rwandan patriotic front led by Tutsi exiles based and supported by Uganda. \", 'According to the excellent \"We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed Along with Our Families,\" a book on the genocide, there had long been a divide in Rwanda between more agrarian and more trade oriented groups, which was loosely correlated to Hutu and Tutsi lineage.\\n\\nColonizing forces sharpened and deepened this divide as a way to ease their control over the society, making it more explicitly ethnic.  By the time colonization ended, the group identities had solidified as a basis for the political and social order. The divide continued to be used in politics and ultimately spiraled into the genocide.', 'This is what I know of the topic from my time in Rwanda:\\n\\nInitially Hutu and Tutsi had recognizable differences (mainly the shape of their noses) and just focused on different things. With the arrival of the Belgians and their interests in controlling the people, they introduced a national ID paper where it would also state whether someone was a Hutu, a Tutsi or else (there were/are other tribes as well).\\n\\nAfterwards it was also possible to acquire the status of Tutsi depending on your wealth (how many cows you owned).\\n\\nThen Tutsi started being given more and more positions of power, which then became some sort of requirement.\\n\\nThis led to a growing distance between the two groups causing the rapture we know about.\\n\\nBasically tagging people and discriminating some (the majority) led to the genocide, especially because of the non-intervention of outsiders.', \"Not an expert, but my understanding is that the colonial powers installed the Tutsis in a position of power. I've heard arguments that Hutu and Tutsi are constructed identities that didn't exist in a meaningful sense before colonialism. Try /r/AskHistorians, they're pretty good about this sort of thing.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 485, "q_id": "1vijry", "title": "Do large, fast moving masses leave behind a gravitational wake?", "selftext": "When a fast moving object like a comet is flying through space, is its affect on spacetime limited to the discreet area its mass currently inhabits at any given moment, or is space still physically affected to any degree after the object is gone?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vijry/do_large_fast_moving_masses_leave_behind_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cesp890', 'cesqzt7'], 'score': [3, 5], 'text': [\"I believe what you are looking for is gravitational waves. \\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThey haven't been directly observed but physicists are pretty confident they exist. Been ages since I did any relativity so someone else can go into detail. But yes I believe a comet orbiting a star will generate gravitational waves. They would however be many orders of magnitude too weak to be detectable. \", \"What you're talking about is generally referred to as gravitational waves (GWs).  In the most generic sense, these are ripples in an otherwise static gravitational field.  It's important to not that we have not *directly* detected GWs, but the predicted sources of such waves are non-symmetric bodies that undergo acceleratoin.  So a symmetric body moving at constant speed is not predicted to emit gravitational radiation.\\n\\nA slightly more technical discussion:\\n\\n > Conservation of mass/energy forbids gravitational radiation from mass monopoles, while conservation of angular momentum means that there can be no dipolar gravitational radiation. Thus the leading term in the gravitational radiation expansion is a quadrupole term. However, in contrast to electromagnetic waves, which are dipolar in nature, gravitational waves, as quadrupole waves, contract space-time in one\\ndirection while expanding space-time in an orthogonal direction, exerting a tidal strain on space-time. Thus the sources for gravitation radiation are accelerating systems where the inertia tensor for the system gives rise to a mass quadrupole moment, that is, systems whose mass distribution is neither spherically nor cylindrically symmetric. \\n\\n > It is for these reasons that anticipated sources for gravitational waves include binary inspiral of compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes, low-mass X-ray binary systems, rotational instabilities during stellar core collapse, and non-axisymmetric pulsars among others. [source](_URL_0_)\\n\\nThere are a small number of Gravitational Wave Detectors around the world (LIGO, VIRGO, GEO,etc) who's entire mission is to confirm the existence of GWs.  Many GW detectors use interferometry to determine changes in length to scales 1000 times smaller than a proton (or smaller!).\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave'], ['http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7774&amp;context=etd_theses']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1297, "q_id": "2vqb3g", "title": "why did the germans put those barricades on the beaches for the d-day strikes? wouldn't it have been better to have left the beach with as little cover as possible for the allied troops landing?", "selftext": "[These are the barricades I'm talking about.](_URL_0_)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vqb3g/eli5_why_did_the_germans_put_those_barricades_on/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cojz1fr', 'cojz1hz', 'cojz1xz', 'cojz58y', 'cok0c42', 'cok2lae'], 'score': [41, 5, 4, 14, 3, 12], 'text': ['It prevented the Allies from landing tanks on the beach and advancing upon the gun positions.', 'Pretty sure they were to prevent the rapid deployment of tanks.  ', 'To keep tanks and other motorized vehicles from rolling off of the boats. They give you as much cover area as a 2x4', 'One name for those is \"Czech hedgehogs\" (there may be others). They\\'re obstacles and their purpose was to impede, stop, or damage tanks, landing craft or other watercraft/vehicles that were coming ashore. Their design makes it very difficult to go over them. If your enemy gets \"hung up\" on one, it makes them easy targets, and also prevents them from getting to you. [more info](_URL_0_)', 'There were also many under water, or hidden by tides. \\n\\nThey came in [all shapes and sizes](_URL_0_)\\n\\n They deterred boats and large vehicles from using the beach easily, one of many layers of protection to delay large equipment (like bulldozers and tanks) and establishing a beachhead. Past these obstacles were walls, trenches, barbed wire, concrete pillboxes, machine gun nests, and a variety of huge artillery guns miles away, all with their crosshairs on the beaches. \\n\\nWhen the [Atlantic Wall](_URL_1_) was built, the Germans plan was to basically stall the enemy on the beaches until nearby planes, artillery, tanks and other reinforcements could help. When the Allies finally attacked on D-Day, they had lots of planning, the element of surprise, bombing from air and ships, and thousands of paratroopers dropped across the French countryside to cause trouble and prevent German reinforcements from helping.', 'An important thing to note is that the landings occured at low tide.  IIRC, the germans expected them to land at high tide, because that would mean the troops had less open ground on the beach to cover once they got off the landing craft.  At high tide many of those obstacles would have been underwater and would have torn up the landing craft.  Some of them were also tipped with mines to straight up blow the boats up.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://imgur.com/qLitw8W']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_hedgehog'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Wall#mediaviewer/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-297-1716-28,_Im_Westen,_Belgien-Frankreich,_Atlantikwall.jpg', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Wall'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2378, "q_id": "1i0xre", "title": "why do ink refills cost more than an entire new printer, even if the new printer comes with ink?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i0xre/eli5_why_do_ink_refills_cost_more_than_an_entire/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cazvw89', 'cazwlah', 'cazy0hb', 'cb007c2', 'cb02f7i'], 'score': [31, 10, 3, 5, 3], 'text': ['Because the product they are selling is the ink. The sell the printers at reduced price to get them in as many homes as possible so they can sell you the expensive ink. It is the same basic principle as video game consoles. They take a loss on the consoles and make the money on the games ', 'Printers usually come with \"starter\" ink cartridges. They don\\'t have as much ink as the refill. I\\'ve never actually done the math, but I\\'ve got to assume that, if you already own the printer, it\\'s better to buy the refill than it would be to buy a whole new printer with a new starter cartridge. Although, then you\\'d have two printers. You could sell one. I don\\'t know - somebody\\'s got to work the numbers.\\n\\nI buy laser printers... every time. For some reason laser printers seem to be immune to the whole \"give away the razors and overcharge for the blades\" thing.', \"Price is and always will be a function of the market.  It costs that much because that's what the market will bear, i.e. people are willing to pay it.  If people became unwilling to actually pay it, you'd see them either stop making it or lower prices.\", 'The ink cartridges in the printer will only print maybe 10% of pages the full refill will. They are not full. ', 'You can get most ink cartridges refilled at Costco at low cost. Go to the Photo section. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2103, "q_id": "4hmve0", "title": "whenever a wound recovers, like from surgery, how does the blood vessels around the area connect itself to their right counterparts on the other side of the wound?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hmve0/eli5_whenever_a_wound_recovers_like_from_surgery/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d2qwhff', 'd2qwwik', 'd2qxthh', 'd2rd2q0', 'd2rdp5n', 'd2rgi6c', 'd2rhcga', 'd2rmrh6', 'd2rrb8g', 'd2s0pyy'], 'score': [607, 24, 45, 2252, 4, 3, 116, 2, 10, 3], 'text': [\"They don't. Either they grow completely new or they don't and you  lack the vessel in future. This is why surgeons have to stitch major vessels together\", \"They don't,  that's one of the risks associated with having multiple surgeries in the same place. The doctors can no longer be sure where your vessels are and can accidentally cut through them\", 'The human body is a remarkable machine. It has evolved ways to deal with wounds inflicted from accidents and lions bites alike. The way it is done is through \"collateral vessels\". This means that when an area loses blood from injury or an obstruction, blood can reach that area through an alternate path, so technically, the vessels do not need to re-attach. In the case of small vessels (capillaries) that supply the skin, there is enough collateral flow that we generally do not care about cutting them. While Large vessels also have collaterals, we sow them back together because the supply from the collaterals to the area is not as good as the original path and in the long term it is not sustainable. With that said there are areas in the body that do not have collaterals and will suffer greatly from an injury to the vessel. One such area is the Kidney. Also an injury to the Aorta (the major blood supplier) is often fatal because it is a high pressure tube and when you puncture it, you are losing the pressure that drives the blood to the smaller vessels. ', 'There are a lot of people saying \"They don\\'t\". That is wrong.\\n\\nThey do.  In the healing process, a hormone known as VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor) is released, and stimulates the growth of new blood vessels.\\n\\nThe details are complicated, but oftentimes instead of one vessel connecting itself on both sides, you have several to many smaller vessels forming from both sides, joining up with each other, and ultimately connecting the two sides. Imagine a big pipe that gets split into smaller pipes that all eventually connect back to the big pipe on the other side.\\n\\nThat\\'s the simple version. The complicated version involves scar tissue, collagen production and breakdown, a host of hormones and humoral factors, but the bottom line is that vessels do, in fact, re-grow.\\n\\nWithout the ability to grow new vessels, healing would not be possible. They are necessary to transport the oxygen and nutrients required for re-growth and healing.', '[Angiogenesis](_URL_0_) is pretty much a trial and error process in wound healing, where cells will propagate to transfer vital fluids to a region.', 'Blood vessels may regenerate to supply an area but they do not reconnect. That is, new blood vessels need to be formed to cover the severed area.', 'Bioengineer here. I will attempt an ELI5 on the phone. \\n\\nImagine a city. The highways are big arteries and veins, the streets and alleys are blood capillaries, the houses are the cells in the tissues, and the passenger cars are red blood cells in the blood. Now imagine an asteroid hitting a part of the town and destroying a whole neighborhood the way that nobody knows where the roads (blood vessels) were before the impact. The first thing that happens is that fire fighter, police, first aiders and ambulances arrive to take care of the situation and take it under control. Those are the immune cells (lots of different types like neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells, and so on). Then they help the local people to reconstruct the neighborhood as much as possible. They start removing the bits and pieces and build new roads and houses from all the edges. It is a very complicated process called angiogenesis (meaning generation of blood vessels) that involves many growth factors (VEGF-A and VEGF-B) and cells to cooperate to form new vessels. They make junctions and they make merges until they have roads to all the new houses. This time though, they are not as nicely designed and blocked as before. After the construction is finished now cars can get from the high way on one side (artery) to the return highway on the other side. The neighborhood is never like before, but it is somewhat \"healed\".\\n\\nI hope it is helpful. I can answer any detail follow up question under the comment.', \"As far as I'm aware blood vessels can't identify their 'correct' counterparts, but blood vessels have been observed to reconnect in skin grafts through the process of inosculation, whereby the end of one cut vessel in the graft connects to the cut end of a vessel in the recipient tissue.\\n\", \"The VEGF answer is a good one, however it's important to note that many simpler molecules play roles in directing blood vessels to areas that have become ischemic (or in lay-terms, lost their blood supply), and they are produced as a direct consequence of the ischemic tissue losing its blood supply.\\n\\nFor example there is an increase in potassium around cells that have lost their blood supply, because their blood supply is also their oxygen supply, and these cells need oxygen to maintain the high concentration of potassium within the cell. When they lose their blood/oxygen supply, the potassium leaks out of the cell increasing the potassium concentration around these cells. Similarly, when cells lose their blood/oxygen supply, they can no longer undergo aerobic (or oxygen-dependent) metabolism, and they must switch to anaerobic (or oxygen-independent) metabolism. Anaerobic metabolism produces lactic acid (or the burn in your muscles when you exercise), and this decreases the pH (or increases the proton concentration) in the area around these cells.\\n\\nThe potassium and the protons diffuse away from these cells and a concentration gradient forms (think how a smell is weaker the further you are away from its source, but becomes stronger the closer you get). The cells that form new blood vessels are attracted to this increase in potassium and proton concentration and they grow toward it. Thus, the byproducts (potassium and lactate) of cells losing their blood/oxygen supply attract the growth of new vessels, and once these cells have their blood/oxygen supply back, they no longer produce these byproducts and the concentration gradient collapses, and the cell population no longer attracts blood vessels.\\n\\nThe body has magnificently elegant solutions to its own problems.\", 'You can cut down a corn field and replant, and the field will look the same and function the same but technically, it is not the same corn field as the one you cut down.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 455, "q_id": "26dv1a", "title": "During the great emigration wave from Europe in the 19th-early 20th century, how did people decide which country to emigrate to? Were there advertisements? What made someone pick Argentina, Canada, Brazil, Australia, South Africa or somewhere other than the United States?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26dv1a/during_the_great_emigration_wave_from_europe_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['chq4lgg', 'chqfjju'], 'score': [47, 6], 'text': [\"There were indeed advertisements, but each place operated differently in that regard. In the United States, I don't know of any ads placed directly by the federal government, but state governments (_URL_1_) did. For the USA, South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand (the 'white' dominions as it were) there was also advertisements in Europe (and especially Britain) targeted at attracting people to the new colonies. More 'colonial' states, like India, and certain African Colonies, women were also specifically targeted (which was nothing new; similar strategies had taken place for Quebec and New England).\\n\\nThese new colonies were not the only ones advertising of course. There was also a big influence from shipping companies, who stood to benefit from the increased traffic (and indeed, some countries placed the blame squarely on shipping companies for attracting their poor workers). _URL_0_\\n\\nAs for the decision why, it is almost certainly a factor of opportunity. For example, let's take Canada and the USA. Canada did not really experience an immigration boom until land in the United States became more scarce. The United States, Canada, Australia, and many other colonial states offered the chance at owning land, something that we take for granted here in North America, but which was extreme rare in Europe during this period. Arable land continued to be controlled in the majority by wealthy estate owners, farmed by tenants. These vast new places not only offered the chance at ownership, they offered it for essentially the price of a steamship ticket. Other reasons people were attracted to particular countries stems largely from nationalism, language, and politics. The United States was very attractive to certain people seeking a more democratic environment (Germans and Irish were particularly keen, for obvious reason) while the colonial empires provided a supported environment for those who wished to remain under the control of their home countries. Some instances seem a bit confusing here as well. For example, why did Argentina receive so many immigrants while places like Colombia or Peru did not? The answer is the land issue again; the Rio de Plata and surrounds is much closer to the land characteristics of North America than what we associate with South America. \", 'Canada actually had an entire campaign to lure immigrants to the Prairies.  In (what is today) Saskatchewan (and parts of Manitoba and what would become Alberta) there were vast swaths of land that were going unoccupied and unfarmed.  In order to lure European immigrants, the government of Canada began the \"Last Best West\" campaign, advertising the Prairies as the last great plains left to settle.\\n\\nThe Dominion Lands Act also gave newly arrived farmers 160 acres of land to cultivate, for only a small administrative fee, a further incentive to move to Canada.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.russborough.com/antique_prints/posters/canada_immigration_posters.html#white_star_olympic', 'http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-018/?action=more_essay'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2794, "q_id": "2qtx5z", "title": "why does the ride share app uber catch all the heat while its competitor lyft seems to be slipping under the radar?", "selftext": "Maybe I'm just missing it, but it seems like Uber has faced lawsuits, shutdowns, and even banned from cities while Lyft has remained unspoken about when they are both a ride share program. Are they different in some way that I'm missing? Am I missing all the news about Lyft catching the same heat as Uber? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qtx5z/eli5_why_does_the_ride_share_app_uber_catch_all/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cn9gkub', 'cn9h6dy', 'cn9hdwv', 'cn9o72q'], 'score': [6, 6, 8, 2], 'text': [\"Same reason that McDonalds catches all the heat even though Burger King and Wendy's are basically the same - they are the biggest/best known player.\\n\\nUber was first, Uber is the most well known... so Uber has to lead the charge.\", 'No, Uber is under fire for a lot of bad business practices. Lyft has been operating cleanly and has pulled from cities that deny it access to function in.\\n\\nUber\\'s CEO is also a giant dick, so there\\'s that. It\\'s like if the CEO of Mcdonald\\'s was a douche, lied about pink slime, etc while Burger King is sitting there chilling like \"we have low fat fries now\".', 'I could be mistaken, but my perception is that the founder of Uber is a bit of a loudmouth jerk who gets himself in the papers for all the wrong reasons, while the founder of Lyft keeps his mouth shut.', '1) Uber is bigger 200+ markets vs. 65 for Lyft\\n\\n2) Uber is already international, Lyft isn\\'t yet\\n\\n3) Uber has become synonymous with the segment\\n\\n4) Uber has been more aggressive at challenging regulations and flouting restrictions (or at least is seen to be)\\n\\n5) Uber has been caught conducting some shady business practices and had a few PR gaffes/CEO has a bad rep. \\n\\n6) I think Lyft was a bit more proactive with background checks and inspections and things (although they are probably comparable in that dept. now).  I could be wrong on that. \\n\\n7) Lyft has managed to get better PR as a \"friendlier\" and more \"community\" oriented program.  \\n\\n8) Uber has not handled the issue of surge pricing well, which has made people angry. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1551, "q_id": "80hqgz", "title": "why does garlic smell good to us when it\u2019s cooking, but as soon as it\u2019s on someone\u2019s breath it\u2019s revolting?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80hqgz/eli5_why_does_garlic_smell_good_to_us_when_its/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['duvoczs', 'duw33xf', 'duw38ep'], 'score': [65, 8, 10], 'text': [\"Garlic's pungent, but generally pleasant smell is due to a variety of sulfur compounds.  As these are broken down by bacteria and our digestive systems, these sulfur compounds convert into much less pleasant smelling ones.\\n\\nThis is only partially what makes garlic breath so pungent.  Some of the metabolic products enter our bloodstream and are subsequently volatilized through our lungs.  This is why no amount of mouthwash, brushing your teeth, or chewing gum can get rid of garlic breath (these only mask it temporarily).\", \"imo the unpleasant garlic (or onions) breath is not the one from someone's mouth right after they eat garlic. this just smells like garlic. it's the garlic burps that come up to a few hours after that smell like rotten garbage\", 'Because the smell of cooked garlic is not the garlic you smell on someone\\'s breath.\\n\\nThat\\'s without getting into the contextual markers humans use to tune their senses.  Being greeted to the general odor of things cooking is step one to enjoying that garlic smell.\\n\\nFinding it within the general odor of another person\\'s mouth?  \\n\\nThe sense/sound/warmth of food cooking makes our body primed for food, with \"good\" feelings as a byproduct.\\n\\nOther human mouths prime us to assess what the heck might be afflicting this other human that we\\'d want to avoid for ourselves.  If we find nothing, we can focus on our other impulses.  If we find a garlic smell, that\\'s not the one we got from the food cooking in any form or context.\\n\\nThe real question here: Do cannibals have a pleasant response to smelling garlic on someone\\'s breath?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 208, "q_id": "4x8rnt", "title": "How do engineers and construction workers ensure that all the cables are under the same tension on a suspension bridge?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4x8rnt/how_do_engineers_and_construction_workers_ensure/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d6e5rry'], 'score': [3], 'text': [\"First, there is no absolute need for all cables to be under the exact same tension.  \\n\\nIf you look at this image _URL_0_ for the nomenclature.\\n\\nThe bridge is designed so that the static load is distributed more or less equally along the main cables, by placing the suspenders (the cables that drop from the main cables to the roadway) equal distances apart.\\n\\nHowever, if a big load is placed on part of the bridge, the tension in the suspenders supporting that section would be higher and the shape of the main cable could be slightly distorted.  There's no problem doing that with small loads.  Presumably loads large enough to present problems are not permitted on the bridge.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.warwickallen.com/bridges/images/suspensionforces2.gif']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1870, "q_id": "3c7tqc", "title": "Did they honor the \"Don't kill the messenger\" back in the days?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3c7tqc/did_they_honor_the_dont_kill_the_messenger_back/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cst6p85'], 'score': [6], 'text': [\"Sorry, we don't allow [throughout history questions](_URL_0_).  These tend to produce threads which are collections of trivia, not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for.  If you have a specific question about a historical event or period or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again. Alternatively, questions of this type can be directed to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history or /r/askhistory.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22in_your_era.22_or_.22throughout_history.22_questions']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 3002, "q_id": "2wvbgk", "title": "Was it possible for an individual to become exceptionally rich in a purely communist country like the Soviet Union? If so how? Are there any historical examples?", "selftext": "I have a Bachelors in Economics, although they never taught me much about Communism at all, except in vague historical courses where communism was briefly taught and mostly shunned, hated and laughed at. I have some knowledge of the theories of Communism, although I have very little idea of how communism actually works in practice. \n\nI was wondering: Was it possible for an individual living in a *purely communist* country like the Soviet Union, Cuba or other Eastern Bloc countries to become *exceptionally rich compared to the rest of the population*? If so how? Are there any historical examples? An example of any of the communist countries, especially Soviet Union would be great. \n\nIt seems almost impossible for an individual to gain massive wealth, if the state provides all the jobs, food, money and all that. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wvbgk/was_it_possible_for_an_individual_to_become/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cougkiz', 'couig8z', 'couij9b'], 'score': [57, 6, 39], 'text': ['I\\'m no expert but I did study Marx, history and comparative political science at university.  First off there has never been a truly communist country as Marx defined it.  He lists stages of development towards communism, which itself is really a benign for of anarchy.  Basically it goes: Revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, then eventually communism.  The classic example of the USSR is the dictatorship phase.  Nobody ever got past that.\\n\\nNow in terms of wealth the idea was the everyone would be paid the same wage, regardless of your job.  However it was more complicated then that.  There was a sort of class system where the upper classes such as party members, important skilled people (doctors, scientists, etc), and high ranking military officers enjoyed perks that a factory worker did not.  At the elite level people lived like kings compared to most other citizens.  Even though they notionally were paid the same, all of these \"extras\" were off the books.  However, even for these elites, they were still stuck in the closed off economy of the USSR; meaning that there was little travel, consumer goods, or entertainment options to enjoy compared to the west.  It would have been much better to be rich in the West then rich in the USSR.', 'This reply may be below the standarts of this sub, since the book I\\'m about to mention is a fictional one, albeit immensely influencial in the Russian culture. You may want to read a satirical novel [*The Golden Calf (1931)*](_URL_0_) by Ilf and Petrov. From the summary:\\n >  Ostap Bender hears a story about a \"clandestine millionaire\" named Alexandr Koreiko, who has made millions through various illegal enterprises by taking advantage of the widespread corruption in the New Economic Policy (NEP) period while pretending to live on an office clerk\\'s salary of 46 rubles a month. Koreiko keeps his large stash of ill-gotten money in a suitcase, waiting for the fall of the Soviet government, so that he can make use of it. Bender finds out about Koreiko and starts to collect all the information he can get on his business activities.  < ... >   \\nSuddenly rich, Bender faces the problem of how to spend his money in a Communist country where there are no legal millionaires. Nothing of the life of the rich that Bender dreamt of seems possible in the Soviet Union.', ' > I was wondering: Was it possible for an individual living in a purely communist country like the Soviet Union, Cuba or other Eastern Bloc countries to become exceptionally rich compared to the rest of the population?\\n\\nThere have been questions of that sort before. Problem with wealth in the Soviet Economy was you couldn\\'t buy a lot of stuff with money. You couldn\\'t own more than one flat and one dacha. You couldn\\'t have several cars. When there was a shortage on, say, toilet paper, you received a set amount per head regardless of how much you were willing to pay.\\n\\nEven if you had a lot of money you still had to work since unemployment was a crime. Your holiday destinations, your ability to have your daughter attend an important concert, to study in a prestigious university or to travel to prestigious holiday destinations was a matter of goodwill from bureaucrats independent of your bank account. And the bureaucrats have mostly shown goodwill to other influential people, like the other bureaucrats, to teachers, or, say, to medics treating their relatives. (See Alena Lebedeva\\'s \"Russia\\'s Economy of Favours: Blat, Networking and Informal Exchange\". )\\n\\nHowever: Khrushchev introduced some luxury goods (cars, cameras, fur coats) to work as a money sink (to make f.e. higher wages incentives to go to Northern Siberia work). Aside from that there were \"Beryozka\" stores for foreigners only and there were special luxery goods provided to, f.e., the scientists willing to live and to work in Akademgorodok or, say, to officer families living in similarly hazard regions. (see \"An Economic History of the USSR from 1945\" by Philip Hanson)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Golden_Calf'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2688, "q_id": "18nwi7", "title": "how can we take a picture of the milky way if we're located in the milky way?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18nwi7/eli5_how_can_we_take_a_picture_of_the_milky_way/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8gew6h', 'c8gfo1m', 'c8gfst9', 'c8gg24f', 'c8gobt0'], 'score': [58, 9, 4, 22, 9], 'text': ['Same way you can take a picture of your house while standing inside your house.  Of course, what you can photograph of your house while you are inside your house is rather limited.  In the same way, what you can photograph of the Milky Way while inside the Milky Way is also limited, but at least the \"walls\" are largely transparent, so you can see much more than one room.  Continue the analogy with a transparent city: you can see the bathroom, you can see the garage, you can see the kitchen (but your view is obscured by the fireplace and the furnace and the water heater), you can also see into and *through* the neighbors\\' houses (but not through their fireplaces, furnaces and water heaters), you can see way up and down and *through* the block (except through fireplaces, furnaces and water heaters), you can see all over and *through* the city (except for fireplaces, furnaces, water heaters, sewers, water and power systems).  Much is obscured, but much more is transparent.  And different parts of the city are transparent to different kinds of light, so what you can\\'t see because of all the water heaters in visible light you might see in, say, ultraviolet light.  Plot the positions of all these details carefully, and you could still come up with a pretty good map of your city.  Likewise, we can come up with a pretty good map of the Milky Way. ', \"Let's put it this way: you're standing on the roof of your house and can't move. But if you look around, you can clearly see where your house ends, which rooms are which, and so on. We're in the middle of the galaxy (well, not really the middle) just like you're on the roof of your house. We can see all these stars and such around (though they're really far away, so it's not as easy to see as the edges of your house). From this, we can make observations about the shape of our galaxy.\\n\\nOf course, we can't take a picture of our house from a birds eye view when we're actually inside it. Pictures of the milky way like [this one](_URL_0_) are not real pictures. They're artists' concepts. From our position on earth, we can just see parts of the milky way like you can see rooms in your house ([example](_URL_1_)).\", 'Never walked around a city, taking pictures of it?', \"I think he meant pictures of the entire milky way galaxy as if you see it in textbooks. How it shows a galaxy and says that's the milky Way. I believe the answer to that is that those pictures are not technically the Milky Way. They are of another galaxy that looks similar to ours. \\n\", \"We can't. [This is the only picture of the milky way we can take](_URL_1_) (a side view). If you're thinking of [these images](_URL_0_) then they're always just drawings based on what we can see from the side and estimated what it would look like from above.\\n\\nIf we could actually travel far enough away from the milky way to take a picture of it then it would probably look similar, but not exactly the same, as this (especially the part on the opposite side of the centre of the milky way to us, as we can't see it properly).\\n\\nAlso what people think the milky way looks like is constantly changing as we make more measurements, for example it's only recently that the centre is thought to be bar shaped.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/236084main_MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg', 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/ESO-VLT-Laser-phot-33a-07.jpg'], [], [], ['http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/236084main_MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg/600px-236084main_MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg', 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Milkyway_pan1.jpg']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 671, "q_id": "55okiz", "title": "why do we get so tired from travelling, when most of the time is spent sitting still?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55okiz/eli5_why_do_we_get_so_tired_from_travelling_when/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d8cbhew', 'd8ccx9i', 'd8cdjy5', 'd8ceb5m', 'd8cfa49', 'd8cg8sy', 'd8ch4w1', 'd8ch6dv', 'd8chize', 'd8chlez', 'd8chzi7', 'd8ciclh', 'd8cii3q', 'd8cj1ym', 'd8cj4vn', 'd8cjbq1', 'd8cjcm2', 'd8cjeqg', 'd8cjj2v', 'd8cjv3c', 'd8ck7qk', 'd8ck85f', 'd8ckd7h', 'd8ckimz', 'd8ckxwb', 'd8cl299', 'd8cl7rn', 'd8clfp3', 'd8clkn3', 'd8clt4c'], 'score': [2817, 128, 66, 271, 9, 8, 802, 1548, 33, 80, 6, 6, 8, 11, 109, 2, 19, 2, 19, 2, 2501, 400, 3, 2, 19, 2, 3, 2, 4, 4], 'text': ['Stress mostly. The anticipation of arriving, dealing with airlines, traffic, countless unknown people and disturbances, and the mental effort required to deal with all of that. In my experience mental and emotional stress make me a lot more tired than physical exertion.', \"Lack of oxygen is one factor.  Your blood is not flowing as well as when you're moving around, so it's not replenishing the energy of your body. \\n\\nLack of movement is a factor all its own.  Motion can create emotion.  If you haven't moved for a long time, your emotional centers will turn down and boredom or frustration will set in. These will drain your energy faster than just sitting by itself.\\n\\nDriving at night can be hypnotic.  The rhythm of the passing street lights along the highway, or the rhythm of the flashing lane lines can create drowsiness.\\n\\nMental exhaustion from driving in uncertain conditions also happens. If you aren't sure where you're going, or think you missed your turn and may have to double back 50 miles, the stress will raise your stress hormones, which will eventually cause a crash in those hormones and subsequent fatigue.\\n\\nThat's my two cents.\", 'You are disrupting your natural eat/play/sleep cycle. Your body likes routine, especially when it comes to daylight. Your body knows where the sun is when you wake up, eat breakfast, exercise, and get sleepy. When you travel, you are either following the sun along its path, or going against it. Your body gets confused. Then you get sleepy.', \"Along with the mental stresses that others are commenting, I've also read before that your muscles are constantly making micro-adjustments to compensate for all the slight movements of your body that the vibration of the vehicle are causing which will tire you out as well.\", \"Ordinarily when you're sitting still and not really thinking, your body thinks you're getting ready to go to sleep, so it starts prepping yourself to sleep, making you feel tired. You'd feel tired if you were to just sit in a chair and watch a video of someone driving for a few hours, too.\", \"I was in the car yesterday from 7am until 1am. I'm not ready to be around people today. I'm wiped out. I know what solitary confinement is like, and it's not fun lol. Weird shit starts happening around the 12 hour mark.\", \"Guess you haven't travelled first class or lie-flat business class. It is lack of sleep due to time changes. It is amazing how refreshed you are while you travel first class and use airport lounges for hot showers etc. If you are pampered you are not so tired after all. \", \"Staying alert is very taxing on the mind. 'Alert' can mean a whole array of stuff, like the alertness required to stay upright and maintaining your center of gravity, the alertness required to stay wary of when and where you are, as well as being mindful of your surroundings making sure you and your belongings are safe.\\n\\nSo if you're in a situation where most of these conditions are nullified, let's say Travelling with only close family and friends that you trust (no worries about belongings), have a pretty comfortable reclining seat, and you're either in a flight with no turbulence, or on a long road trip on good roads, etc., you'll fall asleep much quicker than you would in say, an economy class flight travelling alone\", \"**Explanation**: Cortisol (stress hormone) and melatonin (sleep hormone) balance each other out.\\n\\nIf you've got more cortisol (you're more stressed) you'll have more melatonin (you're more tired).\\n\\n**TLDR**: You get stressed  when you travel and because you get stressed, you get tired.\", \"If you're talking about driving, I remember reading somewhere that your muscles are making small adjustments as you're going over bumps and stuff in the road. Over a few hours this will wear you out.\", 'When it comes to air travel, the constant noise caused by wind and engines has a really tiring effect, since the brain needs to filter out the noise to pick up all the other sounds that we want to hear. I guess this would also apply to train and road travel.', 'Novelty. Everything is new to your brain and it gets aroused which its fun in the beginning but then you do get tired. Also probably the planning too. Unless youre a free bird and just get up and go. :)', 'On top of the things others have mentioned, I also think that the passive act of overloading your eyes and ears with the sounds of busy airports/stations, and the sights of new places (even if just some random place seen in a train\\'s window), will make your brain consume more energy than usual. I don\\'t mean the \"stress\" of it, as in anxiety, but the fact that your brain will record lots more information, even if only in short term memory. That has to have a cost at the neural level. Whereas when you go to work like every other day, every place you see if something you have seen before, and does not require to form as many new memories.', \"The answers here have really covered it, but if you want to learn even more, read about fatigue in aviation crews and crew rest policies. It's been thoroughly studied since at least the 1970s and is a huge factor for airlines and the military.\", 'Flight attendant here. In addition to what others have said here, I would say that a major factor in the tiredness is the stress you put your body through by traveling at high altitudes. \\n\\nImagine a stress ball. When you apply pressure to it, it gets smaller and more condensed. When you release it, the pressure is relieved and it expands.\\n\\nAt sea level, the human body is at its natural athmospheric pressure. However, at 37,000 feet the air gets considerably thinner, even inside airplanes. Much like with the stress ball, this lowers athmosperic pressure and the expands gases and some liquids in the human body (this is why we fart a lot in airplanes). This is pretty taxing on the body during longer flights.\\n\\nAlso, the air gets very dry. You need to drink A LOT of water during flights.', 'Because you think you are relaxed and do things that are similar to relaxing (sitting, \"sleeping\",etc) but you aren\\'t relaxed. \\n\\nThink of it like this johnny, if you are a little bit hungry and then mommy starts cooking cookies and you smell them. You suddenly become much more hungry. \\n\\nWhile on a plane/travelling, you are normally stressed which lends to tiredness and then you prevent to relax by \"sleeping\" on a plane which makes you realize you actually are tired. \\n\\n\\nI put sleeping in quotes here because you are noramlly very uncomfortable but can still force yourself to sleep due to closing your eyes and boredom but your body likely doesn\\'t REM at all or your sleep cycle if screwed up so you go unconscious but your body doesn\\'t go through the relaxing/recovery process that normally occur when sleeping. ', \"It is stress for sure. My last airport adventure: \\n\\nArrive about 1.5 hours before my flight from LAX because LA traffic was insane. \\n\\nStand in a barely moving line for half an hour while every other person cuts in front because they are more privileged somehow. \\n\\nGet patted down and bomb checked because I'm a diabetic, forget something on the conveyor belt because it took the rookies 10 min to figure out how to do the bomb check.  \\n\\nGet on plane ~30 min before departure.  Realize something (probably laptop that they make you take out for some reason) was left on conveyor.  \\n\\nSPRINT LIKE ALL HELL back. \\n\\nSPRINT BACK TO PLANE.  \\n\\nLook out window to see plane pulling out 15 min before the intended departure time(WHYYYYYYYYYYYY).\\n\\nGet put on new flight an hour later for another 100$\\n\\nSit in between two fat, smelly, snoring mouth breathers. \\n\\nTry to sleep.\\n\\n Get woken up every 2 min by pointless DING there's turbulence (OH RLY). \\n\\nGet to airport. \\n\\nWait for suitcases.\\n\\n Large luggage doesn't come for 30 min. \\n\\nComplain to literally 30 different teirs of airport heirarchy before they start looking for bags. \\n\\n\\nFinally get bag put in some random locked room. \\n\\nWait 30 min for bus.  \\n\\nRealize its the wrong bus.  \\n\\nWait 30 more min for bus. \\n\\nGet back to school. \\n\\nRealize it would have been shorter to just drive.\", \"Most of these times I am actually the one that is driving, so it's just not sitting still, it's actually work I am doing.\", \"I [read here](_URL_0_) That your brain remains half awake when sleeping in a place other than your bed as a defense mechanism. It's all I can think about now when I travel and am tired the whole time.\", 'Depends on how you are traveling, but on long car rides the battering of my body by being shaken around or rumbling over asphalt leaves me sore and tired at the end of the trip.', \"Im suprised no one has stated Decision Fatigue yet.\\n\\nEssentially, on top of all the other nussances of traveling, one the the biggest is the fact that you have to constantly make decisions all the time.\\n\\nWhere is my gate? Do I eat now or later? Which line do I get in? Should my seatbelt be on it off? Do I have enough time to eat this bagel here? Or do I actually want a muffin? Shit that line is long maybe I should go to another stand.\\n\\nIt has been shown that making decisions, no matter how small, is taxing on the mind. You have a limited amount of decisions you can make in a day before they just become harder and harder and harder to make.\\n\\nThis is why managing a group of people can be so exhausting too. Even if you aren't physically doing a ton of work, you're conciously making hundreds of decisions throughout a day and that shit is exhausting.\", \"Delta million miler here. I have been a business traveler for my entire adult life. The fatigue goes away with repetition for some folks. I am basically Pavlov's flyer: I get on board, chug a bottle of water and fall asleep as soon as they pressurize the plane. I have a few coworkers who are the same way. Eventually, everything about it becomes second nature and you just get in your travel zone. Turbulence? Not awake. Delays? There is always another flight. Airport food? You know your go to's cold. Drama at the security line? That's what Precheck is for. \", \"Noise is a big factor, I believe. Try noise cancelling headphones or earplugs the next time.\\n\\nVibration probably also contributes a lot, but there's not much you can do against that.\", \"There are a number of factors, but the amount of oxygen you are getting even on a pressurized plane is not the same as what you get at sea level.  While the plane is up at 35,000' plus, the pressure system is making it seem like you're at a much lower altitude (7000-8000').  So even though the air is breathable it's not what most of us are used to.  Newer technologies (stronger, lighter materials) allow for increased pressure in the cabin making the air more similar to sea level air.  Also, it's very difficult to achieve REM sleep (the most restorative kind) on a plane which usually takes about 90 minutes of uninnteruption.  Neighbors, crampt spaces, drink services, etc. all make this nearly impossible.\", \"I am a Molecular Bio and Psych double major and I think the main stem of this issue is more grounded in psychology. \\n\\nA lot of the exhaustive feeling comes from your body, usually, being subjected to an atmosphere of relative discomfort. Each person has their own personal threshold for what discomfort is but what is shared is that these discomforts generate stress upon the body. The brain, as a counter, therefore uses up a lot of energy and resources to cope with the added stress of the environment (I would honestly argue though that a wide majority of cases of these issues stems from the lack of sleep when in a not-so-greatly accommodating transport system).\\n\\nMy personal example: I used to ride the train a bunch (AmTrak) which is essentially 4-5 hours of constant rocking back and forth. The first couple of times, I was super tired afterwards because I couldn't sleep and I could just feel my psyche actively trying to block out the annoyance of the rocking and the stress it was causing. It very quickly went away but my point is that, since I was uncomfortable during the trip, it made my psyche work exhaustively to compensate in order to make it to my destination while completely sane.\", \"Nobody seems to be saying how physical activity actually rejuvenates people. If you go for a run in the morning, you'll feel like you have more energy during the day. Same as if you do nothing all day, by the end of it you feel more lazy and tired.. You don't suddenly feel like you need to burn off all the energy that's built up.\", 'Many factors contribute to fatigue while traveling.  \\n\\nFor one, being on a plane is surprisingly loud.  Which makes for a tough environment to sleep in.\\n\\nAlong with the noise, you are sitting in a low pressure environment which is also very dry.  This leads to quick dehydration, of which a symptom is fatigue.\\n\\nCouple that with time-zone changes, it makes for being quite tired upon arrival.', \"Sure you are sitting still, but you aren't in your own bed. You're not in an environment that makes you comfortable, like your own house. You're out of your routine. \", \"I find sitting still makes me more tired than being active. I'm a server now so I spend most of my day on my feet running back and forth carrying shit and reaching for stuff. When I get off work I feel fine and ready to do other stuff. However, on my days off just sitting in chair watching Netflix, I feel tired and drowsy all day.  \", \"There is a growing contingent of scientists who believe that fatigue is a mental process that we merely confuse for a physical one. Considering how many chemicals can make us feel artificially alert without energizing our bodies in any way, I'm inclined to agree. Why? Because it implies that our minds aren't reading the body's state directly, instead being informed of such by one to enzyme or another.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/4fv9iz/your_brain_stays_half_awake_when_you_sleep_in_a/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2043, "q_id": "1xqd5e", "title": "why can i fall asleep in noisy environments (school lectures, public transport, cinemas, etc) but an even lesser amount of noise can disturb my sleep when i'm in bed?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xqd5e/eli5_why_can_i_fall_asleep_in_noisy_environments/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cfdopfi', 'cfdrddl', 'cfdumc0', 'cfdv5ti', 'cfdvuzo', 'cfdvv53', 'cfdw7dy', 'cfdwarb', 'cfdwkul', 'cfdx0h1', 'cfdxcgk', 'cfdxd6j', 'cfdxv32', 'cfdz4fc', 'cfdz4vi', 'cfdz7p9', 'cfe0tkg', 'cfe0w0g', 'cfe1233', 'cfe25a3', 'cfe2fmm', 'cfe2iux', 'cfe36cm', 'cfe4fvq', 'cfe5lfs', 'cfe6zu4', 'cfe7zi5', 'cfea1uf', 'cfea46k'], 'score': [4, 64, 2, 6, 17, 2, 2, 5, 2, 45, 14, 2, 2, 3, 2, 9, 2, 2, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 7, 2, 4, 4], 'text': [\"Not all sleep is created equal. The napping you're doing in public is not the deep, restorative sleep you're trying for in bed. If you're sufficiently tired and/or bored, most people can nod off for a few minutes almost anywhere. But settling down and attaining the much deeper sleep we get at night doesn't happen there as a rule.\\n\\nThis is why you can sleep for most of a cross-country flight and still be exhausted afterwards. \", \"Much of our perception is focused on revealing differences.  Thus it is not the level of the noise but the uniformity of it.  Say for example you fixed tacos for dinner.  You notice the yummy smell of food as its cooking, you enjoy the aroma as you take your first bit.  Then after dinner you clean up, watch a tv show and relax.  Before you head upstairs to go to bed you take the trash out.  You notice the air smells brisk and clean.  You walk back in and the smell of mexican food nearly knocks you over.  You didn't notice this before you took the trash out because it became the new normal.  You mind adjusted to the mexican food smell and it became the new baseline odor.\\n\\n\\nSounds even vision are the same way.  Right now your brain is rendering invisible tiny blood vessels in your eye because they don't move.  You mind erases them assuming you don't care about them, allowing you to focus your attention on the things that change.\\n\\nThink about how noise canceling head phones work.  They create a wave form opposite of the wave form entering your ear and play that back to cancel out the outside sound.  Essentially they are making sounds to fill in the differences of the outside sound.  You still have the same sound pressure level reaching your ear, but because its constant and causes no vibration you hear nothing (or less).\", \"Isn't it because to fall asleep in a lecture, public transport or cinema you have to be ultra sleepy...like 'I can't stay awake' sleepy but when you are in bed you are more like 'hey body I have to wake up in 6 hours so going to sleep now would be nice' kind of tired. \\n\\nYou stay asleep in noisy places because you are too tired to be woken by this kind of noise but when you are in bed you are not as sleepy and more easily awoken\", \"Your ears slowly adjust to their surroundings and ambient noise, and it's the sudden change in volume that cause you wake up.\\n\\nEx: I keep my car stereo at the same volume level. If I get into my car in the morning after quiet nights sleep, it can be a little overbearing and loud, however I get into my car after watching a loud movie/tv then it will seem quieter even though the volume level is the same.\\n\\nIf you heard a much louder noise while you were asleep in a noisy environment you would wake up just the same.\", 'Attempt fandeath or use white noise when you sleep. Trust me your sleep will be a million times better.', \"I just want to know why loud noise *makes* me want to take a nap.  I go to a loud concert, and no matter how good it is, I want to drift off and snooze.  (I've actually done that in the movies, but to be fair, it was a calming movie and I was the only one there, and a bit worn out.)\", 'It could be that you actually know the noise is not being directed at you when in a public place but in your own house you are the only person that noise can be targetting. ', 'Constant Average Vs Spike in decibels. ', \"I wear foam ear plugs to bed. The master bedroom in my home faces the street and you'd be surprised how many car doors are slamming, engines are revving and car radios are blaring in the middle of the night. Only downside I suppose, would be if people outside were yelling ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!!! and I didn't hear the warning. ;)\", \"I'm going to throw some confirmation bias into the mix here. You will never notice when a loud noise doesn't wake you up while sleeping. \", \"In my experience it's more than just the sudden increase in noise. I can fall asleep on a noisy underground train, but I simply cannot sleep at all whatsoever if I can hear even the faintest sound of TV somewhere far away even if it's constant and monotonous.\\n\\nFor me I think it's psychological: if you're on the train, you accept that it's supposed to be noisy and you're okay with that. However, at home, someone watching TV might annoy you or make you angry which might prevent you from sleeping. It's not the sound itself, it's the meaning of the sound, as it may give you a sense of security or hostility.\", \"I really don't understand how someone could fall asleep during a lecture.  I find it impossible to tune out words and not think about them when I'm trying to sleep.\", 'Your brain naturally calibrates itself to its surroundings. Ever leave a concert and normal sounds seem muted? Ever hear of that room so quiet you can hear your own blood flowing?\\n\\nIn a very noisy environment, your brain becomes so desensitized to sound that basically *nothing* seems noisy. In a very quiet environment, even a simple cough can seem very jarring.', 'the power of boredom ', \"Because sensory adaptation, a phenomenon where your senses get used to a certain level of stimulus. If you increase the stimulus significantly, you will be able to detect it again. When you're trying to sleep at night in a quiet room, you are used to next to no auditory stimulus. A small noise will seem like a big disturbance because the difference between the initial stimulus and the noise stimulus is greater than that of the difference between the initial stimulus in the classroom and another secondary auditory stimulus on top of that.\", \"I just lectured on this.  Yay practical knowledge.  The process is called habituation, you adapt to the environment around you.  A specific response is guided by environmental cues (stimulus discrimination).  If there was a novel noise in the noisy environment, you might wake up to it.  This is because you haven't habituated to the noise.  \\n\\nIf you wanted a practice example type thing of this.  Sit in a room you're used to sitting in, then start focusing on all the little things you hear.  Every room we're in is much more noisy than you would expect.\\n\\nIf you want to learn more, look for a text on behavioral psychology, this falls in the classical conditioning domain.  I'd also be happy to send you my power point on the topic from my lecture.    \", 'May I jump in and ask why (1) when I was 12 and lived over a bar I slept like a baby, (2) as an adult I prefer white noise like traffic, (3) hearing and anticipating noise from neighbors raises my heart rate ten fold, and (4) the thought of dead silence terrifies me. ', \"I have this similar issue. I can fall asleep easily in my boyfriend's bed while he has his loud screaming music going but it's difficult for me to fall asleep in my own bed when it's quiet. Maybe his bed is comfier than mine. Maybe I just tune out his music, since I can't understand the lyrics/screaming and therefore can't sing along in my head. I can't fall asleep listening to my music, because I know the lyrics well and that keeps me awake.\\n\\nSo maybe the quietness of my bedroom at night just creeps me out. Any ideas?\", \"For me it's the *change* in noise, not really the volume. Our hearing doesn't turn off and our brain continues to process the incoming noises as we sleep, it just filters out noises it is ok (read safe) with. Anything unexpected and different then what it is expecting and the info is sent through to a different level of processing and you may wake up.\\nI have done shift work for 30 years, can sleep anywhere with any noise level and this is how I figure it works for me at least.\", \"I've always found it easier to fall asleep when I'm not supposed to fall asleep.\", \"I always fell asleep when carpooling home from work.  One day, my carpool partner had something come up, so she arranged for a friend to give me a lift back.  How I fell asleep in a convertible with the top down, going 60 mph on a sunny day with my hair blowing all over, I'll never know.\", \"I haven't read all the comments here, but a large majority of them explain it as the difference in noise levels or your adaptation to the noises (how accustomed to them you are). I think it's slightly different than that, based upon my own experiences. \\n\\nI think that our subconscious mind hears, and is aware of, whatever noise occurs around us as we sleep, and it is our subconscious mind that 'chooses' which sounds it will allow to filter into our awareness. \\n\\nI'm a really heavy sleeper, REALLY heavy sleeper. I've had roommates come home from the bars with tons of people and have loud parties in my house that didn't wake me. But I had one roommate come home one night and quietly grab a quick snack from the kitchen that did wake me. The partying, regardless of the varying levels of noise entering a silent house never even stirred me, while I woke up in alarm at the gentle almost-silent opening of the kitchen cabinets. My subconscious heard the partying, but designated it as harmless, while it designated the sound of someone attempting to be quiet and sneaking around the kitchen as an intruder.\\n\\nI've slept through fire alarms, loud music and every alarm clock known to man, but have been woken by a cat meowing at me or a branch lightly tapping my window. I can and have slept in brightly-lit lecture halls, overcrowded subways, and pretty much any loud environment you can imagine. I never have a problem falling or staying asleep. But when something occurs that is not just out of the ordinary, but something seemingly in need of attention, regardless of how loud or quiet it is, my subconscious will wake me to attend to it. \", 'as someone who was in the military....you quickly learn to fall asleep anywhere at any time....', 'temporary threshold shift, when you are in a loud environment your ear canal gets narrower to protect your ear drum from loud noises. When you are laying in bed and it is quiet, your ear canal is completely open and thus you are way more sensitive to loud noises. ', 'Run a box fan at night. No more being woken up by random noises.', 'So, put simply, your brain chooses to ignore certain stimuli it deems \"unimportant\". I.e. certain sounds, smells. So, when you\\'re in a loud area the brain mainly equates the noises to white noise and allows you to disregard them. In a quiet area any sudden noise cause the brain to react as it is different for them norm and could assist in alerting you to some information you may need to know about your surroundings.\\n', \"I never understood the concept of falling asleep in public (school lectures, public transport, cinemas, etc). I'm too paranoid people will steal my stuff, shove something up my ass, or general fuckery. I always keep a low level consciousness when napping publicly, and am always at least slightly aware of my surroundings. I just get that good old REM going. \", 'Most people have mentioned habituation, which is fair enough as it goes, but fundamentally it is harder to sleep, and especially to hit REM sleep, in an objectively louder environment. You are probably comparing apples and oranges. When you are sleep deprived during the day, your body is dying to shut down, and it will do so whenever you are in a resting position and your attention becomes unfocused. On the other hand, if you decide 11pm is bedtime, but you just spent three hours eating, drinking, watching YouTube, or running, your body is physiologically unready to sleep and even very slight irritants (a street light, a car racing down the street) make it impossible to drift off.', 'Ha. Bring deaf is awesome. Bet you guys are all jelly.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2159, "q_id": "6l215q", "title": "why did humans start shaving?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6l215q/eli5_why_did_humans_start_shaving/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['djqi39z', 'djqj3sv', 'djql5f5'], 'score': [17, 13, 31], 'text': [\"That's impossible to say for certain, it's been millennia since we started shaving. The ancient Greeks and Romans did it for combat as a measure against opponents grabbing their hair. The Egyptians copied their behaviour. But I doubt that was the first time people shaved. I guess the very first person to shave did it for the aesthetics, but since it's not even known when this was it's unlikely it'll ever be known why that person did it.\", 'The Epic of Gilgamesh, which is probably the oldest known written book, refers to shaving as a way in which humans distinguish themselves from beasts. I would guess that the EOG is probably sniffing at the right historical tree and that for early man shaving was a spiritual exercise.', 'I think at the very beginning stands hygiene: You can easily get rid of lice by shaving, this \"cleaning\" aspect is especially true if you are in an area with little water so washing is hard.\\n\\nStarting from that you have \"fashion\", which is responsible for all kinds of odd behaviour you cannot explain.\\n\\nAs soon as you have a society where you show that you do not have to spend your day working for life but have time for other things (you are \"rich\" or \"noble\" or whatever it is in the current society called) tending after your body (muscles, cleanlyness, clothing and of course hair, makeup, ..., and beard) becomes a thing you can do to \"show off\" and what you can \"afford\". Again, fashion does hit and also embraces beards. There are many signs of a higher social status, as brighter skin (not working outside all day), soft hands (not working at all), fancy clothing, fancy hair, etc... beards (in general or the lack of one) are just part of that.\\n\\nThe above is also true for soldiers etc, as others have stated. Discipline is, even in modern armies, tied to how soldiers tend to their body. That is first true to keep up the fighting ability, but also discipline and self-image. \\n\\nI read a theory that the modern view on \"super clean shaven\" of the modern man started both with the industrialised cheap razor, so everyone could afford it, as well as with the first World War, where people liked to be *very* cleanly shaven so the gas mask would sit as tight as possible. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1956, "q_id": "2jm1g4", "title": "why does the auto industry hate that tesla sells directly to the customer instead of going through a dealer?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jm1g4/eli5_why_does_the_auto_industry_hate_that_tesla/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clcxlo2', 'clcyhsv', 'clcz8a2', 'cld107k', 'cld1kae', 'cld6d0v', 'cld90ed', 'cldc5v6'], 'score': [84, 25, 2, 5, 9, 3, 3, 2], 'text': [\"That should be pretty obvious...\\n\\nThe dealers want their cut of the profit.\\n\\n--------------\\n\\nThis is a point I've tried to make for many, many years.\\n\\nA car is a Toaster.  It's a product that can be sold at a Wal-Mart, at a cash register.  Traditional car dealers don't want you to think like that.\", \"Thousands of people depend on jobs at car dealerships, and they get a cut of the money the buyer hands over when a car is sold.\\n\\nCutting out that middle man means lower cost of cars, less people badgering you for the optional extras, but also redundant jobs.\\n\\nBasically, having no dealership is far better for the consumer, but they don't want you to know that.\", 'The traditional car industry operates similar to a cartel. From wikipedia:\\n\"an agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market.\"\\nSo if the dealers\\' association in a state is protesting the sale of Tesla cars without use of the cartel system of dealerships (limiting supply and access to control price) then competing companies will indeed work together to prevent competition to their profitable system.', \"consider for a moment that you have a business, you have been doing it for a long time and you have gotten really good at it, you have been very successful and built up a bunch of connections to better facilitate the distribution of your product. you have a number of contracts with different dealers to distribute your product so you can focus on designing and building the cars in the most efficient way possible. now someone comes along and doesn't use this network of dealers so they can sell them cheaper than the dealers (since they aren't using any of those middlemen) but you can't STOP using your middlemen (you have contracts that have yet to expire, not to mention there are thousands or millions of people who would lose their jobs if you did that) they don't have any middlemen, they don't have any contracts so they don't have this responsibility on them...but you do.\\n\\nyou would probably feel pretty bad, if you do nothing you will be driven out of the market you have dominated for so long and all those people will lose their jobs, you can't legally break your contract to compete and if you could it would mean all those people lose their jobs, you are stuck...you can't do anything from a market standpoint to compete so you try the only thing you can: call foul. try to get regulators to prevent the new guy from competing in that way, make him use your network of dealers...or at least stall til you can think of something.\\n\\nnow consider you are a legislator when this argument comes up, this company tells you that if you let tesla compete like that it will mean the loss of many jobs in that city or state. there is nothing a politician fears more than economic instability, their job depends on people in their district having jobs, so you weigh the jobs tesla is bringing (very few, unless you are a state where they are building a gigafactory..those states LOVE tesla) against the ones they are taking (many) and you make a decision.\\n\\nin an ideal world of course the legislator would tell the incumbent automotive maker to suck it up, but they have to consider the economic and political impact of losing one of their biggest money makers in that state and ask if having tesla compete there would be to the greater good of the people there.\\n\\nsadly these things are difficult and not always down to corrupt politicians cackling as fat CEOs hand them giant bags with a $ on em. \", 'Since nobody\\'s mentioned this - there are laws that specifically prevent automakers from selling directly to consumers.   \\n  \\nSo it\\'s really a case of \"no fair, if Elon gets to do it why can\\'t I?\". And they have a very valid point.', 'Listen to [this](_URL_0_). There are a ton of laws that used to make sense in the 40s and now car dealerships are thousand pound gorillas in local politics.', 'Because it does an end-run around the car dealership cartel.  \\n\\n---------\\n\\ncar\u00b7tel / *noun*\\n\\nan association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.', \"The way I understand the existing legislation is that it was put into place to prevent an existing vehicle manufacturer from suddenly bypassing their existing dealer network and selling direct to the public in competition with the dealers.\\n\\nTesla isnt doing that , because they dont have an existing dealer network to compete with. They're new (and smart) enough to sidestep an antiquated and inefficient sales model.\\n\\nWhilst it may put some noses out of joint, it won't kill jobs because they're not competing with existing dealers in a manner that's any different from selling a cheaper competitor vehicle.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/12/171814201/episode-435-why-buying-a-car-is-so-awful'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 794, "q_id": "1cs35x", "title": "What would happen if a baby from birth was kept in a sound proof room with white walls and was fed 3 times a day?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cs35x/what_would_happen_if_a_baby_from_birth_was_kept/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c9jfo91', 'c9jgt88'], 'score': [5, 3], 'text': [\"Probably something similar to [this](_URL_1_).\\n\\n_URL_0_ if you're interested. Pretty fucked up what happened to her.\", 'While the abuses in Romania orphanages were not nearly as bad as those suffered by Genie, the orphans were subject to serious psychological deprivations.  See: _URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmdycJQi4QA', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child\\\\)'], ['http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/romanian_orphans_investigation.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2079, "q_id": "6g1bnx", "title": "why is it that the constant orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom is not classed as an example of perpetual motion?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g1bnx/eli5_why_is_it_that_the_constant_orbit_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dimmf7k', 'dimndj7', 'dimrhp5', 'dinakgw'], 'score': [8, 15, 2, 5], 'text': ['\"perpetual motion\" isn\\'t disallowed, inertia means something moving will move forever unless a force changes that. People mean \"motion that self regenerates when slowed\" when they mean perpetual motion. \\n\\nBut at the same time electrons don\\'t actually orbit the way people draw them in cartoons, electrons aren\\'t really little balls, it\\'s just easier to think of them that way sometimes. ', 'When people talk about \"perpetual motion machines\" they don\\'t mean the literal \"moving forever\"  they mean a system that runs forever but you can keep extracting energy from, or generates more energy than was put in without any other loss. \\n\\na rock could orbit another rock and both could hurtle through a vacuum forever. No work is being done no energy is being taken from the system. So it\\'s happy to just keep moving forever. \\n\\n\\nbut if you want to make those rocks do some work or touch them in any way they will stop moving or slow down.  same with an Atom, while there might be \"movement\" of sorts inside that motion does not perpetually generate energy. ', 'One reason is that electrons don\\'t really orbit around the nucleus the way planets orbit around the sun.  That\\'s a convenient fiction that was once thought by physicists to be true, but hasn\\'t been since around the beginning of the last century.  I guess it is still taught in schools because the real theory is rather strange and hard to explain to an adolescent. It\\'s hard to explain to an adult.   \\n   \\nOne of the problems with the \"planetary model\" of atoms is that electrons are a charged particle.  If they orbited around the nucleus like that, they would constantly be emitting electromagnetic radiation.  They don\\'t do that.  So the model was clearly flawed.  \\n   \\nAlong came the quantum mechanical model of the atom.  It was realized that electrons in an atom don\\'t occupy a particular position within the atom, they are more like a wave with a particular volume of space within the atom that they are *likely* to be found in.  But that volume doesn\\'t have a sharp boundary.  An electron in your nose has a very very very very small chance of suddenly being on Mars. \\n   \\nThe electrons aren\\'t static, so I guess you could call what they do \"perpetual motion\".  They also aren\\'t really in motion, though. They just might be here and might be there. It isn\\'t really what people mean when they refer to a perpetual motion machine. \\n    \\n**TL;DR** - Atoms are weird. ', 'Like explained in another post already, electrons aren\\'t \"orbiting the core\" like planets orbit the sun. As said, they would emit electromagnetic waves constantly and end up falling into the core once their energy was radiated away; if they kept moving though, they would indeed be an actual \\'\\'perpetual movement machine\\'\\' (meaning they would basically generate energy from nothing). This problem arises because in most schools, you are taught to think of electrons as an actual particle (a classical concept), when in actuality they are quantummechanical objects i.e. excitations of their respective fields (probability \"waves\"/fuctions with partly \"particle-like\" properties so to speak). We can\\'t measure their \"velocity\" and locality at the same time (or rather, the more precise you measure one, the less precise the other measurement gets), thus we assign them probabillities. We can calculate these probabilities and we find that they have a 0% chance of being in the atom\\'s core, everywhere else however, that probability is not 0, even though it is infinitly small, on Venus for example, it may still be there. To get around that we calculate the arrea that has a 90%-99% chance of being and call them orbitals (basically what you get taught as the different \"shells\" of an atom in school (it\\'s somewhat more complex than that, but that\\'s *basically* it)). These orbitals are basically the \"room\" you speak of when refering to an atom minus the room taken up by the core (less that 0.1%).\\nAs such, \"electrons\" aren\\'t really moving, but are *dislocated* in a large cloud of their probable positions around the atom\\'s core. You can collapse this *cloud* into a single position by measuring them, but as stated above, you are unable to attain their \"velocity\" then.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1072, "q_id": "2jv66u", "title": "when the wifi is super slow why does restarting router magically fix it?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jv66u/eli5when_the_wifi_is_super_slow_why_does/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clfe05x', 'clfew8b', 'clffrp6', 'clffxo9', 'clffzk4', 'clfhqbr', 'clfih3l', 'clfksma', 'clflin4', 'clfnfki', 'clfwf62', 'clfx5k6', 'clfyuki'], 'score': [1646, 19, 2, 3, 42, 2, 6, 2, 24, 8, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['There are lots of good reasons restarting your router might fix the speed, lets list them:\\n\\n* Your neighbors suck: Are lots of people stealing WiFi from you? Rebooting your router probably forced them to connect to a different network thus freeing up bandwidth for you. This can also be true of all the online devices in your house.\\n\\n* Your ISP sucks: Some internet service providers like to slow down the traffic of users that they catch using specific protocols (like bit torrents and encryption) which is technically illegal if they do it before killing net neutrality, but there is lots of evidence they have been doing it anyways. By restarting your router you are effectively requesting a new IP address from your ISP and that may also reset any bad things they have done to your connection.\\n\\n* Your router sucks: Routers are little computers. They have memory and processors and they run software just like your computer but cheaper. It is possible that simply running for a long time makes your router slow down from internal memory leaks due to bad design/firmware.\\n\\n* Your computer sucks: When you restart the router every service using the internet on your computer is forced to briefly accept the fact that there is no internet anymore. If one of those services was causing horrible connection issues (like some background update service), then there is a chance restarting the router will force it to end early, thus freeing your computer once the router comes back online.\\n\\n* You suck: There are lots of reasons that something on the internet may seem slow for a while and then seem fast later. If your evidence is \"it seems faster after restarting\" I might ask to see your data.', \"Imagine an 8 lane highway that's full of cars and everyone is doing the limit. How long would it take for traffic to slow down if people start changing lanes and entering/exiting the highway. You can fix this by kicking everyone off and restarting the flow of traffic.\\n\\nThe cars are the data that's going through your router. Errors build up, your rebooting clears them and allows a faster connection.\\n\\nEDIT: your ISP sets the top speed, it is extremely unlikely they will throttle your bandwidth. There are lots of other more likely things that will slow you down especially if rebooting your router is fixing it.\", 'In my personal experience, it is due to the low memory in my Netgear router.  Things like running utorrent and certain server browsers cause my router to slow down, I believe due to the memory getting filled.', \"Related question: why does my SNR get progressively worse until I restart my router?  \\n\\nIt doesn't happen every time, either, so assuming it's something external causing it, why does restarting alleviate the problem?\", 'Just wanted to say as Long time lurker / Network Engineer. That most of the points hear are correct however one thing I want to point out is that your Router is like a Computer. It has a processor, storage and RAM. \\n\\nIf your computer was on for 6 months at a time I am sure something would start to slow down. They fill up with logs and the services in the background start slowing down and then it runs out of space / RAM everything slowly starts going to a crawl. \\n\\nWhat I recommend doing is getting a Good Wireless Access point / Letting the Router just be a router with DHCP. Trying to offload these services to multiple devices rather than letting your all-in-one combo router do everything. (Jack of all trades, master of none)\\n\\nLast but not least is that if you use your router from your ISP. Chances are is probably junk! (They bulk buy these suckers and they normally are not very good)', 'I worked for an ISP. The actual reason is it resets the connection to your port. If you call your ISP the first thing they will do is reset your port. Essentially doing the same thing as you but on the ISP end. Your basically breaking the sync between the port and modem and then reastablishing the connection. ', 'Your router contains something called a NAT (network address translation) table.  Anytime your PC or any internet-enabled device on your home network makes a connection to the internet, the router has to remember which device made the request so when the response comes back it knows which device to deliver the information to.  This info is stored in this NAT table.  When you use bittorrent, or another program that requests multiple connections to the internet, this NAT table can get filled up.  When it does, everything will grind to a halt.  Rebooting the router clears this table thus speeding everything up again.', 'It\\'s also similar to \"shaking the blanket\" per-say. You\\'re shaking off the ghost connections of things that WERE connected to the router, but went out of range. ', 'Restarting can sometimes improve a router\\'s performance. It is after all a computer prone to errors. \\n\\nHere\\'s how I troubleshoot slow internet:\\n\\n1) Ping my router. If the ping is double/triple digits, the problem might be there.\\n\\n2) Ping Google. If the ping is triple/quadruple digits, the problem might be somewhere between my router and Google.\\n\\n3) Ping the gateway. There are three \"gateways\". The 1st is your router. We\\'ve already covered that. The 2nd is the modem. The modem has 2 ip addresses. The first is the IP address between your router and the external IP address of the modem. The second is the external IP address of the modem. Ping the external IP. If the ping is high, double/triple digits, it\\'s the modem. The 3rd gateway is outside your home network entirely and is a router belonging to the ISP. You can find its ip address by looking at your router\\'s WAN page, if it has one. Ping it. If it\\'s triple/quadruple digits the problem isn\\'t yours, it\\'s the ISP\\'s. \\n\\nIf none of this gives you poor ping results then the problem is farther out. Time to use another tool. \\n\\n4) Tracert google. This will show you the hops and their ping times between you and Google. Hops are the routers between you and a destination on the internet that your traffic travels through. This will demonstrate where the slow down is between you and Google and generally if it\\'s your ISP or someone else. \\n\\nAssuming the problem is with your router there are some things you can do. Without getting into more technical aspects, the most effective means of dealing with poor connections between the router and devices is to move the router\\'s antenna as high as possible and centrally locate it, if possible. \\n\\nChange the channel. Wifi routers have about 11 channels to choose from. Defaults for routers are usually channel 6, depending on manufacturer. Moving your router off manufacturer default channels may improve things for you. \\n\\nChange your antennas. You can buy or make more sensitive antennas. [You can also make easily and cheaply using paper, glue  &  tinfoil a sort of directional attachment for existing antennas.](_URL_0_) \\n\\nNow, if you want to get more technical, try upgrading to a 3rd party firmware like DD-Wrt. Doing so will enable additional metrics  &  features not available in stock manufacturer firmware. 3rd party firmwares often include the ability to adjust transmission power. You can literally spend weeks playing with this feature getting it just right. \\n\\nYou can also purchase repeaters that are simple to use. Or, if you have older wifi routers sitting around, using 3rd party firmware will also enable repeater functions if not already available in stock firmware. I\\'ve done this and it works extremely well. \\n\\nIf you\\'re sharing your router with roommates and/or family, they might be hogging your bandwidth. 3rd party firmware literally turns a $40 router into a $10,000 router by adding features such a QoS (quality of service) allowing you to meter bandwidth based on criteria such as type of traffic and/or devices. This will allow you to give higher priority to traffic such as video streaming and/or VoIP or by allowing your roommates a maximum bandwidth so as to preserve your own or banning certain traffic such as P2P. \\n\\nSometimes there\\'s nothing you can do given the environment. Steal/concrete constructed buildings will always pose a problem for Wifi. In these environments a mix of technologies might solve certain problems. If you don\\'t want to install networking cable, or can\\'t, then Ethernet over Powerlines might be an option. These devices are fairly cheap turning your average power outlet into a network jack. As with everything, there are limitations and problems to be aware of and overcome. ', 'I listen to a podcast hosted by Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson; an Internet security specialist. (The podcast is called Security Now on the TWIT network for anyone curious -- highly recommended for IT professionals and enthusiasts).\\n\\nAnyway; there is an issue known as \"bufferbloat\" which is caused by new routers not only at the household level, but all along the Internet network. As these new routers are designed with more local RAM, their \"short term memory\" is greater. This sounds like a good thing in theory, but in reality it isn\\'t. It is actually better for these units to have less memory.\\n\\nSince there is more kept locally on each unit, they slowly become \"bloated\" with unnecessary information left over in the unit. This effect is exponential over the entire network.\\n\\nWhen you reboot your local router, it clears the memory of that unit and reduces your local bufferbloat. It does not make a tremendous difference but it is a factor. Be it a very technical one. The longer your unit has been operating continuously, the greater the effect.\\n\\nHere are a few links:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n_URL_1_', 'I found it incredibly ironic that when I first tried to click on this post I got a \"could not connect to server\" message and had to restart my router. ', \"I see a lot of people talking about WiFi Security which is good but the other reason the restart is helping you is it forces your wireless router to change channels. In areas where nearly everyone has WiFi and the Standard being 2.4gHz you only have 12 channels. If multiple users in your area are on the same signal channel you will have a lot of issues with WiFi going in and out or being really slow. The best option is to upgrade to a router that supports the 5gHz bandwidth which many people don't have. You can also use the Android App WiFi Analyzer to see what channels the other networks around you are on and adjust your channel to one that is free of interference. \", 'This was happening to me every night for months.  Constantly reaching for the reset button on the back of the router.  Phoned my ISP.   They told me other routers nearby might be using the same channel, and resetting the router means it\\'ll settle on a less busy channel.  They suggested setting it to a certain specific channel instead of leaving the channel on \"Auto\" (if you don\\'t know how to change your wifi channel it\\'s an easy Google).\\n\\nThere are a lot of answers above, but for what it\\'s worth, this fixed the problem for me.  It\\'s been 4 weeks and I haven\\'t had to reset once.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.freeantennas.com/projects/template2/'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat', 'http://twit.tv/show/security-now/345'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1063, "q_id": "2c0zo4", "title": "how was the first computer/chip programmed, without anything to program it with?", "selftext": "I'm curious how that worked!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c0zo4/eli5_how_was_the_first_computerchip_programmed/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cjaudqq', 'cjauhee', 'cjavuyy', 'cjavw65'], 'score': [5, 6, 17, 2], 'text': [\"Manually flipping switches. It's all ones and zeroes deep down.\", 'Basic programming was, and still is, programming for the chip itself, without any language and compiler. A program is just a sequence of numbers, some of those numbers being data for the program to calculate from, or instructions telling the chip what calculations to do. You just have to set up some numbers in some memory and set the chip running.\\n\\nThese numbers were either entered by flipping switches, or by punching holes in pieces of cardboard.', 'The very first computers were large mechanical devices which were programmed by flipping a number of switches to various positions to indicate which commands to execute.\\n\\nLater computers were programmed via [punched cards](_URL_0_). Literal holes were punched in stiff card using a special hole puncher; the pattern of holes represented program instructions, and these cards were then read by the machine and the corresponding instructions executed.\\n\\nThe invention of the [Von Neumann architecture](_URL_1_) is what first allowed programs to be stored in memory alongside data. At first, programs had to be carefully crafted in machine language using something like binary notation.\\n\\nFrom there, assembly language notation was invented, then higher level programming languages, and the rest is history.', 'The first chip was a macro sized circuit board. Programming is fundamentally the control of AND OR and NOT logic associated with circuitry and electronics. Essentially, programming is the control of high and low voltages (0 and 1) and when those voltages are high and low dependent on the \"flow\" of the circuit.\\n\\n_URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_cards', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture'], ['http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/Boolean_logic.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2489, "q_id": "6gfk75", "title": "Were any \"military comedies\" ever made by film companies of the Axis powers prior to or during WWII?", "selftext": "Hollywood made numerous [\"service comedies\"](_URL_0_) about life in the Armed Services during and just before WWII, mostly set during training with little if any combat onscreen. I've have searched for yet not found anything similar made in Germany, Italy or Japan, but would be fascinated to see one if it exists, especially a German or Japanese one.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6gfk75/were_any_military_comedies_ever_made_by_film/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['diq3gco', 'diqh1hw', 'dir6mbh'], 'score': [17, 40, 2], 'text': ['Follow up question. Would it have been legal to do so in Germany?', 'Under the Nazi regime, the film industry became a very controlled enterprise. From June 1933, all cast and crew in Germany had to be licensed by the state and all films approved at every stage of production. By 1937 the industry had effectively been nationalised with the giant UFA forming the core of the business.\\n\\nWhile there were notable propaganda films such as *Jud S\u00fc\u00df* (Veit Harlan, 1940), *The Eternal Jew* (Fritz Hippler, 1940) and Leni Riefenstahl\\'s seminal masterpiece documentaries *The Triumph of the Will* (1935) and *Olympia* (1936), these were in the minority. They are the best known German films of the era, but when Goebbels set the Nazi film policy, he prioritised entertainment over Nazi politics. In contrast to the Soviet Union, film was to be used to maintain public morale rather than to indoctrinate the population. Indeed, *Robert  &  Bertram* (Hans Heinz Zerlett, 1939) was the only anti-semitic musical comedy ever produced under the Third Reich, the exception in what was otherwise a highly popular genre. \\n\\nThat\\'s not to say that Nazi cinema in the 1930s was untouched by \"light\" or subtextual propagandising in every film, with situations and characters conforming to Nazi values such as a nuclear family, honesty and ingenuity. Particularly as the war progressed it became more fervent, with the disaster in *Titanic* (Herbert Selpin / Werner Klingler, 1943) being directly caused by English and American capitalist greed at the expense of the noble yet poor European victims.\\n\\nBut the goal of Goebbels was to provide an evening\\'s escapist entertainment. As such, films about the military are relatively uncommon; when war is confronted (of course with Germanic or Aryan characters in the heroic roles) it is most often through the veil of time, such as the Napoleonic war or Seven Years\\' War. Or, for those in modern settings like *Three Sergeants* (Werner Hochbaum, 1939), the focus is on the characters\\' private lives rather than on war glories.\\n\\nMilitary Comedies wouldn\\'t fit in to the German cinema of the time, where comedies were mostly farces or comedies of errors. They were intended to draw attention away from military matters, so it would defeat the point to have characters in military situations.', 'This is not related to the film industry but the Wehrmacht did have other ways to utilize humor.  The official Tiger and Panther tank manuals included funny/risqu\u00e9 situations.  This was mixed with technical information.\\n\\n\"The illustrations in the Tigerfibel were done by Obergrenadier Gessinger and Unteroffizier Wagner. These included allegorical sketches, technical drawings, photographs and cartoons. The cartoons often involved an attractive blonde woman named Elvira who frequently found herself without any clothes or in a romantic setting with cartoon Tiger crewman. The Tigerfibel also contained many short, memorable verses and limericks referred to as \u201cmorals\u201d or \u201cmottos\u201d. All of this was done to capture and hold the attention of the fledgling trainees.\"\\n\\nImages in the link are NSFW\\n\\n_URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?genre=military+comedy&amp;decade=1940']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerfibel.shtml']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2370, "q_id": "5p9bcf", "title": "In his book \"Settlers\", J. Sakai asserts that the Cherokee nation had a very sophisticated and Westernized society immediately prior to their march on the Trail of Tears, boasting a supreme court, two-house legislature, official newspaper, and budding literary tradition. Is all of this true?", "selftext": "I have never heard of a Westernized Cherokee state besides their old designation as a \"civilized tribe.\" Has any good research been done on Cherokee life immediately before their removal by Andrew Jackson?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5p9bcf/in_his_book_settlers_j_sakai_asserts_that_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dcppq87'], 'score': [97], 'text': [\"This is an accurate summary of the state of the Cherokee Nation in the southeast in the years immediately prior to Removal. The first [Cherokee Constitution](_URL_0_) was adopted in July 1827 and established a Westernized government modeled after the United States. If you visit New Echota, in northwest Georgia, which was chosen as the capital for the new nation, you can see a reconstruction of the building that once housed the Supreme Court, the General Council (which was divided into two houses - the Committee and the Council proper), and the national newspaper, *The Cherokee Phoenix* while the new capital was getting established. The adoption of the Sequoyah syllabary around this same time greatly boosted literacy rates in the Cherokee Nation as well, and *The Cherokee Phoenix* was published in both English and Cherokee. The rapid Westernization of the Cherokee was one of the many factors that prompted the United States to pursue the Removal doctrine. During his first State of the Union address, Andrew Jackson cited Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 (that no new state could be formed from an existing state) as a reason to force the Cherokee Nation and other westernizing Native nations out of territory already claimed by the States. No one really knew how to deal with new nations popping up within the United States. Jackson and the like certainly weren't entertaining any arguments that would have allowed them to remain where they were at the expense of the Euroamerican population.\\n\\nFor an easily accessible summary of how life change for the average Cherokee during the 1700s and early 1800s (pre-Removal), I always recommend Theda Perdue's *Cherokee Women*. While the focus is obviously on women, there's plenty in there about men too since changes in the lives of one sex usually results in and from changes in the lives of the other. This includes, for example, women being increasingly excluded from political engagement in their society as the nation westernizes. In general, though Theda Perdue's works are great and she has done a lot of work on the Cherokee during the Removal era if you're interested in more on that topic.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://arts-sciences.und.edu/native-media-center/_files/docs/1803-1860/1827cherokeeconstitution.pdf']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 963, "q_id": "3qu3h0", "title": "What controls the shape of the cytoskeleton? How do the cell's needs translate into growing one set of microtubules and shrinking another?", "selftext": "I understand that the actual growing and shrinking is controlled by proteins bonded to the ends and on the sides of microtubules, but what determines where they are? What says \"this one grows and this one shrinks\"?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3qu3h0/what_controls_the_shape_of_the_cytoskeleton_how/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cwmgadw'], 'score': [2], 'text': ['Cells\\' cytoskeleton can change due to different reasons. The most evident case is cell migration. One example of migration is the axon of a neuron (neuron somewhere in the spine) trying to reach for the muscle that it controls, leta say the arm. This is a major feat of cytoskeleton shape change. First, as you know microtubules grow and fall apart by themselves, also there are proteins that can help the growth (polymerization) and prevent it from falling apart. But the selection of which microtubules is supposed to grow is carried out by +TIPs proteins. If you are really into it read some of this article. Proff Lowry has done some amazing research in the field at Boston College\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThe distilled version is that proteins at the growing end of microtubules receive signals from the outside and integrate them in the way microtubules grow. If there is a chemoattractant (molecule that attracts cells) +TIPs stabilize the microtubules close to the cell edge to rearrange the cytoskeleton. Also remember that actin plays a role as well. There are also proteins stabilizing actin filaments and making \"permanent\" adhesions, just like microtubules\\'.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26175669']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2808, "q_id": "3nyxjd", "title": "Why did a number of Hellenistic rulers leave their thrones to Rome, a foreign power, in their wills?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nyxjd/why_did_a_number_of_hellenistic_rulers_leave/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cvt4jdl', 'cvt5r21'], 'score': [7, 31], 'text': [\"If I may expand this question, why did rulers of many cultures do this? I recall that Boudicca's husband did this as well.\", 'Lots of reasons. Often times the Romans would make a conquered territory a \"client state.\" A client state was a kingdom that did not have sovereignty, so that the inhabitants were still subject to the king\\'s rule, but the king was subject to a Roman noble such as Julius Caesar or, later, the Roman Emperor. In these cases it, leaving the kingdom to be ruled by Rome was not such a crazy thing as the kingdom in question would have already been indirectly ruled by Romans for some time. \\n\\nThe reasons were various. If there was a lack of a successor or if there was political instability in the kingdom, it sometimes made sense to leave the kingdom to be ruled by Rome. A notable example is Pergamon, which was granted to Rome by Attalus III. There had already been a precedence to call Rome to assist in Pergamene conflicts, so Attalus was merely taking precedent one step further in order to prevent one Aristonicus, a bitter political rival, from gaining any power in the ensuing power gap. \\n\\nSources: Plutarch  \\nThe Hellenistic World and the  Coming of Rome, Erich Gruen']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1154, "q_id": "1ivzma", "title": "How do color changing pencils work?", "selftext": "Example: _URL_0_", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ivzma/how_do_color_changing_pencils_work/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cb8ovm3'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"Sometimes providing context - or even links to the item you're describing - goes a long way in getting you responses.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.cliving.org/PHOTOS/Mood%20Pen%20pencil/mood%20pencil%20color%20change%202.jpg']", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 503, "q_id": "dx4d5s", "title": "How is the effective exhaust velocity computed for rockets with non-homogeneous propellants?", "selftext": "For a rocket with multiple different species of molecules in the exhaust, such as a O2-H2 rocket with 4:1 (by mass) ratio between oxidizer and fuel, resulting in (simplified) exhaust of H2O and H2 at a ratio of 9:1 by mass (or equal amount of molecules), how exactly does one compute the effective exhaust velocity, and thus specific impulse?\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI tried googling for it, but every equation and calculator I can find just assumes a single molecular mass. Is there some easy way of averaging out the molecular mass that it can be plugged into the normal formulas, or is something more complex needed?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dx4d5s/how_is_the_effective_exhaust_velocity_computed/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['f7oqp7t', 'f7p00mw'], 'score': [3, 7], 'text': ['I don\\'t know much about the underlying mathematics but there is computer software to design rocket engines, such as \"Rocket Propulsion Analysis\" from _URL_0_ . The software will predict thrust and specific impulse/effective exhaust velocity based on engine design.\\n\\nMeasuring effective exhaust velocity is conceptually simple - measure the thrust of the rocket and the flow rate of the propellants.', \"I don't know how other people do it but I have gotten good ballpark numbers by looking at where the energy goes. I do it like this.\\n\\n1: calculate how much energy is produced in the reaction (using the enthalpy of formation)\\n\\n2: estimate how much of that energy goes into propelling the exhaust and how much goes into heat (using heat of vaporization and specific heat)\\n\\n3: use the formula for kinetic energy to calculate the velocity of the exhaust (KE=m/2\\\\*v\\\\^2)\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nexample:\\n\\n1/2 mol O2 + 1 mol H2 - >  1 mol H2O +  241.818 kJ\\n\\nThe hydrogen and oxygen have to be vaporized which takes [6.82](_URL_1_) and [1.808](_URL_2_) kJ. If the water ends up about 1000 kelvin hotter than it starts that will consume about 26 kJ. This totals 45.628 kJ.\\n\\nThe kinetic energy per mol is about 196.19 kJ. 1 mol weights 18.015 grams.\\n\\nDoing the math I get 4,667 m/s.\\n\\nThe actual value is something like [4,462](_URL_0_) m/s.\\n\\nIn this case I underestimated the temperature of the exhaust or used a bad approximation for the specific heat of steam or most likely both. Unfortunately the specific heat of a material is dependent on its temperature so it is very hard to approximate across large temperature changes. This problem can be solved with a data table for each compound involved in the reaction. It is very difficult to estimate how hot the exhaust will get.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nedit: corrected 1 mol O2 +2 mol H2 - >  1 mol H2O +241.818kj to 1/2 mol O2 + 1 mol H2 - >  1 mol H2O +  241.818 kJ\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://propulsion-analysis.com/index.htm'], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellant', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2294, "q_id": "6rz7a7", "title": "Is it true that ancient Rome was 8 times as densely populated as present day NYC?", "selftext": "I think it has to be population across all boroughs. No way ancient Rome is more densely populated than Manhattan today. I read the statement on one of the LinkNYC billboards.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rz7a7/is_it_true_that_ancient_rome_was_8_times_as/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dl9wij0', 'dl9y9io'], 'score': [19, 7], 'text': [\"The Aurelian Walls contain an area of 13.7 square kilometers, peak population within this area is estimated on the high end at 1m, at that population the density is 73k/sqkm compared to Manhattans 28k/sqkm all New York's boroughs are 10947/sqkm bringing a more accurate total to 6.63x more dense with Manhattan being about 1/3 as dense.  \\n  \\nSource: Maths  &  [The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome Population of Rome] (_URL_0_)\", \"According to [this](_URL_0_) comment by /u/Tiako on a slightly different topic, the population density wasn't as high as the numbers might suggest, since a lot of the city was outside of the ~14 square kilometers contained within the Aurelian walls.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://books.google.com/books?id=yaM0AAAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=The%20Cambridge%20Companion%20to%20Ancient%20Rome%20population%20of%20rome&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjKt4ik9JvPAhUL9IMKHfJoAIgQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false'], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14dtx4/there_were_more_than_a_million_people_living_in/c7c7y96/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 425, "q_id": "5uz5kd", "title": "why does going to bed later than usual but sleeping the same amount of hours as you normally would, feel worse when you wake up?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uz5kd/eli5why_does_going_to_bed_later_than_usual_but/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ddy0450', 'ddy1f35', 'ddy6tyf', 'ddybk56', 'ddycew1', 'ddyexv8', 'ddyijkx', 'ddyvsjd'], 'score': [2, 43, 2, 2, 388, 88, 7, 5], 'text': [\"When you go to bed later you go to sleep with less energy than you normally would. This means it would take more time to get all your energy back and the same amount of hours you normally get wouldn't be sufficient.\", \"That may be specific to you, not a general phenomenon that applies to everyone, having to do with your circadian rhythms. If your body clock works well with a certain sleep time, and you shift that, you may get poorer quality sleep in the morning when you're used to being awake, or just generally have disturbed your body's rhythm. \", \"I have a night shift and college class , I sleep when I can, usually early morning to mid-day or any time. The only difference is how you adjust your sleep cycle and it makes you more keen on getting up and awake instantly, because you're probably already late for class.\", \"Well it may because you're not used to it. Sleeping consistently is important for you to get optimal rest out of sleep, so by going to bed later you end up getting less rest despite the same amount of hours. It's an efficiency thing.\", 'The major contributing factor is your circadian rhythm. This rhythm is basically your natural biological clock. However it does not run exactly on a 24 hr cycle, there are slight deviations naturally and other factors can contribute to altering your biological clock. \\n\\nThe next factor to take into account is which stage of the sleep cycle you are waking up from. There are typically 5 stages of sleep, stage 1/2 are \"active\" sleep cycles, your brain activity is still highly active and almost indistinguishable from a wake person. In stage 1/2, you are also more likely to respond to stimuli, such as someone calling your name. Stage 3 is regarded as \"inactive\" sleep cycle, this is the stage where your brain activity drastically drops, preparing your brain and body to enter stage 4. In stage 3, a person is much harder to wake up and waking from this stage leaves a person exhausted and generally disorientated. Stage 4 sleep is where actual rest and rejuvenation occurs. In this stage, your brain activity is picking up slightly but still in a mild manner, not too much to be called wakefullness, but enough to signal repairs in the body. Lastly is REM stage, this is where your brain is now increasing activity and causing dreams. After REM, the cycle repeats back from stage 1. \\n\\nBasically as you sleep, you go through this 1-4+rem cycle over and over, with each cycle lasting about 90 mins. Depending on what your body needs, stage1/2 will shorten as you go through the sleep cycles and lengthen stage 4 for rest and recovery or REM sleep. If you wake from REM, you will feel refreshed and ready, that is why most people dont remember dreams or recall a dream suddenly disrupted by waking up. If you wake up during stage 3/4, you will feel tired and exhausted, your brain was trying to turn down the power after all, and signal the body to recover from things like exhaustion or injuries. \\n\\nSo thats it, a bit long for ELI5, but its a complicated question that takes many things into account, as is common when talking about neurological issues\\n\\nEdit: forgot to talk about sleep deficit and how that also contributes alot, but im on mobile and cant continue forever.', 'Feels worse? Am i broken ? If i sleep 8 hours but get up at 6 i feel like shit but if sleep 5 hours but wake up at 11, i feel awsome and ready to do a 16h shift ! \\n\\nEdit: it all make sense now, according to the top post, i have to wake up in the middle of my stage 3 sleep before the actual rest occur, also, a train could hit my house i woudnt wake up if its early morning.', 'The reason is because: about an hour before we wake up, our bodies prepare us for the day by releasing certain brain chemicals, namely cortisol. One reason why it is important to get up around the same time everyday is because of this chemical timing. Our bodies become habituated to this cycle, this circadian rhythm, and if we all of a sudden shift away from that, we feel off. \\nKind of explains jetlag and the off week a lot of us have after changing our clocks for daylight savings. ', \"How does having naps during the day affect sleep quality/sleep debt? I'm interested if naps are beneficial or actually disrupt evening sleep quality.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1860, "q_id": "89jix3", "title": "How strong is the explosive power of a hypernova?", "selftext": "If u can answer in megatons aka what we grade nukes on.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/89jix3/how_strong_is_the_explosive_power_of_a_hypernova/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dwresxo', 'dwrfblf'], 'score': [17, 11], 'text': ['Hypernovae, or [superluminous supernovae](_URL_1_), have energies 10 or more times that of normal supernovae, which explode with the energy of 10^44 Joules. \\n\\n[10^45 J = 2.39 x 10^29 megatons of TNT](_URL_0_)', 'Energy released by hypernova \u2248 5x10^45 J [[source](_URL_1_)]\\n\\nEnergy in a 1 megaton bomb \u2248 4x10^15 J [[source](_URL_0_)]\\n\\nSo a hypernova equates to approximately (5x10^(45))/(4x10^(15)) = 1.25x10^30 megatons.\\n\\nEdit: dammit, /u/Iamlord7 beat me to it :)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%5E45+J+to+megatons+of+TNT', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminous_supernova'], ['https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&amp;dcr=0&amp;ei=LQzEWvutLZKTkwXX1ovoDw&amp;q=convert+1+megaton+to+joules&amp;oq=convert+1+megaton+to+joules&amp;gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.211970.220414.0.221750.27.22.0.5.5.0.108.1940.14j6.20.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.25.1952...0j0i67k1j0i131k1j35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.yYRHVDSnP6o', 'http://uk.businessinsider.com/astronomers-discover-the-most-powerful-hypernova-2016-1']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 584, "q_id": "2htfxs", "title": "how does a coding language get 'coded' in the first place?", "selftext": "Telling a computer what to do using a coding language which both you and it understand is quite a simple idea, though sometimes technically complex to actually perform. But, how do the elementary components of that coding language get made (or coded?) and understood by the computer in the first place, when presumably there are no established building blocks of code for you to use?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2htfxs/eli5_how_does_a_coding_language_get_coded_in_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ckvudvh', 'ckvujwl', 'ckvur85', 'ckvxm9u', 'ckw1vux', 'ckw2822', 'ckw2ewt', 'ckw3nqa', 'ckw4bcf', 'ckw4kce', 'ckw5acp', 'ckw5l9t', 'ckw5swp', 'ckw6nbh', 'ckw7lz9', 'ckw7rou', 'ckw7y9b', 'ckw85c2', 'ckw97gv', 'ckw9uuq', 'ckwavvu', 'ckwbsei', 'ckwcluj', 'ckwdkdg', 'ckwdy8m', 'ckwe2wx', 'ckwf3bw', 'ckwfrlz', 'ckwg1nf', 'ckwgxj4', 'ckwiasj', 'ckwilb0', 'ckwk38c'], 'score': [3171, 2, 66, 3, 2, 2, 17, 3, 2, 9, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 34, 9, 2, 7, 2, 2, 12, 4, 3, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 2, 2, 13], 'text': [\"You program it in another language. A lot of languages popular today, like PHP, were originally implemented in C/C++. Basically the PHP interpreter is a C program that accepts text input formatted as proper PHP, and does the thing that the PHP is asking for. \\n\\nC++ was itself originally implemented in C. It started out as a compiler written in C.\\n\\nC itself was made by writing a compiler in assembly language.\\n\\nAssembly language was made by writing an assembler directly in binary. (Or 'compiling by hand', which means manually turning readable code into unreadable, but functionally identical, binary that can run on the machine natively.)\\n\\nBinary works because that's how it was engineered. Computer engineers made the circuits that actually do the adding, push or whatever. They also made it so that you could specify what to do with 'op codes' and arguments. A simple, but made up, example CPU might use the opcode 0000 for adding, and accept two 4 bit numbers to add. In that language if I told the CPU\\n\\n000000010001 it'd add 1 and 1 together and do... whatever it was designed to do with the result. \\n\\nSo now we're at the bottom. Ultimately all code ends up coming down here to the binary level.\", 'ELI5: every operation of a programming language was set up by the creators of that language to be convertable to assembler code, which is just a more readable form of the 0s and 1s the processor actually works with.\\n\\n\\nELI20: Remember that a computer only operates in 0s and 1s.\\nThe incredibly long string of 0s and 1s that makes up any process or program in a computer is called \"bitcode\". The next level of that would be bytecode (1 byte = 8 bits) which is just the same code, still just numbers, but now in Hexadecimal (digits range from 0 to E) so its 4 times more compressed.\\n\\nComputer programmers came up with a pretty much universally (small changes apply between different makes of processors) accepted language called \"assembler code\", which is just a code the computer reads and translates DIRECTLY into bytecode.\\nSo there is, for example, an ADD operation in assembler code, which adds two numbers together. Let\\'s say the add operation is defined as 0x01 in hexadecimal, or seven zeroes and a 1 in bitcode.\\nThe operation ADD 1 1 would then be read by the computer as \\n0x010101. The computer then takes the first byte, recognizes the ADD operation and then applies it to the next bytes, in this case also 1s, so it would compute 1+1 and come out with 2.\\n\\nAlright, that is the basics you need to understand to understand the actually pretty simple answer to your question:\\nProgramming languages can be translated into assembler code. When a programming language gets written, the programmer assigns one (or usually a lot more than one) assembler operation to any operation of the language.\\n\\nSo if you write\\n\\nx = 1 + 1;\\n\\nin C, for example, the programmer set up a chain of commands to be executed. In this case, the assembler will get the address of where the value x is stored in memory, then perform the operation \"ADD 1 1\" and then push the new value (2 in this case) onto the adress where x is stored.\\nAnd thats how you program a programming language.', \"The point is, there *are* established building blocks. Namely, the machine code ISA (instruction set architecture) of the processor you're coding for. The processor itself 'understands' the machine code directly because it is physically built to do so, by arranging its circuits in the right pattern when it is stamped out in the factory.\\n\\nEverything else translates down to machine code in one way or another, either by a 'compiler' that reads the source code and converts it into a single big machine code program or by an 'interpreter' that reads the source code data and acts in ways corresponding to the logic of the source code. When a programmer wants to make a new programming language, they first think up the language's specification, then write a compiler or interpreter to perform according to the specification they came up with. In many cases, they may write multiple compilers or interpreters for different machine code ISAs, so that their language can be used on different types of processors.\", \"You'll have to accept that you'll eventually hit a wall if you keep digging.\\n\\nLet's use an adding machine consisting of two measuring cups as an example. Suppose you have 200 ml of water in one and 300 ml in the other. Pour one into the other, making 500 ml.\\n\\nThis simply works. Is there anything more you need to know? Sure, you can investigate the physical processes that make it work. Gravity makes things tremendously easier. It helps that surface tension has little effect at this scale. You can count molecules. Eventually you'll have to stop because you've arrived at the frontier of known physics, or analysis becomes wildly impractical, whichever comes first.\\n\\nThe important thing is that it isn't hard to devise mechanisms that work. I don't know why things are that way. You could invoke a variant of the anthropic principle: a universe that supports life ought to contain practical building blocks. But then why does anything exist at all? It never ends. In the end, whatever is going on under the hood, we know we do exist, and likewise measuring cups and transistors are working for us.\", 'A program is just a list of instructions -- each instruction represented as an encoded number, and the CPU is designed to interpret each number as a specific command (e.g. 1 is to load from memory, 2 is to add two numbers, 3 is to subtract them, 4 is to store to memory, etc).\\n\\nThe first programs were written out laboriously by hand and put into the machine (via switches on the panel, or punch cards, etc. depending on the type of machine).  \\n\\nOne of those programs was called an \"assembler\" -- it was a simple program that did little more than translate a list of human-readable labels, like \"ADD\", to a list of numbers that CPU understands.\\n\\nThe next program was written in assembler language, and it was a simple program to translate a formula, such as \"x = y + z\", to assembly language (\"LOAD y, LOAD z, ADD, STORE x\").  This program was called a \"compiler\".\\n\\nThe next program was written in this simple formula language.  And what did it do?  It was a compiler for an even more complex programming language.\\n\\nAnd so on.', \"The concept is called bootstrapping. You take the pieces you already have to make larger pieces. Then use those larger pieces to make even bigger ones. So it started as someone literally wrote a program in 1's and 0's (this is a simplification, it's actually at a hardware level) to make the first programs that then understood assembly commands and then other languages are build on assembly and languages are built form languages.\\n\\nA common example is that python interpreters were written in C++. But python became powerful and stable enough that python interpreters are now written from python interpreters\", \"I feel like people aren't getting to the absolute basics, which might help your question. I'll be very imprecise, but it might help: all the things a computer does at the most basic level are done PHYSICALLY within its circuitry. It is all electronics, and it is all binary. So there are a bunch of wires running around the computer, and those wires can either be at 6V (we'll call that 1) or 0V (we'll call that 0). Through purely physical circuitry, it is possible to make all sorts of input/output devices that do what you want. For example, you can make a simple circuit where two wires go in and one wire comes out. If the two wires going in are both at 6V, the wire going out will be at 6V. If any of the input wires are at 0V, then the output wire is at 0V. Alternatively, you can make a simple circuit where if either of the input wires is at 6V, the output wire is at 6V, and if both input wires are at 0V then the output wire is at 0V. Or even more, you can make it so that only if both input wires are at 0V will the output wire be at 6V. These all represent 'logic' operators, which I think other people in this thread have talked about (AND, OR, NOT, etc.). So you can basically put a whole bunch of these simple circuits together to make a computer.\\n\\nMy main point is that programming languages are all just an abstraction of the actual physical processes going on, so that humans like us can comprehend it better and actually be able to do stuff. But don't let the fact that you can type a bunch of numbers and words and make things magically happen confuse you. It is really all just a bunch of electrons traveling down wires. (and some other stuff, but you can worry about that later)\\n\\nAnd, 6V just means electrons want to travel down the wire, while 0V means electrons don't want to travel down the wire.\", 'Assuming you have no prior tools available, you first start writing a program in 0s and 1s (Binary) to program a simple assembler. This assembler takes very simple computer instructions in a text document and translates them, verbatim, into binary. Assembly can be used to program a more complex compiler, such as C. Once you have a basic C compiler, you can use the C compiler to write more advanced versions of itself that support more features. Soon you\\'ll want to branch out into more complex languages such as C++ or Java. \\n\\nIn the end you are just using tools to abstract your text documents (source code) as much as possible to reduce the amount of work it takes to write a program. Instead of hundreds of lines of assembly, you just have a compiler read \"cout  <  <  \"Hello world\";\" and write those hundreds of lines of assembly for you.\\n\\nCross compilers exist that allow us to use a compiler on one type of computer to write programs for another type of computer, so we can bypass most of the rudimentary steps and write directly in more complex programming languages for new computer types.', 'was the original language, then, coded purely by hand? for instance, all the binary instances were input to (e.g. python, since it seems relatively basic and powerful to a newbie like me) python in every singular instance and then other languages were developed from it?', 'Binary is the simplest of programming languages (essentially binary is a collection of 1\\'s and 0\\'s that a computer interprets). Binary is readable by every device (yes, including light bulbs, head phones, speakers, etc). Essentially a \"1\" represents \"on\" or \"powered\" and a \"0\" represents \"off\" or \"not powered\".\\n\\nThe next level up programming language is generally something called Assembly. This programming language interprets commands from human readable code to Binary (a collection of 1\\'s and 0\\'s). A \"program\" called a compiler converts Assembly into Binary. Developers usually don\\'t stray lower than Assembly, as binary is super complicated (which is the reason why programming languages were made).\\n\\nAfter this, we get into languages commonly refereed to as \"lower level languages\". These (next to binary and assembly) are the more advanced languages. These have access to the computer\\'s memory and other super complicated stuff that I won\\'t get into. These languages also have compilers that convert their code into Assembly or sometimes binary.\\n\\nAbove low level languages, we have high level languages. These languages are usually less powerful, but are much easier to learn (not every language is like this, but for the most part this is true). These languages also have compilers to convert them into either other high level languages, low level languages, Assembly, or binary.\\n\\n\\n**Tl:Dr:**\\n\\nThere is an absolute low level language called binary that all electronic devices (by that I mean ALL) understand. Languages are all built upon this one language and are in a roundabout way interpreted into this code.', 'Not a single one of the answers that I\\'ve read to this are actually geared to a five year old, nor in fact to anyone not already possessing some computer knowledge outside what a normally educated person would have.\\n\\nComputers are machines that execute sets of instructions.  Almost all machines that we call computers today execute sets of instructions that are \"binary\", in other words, made up of 1s and 0s.  You can program a computer by putting the correct binary instructions into its memory and (somehow) getting it to start executing them.  But that would make writing a program very difficult and tiresome.  \\n\\nSo we have computer languages to use instead.  The languages are still sets of instructions, just like the binary, but they are easier for people to understand.  The instructions written in the languages eventually get translated into binary, because that is the only kind of instruction the computer understands.  So programming almost always involves writing in a \"computer language\" (like C, Java, C++, C#, etc.).\\n\\nSo how do we get a language in the first place?\\n\\nSomeone, somehow, somewhere, has to write some of the binary instructions to start off with.  They can use it to write programs that translate languages into binary, but some binary has to be done by someone at some point.', 'Most programing languages when compiled are transformed into assembly language (machine code) which simply tells the computer hardware how to behave. The rest is just electricity in a circuit.\\nSome newer more advanced programming languages are transformed into (intermediate language) when compiled. Then when you run the program, it is further compiled into (machine code). This gives you the benefit of writing the same code for different computer architectures. Examples of this (just in time compilation) are Java and .Net.\\nIt is actually amazing that every function the computer performs actually boils down a handful of functions, exactly like how everything there is in mathematics boils down to a handful of operations (addition, subtraction, etc.)', 'It was done using building blocks, or baby steps.\\n\\nYou take the most basic form of a computer language, 1s and 0s to start performing and action.  Let\\'s say we want to do an \"add\" action.  Some string of 01010101s would mean that action to the computer\\'s hardware.\\n\\nNow, we go up a level.  We find out hey, we have to add a lot of things.  Instead of writing all of those digits, why don\\'t we create a language that when we type \"add\" it translates that in the 01010101s and makes the computer do it.\\n\\nNow, we need to do something harder, like execute a loop 5 times.   To do this, we make use of the \"add\" we programmed earlier.  So when I tell my new language to loop, it uses the \"add\" function to keep track of how many times we\\'ve been through that loop so far.\\n\\nIt just keeps going and going.   The real theory behind it with contexts and what it takes to make a code compiler is awful.  One of the worst classes I ever took.', 'The CPU itself has a native language it understands, created by the chip designer. This is hardware, not software. If you wanted to, you could write a program in that language, though nobody does that anymore. At this point, you could write a C++ compiler using C++ itself.', 'CPUs understand numbers of a fixed size and do specific things based on what numbers they are fed.  It\\'s like Pac-Man eating dots, except the CPU eats numbers one at a time, from some source, like a file or region of memory.  In the early days they flipped switches to change every single number, one at a time, to set the right numbers in the right order.  It\\'s like holding down the button on your alarm clock to advance the wake up time one minute at a time, except they had to do it for hundreds or thousands of numbers/instructions in a row.\\n\\nThen they made it easier by letting people type up the instructions onto cards with a typewritter, that could be read by the computer.  They also realized it would be easier to type small words instead of the numbers, like \\'add\\' and \\'mul\\', instead of each instructions being a fixed, but seemingly random number between 0 and 256 or 0 and 65 thousand-something.  They also realized you could have some small words be converted into a sequence of numbers.  So they made a program that would read in the small words and output them converted into numbers.\\n\\n    2323 1 25352 54567 7 5453 6302 25352 6302 5453 9583 543 953 8952\\n\\nbecame something like\\n\\n    add 1 x\\n    sub 7 y\\n    push y\\n    push x\\n    jmp hello\\n\\nwhich is shorter and easier for a person to remember and to read.  This process is compiling assembly language, the small words, into machine code, the numbers.\\n\\nNow any language that\\'s invented can be translated into the machine code in a similar way, or it can be translated into assembly and then compiled into machine code, or it can be translated into any other language that has a compiler, which could then be compiled into machine code.  \\n\\nYou could translate a book into another language, then translate the translated book into a third language, and so on, as many times as you want.  And just like if you only understand English, you\\'d need the book to eventually be translated into English, to understand it, a CPU only understands machine code, so that\\'s the form it needs.  It wouldn\\'t matter to you what language the book was originally written in - you\\'d still be able to read it once it was translated into English.  CPUs understand so few \\'words\\' that the equivalent book would be something like a first grade book. So the CPU doesn\\'t care, or even have any way of knowing, about the original language.\\n\\nSo, you\\'re just converting the code into code that the computer already understands.  \"presumably there are no established building blocks of code for you to use\" is false.', 'It\\'s simple: \\n\\n***So a computer only understands 0s and 1s, right?***\\n\\nYou, as an engineer, can learn that language, too, and communicate with the computer on that basic level, speaking THEIR language. After a while, you notice that you\\'ve been using some sets of 0s and 1s frequently, as they command the computer to perform certain operations/calculations. So you decide to **lable** each combination with what it means in plain English! \\n\\nSo, let\\'s say 01101010100110010101101011100110111011110 means \"add A to B\". Why not make a little mechanical contraption, something like an old typewriter, with a button labelled \"addAB\" that automatically spells out that long-ass binary code whenever you press that button? \\n\\nThere: \\n\\n* **by giving that binary combination of 0s and 1s a name, you have created your own higher coding language!**\\n\\n* by building the mechanical contraption that automatically spells out the 0s and 1s you assigned to that name, you have created your own INTERPRETER!\\n\\n\\nThat\\'s, very basically, how it\\'s done.', 'It all starts with the processor. As an example, your Intel processor has hardware that can take in two numbers represented as bits, and spit out a result such as the sum of those two numbers. Therefore you can write a program that does all kinds of operations on numbers by setting a bunch of bits on the inputs on the processor and looking at the output bits of the processor as your answer.\\n\\n\\nSo how do we put those bits into the processor, and what do we do with the bits that come out?\\n\\n\\nThis is what RAM on your computer is used for. Ram store billions of bits. It store the bits that you want to input into the processor, and it is the place where you can store the bits that come out of the processor. A group of bits are put together into a pattern on the input of the processor to represent the numbers that you are working with and the operation, an example would be:\\n\\n\\n1011011001100101\\n\\n\\nAnd these bits could mean add the number 7 and the number 5, so the processor would take those bits on the input and spit out something like:\\n\\n\\n0000000000001011\\n\\n\\nWhich would be the answer (11).\\n\\n\\nAnd thats the only way you can write programs for your processor. You open up your RAM, let those bits slide out of RAM and onto the input of the processor, close the RAM, wait for the processor to figure out the answer, open the RAM again to let the answer slide in.\\n\\n\\nSo now if you have some way of having your RAM *already* be filled with a bunch of bits that has all the logic to allow you to use a keyboard and a monitor and a text editor to type in those bits in, you can program the computer to do whatever you want. You can even have shortcuts for a grouping of bits into an instruction such as:\\n\\n\\nADD 7,5\\n\\n\\nAnd by sliding bits through the processor you can tell the computer to first convert that instruction into bits. If understand up to this point then you should be able to see that we can keep grouping instructions into higher level instructions to make different programming languages. For example:\\n\\n\\nADD 7,5\\n\\nADD 7,5\\n\\nADD 7,5\\n\\n\\ncould be represented as MULTIPLY 3*(7+5)\\n\\n\\nAnd all the instructions in high level code (like python, javascript, c#) have lower level instructions that they are converted into, and those lower level instructions are converted into lower level instructions until you get down to binary numbers which can be processed through the processor.', 'Not sure which one satisfies your curiosity:\\n\\nThe theory behind design of a language is fairly complex; my senior computer science capstone project was to create a simple compiler. Essentially, you have to stick to some theoretical rules in order to keep your \"code\" instructions as something that can be turned into machine code.\\n\\nAs far as how a program gets turned into machine code; compilers are programs that turn code into binary machine instructions. The first compiler was painstakingly written in Assembly language. Essentially, it\\'s a text representation of machine code; no easy task.\\n\\nSome modern languages partially compile the code or not at all; Java, for example, is turned into intermediate \"Java runtime\" code and then that runs on a \"virtual machine\" that is an interpreter between the intermediate code and instruction sets compiled for specific hardware (Windows, Mac, etc) which is why it\\'s considered platform-independent.', \"This is ELI5 not ELI6. Jeez.\\n\\n\\nThe languages are essentially translated by another language.\\n\\n\\nLet's say you spoke fluent French and your friend spoke fluent Japanese. You couldn't talk to each other.\\n\\nBut what if I could speak both? I could translate what you guys wanted to say.\\n\\n\\nThat's basically how it's done. C++ is translated to computer speak through their mutual friend C.\\n\\n\\n\\nOvertime, we've come up with many many languages that are a lot easier to read. The first language was made in the hardware, and you know it as binary. People had to write a bunch of binary code to translate things to binary, and that language was called Assembly. And then that process just repeated itself over and over 'till we got the languages we know now.\", 'My understanding is that there are two key levels between your input code (C for instance) and actually moving around electrons to complete functions. These two levels are assembly code and machine language. \\n\\nAssembly code is a series of basic commands, like \\'GET\\' and \\'MOV\\' and \\'JNE\\' that tell your computer what to with things that are stored in your physical memory locations, such as the heap and the stack. Assembly code is basically the second generation of computer language, after machine language, and each computer has a library or dictionary that equates certain assembly code commands to machine language. \\n\\nMachine language is the physical \\'1\\' and \\'0\\' that equate to the circuit turning off and on. In order to program in this language, you need to understand the limitations and abilities of the hardware you are working with, so that when you impute a \\'1\\' to a logic \"and\" gate, you understand what is happening at a physical level. Machine language would look a lot like this: \\n\\n11001000101001010101001111010101010\\n\\nAnd the thing is, your computer \\'knows\\' what to do with that thanks to its Arithmetic Logic units, memory, and other crazy awesome hardware components. \\n\\nHope that helps. ', 'If you are really interested in how computers and programming works you should go through the book **The Elements of Computing: Building a Modern Computer From First Principles.**\\n\\nIt used to be free, but it looks like only the first 7 chapters are free now. _URL_0_\\n\\nIt definitely taught me way more fundamentals about how computers and programming works than any of my CS courses. I would HIGHLY recommend it.', 'I\\'m going to start with the hardware and then go on to the languages, so skip to the part you like.\\n\\nHARDWARE:\\n\\nHardware is based on boolean logic (binary), which was developed by mathematicians quite some time ago.  Hardware is essentially a series of binary equations put together using logic gates, made out of transistors.  These are put together using specific structures as necessary for the project, sometimes using pre-designed portions.  These also include a timer, which is used to synchronize the circuits.  For instance, let\\'s assume that your USB port wants to put new data in memory.  But, the memory is already talking to another component.  The timer helps to let the USB system know to wait its turn.  It also prevents some parts of the system from going too quickly, which can lead to different parts of the system screwing each other up.\\n\\nThe end result of this process is that you get a device which interprets specific sequences of binary numbers as instructions for the computer.  For instance, 0001 might mean \\'read memory,\\' and \\'0010\\' might mean \\'write memory.\\'\\n\\nLANGUAGES:\\n\\nHowever, people don\\'t go around putting in strings of binary numbers very often these days.  We have programs to do it for us.  These programs are called assemblers.  They are designed for specific types of chips, including a coded language to let you \"talk\" to the computer using shorthand.  For instance, this little sequence:\\n\\n    mov ax,1\\n    mov bx,2\\n    add ax,bx\\n\\ntells the assembler that you want to move the number \"1\" into a register (a special piece of memory used for calculations), move the number \"2\" into another register, and add these two together.  The assembler would translate this into the specific binary sequences needed by the processor, saving time.\\n\\nAssembler is a difficult language to work with, though, so we typically use much friendlier languages, such as C, which are written to be much closer to human languages and logic.  These languages are based off of concepts of mathematical languages from the early 1900s, from which some early languages, such as FORTRAN, were derived.  The actual process of designing or developing the language\\'s structure, however, is a very complicated one, because there are *many* possible pitfalls that you can fall into.  For instance, you want everything in the language to be unambiguous, i.e. only one meaning possible.  Problem is, you can mathematically prove ambiguity, but you CANNOT prove unambiguity!  So you have to be *very* careful, and even then languages do have situations wherein they can become ambiguous.  That said, designing a language\\'s structure itself is more of a mathematical exercise than a programming one.\\n\\nPrograms written in these languages are translated into working programs by a program called a compiler.  Compilers are typically split into two pieces.  The first is a front end that processes (or parses) the language itself.  Usually it then outputs an analysis of the programming that was input, which is in the form of a tree.  This is passed to the back-end, which rewrites the now-tree-ified program in machine code.  Trees are used because they tend to be fairly easy structures to work with for the programmer, and are also usually pretty efficient for the machine to use.  A compiler is usually put together using steps similar to these:\\n\\n1. Write a simplified compiler that uses a subset of the desired language.  You write it in another language, in assembler, or in very rare cases (almost never done today), enter the numbers directly.  Let\\'s say you\\'re writing a C compiler.  You could write a simplified C compiler in Pascal or assembly that does not support all the features of the language, just enough to get the compiler working.  This compiler would be capable of putting out the numbers needed to form actual usable machine code.\\n\\n2. You then write a second version of the compiler, using the subset of the language.  In other words, you use this \"lesser\" compiler to write the full-up compiler.\\n\\n3. Once you have the full-up compiler running, the compiler can then use older versions of itself to compile newer versions of itself.  In other words, the language is now written in its own language.\\n\\nThis process is known as \"boostrapping\" the language for a specific system.\\n\\nIt is also possible to build a compiler that outputs machine code for a machine that it is not currently working on, e.g. write a C compiler that runs on Intel\\'s processors that puts out machine code that works on Motorola processors.  This is known as a cross-compiler, and since it lets you use existing tools more easily, I\\'m pretty sure it\\'s used more often than old-style bootstrapping when developing new CPU architectures these days.\\n\\nHope that helped.\\n\\n', 'I remember seeing a post on reddit about a guy who explained on here how he created an OS without a mouse then had to teach it how to utilize those functions until he was able to install the OS on it or something. He did this all from floppy disks I think. I know I am super late on this thread but would anyone be able to link me to that post??', \"If you're interested on how the whole computer works, starting from the basic logic circuits to writing Object Oriented programs, I cannot recommend [NAND to Tetris](_URL_0_) enough..\", 'You start off with the machine language itself- processors are just very complex circuits with different logic gates (areas where one or more voltages in produce some expected output). It\\'s the 1s and 0s (HIGH and LOW) entered in such a way to produce a given output, possibly organized into different sections.\\n\\nFrom there you have your \"opcodes\" which represent an abstracted operation like adding, subtracting, copying, etc. (really it\\'s sets of voltages put through those gates to produce a larger, more abstract output).\\n\\nHey, we have the opcodes for those operations and we know what they do and how they work, why don\\'t we make something that reads the voltages from a keyboard and displays pixels that together make up characters and words- we can have those in a format which is easily converted to binary, but display them as regular Latin fonts. We can process things character by character and assign meaning to those groups of characters, and translate it into binary.\\n\\nSo then you have assembly language, which is actually human-readable (if you practice enough). Now it\\'s much easier to make sense of everything. Why don\\'t we take some groups of operations we do over and over and do what we did with the opcodes- abstract them. I don\\'t want to say\\n\\n    mov    ebx, 4\\n    add    ebx, 2\\n    push   eax\\n\\nover and over to add 2 to 4, or any number to any other number for that matter. How about we use \\'+\\'? One character to represent a number is conveniently that number plus the binary value of \\'\\\\`\\' (just as an example, not necessarily true), so we just subtract that from the character and bingo. We can do the same for the other number and then connect \\'+\\' to the instruction `add`.\\n\\n    4 + 2;\\n\\nThat looks much cleaner and more intuitive now, doesn\\'t it? In fact, we should do that for quite a few things, and make it so it\\'s easy to build off of that new system. We\\'d be so much more productive!\\n\\nI do want to point out, I am a hobbyist in this field, so not exactly a certified computer engineer/scientist (yet). Any corrections are probably more correct than this, I just wanted to give a gist of the incremental process of making new languages.', 'OK. Languages are (roughly speaking) either compiled or interpreted. There\\'s some gray area in the middle, but basically you need a compiler that compiles that language to some other language (typically machine code for your target computer) and/or you need a \"runtime\", which is more like a library that programs written in your language use to provide some of the language\\'s features. In both cases, these are just programs on their own.\\n\\nSo the question is, how do you write a compiler/runtime for language X when you don\\'t yet have a compiler/runtime for language X?\\n\\nIncreasingly these days, the answer is just \"you write it in another language\". Languages like Scala and Clojure utilize Java\\'s existing JVM/runtime, and their compilers are just written in Java. Java\\'s compiler was (maybe still is) written in C.\\n\\nAt some point, you hit the end of the line. You need a compiler for a language, and there\\'s no existing language out there you can use. What do you do then? The classical answer here is called \"bootstrapping\".\\n\\nFirst off, note that your computer comes out of the factory able to understand programs written in its own machine language. That\\'s what a CPU does -- it\\'s hard-wired to run machine language programs. So you could in principle write an entire compiler in machine language and be done with it. But that\\'s really painful, as machine language is just a stream of bits that\\'s really hard for humans to work with. You probably also have an assembler for your computer\\'s architecture, so you could treat that as the lowest level instead of raw machine code, but in theory, it doesn\\'t make any difference. It\\'s just slightly easier.\\n\\nSo instead, you sit down and write a compiler in machine language for a tiny little part of your language. Let\\'s call this compiler 1. Once you have that done, you write a compiler for a slightly bigger part of your language (compiler 2), *but you write it in the subset of the language you just wrote a compiler for in machine language*. Now you can use compiler 1 to compile the code for compiler 2, and that gives you a new compiler that can compile programs written in the bigger language handled by compiler 2. Now you write a compiler for a bigger piece again, compile it with compiler 2, and that gives you compiler 3. And so on until you\\'ve gotten a compiler for the full language.\\n\\nAt this final step, you have compiler N-1 that compiles *almost* your whole language, and you have the code for compiler N (using only constructs available in compiler N-1). You compile compiler N using compiler N-1, and now you have a full compiler for your language.\\n\\nAs a last step, it often makes sense to recompile compiler N with itself. You\\'ve just built it with compiler N-1, but compiler N might enable new optimizations, error checking, etc., so doing that one last pass can be useful.\\n\\nThat\\'s pretty much it. In practice, at any point in the process you can just decide to target some existing language. There are loads of compilers out there that take programs written in some obscure language and compile them into C code, for example. But in principle, that\\'s how you\\'d go from a high level language to having a compiler for that language without needing any additional libraries.', \"No mention of [lex  &  yacc](_URL_2_)?\\n\\nSoftware engineering usually starts with a [grammar](_URL_0_) or describing the language in a meta-data way.  \\n\\nRun that meta-language through a program that builds a program that understands that language (lexical analysis and parsing) and attaches a back end on it to generate code for a particular machine.  \\n\\nTa-da.  New language.\\n\\nScratch that itch - because it's really interesting but then throw it away.\\n\\nNow you have 11 problems.  [Someone already has thought of it, there is no uptake because there are a million of different languages that do the same thing, and the world does not need another C derivative ](_URL_1_)\\n\", 'Others have mentioned how you write the compiler or interpreter in another language which somewhere down the line was once started by a program written in binary (although if you were building a new computer today, you could use tools already written on another computer to generate machine language - i.e it\\'s only really the back end of a compiler that you need to create for a new computer architecture, you don\\'t have to start from scratch every time.\\n\\nBut perhaps you wanted to know how a that interpreter works? This is a complex subject.\\n\\nThe basis behind it is string patterns. A program is developed that does \"lexical analysis\" this basically turns the strings of text that form a program, say \"10 print \"hello\" into tokens.\\n\\nA \"grammar\" is defined which says what the valid combinations of tokens are for the language being implemented.\\n\\nThese look like this in the design phase :-\\n\\n    Expr    \u2190 Sum  \\n    Sum     \u2190 Product ((\\'+\\' / \\'-\\') Product)*  \\n    Product \u2190 Value ((\\'*\\' / \\'/\\') Value)*  \\n    Value   \u2190 [0-9]+ / \\'(\\' Expr \\')\\'  \\n\\nThis is basically saying an expression (Expr) is made up of a Sum, A Sum is defined as a \\'Product\\', optionally followed by zero or  + or - and another product.\\n\\nA product is defined as a \"Value\" followed by zero or more * or / and another Value.\\n\\nLastly a Value is defined as any of the digits 0-9 repeated one or more times, or an expression. As you can see, it\\'s recursive, i.e an expression itself can contain expressions. \\n\\nSo this grammar can parse things like :- 10*50+23-345/1023+435644\\n\\nA parser will take your input string, tokenize it (i.e turn something like\\n\\n10+10 \\n\\nInto\\n\\nValue \"+\" Value\\n\\nThen check it against this grammar to see if you have a valid expression.\\n\\nFor example the above grammar would parse a string like \\'10+4\\' but not \\'10 cheese 10\\' The latter would be a syntax error.\\n\\nOnce you have checked the grammar, you create a parse tree, which for 10+4 might be\\n\\n         +  \\n        / \\\\\\n      10   4 \\n\\nWhich basically shows the \"+\" function or expression takes the 2 inputs, which here are simple integers.\\n\\nProgramming languages implement functions that actually perform these actions. So, for example, you might have a function \\n\\n    plus(int a, int b)\\n        return a + b;\\n\\nAnd that\\'s the function you use to actually do the work. If you\\'re writing an interpreter then it\\'s typically done immediately. If you\\'re writing a compiler, then it compiles instructions into a form that either can be performed by the cpu or some intermediate form that a run time program can interpret and perform.\\n\\nThis is a complex subject though - each of the different stages contains some deep computer science concepts  that people have studied in depth and detail. Once sentence in my post doesn\\'t really begin to cover it.\\n\\nIf you want to know more you could look at this udacity course :-\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nIt\\'s called \\'Programming languages\\' and covers all of these topics, but, it\\'s not at an ELI5 level.\\n\\nThere are a plethora of books and online resources though teaching these concepts.', 'The computer chip that is inside in the computer has a built in \"machine language\". This is the language the chip understands, but the codes for this language are hard to write and can take a very long time to write. They are just a bunch of numbers, and only tell the chip to do simple things.\\n\\nMost computers have some built-in code that they will run when you turn them on. This is called \"booting\" the computer. Once the computer is on, you can write a new program in machine language on your computer and save it. But sometimes you even need to write extra code so you can save it!\\n\\nBecause machine language is hard to write, someone always writes a program in machine language that translates an easier human language into machine language. Once they do that, they can write a program in _that_ language to make an even easier human language to write in.', \"The actual circuits of a computer are wired to understand binary. Most of the popular computer languages are built on another language, but if you keep digging down, you'll see that everything is coded in binary. So a game may be built with C++, which is built with C, which is built with assembly language, which is built with the zeros and ones of an actual physical circuit.\", \"Not ELI5 but here's some nice light reading about Steve Wozniak writing the first BASIC for Apple. _URL_0_\", \"The paradox amuses me. To compile GCC you need GCC.\\n\\nIn Gentoo, everything is compiled from source. Including the compiler.\\n\\nThe original installation process involves downloading a binary copy of gcc and using that to compile a new copy. Then you need to compile that new copy USING the new copy, to make sure there aren't any dependencies on the original one.\\n\\nSo yeah, that means that the compiler compiled ITSELF.\", \"There are a lot of really good answers here, but I figured I'd add my two cents because I just love talking about this stuff. \\n\\nHumans conceptualize things in layers of abstraction. When it comes to computers, this applies especially well, as computers are some of the most advanced things that humanity has come up with. \\n\\nLet's start with the bottom layer. At the absolute lowest level, computers work off of the idea that electrons can move from one atom to another, and this results in a transfer of energy. Building on that, moving billions of electrons through a large construct of atoms creates what is called an electrical current. Current is driven by voltage, which comes from other sources of energy. Another important idea is that electrons move better through some materials than others. Using this idea, we can create substances called semiconductors. Different types of semiconductors can be attached to create some interesting effects. \\n\\nThe most important low-level device in a computer is called a transistor. A transistor is created from semiconductors and contains 3 ports. Two of the ports behave like a wire. Current flows from one to the other. The third port controls the current going through those ports, which affects the voltage across the transistor. This makes a transistor like a switch. If the third port has a high voltage going to it, current will move through it faster and the voltage across the transistor will fall, instead going to other parts of the circuit. Conversely, if the third port has a low voltage going to it, current will move through the transistor slower and the voltage across it will rise, taking voltage away from the rest of the circuit. Using this idea, we can create logical circuits. \\n\\nThe basic logical circuits are AND, OR, and NOT. These circuits, among others, are known as gates and are produced using various configurations of transistors. Logic gates work with binary inputs and outputs. For ease of understanding and for the purposes of mathematical calculation, the two binary values are known as 0 and 1. In a real system, 0 and 1 represent 0V and 5V respectively, applied to the transistors inside the gates. AND and OR gates have two inputs and 1 output. AND gates output a 1 only if both inputs are 1, and a 0 otherwise. OR gates output a 0 only if both inputs are 0, and a 1 otherwise. NOT gates have 1 input and 1 output, and simply flip the value from 0 to 1, or vice versa. There are also NAND gates and NOR gates, which simply add a NOT to the end of AND and OR gates respectively. NAND and NOR gates have an interesting property where any circuit in a system can be represented using a configuration using just one of them. They are often used in this way to make systems cheaper, as you only need to deal with one type of gate, but this comes at the price of systems being larger and more complex. There are also XOR gates, which output 1 only if the inputs are not equal. These can make simplifying circuits easier, but they aren't used as often as the others. \\n\\nTo be continued...\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.nand2tetris.org/course.php'], [], [], ['http://www.nand2tetris.org/'], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Backus\u2013Naur_Form', 'http://griffsgraphs.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/programming-languages_label.png', 'http://www.amazon.com/lex-yacc-Doug-Brown/dp/1565920007/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1412075103&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=yacc'], ['https://www.udacity.com/course/cs262'], [], [], ['http://woz.org/letters/apple-basic'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 225, "q_id": "3aaal6", "title": "Environmental impact of reusable mugs vs paper cups?", "selftext": "I usually use a mug for my coffee at work, but yesterday I realized how much water I use to clean it after use. Which has a greater environmental impact: using reusable utensils/cups and wasting a lot of water to clean them, or using disposable ones but contributing to landfills? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3aaal6/environmental_impact_of_reusable_mugs_vs_paper/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['csaz2xb', 'csb36uw', 'csb3p0z'], 'score': [7, 2, 3], 'text': [\"I think the amount of water used in the creation of wood pulp/paper, which also involves a lot of solvents, would dwarf the impact of a couple swishes of relatively pure rinsewater going down a drain at work per day. (Assumes paper cups.)\\n\\nA more glib suggestion would be never to wash your office cup, but that's a matter of preference.\", \"[This paper](_URL_0_) attempts to answer that very question. If you only wash the mug after 5 uses, it probably is better than disposable paper, even factoring in recycling. Any less than that and the paper is probably better, according to the summary of the report. I can't find the original study, so I can't comment on their methodology.\", \"This is a major issue when people are trying to be green without thinking of the big picture. We often only look at the end use of a product when trying to determine if it is the environmentally responsible choice. Common examples of products that may not be as environmentally friendly as the product they are replacing in all usage scenarios, due to the impacts of the manufacture, maintenance use or disposal of the item include:\\nHybrid cars vs an efficient small diesel.\\nCompact fluorescent bulbs vs incandescent in buildings that have to be heated.\\nCeramic glasses/cups/dishes, vs paper if the item is likely to be broken or no longer used before around hundred uses or if reuse involves lots of hot water and detergent.\\nNew efficient device vs using/repairing an older inefficient device.\\nRecycle paper (including all the infrastructure and transportation energy) or use it's energy to heat your home, or even just throw it out.\\nIn many cases the factors that need to be considered to determine if a product is actually better for the environment are very complex and end up relying on value judgements regarding different environmental risks (is it better to reduce energy consumption or volume of waste? Better to save forests, or reduce mining?...)\\nIn many of these examples, the best choice for the environment depends on specific circumstances. Incandescent bulbs are better for the environment in Canada, fluorescent bulbs are better for the environment in Australia. People can't be bothered with trying to figure out the actual numbers for their usage case and fall back on simple and often wrong assumptions about green products. Paper cups (vs ceramic, glass or plastic) might be one of those cases.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://vending-europe.eu/file-documents/news/Summary_TNO_study.pdf'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1456, "q_id": "a207t4", "title": "Why can you only get black widow antivenom once in your lifetime?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a207t4/why_can_you_only_get_black_widow_antivenom_once/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['eauooix'], 'score': [22], 'text': ['It\u2019s made from horse serum, which can cause allergic reactions because the horse proteins are foreign to the body. If you\u2019ve already been exposed, your body \u201cremembers\u201d and will generate and even faster/stronger response the second time, which can be fatal. \\nRef: _URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200105/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1611, "q_id": "5k8xqe", "title": "the different subgroups of catholicism (jesuit, franciscan etc)", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5k8xqe/eli5_the_different_subgroups_of_catholicism/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dbm9ros', 'dbmb394', 'dbmbhdu', 'dbmbwfj', 'dbme0h5', 'dbmilgz'], 'score': [35, 144, 5, 73, 2, 7], 'text': ['Those two examples are not subgroups of catholics, they are different orders of priests.  Different orders of priests focus on different facets of the ideas of the church, some on education, some one caring for the sick, others meditation and prayer.', 'As mentioned by another poster, they\\'re not subgroups of Catholicism in the sense of denominations if that is what you were thinking. Rather, there are different types of religious \"orders\". As the previous poster also mentioned, each order has a different way of serving and worshipping God. It\\'s not to say that they believe any particular way is \"more correct\" than another way, but that it is simply the way they feel is best for *themselves* to glorify God. Some find that through prayer, others through education, others through prayer and reflection. Now, the origin of each of these orders comes from various groups of monastic priests (monks/brothers), and the rituals they would follow under their leader (an abbot). \\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nWhoever founded the order would have several monastic priests under him, and would often form several monasteries in his lifetime. It\\'s not always founded under one specific leader, but to keep the explanation simple we\\'ll treat it that way. Especially when the founder of an order passed away, others would often form new monasteries teaching in the same principles. This is why they are often named after a specific individual. There exist two main \"divisions\" when it comes to these orders: active and contemplative. \\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nActive would be those such as the Franciscans (St. Francis of Assisi), the Jesuits (St. Francis Xavier, after whom Pope Francis took his Papal name), and the Dominicans (St. Dominic). These \"active\" orders are the ones often going out and preaching, serving the poor, etc. Unless you visit a monastery, these are the ones you would be more likely to run into somewhere. The \"contemplative\" are more of the typical image of what a monk/brother is, living in the monastery with other monks, spending most of the day in prayer, reading Scripture, etc. As their name would imply, these are the ones spending most of their time in solitude, dedicating their lives to God in this manner.\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nIf you would like an overview of the most-popular orders, [this webpage](_URL_0_) does a good job of explaining what each one specifically dedicates themselves too.', \"The different groups you're thinking of are different religious institutes. A religious institute is basically a society where members take public vows and live as brothers and sisters in common. There are a lot of different institutes and they all function a bit differently. \\n\\nIn general, though, each institute focuses on a particular area or areas of church life. Some are contemplative, some serve in parishes, some have schools, some are separated from the world, some are active in the world, etc. In addition, each institute usually follows a specific set of rules about communal life. The Benedictines, for example, are monks who follow the rule of St. Benedict. The Franciscans are mendicants (meaning they live off alms, travel, serve the poor, etc.), who follow the teachings and practices of St. Francis. The Jesuits are clerics regular (a kind of broad category for priests) who work in all sorts of fields including parish life, education, scientific research, cultural pursuits, etc.\", \"TL;DR - All these different groups were founded in the Middle Ages to be a place to throw your 'extra' kid, to do different kinds of work for the Church.\\n\\nIn the middle ages in Europe, life was hard. If you and your wife were commoners, it was very likely that more than half of any kids you brought into the world would die before giving you grandchildren. But what happens when you're 'lucky' and have five sons survive to adulthood, and the family farm can only support one or two of them? One path was apprenticeship, essentially selling the kid into indentured servitude in exchange for them having a paying trade at the end. \\n\\nOkay, that gets rid of one or two of them. But now you have Fred over here who has no talent in farming or a trade. You've spent a bunch of money to get him to breeding age and you're not going to get anything back from this. If you were a noble or something, you could send your kid into religious 'officer's school' to be a priest or bishop or something, but that option isn't open for poor Fred, either. \\n\\nEnter: monasticism. Basically, you can sell your kid to the Catholic Church, not for money, but for Heaven Credits (tm). We send useless Fred off to go be a monk at a monastery somewhere where he can earn money for the Church by toiling in some way or another (or providing some sort of administrative role) and spend the rest of the time praying for you and your wife's immortal soul. He doesn't get the prestige of being a priest who gets up in front of people and runs church, but there is at least a little status bump for having a kid be a monk, and you don't have to look at all those pox scars on his face all the time to remind you of all the food you could have saved if you had drowned him in the bathtub. \\n\\nBut not all monasteries could sit off in the mountains and make beer for the Church to sell, or the bottom would just fall out of the market. So they diversified into doing shit that Church leaders really didn't want to do themselves.\\n\\nSome became those guys you can pay to sit in line for you on Black Friday,  like the Carmelites squatting in what's now Israel so all those other filthy groups who wanted Israel couldn't live there. But it's kind of sandy and boring there, so nobody else wanted that job.\\n\\nSome became actual soldiers for god, like the Dominicans, who were brought together because the Cathars were Catholic'ing wrong and needed to have their heads rearranged by sharp bits of metal.\\n\\nSome went on biohazard duty, like the Franciscans tending to lepers. I mean sure, Jesus mentioned being nice to lepers, but those fuckers had communicable diseases!\\n\\nSome went out to be salespeople of Catholicism to the heathens like the Jesuits, because who really wants to go to foreign lands where they don't even have half-decent liquor and convince all these idiots to give your church their allegiance?\\n\\nThat's not to say that's what all these groups do today. Today, the vast majority of religious orders do some great work for mankind. But you'd be surprised how many of them started with some priestly noble fuck not wanting to learn Native American languages or leave behind his comfy life in his family castle. \", \"They all believe more or less the same thing and have no impact on the laypeople at all. It's more like different clubs for the clergy. \\n\\nIf you're gonna be a monk, that's great more power to you. But you know what's better than being a self proclaimed monk? Being part of an official monk club! And you have so many options. Benedictine, Franciscan, all sorts. Some like to sing. Some don't. They all like to read. \", \"This isn't the most important thing, but it's good to know that the monastic orders operate independent of the local diocese. They are accountable to the leaders of their order, the College of Cardinals and the Pope, but they aren't under the authority of the local bishop.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.religious-vocation.com/differences_religious_orders.html#.WGAVineZMy4'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2789, "q_id": "74zw4l", "title": "It's been said that being clean shaven only came into style because soldiers from World War I had to shave regularly in order to properly wear their gas masks, and the habit stuck after the returned from the war. Is there any validity to this assumption?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74zw4l/its_been_said_that_being_clean_shaven_only_came/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['do2m6kw', 'do2omq9'], 'score': [13, 78], 'text': ['I\u2019m hoping that posting this isn\u2019t against the rules, but said by whom? I\u2019ve never heard this claim before, and it\u2019s not as if renaissance art\u2014depicting life well before the Great Wars\u2014only features men with facial hair. ', 'This presupposes two things: firstly, that soldiers wore beards before WWI, and secondly, that they shaved for convenience in the field. For the British Army, both are false. \\n\\nIn the years before WWI, moustaches were essentially required by regulations. The regulations in place in 1914 stated that \\n\\n > The hair of the head will be kept short. The\\nchin and the lip will be shaved, but not the upper lip. Whiskers, if worn, will be of moderate length.\\n\\nThis meant that, for soldiers old enough to grow facial hair, they were wearing moustaches. In civilian life, however, being clean-shaven was already fashionable - some men got into trouble for shaving before leave. Holmes mentions an incident where two officers from the Accrington Pals, who had shaved before going on leave, were upbraided for their choice. The reservists and new volunteers had never paid much attention to the regulation in any case. \\n\\nDuring the war, this regulation would change. During the summer of 1916, an officer was court-martialled for shaving his upper lip. In civilian life, he worked as an actor, and felt that growing a moustache risked a rash when he shaved it off at the end of the war, one which could jeopardise his ability to find work. This defence failed, but he was saved from being cashiered by the intervention of the adjutant general at GHQ, Lieutenant General Sir Nevil Macready. Macready was not a fan of his own moustache, and so quashed the sentence and had regulations changed to allow for the upper lip to be shaved. However, shaving in the trenches was not always practical. While the men did the best they could with razors and whatever hot water they could find (or even tea), many found it impossible to stay clean-shaven. Beards were, thus, not uncommon in the front line. In 1917, Joseph Maclean wrote, describing conditions in his trench, \u2018I haven\u2019t washed or shaved for a week and look like a Boche prisoner\u2019. However, when they went out of the line, men found shaving to be an essential part of the process of cleaning themselves of the dirt of the trenches. \\n\\nSource:\\n\\n*Tommy:\\nThe British Soldier On The Western Front 1914-1918*, Richard Holmes, HarperCollins, 2004\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 329, "q_id": "1doemm", "title": "Why is infrared radiation only absorbed if it causes a net dipole moment change?", "selftext": "And while I'm at it, why are the vibrational energy levels quantized?\n\nAlso, is it possible for a molecule to be in more than one vibrational mode at the same time?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1doemm/why_is_infrared_radiation_only_absorbed_if_it/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c9s9h61', 'c9srxcl', 'c9sryi7'], 'score': [8, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Quantisation arises necessarily out of the mathematical treatment of the quantum harmonic oscillator. A change in dipole moment is required because a photon is an oscillating electric field, and if its frequency matches that of a particular dipole-altering vibration in a molecule, the photon can excite that vibration.\\n\\nIt's totally possible for a molecule to be vibrating in more than one mode at once.\", \"The quantization comes from quantum mechanics, as arble said.\\n\\nAs for the dipole moment change being a prerequisite for absorption, there are several ways to explain this. The most basic is that the overlap integral becomes zero if there is no dipole moment change, and as the probability of interaction is proportional to the overlap integral, the probability of interaction, absorption is this case, becomes zero.\\n\\nHowever, that doesn't really help with the understanding, so let's try another approach: For the molecule, the photon looks lik an oscillating electric field, as the photon is much larger than the molecule. If the molecule can change from state A to state B, and state B have a higher dipole moment in at least one direction, the energy difference between the two states becomes smaller if there is an electric field in the right direction. The photon supplies just that electric field, meaning that the transition can happen.\", 'Oh, and for vibrational states: The vibrational state of a non-linear molecule with N atoms can be described as the sum of its vibrational state in 3N-6 fundamental vibrations. In that way, it can have a different vibrational state for every fundamental vibration. \\n\\nApart from that, the molecule can be in a superposition of different vibrational states. But that is just pure quantum weirdness. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2757, "q_id": "5gsbnq", "title": "What were the activities of the VOC in South Sulawesi at the end of the 15th century? How much of an impact did it have on everyday life in the region?", "selftext": "I know that by the middle of the following century there was all out conflict, but what was life like in the decades before this point? Did the average person have much to fear from the VOC/Dutch, or were their actions more directed toward political entities?\n\n**edit:** I'm an idiot and actually meant the 1600s, not the 15th century. Numbers are hard.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5gsbnq/what_were_the_activities_of_the_voc_in_south/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['daus2oe'], 'score': [128], 'text': ['The VOC had no activities and no impact anywhere at all at the end of the 15th or even 16th centuries, mainly because it didn\\'t exist until 1602. But I get the gist of your question, so here goes: the turbulent relationship between the VOC and Gowa/Makassar, the empire ruling all South Sulawesi, up to 1656, and its effect on everyday life. The VOC had no relations with any other S. Sulawesi state until 1660, so I will discuss only Gowa.\\n\\nOh, and a nice Dutch poem to start us off:\\n\\n >  Gentlemen, there follows now something of the malevolent Makassar,\\n\\n >  In the island of Sulawesi; in the entire East Indies there was\\n\\n >  No more villainous race than this, rascally, perjured, malign,\\n\\n >  murderous, malignant, savage, perfidious.\\n\\n >  [...]\\n\\n >  In short, they were scoundrels\\n\\n >  spawned by Lucifer, the most desperate ruffians...\\n\\nBut war and hatred were not the only facets of the VOC-Gowa relationship.\\n\\n# **South Sulawesi and the Arrival of the Dutch**\\nIn 1607, the representatives of the five-year-old Dutch East India Company (VOC) received an invitation from the king of Gowa, the dominant state of South Sulawesi, to trade in his country. Little did either sides understand the transformative century of immense change that both Europe and South Sulawesi had just undergone.\\n\\nIn the first decade of the 16th century the peninsula of South Sulawesi was fragmented into a number of small complex chiefdoms, of which the most prominent included Gowa, Bone, Wajoq, and Luwuq.^1 This geopolitical situation would begin to shift in the early 16th century, when Gowa emerged as the peninsula\\'s first state. It began with Tumapaqrisiq Kallonna (r. c. 1511-1546) of Gowa, who subjugated his immediate neighbors, created the first bureaucratic posts, and generally set the stage for expansion across the entire peninsula. This rapid expansion was accomplished by his son Tunipalangga (r. c. 1545-1565), who conquered the entire peninsula save Gowa\\'s archrival Bone, vastly expanded the bureaucracy, and - perhaps most importantly - oversaw the establishment of the first permanent Malay community in Gowa\\'s port capital of Makassar.^2\\n\\nWith the establishment of the Malays^3 - by far the most important merchant diaspora in 16th-century Southeast Asia - in Makassar, trade expanded greatly. Tunipalangga had conquered the main competitors of Makassar in his great conquests and allowed Makassar to emerge as the natural entrepot for produces from across eastern Indonesia, especially the fine spices from Maluku. Gowa\\'s expanding empire itself provided a source of commercial wealth, for instance by selling tribute from its newly acquired vassals.^4  \\n\\nBy 1600, after a brief interlude in the early 1690s when a tyrant discouraged trade, Makassar had emerged as the preeminent commercial center of all of eastern Indonesia. Just one year after the VOC was founded, the Dutch reported that their Portuguese enemies were annually sailing from Melaka, their base of power in Southeast Asia, to Makassar to load their ships with spices. In 1605 Malay merchants may have suggested the *tumabicara-butta* (chancellor/prime minister) of Gowa to convert to Islam, who was soon followed by the young king himself. But Muslim or not, Gowa-Talloq^5 (see note 5 for why I\\'m calling it Gowa-Talloq now) committed itself to a general policy of free trade, at least in the port of Makassar itself.\\n\\nThe Dutch, of course, wanted to join the game. After an invitation from the king of Gowa the Dutch arrived, hoping to convince Gowa-Talloq to surrender its support for Portuguese Melaka... and were very disappointed to learn that the king believed that\\n\\n >  My country stands open to all nations, and what I have is for you people [the Dutch] as well as for the Portuguese.\\n\\nThe VOC sought to establish monopolies on key Southeast Asian produces, especially the fine spices of clove, nutmeg, and mace. They could then control prices and raise artificial profits. The continual of Makassar\\'s trade of spices made such a monopoly impossible. Furthermore, Makassar was providing safe haven for enemies and competitors of the Dutch, such as the English (who established a factory in 1613) and the Spaniards (whose agent first arrived in 1615). Already, by 1614, a Dutch commissioner was recommending that the Company attack Makassar shipping in Maluku, the Spice Islands. \\n\\nIn 1615 the Dutch informed Gowa-Talloq that there was now a Dutch monopoly in Maluku and that Makassar ships should refrain from heading there. The king of Gowa\\'s response was simple:\\n\\n >  God made the land and the sea; the land he divided among men and the sea he gave in common. It has never been heard that anyone should be forbidden to sail the seas. If you seek to do that, you will take the bread from the mouths of the people. I am a poor King.^6\\n\\nAs for daily life, not much would have changed - just a new group of merchants on the scene, just like the Malays had arrived in the late 1400s and the Portuguese in the early 1500s. The Dutch had not yet established a definitive monopoly on any of the fine spices and hadn\\'t even acquired Batavia.\\n\\n# **The First War**\\n\\nWar began a few months later, when the VOC factor Abraham Sterck got frustrated about the king of Gowa not paying some debts. Claiming the government in Makassar had failed to protect him from the insults of the Spaniards (with whom the Dutch were still at war), Sterck left abruptly with a number of Gowa-Talloq nobles. The nobles resisted and seven were killed, including a nephew of Gowa\\'s king. The harbormaster of Makassar and another royal relative was taken as prisoner of the Dutch. This incident infuriated Gowa-Talloq and almost resulted in the ousting of the English as well, since the English factor had for some reason left with the Dutch. The English managed to stay, but the Dutch did not.\\n\\n*And...* I hate to end on a cliffhanger, but I\\'m not even half done, but I\\'ve hit 9988 characters and it\\'s 22:52 here. I\\'ll finish tomorrow, promise. \\n\\n---\\n^1 [Map of the current regencies of South Sulawesi, many of which retain the old kingdoms\\' borders. Note that these are in Indonesian; Luwu here is Luwuq, Wajo is Wajoq, etc.](_URL_0_) \\n\\nThere is an emerging consensus that there were no genuine states in South Sulawesi in 1500, insofar as it matters to distinguish an archaic state from a complex chiefdom. This is best presented in *Tale of Two Kingdoms: The Historical Archaeology of Gowa and Tallok*, archaeologist David Bulbeck\\'s thesis, which most archaeologists cite. But on chiefdom vs state in South Sulawesi, also see *The Lands West of the Lakes: A History of the Ajattappareng Kingdoms of South Sulawesi, 1200 to 1600 CE* by Stephen C. Druce and *Land of Iron: The historical archaeology of Luwu and the Cenrana valley* by Bulbeck and Ian Caldwell, both by archaeologists. \\n\\n^2 On 16th-century Gowa, a lot of sources. If you want the pure, undistilled facts, I refer you to William Cumming\\'s 2007 translation *A Chain of Kings: The Makassarese Chronicles of Gowa and Talloq*. But check the notes, because Cumming\\'s translation often differs from other historians\\'. The simplest narrative secondary source, if a bit dated on the archaeological aspect, is the first chapter of Leonard Andaya\\'s *The Heritage of Arung Palakka: A History of South Sulawesi in the Seventeenth Century.* A lot of articles mention the 16th-century as well, but few exclusively so.\\n\\n^3 Itself a catch-all term for merchants from the Western Archipelago generally. Anakoda Borang, the first leader of the community that would later be known as the Makassar Malays, said that anyone who wears a *sarong* - from a Cham in central Vietnam to a Minangkabau from southwestern Sumatra - is Malay. See Heather Sutherland\\'s chapter \"The Makassar Malays\" in *Contesting Malayness: Malay Identity Across Boundaries*. Also note that in Makassar usage, the word \\'Java\\' (*jawa*) just means anyone who comes from the Central or Western Archipelago, including Malays. So the Makassar didn\\'t really differentiate different groups of foreign Southeast Asians in language.  \\n\\n^4 For the rise of Makassar and its trading networks in the late 1500s, there is good information in Leonard Andaya\\'s chapters \"Applying the Seas Perspective to Indonesia\" in *Early Modern Southeast Asia, 1350-1800* and \"Eastern Indonesia: A Study of the Intersection of Global, Regional, and Local Networks in the \\'Extended\\' Indian Ocean\" in *Reinterpreting Indian Ocean Worlds: Essays in Honour of Kirti N. Chaudhuri*. \\n\\n^5 Talloq was a small maritime kingdom that was founded during a succession dispute in Gowa around 1500. It was conquered by Tumapaqrisiq Kallonna and brought into Gowa\\'s fold. But when King Tunipasuluq, who apparently did so many horrible things that the *Gowa Chronicle* applies *damnatio memoriae* on him and refuses to mention what he actually did, was kicked out, it was Karaeng Matoaya - king of Talloq - who was at the head. As *tumabicara-butta* and regent for the new boy king of Gowa, Karaeng Matoaya became the most influential man in South Sulawesi. Archaeologist David Bulbeck\\'s research shows that during the reign of Kng. Matoaya, Matoaya\\'s kingdom Talloq was actually considered more powerful than Gowa, at least as far as we can infer from dynastic marriage trends. During Matoaya\\'s reign Talloq also controlled the port of Makassar. See Bulbeck\\'s chapter  \"The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sulawesi, During the 16th and 17th Centuries\" in *Origins, Ancestry and Alliance: Explorations in Austronesian Ethnography.* So I refer to the kingdom as Gowa-Talloq to better reflect this change in the latter\\'s status.\\n\\n^6 Primarily from Anthony Reid\\'s narrative account \"A Greet Seventeenth Century Indonesian Family: Matoaya and Pattingalloang of Makasar,\" one of few English-language narrative sources on the relations between the VOC and Gowa-Talloq. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://flutrackers.com/forum/filedata/fetch?id=652657&amp;d=1286465304']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1777, "q_id": "a09mec", "title": "\"IBM and the Holocaust,\"by Edwin Black claims, \"Data generated by IBM was instrumental in the efforts of the German government to concentrate and ultimately destroy ethnic Jewish populations across Europe.\" How do historians view this book? How deep was the cooperation between IBM and Germany?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a09mec/ibm_and_the_holocaustby_edwin_black_claims_data/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['eahbxj0'], 'score': [20], 'text': ['There was a nice succinct answer from /u/estherke when [nearly the same question was](_URL_0_) asked about three years ago.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nOf course there is always room for more discussion.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wpbj4/the_book_ibm_and_the_holocaust_by_edwin_black/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1399, "q_id": "4b2nxq", "title": "with underground fires like centralia or the place in virginia which inspired silent hill, why can't they be put out by just pumping lots and lots of water into the mine?", "selftext": "Surely this would, if successful, save loads of coal from burning and polluting, and could then still be mined in the future?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b2nxq/eli5with_underground_fires_like_centralia_or_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d15lmiw', 'd15mbz6', 'd15mnbh', 'd15mpcy', 'd15pqby', 'd15slwe', 'd1646sv', 'd166wci'], 'score': [34, 210, 10, 19, 6, 8, 2, 3], 'text': ['Flooding the entire Centralia Mine Fire with water is considered impractical, \\r\\nineffective and potentially dangerous. Sealing the Centralia Mine Drainage Tunnel \\rmay raise the mine pool by approximately 230 feet; however, that level is not high enough to inundate the upper half of the burning coal zone. Raising the mine pool to an elevation that is high enough to flood the entire fire is not considered feasible due to the numerous seals and great size (height) of surface dams that would need to be constructed. Because the entire multiple-bed coal mine complex beneath Centralia Borough contains weakened coal barriers and roof supports, the risk of a catastrophic mine pool blow-out makes any rise in the mine pool level a very risky \\r\\nundertaking.', \"Imagine the coal coating the inside of an uncleaned chimney is on fire and you're standing on the roof.  \\nPouring water down the chimney to drown the fire would miss a lot of the fire on the way down.  So you'd have pour enough water to flood the entire house and let the rising water put out the fire in the chimney.   \\nHowever the house has its windows open.       \\n    \\nSo the water going into that cavern could end up in a neighboring cavern.  \", 'Think of the steam pressure buildup that would  result from this. Fissures would be created and the area would continue to be unsuitable for development. Essentially, it would be a wasted effort with no payoff resulting.', 'Followup question, all fires need oxygen. Why not seal the entrance? Are these fires really that well ventilated?', 'It has been done for certain cases of mine smoulders, but it required large territorial planning and expenses, like deviating the course of a local river toward the mine, and the fire extinction still took years. For small villages, relocating the population is the most feasible solution.', \"Or better yet, why aren't we just using them as power sources?\", 'Good way to start a sinkhole/marsh/environmental disaster. Not only that, imagine all the disease, mosquitoes, and decay it would cause.', \"Fire's need Fuel, heat, oxygen.\\n\\nCan they close the gaps to cut off air supply?\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2182, "q_id": "2tqlyg", "title": "With the Northeast Blizzard approaching, I was wondering when was the first time a civilization really had a handle on being able to anticipate that a large storm was coming?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2tqlyg/with_the_northeast_blizzard_approaching_i_was/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['co1lxjb'], 'score': [45], 'text': ['Good question. I\\'ll answer only to the United States, since I don\\'t have a good grasp on an answer for other places in the world.\\n\\n**On May 1, 1857, the *Washington Evening Star* published the first weather forecast in the United States.** This was the result of eight years of active work and decades of preparation by Americans across the country. Taking weather observations had been a common activity among science-minded people as early as the 17th century. Using new, accurate barometers made possible by the advances of the early modern era, they could measure air temperature and pressure, wind speed and direction, cloud cover and precipitation. \\n\\nEveryone knows about Benjamin Franklin\\'s fascination with the weather, but Thomas Jefferson was an avid weather-watcher, too. He bought his first thermometer while writing the Declaration of Independence and bought his first barometer a few days after signing that document. He noted that the high temperature in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776 was 76 degrees. George Washington also made regular weather observations. The last weather entry in his diary is on the day he died.\\n\\nThrough the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Americans charted the weather. In the 19th century, weather observing networks began to grow across the United States. Americans would take their observations and send them in to a central collecting point, which would collate the results and publish them. Americans could see where it was wet and where it was dry across the country. One of the pioneering efforts was made by the surgeons of the U.S. Army, who recorded observations reliably from the 1820s to the 1840s at posts throughout what was then the frontier. The Army Medical Department\\'s ostensible goal was to determine what effects the weather had on disease.\\n\\nThe data collected by these observers wasn\\'t \"live,\" though. The mail took weeks or months to travel from state to state, which meant that the information was of historical value only. This changed with the invention of the telegraph. When Samuel Morse patented the practical telegraph in 1837, it became possible to send news of the weather faster than the weather itself.\\n\\nIt took time for this to happen. The telegraph spread rapidly -- almost everyone could see its value -- but charting the weather required an organized network of *both* observers and transmitters.\\n\\n[Joseph Henry, the first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, had the foresight to see what was needed](_URL_0_). In 1848, he began a project whose goal was to describe the climate of North America and learn about storms as they traveled across the country. At the time, it was not even known that in North America, storms predominantly travel from west to east.\\n\\nHenry had already recruited volunteers -- teachers, farmers, ministers, lighthouse keepers -- across the country to take measurements that they then mailed to the Smithsonian on a monthly basis. In 1849, he recruited a smaller group of volunteers who telegraphed their daily observations to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian supplied these volunteers (many of whom where employees or representatives of the telegraph companies themselves) with calibrated instruments, standard reporting forms and guidelines for collecting data.\\n\\nThe telegraph companies realized there was value in sending this data free of charge, and Henry used the data creatively. Starting in 1850, he began preparing a daily *current* national weather map in the Smithsonian castle in Washington, D.C. This map was later put on display in the castle\\'s main hall, where it could be viewed by the public.\\n\\nNewspapers and others took this information and distributed it. As people realized that the weather followed specific patterns -- notably from west to east -- they realized that not only could they observe the weather, they could predict what would come, based on what the weather was doing elsewhere.\\n\\nThere were problems with Henry\\'s program, of course. Observations were based on local sun time, which meant they weren\\'t taken simultaneously. The start of the American Civil War in 1860 disrupted the program for almost a decade, and the data was only as accurate as the observers were. If someone was sick or simply failed to take one of the four readings of the day, the information was missing. [In 1870, President Ulysses Grant signed the first legislation creating a regularized weather service within the U.S. Army\\'s Signal Service.](_URL_1_) This service grew and became the U.S. Weather Bureau (today the U.S. Weather Service) in 1890.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://siarchives.si.edu/history/exhibits/henry/meteorology', 'http://www.weather.gov/timeline']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 433, "q_id": "2pybg6", "title": "Does my neighbor above me hear things differently than I hear it from them below? That is, does sound travel better/faster/louder upwards or downwards (or no difference)?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2pybg6/does_my_neighbor_above_me_hear_things_differently/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cn1cqej'], 'score': [6], 'text': [\"A significant difference would be the fact that you're in contact with the floor.\\n\\nBy this I mean that your walking, shuffling, dropping objects onto the floor will be much more audible to your downstairs neighbour than it will be to your upstairs neighbour.\\n\\nHope this answers your question?\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1744, "q_id": "1iyhkb", "title": "what will happen on earth when galaxies collide?", "selftext": "_URL_0_\nLike this.\nWhat would we see from Earth? Or will it happen so fast that Earth will just collide with another planet and get blown up.\n\nI know that the galaxy earth is in still has a long long time before it collides  but assuming humans are still around what would we see?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iyhkb/eli5_what_will_happen_on_earth_when_galaxies/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cb99sbz', 'cb9a6m6', 'cb9bdx2', 'cb9buyz', 'cb9e1ij', 'cb9ed0j', 'cb9ftaj', 'cb9gt6g'], 'score': [2, 68, 17, 9, 3, 2, 2, 5], 'text': [\"If you consider how small the Earth is in relation to galaxies, and how widely-spaced things in galaxies can be, there's a good chance we wouldn't hit anything.\\n\\nAlso, that gif is much faster than real time (obviously).\", \"So there are about a trillion stars in andromeda (the other galaxy) and 300 billion in the milky way. It's unlikely there will be even a single collision between stars, so it's incredibly unlikely a planet will collide with another planet and virtually certain earth will not be destroyed during the process.\\n\\nIt's possible our whole solar system will be thrown out of the galaxy as a whole, but that probably won't have any major impacts on the earth-sun relationship.\\n\\nAt that point all the water will have already boiled off the earth so I think it's pretty likely we won't be here anymore.\\n\\nEdit - million -- >  Billion\", 'Galaxies are mostly empty space. The chance of a direct collision is actually fairly low, especially for outlying solar systems such as ours. Also, any \"collision\" wouldn\\'t happen in the sense of two cars crashing into each other, for example - it would take millions of years for the collision to unfold completely. A human lifespan is nothing on that timescale.', \"Luckily we probably have nothing to worry about.  Not for the reasons the other posters have stated (which are absolutely correct), but because the collision won't happen for another 4 billion years, and by then earth will already be a [life-less water-less desert wasteland](_URL_0_) due to the natural life cycle of the sun.  By then humans with either be extinct, or moved off planet, either of which means we wouldn't have to worry about it much.\", \"Nothing?  Galaxies are colliding as we speak, but unless you've got a few million year lifespan, it's not really going to be noticeable.\", 'The process would actually be rather slow, when compared to the scale of the galaxy. It certainly would not visibly occur as quickly as what that gif portrays. \\n\\nOne issue with that gif is that it portrays the two galaxies as solid objects which would actually have a physical collision with each other. This isn\\'t so; there\\'s more \"empty\" space in a galaxy than there is physical matter capable of colliding. The greatest effect the two would have on one another would be a gravitational one. A galaxy is held together by the gravity of the whole, and usually in part by a black hole at the center. Galaxies that \"collide\" tend to pull at each other, reshaping both once one has passed through the other, or even merging if they both lose enough speed. There would be very little actual collision, if any.\\n\\nOn that note, you probably wouldn\\'t actually see anything unusual unless one star happened to come particularly close to our galaxy. It\\'s possible that the night sky might look a little more populated and that those particular stars might appear to move a little more than our normal ones but the space between stars is so vast, even the closest star to us looks the same as the furthest one to the naked eye.', 'Nothing.And no there will not be any humans by that time.Just my opinion,Humans have less than maybe a couple hundred thousand years left.', '_URL_0_\\n\\nNasa made some pictures depicting what will happen. Enjoy!']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://i.imgur.com/eELzMnB.gif']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/specials/washington_2000/649913.stm'], [], [], [], ['http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/milky-way-collide.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1790, "q_id": "13mhgz", "title": "how free apps without ads make money.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13mhgz/eli5_how_free_apps_without_ads_make_money/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c758bmh', 'c758hqo', 'c758nv5', 'c759kma', 'c75dlyi'], 'score': [43, 13, 10, 5, 2], 'text': [\"I'm definitely no expert or app producer. But I do notice that people release better forms of the app for a price. Full versions verses light/free versions. \\n\\nPeople like the free version, go to see what the full version has, decide they want that stuff too, buy the full version.\\n\", \"Either developers create a paid and a lite version, put ads in their free game or create a free game as a kind of viral advertisement for another developer or company who in turn gives them their payslip. \\n\\nEither that or they just like programming and putting themselves out there. It's not always about the money, at least not initially. \", 'In App Purchases. Some games will practically force you into buying upgraded equipment from their store to beat the game. I always check the low starred reviews to see if a game is an IAP scam. ', \"as a direct answer, they don't.\\n\\nhowever, they spread the name of the app out there, as a form of networking. then when the dev releases a paid for app, people have already experienced their work and will want to buy the paid for app. its like advertising.\", 'My friend has an App which looks at clubs near the user. No ads, free. His model is based on getting the clubs to pay to be featured, for promotion, etc. as opposed to sending the cost to the user.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 862, "q_id": "b9soc5", "title": "Researchers were able to speed light up to 30c. How is this consistent with special relativity?", "selftext": "From [a recent article in _URL_0_](_URL_1_):\n\n > [The authors] demonstrated they could speed a pulse of light up to 30 times the speed of light, slow it down to half the speed of light, and also make the pulse travel backward.\n\nI realize that the speed of light is dependent on the material it travels through, but my understanding is that nothing can ever go faster than c.\n\nHow can this be reconciled with the statement in the article? Alternatively, have I misunderstood something? Or is the statement incorrect?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b9soc5/researchers_were_able_to_speed_light_up_to_30c/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ek6tt4i'], 'score': [18], 'text': ['You can manipulate the properties of the medium to change the group velocity from c to something less than c (\u201cslow light\u201d), something greater than c (\u201cfast light\u201d), or basically zero (\u201cstopped light\u201d).\\n\\nThis article is about increasing the group velocity above c, so fast light.\\n\\nBut this doesn\u2019t cause any problems with relativity, because the *signal velocity* (the speed at which information is transmitted by the wave) is still limited by c.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['Phys.org', 'https://phys.org/news/2019-04-researchers-develop-way-to-control.html']", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 33, "q_id": "1jmr6o", "title": "why do people put cologne/perfume on the insides of their wrists?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jmr6o/eli5_why_do_people_put_cologneperfume_on_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbg7eai', 'cbg7gcn', 'cbg8m21', 'cbgajow', 'cbgcww2'], 'score': [7, 85, 11, 13, 3], 'text': ['The blood veins are closer to your skin there, so it helps to disperse the perfume better. You can also put it on your inner elbow, inner knees, neck, etc.., wherever you can check your pulse', \"I've heard 2 explanations - can't vouch for either.\\n\\n1. Wrist have a lot of blood flow near the skin and hence produce a lot of heat. Heat helps release the scent.\\n\\n2. Wrists are an area that are likely to get closer to other people. Guess they also always exposed where much of the body isnt.\\n\\n\", 'I remember seeing (sorry no proof) that it dates back to the more proper eras where a gentleman was expected to kiss a ladies hand in greeting. \\nThe neck  was one of the few areas of skin available, for passionate kisses, so that was hit as well.    \\nIt helped mask the BO but only had to be applied in key or \"pulse\" points.  ', \"It's a kind of hold over from 17th and 18th century French society/aristocracy. At the time it was considered  fashionable to smell good but not fashionable to bathe(probably because it was also fashionable to dispose of your sewage into any nearby source of fresh water). The French actually invented perfume/cologne to try and solve this dilemma. But instead of putting it on their bodies they would put it on some kind of cloth. Usually a handkerchief or a cravat. When ever you went to a high society French party around this time you would want your perfume soaked hanky easy to get to ,so men would stuff theirs into the cuff of their coats so they could easily pull them out and wave them in the air in front of the next person they met or hold it to their nose when they were alone. Women often wore sleeveless gowns around this time so they just simply tied theirs to their wrist. Pay close attention to the next period French film you see, you will see a bunch of  handkerchief waving in the party scenes. Clothing trends moved on so that hardly anyone uses a handkerchief as fashion accessory anymore,but people still put perfume/cologne on their wrists as a tradition.  \", 'I just put it on my armpits and crotch to cover up the horribilityness.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2157, "q_id": "6roka4", "title": "why is everyone that pleads \"not guilty\" in a court case, but later found guilty, not also given a perjury charge (along with their initial charges)?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6roka4/eli5_why_is_everyone_that_pleads_not_guilty_in_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dl6ld37', 'dl6maq8', 'dl6mraw', 'dl6nchj', 'dl6vvnu', 'dl6wt4h', 'dl6x60y', 'dl7c58s'], 'score': [75, 9, 12, 3, 14, 6, 2, 3], 'text': [' >  Why is everyone that pleads \"not guilty\" in a court case, but later found guilty, not also given a perjury charge (along with their initial charges)?\\n\\nA plea is not sworn testimony from the defendant, it is just the demand of \"prove it\" to the prosecution.\\n\\nAlso it would act to derail the intended operation of the legal process; if you are going to be charged with perjury if you lose then why not lie your ass off at every opportunity? If you win you get off and if you lose you are going to be convicted of perjury for defending yourself anyway.\\n\\nAnd that is what it really comes down to: You have a *right to a legal defense*. To charge you with perjury just for pleading not guilty would violate your fundamental right to legal defense and would be a violation of human rights. You gotta\\' watch out for those.', \"Just to add on to what was already said here, a charge of purgery would require a completely separate trial as its not the same as what ever you were charged with and can't you can't be charged with it before its happened (charges have to be filed before the trial starts). \\n\\nIt would basically double court proceedings of guilty people for little to no real gain to the public interest. \", \"In the US you aren't required to incriminate yourself; it's the prosecutor's job to prove you are guilty. You have an initial arraignment, at which the charges against you are established, your rights are explained to you, and you submit your plea. If you say you are guilty, the case goes straight to sentencing. If you say you are not guilty, you get your day in court.\\n\\nA 'guilty' plea doesn't necessarily mean you are guilty; it means you accept the fact that the prosecutors *do* have enough evidence to convince a jury that you are guilty. A 'not guilty' plea doesn't necessarily mean you are not guilty; it means you *do not* accept the fact that the prosecutors will be able to convince a jury that you did everything you are accused of. Since there is often a laundry-list of charges sought against you, 'not guilty' might just mean that you don't believe that they will be able to make some *specific* charge stick, even if you are found guilty of the rest of the charges. If you plead guilty at the arraignment, you are accepting everything you are charged with up-front as a package deal.\\n\\nSo if you think that while you are technically guilty of breaking the law there are extenuating circumstances, and believe that a jury will agree with you, you plead not guilty and go to trial. If you hope to work out some sort of plea agreement, you plead not guilty and you go to trial. If you are totally guilty and you hope to weasel out of it, you plead not guilty and you go to trial. Pleading guilty, you're up against established sentencing guidelines and whatever mood the judge is in; pleading not guilty, you're (probably) up against a jury of your peers.\\n\\nAll of that said, if you plead not guilty and it turns out to be a complete waste of the court's time because everything but your plea shows that you really *are* guilty, the judge can and sometimes will punish you for that. But (in our system) on its own pleading 'not guilty' is not perjuring yourself, because you are not legally required to help them prosecute you.\", \"One reason: The initial not guilty plea is entered at the very beginning of a case - sometimes in the same court appearance when a defendant is assigned their court appointed lawyer. It is not advisable to do much of anything in court without talking to a lawyer. \\n\\nIt is very common for defendants to appear and be told by a public defender on duty that everyone gets a not guilty plea at the beginning because that first hearing is just the beginning for potentially dozens of people. Getting into a back and forth with the prosecutor and the judge at such an early stage a) risks tactical errors by defendants who haven't talked to a lawyer yet and b) would take forever in cities and medium to large towns. \\n\\nIf you're curious, go sit in your county's arraignment court for an afternoon then chat with the clerk. It'll be eye opening. Practices vary from place to place so don't assume it's the same in New Mexico as it is in New Jersey, but you'll leave way more informed about our criminal system. \\n\\nPerhaps obvious disclaimer: This answer centers on USA law only. \", '\"Not guilty\" doesn\\'t necessarily mean \"I didn\\'t do it.\"  Sometimes the defendant may be arguing that although they did the deed, the act itself was not a crime.\\n\\nI killed him, but it was self defense.\\n\\nI took the money, but it was mine to begin with.\\n\\n My brain tumor impaired my judgement. \\n\\nI was following orders.', 'Pleading Not Guilty doesn\\'t mean \"I didn\\'t do it\".\\n\\nIt means (in effect) \"I am exercising my right to presumed innocence, and am requiring the prosecution to prove their case against me beyond reasonable doubt\".\\n\\nSo there\\'s nothing that is a \\'lie\\' about that. ', '* a plea is not sworn testimony\\n* you can honestly believe you are not guilty and still be convicted, like when the case revolves around self-defense vs. murder\\n* an innocent person might be tempted to plead guilty to avoid a perjury charge\\n* a guilty person who pleads not guilty would have no reason not to lie about everything else\\n* being punished for a not guilty plea is a form of self-incrimination, being compelled to admit your guilt ', \"Don't know about the US, but in Sweden the defendant is explicitly never under oath. Even when testifying. You can lie about the colour of the sky and it's not illegal. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1910, "q_id": "23goxd", "title": "How do fluids with extremely high Reynold's number behave?", "selftext": "I understand that there has been a lot of work done on characterizing fluid mechanics in low Reynold's number regimes, such as on the length scale of cells and bacteria. On our normal human scale of water pipes, lakes, and oceans, fluids behave differently, viscous forces are negligible. \n\nHowever, I was wonder about extremely high Renoyld's number such as in the giant space clouds of water. (_URL_0_) Do the fluid behave similarly to our experiences, with viscous forces that are negligible? Or are the mechanics starkly different like the difference between \"normal\" Reynold's number and the low Reynold's number of bacteria?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/23goxd/how_do_fluids_with_extremely_high_reynolds_number/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgwtxgf'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"They have turbulent behaviour, usually dynamically chaotic, and the fluid is is no longer incompressible/irrotational since the pressure forces take over the viscosity and stress forces, and the fluid picks up angular momentum. This means that the velocity of a fluid **v** cannot be described solely by the scalar velocity potential, such that grad\u03c8=**v**, but there'd be an additional curl term and pressure term.\\n\\nThe Navier-Stokes equation describes the most general behaviour of fluids, under any conditions and bodily forces, including laminar and turbulent flows. If the solution (if one even exists) is found, it would mark the end of fluid dynamics.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/23g1tf/til_there_is_a_mass_reservoir_of_water_floating/']", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2613, "q_id": "2tmfry", "title": "In Renaissance Europe (~1300-1700) how difficult would it be for a poor person to become educated?", "selftext": "In the renaissance, prior to mass public education in Europe, how hard would it be for someone to pull themselves up by their boot straps so to speak? Would a driven but poor child be able to get an education through churches, libraries, ect? How difficult would that be? How rare would it be for someone who was born poor to become an educated, wealthy individual?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2tmfry/in_renaissance_europe_13001700_how_difficult/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['co0dzs8', 'co15okc'], 'score': [36, 2], 'text': ['Where and who and the political and economic on-goings matter a lot.  There\\'s an [excellent social history by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie](_URL_0_) that deals with your question very directly. \\n\\nLadurie follows a Swiss peasant, Thomas Platter (1499), as he rises through the world by catching on to the new Reformation humanism.  Despite beginning his life as a vagabond Platter was able to participate in a fast growing economy of education, typically seeking employment as a teacher no sooner than he had learned material himself.  Thomas Platter also benefits from the easy availability of credit-- gold from the monasteries destroyed by the Protestant Reformation or from the New World.  By wisely borrowing for investment in an environment of high inflation Platter comes to own several properties.  In turn he is able to send his sons to study medicine (a higher form of learning than classics) at the best French universities, and so in two generations education raises the Platters from pigpens to places as court physicians.\\n\\nPlatter was definitely a highly motivated individual, willing to do things like postpone marriage and invest his low wages (working at one point as a apprentice ropemaker) in books and Latin/Greek/Hebrew lessons.  His life isn\\'t \"easy,\" but the main thing distinguishing him from his less socially mobile family is his consistent motivation and his luck in choosing a \"boom\" industry like classical education during the Reformation.  In many parts of Europe, definitely central Europe, the Reformation had the character of a broad social revolution, displacing classes and the values that had upheld them, ultimately creating many opportunities for social mobility in the revolutionized Protestant society.\\n\\nThough Ladurie would never slight Platter\\'s gumption as a historian his work is dedicated to contextualizing Platter\\'s success.  Much more could be accomplished in the favorable circumstances of Swiss humanism circa 1530 than say a French village circa 1400, if only because in 1400 far fewer people care about learning Hebrew and none of them would pay good money to a ropemaker who says he can teach it.  There\\'s no single answer to your question, but asking it speaks to larger question about social mobility in different European contexts.', 'There were regulations in medieval London providing for the education of poor students. Many schools were run by churches, but some were independent; there were even \"dame schools\" run by female teachers. As we can see by this and similar sources, in the late Middle Ages it was not too difficult for anyone in a town to get a basic education. This applied largely to commoners who intended to become merchants, lawyers, etc., but also to ordinary peasants who just wanted to be able to read their business contracts: there was a very active land market in the late Middle Ages. \\n\\nIt is a common myth that only people training to be clergy were educated; in fact, many children--both boys and girls--got a good basic education. This is testified to by the many surviving letters and wills written by both men and women. Universities, of course, then as now, were harder to get into. Also they, unlike the preparatory/grammar schools, did not accept women.\\n\\nP.S. this is really a medieval answer, not a Renaissance answer, but your time period includes two centuries of the Middle Ages so here it is']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.worldcat.org/title/beggar-and-the-professor-a-sixteenth-century-family-saga/oclc/34824285&amp;referer=brief_results'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2779, "q_id": "1z09l2", "title": "I've heard a story that Stalin's first wife was the only person he ever loved; and that after she died early, he became permanently cold and bitter towards the world. Is there any truth to this story?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z09l2/ive_heard_a_story_that_stalins_first_wife_was_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cfpeeod', 'cfppxii'], 'score': [132, 12], 'text': ['Amateur psychology aside, I don\\'t think there is too much evidence that  his wife\\'s death contributed to his politics particularly much.  I\\'m sure it did in fact cause him grief, but I have a feeling there is an underlying \"and therefore, he did what he did as leader of the Soviet Union\" being asked in this question.  To that end I would answer that no, I don\\'t think there is a radical change in Stalin\\'s pattern of behavior/ideology at any point.\\n\\nI wrote a post several months back about the consistency of his positions (more or less), which is somewhat relevant in this case, so here is the link if you\\'d like to read that as well: _URL_0_', 'This does not directly answer your question, but to give a little insight on Stalin\\'s personality three years before his wife died, here\\'s a quote from *Ivan\\'s War* by Catherine Merridale:\\n\\n\u201cIn 1904 a group of comrades were out for a walk along a river swollen from spring rains. A calf, newborn, still doubtful on its legs, had somehow become stranded on an island in the middle of the river. One man, the Georgian Koba ripped off his shirt and swam across to the calf, He hauled himself out to stand beside it, waited for all the friends to watch, and then broke it legs.\u201d\\n\\nStalin called himself Koba after a character in *The Patricide* by Alexander Kazbegi.\\n\\n[source](_URL_0_)\\n\\nI first heard this on Hardcore History \"Ghosts of the Ostfront,\" which gives a pretty interesting, albeit dramatized, portrayal of Stalin and the eastern front.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1olmdl/did_stalin_introduce_harsh_repressive_policies/cct9rir'], [\"http://books.google.com/books?id=JmvyWJQpg9YC&amp;pg=PA36&amp;lpg=PA36&amp;dq=ivan%27s+war+calf&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XHaJ8i1qoz&amp;sig=FtFN6-v4wkpgW-Ip2OfUNMuR_ak&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=mZ4OU6T_CrChsASshICQBg&amp;ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=ivan's%20war%20calf&amp;f=false\"]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1706, "q_id": "26wntc", "title": "If Silly Putty is hit forcefully, it keeps it shape and bounces back. However, if it is pressed slowly, it loses its shape easily. Does that mean it's slightly non-Newtonian?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/26wntc/if_silly_putty_is_hit_forcefully_it_keeps_it/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['chvb10i'], 'score': [12], 'text': [\"By definition it is *completely* non-Newtonian.\\n\\nIn more technical terms, a Newtonian fluid has a shear rate (flow) that is proportional to the shear stress (essentially an applied pressure) in the fluid.  The relationship between shear rate and shear stress in a Newtonian fluid is governed solely by the fluid's viscosity.  The amount or duration of an applied stress plays no role in the resulting shear rate.  Since Silly Putty does not fit this model, it is non-Newtonian.\\n\\nAs you've pointed out, there is a time-dependence to its viscoelasticity: over long time periods it acts as a fluid, while short impacts demonstrate elastic behavior.  This is the definition of a thixotropic material.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2423, "q_id": "19xil1", "title": "In what language can you read the fastest?", "selftext": "There are some languages like German where many nouns are compound words to describe the object rather than a new short word.  Other languages like various Asian languages are single symbols to represent whole words.  You could fit a whole sentence of Mandarin the space it takes to write Hoechsgeschwindigkeitsbegrenzung.\n\nIs there a significant difference in the time it would take native readers will similar levels of literacy would be able to read a novel?  Do different languages communicate information quicker?  If so which do it quicker and which are slower?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/19xil1/in_what_language_can_you_read_the_fastest/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8sire0'], 'score': [10], 'text': ['--SCIENCE--\\n\\nTheoretically, all languages differ in their written information rate being dependent on numerous factors like reader skill, text comprehensibility and even language-specific features like complexity, ambiguity, and symbol density. \\n\\nHowever, to answer your question completely we would have to address an important aspect of how written language is recognized by human brains - pattern recognition.\\n\\nHuman beings have very good spatial skills (rapid eye movement and shape recognition) and their brains are exceptionally fast at pattern recognition. However, this does not mean that we can recognize a single-symbol \"\u00a9\" faster than the word \"copyright\". If we did, Chinese should be read at a significantly faster rate than English by native readers of the respective languages. But studies indicate that both languages are actually read at about the same speed. This essentially means that humans are not limited by pattern recognition in written language comprehension, and are as fast at recognizing long strings of shapes as they are at recognizing single shapes. The aforementioned research suggests that it is actually the higher level cognitive processes that limit language reading rates of individuals.  \\n\\nSources:\\n\\n[Sun F, Morita M,  &  Stark LW (1985). Comparative patterns of reading eye movement in Chinese and English](_URL_0_)\\n\\nSun, F,  &  Feng, D (2010). Eye movements in reading Chinese and English text Reading Chinese Script: A cognitive analysis, Eds. Jian Wang, Albrecht W. Inhoff, Hsuan-Chih Chen., 189-205 ISBN: 9780805824780\\n\\nYan, G., Tian, H., Bai, X.,  &  Rayner, K. (2006). The effect of word and character frequency on the eye movements of Chinese readers British Journal of Psychology, 97 (2), 259-268 DOI: 10.1348/000712605X70066\\n\\n--PSEUDOSCIENCE--\\n\\nThe real limitation of reading speed, therefore, is the underlying language processing power of our brains. When reading, we do not simply identify words, but invoke a plethora of concepts, ideas and knowledge about the words we read in our minds. Our brain takes time to process this information. From what we may easily observe, this is a much slower process than mere pattern recognition. The point of reading is to understand what we read, so the brain cannot possibly permit one to read faster than the rate at which it comprehends the written information. The brain\\'s language abilities are scarcely researched yet we know that we tend to \"subvocalize\" and also \"visualize\" the words we identify in written language. There are claims by \"speed-readers\" that removing subvocalization will significantly improve one\\'s reading speed; however, there is no hard science proving this. \\n\\nPerhaps, owing to our excessive reliance on visual technology (electronic screens and written media), humans may someday invent visual languages devoid of vocalization so that the reading speed may be maximized. But doesn\\'t that go even beyond the limits of layman speculation!? Please let me retire now.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2FBF03204913?LI=true#page-3']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1483, "q_id": "6bqp6c", "title": "\"Why did the chicken cross the road?\" How did the motives of this transient fowl become such a fascinating subject of inquiry?", "selftext": "The Wikipedia article says it appeared in The Knickerbocker magazine in 1847, but offers little in the way of explaining it's spread throughout pop culture.  ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6bqp6c/why_did_the_chicken_cross_the_road_how_did_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dhpmwgw'], 'score': [21], 'text': ['Folk sayings and the origins of colloquialisms are notoriously hard to know the history of - many of the reasons why they became popular have been lost to time either because people either didn\\'t record them, or because the records have become lost. It could be that the joke was originally the catchphrase of a popular comedian, or that it spread in playgrounds, or that it comes from a magazine or newspaper that is no longer extant, or at least no longer easy to find. Trying to figure out the origin of such a joke is probably like trying to figure out the origin of some modern dank meme with access only to the archives of the *New York Times* - I mean, the New York Times has probably discussed Pepe by now because of politics, but would they have bothered discussing those six panel \"what I do\" \"what I think do\" \"what my parents think I do\" (etc) memes? Probably not.\\n\\nNonetheless, if you look at the phrase \\'chicken cross the road\\' on [Google ngrams](_URL_6_), there is a spike circa the 1850s, which doesn\\'t show up in search for me, but which could be a version of a quote from [an 1848 edition of *The Knickerbocker*](_URL_1_):\\n\\n >  \"There are \u2018quips and quillets\u2019 which seem actual conundrums, but yet are none. Of such is this: \u2018Why does a chicken cross the street?\\' Are you \u2018out of town?\u2019 Do you \u2018give it up?\u2019 Well, then: \u2018Because it wants to get on the other side!\u2019\"\\n\\nThere\\'s a variant of the joke in [an 1872 edition of the *Sydney Mail*](_URL_7_), which was a now discontinued weekly edition of the *[Sydney Morning Herald](_URL_0_)*, which [the website of an etymologist, Barry Popik](_URL_4_), suggests may have first come from the San Francisco Bulletin:\\n\\n > Why should not a chicken cross the road? It would be a fowl proceeding.\\n\\nGoogle ngrams suggests that the early 20th century is when references to the joke start noticeably increasing. One reason for this, perhaps, is that early automobile drivers had a genuine problem with chickens crossing the road when their cars came nearby. I get the sense reading the snippets that the writers mentioning these issues are bemused about the pre-existing joke.\\n\\nTake a reference in the early automobile trade magazine [*The Horseless Age*, which has a 1905 article](_URL_2_) saying that:\\n\\n > A cash prize is now being offered for the correct solution of the question, \"Why does a chicken cross the road?\" and its practical application. The prize is offered by a French automobilist to the French agricultural societies for a breed of chickens which will not cross the road every time an automobilist approaches\\n\\nSimilarly, [*American Hay, Flour And Feed Journal* in 1912](_URL_3_) has someone complaining that: \\n\\n > Autos shoot all over the Corn Belt during July to September and furnish the chickens with a daily life gamble. You understand the saying, \\'Why does a Chicken cross the Road\\' for the first time after a few country trips. The chicken will be perfectly safe on one side of the road, but he will be alarmed and seized with a desire to flap over to the other side right in front of your machine.\\n\\nOn a different tack, [*Life* magazine, in 1912](_URL_5_), also mentions the question with a much more obviously satirical tone, presumably making fun of the Bourbon Democrats of the time: \\n\\n >  ...a question which has puzzled the economists and biologists for decades. The resolution which was introduced by Congressman Bourbon, is as follows:\\n\\n >  *Resolved*, That an international commission be formed to investigate the question: \\'Why does a chicken cross the road?\\' and be it further\\n\\n >  *Resolved*, That said commission be fully empowered to dig as deeply into the matter as possible.\\n\\nElsewhere in the early 20th century, *The Gideon* in 1914 calls it an \\'ancient conundrum\\', while a writer in *The American Angler* in 1921 complains about \\'an occasional crazy chicken\\' on the road while driving, again prompting said ancient conundrum. \\n\\nThese quotes all, I suspect, suggest that the joke is quite well known at this point in America, without furnishing much clue of how exactly it spread. Perhaps *The Knickerbocker* really *was* the first to use it, but the subtext of that quote does seem to be that the joke was already well-known at the time. \\n\\nGiven the context of a lot of these early quotes, it might be that the joke particularly gained popularity because of the rise of automobiles (or that Google\\'s corpus of books is quite possibly missing several 1800s references to the joke). Chickens being interrupted by a loud, fast moving, vehicle clearly evoked a sort of \\'fight-or-flight\\' response, and it seems that the nature of their flight response was not particularly good for the chicken\\'s health in the age of the automobile.\\n\\nPerhaps this also somewhat explains the point of the joke, which might have been lost on the writer from the *Knickerbocker*: chickens apparently did seem to be crossing the road mostly to get themselves killed and thus find themselves in another plane of existence: \\'the other side\\'.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.smh.com.au/', 'https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3MQGAQAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA283&amp;dq=%22chicken+cross+the+street%22&amp;lr=&amp;as_drrb_is=b&amp;as_minm_is=0&amp;as_miny_is=1700&amp;as_maxm_is=0&amp;as_maxy_is=1899&amp;num=100&amp;as_brr=0&amp;ei=cI2YSt_8LZXszATQmeXUDg&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=%22chicken%20cross%20the%20street%22&amp;f=false', 'https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HSDmAAAAMAAJ&amp;q=%22chicken+cross+the+road%22&amp;dq=%22chicken+cross+the+road%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-r9_U4fjTAhUEv7wKHbsIDCI4ChDoAQgtMAM', 'https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q9gwAQAAMAAJ&amp;q=%22chicken+cross+the+road%22&amp;dq=%22chicken+cross+the+road%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-r9_U4fjTAhUEv7wKHbsIDCI4ChDoAQgpMAI', 'http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/why_did_the_chicken_cross_the_road_joke/', 'https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vYE4AQAAMAAJ&amp;q=%22chicken+cross+the+road%22&amp;dq=%22chicken+cross+the+road%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi1oPLM4PjTAhWJVrwKHX-9C_w4ChDoAQghMAA', 'https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chicken+cross+the+road&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cchicken%20cross%20the%20road%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cchicken%20cross%20the%20road%3B%2Cc1', 'https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ftIQAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=P5MDAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=7347,6098909&amp;dq=chicken-cross-the-road&amp;hl=en']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2641, "q_id": "1409w9", "title": "why do people kiss?", "selftext": "I understand why mommy and daddy have sexytimes - survival of the species, offspring, etc. But why do we kiss? When you step back and think about it, it seems like a fairly weird (and unsanitary) thing to do. Yet it's a very natural, instinctive action for most humans. I haven't noticed any other animals \"kissing\" like we do, nor do I know of any people or cultures where kissing doesn't happen.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1409w9/eli5_why_do_people_kiss/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c78pxyp', 'c78qhri', 'c78r3kp', 'c78ruuj', 'c78s4uf', 'c78sk3h', 'c78tz0v', 'c78vji3', 'c78vwtn', 'c78wd4c', 'c78xi1w', 'c78ykmo', 'c78z7t4'], 'score': [29, 157, 12, 9, 2, 5, 34, 3, 3, 14, 2, 3, 2], 'text': [\"It's the best way to share antibodies yo.  That's also why moms kiss their babies.  Share the anti-germs to keep the species strong and resilient. \", 'We don\\'t know.\\n\\nOne theory is that it\\'s a way of testing blood types/immune systems - someone with a more compatible blood type or immune system will \"taste\" better than someone whose blood type will cause reproductive issues.\\n\\nSome say it\\'s a bonding exercise, that because it involves gazing into each other\\'s eyes for lengthy periods of time along with extreme trust (closing of eyes and shoving a tongue into someone else\\'s tooth-masher is a pretty trusting thing) and as such will further cement the relationship between the two.\\n\\nSome say we humans just like shoving our whatevers into whatever hole we can find.\\n\\nBonobos also kiss.  But then, they fuck as a handshake or because they get bored, so there\\'s that.\\n', 'Sex is a pretty objectively disgusting thing too. Sometimes shit just feels good.', \"The lips are a very sensitive part of the body, so I'm sure that has something to do with it, but I don't really know. Maybe someone can elaborate/condense what's already in the thread.\", \"I also heard that saliva contains trace amounts of testosterone (responsible in part to our sex drives) so putting saliva in someone else's mouth gets them all ready to the dirty.\", \"Some people think it's a test for finding a compatible mate. You go in to kiss someone and they smell, or have bad breath or bad teeth and you know they're potential as a mate isn't that good, or in going in you sense they are sick, you're going to reject them. I would also think as you kiss and you touch each other it also signals attraction and compatibility of the two partners, or may give subtle signals that turn you off (aggressive, grabby, or maybe the other side of the spectrum and are shy or hesitant in their touch). \", \"Check out this image of a [Sensory Homunculus](_URL_1_). Shows how dense the nerve distribution is at the lips. It is thought that kissing on lips is a part of the sexytimes ritual since it stimulates the brain so much. There might also be a relation between the feeling of lips, tongue, saliva and sexual arousal. There are also [other explanations](_URL_0_), most related to finding the right sexual partner. I don't buy into the immune system explanation, although it might be true.\\n\\nAbout kissing in other animals, apart from the bonobo example, I'm not sure if licking was an evolutionary precursor of kissing. Many animals lick their loved ones.\", 'In long term pair-bonding your immune systems clearly \"grow together\". Kissing seems like a pretty good way to urge that process along.', \"It's thought to be a way of telling the major histamine complex of a potential mate. We're thought to look for mates with varying, and different histamine complexes than our own, as further assurance that your young would have a better immune system, and thus a better chance at survival.\", 'I always thought of it in this way... \"hey, that animal is putting their mouth on me, and isn\\'t eating me. This is a good thing.\"\\n\\nDon\\'t quote me.', \"It's actually good for your health, as it releases serotonin and dopamine during the session (both of which are known to make you all around happier and calmer), depending on how pleasurable it is. However, I do not know where the instinct came from. Perhaps the want of a good feeling mixed with general foreplay arousal, which would lead to a want of escalation?\", 'Now that is a real 5 year old question.', \"To exchange long protein strings. If you can think of a simpler way, I'd like to hear it.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/11/the-science-of-smooching-why-men-and-women-kiss-differently/', 'http://gc.sfc.keio.ac.jp/class/2004_14453/slides/09/img/64.png'], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 867, "q_id": "22vhmq", "title": "why is christianity so opposed to homosexuality /how did this develop?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22vhmq/eli5_why_is_christianity_so_opposed_to/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgqsmu0', 'cgqswxq', 'cgquylu', 'cgqvz0g', 'cgqw1vg', 'cgqwk5v', 'cgqy1h9', 'cgqyaoz', 'cgqzfeh', 'cgr0pqz', 'cgr2sq9', 'cgr4yk7', 'cgr7khe'], 'score': [3, 4, 19, 2, 234, 9, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2], 'text': ['Christianity is opposed to homosexuality because Christians believe God is opposed to homosexuality. It\\'s not that a \"small radicalized group is up in arms\" but that biblical marriage/relationships have always been upheld by historical Christianity. The Apostle Paul mentions homosexuality in his letters to the Romans and Corinthians as sin. The Old Testament also briefly makes mention of it. Christians are especially opposed to it today because people are refusing to recognize the behavior to be wrong. Some Christians actually believe people have to acknowledge their sin and that God\\'s word needs to be upheld. If they are being faithful Christians that\\'s why they would oppose it. But if they are using the Bible as an excuse to hate people or demean or ostracize them, then that\\'s plain wrong.', 'It can vary from denomination to denomination. The Episcopal Church, for instance, is more liberal, and supports LGBT rights and marriage. The Southern Baptist Convention, in contrast, is hostile to homosexuality. \\n\\nLooping up Christianity into one giant bloc is absurd. As it is split into dozens of sects, each preaching different views and interpretations of the Bible and of homosexuality.  ', \"The Catholic Church originally forbade non-procreational sex of any kind, encouraging the faithful to 'go forth and multiply' in order to increase the number of the religion's adherents. The negative view of homosexuality may in part be a throwback to that.\", \"Basically: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27, Galatians 5:22-33. I think there may be some others, but these are ones that I could find in one quick sweep. . Basically, Christians believe (pretty much universally) that God defines what is moral and what is immoral. With this being true, if you think that God considers homosexual sex to be immoral, its as simple as that. Note that this is coming from a Christian who does not believe homosexuality is a sin, but who isn't sure how to justify this opinion theologically.\\n\\nI think I read somewhere that at the time Paul was writing his letters, homosexuality wasn't what we think of as homosexuality today. It was apparently generally not in the context of a loving relationship, it was a kinda show of dominance of a master over his student or pupil. This is possibly where the idea that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia that is claimed by some conservative pastors comes from, although its more likely that they are just bigoted like that. I don't know if this whole paragraph is bullshit or not, its just something i read somewhere (probably on reddit).\\n\\nThe interpretation I've heard for some of the more random laws of the Israelites (tattoos, some less obviously food safety aspects of kosher laws, mildew etc) were designed by God to seclude Israel from the rest of the world, kinda keep them in their own cultural bubble to allow them to develop separately. There is a passage in Acts 10 where the kosher food laws were lifted, as all things were made clean. My pastor tried to make it *very* clear that this did not include homosexuality, but I think that's  only because he considers Paul's writings to be direct word of God, and Paul writes elsewhere that homosexuality is immoral. \\n\\nMy personal reading puts the occasional references to homosexuality in the Bible down to cultural factors of the time as opposed to divine law, but that's only passable if you don't consider the Bible to be infallible, which many Christians do. I don't really have an answer to the question, I just kinda have to be thankful that I'm not gay so I don't have to deal with being around people who think my sexuality is evil :/.\\n\\nOn a happier note, I think at least in the UK (where Christians are a distinct minority) mostly people are coming round to the idea that homosexuality isn't a sin. Even the conservative ones would probably be less aggressive in their denunciation. Baby steps, but I think things are moving in the right direction.\", 'Like everyone else is saying, Christians are opposed to homosexuality because it says so in the Bible. First of all, it undermines the original design of humanity, with Adam and Eve. You see this in Leviticus, but maybe that stuff\\'s too extreme and hardcore, which is understandable (maybe not the best context to use the term \"hardcore\", but we\\'ll go with it). Even in the New Testament, we see Paul in his letters to the Church of Corinth and to the Romans, talking about how homosexual acts bring people away from God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-28). \\n\\nHowever, I\\'d also like to take this opportunity to provide further insight, maybe biased, coming from a Christian. While the Bible does indeed state that homosexuality is a sin, one of Jesus\\' greatest commandments was to \"Love your neighbor as yourself.\" The Ten Commandments state that anyone with hatred or anger commits murder in their heart. That being said, I believe that someone identifying as homosexual is no basis for being opposed to them. If anything, it is the opposite. Jesus showed no discrimination during his time on Earth in who he chose to help and heal. By nature, we are all sinners, none more or less than others, so there is no reason why homosexuals should be treated any differently, because we are all in need of the same saving grace that comes in Jesus Christ.\\n\\nMaybe I\\'m putting myself on the chopping block here, but I\\'d claim that a lot of the Christians you hear about who are protesting and rioting (ex: Westboro Baptist, but as /u/IvyGold reminded me, I\\'d definitely question even calling them a church. It\\'s a very extreme example) have a bit of a twisted idea of the message of Christianity. Jesus\\' teachings, and the whole story of the gospel - that is, God sending his only son to die in our place - revolve around love. \"Faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love.\" (1 Corinthians 13:13). As a Christian, a follower of Jesus and a son of God, I would not be living as a Christian if I did not reflect the same love that God shows me when he saves.\\n\\nTL;DR: Christians are opposed to homosexuality, in the sense that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and sin is bad, but Christians are the same broken and sinful people as everyone else, which means that Christians are not better people or on a higher level, and are out of place to judge people because of their sexuality.\\n\\nEdit: I apologize, that came out to be a lot longer than I anticipated. But I do hope that my words help shed some light.\\n\\nEdit: I suppose now I\\'m obligated to thank some people for the gold. So thanks! I\\'m sorry to say, however, that I have no clue what it does or what it allows me to do. This was the first time I logged on to reddit in over a year, and, quite honestly, this will probably go to waste. I wish I could hand it off to someone else who could have better use of it. Without paying for it, of course.', 'Opposition to homosexuality amongst the christian faith has its roots in the same place that opposition to masturbation, sex toys, pornography, contraception, and even abortion. It all began with Jerome Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine) who helped define the concept of [original sin](_URL_0_) in the early Christian church in the 4th century CE. Basically he argued that it was Adam\\'s concupiscence, or libido, that caused him to disobey God and eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. The short of that is that to return to God\\'s graces a faithful Christian must abhore sex for pleasure in every context. This early teaching can be seen propigated and refined to fit each of the \"sex for pleasure\" scenarios that you see Christians so opposed to. All other arguements are used to cover or disguise this simple reason but when analyzed closely they all clearly fall back on it.\\n\\nI know that my last statement will sound like a challenge but let\\'s not. At least not untill you first think about your arguement and really challenge it yourself and can clearly demonstrate that your arguement has nothing to do with sex for pleasure being a sin. I came here to respond honestly and with evidence to the ELI5, not debate your own brand of theology among the over 40,000 known brands of Christianity.', 'All it has to do with is that christianity considers the only purpose for sex is to produce babies. any sex that does not is a sin. It is the same reason they oppose any form of contraception. ', \"Biblically speaking, it's in the Bible and God said that it was bad. Historically speaking, many Pagan religions, like Greek and Roman saw homosexuality as a pure form of love or something like that. I know for sure the Greeks believed that man is the best, so when a man and a man are together, it is the best, most pure relationship. Well because the Catholic Church wanted to get rid of Paganism when it came to power, they either assimilated all Pagan holidays, making them Christian, I.E. Holloween, and Christmas, or they removed and banned things completely, such as Homosexuality. Originally they were opposed to it because it was a part of Pagan culture and tradition, now, they just keep the tradition because after almost 2000 years, why would they suddenly get rid of it? Also, there are a lot of Christians who are not bothered, or support Homosexual rights, but they are the silent majority. The new Pope, Pope Francis said that homosexual people can get into Heaven and such, which is VERY different from what most Popes have said.\", 'the church is against homosexuality because 2 gay people cannot inherently procreate and pass on their religious beliefs to the next generation. ', \"I think that 'because the Bible says so.' is WHY. But I think the Bible says so BECAUSE to have sex without the intent of making a baby was wasting an opportunity to make a new Christian/Jewish person. This was at a time when there were few of them around. Look at any law in the Old Testament or New; there was either a physical/medical reason, like the food rules, or a social reason to keep peace within the community. The rules were to make the Christian/Jewish community safer and stronger as a group. It makes perfectly logical sense when viewed in this fashion.\\n\", '- The Bible does not focus on gay people, in fact there are only about 3 strict anti- gay verses in this huge book. There are much more written against lust, theft, murder, lying, etc. However...\\n\\n- The Bible is pro life and pro family. The man and wife is seen as the fundamental building block of society. When they marry they become one flesh and form a covenant with God. They must obey God and in turn he will bless their union.\\n\\n- Also there was a lot of bad/weird shit going on in the old days. Even people growing up in it realised that baby sacrifice (Moloch) and gay rape gangs (Lot) etc. was maybe not the most healthy for society.\\n\\n- The Jewish tradition \"Law\" tried to break with the heathen\\'s practices, which was considered to be \"unclean\". (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13 )\\n\\n- Christ took it further with the idea that you body is your temple and that you should keep it pure. Men laying with other men was considered one of the impure things people should not do. (Romans 1:26)', \"The Catholic church teaches that homosexual people are completely fine. What it's against is acting on those urges for reasons that /u/DisnEyLICIOUS has stated.\", '\"Homosexuality\" as a sexual orientation is an extremely modern concept. Ancients couldn\\'t even imagine such a thing.\\n\\nWhat they had in Roman/Greek times was active gay sex, and passive gay sex. These weren\\'t considered sexual orientations, just things people did. Taking active role and penetrating other men was fine, as long as they were your inferiors - so older men fucking teenagers, or slaveowners fucking male bed slaves, or people in general fucking male prostitutes, that was within realm of acceptability, even if not something society was particularly fond of (Greeks were more fine with it than Romans). These men were still all expected to get a wife, make babies, and continue the family, no exceptions.\\n\\nBeing penetrated on the other hand, that was seen as extremely shameful - it was almost as bad as being a woman (and these people were serious misogynists)! It was OK if you were a teenager, and you let some older men fuck you, but you were expected to stop that once you reached maturity, get a wife etc.\\n\\nAnd either way, under no circumstances did that relieve you of obligation of having a wife, making babies, and continuing the society.\\n\\n1st/2nd century Christians did not really approve of this kind of extramarital sexual activity. Remember, there were no \"homosexuals\", everybody was universally expected to have a wife and make babies eventually, so all this extra sex on the side, gay or not, was really frowned upon, and it didn\\'t have a terribly high status in Roman society in the first place. Christians also didn\\'t like affairs, divorces, prostitution, and generally expected themselves to hold to a much higher moral standards than an average non-Christian.\\n\\nPretty much the only thing Christians changed about sexuality was that Christians considered it acceptable and even praiseworthy to go celibate (if you could and wanted such thing, not marrying only to fuck people anyway was not considered acceptable), something that most ancients would consider highly antisocial and borderline treasonous.\\n\\nAnyway, fast forward two thousand years, people come up with an idea that \"homosexuality\" is a sexual orientation, and people who identify as \"homosexual\" not only want to have some gay sex on the side (as if that wasn\\'t bad enough), but they want to have gay sex exclusively, and not even have any babies! That\\'s pretty shocking to this traditionalist worldview.\\n\\nI could quote you some of Paul\\'s letters here, but they don\\'t really explain that, they just assume this ancient worldview since everybody already knew that.\\n\\ntl;dr sexuality is culturally determined']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Original_sin'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 342, "q_id": "4ctojv", "title": "What kind of Islam was Malcolm X apart of? Can you explain how it differs from popular Islam in the middle east if it differs at all?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ctojv/what_kind_of_islam_was_malcolm_x_apart_of_can_you/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d1ljki0'], 'score': [48], 'text': ['Much of this can be found in The Autobiography Of Malcom X, as told to Alex Haley.  However there have been allegations that this book has fabrications and is not historically accurate, or even exactly an \"auto\"-biography.\\n\\nIn the main part of his career, Malcolm X was a member of the Nation of Islam, and a follower of Elijah Muhammad.  Elijah Muhammad was also the mentor of Muhammad Ali and Louis Farrakhan.  The Nation of Islam was originally founded by Wallace Fard in the 1930\\'s.  Although the group grew quickly, there were early controversies, including apparently acts of human sacrifice committed by members.  Human sacrifice, of course, is not condoned by Islam.  Fard disappeared in 1934 without a trace (some speculate he was assassinated), and Elijah Muhammad (formerly Elijah Poole) assumed the leadership.   \\n\\nThe group had many earmarks of what today would be known as a \\'cult\\'.  That is, a fanatical group who is controlled by a leader who claims to have supernatural powers.  Elijah Muhammad claimed that Wallace Fard was Allah Himself.  This of course would be considered blasphemy by mainstream Islamic groups.  Elijah Muhammad taught that the White \\'race\\' are devils, and that persons of African descent should separate from whites.  The Nation of Islam was an explicitly racist group and the separation of races was a main aspect of their teachings.  This is not a mainstream tenant of Islam - a fact that Malcolm X said that he discovered during his Haj to Mecca where he saw persons of all races worshiping together.  Malcolm X also stated that he observed that Elijah Muhammad was having extramarital affairs with young women in the group (and having children out of wedlock by them) - which violated Elijah Muhammad\\'s own teachings and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.  \\n\\nMalcolm X publicly left the Nation of Islam in 1964.  He worked with Halley on the \\'autobiography\\' as a way to explain his own beliefs and why he left the Nation of Islam.  He was publicly assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam within a year of his leaving that group.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 174, "q_id": "2umsnl", "title": "how come people don't borrow from low-interest rate countries like japan and deposit it in high-interest rate countries like argentina?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2umsnl/eli5how_come_people_dont_borrow_from_lowinterest/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['co9rgm3', 'co9t69c', 'co9vn84', 'co9w480', 'co9y9wt', 'coa2uw7', 'coag9yr'], 'score': [28, 5, 2, 2, 131, 11, 2], 'text': [\"First, because argentina is high risk because they've previously defaulted on their loans (twice if I'm not mistaken) which means everyone who invested there lost a lot of money.\\n\\nSecond, Japan being low rate doesn't mean they loan money to you at low rates, it means they pay you low rates when you loan money to them.\\n\\nJapan though (or the US) could take a loan from you at a low rate and loan it to argentina, but that's risky (which is why argentina offers a higher rate in the first place).\", \"Let me write a longer drawn out question /explanation, as it sounds like you're confused from your other responses.\\n\\nScenario: You have 0, but you have a good credit score, so you apply for a Line of Credit in Japan (ignoring all regulations and rules), and are approved for a loan of 100,000 yen. (Roughly 850 USD).\\n\\nWhat's important to note here is the posted interest rates. I couldn't find a lot of data on Japan, but it looks like their posted interest rate is 0.1%. This is for huge dollar value loans. Everyday citizens don't qualify for this. Your line of credit with BoJ is probably going to be around 3-4%.\\n\\nSo you take your 100,000 yen, and convert it to Argentinian Pesos. The conversion rate I could find was  1 JPY = 0.0736139 ARS. Again, this is for huge currency conversions from bank to bank. Your rate will undoubtedly be much worse. \\n\\nEven if we gave you the perfect conversion rate (which you will not get), you would need to open either some kind of savings account or an investment account to deposit your ~7,000 Argentinian Pesos in. To make money with your plan, you would need  to have a rate of return that is much higher than the 3-4% the BoJ is charging you. Remember that even though the bank of argentina is saying 7%, joe schmoe is going to get much less on his savings account than that.\\n\\nRemember that every month the BoJ is going to want an interest payment on it's loan. That's ~3000 yen / 220 pesos every month. If you can find a savings account that pays 7% interest (again, not likely), you'll be bringing in a cool ~490 pesos a month. Congrats! You're making money!\\n\\nThe biggest downside to all this is the fees. You're going to get dinged on conversion fees when you convert pesos  >  yen every month. You're also going to have to pay a fee to wire the funds from Argentina to Japan (at least $15-$30 USD, or ~130 pesos). Unless you want to travel back and forth in person...\\n\\nFinally, we're assuming that all currencies remain exactly the same forever. If the Pesos go down, or the yen goes up, or interest rates change at all in either country, your plan could go to hell quickly. This is all assuming of course that Argentina doesn't default on their loans again (as per /u/Mason11987)\\n\", 'It might be easier to short Japanese debt and use the proceeds to buy Argentine  debt. You would still need considerable assets to try this and it is highly speculative. ', \"I am sure that people do...but the concept is far more risky than what you're implying. Currency rate fluctuation would have a much greater effect on your final profit/loss than the difference in interest rates.\\n\\nI've actually thought about doing this sort of thing before, since I live in Mexico but am from the US. At times when the US dollar is exceptionally high (like now) it could (could being the operative word here) pay off to borrow a large sum of money, throw it into a high-paying certificate of deposit (it is easy to get a guaranteed, gov't insured 5% here in Mexico), wait a year and see what it's worth (assuming a simultaneous drop in the value of the dollar).\\n\\nIn the end, though, when you run the numbers, your maximum profit, even if you were to borrow like 20 grand, just isn't all that great, particularly when you look at the ratio of risk to reward. We're better off looking for another customer for our [resort](_URL_0_) :)\", \"Victor, this occurs regularly, although it is difficult for individual investors to do.\\n\\nThe trade you are discussing has happened in the past, and is likely happening today. In finance parlance, this is known as a carry trade. The best known carry trade was in the 90's, going short (selling, or owing) the Japanese yen and going long (buying, or owning) the US dollar.\\n\\nThe key to the carry trade is exactly what you described. It is not simply a matter of being short one currency and long another, but it is being short one currency and long another with a view towards profiting off of the interest rate differentials. \\n\\nIn the JPY/USD example, you would be selling JPY that had interest rates of near 0% and buying the USD with interest rates of near 5%. So, you are paying a near 0% interest rate per year towards people you owed JPY, but receiving a 5% interest rate per year from your ownership of USD. If, on a relative basis, the JPY appreciates (gets more expensive) by 5% or more per year, you would lose money as this would wipe out your gains from the interest rate differential. If the currency moves the other way, with JPY getting cheaper relative to USD, you could stand to make a lot of money this way. If the currencies remain flat, on a relative basis, you would be pocketing the 5% per year interest rate differential.\\n\\nOne of the reasons this is hard for individuals to do is that you are unlikely able to borrow at headline interest rates unless you have sizable banking relationships. In addition, there are numerous risks, including currency exchange rate movements (one currency getting cheaper or more expensive relative to the other), interest rate changes (thus removing the positive interest rate differential you are gaining), among others.\", \"Everybody's missing the most important explanation.\\n\\nIt's all about the relationship between inflation and interest rates.\\n\\nYou can borrow at 2% from Japan, invest at 12% in Argentina, resulting in a **nominal** interest rate of 10%.  But if inflation is 0% in Japan, but 10% in Argentina, then your gains are going to be wiped out by the decreasing value of the Argentine Peso *as compared to* the Japanese Yen.  And after adjusting for inflation, your 10% nominal becomes a 0% **real** interest rate.\", 'i did this,  :)  using the OANDA foreign currency platform.\\n\\nhigh interest rate is high inflation\\n\\nlow interest rate low inflation\\n\\ni was getting 23% monthly interest. \\n\\nhow ever due to inflation and such i was losing 30% \\n\\nit sounds like a good idea but it did not work out for me!  do not do any foreign currency trading! that is my best advice i can give anyone']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://geckorockresort.com/'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2080, "q_id": "6zyeor", "title": "is vaping unhealthy? ive read different articles, some that says it might be bad, and some that says its harmless.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zyeor/eli5_is_vaping_unhealthy_ive_read_different/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dmyzisv', 'dmyzzde', 'dmz05b9', 'dmz13w6', 'dmz3o2b', 'dmz6up8', 'dmz7faz', 'dmz7gdj', 'dmz7sev', 'dmz8ztf', 'dmz95ow', 'dmz9kjp', 'dmza9u4', 'dmzabv1', 'dmzayrf', 'dmzazpu', 'dmzbc07', 'dmzcejs', 'dmzcpws', 'dmzcpz0', 'dmzd07s', 'dmzd2pe', 'dmzdfm6', 'dmzdysi'], 'score': [3, 9, 157, 2041, 27, 3, 3, 94, 10, 562, 5, 81, 132, 3, 2, 4, 3, 3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2], 'text': ['Is popcorn lung a real thing or did Facebook make that up? Because that sounded pretty not good.', \"It probably isn't great. It is likely worse than not smoking anything, but is much better than smoking actual smoke. Unfortunately it hasn't been around long enough for there to be enough evidence to be definitive.\", 'It\\'s not harmless.\\n\\nIt\\'s significantly *less* harmful than smoking, but most e-liquids contain nicotine, which has harmful effects of its own, and many contain at least some carcinogens (that\\'s \"things that cause cancer\", this being ELI5).  That\\'s just to *start* with; there are other reasons it\\'s not good for your health.\\n\\nThe long-term effects are unknown, so no major effects have been established, but that\\'s not the same thing as an *absence* of major effects having been established.', \"The issue with vaping is that it is a relatively new way to use nicotine. It took decades of research and observation to identify the adverse health effects to chronic users of other tobacco products, and it will likely take a similar amount of time to confidently identify any problems that arise with e-cigarette use. That said, e-cigarettes do not contain the same harmful ingredients as cigarettes, which probably makes them safer, although I can't say how much.\\n\\nThere have been some studies that show using e-cigarettes increases your risk of developing respiratory symptoms such as coughing or increased phlegm production. It is possible that it could increase your risk for heart disease, although that risk seems to be hypothetical at the moment.\\n\\nAs far as cancer goes, while many of the carcinogens found in cigarettes are much lower in e-cigarettes, propylene glycol and glycerol (the main components in the liquid cartridge) both break down into several potential carcinogens. I can't say whether this makes lung cancer/disease more or less likely, however.\\n\\nAnd of course, nicotine abuse is bad for your cardiovascular system. That has not changed.\\n\\nTLDR; it's up in the air. The general consensus seems to be it is likely safer than cigarettes, however it's possible that there could be some bad stuff in the vapor. If there are negative health consequences, we won't really find out until people start getting sick, unfortunately.\", '[Serious]: So how does that work for cannabis which is vaporized fresh using convection heat?', '[This](_URL_0_) is worth a watch.  Not the whole picture, but definitely some good basic science here, and just a straightforward display of how some information is getting skewed when it comes to vaping.', 'Nobody ever talks about teeth in the middle of all this?\\nIs vaping better for my teeth?', 'I used to work for an e-cig company working for a friend. He made millions when it first became a big hit (here in Canada) 6-8 years ago. My job was to make the juices, i.e. liquids that go into the devices. I was labels as an \"E-Liquid Engineer\". It kind of made me laugh, and it was then I realised sometimes the words \"professional\" and \"highly trained\" gets thrown around more often then it should. \\n\\nEssentially, what I was tasked with doing was mixing the core ingredients of the chemicals. There are two main ingredients, PG (Propylene Glycol) and VG (Vegetable Glycerine). Depending on the type of vape you want, be it more cloud, or smoother vape, etc. you would change how much of each of those main parts go into the mixture. \\n\\nPeople normally want a flavour to go along with the vape. I would add from a variety of flavours to the concoction. These flavours would range from something sweet, to fruity, to ones that taste like normal cigarettes. Most of the flavourings were harmless in their own, with most being simple flavour shots you could get at grocery stores or bulk barns. Others were concentrates mixed with a few other harmless ingredients. \\n\\nThe last ingredient was the nicotine. It wasn\\'t mandatory to have nicotine added to the bottle. There are many different \"strengths\" you can purchase, ranging from zero nicotine, to an extremely large amount (sometimes more then a regular cigarette). As others have mentioned, the nicotine is certainly a harmful chemical, and the vapes with in included should not be deemed \"healthy\". However, without that included, most vapes are relatively harmless. Of course what\\'s even healthier then ingesting the PG and VG would be not vaping at all. \\n\\nI worked there for a couple of years, and I never vaped. I never smoked, so I felt no need to. It was a little odd being the only non-vaper, because vaping becomes a lifestyle of sorts. It\\'s something a lot of people who begin vaping reaaaally get into. \\n\\nBottom line though, the nicotine in the is essentially the worst part of vaping. Without that, it\\'s truly not that bad. I mean, eating a Big Mac could probably prove to be worse for you then vaping without nicotine. \\n\\n', \"I'm not going to say it's healthy. Vaping is definitely healiER than smoking a traditional cigarette. Compared to the thousand of chemicals in cigarettes, vape juice has only 4 or 5 (vegetable glycerin; propylene glycol; artificial flavoring; nicotine, if you choose; and some add artificial sweeteners). Not to mention that the wires that are used (kanthol) is the same wire that are used in your toaster. While the PG is one of the ingredients that are found in medical IV's, asthma inhalers, shampoo (a lot of day to day uses). You don't have all the carcinogens because you aren't actually burning anything. Believe it or not, vaping has been around since the 60s, but because of technology only being available to those who had the money to afford it. It's more readily available today because technology is in general. Just keep in mind that anything you put into your body is potentially harmful to you. The biggest point that I always made to people was that vaping is a healthier alternative to smoking. \", \"If we don't read into your question at all, the answer is of course, vaping is unhealthy.  Inhaling any foreign substance is generally going to be unhealthy.\\n\\nIf you're vaping or thinking about vaping just to vape, and not as a smoking cessation method, please don't, it's pretty dumb.  If you insist, at least use zero nicotine juice.\\n\\nAll that said, if you're using vaping to quit smoking cigarettes, that's a different conversation.  I smoked for 25 years and quit the day I got a vape setup.  I vaped for 2 years, slowly lowering my nicotine intake, and then I quit the vape, about a year ago.  It was pretty effortless, although I'll stress that using a vape to quit smoking requires \\n\\n1) a good investment in a quality kit\\n\\n2) another investment in a quality BACKUP kit and accessories so when your batteries are dead or you're out of coils or juice, you're not forced to go buy cigarettes.\\n\\n3) the right amount of nicotine in your juice.  If you're still feeling the need to smoke a cigarette, increase your nicotine.  I started with 18mg/ml, you may need 24mg/ml, or 9mg/ml might sate your craving.  It depends on the person.\\n\\n\\nI felt respiratory improvement after 2 weeks of not smoking.  I certainly felt it in my wallet (vaping is ridiculously cheap compared to smoking), and I even felt it in my personal life, my wife really liked that I didn't smell like smoke.\", \"There haven't been many studies on vaping since it's relatively new. A few weeks ago, Vice featured vaping (in a different context), but cited a federal study which found vaping to be 95% safer than smoking cigarettes. \\n\\nI vape myself. I know it can't be as harmless as breathing fresh air, but it's a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes. My doctor told me he looks at this way: cigarettes are known to have thousands of different chemicals in them, vaping e-liquid has 3 (glycerin, nicotine, natural/artificial flavors). \\n\\nSo, I view it as the *much* lesser of two evils. \\n\\nEdit: here's a [study](_URL_0_) conducted by the U.K.'s health department on vaping.  And a [PDF](_URL_1_) from the Royal College of Physicians, going into detail about the benefits to vaping over cigarettes. \", \"Vaping is unhealthy compared to breathing in fresh air. It's healthy compared to breathing in cigarette smoke. It's healthy compared to inhaling aeresolized fat molecules from a deep fryer. It's all relative OP. \\n\\nThe ELI5 answer is that vaping has not shown any long term health problems for users yet, but that this is still being studied closely. Vaping can help cigarette users quit smoking and it has none of the negative health effects that inhaling cigarette smoke does. People that switch to vaping to quit cigarettes can look forward to similar health levels as non smokers. \\n\\nWhile all of the ingredients in e-juice are approved for human consumption, there may be different health effects inhaling an aerosol of flavorings versus swallowing them. For example soda pop is okay to drink, but if you inhaled it, you would not find it agreeable and it could damage the lining of your lungs. While eating flavorings is healthy, the jury is out on effects of different flavorings on the lungs. \\n\\nA cigarette is consumed by burning it and inhaling the combusted gases, tars, ash, and chemicals released from combustion. Combustion isn't perfect and so a wide range of chemical compounds, many of which cause health problems are released. Vaping is not burning something, it is converting a liquid into an aerosol and inhaling it. This does not significantly change the chemical makeup of the aerosol versus the liquid juice. \\n\\nMore details: \\n\\nThe main materials are vegetable glycerin and polypropylene glycol. Both of these are FDA approved and safe for consumption and have no known health problems inhaling. \\n\\nThe nicotine content varies from 0mg (none) to 24mg (around a cigarette strength). Nicotine is a drug, and in high concentrations it's a poison. This is mainly a concern for people handling 60-100mg/ml laboratory grade nicotine for mixing their own juice, but you wouldn't want a child to get a hold of a bottle of e-juice, or spill it on your shirt and ignore it. \\n\\nThe main point of contention are the flavorings used to make the juice taste good to the user. The majority of these flavorings are USDA approved for human consumption, but the long term study of inhaling them is on-going. Most of the dangers you hear about from vaping products are a class of flavorings known to cause popcorn lung in high concentrations and prolonged exposures. To date there have been no instances of this occurring in any vaper, and the evidence of this occurring outside of factory conditions where workers spent hours a day breathing concentrated diacetyl in are anecdotal. Still though, better safe than sorry, and most vaporizer juice companies avoid these flavorings and volunteer laboratory results of their juice tests. \\n\\n\", \"Source: Former smoker who now vapes, have read some news coverage and some actual scientific coverage.\\n\\nNicotine by itself is not actually all that harmful, its similar to caffeine. No reasonable person will argue that it is not addictive, it clearly is. However, it is well understood that people get addicted to cigarettes because it is a highly efficient nicotine delivery system, but they are killed by the other components in the cigarette.\\n\\nMany of the chemicals in smoke which are known to be harmful come specifically from the combustion. If you were to dry out some lettuce and smoke it, you would inhale many of the same carcinogens. Used properly, vaping does not burn anything - i.e. there is no combustion. \\n\\nHowever, it is possible to 'dry hit' a vape - such as when you forget to refill the tank. This causes the cotton to burn and therefore creates the same types of carcinogens to be produced as in cigarettes. Some studies of vape technology have reported very high levels of formaldehyde, specifically, but examining the materials and methods of these studies shows that they were almost certainly burning the cotton. Therefore, high levels of formaldehyde actually are a good litmus test for the validity of a study. If the levels are too high, they are likely studying older technology and using it improperly. This is not to say the scientists involved are incompetent or doing this deliberately, the technology has improved very significantly in the last few years.\\n\\nPublic Health England [has concluded through scientific study](_URL_0_) that vaping is about 95% less harmful than smoking. This does not mean that vaping is harmless, simply less harmful. \\n\\nWhat is **not** yet known is the long-term effects of vaping. The first e-cig was invented in 2003. There were only a handful of products on the market before the last few years. We have about a century of data on smoking and its long term effects. \\n\\nIs it possible that in fifty years we will learn that vaping was in fact more harmful in the long term? We cannot rule that out, but we have no reason to believe it will happen. However it is known that continuing to smoke will be harmful, so for people like me who have had no success quitting without vaping it is worth a try. We have a choice between something that will definitely kill us, or something that might but more likely won't.\\n\\n**TL,DR:** If you've never smoked, its probably not a good idea to start vaping. If you can quit smoking without vaping, quit smoking. However, many people have been unable to quit smoking without vaping, and reducing harm is better than continuing to smoke.\", 'Well, since there is a lot of misinformation being spread here, let me clear the air.\\nVaping is not harmful, despite the false positive studies.\\nThere are 3 main ingredients in the liquid used for vaping. All three are used in your day to day life whether you vape or not. Propylene Glycol, Vegetable Glycerin, and just about any flavoring. Nicotine, being the fourth ingredient, is optional. Now, with vaping, nothing is burning, so let\\'s get that ignorance out of the way. The liquid is atomizing, not burning. Think of it as the same way a dog machine works. Heated coil, liquid atomizes in to a vapor. With actual studies form credible sources done, vaping has been proven to be 99% safer than smoking and has been 95% effective is smoking cessation and harm reduction. Who is said this, American Lung Association, Royal College of Physicians, American Heart Association, and now even the CDC. \\n\\n The scare tactic of vaping being harmful was a hype train implemented by the tobacco companies who are losing money and are so far behind the market when t comes to vaping that they are scurrying for a way to regain their losses.\\n\\n  Now, to anyone that wants to claim otherwise, throw your questions at me and I can easily answer them. I have experience in the vaping industry and the medical field, so unlike the majority of people buying in to the \"Vaping is as bad as smoking\" hype, I know the reality and the truth behind it.', 'The short answer is we don\\'t really know yet.\\n\\nThe longer answer is it\\'s  question that many people care about significantly from either side, so they really want their conclusion to be upheld.  As a result, many of the \"studies\" cited are biased one way or another.\\n\\nIt\\'s difficult to determine the longterm effects of something like vaping without, well, long enough time to test it.  Once we have better quality tests over longer durations (and done by impartial bodies), we will have a definitive answer to it. \\n', \"Please understand that nicotine is not bad for you unless you take in too much -it can actually kill you. ....kind of like caffeine. Too many energy drinks and you're a gonner. Nicotine is actually used as a stimulant (medication) for certain human diseases. It's also used as a primary ingredient in termite eradication liquids. It frustrates me when people think that Nicotine is the agenda that kills....usually it is NOT the catalyst.\", 'Source disclaimer: Extensive conversations with my mother-in-law, who is a 30-year Mayo Clinic nurse. Not published science. Personal experience. \\n\\nSo, according to my source, while vaping definitely doesn\\'t share the same chemical hazards as cigs, the medical community has most definitely seen an uptick in health related issues that happen to correlate with the newfound popularity of vaping. She says that almost daily..DAILY..they are admitting people with extreme shortness of breath and early signs of COPD. Almost every patient admitted with these symptoms have self identified as habitual vapors. After tests, they have consistently found residual fluid in the lungs of the patients. \\n\\nShe described it as slowly but surely giving yourself \"Pulmonary Edema\" which will eventually lead to chronic COPD. Basically, you are slowly drowning yourself. \\n\\nAs I said, this isn\\'t published science yet, but she says she wouldn\\'t be surprised if in a couple years you START to see published science on the negative health effects of vaping. ', \"The honest truth is that we don't know.\\n\\nAs someone else mentioned, it took years to measure and prove the negative effects of tobacco smoke (all smoke is carcinogenic) and although it seems that most ingredients in e-liquid and vapor (e-vapor is not smoke) are probably not carcinogenic its still not know if they could be harmful in the long term, as vaping is relatively new.\\n\\nAs a best guess it's probably much less harmful than smoking and not likely to cause cancer but might cause other lung/respiratory issues, especially if you're sensitive to that sort of thing. \\n\\nThe dangers of nicotine are also not well know, it seems that nicotine itself is not carcinogenic, but like most drugs it is indeed a poison, but only in very large amounts. It also might promote the growth of tumors but not enough is known to confirm this either. Its addictive effects are well know and because if this it is probably best avoided, although nicotine itself is not the most dangerous part of smoking.    \\n\\nMuch like smoking, its probably not to start of you can avoid it. However if you're curious its most likely a much better alternative than the proven dangers of smoking.\", 'I feel 100x better vaping than smoking cigs. Im not dead yet, and we are all but a blip in the universe..Have some fun while youre here. Take a chance-Colombus did! ', \"The truth is that we don't really know. People are just now starting to hit the 10 year mark with vaping, so it might be 20 more years before we have a definitive answer.\\n\\nThat being said, it almost certainly has to be better than smoking. You'll be hard pressed to find any knowledgeable vaper who will say that vaping is completely harmless. For most of us it's about harm reduction.\\n\\nThe good news is that the legitimate studies support this assumption. Nicotine has passed the AMES test, which looks to see if a substance causes DNA mutations in bacteria, which points to it being a carcinogen. There are also a few more studies that show that it's 95% less harmful than smoking. The only real big unknown out there is the flavorings, but unflavored is an option. \\n\\nThere are a lot of bogus studies out there, though. I remember the big formaldehyde study a few years back had taken the crappy CE4 tanks and fired them at over 5V for 90 seconds. I've built some stupid big coils and I've never gone above 4.3V, plus no human is going to inhale for 90 seconds. Using those test parameters there's no doubt a bunch of garbage was produced (probably from the tank melting).\\n\\nAt the end of the day you have to ask yourself if you're willing to take a risk that some unforseen major illness could be caused by vaping, or are you willing to stay with something that you know is going to kill you. I know the choice was easy for me.  \", 'But can you vape without the nicotine? ', 'There\\'s great documentary by BBC Horizon \u2013 \"E-Cigarettes: Miracle or Menace?\". I urge everyone to watch it.\\n\\nVaping is MUCH healthier than smoking. There\\'s almost immediate health improvement as you switch and it\\'s pretty much no-brainer. BUT you tend to vape more often then you smoke as vaping is easier and more socially acceptable. And nobody really knows about all the flavouring  side effect could have. If you\\'re smoker, switch to vaping as it will improve your health immensely. If you don\\'t smoke - don\\'t touch any of it.', \"For what it's worth, I smoked cigs for about 8 years then switched to vaping for two and a half years. I was diagnosed with cancer on my tongue in june, and had to have half of my tongue cut out and replaced with flesh from my wrist. I used a small pen style vape for about half a year and used a big sub ohm box mod for 2 years.\", 'In terms of healthiness? Smoking  <  Vaping  <  Neither']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxuFSGjZeBg'], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review', 'https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/media/Documents/Nicotine%20without%20smoke.pdf'], [], ['https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 570, "q_id": "4p9ywm", "title": "The diagnosis rate of depression is 6.7% of adults, so why is it as a \"disorder\" if having the condition is not a statistical anomaly?", "selftext": "Is this a problem with our definition of depression? Our diagnosis rate? Why do we refer to depression as being \"abnormal\" when \"normal\" (not depressed) fails 95% confidence?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4p9ywm/the_diagnosis_rate_of_depression_is_67_of_adults/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d4j7xq8', 'd4j86f0', 'd4jax2j', 'd4jcc27', 'd4k2g13'], 'score': [12, 19, 8, 3, 2], 'text': [\"I think you are mixing up confidence levels and incidence rates. 60% of over 60 year olds have a hearing impairment (/disorder), and with a good audiometry test you could be 99.9% confident of this fact.\\n\\nEDIT: What is perhaps more relevant to your underlying line of inquiry are those situations, such as with autism (and perhaps depression also?), where diagnosis rates are increasing year-oh-year, at an almost exponential rate. Is this a change in incident rate? In diagnostic sensitivity? Or, as many people suspect, does it represent a change in criterion level (i.e., policy)? I don't know the answer to this question, personally\", 'Although statistical infrequency is one way to define \"abnormal,\" it isn\\'t the only one. In the case of depression, it is more helpful to define \"abnormal\" as a deviation from an ideal of mental health.', 'Why is it a disorder?  Because the medical definition of disorder is \"A disturbance of function, structure, or both, resulting from a genetic or embryonic failure in development or from exogenous factors such as poison, trauma, or disease.\"\\n\\nThis is completely different idea than a statistical anomaly.  A statistical anomaly occurs when you have defined groups for an event and an event falls outside of all defined groups.  A basic example would be flipping a coin: you have heads and tails groups.  But through a million flips you do a flip an the coin lands and stays on its side.  That would be a statistical anomaly, it is so rare you didn\\'t account for it.  I can\\'t think of an analogy for depression.  \\n\\nBut fundamentally you are misusing (or understanding) the statistical idea of a confidence interval which isn\\'t all that intuitive to begin with. The 95% denotes how confident we were in the procedures used to estimate the rate of occurrence (in other words 95% means we are fairly confident our procedure produced a good estimate of 6.7%).', '\"Abnormal\" is as opposed to \"normal\" as the default state which is often the average just because of statistics, but if 90% of people had depression it would still be a disorder because it\\'s an anomaly in the brain, not an anomaly in statistics. ', 'Statistics play an important role in understanding psychology and they are often used to legitimize the field as a science (as it does for most \"soft\" sciences). So understanding how statistics work is critical in understanding how to interpret findings in psychology.\\n\\nI assume from your usage of the term \"statistical anomaly\" and reference to 95% confidence you are referencing either [p-values](_URL_2_) or [confidence intervals](_URL_0_).\\n\\n\\nConfidence intervals have to do with defining bands of error for estimations of means using standard error of means (SEM). I\\'m pretty certain you didn\\'t mean that though since it wouldn\\'t have much application here.\\n\\n\\np-values are used for describing the characteristics of a sample results \"abnormality,\" in reference to a population. We use this kind of testing to describe (and legitimize) with what degree of confidence we can reject a null hypothesis. A p-value is compared to an alpha that we determine ahead of time and it is of our choosing. alpha < .05 is pretty common but it should be noted that it is completely arbitrary. It is just something we all have decided to agree on. Though it does relate to standard deviations and we set it at 2 sigma much of the time, in educational psychology 1.5 sigma is often used as a standard for deviation in ability vs achievement. Again, pretty arbitrary. In astrophysics 5 sigma is considered a gold standard. \\n\\n\\nSince you reference the incidence of depression in the general population, I think you are making the assumption that there should be a cut-point at 5%. This might be the case in a population that is normally distributed. But psychology defies [normality](_URL_1_) (hah!). \\n\\nWe define disorders in clinical psychology primarily based on criteria (usually symptoms) that we know generally have an impact on functioning. The hit to functioning is a critical aspect to determining whether one has a disorder or not. That level of functioning is also not something that we typically think of as statistically standardized (e.g. in the US we have many more people who are living functional lives vs say in a war torn country like Syria). The standards used in clinical psychology and psychiatry, The [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders,](_URL_4_) (DSM-5) were recently updated. \\n\\nFor purposes of population health and setting policy, standardized measures (using statistics) may be used to set how we go about screening and the costs associated with those screenings. This is relevant when setting a policy with budget implications in a value-based care system. For example if we ID more people with depression we have to pay for their treatment (that costs money) but how much money do we save in the long run in costs we avoid (i.e. hospitalizations, disability claims, etc). These screeners however aren\\'t normally distributed standardized instruments like IQ testing. Instead they produce a positive or a negative result. Are you or aren\\'t you. (Though instruments like the PHQ-9 are regularly used to define a continuum of functioning--that\\'s a separate issue). Screening instruments are tested rigorously using statistics and they generate [response operator characteristic \\\\(ROC\\\\) curves](_URL_5_) which help us figure out a \"cutoff.\" Those cutoffs are ways to figure out [sensitivity and specificity](_URL_3_) numbers. But they are compared against a set of data that is already \"verified.\" Usually we do that using a clinical interview to confirm or disconfirm a diagnosis of depression. That\\'s all done clinically. \\n\\n\\nTL;DR - that\\'s not how we use statistics in psychology since depression isn\\'t something that is normally distributed. \\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity', 'https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1684, "q_id": "7fdqgm", "title": "What distance from the centre of the earth is an object's potential energy the greatest?", "selftext": "[deleted]", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7fdqgm/what_distance_from_the_centre_of_the_earth_is_an/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dqb6q17', 'dqb8zw2', 'dqb9xdw'], 'score': [24, 3, 7], 'text': ['You never stop gaining potential energy from moving away from a massive object. You can calculate the potential energy from moving an \"infinite\" distance away if you want (this is closely related to the concept of \"escape velocity\"). But you\\'ll never *quite* get that much potential energy moving any finite distance.', 'Zero potential energy doesn\u2019t mean zero force.\\n\\nThe place where you\u2019ll have the maximum potential energy, and the place where you\u2019ll have zero potential energy are the same place: infinitely far away from the Earth.\\n\\nWhere you set the zero for the potential energy is arbitrary, but it\u2019s conventionally set to zero at infinity for convenience.\\n\\nSo outside the Earth, the gravitational potential using Newtonian gravity is just \\n\\n\u03c6(r) = -GM/r.\\n\\nIf you maximize this function with respect to r on its domain (0,\u221e), you find that it has no finite maximum, but it\u2019s bounded above by zero, corresponding to r going to infinity.', \"I think the answers already given cover it nicely, but I want to add a thought that might be where your confusion lies.\\n\\nIf I move an object away from the earth, it is always gaining potential energy in the earth-object system. However, the universe is full of objects, which means that although you can never fully escape the earth's potential well, you can move far enough away that it is no longer the biggest gravitational effect near you. Let's say you move towards the moon. At some point you would hit a sweet spot where the earth and moon exert equal pulls on you. Here you would be experiencing balanced forces of gravity, so you would be even closer to true weightlessness than before! \\n\\nI leave it to you to go and calculate the exact distance above the earth that this happens at :)\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2509, "q_id": "abdivo", "title": "How do multi-qubit quantum computers not violate entanglement monogamy?", "selftext": "My understanding is that a 10-qubit computer is one that manipulates a system of 10 entangled particles. How does that not violate the monogamy principle?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/abdivo/how_do_multiqubit_quantum_computers_not_violate/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ed1uqby'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"Where do you expect a violation of it? A set of two particles cannot be entangled with a third one if this pair is maximally entangled. It doesn't have to be maximally entangled. Entanglement between more than two particles is routinely done in experiments, e.g. in [GHZ states](_URL_0_).\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberger%E2%80%93Horne%E2%80%93Zeilinger_state']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 878, "q_id": "3pzw6s", "title": "why is hurricane patricia considered a hurricane when its coming from the pacific ocean. wouldn't be regarded as a typhoon? or does it have to due with where it makes landfall?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pzw6s/eli5_why_is_hurricane_patricia_considered_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cwawinn', 'cwawl7w', 'cwaz8ow', 'cwb2hz2', 'cwb3bs7'], 'score': [78, 153, 123, 2, 3], 'text': ['If they originate in the Atlantic or in the eastern Pacific they are hurricanes. If they originate in the western Pacific, they are typhoons. Really, they are all tropical cyclones and the hurricane/typhoon distinction is just cultural fluff.', 'Has to do with Longitudes **Edit** and Agencies. \\n\\nfrom 140\u00b0W longitude to 180\u00b0W longitude the storms are called hurricanes, and they are monitored by the Central Pacific Hurricane Center.\\n\\npast 180\u00b0W in the pacific they are called a typhoon and they are monitored by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center as well as the Japan Meteorological Agency\\n\\n\\n**EDIT** I have no idea where the Cyclone Vs Typhoon split is. Sorry.', '[Here is a map from NOAA that was up on the BBC website.](_URL_0_)\\n\\nAs you can see the main factors is whether the storm is north or south of the equator or west or east of the international dateline with storms in the Indian ocean being mixed in with souther storms.', 'The technical term is \"Tropical Revolving Storm\" however different names exist based on geographic location. ', 'Eastern Pacific, Essentially from Hawaii eastwards, and north of the Equator: Hurricane\\n\\nWest of Hawaii and north of the Equator:Typhoon\\n\\nSouth of the Equator: Cyclone. \\n\\nThough grammatically, if you want to split hairs, anything that revolves in a counterclockwise direction in the Northern hemisphere, or in  the clockwise direction in the southern hemisphere and has a distinct rotation around a clear center of circulation is technically a cyclone. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/cY8Hchx.png'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 266, "q_id": "3tyq0y", "title": "are bugs capable of conceptualizing their dead brethren as a warning of danger? are most animals capable of this?", "selftext": "roommate killed a roach \n\nleft that bitch in the the kitchen under the counters\n\ntold him to clean it up \n\n\"nah, leave it because now others that come by will know this place is dangerous because they see the dead one\" \n\nwhat? \n\nI'm 80% sure that's fucking nonsense\n\nbut that 20 though\n\ncan't make him pick it up until I'm sure\n\nis he a lazy bitch or is this actually possible? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tyq0y/eli5are_bugs_capable_of_conceptualizing_their/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxabpkw', 'cxabq8a', 'cxaenpd', 'cxamvz5', 'cxanwm8', 'cxaq2cp', 'cxaqsio', 'cxar1fm', 'cxasf5a', 'cxawaq2', 'cxaxmbo', 'cxay2t2', 'cxay3ng', 'cxayzfj', 'cxb11j7', 'cxb1gp9', 'cxb1ogn', 'cxb1piz'], 'score': [547, 52, 24, 13, 156, 5, 9, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 8, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Insects don't have the complex brain structure to form concepts. But what can happen is that when some insects die, they release a pheromone that is detected by the rest of their comrade, and they'll come to defend against whatever killed one of their own. Individually they are stupid but as a colony insects are very clever.\\n\\nTL;DR he's a lazy bitch tell him to clean it up\", 'By sight? No. But some insects release certain pheromones when they die violently that are interpreted by their fellow insect species as a warning of danger. Many ants do this, but the effect is the opposite of what your friend would hope for: it calls ants to come fight a perceived enemy.\\n\\nThen there are bugs that scavenge, or are otherwise attracted to death scents. Your friend is probably inviting a lot more insects to come check out a tasty meal than he is warning any away.', \"All I know i that it doesn't work that way with people. If you kill one, many more will come to find out why you did that.\", \"There's an anecdote about a killer whale that killed a shark in such a way as to make all the other sharks in the area leave despite being in food-filled waters.\\n\\nOther than that I got nothing.  He should probably clean it up and stop being such a shit roommate. \\n\\nAlternatively, you could run your own experiment and see if it discourages mailmen.\", \"So, funny story.  When I was a kid, I lived on a farm.  We had a couple dozen peach trees and we had a minor invasion of a green - lady bug looking insect.  They covered the damn trees like a moving green quilt.  Dad tried everything he could think of to get rid of them, to no avail.  Finally, he scooped a couple thousand up in a net and took them inside. \\nStep two was grabbing mom's blender and dumping the bugs inside.\\n\\nStep three was... yes... blending the bugs into a horrible greenish brown milkshake, which he then dumped into a sprayer and proceeded to stink up the entire farm with by spraying them on the trees.\\n\\nIt didn't work and mom was pissed.  She got a new blender though.\", \"Some birds recognize and avoid area's where their dead kin are. Source: Hang a dead crow from a pipe in your garden and the other crows won't fuck you with your plants/seeds/feeders.\", 'Tell your roommate Vlad the Roach Impaler that they will just eat the carcass and multiply.   Clean it up.  ', 'Cockroaches are avid cannibals, and when they have no food they start nibbling on each other even when they are alive. So in the case of cockroaches, a dead roach will not deter other roaches at all. ', \"Not pertaining to OPs question but still a bit on topic...\\n\\nIf insects can't comprehend danger, what makes ants go into a frenzy when they run into a dead ant? \", \"I can offer some anecdotal evidence as a hunter.  I've seen white tail deer, Canadian geese, and ducks of many types come right up to a recently killed animal of the same species and go about their day as normal.  Death is commonplace in the wilderness.\", \"I used to leave out a dead cockroach at my store cause the others would come and eat the corpse\\n\\nDon't think they got the hint...\", 'When you poison roaches with boric acid when the others eat the dead they die, too. Your roommate is confused. ', \"I don't know about insects but I know that sharks can smell their own sharks blood and it repels them.\", 'I have heard this is true for coyotes. If you kill one and leave it near your property or wherever, the others will stay away', 'Crows show aversion to other dead crows. Humans wearing masks have been able to illicit a negative response after holding a dead crow around a flock. ', '100% false.\\n\\nDead roaches bring more roaches to cannibalize the brethren corpse.\\n\\nSource: dumb little brother did the same, ended up waking up to a huge tribe feeding on their fallen.', \"I think in this particular case, roaches will come and eat up the leftover dead roach. So if thats the case, he should really get rid of it and wipe down where it was killed, lest he wishes to attract the roach's hungry brethren.\", 'I can tell you with 100% certainty that its bullshit.\\r\\rSource: Had roaches. Killed hundreds with blowtorch. Still had roaches. I did trap one under a glass and left it to die. Always thought it prolly fucked with their psyche.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2094, "q_id": "3xdsid", "title": "Why does a function converge or diverge?", "selftext": "In my Calculus class we are studying improper integrals. We were given the function f(x) =x-3 and f(x) = x-1/3\n\nThe cube function diverges and the cube root function converges, but why? What happens near 0 at infinity that causes the different behavior?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3xdsid/why_does_a_function_converge_or_diverge/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cy3z0sd'], 'score': [14], 'text': ['It\\'s worded a little weird so I\\'m going to assume that your functions are f(x)=x^(-3) and g(x)=x^(-1/3) and your integral is from 1 to infinity. The integral  of f(x) converges and the integral of g(x) diverges. \\n\\nGenerally, we can look at the integral of F(x)=x^(-s), where s is some positive real number. For what s does this integral converge? The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus shows that the integral of F(x) from x=1 to x=T is going to  be equal (1-T^(1-s))/(s-1). If s > 1, then 1-s < 0 and so T^(1-s) will approach zero as T gets bigger and bigger. So when s > 1, the integral converges to 1/(s-1). When 0 < s < 1, then 1-s > 0 and so T^(1-s) will go to infinity as T gets bigger and bigger. So when 0 < s < 1 the integral diverges. \\n\\nAll of this is simply due to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Power Rule. You can think of this as happening because both the function and it\\'s antiderivative are restricted. Even if the function approaches zero, the antiderivative might not. Said differently, a function that doesn\\'t approach zero can have a derivative that does approach zero. For instance, if you have [f(x)=x^(2/3)](_URL_0_) then it\\'s graph continues to grow, but it grows at slower and slower speeds. This means that the derivative will approach zero even though the function doesn\\'t. So when we try to integrate the derivative, we get something that doesn\\'t converge. \\n\\nAn interesting thing to ask is what happens when s=1? Does the integral of F(x)=1/x from x=1 to infinity converge or diverge? It\\'s right in the middle between these two cases, so what happens? If we try to plug in s=1 into the formula (1-T^(1-s))/(s-1), we\\'ll get 0/0 which is nonsensical. It could be zero, nonzero or infinite. (I tell my calc students that the value of 0/0 is \"You need to do more work\"). A quick application of L\\'Hopital\\'s Rule shows that when s=1 we should have (1-T^(1-s))/(s-1) = log(T) (the natural log of T). This means that as T- > infty, the integral of 1/x from x=1 to T is infinity. \\n\\nIf we look at it, when s > 1 we get a positive power of T and when s < 1 we get a negative power of T. So when s=1 we should get a zeroth power of T. But this is unacceptable because there are other factors, like the s-1 in the denominator, that come into play when s=1. You can then intuitively think of log(T) as an \"infinitesimal power of T\". It\\'s a power of T that is simultaneously bigger than 0 but less than every positive power. If the power of T were zero, then we\\'d get a constant and the integral of F(x) from x=1 to x=T  would be constant, independent of T. But this can\\'t be, so the integral must be some nonzero power of T that is neither positive or negative, so it is an infinitesimal power of T, log(T).\\n\\nThis intuition fits into things kinda nicely. What is, for instance, the integral of 1/(xlogx) from 1 to infinity? It still diverges because logx is kinda like an infinitesimal power of x and so xlogx is only infinitesimally bigger than a power of 1, not large enough to get into the s > 1 range. But this intuition isn\\'t exact, it\\'s just a good way to understand how logx grows and why/how it fits into the power rules of differentiation and integration.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E%282%2F3%29']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 80, "q_id": "4yp3s6", "title": "why do car companies make insanely cool concept cars and then when the cars are released to market, they look like regular old cars?", "selftext": "Why not produce the cool looking car? And if you don't end up producing it, why even create it in the first place?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yp3s6/eli5_why_do_car_companies_make_insanely_cool/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d6pehtw', 'd6pejsm', 'd6pf8bv', 'd6pfc15', 'd6pl8hd', 'd6plf8j', 'd6plrgf', 'd6pnuqt'], 'score': [2, 52, 16, 7, 2, 14, 6, 2], 'text': [\"It is not necessary that if you create a concept it will come in the market. Concepts are ways to test different types of Technology's and their limits. \", \"Concept cars are usually hand-built. They often don't meet all the regulatory requirements for things like safety features and they may not even have engines if they're only going to be displayed at an indoor show.\\n\\nThe purpose is to build hype for a future model and/or show off some new technology or styling feature. The final production model, if there is one, will usually include a few elements from the concept. \", \"Have you ever seen video/photos of a fashion show and the clothing looks totally ridiculous? That's because fashion shows are for fashion insiders, but consumers, as a whole, don't want to buy something that deviates too much from normal. \\n\\nAuto designs are like that. The car companies don't want to change designs too radically for fear it will hurt sales. \", \"There have been a couple of unusual-looking concept cars that eventually hit the market, like the Plymouth Prowler and Chrysler PT Cruiser.\\n\\nBut I think car manufacturers are reluctant to make anything too radically different from the average car. Car designs change over time, but very gradually. Like if you put a 2016 model next to a 2015 or 2014, there's not much difference. But it's very different compared to a 1986 or 1976. Cars that look too different all of a sudden may not sell as well.\", 'Price. With a concept car its art, with the product its business. The company has a box of parts, and adding anything new is expensive. So you end up with rehashes of the same thing with just a different cheap plastic bumper put on it.', \"There's a good reason that all cars look pretty much the same; after decades of refinement, the engineering behind cars has largely coalesced into a set of common features and designs that are simply the best and most liked by consumers. Combine that with restrictions around safety regulations, and you end up with pretty much all cars being pretty much the same.\", 'Concept cars are like a car fashion show.\\n\\nThey basically are saying \"forget about cost and practicality, let\\'s make something cool and innovative.\"\\n\\nOnce thing have completed this expensive exercise in creativity, they see what ideas can be incorporated into their regular line up. ', \"Car buyers generally don't like drastic change year to year. So the futuristic Mustang would likely not sell to those buyers who purchase Mustangs every two years.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 389, "q_id": "6c2xac", "title": "why are women athlete outfits far more revealing than those of men?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c2xac/eli5_why_are_women_athlete_outfits_far_more/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dhrgdcd', 'dhri96f', 'dhriwyi', 'dhrjoz1', 'dhrkmkr', 'dhrlxb1'], 'score': [57, 7, 16, 44, 17, 4], 'text': [\"Some of it is probably the sexualization of women, but some of it is just what the athletes find acceptable and comfortable. \\n\\nMany women already wear tight/ form fitting clothes in their daily lives. Few men do. So it would be unusual for that to flip when it comes to athletic wear. Women commonly wear short shorts. Guys commonly wear baggier shorts. So it's not a surprise that women feel comfortable with short shorts/ tights in athletics. It would be weird if a guy started wearing short tights when he only wears longer, more baggy clothes outside of sport. \", \"Bikini Rugby sounds like a fake sport designed for cheap thrills.  Women's basketball uniforms are about as revealing as men's (not very).  Swimsuits?  Ski/skating wear?  \", \"There's a few sports that play up sexier outfits for women, like tennis, beach volleyball and others.  Even in those, it's function over form.  But if you've got a great body, what's wrong with showing it off? Especially if it gets some sponsorship dollars.  \\n\\nConversely, when men's sports apparel is more revealing than women's, such as in boxing and swimming, it never gets mentioned.  But I know women (and quite a few men) are looking at them.\", \"The question should be. Why aren't men's athlete outfits as revealing as women's? I want to feel comfortable with my cock and balls enveloped in latex, not wrapped up like pigs in blankets.\", \"As a woman I hate t shirts when exercising. I buy tank tops. They are much cooler. And tight clothes is better for running as it doesn't move around as much. Guys who want less matterial in their shirt just go shirtless.\", \"[Are](_URL_1_) [they](_URL_0_) really, though?\\n\\nTBH it probably has more to do with what is socially acceptable than anything else. I'm sure a guy would be free to wear clothing similar to a girl, like extremely short shorts and a crop top, or a full bathing suit, but he won't because it's not normal right now. \\n\\nFYI, in reference to the Olympics, it used to be men only and everyone would compete naked. Even the audience was naked to make sure no women came to see it, because no women were allowed... and it was fine cause that was what was socially acceptable at the time. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/04/article-0-145F794B000005DC-630_306x511.jpg', 'https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/88/dc/b9/88dcb954f651e5457fcc3e86f3afa93e.jpg']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 447, "q_id": "26mf5r", "title": "why is hand-made stuff \"better\" than machine-made stuff?", "selftext": "A lot of high end suits and shoes brag that they're hand-made. Why is this better than machine-made, where the machine will do things precisely, while the man making it could make mistakes?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26mf5r/eli5_why_is_handmade_stuff_better_than/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['chsdkk0', 'chsdl4g', 'chseoih', 'chset8v', 'chshcr3', 'chshtg5', 'chsi3xp', 'chsibe2', 'chsij26', 'chsk4ka', 'chskdgj'], 'score': [8, 5, 97, 4, 67, 3, 4, 3, 3, 13, 2], 'text': [\"hand made gets you exactly what you want usually at a higher quality since they aren't constrained by producing as cheap as possible.\", \"I suppose it depends on who is doing the hand making. If he or she is a master craftsman, then he could add unique touches to each widget that a machine doesn't have the creative intuition for.\", \"Machine-made generally means something that's designed for mass manufacturing. There are shortcuts in the design, because it has to be efficient to manufacture in quantity. The materials involved also have to be suitable for mass manufacturing and, ideally, inexpensive.\\n\\nA good craftsman can do much better work. This involves skill, time, and generally better materials, because there's no point in wasting skill and time on inferior work.\", 'Because for some processes, the cost of building a machine to do the job is very high. And for some products, it\\'s not economical to build such a machine because it will never pay for itself.\\n\\nHumans may not be very precise, but we\\'re very flexible. You train a person to do a job, and they can generalise those skills to do a vast number of similar jobs.\\n\\nFor this reason, lots of things are hand-assembled even if they aren\\'t \"handmade\". At the moment, it\\'s cheaper to hand assemble an iPhone in China than it is to design and build a robot factory to do the same job. Also consider that new models are introduced annually, so your machine either needs to be as adaptable as a human or you\\'re going to be building a new factory every year.\\n\\nAs noted by other posters, this is particularly evident for limited-run or bespoke items, where a machine would have to save a lot of money per item to make it worth building in the first place.\\n\\nIn other cases, it\\'s because a human really can do a better job. Take fashion. It\\'s possible to make a shirt which is entirely machine-stitched (ie. where no human needed to pick up a needle). But certain details are better when done by hand. A machine can easily lay down a perfectly even stitch, but that doesn\\'t make it the best way to sew on a sleeve. A human tailor can adjust the tension stitch by stitch to make everything sit perfectly. It\\'s impractical to give a machine the sensory and manipulatory apparatus to replicate the feat.\\n\\nOf course, in the case of some premium goods, it doesn\\'t need to be \"better\". It just needs to be marketed as better.', \"Hand-made isn't necessarily better than machine-made. Which is better depends on the materials used, the precision required, the attention to detail required, and the overall design. It also depends on the person making it. Shoes handmade by me aren't going to be very good. \\n\\nWhen something is advertised as being hand-made it is usually because it is something that can benefit from attention to detail and a certain amount of artistry. The person making it by hand can check the quality of each bit of material as it is used and ensure that everything fits together absolutely perfectly. \\n\\nImagine a machine programmed to make sushi. It will not distinguish between slightly fattier pieces of fish, it will not account for the stickiness of the rice, it will not know how long to massage the octopus (instead it will use a pre-determined average ideal time), it will simply do the same thing over and over, without adjustment. This might give you pretty good sushi, but it can't give you great sushi. \\n\\nOther tasks are ideally suited to a machine. If I want to make precise, standardized cuts of wood, a machine will do it faster and better than an excellent carpenter. The resulting wood will then be sorted by a human expert based on grade, but the cutting itself is best done by machine with human supervision. \", 'I build and repair stringed instruments and can tell you that having a set of very critical eyes on every step of production will give you a better result. From materials selected to placing the item in a box when finished, there is no substitute. \\n\\nHere is my favorite example:\\n\\n A shop that I do repair for had the same version of guitar from five different manufacturers. Each guitar featured the same woods, the same shape and style. It was the best way to actually compare the brands against each other. Three of the guitars were made by small companies that build by hand: Huss  &  Dalton, Santa Cruz, and Collings; respectively. Two guitars we \"factory\" guitars, meaning that there is considerably less hand working involved: Martin, and Taylor. If you have experience with guitars, you recognize the names Martin and Taylor, no doubt. We put the guitars in a circle and each employee sat and played them one by one, each coming to their own conclusion. There were no outliers. The Martin and Taylor were dismissed by even the most hardcore Martin/Taylor fans. This became far more evident down the road when the store was unable to sell any Martin guitars that were even hung next to the other brands on the wall. \\n\\nThe the difference was the handmade aspect. ', \"It's more personal and seen as higher quality. Someone spent their time making it by hand instead of just pushing a button and letting a machine do it.\\n\\nIt can also be more creative since they can make each one unique with a different design, unlike a machine most of the time.\", 'Manufacturing Engineer here.\\n\\nI think the largest reason for the distinction actually comes from the idea of tolerances.  \"Machine made\", as many pointed out here, tends to be something that is mass manufactured.  Every component of a process and assembly has tolerances, and these tolerances lead to less than perfect fits.  \\n\\nHowever, \"handmade\" pieces are done one at a time, usually by one person.  This allows for custom fits between things and much more detail being paid to make the parts perfect. \\n\\n', \"Handmade clothing is better because it is tailored to your measurements. Off-the-rack clothes can be altered but it's not the same. Quality of materials is entirely variable. My mother had a gown made up for my brother's wedding. The fabric she chose wasn't any better than the fabric in the off-the-rack gown that I rented.\", 'First, it isn\\'t always.  I wouldn\\'t buy a hand-made CPU regardless of the craftsmen\\'s skill.\\n\\nSecond, there is an aspect of tradition.  We grow up with the association that handmade necessarily means higher quality because that\\'s what we\\'re told.  The higher price reinforces the association with quality.\\n\\nThird, there is an element of chance which is absent from machine manufacturing.  When I buy a Coke, it tastes the same no matter what.  This strengthens the value of the brand, but it has the side-effect of eliminating the uniqueness and individuality of the product.  When I drink I Coke, I don\\'t think \"wow, that was a particularly special coke!\"  But, if I buy a hand-made knife, the knife is uniquely mine, and I can appreciate the qualities that distinguish it from mass-produced knives and from other hand made knives.\\n\\nFourth, you could argue that part of it is conspicuous consumption.  In some social settings, wearing or owning hand-made goods yields social dividends, increasing their perceived value.\\n\\nFifth, for some products, hand-made can actually be better.  This is less true now because machines have improved substantially, but some particularly intricate items, such as artwork, may require an active intelligence to be involved throughout the entire process to a degree absent from the assembly line.', 'You could go back to Marx\\'s theory of added value, which IIRC, states that all the work put into a thing increases the value of the thing by some amount. So unconsciously we might see a handmade shoe, for example, and say \"Oh wow someone spent hours and hours working on this shoe, it meant something to them! I will pay a high price.\" But if we see a factory-made shoe, for one thing it is not unique, as the handmade shoe is, but also there is no connection to another human inherent in the shoe itself. So we just say, \"Eh, just like every other shoe, it\\'s not worth as much.\"']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1943, "q_id": "1d2wno", "title": "How did they decide where to land on the moon?", "selftext": "I'm looking at [this](_URL_0_) map and most of the landing seem to be around the equator", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1d2wno/how_did_they_decide_where_to_land_on_the_moon/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c9md4d6', 'c9md7yt', 'c9me5s9'], 'score': [25, 65, 6], 'text': ['Let me preface my answer by saying that my practical knowledge is based entirely on kerbal space program (an amaaaazing space simulator with a kickass free demo), but also that the principals are interchangeable with real life..\\n\\nThe main reason most of the landings were around the \"equator\" is simply that that was the easiest region to reach. When you are sending heavy equipment to the moon, you need to be using the most efficient route possible to reduce fuel consumption, which in turn would require extra thrust.\\n\\nTo do this, the route you take to the moon has to be as efficient as possible, with the highest chance of success. This means for one thing, burning fuel as low as possible inside gravity wells, but more importantly, approaching the moon on the plane of its orbit. (simpler version from astronaut\\'s perspective - Approaching it flat, to either side, rather than climbing or descending above/below it.)\\n\\nBecause our moon spins in such a way, the astronauts actually have access to about 5 degrees up or down depending on how patient they are, without expending any extra fuel. This is because our moon doesn\\'t spin exactly on its orbital plane. But to land more than 5 degrees from the \"equator\" requires an extra fuel burn in the moons orbit, which means carrying it all up there in the first place, not impossible, but just complicates the process, and leaves less room for errors. \\n\\nAs for why each specific site was chosen, I can only make the assumption that the exact sites where chosen only once they knew which ones they could reach, and the lateral coordinates were chosen mainly on scientific interest. Hopefully an actual historian will have a source for the desired outcomes of each landing.', \"Howdy.\\n\\nI'm not a NASA historian or Space historian but I am a teacher, and one part of a lesson involved the moon landings.  From NASA I got a teacher's instructive guide which is, according to NASA, accurate information.  (For example, [here](_URL_0_) is one part of the guide.)\\n\\n\\nAccording to the booklet from NASA, the six Apollo neaside landing sites were chosen to explore different geologic terrains.  Apollo 11 landed in basaltic lava, as did Apollo 12; Apollo 14 landed in what was thought to be ejecta from the Imbrium Basin; Apollo 15 in breccia and basalt mare and highlands; Apollo 16 landed in anorthosite and highlands soil; and Apollo 17 landed in an area comprised of mare soil, orange soil, basaltic lava, and anorthosite.\\n\\nThe Lunar and Planetary Institute says that the Apollo 11 landing site was one of three short-listed landing sites and was chosen because it was relatively smooth, with no large hills, cliffs, or deep craters.  It would require less fuel to get to (nearside, near the equator) as well, among some other criteria.  The mare regions near the equator were the best bet.  The Apollo 12 precision landing was done because Apollo 11 landed a few miles beyond its planned target, so Apollo 12 would have a precision landing in order to prove that it could work for future missions.  Its landing site was chosen because the mare region it would land in was younger and of different composition from Apollo 11.\\n\\nLanding sites were still restricted to regions near the equator; prior to Apollo 13's aborted mission, Apollo 14 would have landed in an area to study volcanic deposites, but instead it was retargeted to the Apollo 13 area known as the Fra Mauro formation, which was a convenient marker that divided features geologically older and younger, and there would be easily accessed samples from deep in the moon's crust.\\n\\nApollo 15 was chosen firm because they could sample the rim of the Imbrium Bason along the Appenine Mountains and would allow NAA to explore and study a channel in the mare surface formed volcanically.\\n\\nThe Apollo 16 landing site was chosen because NASA wanted to land at a site in the lunar highlands away from the mare regions, so they chose the Descartes landing site.  This would allow them to sample the Descartes Formation and the Cayley formation, which cover about 11% of the lunar nearside and thus were important to study.\\n\\nApollo 17 which would be the last landing Apollo mission, ended up choosing the Taurus-Littrow Valley.  They wnated to obtain highland material samples and investigate allegedly young, explosive volcanic activity.  This was someone influenced by Apollo 15 photographs which showed that the valley was safe to land in.\", \"Sir Patrick Moore produced detailed maps of the moon's surface which were used by Nasa for planning the landings. It was his detailed research which allowed for potential sites to be initially identified. \\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Moon_landing_map.jpg']", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/58199main_Exploring.The.Moon.pdf'], ['http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10525469']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 70, "q_id": "mcjy1", "title": "Does space-time have viscosity?", "selftext": "[In regards to the Gravity Probe-B Space-Time Experiment](_URL_0_) it appears, to a layman like myself, that space-time acts exactly like a fluid.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mcjy1/does_spacetime_have_viscosity/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2zu6uw', 'c2zugrc', 'c2zu6uw', 'c2zugrc'], 'score': [13, 5, 13, 5], 'text': [\"No; In the viscosity/fluid analogy, satellites would have to experience a net force at all times, slowing them down to some degree no matter which direction they travelled.  Somewhat like the thoroughly debunked [Luminiferous Aether](_URL_0_).\\n\\nA gravity-fluid flowing towards masses doesn't fit either, since acceleration under gravity is inconsistent with this model (no terminal velocity in a vacuum).\", 'There are some theories that model a local space as a kind of superfluid (meaning zero viscosity along with superconductivity) but its only really useful for understanding some of the properties of quantum systems.', \"No; In the viscosity/fluid analogy, satellites would have to experience a net force at all times, slowing them down to some degree no matter which direction they travelled.  Somewhat like the thoroughly debunked [Luminiferous Aether](_URL_0_).\\n\\nA gravity-fluid flowing towards masses doesn't fit either, since acceleration under gravity is inconsistent with this model (no terminal velocity in a vacuum).\", 'There are some theories that model a local space as a kind of superfluid (meaning zero viscosity along with superconductivity) but its only really useful for understanding some of the properties of quantum systems.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/']", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether'], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1794, "q_id": "aja184", "title": "Are bacteria more resistant to UV radiation than eukaryotes?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/aja184/are_bacteria_more_resistant_to_uv_radiation_than/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['eetxi4r', 'eetys2t', 'eeu7tjp'], 'score': [3, 2, 4], 'text': ['I would say the opposite. Eukaryotes have more advanced and complicated mechanisms for correcting their DNA after damage. \\n\\nThere are a ton of controls that go into DNA replication and eukaryotes have a few more controls that would halt replication and repair the DNA if there was damage', 'might this simply be a perception thing due to the fact that the scales and proportionality are too dissimilar to compare as equals.\\n\\nyes, bacteria can survive exposure to mass ratios far above what large organisms can sustain.\\n\\nthe same can be said of their ability to survive drop and impact forces, but we know this is an illusion.', 'From a lethal perspective, I can\\'t really say. However, this is a very interesting evolutionary question. Bacteria are very hard to kill, and some spores will survive high levels of irradiation. Although penetration is an important component of UV resistant, for bacteria the key is on mutation impact. There are 2 ways (maybe more) that UV can kill you. By destroying your cells or burning you. UV is \"citotoxic\" because it causes errors in DNA replication. In general bacteria are much more tolerant to errors in DNA replication the eukaryotes. Contrary to the complexity rationale, complexity is the problem. The more complex an organism is, the more interactions exists between its pieces, you brake one, you brake the whole thing. You can thing of bacteria and viruses even more so as simpler machines. Simpler organisms can withstand much higher mutation rates than complex eukaryotes. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 571, "q_id": "2g11k3", "title": "Did men kiss in 19th century Russia as much as they do in the Brothers Karamazov?", "selftext": "Men both \"embraced warmly and kissed\" and \"exchanged a loving kiss with softened hearts.\" Was this standard behavior at the time and place, or supposed to show the extreme sentimentalism of the character?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2g11k3/did_men_kiss_in_19th_century_russia_as_much_as/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ckewzm3'], 'score': [16], 'text': ['As a follow up question, did this practice come from Western European, mainly French influences upon the nobility? ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1765, "q_id": "39b96y", "title": "how can people like the guy off of 'man v. food' eat loads at a time and still be fairly healthy?", "selftext": "yeah he is slightly obese but pretty good from the looks of things, or is that the camera angles? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39b96y/eli5_how_can_people_like_the_guy_off_of_man_v/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cs1wags', 'cs1wce6', 'cs2cafq', 'cs2ibwp'], 'score': [24, 10, 8, 3], 'text': [\"To be honest he didn't look fairly healthy...he was pretty overweight towards the end of the 2nd season...if you notice now he has other fans do the challenges now too.\", \"My understanding is the reason he's stopped eating like that is because he wasn't healthy.\\n\\nHe followed that show up with a show where he watches other people attempt those feats.\", 'I remember an article about this. He would run his ass off on a treadmill every morning, and the challenge meal would be the only thing he ate that day. Even then, he was still rather heavy, and last I heard the production company was having a hard time getting insurance. Hence the shift to watching other people do the challenges instead of him.\\n\\nThe show ended a couple of years ago now, and he has lost a *lot* of weight since.', 'Unfortunately your question is somewhat malformed. During the shooting of Man v Food, the host was completely unhealthy despite putting in significant effort to work off the weight gained from shooting the show. The host developed sleep apnoea as well as other health issues. After leaving the show he dropped approximately 70 pounds and looks significantly more healthy than he did during taping of the show. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 49, "q_id": "2cr00z", "title": "how is it that, say, lebron james and danny devito are considered to be the same species despite being so physically different, but a brown bear and a black bear are considered to be completely different species despite being so physically similar?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cr00z/eli5_how_is_it_that_say_lebron_james_and_danny/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cji5e5y', 'cji5rpo', 'cji608z', 'cji6i6t', 'cji6nxj', 'cji91hf', 'cji9g76', 'cjiasoi', 'cjiaz7f', 'cjiazck', 'cjibb8z', 'cjibkjo', 'cjibmhe', 'cjiby6r', 'cjic167', 'cjicazf', 'cjiddgv', 'cjide41', 'cjidqxg', 'cjie2ef', 'cjiefk5', 'cjiests', 'cjievk9', 'cjifb4q', 'cjiflyg', 'cjig21f', 'cjig46k', 'cjigbkh', 'cjigynt', 'cjih2kk', 'cjihn1g', 'cjihotd', 'cjihpc3', 'cjihq4p', 'cjii0xa', 'cjii2mz', 'cjii340', 'cjii5nl', 'cjii89p', 'cjiieio', 'cjiifj9', 'cjijqtt', 'cjik18u', 'cjik38d', 'cjikfbw', 'cjiki51', 'cjil4cn', 'cjilon5', 'cjilr64', 'cjim43e', 'cjim55v', 'cjimlw9', 'cjimznx', 'cjinim8', 'cjinktp', 'cjinlft', 'cjinr9b', 'cjio53h', 'cjioe9y', 'cjioptk', 'cjiq6ed', 'cjiqvqt', 'cjir6je', 'cjiraso', 'cjirc0d', 'cjirj3s', 'cjirm0c', 'cjis46v', 'cjisfro', 'cjj48pf'], 'score': [109, 2, 14, 3164, 40, 56, 8, 265, 6, 9, 2, 8, 2, 2, 5, 13, 6, 2, 16, 2, 4, 13, 4, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 2, 3, 3, 7, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 3, 2, 5, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"The simplest test to distinguish species is whether or not they can produce offspring together.  Both Lebron and DeVito would be capable of impregnating a standard human woman so they're the same species.\\n\\nThere's some weird edge cases  &  exceptions but they're not really important for your questions.\", 'Species are defined in reference to a common ancestor and not solely on similarity. In humans the differences in height are not substantial enough to define a different species. The bears are distinguished as separate species a) since all brown bears can potentially reproduce and are isolated from mating with black bear b) they are defined or identified using other traits besides \"color\" (which are shared derived traits according to Biologist). ', 'To be the same species you need to be able to produce fertile offspring. 2 Humans no matter what ethnicity mating can produce fertile offspring. \\nSome species can mate and produce offspring, but their offspring are infertile, such as when a horse and a donkey mate they produce a mule, which is infertile therefore they are different species. \\n', \"Defining species is a tricky and often subjective part of the various scientific disciplines which interact with it.\\n\\nSome will say that the viability of offspring among groups of sexually reproducing organisms is a good test, and it does offer some utility, but it is by no means exhaustive. Polar bears and grizzley bears are a famous example of two types of organisms which are generally considered different species, but which occasionally mate in wild, producing reproductively viable offspring. Mosquitos can become behaviorally different enough that they don't know how to entice mates between groups and they are often considered diferent species despite the reproductive viability of offspring created by human intervention.\\n\\nArchaeological evidence throws in additional wrinkles. Although we generally consider domesticated dogs to all be of the same species, if the only record we had of them were bones (ignoring DNA) we would likely consider great danes to be a completely different species from pugs. This problem rears its head when examining hominids which co-existed as it is difficult to say if these are divergent groups of one species or two separate species; some the scientists involved usually prefer the latter result as it is more prestigeous to discover a new species than just a member of an existing one.\\n\\nNon-sexual reproducers add additional problems as the detectable differences in species has a lot to do with how they look and how they behave around other similar organisms.\\n\\nDNA has added an additional tool which allows us to statistically compare gene differences between two organisms. This has been done to create base-lines of what we already feel are different species and how much their genetics deviate from each other and then we can use this to compare other similar appearing organisms, both those we can observe today and those from the relatively recent past. If they are too similar, it is a strong mark against it being a different species and if they are quite different, it is a strong mark in favor of it.\\n\\nIn the end, the idea of 'species' is only important when it is useful in describing our world. It's useful to differentiate between predators and prey, or the reproductive viability of populations of organisms, or tracking forms of organism through the archaeological record. It is important to recognize that the walls we put up around species are not entirely sound and if we aren't careful we can make mistakes, but in so far that they are useful tools for helping us to grapple with the complexity of the world, they are just fine.\", \"A few people gave pointed out that one of the defining characteristics of a species is the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring.  I'd like to add that the physical differences, from a biological perspective, between Danny Devito and Lebron are pretty minor. Overall body size, skin color being the obvious ones. Take a look at an animal like the angler fish to see how completely different members of the same species can be. As a species humans are actually lacking much genetic diversity.\", \"Well, there are a [few](_URL_0_) different ways to define a species. That list is a little long, so here are the three main definitions, in order of least to most likely to result in defining a new species.\\n\\n* Phenetic: Determined by differences in morphology, aka visual differences, between the individuals.\\n\\n* Biological: Determined by whether or not the individuals are able to produce viable (fertile) offspring.\\n\\n* Phylogenetic: Determined by evolutionary history of traits that may or may not be visible, such as a coloration pattern or the ability to produce a specific protein.\\n\\nThese all have trade-offs, but the biological species concept is the most-used. When you're talking about something like bacteria, however, other species definitions like the phylogenetic concept become much more useful.\", \"There's also a sociological component to your question that can't be ignored. There was historically a time when (white) people did argue that Lebron James' ancestors were essentially a different species from (some) if Danny De Vito's and were treated very differently. There has been a social pressure to move away from that kind of thinking because biologically, mentally, spiritually, etc. Lebron and Danny are similar enough that you can't justify treating them differently as a function of the few ways that they're different. The science of speciation is really interesting but the question you're asking isn't about science but about society.\", 'If Danny had a son and James had a daughter those two could have a child together.  ', 'Shut up deandra\\n\\n', 'Tuned in to this thread to learn things and stuff, pleasantly surprised to not find any racist comments (yet).', 'Well if Lebron and Danny really love eachother. They do a special handshake, and nine months later Arnold comes out. But then Arnold needs to be able to have a special handshake of his own and make babies of his own for Danny and Lebron to be considered  the same species.', \"There are differences between two black bears that we aren't accustomed to notice, just like I'm sure that all humans would look the same to a bear.\", 'Obligatory \"Twins\" joke. I feel old now.', \"There's a lot of different answers in this thread but it looks like what comes out of it is a bit of subjectivity when classifying species and that humans don't necessarily play by the rules when it comes down to classifying themselves. Another big part is the actual similitude between the 2. A lot of species that look similar can actually be quite different : for instance, despite looking the same, black bear and brown bear's common ancestor date from [5 million years ago](_URL_0_) ( almost as big of a difference as the [7 million years that made the split between chimps and us](_URL_1_) ).\\n\\nThere's actually a short [wikipedia page](_URL_2_) going over some debate regarding human classification. Sorry that it's not so much ELI5 but worth checking out if you're really wondering.\", \"To put it simply, it all depends on how you define species. Scientists can't agree on one single definition because most hard definitions end up resulting in humans being considered different species, which is the most politically incorrect thing a scientist could suggest.\\n\\nIf we use genetic similarity, since we already consider chimps and bonobos different species, we'd have to consider humans different species (since the difference between chimps and bonobos is similar to the difference between different human groups).\\n\\nIf we use shape and size and looks, humans come in extremely different forms, enough to warrant calling them different species.\\n\\nSame for social structure.\\n\\nAnd if the test is the fertility test (can they produce fertile offspring?), we have members of different species producing fertile offspring.\\n\\nSo scientists have decided to agree to differentiate species based on what's most acceptable to the fashions of the age. Nazi scientists would say there are different species, others would say we are all the same.\\n\\nPersonally I think the whole argument is foolish. It's all just bickering over a name. The differences are there regardless of what we call the different groups of humans; different sub-species, races, ethnicities or populations of similar genomic structures.\\n\\nWhenever there is a bickering over a name, someone's agenda/politics is being threatened. There is no bickering on whatever the fuck we call the sun or the moon, because nobody gives a shit what you call them. But when it comes to race, some people stand to gain and some people stand to lose (or think they stand to lose), and so all hell breaks lose.\\n\\nAnd the most intelligent among us reserve our right to think whatever the fuck we want, leaving the bickering over names and labels to idiots.\", \"Because if lebron fucked danny's daughter they could make babies that could reproduce. It's the same with a Great Dane and a toy poodle.\", 'May be a bit late to the discussion, but here\\'s my take:\\n\\nThe definition of species takes many different forms, both in biology and in our understanding. The most commonly accepted definition is: Can these two organisms procreate and produce an offspring that can also procreate. (all that matters in biology is sex/babies)\\n\\nThis can be stopped/prevented in two forms, either Pre-zygotic or Post-zygotic methods. Let\\'s go through each one:\\n\\nPre-zygotic (literally meaning *before baby is created in womb*):\\n      These are restrictions such as geographic boundaries (opposite sides of a canyon), mechanical boundaries (that male part doesn\\'t fit in the females), or behavioral differences that will prevent two organisms from even having an opportunity to actually attempt procreation. These will sometimes be overwhelmed in specific circumstances (mostly human interaction), but, if overwhelmed, will, in most cases, result in an \"unviable\" organism. (can\\'t produce another baby, remember what Biology is all about)\\n\\nPost-zygotic (after the baby is *created in womb*):\\n      These are restrictions that arise after the two \"species\" have had sex and created a fetus. Whether it be chromosomal differences, the inability to form gametes, or the fact the subsequent infants become less and less viable. (yes, even if the first set is viable, if the next ones to come aren\\'t, it\\'s also considered unviable. called Hybrid Breakdown.) The point is, this type of speciation is the fact that although reproduction can occur, it does not better the species in itself, and is, because of that, not significant (in terms of biology)\\n\\nThese definitions only arise because they give us as humans at least some way of categorizing all the organisms on earth. Although prizzlies exist and are viable, they are very rare to occur in natural situations, and because of stark differences in \"race,\" are seen as unique. (behavioral, geographical differences).\\n\\nJust like most scenarios in the natural sciences, it\\'s always about perspective. Sometimes it\\'s easier to accept a specific understanding simply because it prevents further confusion and is sufficient in most cases.  \\n', \"Human language, and peoples feelings. \\n\\nThats pretty much it. The laws we write for nature don't apply to us, because someone will always want to make it a negative. And hurt some groups feelings. I'm not saying any race is better. But I'm fairly certain there's no reliable racial studies simply because someone either will end up at the bottom. Or they'll feel like they have. \\n\\nThen you have racism/classism all over again.\", 'Think of it more like dogs. Danny D is a pug. LeBron J is a self centered baby.', \"Beware of relativism inherent in your own species. A wild brown bear would perceive Lebron James and Danny Devito as big and small humans but isn't going to make much more of a distinction on an initial encounter. Put it in a room with a black bear and it will immediately perceive that it is very different to one of its own sloth. The smells and communication techniques will be different enough for it to register as a very different beast.  \\n\\nThis is for the same reason that I was recently plagued by white guilt when I confused two GPs as the same person because they were both of Asian descent. Essentially, the closer you are to a species the easier it is for you to perceive differences. \", \"That's because Lebron and Danny devito could breed and the bears can't. \", \"It's worth noting that polar bears and grizzly bears are a bit more seperated evolutionarily then different ethnicities of human.\\n\\nI believe that it's only about 100,000 years between human ethnicities, yet p. bears and g. bears are closer to 7-10 million.\\n\\nHow two things look and behave can be a poor measure of speciation. \\n\\nBiological species definition (Can they make fertile babies?) is also pretty flawed. It only really works for animals, and even then it's pretty hit and miss (Asexual reproduction, yo! Also plants. Plants are batshit insane). \\n\\nAll in all, I am a bit biased towards phylogenetic evidence! I'd load up some key regions from Lebron and Danny's genome (Why, I have them right here! (Not really)) aswell as some sequences from the p. bear and g. bear and compare them for differences. \\n\\nThe problem here is when do call two things different species? There isn't a set date where after x years two things become different species.\\n\\nSpecies definition all in all is only really useful for a snapshot at one particular timepoint. It serves to make it easier to talk about species, but the concept of a species is a very hard one to solidly define. Too many just break the rules. \\n\\nIn the end of the day, it's kind of whatever we want to label them based off of what's practical. \", 'There are a many contributing factors (this is by no means a complete list):\\n\\n* Taxonomy, the naming of species, is in a process of change from old physiological techniques (bone size and shape, mating habits and viability of offspring etc...) to more recenct DNA techniques.  \\n* Species definitions are not always agreed upon.  \\n* There are major social and cutural ramifications of classifying the human species, especially splitting it up into multiple species.', \"Because James and DeVito are practically identical, and two different species of bear are very different.\\n\\nBecause we are very social creatures, identification of different people is very important to us. This means that our brains focus on differences between people, exaggerating them. But we don't care about differences between bears, so we tend to ignore most of them unless we train ourselves.\", 'Haha, oh man. I had a biology teacher in high school who pointed this out, but instead used the shortest girl in the class and compared her to the tallest, beefiest guy he could find. That teacher also jumped from table to table screaming like a chimp one time. He was awesome.', \"Sounds like OP also listened to Chris Ryan's podcast!\\n\\nedit:\\n\\nAnd you should too. He's the best.\", \"Can't the supermod hire someone from /r/askscience to tight up things around here? I don't want to read someone's shitty jokes.\", \"copied this from the joe rogan podcast, they used Shaquille O'Neil  &  another small actor as a reference\", \"A brown and black bear can't interbreed, but LeBron and Danny can.\", 'Danny DeVito should print out this question and have it framed.', 'A female Danny DeVito and a male Lebron James could mate and produce fertile offspring, the bears could reproduce but the offspring would be sterile.', 'Because Lebron James and Danny DeVito can have a baby together.', 'A better comparison would be a black bear that is very \"athletic\" and really good at hunting, and another black bear that is fat and sits around all day making bad jokes. ', \"A species is a group of animals that can have viable offspring that can also reproduce upon successful breeding. So someone from Mr James's family could have a child with someone from Mr DeVito's family and they would have perfectly healthy children. \\n\\nBut in the known cases of a Black bear / Brown bear hybrid the offspring were sterile and often unhealthy.  \\n\\n_URL_0_\", 'Because brilliant scientists who spent their entire lives watching bears or digging up lizard bones want to have discovered a species all for themselves and not commit suicide because their life is pointless. ', \"I'd presume because the genetic makeup of a brown bear is not the same for a black bear.\\n\\nEven though physical traits (phenotypes) may be similar their genes (genotypes) can be wildly different. Just like how certains flowers, trees, and insects can looks similar, but be completely different species.\", 'There is so much misinformation in this thread! Hopefully you will see this.\\n\\nBiological species concept (aka \"species much produce fertile offspring\" thing everyone is spouting out here) is hugely outdated. The generalized lineage concept is currently accepted by those up-to-date in the field.\\n\\nSure, two individuals of different species *tend* to be unable to produce viable offspring, but this is a property, not the definition of a species. Nowadays, scientists can use statistical methods to delimit species based on divergence date estimated through sequencing DNA. It\\'s not as subjective anymore as most of these people are claiming. Since Lebron James and Danny DeVito\\'s ancestors diverged not too long ago (on a geological time scale) they are absolutely the same species.\\n\\nSee any papers by Kevin de Queiroz. Try this one: _URL_0_', \"Well the species known as human are made up of many sub species such as:\\n\\ncaucasoid (homosapien + neanderthal)\\n\\nnegroid (homosapien)\\n\\nmongoloid and other smaller sub species such as pacific aboriginal etc.etc.\\n\\nit's not racist, it's just science, we are all human but with that there are sub species as well all enjoy different characteristics which are innate. \\n\", \"Lebron James and Danny DeVito can mate (or at least, mate with each others' sisters) to produce probably nonsterile offspring.\", \"Both Lebron and DeVito have the same homologous structures that the rest of humans share with other animals, which also correspond to other species with similar structures. For instance, whales and birds share a similar bones structure where the bird's wing is and where the whale's flipper is, however they don't operate for the same purpose. While Lebron and DeVito may have different sized femurs, they are both used for the same purpose meaning they are most likely the same species.\\n\\nNote: This is just one of the many ways that species can be compared, and it is by no means the most accurate. You can also differentiate species through fossils, DNA testing, interbreeding (many reasons that it won't work), and probably some other ways that I'm forgetting. \", 'The way you ask the question is a little misleading, since you\\'re taking opposite extremes. Lebron James is taller than 99% of men, while Danny Devito is shorter than 99%. When you intentionally take two very different looking people, of course a question like yours will arise. When you look at the averages, though, and ask something like, \"How are Brad Pitt and Tiger Woods considered the same species?\", the answer becomes a little more obvious. ', 'The spaniards BANGED the Mayans and turned them into Mexicans.', 'The same reason a great dane and a toy poodle are the same species.', 'Phenotype is not genotype', 'The difference between those two people is the same difference between blue and brown eyes, or large or small ears. They can breed with members of the same species and produce viable offspring. Bears of different species cannot, their differences are like us and chimps.', 'What about how all dogs are considered the same species? ', \"Danny DeVito and Lebron James aren't as different as you think.  Human brains are hardwired to recognize human faces and notice details that would seem obvious to us, but would be completely unnoticeable to others.  There's a [disorder](_URL_0_) where one cannot recognize faces; their brains aren't hardwired like that.  So, to someone with Prosopagnosia, they just might see Danny DeVito as a short guy and LeBron James as a tall guy, just as you could see in different black bears.  To them, Lebron and Danny would be a lot closer than a black bear and a brown bear.\", \"Well, think of it this way.\\n\\nIt's not like Species are what they are, and that we discovered that fact.  We made the shit up.  We decided, and we could easily undecide it if we wanted to.\", \"Those are exceptions than the rule (your bear example). The 'exception' rule should be considered as important since the tests for species were pretty loose before genetic diversity tests came in.\\n\\nForget about other animals, humans don't have enough genetic diversity to classify different races as different species. That's the scientific reason.\\n\\nPolitical reasons, humans are intellectually evolved to the point where classification of races as species (even if it were scientifically true) would be very controversial and polarizing.\", \"It's all in the biology, they just don't split up humans into seperate species\\n\\nalso, brown bear (Ursus arctos) (genus = Ursus) (species = arctos) is from the same genus as black bear (Ursus americanus), but it's species (americanus (hehehe it says anus) ) is different because members of one certain species can reproduce fertile children, while members of the same genus but different species cannot produce fertile children\\n\\nhumans are all 1 species, because one human can mate with every other human of the opposite sex to produce fertile children (you shouldn't try tho)\\nso to get to your example: Lebron and DeVito can both mate with, lets say, Angelina Joly (but Bratt wouldn't be happy with that) and get a fertile baby (if nothing goes wrong of course).\\n\\nto give you an example:\\ndonkeys can mate with horses (in either way, so male horse + female donkey or male donkey + female horse) which gives you mules, but mules aren't fertile, they can't get children themselves.\\n(horse (Equus ferus caballus) / donkey (Equus africanus asinus) they are same genus, but different species)\\n\\nsource: biology in highschool and a bit of wikipedia (mostly for the right names)\", \"it's a matter of politics\", \"I think their offspring has to be able to reproduce in order to be considered the same species. So we'll only know if Lebron and Danny try to make a baby.\", \"It is worth noting that human brains are particularly good at picking out human differences. They are less good at picking out bear differences.\\n\\nNow I'm not claiming that Lebron James and Danny DeVito are more similar than a black bear and a brown bear, but the bears are almost certainly more different than one would assume from casual observation.\", \"Even species aren't that well defined. People say if two animals can't have an offspring then they are of different species. But one has ring species, where adjacent populations can breed with each other but if two populations are too far away from each other they can not. So species is on a continuum. A great evidence for evolution btw.\", 'Danny Devito already made a documentary about this with Arnold Schwarzenegger called \"Twins\" ', 'Do you mean like a Poodle and a Mastiff?  ', 'Brown bears taking all our jobs. ', 'LeBron James and Danny DeVito should breed.', \"I think different races sub species. We're all houman and we can all reproduce with eachother, but most races are adapted enough to their native ranges that they should be considered sub species. Of course there's the issue that labeling races as sub species would give racists and supremacists something new to mess around with.\", 'I must have stumbled into the \"Explain Like I\\'m a Scientist\" sub-reddit.', 'To refine infocide\\'s response to a degree:  \\nIt all depends on your criteria!  \\nIn fact, even within biology and biochemistry, there are multiple ways to categorize animals. When making general distinctions, there are methods that divide species according to anatomical, reporductive, and genetic differences as pointed out.  \\nHowever, on a day-to-day basis, the same biochemist/biologist, may argue for a relation of two species based on their genomes (DNA), transcriptomes (RNA or expressed genes), or their proteomes (actual proteins manufactured and incorporated in cell structure and function).   \\nPhylogenetic trees (those stickly diagrams that show proposed organisms on various \"branches\" that diverge from common ancestors) are generated by statistical comparison of sequences of DNA, RNA, and proteins. These can all be very different and employed to relate species you wouldn\\'t think are the same at all depending on which aspect of life (or cell function) you are studying/comparing.', 'two organisms are consitered the same species if they can mate and produce fertile offspring, assuming one is male and the other is female', 'Historically \"species\" has been used to mean the largest group that can reproduce to produce fertile offspring. Since all humans can reproduce and produce fertile babies, we are all classified as the same species (Homo sapiens sapiens). ', 'I feel like this question borders on violating the \"not for literal five year olds\" rule. The genetic difference between a short white guy and a tall black guy are extremely tiny compared to the genetic difference between 2 different species of bears. The definition of species is obviously not based on what looks physically similar to an untrained human eye, especially since the human brain is wired to notice small differences between humans.', \"if Lebron James banges Danny DeVito's sister they have the ability to obtain a fertile child. So by definition they are the same species \", \"If Lebron James had sex with a female version of Danny DeVito they could produce a fertile child.  That's what same species means.  If a black bear and brown bear can't produce fully fertile offspring then they're different species.\", \"I've always kind of assumed the various races of humans to be different human species. Is this incorrect?\", 'Haha I was listening to a podcast this morning and for awhile they discussed the same thing. They talked about how if an alien race came to earth and never saw humans before and the first they saw were Shaquille oneal and a white female dwarf they would certainly think they are of a different species. ', \"Because a black bear can't reproduce with a brown bear, yet if you take to very different looking humans, male and female, they can reproduce. Hence, being the same species. \", 'The human race, when comparing to other species, is incredibly un-diverse. Technically, \"race\" is just a social construct and has no genetic backing. People always say \"oh yeah? well skin is different colors and hair is different!\" and blah blah blah. But these very superficial differences may be easy to see, but they actually don\\'t represent much. Pacific Islanders or South Indians have skin colors similar to some Africans, East Asians and Europeans both have lighter skin - the list of superficial similarities is just as long as superficial differences, despite likely differing genetic origin. Everything is just an adaptation, and human populations (to our knowledge) have not experienced natural selection to a great enough degree to create what could scientifically be defined as different \"races\" - let alone different species. In fact, due to multiple founder effects (i.e., genetic diversity decreases as small populations move farther from the original population - that is, as humans migrated away from Africa) if you were to divide humans into what would be closest to genetically defined \"races\" (although I hate using that word because, scientifically, there are no human races), there would be 3-4 races: Two races of entirely African populations, and a 3rd of everyone else. Some human genomics researchers also advocate for a 4th genetic race, which would be constituted of Pacific Islanders and Aboriginal Australians. \\n\\nThere\\'s also the complicated fact that speciation is defined by sexual isolation. But the line between the ability and inability to interbreed is slow to be created, and evolutionarily, could take millions of years (and many generations of isolation, or continued interbreeding where more \"pure\" species members are more fit to survive). Because the line between species can be hard to draw - not only genetically, but physically - ancient humans interbred with \"different species\" of humanoid creatures that lived at the same time, like homo erectus (giggle), Denisovans or what are known as Neanderthals. These \"mixed species\" humans were not mutants, and many survived - we know because of the distinctly Neanderthal, Denisovan and other early humanoid genes that are found within our modern human DNA. Some humans, especially Europeans, are significant portion Neanderthal (fun fact: red hair/\"gingerness\" is a Neanderthal trait! so if you\\'re a Catholic and think only humans have souls...)\\n\\nSAUCE: studied genomic perspectives on human evolution in school so... My professors!\\nedits: clarifying and grammar']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_black_bear#Taxonomy_and_evolution', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursid_hybrid#Brown_bear.2FAmerican_black_bear_hybrids'], [], [], ['http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/879.abstract'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1053, "q_id": "3h8ejt", "title": "why is the tv show \"scrubs\" considered to be one of the most accurate medical themed shows?", "selftext": "I've heard a number of doctors and posts online allude to this.  I'm not in the medical field, though I love the show and was wondering what are some aspects of it that actual doctors so identify with vs. other medical shows out there, despite the fact that it's a comedy?   Is it the bureaucracy the how can poke fun of?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3h8ejt/eli5why_is_the_tv_show_scrubs_considered_to_be/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cu55l1n', 'cu56tqt', 'cu57m2i', 'cu5kact', 'cu5ld2j', 'cu5lzvo', 'cu5pwj5', 'cu5w5g2'], 'score': [37, 237, 29, 27, 10, 6, 3, 3], 'text': [\"Unlike shows such as ER, Grey's Anatomy, or House, Scrubs is a comedy and the actual medicine takes a backseat to the show's content  &  doesn't really have a role in what makes it funny. Those other shows are dramas and much of the drama comes from the doctors working to solve a patients ailment. This focus results in some liberties being taken for the sake of keeping the audience interested.\", 'the bureaucracy is certainly a part, as is the poverty and years of unappreciated effort.  Turk and JD spend ?5? years being poor nobodies who work exceptionally long hours, and then suddenly realizing that they have some autonomy and have to direct themselves, the transition from residents to doctors to senior staff is very well dramatized and really reflects the early career of physicians well.\\n\\nWhen the medicine is demonstrated, it is demonstrated accurately enough, but as brownribbon pointed out, it takes a backseat to the story telling, and so is not defaced in the name of drama.\\n\\nMost of medical practice is office work, not direct patient care, and scrubs captures that well.  It is an office where you stand all day and deal with patients for a hurried few hours, and paper work and personalities all the rest.\\n\\nThe roles of the different people are also very well done.  While taken to comedic extremes, you really see the different functionaries in a hospital and how their roles create conflicts.  Most office shows get this wrong because they don\\'t take it seriously enough to 1 make it consistent, and 2 make it central to the character.  In scrubs the vast majority of the interactions can be explained as, \"it is my job description.\"  And, those job descriptions are real.', 'Reality is humor and tragedy combined. Scrubs very well portrays how humor is often used to cope with the awful things people in the medical field often deal with. Other shows are usually 99% drama, and real life is basically never like this, even with the most serious and morose professions. ', 'Another point is that everyone has their roles. In scrubs, the doctors order stuff and do their procedures. The nurses do theirs and so on. On House, the doctors draw blood, run CT scans, and perform surgery in the same episode. It cuts out extra actors but no doctor is going to do everything from admission to discharge on 1 patient', \"I would describe it as Scrubs portrays Medicine the way The Office portrays the paper business. It's all tertiary to the story.\", 'In addition to what other people have said, Scrubs also highlights common occurrences in hospital like a TV show doing a special on a killer disease and the waiting room immediately filling up with people who are sure they have it, none of whom actually do.', \"Creator Bill Lawrence leaned heavily on his college friend Dr. Jonathan Doris as the inspiration for the show, as well as a technical advisor. Combined with the fact that the show didn't use medical condition or treatments as a main plot device and I think we ended up with a more realistic show. \", '[Green Wing ](_URL_0_) is also pretty good, if you like British comedy.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.channel4.com/programmes/green-wing/on-demand/36484-001']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1423, "q_id": "1hcqk8", "title": "why do banks close at five when most people are just getting off of work? wouldn't it be in their better interest to stay open later?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hcqk8/eli5_why_do_banks_close_at_five_when_most_people/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cat1z2h', 'cat3gvd', 'cat3ju1', 'cat3klj', 'cat3yw4', 'cat4eih', 'cat5cfd', 'cat5fzw', 'cat5h4o', 'cat6afn', 'cat6og1', 'cat779z', 'cat79zq', 'cat7eef', 'cat8b39', 'cat9an6', 'cat9dlq'], 'score': [77, 12, 8, 2, 24, 3, 351, 5, 26, 2, 78, 5, 7, 3, 3, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Telephone banking, Internet banking, and, more recently, banking via mobile apps are all available 24 hours a day for most bank accounts, and most people can do the majority of their banking through these means. So there'd probably be very little benefit to only a small number of customers if they stayed open late - most people simply don't need to visit their branch often enough to be worthwhile.\\n\\nHaving said that, if one bank stayed open late, I bet the others would keep a careful eye on what happened to decide if they needed to do the same to keep competitive. Right now, none of them see the need to be the first to do it.\\n\\nAlso, I suspect that banks make most of their money from corporate or business accounts, rather than personal accounts. This is different to, say, supermarkets, who make most of their money from personal customers (and they *do* stay open late - often 24 hours where I live).\", \"Hmm.  A lot of banks around here ARE open late/on limited hours on saturday to make up for this around here, but I agree.  It's pretty frustrating, especially if you have to cash your check on your lunch break.\", \"If your bank has an ATM that accepts checks, you can make deposits 24/7. My paychecks are handwritten as well, but the ATM has no problem reading them. The only time I've needed to actually go INSIDE my bank was to get a certified check to purchase a car. All my regular transactions are via the ATM, and online.\\n\\nI don't even write checks anymore. Nearly everything can be paid electronically now, and in the off-chance that I need to send a physical check somewhere, I can request it online, and the bank sends the check directly to the recipient.\", \"Banks close a lot earlier than that where I live.\\n\\nAs I understand it, when a bank closes, there's a long complicated process everyone has to go through to make sure all the money is accounted for. That can take an hour or two. Maybe that's part of it.\", 'Try coming to Spain. The banks here close at 2 pm. wtf?', 'Most branches in my area are open until 6:30 or 7:00 on Fridays for this exact reason. ', \"You're assuming banks actually care about consumers.  They don't.\\n\\nBanks make most of their money out of businesses - the charges involved in business banking, merchant accounts, etc. are far more profitable than the tiny fees paid by most consumers.\\n\\nBanks are open when their profitable customers are open - during business hours.\", 'Because fuck you ', 'Come to Russia. Ridiculous amount of  establishments are open 24 hours. Not just supermarkets or bars, but even bookshops and hairdressers. Banks are usually open until 20.00, some offices work later.', 'Banks used to open at 10:00am  and close at 3:00pm, in the United States at least.  That\\'s where the term \"bankers hours\" came from.  Start of late and close early.    My credit union closes at 6:pm and 4:pm on Saturdays.  Love it!', 'In the US, banks have only recently (in the last couple of decades) become computerized at the branch level. Before that every transaction done was recorded in a ledger at that branch. This is why there would be fees and limitations on what you could do if you went to a branch that didn\\'t \\'hold\\' your account. They had no quick way of verifying funds. \\n\\nI never worked at a bank while they were run on paper so I don\\'t know the details completely, but each day every teller must balance his or her drawer and without having a computer system doing the majority of the work it can be very tedious and time consuming, which is why banks used to close at 3pm. To give their staff a reasonable amount of time to balance and reconcile the day\\'s transactions and go home. \\n\\nNowadays every transaction is recorded electronically and sent to a central database. Making balancing nothing more than counting the cash in your drawer and comparing it to what the computer says you should have. \\n\\nAlso, the Federal Reserve processes every single check and electronic transaction that goes through the bank even today. The routing number on your checks which looks like \" :|123456789:| \" tells the Fed what bank that check is from and where to send it to collect funds. You deposit a check from x bank to z bank, z bank then sends the check off to the Fed which then presents the check to bank x. So because the Fed isn\\'t open on the weekends everything done over the weekend is posted for Monday\\'s date, the next available business day. \\n\\nSo essentially the reason for \\'bankers hours\\' is a result of the history of the financial system and logistical restrictions. With that being said many large banks have been expanding their hours on weekdays and weekends. I think it is only a matter of time before we see banks start to utilize modern technology more and more allowing them to stay open for more hours a week.\\n\\nI\\'m half asleep so this may or may not make any sense but whatever. \\n\\nSource: Worked at a bank for the past 5 years. ', 'ELI5...Besides getting a loan or mortgage, what need (other than old people having someone to talk to) is there to go inside a bank? Anything you need can be done online or at an ATM.', 'The answer is in your question, the people who work at banks finish at the same time as most people.', \"Because banks exist to serve big and small business, which are open during 9-5 business hours.  That's where banks make their money...they don't really care about Joe Shmoe's bimonthly paycheque from Burger King.\", 'This question is more suitable for r/askreddit.', 'Many bank actually stay open later on weekends to help serve individuals. My bank is open until 6 every Friday and open a half day on Saturday so individuals can cash or deposit checks. ', \"this pisses me off about banks, the dmv, the post office....they're only open during hours when people are working. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 976, "q_id": "3orb45", "title": "Before airplanes were invented, did U.S. Presidents just sit in the White House much more and not travel to foreign countries?", "selftext": "[deleted]", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3orb45/before_airplanes_were_invented_did_us_presidents/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cvzxyw5', 'cw04ikd', 'cw0ejrq'], 'score': [88, 12, 4], 'text': [\"Teddy Roosevelt is credited as making the first foreign visit as a president-elect. And Taft is credited for the first visit by a sitting president, in 1909. Even after that, travel remained rare. Few presidents made visits abroad during their time in office. And those visits tended to be to places like Mexico, Canada, and Cuba (or the Bahamas for a vacation). Wilson of course made his famous visit to Europe as part of the 1918 peace conference, which was a huge deal at the time. A sitting president had never been to Europe before. And it wasn't until the late 1950s or early 1960s that it became somewhat common.\\n\\nPrior to the 20th century, travel simply took too long. 90 days was common for New York to London in 1800. And even 70 years later, 30 days was a pretty standard transit time. It is only with the adoption of self propelled ships that travel time changed enough to make it practical. Likewise the invention of the radio and transoceanic telegraphic lines allowed a president to remain at least in some level of contact with his White House staff back home. So it isn't surprising that sitting presidents mostly stayed in Washington.\", 'In the age of rail they had Presidential trains for long distance travel around the USA. There were special carriages that would make up the train, complete with bedroom and offices just like Air Force One now. Foreign travel was of course less common as it took longer but still happened, the President taking advantage of luxury passenger liners, especially across the Atlantic. During times of war military ships were often used, though by the time of WW2 this was considered too dangerous at times (due to the U-Boat threat) or too slow and an aircraft option was used.', \"Wasn't the whole point of having a Secretary of State and Ambassadors to foreign countries that leaders could stay at home and lead while maintaining diplomacy?\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 504, "q_id": "xm7hi", "title": "Putting pressure under my nose stops me from sneezing. Is there something similar for vomiting?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xm7hi/putting_pressure_under_my_nose_stops_me_from/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c5nsowz'], 'score': [3], 'text': ['I work with medical personnel and they offered me [this.](_URL_0_)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cricoid+pressure']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2494, "q_id": "5jf3u5", "title": "why do corporations who cause deaths only get fined, but people get imprisoned?", "selftext": "Why is it, if a corporation causes deaths through gross negligence, they only get fined, but, if a person did the exact same thing, they would be charged with manslaughter and imprisoned?\n\nSpecific (theoretical) example: If a company failed to check and enforce safety regulations regarding the securing of unstable large objects and one fell down and killed people, the company would be fined. But if a person fails to properly secure materials they are transporting on their car and some falls off and kills people, they get charged with manslaughter.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jf3u5/eli5why_do_corporations_who_cause_deaths_only_get/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dbfms5v', 'dbfmu21', 'dbfmw5a', 'dbfo6ju', 'dbfsvqs', 'dbg6sa3', 'dbgb3in'], 'score': [27, 13, 13, 4, 26, 2, 2], 'text': [\"To some extent it's a matter of scale and sadly, cost.\\n\\nWho do you put in jail? The people who marketed the product? People who developed it? Management? Upper management? CEO? For a corporation of 1000+ people, how much does it cost to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the difference between indifference, competence, and true criminal negligence?\\n\\nIn cases where companies knew something was dangerous and sold it anyways, a lot of times this information comes out decades later as scientific and medical knowledge advances. Sometimes it's outside the statute of limitations, and investigations in general are much more difficult years down the line.\", 'If it was negligence to the point of illegality then people could very well be arrested and imprisoned.  _URL_0_\\n\\nHowever, corporations do stuff that is dangerous and accidents happen.  If they follow the rules, accidents can still happen.  \\n', 'There really isn\\'t a way to \"imprison\" a company.  And, at least in the U.S., companies can really only be convicted of crimes if some individual committed a crime (and that individual is usually punished).\\n\\nThere are places that have a \"corporate death penalty\" where the assets of a company are seized when the company is convicted of a crime, but that\\'s not necessarily better than just fining the company proportionate to the crime it committed. (If you were the victim\\'s family, would you rather the company be seized by the state or the company pay you money for your harm?)\\n\\n\\n', \"I'm studying criminology at the moment. A substantial part of the course that I'm studying is on the relationship between *power* and the definition of crime.\\n\\nIt's argued that those with power can influence the definition of crime in order to preserve their own interests. For (hypothetical) example, in the war on drugs, the government may decide to be particularly punitive to dealers who sell dangerous drugs to university students. As most of these dealers don't have much of a voice (what with being outlaws) this law will be unopposed. If the same government decides to extend the mandatory length of testing for a new antidepresent, following reports of student suicides, there's likely to be a lot of money thrown at the campaign and lobby groups to get them to reconsider.  So we consider one drug related death as a clear crime, whereas the other is never really criminalised, so can't be punished. \\n\\nEdit: or at least that's what I've gathered so far. I'm only about three months in to a year long course. \", \"A corporation is an intangible concept. It's not possible to throw it in prison; the concept doesn't even make sense. All a company has are assets, employees, and activities, not a body. You can seize assets (i.e. fining them). You can restrict its activities (but see below). You can't just jail employees, because you can't jail anyone who didn't *personally* do something wrong.\\n\\nAs for fines vs. restricting activities, there's not a whole lot you can do to punish a company by restricting its activities that won't just kill it. If you suspend corporate operations for a year, every employee will have found a new job by the end of that year and the company is gone. If you bar a company from competing in its market, it'll likely go bankrupt (and again, employees will tend to jump ship). \", \"Companies can be and are charged with manslaughter.   If convicted they can be fined, or shut down.  They can't be imprisoned, because the physical embodiment is a certificate locked in some lawyer's filing cabinet.  What are you going to, lock it in a different filing cabinet?\", 'How would you propose to imprison a corporation?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Construction-CEO-Arrested-At-SFO-In-Death-Of-Worker-281391831.html'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 87, "q_id": "be1ctn", "title": "Why were scientists able to photograph a supermassive black hole 55 million ly away in another galaxy but not of the black hole at the center of our own galaxy some 25,000 ly away?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/be1ctn/why_were_scientists_able_to_photograph_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['el5dawh', 'el5ocuo'], 'score': [16, 5], 'text': ['When we look at the black hole in the center of our galaxy we are looking through the bulk of the Milky Way\\'s disc, there is a lot of gas, dust and stars between us and our supermassive black hole.\\n\\nM87 is oriented towards us so that the center of the galaxy is easily viewed and M87 is home to a truly gargantuan black hole that is actively consuming material and producing brilliant jets of material radiating away from the \"north\" and \"south\" poles of the galaxy.', \"M87\\\\* is about 2,000 times farther away than Sagittarius A\\\\* but it's also about 2,000 times larger. It works out to a very similar angular size, and as other commenters mentioned there's less stuff in the way.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 316, "q_id": "aqay7b", "title": "Is there an explanation as to why there were Empires such as the Inca's and Aztec's in the Southern Hemisphere, and yet no such Empires in the North?", "selftext": "In particular I've noticed this deep rich history and civilization that Inca's and Aztec's had in the Pre-Colombian era, yet I'm hard pressed to find anything similar in regards to America or Canada for that matter. It seems they were more nomadic and divided(in the sense of the multitude of tribes) the more North you went. Is there a reason for this? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aqay7b/is_there_an_explanation_as_to_why_there_were/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['egf8q5b', 'egg4ovt'], 'score': [4, 48], 'text': [\"Sorry for my mistake with the hemisphere's, my apologies. Also does anyone know why it says there are comments yet I cannot see any?\", 'First time posting here, but I think I can give it a go! Hope this helps. If you don\\'t want to read it all, there\\'s a very short summary at the bottom. Edited for links\\n\\nOn a technical note -- the Aztec empire was solidly within the Northern Hemisphere (as was part of the Inca Empire), and the Aztec, Toltec and other Mesoamerican states were also on the North American continent. But it seems like your question meant more to address the difference in empires between what is now Latin America and the US/Canada/Northern Mexico, so I\\'ll talk more about that, and refer to that area as North America for the sake of convenience.\\n\\nPart of the answer to your question is that our records of North American peoples and civilization are much spottier, for a variety of reasons. First, Andean and Mesoamerican states were encountered by Europeans earlier than North American ones were. The Inca and Aztec were already conquered by the time major expeditions into the modern-day U.S. began, and Canada was even after that. Coupled with the fact that there isn\\'t any writing from indigenous North American peoples, we simply don\\'t have as many records about that region. So there might have been more empire-style states in North America than we realize.\\n\\nEuropeans arriving in the Gulf of Mexico first also meant that the infectious diseases which decimated the Americas\\' indigenous populations spread outwards from that place. Importantly, those diseases spread *faster than European exploration*. By the time Europeans arrived in many locations -- before they could write records or witness native states -- disease had already ravaged the region. One of the more dramatic examples of this is in fact the Inca empire. When Pizarro arrived, hundreds of thousands (at the very least) of Inca subjects had died before any European had been to the empire. Perhaps most importantly, one of the Inca smallpox victims was the emperor Wayna Capac, whose death led the the Inca Civil War between his sons Waskar and Atawallpa, which [tore the empire apart and facilitated the Spanish Conquest](_URL_0_). The regular lives and societies of the indigenous Americas were largely disrupted before Europeans arrived to record information that we might see now\\n\\nSecond, we have to recognize the malleability of the word \"empire.\" Do we mean a centralized government that actively restructured and consolidated conquered areas in its own image, applying government power across the state? If so, the Aztec \"Empire\" doesn\\'t really count -- their state was much more one of forced tributary relations, and didn\\'t necessarily restructure conquered polities. The Inca Empire might be the most comparable to what an Old World tradition might call an \"Empire,\" but we have to be careful about how we use the word. Cultures develop different tactics of domination, and \"empire\" might not be the right one for the societies that developed in much of North America.\\n\\nHaving said that, there is increasing evidence that there were much more complex states in North America than archaeologists and historians have historically realized. Perhaps most famously, discoveries in [Cahokia](_URL_1_) and other urban sites from the Mississippi area are rewriting the archaeological record. Here you had complex urban societies which waged war and had centralized governments and religions -- maybe, if we had more information, we could call some of these states empires. It seems that there were at the very least governments and individuals in \"paramount chiefdoms\" who commanded power and significance over [hundreds of miles](_URL_3_). Missisippian societies built massive earthworks, including pyramids. Along with archaeological findings, the accounts of Spanish conquistador Hernando de Soto provide insight into that area. His expeditions explored it before those states were completely wiped out by disease, and are simultaneously educational and thrilling, with stories of the Spanish force moving through alternatingly hostile and friendly towns and cities that they can\\'t comprehend, and fighting against thousands of Amerindian soldiers. There were also complex and concentrated polities in the American Southwest. Ruins such as the 500+ miles of Hohokam irrigation canals, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, and Mesa Verde all point to this.\\n\\nBut I\\'m getting long-winded, and I\\'ll try to directly answer your second-to-last sentence. It does seem to be generally true that, the farther north you go, the fewer complex states and certainly fewer empires there are in North America. A large part of this is simply environmental. It is extremely hard to grow crops in much of Canada and the northern U.S., making it difficult for a possible empire to grow. Population densities are lower and people are generally more dependent upon hunting and gathering, because it\\'s difficult to do anything else. Exceptions to this rule include the Pacific Northwest, where powerful chiefdoms developed, but this area is warmer than other North America locations at the same latitude and also supports an unusually high amount of food from sea and land resources that were exploited. This is also the same reason that extreme southern South American peoples were also generally hunter-gatherers. A more historical reason for the phenomenon you\\'re wondering about is the location of the New World\\'s \"cradles of civilization.\" Urban societies were original inventions in the New World along the Peruvian Coast, southern Mexico, and possibly the Amazon Rainforest (according to extremely new theories). Cities, and states that could become we might call \"empires,\" spread outwards from those locations. So cities and urban states were still spreading northwards from Mexico when Europeans arrived. We see proof of this slow spread, and how much it could change societies, in things like the presence of maize among the Iroquois: traveling north from Mexico, maize reached the Iroquois in the 12th century, precipitating an agricultural shift and huge societal change that allowed for the creation of the Haudenosaunee, or  [Iroquois Confederation](_URL_2_). So the factors that allow for urban civilization, and by extension empires, were less complete and newer the farther north you go.\\n\\nTo wrap it all up: Our records are weaker the farther north you go, because those areas were encountered by Europeans later (and were generally encountered after disease devastated them), so there might have been complex states we don\\'t know about. Additionally, it\\'s a myth that there weren\\'t complex states north of the southern U.S. border, as evidenced by the Mississippian states and Southwestern U.S. But, holding in mind that the term \"empire\" the way we think of it simply may not be the way North American states ended up operating it, it is true that imperial-style states are less common the farther north you go. This was largely due to the lack of resources, and even more importantly the fact that the social inventions and factors leading to possible imperial states spread outwards from Mesoamerica, creating a kind of south to north gradation of potential-empire societies.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.jstor.org/stable/27977824?Search=yes&amp;resultItemClick=true&amp;searchText=huayna&amp;searchText=capac&amp;searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dhuayna%2Bcapac&amp;ab_segments=0%2Ftbsub-1%2Frelevance_config_with_tbsub&amp;refreqid=search%3Adb2f7fbd215ff1ddde0858e839a0dde9&amp;seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents', 'https://www.jstor.org/stable/41053152?Search=yes&amp;resultItemClick=true&amp;searchText=cahokia&amp;searchText=empire&amp;searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcahokia%2Bempire&amp;ab_segments=0%2Ftbsub-1%2Frelevance_config_with_tbsub&amp;refreqid=search%3A631175fe3c50f35558ce5852fb6ed18c&amp;seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents', 'https://uclajournals.org/doi/abs/10.17953/aicr.21.2.k36m1485r3062510?journalCode=aicr', 'https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt183p8pq.13?Search=yes&amp;resultItemClick=true&amp;searchText=hernando&amp;searchText=de&amp;searchText=soto&amp;searchText=mississippi&amp;searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dhernando%2Bde%2Bsoto%2Bmississippi&amp;ab_segments=0%2Ftbsub-1%2Frelevance_config_with_tbsub&amp;refreqid=search%3Acd1d3daedea37d2b64c05b2d99cfb104&amp;seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1567, "q_id": "4kzgh9", "title": "what determines whether or not someone is a naturally good singer?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kzgh9/eli5_what_determines_whether_or_not_someone_is_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d3j085x', 'd3j1ylf', 'd3jc2zj', 'd3jjzgx', 'd3jm5z2'], 'score': [20, 115, 24, 3, 5], 'text': ['I\\'m not a singer so I can\\'t comment specifically on that.  But when someone says a person is \"naturally\" good at something it means that they naturally do something with good form or with proper technique from the start.  They don\\'t have to unlearn bad habits which gives them a leg up from the start.  It still requires practice to excel at something.', 'Physically speaking, being a naturally good singer means you were born with a good \"instrument\". Your vocal cords would be more elastic and flexible, and this would make your voice able to produce more overtones, or the right mix of overtones which sound pleasant. Overtones are basically sound waves on top of sound waves which have wavelengths that overlap on the original wave, e.g. half the wavelength, one third the wavelength, and we can tell the difference between a trumpet and a piano or a sweet and a shrill voice largely by picking up on the differences between the mixtures of overtones. \\n\\n\\nBesides that, being naturally coordinated would help controlling the muscles which keep a steady pitch or vibrato or volume, being naturally gifted in pitch and tone differentiation would be important(good ear, perfect pitch), and because IMO natural abilities get a little too much credit with the general public, a natural patience, memory, intelligence, passion and persistence would all be very important when it comes to learning and practicing. Because no one comes out of the womb singing.', \"Having a good *ear* is more relevant to developing a good voice than any vocal talent.\\n\\nThat being said, the best indicator is how hard you are willing to work at it.\\n\\nSinging well - in tune, on rhythm, intentional intonation, good projection, without damaging your voice - is very hard, and takes discipline, practice, and determination.\\n\\nYou also have to maintain it, because your voice changes as you age, and you need to be on top of the transitions.  Puberty is the most dramatic example, but it's only one of many.\\n\\ntl;dr: A decent ear and a strong desire to work hard and intelligently.\", 'I have a piggy back question. What effect do you think getting a nose job would have on someone\\'s singing voice? I have a prominent \"Roman\" nose with a big bump on the bridge and I\\'ve always wanted a nose job, but I\\'m a singer and my mom told me it would mess up my voice. I\\'ve heard that Barbara Streisand wanted one too but didn\\'t do it because she was worried about her voice. But I feel like a lot of singers have plastic surgery or naturally small noses. So how would shaving down cartilage on top of my nose impact my sinuses and vocal tone? ', 'My personal theory is that naturally good singers hear their voice at the same pitch other people hear it. When you sing or speak, you hear your voice through the air (like everyone else hears you) but mostly through the bones and tissue in your neck and head. If this tissue and bone distorts the pitch of the sound, when you hear yourself singing in tune everyone else will hear you singing out of tune. Naturally bad singers can figure out how to only listen to their voice through the air or to figure out what pitch they need to hear themselves sing to produce the correct pitch for everyone else.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 560, "q_id": "ebalpd", "title": "Movie swordfights nowadays are flashy but unrealistic. We don't know any better, but a medival citizen might. Were swordfights in medieval plays done realistically or flashily? And when/how did flashy swordfights become more popular on stage?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ebalpd/movie_swordfights_nowadays_are_flashy_but/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['fb60f6c', 'fb68sm8'], 'score': [10, 16], 'text': ['We know little about fight scenes in Medieval plays. For example, Symes (2009) writes\\n\\n >  ... a group of new converts in Riga were terrified by the all\u2010too\u2010realistic battle scenes of \\'an extremely well\u2010produced play of the prophets\\' performed by German missionaries. Who knew that *ordines prophetarum* even *had* battle scenes? We never would have guessed, were it not for this stray reference in Henry of Livonia\\'s chronicle, since none of the scripts that survive contains such a scene.\\n\\nBut we know rather more about theatrical fight scenes from later times, when swords were still in use. Our modern tradition of theatrical combat - with slower, bigger movements than \"real\" combat, both for safety and for audience appreciation - has solid roots in Elizabethan theatre, when duels were still fought, and fencing was an important part of a gentleman\\'s education. \"Gladiators\" (such as the famous James Figg) were still fighting with swords as sport for public viewing.\\n\\nThus, we have four kinds of swordfighting co-existing: fighting with swords on the battlefield, duelling, fighting on stage with sharp swords as a public sporting performance, and theatrical fighting. That theatrical fighting need not have been the same as the others should be no surprise. Today, people still fight with their fists on the street, in bars, etc. We have televised sports where people fight with their fists (e.g., boxing). Theatrical fistfights are often different.\\n\\nFilm and TV offer different conditions for fight choreography - it doesn\\'t need to work in real time, special effects can be used, and the action is viewed from a specific camera angle. Even then, there are usually differences between \"real\" fistfights and TV/film versions. Film/TV also offers the opportunity for large scale battle scenes that are difficult or impossible to do on stage. Wars are still fought, and genuine combat footage is readily available, with some examples being famous, such as [\"With the Marines at Tawara\"] \\n(_URL_0_)). Some TV/film goes to a lot of effort to deliver realistic battle scenes. Other TV/film gives us grossly unrealistic fight choreography (e.g., deliberately done to look more like modern computer games than real battles). Given the modern acceptance of - even preference for - unrealistic fight choreography even for types of fighting that still exists in the real world, I see no reason why the Medieval audience would have demanded realistic swordfighting.\\n\\nOutside Western Europe, we can see similar divergence between \"real\" fighting, and fighting as presented on stage, which originated when such fighting was still \"real\" (see, e.g., fight scenes in Beijing opera (AKA Peking opera)).\\n\\nA further clue to expectations of realism on the Medieval stage comes from literature. For example, *The Travels of Marco Polo* uses standard Medieval battle descriptions:\\n\\n >  And thenceforward the din of battle began to be heard loudly from this side and from that. And they rushed to work so doughtily with their bows and their maces, with their lances and swords, and with the arblasts of the footmen, that it was a wondrous sight to see. Now might you behold such flights of arrows from this side and from that, that the whole heaven was canopied with them and they fell like rain. Now might you see on this side and on that full many a cavalier and men-at-arms fall slain, insomuch that the whole field seemed covered with them. From this side and from that such cries arose from the crowds of the wounded and dying that had God thundered, you would not have heard Him! For fierce and furious was the battle, and quarter there was none given.\\n\\n >  But why should I make a long story of it? You must know that it was the most parlous and fierce and fearful battle that ever has been fought in our day. Nor have there ever been such forces in the field in actual fight, especially of horsemen, as were then engaged - for, taking both sides, there were not fewer than 760,000 horsemen, a mighty force! and that without reckoning the footmen, who were also very numerous. The battle endured with various fortune on this side and on that from morning till noon.\\n\\nIt\\'s a conventional and non-realistic description of a battle. Readers were happy with it.\\n\\nReference:\\n\\nCarol Symes, \"The History of Medieval Theatre / Theatre of Medieval History: Dramatic Documents and the Performance of the Past\", *History Compass* 7/3 (2009): 1032\u20131048,  _URL_1_', \"Great question! What you've asked actually requires a very dense response that touches not only on medieval theatre history, but also cultural, social, political, and classed aspects of sword usage from the medieval period into the modern era and the changing representations and significations that occurred with swords on stage through those periods. I'm a specialist on medieval theatre (it's was my PhD dissertation and remains my continued research in academia), so I'm going to focus most of my attention on that part of your question. I'll also touch upon the use of swords in theatre into the early modern period. Some things I can only provide minimal contextual information and I would look to other historians for help, including a wider history of the knowledge of sword fighting in the Middle Ages and other eras.\\n\\nLet me begin with a work that serves to highlight an interest in combat and sword fighting that was very influential throughout the Middle Ages\u2014especially in monastic settings. *Psychomachia*, by the fourth century Latin poet Prudentius, is a narrative allegorical tale that vividly details the conflict between vices and virtues based upon the Christian theological perspective of the world as a moral and spiritual battleground. The poet describes, in graphic detail, the fights that occur between the various allegorical characters. Many of the combatants wield swords. For example, in the fight between Chastity and Lust, Chastity wields a sword and \u201c[with only one thrust of her sword, she pierces the throat of the whore and stinking fumes with clots of blood are spat out; the foul breath poisons the near-by air](_URL_0_).\u201d *Psychomachia* is not considered a play, through it is highly dramatic and signifies distinct visual representations in its narrative, but it was nonetheless popular amongst early medieval monastic communities as an instructional text on the aims of Christian-centered rhetorical \u201ccombat\u201d and dedicating one\u2019s life to the advancement of Christian morals and ethics against all odds. Furthermore, there are significant parallels in the treatment of the allegorical characters between *Psychomachia* and the twelfth-century play, *Ordo Virtutum* by Hildegard of Bingen\u2014though, the Hildegard does not retain the mimetic violence of the earlier poem. What should be noted here is that swords and sword fighting served a dramatic function in medieval sources, representing the offensive might of those who wielded the weapons and to signify to the reader/viewer that the character carrying a sword is to be taken seriously. Additionally, the use of swords in dramatic imagery translated to the real-world settings in the form of instructional symbolism applicable to lessons on monastic life and activity.\\n\\nNow, turning to swords in medieval plays; perhaps the earliest extant representation of violence by sword(s) in medieval theatre comes from the so-called *Fleury Playbook* (eleventh century, archived at Orl\u00e9ans, Biblioth\u00e8que Municipale MS 201) in the form of the play, *The Murder of the Innocents* (*Ad interfectionem puerorum*). The play was performed as a part of the liturgy on the Feast of the Innocents (December 28) and tells the story from the Gospel of Matthew concerning Herod\u2019s decree that all the infants of Bethlehem be slaughtered in an effort to ensure the killing of the prophesied Christ child. In the play (I\u2019m using the edition in David Bevington, *Medieval Drama*, pp. 67-72), Herod gives a sword to a man-at-arms (*armiger*) and instructs him to \u201ccause the boys to perish by the sword\u201d (Bevington, 69). The man-at-arms then proceeds to kill the children. Thus, the sword is the material from which the power of the king meets (or ends) the life of the subject, even if that meeting is represented as morally reprehensible.\\n\\nIn more specific examples, there are two early medieval plays that clearly use descriptions of swords and sword fighting to affect the dramatic action of the plot. The so-called *Play about the Antichrist* (*Ludus de Antichristo*) from the imperial monastery at Tegernsee, Bavaria was written in the twelfth century and contains many battle scenes between armies of various European powers as well as the forces of the Antichrist. There is no indication as to how those battles would have been performed or how many people might have been involved but some characters, like the group known as the Hypocrites (who serve Antichrist), are instructed to carry swords under their garments. Written by monks for monks, the play shows, like *Psychomachia*, that monastic settings took particular interest in swords within violent contexts as a means to make effective (and affective) the deadly offensive aims of certain people. So it\u2019s no surprise that other medieval plays would also make use of swords. As u/wotan_weevil identified by pointing to the scholarship of Carol Symes and the thirteenth-century *Livonian Chronicle of Henry* (*Heinrici Cronicon Lyvoniae*), the document includes \u201ca short record of an audience, comprised of \u2018converts and pagans\u2019 (*tam neophitis quam paganis*), who had gathered to watch the performance of a liturgical *ludus magnus* (great play) in Riga during the Baltic Crusades at the beginning of the century\u201d (Kyle A. Thomas, \u201cThe Performing Arts and Their Audiences,\u201d in *A Cultural History of the Middle Ages*). Details on this performance are scant, but it\u2019s certain that this play was performed in the midst of a crusading context, so perhaps actual knights wielding swords and battle armor performed the battle scene in the play that caused the Riga audience \u201cto take flight, fearing lest they be killed\u201d (Brundage translation). This is perhaps the most direct evidence that not only did realistic portrayals of swords, sword fighting, and battle-ready fighters happen in medieval plays, but that audiences could interpret them as deadly real.\\n\\nWhile swords do appear in later medieval plays, they are sparse and mostly revolve around similar plots, settings (like *The Murder of the Innocents*), and symbolic affect of those plays already described. What changes in the mimetic representation of swords is the emphasis on gentlemanly, courtly identification that occurs beginning in the early modern period. This is easily recognizable in the plays of William Shakespeare. Whenever a character carries or brandishes their sword, they are almost always defending their honor of the honor of those to whom they are related or protecting. These are clear indicators of the classed social signiferes these characters are working to represent in his plays. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that these characters also employ sword-fighting techniques that were a realistic representation of those learned by courtly gentlemen in the course of their education. And that actually brings us full circle: the sword, throughout the medieval and early modern periods, is consistently used in educational contexts to teach and represent authority, power, and offensive prowess.\\n\\nBibliography:\\n\\nJames A. Brundage, translator. *The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia*. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.\\n\\nPeter Dronke, *Poetic Individuality in the Middle Ages: New Departures in Poetry, 1000-1150* (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970).\\n\\nBruce W. Hozeski, \u201cParallel Patterns in Prudentius\u2019s *Psychomachia* and Hildegard of Bingen\u2019s *Ordo Virtutum*,\u201d in *14th Century English Mystics Newsletter* Vol. 8, No. 1 (March 1982): 8-20.\\n\\nSin\u00e9ad O'Sullivan, *Early Medieval Glosses On Prudentius' Psychomachia: The Weitz Tradition* (Boston: Brill, 2004).\\n\\nKyle A. Thomas, \u201cThe *Ludus de Antichristo* and the Making of a Monastic Theatre: Imperial Politics and Performance at the Abbey of Tegernsee, 1000-1200.\u201d Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: 2018.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolhiCbU_u8', 'https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00613.x'], ['https://web.archive.org/web/20020429135514/http://www.richmond.edu/~wstevens/grvaltexts/psychomachia.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1299, "q_id": "6vhl30", "title": "why some people enjoy the smell of gasoline like a craving while others don't?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6vhl30/eli5_why_some_people_enjoy_the_smell_of_gasoline/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dm0d0wq', 'dm0fu6y', 'dm0mfm3', 'dm1lsa9'], 'score': [9, 86, 29, 2], 'text': [\"Also please Explain to me why I can barely smell gasoline.  I can put my nose up to a tank, inhale deeply and get barely a hint \\n\\nEdit: I don't actually do this.. Is just a thing I've noted before. I can't smell monster energy drink either\", \"Gasoline has an additive called benzene to help boosts its octane rating. Benzene is a chemical that has been known to have a sweet smell and can cause 'euphoria' if too much is inhaled. \", 'Working on small gas engines as a kid has definitely left a romanticized impression of fuel smells. Those were fun times, and spilling a little gasoline on my jeans was common, mix that with a little burnt oil smell (since I revved my dirt bike engine too much anyway) that is a recipe for summer love. ', 'I like the smell of gasoline because it reminds me of the smell of boats and lawnmowers and generally just summer ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2244, "q_id": "2ojjxf", "title": "When and how did crossing our fingers become the symbols for both luck and lying?", "selftext": "It seems strange to me that it's the symbol for luck and when we cross it behind our back to hide a lie. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ojjxf/when_and_how_did_crossing_our_fingers_become_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cmnzv7a'], 'score': [4], 'text': ['Try /r/askanthropology. It seems like a more cultural thing than a historical thing ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2279, "q_id": "qtz2m", "title": "if matter cannot be created or destroyed... how do trees form?", "selftext": "Just wondering", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qtz2m/eli5_if_matter_cannot_be_created_or_destroyed_how/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c40fc9d', 'c40fe80', 'c40gpkk'], 'score': [35, 6, 5], 'text': ['Say you have a box of Legos with 500 pieces. With those 500 pieces, you build a bulldozer. Then one day, you decide to rearrange those pieces from a bulldozer to a monster truck. It\\'s still the same 500 pieces, just in a different layout.\\n\\nThis is how trees are formed. The matter is just rearranged from other objects. Soil, nutrients, water, and even air. This is called \"Conservation of Mass.\"\\n\\nEDIT: added air. Thanks. :)', \"Basically, the tree absorbs the matter from the air (Carbon Dioxide) and the ground (Water), then changes that via chemical reaction (caused by light particles, or photons) into a chemical energy battery of sorts (sugar) and the air we breathe (Oxygen).  It expels the latter, but holds onto the former.  Throw in the standard nutrients from the soil it also absorbs, and you can see that a tree is basically the sum of months and/or years of absorption from the nearby environment.\\n\\nNeed further explanation?  Comment here, and I will try to go into more detail on whatever subject you aren't sure about.\", 'a mommy tree and a daddy tree fall in love and the daddy tree rubs the flowers on the mommy tree and then she grows big succulent fruits on her arms and then the babies fall on the ground and sink into the dirt and when it rains wherever the baby trees are buried big trees will grow up']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2812, "q_id": "bdvdur", "title": "What happened to the tons of lead in Notre Dame's roof, will it be a health hazard to firefighters or the river in the future?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bdvdur/what_happened_to_the_tons_of_lead_in_notre_dames/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['el3i2nc'], 'score': [5], 'text': [\"This site: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_), in French only, sorry, measures and reports air pollution levels due to fire at Notre Dame, and to this day, there is no significant decrease in air quality. But that's for classical pollution sources and measured over larger areas, so the measurements are not very local and very near the cathedral, the situation might be different. As for the lead, since it's no longer a concern nowadays (since cars use lead free fuel), they say we'll have to wait a few more days for trustworthy results.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nNB: I'm basically translating the post...\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.airparif.asso.fr/actualite/detail/id/262']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1980, "q_id": "3atqp9", "title": "how do you sail into the wind?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3atqp9/eli5_how_do_you_sail_into_the_wind/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['csfudjg', 'csfv2g2', 'csfwbfu', 'csfz7iz', 'csfz9eu', 'csg8qvw'], 'score': [9, 5, 5, 2, 6, 2], 'text': ['You don\\'t. You use a process called \"tacking\" which means you sail a zig zag pattern to get where you are going. Much like a switch back when climbing a steep hill. Putting the bow (front) of the boat straight into the wind puts you \"in irons\" (i.e. the sails are not catching the wind and you don\\'t go anywhere).\\n\\nEdit: I\\'ve also heard the process called \"beating.\"', 'You can sail to a limited degree (both senses of the word can apply here) against the wind. The sail can catch the wind at certain angles to go basically sideways, like east while the wind blows north, in a similar way to how you can hit a ball in the game of pool/billiards. With steering the boat can get a few more degrees and sail slightly against the wind. Zig zags happen because the movement is mostly sideways (like west or east for the boat while the wind is blowing north or south) .', 'Most modern sail boats can sail within about 45\u00b0 of the wind.  Square-riggers can only come within about 60\u00b0.  The closer you try to go to the wind, the slower you sail, so there\\'s a skill in knowing the angle to use to make best progress upwind.  Go too close and the sails flap about and you stop.\\n\\nIf you want to go directly upwind you need to alternately sail to starboard (right) and to port (left) of the wind.  When you change direction, the most common way these days is to turn briefly directly into the wind, hoping your momentum will keep you going until you can start sailing on the other side; this is called \"tacking\".  Alternatively, you can turn away from the wind, through a bigger angle; this is called \"wearing\".  Either way, you\\'re \"beating\" upwind.\\n\\nWhen you\\'re sailing to the starboard of the wind you\\'re said to be on the port tack, because in square riggers, the rope holding the bottom corner of the sail forward is called the \"tack\".  The port side tack is in use sailing to the starboard of the wind and the starboard side tack is in use sailing to the port side of the wind.', 'If you try to sail directly into wind you will be in a \"No Go Zone\".  To avoid this you sail at the Close Hauled position (This area is as close to the no go zone as you can get) with your sails trimmed in tightly.  If you are in a close Hauled position but want to be on the other side of the wind you will have to go through the \"No Go Zone\" using the Tacking maneuver.  Once that is accomplished you can take up the close Hauled position on the opposite side of the wind.  \\nIf you ever need to stop a sail boat suddenly the best thing to do is to put the Bow of the boat directly into the wind.\\n\\nCheck this [page](_URL_0_) out for more info.  \\n', 'When sailing into the wind a yachts sail works exactly like an aeroplanes wing rotated through 90 degrees. What generates the forward momentum is the sideways lift being created by the aerofoil shape of the sail. This is  aided by the keel cutting through the water, which helps convert this sideways  lift into forward momentum.\\n\\nThe sail speed record is currently held by [Sailrocket 2](_URL_0_) which can sail at about 75 mph in 29 mph winds. This is possible because rather than just being blown along, the boat is powered by the lift its sail generates.\\n\\nSailing boats can only sail so close to the direction the wind is coming from though. Any closer than about 45 degrees from the wind (less for high tech race yachts) and the sails will stall, stopping the boat in the water.\\n\\nEdit: Link to [Sailrocket 2 taking the record](_URL_1_)\\n\\nEdit: 29mph winds not 20mph , its good, but not that good!\\n\\n\\n', 'Oooh finally a question I can answer!\\n\\nShort answer is: you don\\'t. If you point your sailboat straight in to the wind it\\'s called \"getting caught in irons\". Most often your boat just drifts to a stop but sometimes the wind will actually push you backwards if you\\'re light enough. \\n\\nIf you want to reach an upwind destination you have to do something called \"tacking\", which is basically just a fancy term for \"do zigzags.\"\\n\\nSo how small of an angle can you get to the wind before you get stuck in irons? It depends on a lot of factors - the wind speed, how light your boat is, how good you are at trimming your sails, etc. In the environment I usually sail in (very light 15 ft boat on a lake with average 5-8knot wind) I can usually safely tack about 20ish degrees in to the wind. I know sailors much better than me who can do better though. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_sail'], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas_Sailrocket', 'http://www.sailrocket.com/node/400'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 496, "q_id": "2023uz", "title": "why do i avoid going to bed at night, almost like i'm procrastinating sleep.", "selftext": "I love sleeping (who doesn't?), I don't have insomnia either, I just find any reason to stay up at night and not go to bed, it's 3:40am right now and this just came to mind, I googled this and a lot of people seem to have the same problem. I could fall asleep instantly if I went to bed right now, but there's just some magical force stopping me from going to bed. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2023uz/eli5_why_do_i_avoid_going_to_bed_at_night_almost/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cfz28j5', 'cfz2tdp', 'cfz3foq', 'cfz3kip', 'cfz40wf', 'cfz4yrd', 'cfzbmec', 'cfzc3hq', 'cfzfjax', 'cfzl9w9', 'cfzmntc', 'cfzmzop'], 'score': [17, 80, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 15, 5, 5, 3, 3], 'text': [\"I feel the same way.. But for me I think it has more to do with not wanting to get up and go to work in the morning than not wanting to go to sleep at night.  As much as I love sleeping, I know that the sooner I fall asleep, the sooner I will wake up and have to get out of bed.  The funny part is that if I went to bed earlier it probably wouldn't be as hard to get out of bed in the morning.\", 'Some of it is a subconscious desire to avoid morning responsibility. For me it is a desire to just do things that I would not otherwise have time for during the day. Like surfing the web, or playing games, or reading stuff on Reddit are all things I like to stay up late doing, even though I know my body is going to wake up early in the morning. The mental stimuli keeps me going, and because I am deriving enjoyment and excitement out of it and therefore I keep myself up later because of that and in-spite of the fact that I know I should go to bed earlier. ', 'I always feel like I could be getting something else done in the time that I\\'m \"doing nothing\" by sleeping. Weird?', 'More time sleeping = less time spent doing fun stuff.', \"I started tracking my sleep.... this has helped me realize how little sleep I'm getting. You can use an app like SleepBot for android do it.  \", \"I do this as well. I always just think about it as not being able to give up on the day yet. It isn't so much that there is anything in particular that I'm doing and enjoying so much that I don't want to go to sleep, I just don't want to call it yet.\", \"It's your body being tired but your brain is far from exhausted and wants to keep doing things. Try taking on tasks that require more mental tasking throughout the day. When your mind is tired like your body, it won't care about that next episode of your netflix binge.\", \"I read an article on Cracked that said your brain sees your future self as a different person; to the point where the consequences for your present actions will only affect your future (different) self.\\n\\nIt explains why we go to bed late knowing we'll be tired the next morning, why we drink knowing we'll feel terrible the next morning and why we fap to certain depravities knowing we'll feed bad about it just moments later.\", 'My five-year-old says \"But daddy ... going to sleep is *boooring*\" \\n\\nWhich is probably not too far from the truth.', 'The \"putting off tomorrow\" reason was the one I told myself forever until I started studying to become a sleep technician. The minute I found out about [Delayed sleep-phase disorder (DSPD)](_URL_0_) I realized that\\'s what I had.\\n\\n\\n\\n TL;DR Your brain is in its own time zone.\\n', \"This is going to sound really immature, but sometimes I think that I stay up because I feel at my age it is suitable to be staying up to a certain late hour. I feel like parents go to bed at 11:00 and grandparents at like 9:00, and as a 21 year old it is the acceptable for me to stay up to 3:00ish. I feel like it's what the little kid version of me would of wanted\", \" > ...there's just some magical force stopping me from going to bed.\\n\\nIt might be the [blue light](_URL_0_) from your screen.\\n\\nGet [f.lux](_URL_1_) software.  It really has made a difference for me.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder'], [], ['http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Health_Letter/2012/May/blue-light-has-a-dark-side/', 'http://justgetflux.com/research.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2283, "q_id": "5w4c4k", "title": "if i am being asked questions by the police in a station and say \"i want to see my lawyer\". do i have to have a lawyer already or am i asking to be appointed one?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5w4c4k/eli5_if_i_am_being_asked_questions_by_the_police/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['de76swo', 'de78br7', 'de78ezi', 'de7aaxe', 'de7bi05', 'de7chej', 'de7cx7q', 'de7da29', 'de7el3y', 'de7mvgv', 'de7ncmr', 'de7nxuj', 'de7rgsz', 'de7sqog', 'de7tg6f', 'de7yx2z'], 'score': [5, 31, 96, 86, 9, 123, 9, 848, 405, 11, 23, 20, 7, 3, 2, 3], 'text': [\"How does this change from country to country? (I'm in the UK) \\n\\nEdit: looks like I need to clear up, this isn't my post :P thanks guys\", 'This only applies in the US: If you say some variation of \"I\\'m remaining silent and want to see my lawyer\" (the remaining silent part is key), that\\'s the signal that the cops can no longer question you without a lawyer present. If you have one already you will be allowed to contact them. If not or if you need a public defender, you will also be allowed to arrange that. If you need a public defender you have to ask for one.\\n\\nPro tip: NEVER talk to cops regardless of whether you\\'re just being questioned or are under arrest. Even if you think whatever you have to say will clear you. Cops are trained to twist anything you say into a reason to investigate you further or to use as evidence against you. Keep your mouth shut until you have a lawyer by your side.', \"If you're in police custody you get a phone call to arrange an attorney. If it's a busy precinct there might be a defense attorney walking around that will talk to you, briefly, but won't give you much help unless you pay. You are usually only entitled to a public defender once you've been charged with a felony and you can be detained for up to 72 hours without being charged. \\n\\nIf you are suspected of a crime or are in custody, never, ever talk to police without an attorney present. If you have been charged with a felony, never, ever use a public defender. \", 'This only matters if your in custody. Simply ask \"am I free to go?\" If the answer is yes, then leave and get an attorney.  If the answer is no. Say \"I refuse to answer any questions, without a lawyer\" \\n\\nThey should have read you the Miranda rights at this point.  Which is another opportunity to say you won\\'t answer. \\n\\nA lawyer will not be appointed unless you are charged,  which you may ask.  If so.  Ask the court in relation to your case for an attorney. \\n\\nSource:  am a police officer', \"Don't matter, the questions stop and you are available to get either counsel.  The thing is you are still jailed until that is all plays out.\", 'The following should only be interpreted to apply in Canada (in case the various \"In Canada,\" qualifications weren\\'t enough)\\n\\nIn Canada, if you\\'ve been detained by Police and you invoke your right to a lawyer, the Police are obligated to \"immediately\" (which in application, generally means \"as soon as possible in the circumstances\") provide you a reasonable oppurtunity to contact counsel.\\n\\nImportantly, they\\'re bound to hold off on questioning you further until you\\'ve been afforded this oppurtunity, barring exceptional exigent circumstances and investigative necessity.\\n\\nIf you\\'re detained at a police station, this usually means the Police will place you in a designated private phone room with a phone book (sometimes ipads/tablets these days depending on the station). \\n\\nIn Canada, Police are also obligated to provide you with phone numbers for duty counsel, who are free on-call lawyers who provide limited immediate advice relevant to the circumstances of your arrest. Depending on what province you\\'re in, this may be a \"1-800\" 24/7 hotline number or a list of lawyers which ought to be provided to you by police.\\n\\nDepending on the time of your arrest, you may be on hold for anywhere from 10 to 20 or more minutes trying to get through to duty counsel, due to wait time on a 1 800 number or non-response from listed roster numbers. If you do not wish to waive your right, its important you are diligent and patient and stay on the line/keep calling numbers. \\n\\nCutting myself off before this verges into legal advice territory, if you do not understand your right to counsel, or wish to speak to a lawyer but are having difficulty getting in contact with one despite your best efforts, its important to communicate that to police in unequivocal terms. The police are not expected to read your mind, but where its clearly known to them that someone doesn\\'t understand their rights or is having difficulty excercising those rights,  they are generally bound to make further reasonable efforts to discharge their informational and implementational duties under 10(b) of the Charter.\\n\\nThis may not make a difference in whether you\\'re charged or not, but it can make a huge difference when you actually retain a lawyer to defend you on those charges.\\n', \"Interview stops immediately. You are \\nEither released if only detained or booked into jail where you can call your lawyer. If you don't have one yet, judge will appoint one for you at your arraignment hearing. Jail will let you call if you want to hire one from within the jail.\", \"If you are not being formally charged you will get released where you can retain your own lawyer or go to the public defender's office (or equivalent).\\n\\nIf you *are* being charged, you will get booked into jail. The phones are free to use until you get assigned a cell. You can try to find a free lawyer at this time but good luck, most require a judge's approval to become your court-appointed attorney, this phone call is usually to call family and bond companies to try and get bailed out of jail.\\n\\nOnce you go to a cell it's usually a temporary dorm until you go before a judge. If it's a misdemeanor charge you will see a judge pretty soon, if it's a felony, it can take up to 72 hours to see one. This is the point where you can request a court-appointed attorney, signing paperwork that basically says you can't afford an attorney.\\n\\nAfter this, if you haven't been bailed out of jail yet, you will probably get moved to permanent classification; another dorm.\\n\\n1 week - 1 month later (or longer) you will get mail delivered to your cell that has your court-appointed attorney's name, info, etc. If you have a felony charge and cannot bail out of jail, you will have to wait to be indicted (typically by a grand jury) to know when your pre-trial court date is. This can take anywhere from months to almost 2 years. I was in with a guy waiting to be indicted for 22 months.\", 'In the US, saying \"I want my lawyer\" is equivalent to saying \"I wish to assert my right to have an attorney present\".  Once you do that, the police have to stop questioning you whether you actually have a lawyer or not.  \\n\\nAt that point, they may choose to charge you with a crime, and that\\'s when you have to worry about finding an actual lawyer.\\n', 'Quick tip.  If you are ever being questioned by the police at the headquarters do not talk to them until talking to a lawyer.  Keep your mouth shut.  Police are experts at twisting your words and getting false confessions out of you by threatening you.  They will say shit like.  \"We can help you if you just talk to us.\"   \"If you dont cooperate then things will only get worse for you.\"  And, \"we just want to help get this cleared up so you can go home\".  All bullshit.  Never say anything.  Don\\'t let them record you.  If you are getting arrested shut your mouth and don\\'t say shit.  95% of convictions are based off of shit people say whIle they are getting arrested.  They do not have to read you your miranda rights to hold what you say against.   Never talk to cops unless you have a lawyer.  Don\\'t let them trick you into saying anything.', 'Short answer: you do not have to have an already retained lawyer to use this, but you are not actually asking for an appointment either.\\n\\nIn the US, the phrase, \"I\\'d like to talk to my attorney before we go any further,\" invokes your Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Police can no longer question you, and answers they elicit out of you can be excluded from evidence on the basis of a constitutional violation. BUT - you can waive your Sixth Amendment protections by volunteering information after you have requested to speak to an attorney.\\n\\nOnce you have invoked your Sixth Amendment right, it is up to you to call an attorney. If you don\\'t already have an attorney, you can ask for a phone book. You can also call your spouse/mom/friend etc to secure an attorney for you. If you cannot afford an attorney, you can look for a pro bono (free) attorney, but that is unlikely. Otherwise, you must wait to be before the judge to ask for an appointed attorney. If you can afford it, you may be able to bond out before that.\\n\\nIf the police are not charging you with anything, you can always ask, \"I am under detention right now?\" if the answer is no, then you are free to leave.', \"I will speak from an Australian perspective. Here in NSW, at least for Indigenous Australians, police are required by law to call the 'Custody Notification Service', which puts you in touch with a lawyer once you are arrested, but *before* police ask to interview you. We [lawyers] ask certain questions of the police - the nature of the charges, whether the person is likely to be granted or refused police bail, and if refused police bail which court they will be attending. We then speak to the person charged and give them certain advice and answer any questions they may have at this point. Another law requires people refused bail to be brought before court as soon as possible - so on the weekend that is something called a Registrar, and during the week a Magistrate (a Judge in the lower-courts). We will have a lawyer there ready to represent them at their first court appearance.\\nFor non-indigenous Australians, the system operates largely the same. If unrepresented at their first court appearance, the Magistrate will typically ask if the person would like a lawyer, at which point they can apply for a 'grant' (representation) from Legal Aid, a publicly funded defence-lawyer service.\", \"Just a side note - I know you always see cops on television shows try to convince a person that if lawyers become involved, they can't work any deals with you. Do not listen to this! Police officers do not have the authority to offer you a deal on a case - deals are worked out between your attorney and the district attorney's office. The DAs don't care if you wouldn't answer questions until you had a lawyer; they just want to move the case along and count plea deals as a win because there is, in fact, a guilty plea (which is how they boost their success rate so high). \\n\\n*DISCLAIMER: In some jurisdictions, police officers handle the prosecution of traffic violations and act in the same role as a district attorney. If they tell you won't get a deal if you use an attorney, they could be telling the truth because they have the authority to offer plea deals. However, most of them don't have the time to take every case to trial so they will throw the defense attorney an offer if it means being able to conclude the case without further effort on their part. \", \"You do not need a personal solicitor. The state will appoint one for you for free. In Australia we call them legal aids and I would probably be in gaol if not for this service. Courts use a different language to what you and I use on the street. I'm not sure why, but that is the correct spelling for gaol in Australia. US spell checkers always want to change it to goal. \", 'First and foremost if you are not being detained and you are not under arrest or being charged with a crime do not answer any questions with or without a lawyer. \\n\\nIf you are legally required to answer questions they will have to wait until YOUR lawyer gets there but it will be in your time', 'People convict themselves all the time by talking to the police. You have the right to remain silent. I maintain you have the duty to self not to talk to police. There is nothing favorable that can come of it for you. Any attorney worth his salt will tell you to remain silent. You cannot talk your way out of being charged. Let your eventual attorney start with a clean slate. This goes double if you know you are guilty of something.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1905, "q_id": "8mx2ov", "title": "why shouldn't you plug a power strip into another power strip?", "selftext": "I've seen so many things saying it makes it more likely to cause a fire, but nothing explaining why.\n\nEDIT: I appreciate the explanations, everyone, thanks! But I think some of you may have forgotten that this is /r/explainlikeimfive, not /r/explainlikeim25.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mx2ov/eli5_why_shouldnt_you_plug_a_power_strip_into/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dzr2ygc', 'dzr3kyu', 'dzr4lv3', 'dzreqs5', 'dztdhdo'], 'score': [17, 10, 3, 6, 2], 'text': ['The short answer is because outlets are only designed to draw so much current and adding power strips makes them more likely to draw a dangerous amount of current. ', 'A powerstrip is a way of creating a parallel circuit: all devices you plug in get the same voltage. Since each device uses some amount of power, each will draw some current, which will all pass through the powerstrip wires.\\n\\nSince they\\'re all plugged in parallel, all that current adds up. So the powerstrip tends to draw more current from the same outlet: it \"amplifies\" the possible current being drawn.\\n\\nIt\\'s the current that makes wires heat up, it\\'s not difficult to see how this amplification effect can be dangerous.\\n\\nFor example, suppose you have a 110 watt lightbulb plugged into a 110 volt outlet. It will draw 1 amp\u00e8re of current from the outlet.\\n\\nNow plug a powerstrip with 5 outlets instead, and plug 5 lightbulbs in the powerstrip. Each lightbulb will still draw 1 A, so the powerstrip is now drawing 5 A from the outlet.\\n\\nNow replace one of the bulbs with another power strip with 5 bulbs. The first powerstrip is now drawing 4 A + 5 A = 9 A from the wall outlet.\\n\\nMost outlets and powerstrips aren\\'t supposed to go above 10 A - 20 A, so you can see how easily this can become dangerous with devices that draw more power.', 'It is a falsely stated safety precautions. You _can_ quite safely line up as many power plug as you desire. \\n\\nBut you have to be careful, all the devices that are plugged into your tree of power strips will draw current from one power outlet and therefore the current of all your devices will go through the cable of the first power strip.\\n\\nThe problem is in this first strip, it has been designed to withstand a particular current, which is related to the amount of outlets it has. If you branch out to more outlets, you basically \"increase\" the amount of outlets of the first strip. \\n\\nTo wrap up, the actual valid safety precaution would be: \"If you plug a power strip into another power strip, never connect more devices than you could using first power strip.\"\\n\\nAnd the answer why is to prevent the current to exceed  limits. Exceeding current limits is how you\\'ll get a electrical fire, which is undesirable, so that is _why_.\\n', \"You absolutely can as long as you don't draw too much current from the source outlet, it's just that having more outlets connected to the same source makes it easier to exceed this limit.\\n\\nIf the outlet can handle 10 Amps then plugging in even two 6 Amp devices will overload it, but you could safely have one hundred 0.1 Amp devices, using as many power strips as necessary to provide one hundred outlets. The trouble is if you plug 1 Amp devices into all those outlets you'll be ten times over the limit.\", 'It\\'s not specifically about plugging power strips into power strips, it\\'s about using too much power from one outlet.\\n\\nWhen you use a power strip, all the power that goes to all the stuff plugged into it comes through the power strip\\'s cable.\\n\\nWhen you plug another power strip into that power strip, the first power strip\\'s cable is carrying all the power for all the stuff in the first strip, plus all the power for all the stuff in the second strip. More strips and it gets even worse.\\n\\n\"Don\\'t plug them into each other\" is a rule of thumb. If the things plugged in don\\'t use very much power then you\\'re fine. If the things use lots of power (think clothes dryers) then even just one power strip might be too many.\\n\\nAs for *why* it\\'s a problem - loose plugs get hot when lots of power goes through them, and if they get too hot they could start to melt or catch fire. (Theoretically the cable could melt too, but I\\'ve never heard of that, it always seems to be the plug/outlet first)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 444, "q_id": "22azhr", "title": "Are our oceans 'dying' and if yes, what are the consequences?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22azhr/are_our_oceans_dying_and_if_yes_what_are_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgla2d0'], 'score': [9], 'text': [\"There are certainly some things wrong with the oceans.\\n\\nThe oceans are acidifying due to absorbed carbon dioxide. Good for us in that it hides some of the carbon dioxide we release, bad for fish and anything with a calcium carbonate skeleton (clams, some plankton, corals). Lots of [general information](_URL_2_); pH is on a logarithmic scale so it doesn't sound like much when stated in those units but acidity has gone up 30%. I consider having such a profound chemical effect on the ocean to be one of humanity's most astounding accomplishments.\\n\\nWe've collapsed a lot of fisheries. Once the population gets too low it takes a really long time for their numbers to recover. A single large tuna can be worth millions of dollars and market pressures will probably continue to hunt them down to extinction. People never seem to be able to stop until it is too late; our plates would be empty and a lot of people would be unemployed. Trust me when I tell you to enjoy wild-caught seafood, especially the large predatory fish, while you can. \\n\\nThe oceanic conveyor belts are [shutting down](_URL_1_). Sea ice leeches columns of cold, salty water. This flows down in the arctic, spreads out, and drives major ocean currents. We melt the sea ice, this stops, ocean currents stop, and then the models give conflicting results on what happens to us but those currents were important for keeping the ocean mixed and controlling weather patterns.\\n\\nWe cause impressive algal blooms. You should see what our fertilizer runoff does to the nitrogen cycle; we fix more nitrogen from the atmosphere than all life on Earth through the Haber-Bosch process! When excess fertilizer washes off farms and into rivers and ultimately into the oceans, it fertilizes algae. Some of these algae die, sink, and suck all the oxygen out of the water leading to massive fish kills. Some of the algae is also really nasty and makes neurotoxins. Clouds of the stuff bother some people even if they're just on a boat or at the beach and you don't really want to swim in it. Sometimes it looks vaguely like huge amounts of blood in the water, and combined with all the dead wasted fish it has a nice apocalyptic ambiance. The algae blooms seldom go more than a couple of kilometers from shore though.\\n\\nIt is possible for oceans to truly die on a more fundamental level than mere red tide. This rarely happens in Earth's history but [this has happened before](_URL_3_). During the Permian mass extinction, anaerobic sulfur-breathers and methane-producers seized control of all but the top few meters of the oceans, killed 96% of life in the oceans, and about 70% of life on land through runaway climate change and [poisonous clouds of hydrogen sulfide](_URL_0_). This is not a serious threat right now but you wanted to know what the consequences could be. Personally I believe in humanity and what we can accomplish, and given our jaw-dropping achievements at modifying ocean chemistry so far I think we can manage to completely and utterly destroy the oceans as they are now.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm', 'http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=159', 'http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F', 'http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331153608.htm']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2903, "q_id": "8w361l", "title": "My understanding is that there's no evidence that Ben Franklin wanted the national bird of the United States to be the turkey. Where did this myth come from and how did it get to be so widespread?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8w361l/my_understanding_is_that_theres_no_evidence_that/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e1sjulq'], 'score': [112], 'text': ['There is evidence. It\\'s in letters to his daughter. \\n\\n\"I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen as the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead tree, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the labor of the fishing-hawk; and, when that diligent bird has at length taken a fish, and is bearing it to his nest for the support of his mate and young ones, the bald eagle pursues him, and takes it from him. With all this injustice he is never in good case; but, like those among men who live by sharping and robbing, he is generally poor, and often very lousy. Besides, he is a rank coward; the little kingbird, not bigger than a sparrow, attacks him boldly and drives him out of the district. He is therefore by no means a proper emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America, who have driven all the kingbirds from our country; though exactly fit for that order of knights, which the French call Chevaliers d\\'Industrie.\\n\\nI am, on this account, not displeased that the figure is not known as a bald eagle, but looks more like a turkey. For in truth, the turkey is in comparison a much more respectable bird, and withal a true original native of America. Eagles have been found in all countries, but the turkey was peculiar to ours; the first of the species seen in Europe, being brought to France by the Jesuits from Canada, and served up at the wedding table of Charles the Ninth. He is, besides (though a little vain and silly, it is true, but not the worse emblem for that) a bird of courage, and would not hesitate to attack a grenadier of the British guards, who should presume to invade his farmyard with a red coat on.\"\\n\\n\\\\-- Ben Franklin, letter to his daughter Sarah, January, 1784\\n\\nHere\\'s the full letter, if you\\'re interested: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-41-02-0327']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2457, "q_id": "1mfsvm", "title": "What was the reaction from the public when Japan switched to the Gregorian Calendar during the Meiji Restoration?", "selftext": "I would like to know whether a majority of the Japanese people just accepted this drastic change (especially since moving traditional holidays to the Gregorian Calendar has changed the season in which many of them are held) or if there was any significant resistance, and, if so, what kind.  Thanks!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mfsvm/what_was_the_reaction_from_the_public_when_japan/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cc8ujtw'], 'score': [14], 'text': ['While I wouldn\\'t know where to start looking for an answer to this question, I\\'d like to point out that the historical calendar of Japan was not nearly as stable as that of the Western world. The calendar in official use underwent four revisions between 1685 and the Meiji Revolution. The last of them prior to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, known as the \"Tenpou\" calendar, was adopted in 1844; so older Japanese people would already have seen the calendar altered once in their lifetime.\\n\\nEnglish language information on this is scarce, but there\\'s a paragraph about the Tenpou calendar in the [Wikipedia article](_URL_0_) on the era. By following the second citation in the paragraph [22] to Hayashi\\'s article, you can find a little more information about Japanese calendar reforms during that period mixed in with a history of Japanese mathematicians.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenp%C5%8D#Calendar_revision']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 111, "q_id": "2noyqz", "title": "how do we automatically know to say \"black leather chair\" rather than \"leather black chair\"? is there a formal way to order adjectives?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2noyqz/eli5_how_do_we_automatically_know_to_say_black/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cmfikpx', 'cmfmig9', 'cmfn53j', 'cmfn8ze', 'cmfncv7', 'cmfqb3n', 'cmfqmy9', 'cmfyti5', 'cmfz41w', 'cmg1syv', 'cmg5ely', 'cmg5npb'], 'score': [9, 16, 345, 8, 22, 2, 4, 2, 5, 5, 2, 3], 'text': ['I think in that instance at least one way to look at is \"leather chair\" can be considered the noun, and black is the adjective.', 'It is not automatic.  You have learnt it through repetition.', 'There is in fact a prescribed order.\\n\\nDeterminers, Observation, Size and Shape, Age, Color, Origin, Material, Qualifier\\n\\nmore detail at:\\n_URL_0_', 'There is a formal order for adjectives. \\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThat image pretty much covers it. According to that image \"black\" is before \"leather\" because color precedes material. \\n\\nHow we know it is through repetition. It isn\\'t something that is formally taught (at least, I never remember this coming up during grammar lessons), but rather something is learned via experience from speaking with other people.\\n\\n Here is another link that goes more in depth into this. _URL_1_ You\\'ll see a table part of the way down that more or less mimics the first image. IIRC, it is not 100% fixed, but it more of a guideline that should be followed, otherwise you risk sounding strange. ', \"[Tom Scott does a great video explaining how it works.](_URL_0_) basically in English it tends to go:\\n\\nGeneral Opinion  >  Specific Opinion  >  Size  >  Shape  >  Age  >  Colour  >  Origin  >  Construction\\n\\n Different languages have a different order, and as with all language there aren't any hard 'rules' as such. \", 'In english, word order is the only way to distinguish what you are describing with an adjective. You are not calling the chair  black, you are calling the leather black. Some languages, like Russian, change the endings of the word, making word order less imperative. ', 'if you cut a piece out of the chair, you would have a piece of black leather, not a piece of leather black.', 'To put it simply, black describes the leather so it goes before it. Leather describes the chair, so it goes before it', 'Some adjectives are cumulative,  which means that we order them so that the most defining feature is nearest the noun. This rule is clearer when we say \"spotted Dalmatian puppy\"  or \"green Christmas tree\" or \"fast police car\" because the adjectives police, Christmas, and Dalmatian are so closely tied to their respective nouns that people tend to (mistakenly) think the words \"police car\" count together to form one noun. \\n\\nIn your example, leather is more closely tied to the chair because lots of things are black, but fewer are leather. So \"leather\" defines the noun most specifically. \\n\\nIt should also be noted that cumulative adjectives stand in contrast to coordinate adjectives, which *can* be reordered without sounding strange. Example: \"The noisy, smelly cat ran away.\" sounds just as natural as \"The smelly, noisy cat ran away.\" The cat is equally smelly as it is noisy. \\n\\nAdditional note: as in the examples above, cumulative adjectives are not separated by commas, but coordinate adjectives are. ', 'doesn\\'t it come from the fact that such constructs are formed from smaller parts which must themselves be linguistically correct?\\n\\nfor example, take an \"old black leather chair\".\\n\\nwhy not a \"leather old black chair\"?\\n\\nbecause \"old black leather\" by itself is a thing.\\n\\nwithin \"old black leather\" there is \"black leather\". there is no \"old black\".', 'It will ALWAYS be a leather chair. One could paint it a different a color. ', \"The chair is made of black leather. \\n\\nLeather blackness isn't a thing, but black leather is. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adjectives.htm'], ['http://www.grammar.cl/rules/adjectives-word-order.gif', 'http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/adjectives.htm'], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTm1tJYr5_M'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1083, "q_id": "5l2yd2", "title": "why there is no cell phone signal in some houses/apartments even though the signal is full when you are on the street?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5l2yd2/eli5_why_there_is_no_cell_phone_signal_in_some/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dbsimmx', 'dbsjkzj', 'dbslfcj', 'dbsljgq', 'dbsqqxu', 'dbsud24'], 'score': [6, 6, 2, 26, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Just one example of what can happen, but on my street the two nearest towers are almost directly along the direction of the road. Stand in the street and you have an unobstructed line of sight to either tower. Step inside  and the signal has to pass through the walls of every house along the street, so it's much weaker.\", \"the signal is a radio wave. different material shaped in different ways can absorb or reflect it. older structures weren't designed with these signals in mind, so they tend to be worse. \", 'One reason is the frequency of the signal in use. The low frequency one in 700,750,800 range penetrates easily into buildings whereas the others in the range of 1800/1900/2100 etc will not penetrate as easily like the former.', \"The biggest reason you are experiencing loss of signal is due to the structural material of your building. There is a certain amount of signal loss (measured in dB or decibels) that occurs whenever a wireless signal must pass throught any object. Some building materials such as single pane glass windows, drywall and wood have a very low loss of Signal Penetration as opposed to more dense materials such as concrete, steel and brick. If you are located in the center of the building, say by the elevator, you will be struggling to get a decent signal as opposed to if you were close to an exterior wall on the same floor. There are many other factors that can cause loss of signal such as line of sight, distance and weather but aren't necessarily contributing to your specific case as you can travel a short distance outside of your building and grab a signal.\", 'In the case of concrete apartments, there are rebar reinforcements littered throughout the pillars, flooring and sometimes walls. On the outer edge of the building they will not interfere much but the further away from the signal origin you get into the building, the more the structure begins to act like a loose [faraday cage](_URL_0_) which gradually inhibits the radio waves used by the phone to transmit data. Structural components such as walls and floors can also inhibit the transmission of signals as well as they act as obstacles to the waves. Another major problem is interference which can be given off by basically any electrical device including wiring inside a building. There are many more reasons as well but these are probably the simplest and most predominant reasons for signal loss.', 'Sometimes, the stuff they put in your roofing/walls can deflect the signal, a bit like how a mirror reflects a beam of light.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1253, "q_id": "kf8a2", "title": "Are there any other species aside from humans who go through non-mutual breakups?", "selftext": "Some species mate with a different partner each mating season, some have harems, some have life partners (even going to the extreme where when one partner dies or is taken away the other just sits down and starves.)  \n  \nAre humans unique in that we intend to mate for life, but often don't, and it's common for the end of the relationship to not be mututal?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kf8a2/are_there_any_other_species_aside_from_humans_who/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2jsb7f', 'c2jshk2', 'c2juac8', 'c2jvpnp', 'c2jsb7f', 'c2jshk2', 'c2juac8', 'c2jvpnp'], 'score': [3, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2], 'text': [\" >  Are humans unique in that we intend to mate for life\\n\\nHumans aren't naturally monogamous.\", 'I\u00b4m way out of my league here, and I\u00b4m sure there ARE examples of non-mutual breakups in the animal world if one looks hard enough, but it would make sense from the evolutionary perspective that a species would settle on either of the two strategies (lifelong relationship or new mate each time) and not something in between. Each of the two strategies requires quite a lot of investment and adaptations, so it might be counterproductive to switch so much. If you have lifelong relationships, you would invest more in finding the right mate once, and in making a deep bond with that mate. That mate might also be required to help out more with the offspring. If you just get fertilised by some random guy once a year, that means you have to adapt to selecting the best mate every year etc and that means that the males have to make sure to be the fittest one every year.\\n\\n(start of statement based on speculation) Humans do what they want these days, mostly, but if you go back a few thousand years, I would think that the majority of partners would stay together in some conformation even if they are unhappy about each other, because that is what is keeping the family group from starving. (end of speculation)', 'No, humans are not the only ones. At The San Francisco Zoo there was a gay penguin couple, who adopted an egg which the zoo cleverly named \"Chuck Norris\". Anyway, the zoo brought in a known hussy (seriously) and she ended up breaking up the relationship between the gay penguins. The gay penguin pushed aside actually became violent and had to be detained for a few days. \\n\\nNow everything is dandy, but this example should answer your question!', \"There are some kinds of spiders where the female eats the male. I think that's non-mutual.\", \" >  Are humans unique in that we intend to mate for life\\n\\nHumans aren't naturally monogamous.\", 'I\u00b4m way out of my league here, and I\u00b4m sure there ARE examples of non-mutual breakups in the animal world if one looks hard enough, but it would make sense from the evolutionary perspective that a species would settle on either of the two strategies (lifelong relationship or new mate each time) and not something in between. Each of the two strategies requires quite a lot of investment and adaptations, so it might be counterproductive to switch so much. If you have lifelong relationships, you would invest more in finding the right mate once, and in making a deep bond with that mate. That mate might also be required to help out more with the offspring. If you just get fertilised by some random guy once a year, that means you have to adapt to selecting the best mate every year etc and that means that the males have to make sure to be the fittest one every year.\\n\\n(start of statement based on speculation) Humans do what they want these days, mostly, but if you go back a few thousand years, I would think that the majority of partners would stay together in some conformation even if they are unhappy about each other, because that is what is keeping the family group from starving. (end of speculation)', 'No, humans are not the only ones. At The San Francisco Zoo there was a gay penguin couple, who adopted an egg which the zoo cleverly named \"Chuck Norris\". Anyway, the zoo brought in a known hussy (seriously) and she ended up breaking up the relationship between the gay penguins. The gay penguin pushed aside actually became violent and had to be detained for a few days. \\n\\nNow everything is dandy, but this example should answer your question!', \"There are some kinds of spiders where the female eats the male. I think that's non-mutual.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1011, "q_id": "3i2qoj", "title": "why are you never woken up in the middle of the night by a sneeze?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i2qoj/eli5_why_are_you_never_woken_up_in_the_middle_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cuct2bk', 'cuct2wg', 'cuctsb7', 'cucvt7j', 'cucxzk2', 'cud0o1e', 'cud0tvh', 'cud1ya6', 'cud3zzz', 'cud5l4s', 'cud62e4', 'cud7oxz', 'cud7z79', 'cudcszv', 'cudd2zd', 'cude5h3', 'cudeev1', 'cudf70t', 'cudgkmj', 'cudgwyv', 'cudh4ki', 'cudhou6'], 'score': [15, 106, 1473, 3, 34, 4, 4, 20, 10, 3, 2, 2, 5, 3, 3, 12, 10, 2, 4, 3, 2, 3], 'text': [\"Sometimes you do. Just like when you wake up after a terrible nights sleep, it may have been an interrupted sleep where you woke up many times during, but only for a couple seconds at a time. When you sneeze during sleep, you usually wake for a very short period of time before going back to sleep. As the event is insignificant you wouldn't usually remember it the next morning.\", \"If while sleeping, you don't feel tickling, how do you explain the shaving cream/feather prank?\", \"Is your question why we don't sneeze during sleep, or whether we wake up to sneeze and don't remember it? \\n\\nIf your question is the former, while part of the reason is due to the lack of airflow and movement while you're asleep, there's also the idea that during sleep, the brain does not receive (as many) signals from the motor neurons responsible for reflexes such as sneezing due to 'REM atonia'. You would need much greater stimulation than a little tickle to be woken up from that state. \\n\\nHere's a nice summary of both of these concepts: _URL_0_\", \"For me it's not so much sneezes as coughs, brought on by post nasal drip when I happen to roll onto my back during the night. It can and does wake me up. The only remedy is to get up, go into the bathroom and blow my nose. That will usually take care of it \u2014 until the next time.\", \"But ... sometimes I am?  This question doesn't even make sense to me.  Are you asking why it's never personally happened to you?\", \"Another thing to consider is that you constantly wake up during the night - after each REM phase. You don't remember that, do you? Why would you remember a sneeze?\", \"It's happened to me.  It's at the pre-sneeze inhaling part, not the actual sneeze itself.  Maybe you have just never slept near something you are allergic too?\", 'I have woken up from sneezes and coughing. Normally by a severe sneeze or cough though. I assume the better answers are correct and that if you do wake when you sneeze or cough, it is during lighter sleep cycles. ', 'I woke myself up from a sneeze. Early morning, deep sleep, dreaming hard. I scared myself so much that I sat up in bed going, \"AH! AH!\" before I quickly surmised it was a random sneeze, my sneeze. So weird. My dog and cat responded with glares of severe annoyance and shame.', \"I'm pretty sure I've sneezed myself awake, but I have narcolepsy, so it's not like you can generalize from that. Others have mentioned sleep paralysis and desensitized nervous system reasons, which are probably accountable for a lot of it.\", \"Huh? I'm woken by sneezes and bloody noses as well.  \\nWake up right as the blood starts flowing, it's actually cold at first so it's kind of weird.\", \"I remember this being posted in TIL before. It was said that the part of your brain that controls sneezing is also asleep. I'll see if I can find the post.\\n\\n[Here it is.](_URL_0_)\", \"Oh we sneeze in our sleep, that's for sure. If you ever damage multiple ribs you will find out first hand.\", 'Related-unrelated: I sneezed in bed one morning and my friend, who was still sleeping right beside me, bolted upright and shouted, \"WHAT THE FUCK?\" and then flopped back down and went straight back to sleep. I had to hide in the bathroom to avoid waking everyone in the house up with my obnoxious laughter.', \"I had terrible allergies for most of my life, and I've definitely woken myself up with a sneeze many many times. A night. For years.\\n\\nMost nights it was just once or twice, and occasionally I'd sleep through the night fine, but sometimes I'd be up just about all night sneezing.\\n\\nTL;DR: allergy shots are amazing\", \"My wife once sneezed on my face right before she woke up and had no idea.  It was one of the most traumatic experiences of our relationship.  She doesn't believe me.\", \"Late to the party, but it can take up to 6 minutes to realize that you are awake from your sleep. I didn't know this until I had a sleep study done to find out I was constantly waking up in my sleep, which felt like a solid sleep to me.\", \"Kind of related... when I cry when I'm awake, my nose gets all stuffed up and my face gets all red... when I cry in my sleep (more frequently than I would like to admit), no stuffy nose, no red face, just a tear stained pillow and face.  Not sure how to explain that one.\", \"You do, i may, or may not, wake my kids up by poking a hair up their nose, cos if they sleep during the day, they stay awake all night asking for drinks, scared, etc. Its very effective at waking them quickly and they don't often drift back. They sneezed a few times, depends how deep the hair goes. Allegedly.\", 'My dad woke himself up in his sleep with a sneeze the other night! He was terrified, but it happened. He also suffers from apnia. Not sure if that has anything to do with it. ', \"I just want to say, I'm surprised by all the people who sneeze in their sleep.  I've also never sneezed in my sleep that I'm aware of.  Also being married for 15 years and having 2 kids, have never heard them sneeze in their sleep either.  Maybe there is some reason that some people do and some don't.\", 'When I was about 8 years old I woke up in the middle of the night when I sneezed. I had terrible allergies and my sinuses were so clogged that when I sneezed I burst my ear drum in my left year.. It was a bloody, painful mess. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/sleep-on-sneeze-not/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.m.webmd.com/allergies/features/11-surprising-sneezing-facts'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2209, "q_id": "3qgc27", "title": "why is the number \"70\" in french called \"soixante-dix\" (60+10), \"80\" called \"quatre-vingts\" (4*20) and \"90\" called \"quatre-vingt-dix\" (4*20+10)", "selftext": "I've always found it very weird that the French numeric system is seemingly normal till about 60 (loosely following the Arabic numerals), and then shit completely hits the fan with 70, 80 and 90.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qgc27/eli5why_is_the_number_70_in_french_called/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cwexff3', 'cwexjkj', 'cwexp5t', 'cwez22t'], 'score': [34, 11, 4, 9], 'text': ['There may not be a satisfying answer to this question, but one theory is that the French were originally going to go with a base-20 numbering.  Source: [Numberphile](_URL_0_).', \"IIRC it's because of the base 20, or counting system that relies on 20s for grouping larger numbers (AKA vegesimal). This is just some really ancient way to count things and is present in other languages. It's similar to how other systems use dozens (base 12) although 12 has other important significance in religions and whatnot. You also surely know the decimal (10) system. :)\\n\\nNote that not all French speakers do this. In Swiss French, we say septante, huitante, nonante. Similar if not the same in Belgium.\", 'A good chunk of Europe used a base 20 system including French. Actually, you had the same in English. The word for 20 was \"score\". So, you\\'d say stuff like \"four score and seven\" for 87 or \"three score and ten\" for 70. In Old French, you could use both up to 99. The old word for 80 was \"uitante\" in base 10.\\n\\nThe French just kept more of that system than people in other languages did. Danish has an equally confusing system for numerals.', 'This is because France was is a Gallic country and the Gauls used to count on a 20 based language. \\n\\nBut their is different way of saying those numbers depending on what part of the french speaking world you live on the Base 20 numbers are still in use in : (France,Quebec, Madagascar, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal, Mali, Rwanda , Haiti , Chad , Guinea, Benin, Togo , Central African Republic, Gabon , Comoros , Equatorial Guinea, Djibouti , Luxembourg , Vanuatu , Seychelles , Monaco)\\n\\nBut some french speaking countries or regions have switched to a based 10 using septante(70) octante or huitante (80) and  nonante (90): (Belgium, Republic of the Congo, Aosta Valley, Jersey Legal French, Acadia/New Brunswick, Switzerland, Burundi, Rwanda and a few other places)\\n\\nThe interesting thing is that this 20 based system was challenged during the french revolution, the french revolution changed the mile system and invented meter system that was a lot more logical, the calendar was changer to the French Republican Calendar with a 10 days/week base and the year 0 being (1789) year of the revolution, but out of all of those new ideas only the meter system and a few things survived today.\\n\\nAlso it is important to note that the 10 based system is always used in french stock trading to no get confused between 70 and 6010.\\n\\nI hope that my explanation helped. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=220MB1uHKMw'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1509, "q_id": "3xpz72", "title": "why is it that when something is flavored grape (grape soda), that it tastes nothing like an actual grape?", "selftext": "Learned that my grapes are different from the grape flavor they're trying to make. They're trying to make the flavor of Concord grapes, thanks /u/mredding ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xpz72/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_something_is_flavored/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cy6qdwn', 'cy6qs0f', 'cy6vnyt', 'cy6xvff', 'cy7esaj'], 'score': [110, 13, 5, 7, 3], 'text': ['Grape flavored soda tastes like Concord grapes. Find them. Try them. Marvel in how exact they got it right.', 'The varieties of \"table grapes\" that you can buy at the grocery store taste significantly different from various other varieties of grapes that exist. The grapes you buy at the store have been bred to be larger and more resilient, often seedless, and with a thinner less bitter skin. They\\'re easier to handle and eat, but they don\\'t taste as good. \\n\\nThe \"grape flavor\" that is commonly seen in drinks/candy/etc. is very similar to the taste of actual Concord grapes.', 'Bad example using grapes, a better example is watermelon and its artificial flavoring. The two are nothing alike.', 'I personally find the artificial orange flavor is completely different to an actual orange. ', \"Is blue raspberry something that occurs in nature or is it strictly something the flavor companies thought of? I'm assuming they used blue to avoid confusion with strawberries.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 768, "q_id": "8wk9d3", "title": "In 1651, Knights Hospitaller have acquired four islands in the Carribean, controlling them until 1665. How did Hospitallers manage to establish colonies in the New World? What was their long-term plan for Carribean holdings?", "selftext": "The islands in question are Saint Christopher (Saint Kitts), Saint Martin, Saint Barth\u00e9lemy, and Saint Croix.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8wk9d3/in_1651_knights_hospitaller_have_acquired_four/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e1w8wjn'], 'score': [65], 'text': ['I asked this question 2 weeks ago and received an excellent answer from u/rhodis \\n\\n_URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8s9cs5/what_were_the_knights_hospitaller_hoping_to/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2722, "q_id": "21xza3", "title": "why is it we go into a state of \"feeling low\" for no apparent reason sometimes and how does it pass away?", "selftext": "Edit: Sleep pattern, exposure to sunlight, diet, hormone levels have been pointed out most so far. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21xza3/eli5_why_is_it_we_go_into_a_state_of_feeling_low/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cghirxb', 'cghjhmg', 'cghjn1b', 'cghkwo3', 'cghkyqy', 'cghlfl4', 'cghlw71', 'cghm33q', 'cghm6iu', 'cghmh4o', 'cghmtm4', 'cghn24p', 'cghnaa7', 'cghnc8f', 'cghnop1', 'cghnv1f', 'cghnvcn', 'cgho08d', 'cghobc8', 'cghobtu', 'cghoi4v', 'cghol6a', 'cghpoj8', 'cghpvec', 'cghqmbc', 'cghqz9m', 'cghr8qz', 'cghrj6y', 'cghrut7', 'cghs1wl', 'cghsjwm', 'cght4kc', 'cghtgge', 'cghtx84', 'cghugja', 'cghumvs', 'cghvmd6', 'cghx7bb', 'cghxet6', 'cghxj8r', 'cghxr4e', 'cghyavj', 'cghye9c', 'cghyigj', 'cghyppg', 'cghzbsg', 'cghzimk', 'cghzt6b', 'cgi06l2', 'cgi4h4t', 'cgi5rzt', 'cgi6bpv'], 'score': [417, 180, 1170, 999, 5, 2, 2, 133, 3, 7, 27, 4, 3, 2, 3, 15, 6, 5, 2, 3, 43, 2, 67, 6, 2, 10, 3, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 11, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['Hormonal fluctuations. The body has a natural cycle in which hormone secretion increases and decreases for certain chemicals within the body. Increased levels of certain hormones and decreased levels of other hormones cause your mood to shift. This is why women get so sensitive during menstruation. Not a lot of people know that guys actually have these hormonal fluctuations as well and their cycles can actually sync the same way girls menstrual cycles do.', 'It was a revelation to me to learn how our thoughts affect our \\'reality\\'.  I always thought, \"If I think it, it must be real.\" But that\\'s not true. Thoughts are just thoughts, and they come and go on their own. So, when I start into a depressing thinking pattern, having all kinds of negative thoughts that lay me low, I now realize that I don\\'t have to believe the thoughts. That helps me either snap out of it, or at least realize that the thoughts will pass on their own, and I can just be patient.', 'In my Native tradition I call this the blue wolf. It came out of seeking a private vision for my life from the Creator when I was lost and going through one my lowest times. It was inspired by the medicine wheel teachings of my tribe and from the wisdom of my kind Elders. It saved my life, but I am not a therapist, I respectfully do not speak for other Natives, or even other members of my tribe. This was my personal vision that guided me to change the entire path of my life forever. Take what you like and leave the rest. Find out for yourself. If you choose that path, you have to follow the blue wolf into the forest and see where it leads.  If you try to control it your are not following. If you try to jump ahead and lead it you are not following.  Follow the blue wolf and see where it leads and more will be revealed. Your blue wolf may even lead your to your own private vision for your life. Aho! ', \"Summer after Junior-year I caught a slump like this that must have last for over a month. Couldn't figure it out until I did a little self evaluation and realized that between Closing at work (5pm-2am) Staying up partying after (2am-7am) and then crashing for most of the day (7a-3ish) I rarely even saw the sun. after a couple days of sleeping out in my hammock and soaking up some of that sweetsweet Vitamin D I was right as rain.\", 'The Sweet is never as sweet... without the bitter', 'Hormones are involved but it\\'s more closely related to the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin. (Although hormone levels do interact with these chemicals so its kind of a chicken-or-the-egg question) These are both responsible for feelings of happiness and pleasure (that is a massive simplification but I\\'m mobile so forgive me). Many things can interact with the amount of dopamine and serotonin. Certain vitamins and proteins aide in the production and uptake of these chemicals so if your body is lacking them due to a poor diet it can cause a dip in mood. The stress hormone cortisol interferes with the production/uptake of D and S so stress can do it. Even the amount of daylight we get can influence it. In cases of seasonal depression a lack of sunlight has been indicated to lower serotonin levels which cause the \"winter blues\". There is definitely more to be said on this topic and what i have said is simplified but like I said I\\'m mobile so hopefully that answers your question ', \"Could be a lot of different things.  Get more sleep if you've been shorting yourself (especially if you frequently get less than 6 hours; evening naps don't count; get 7 to 8 hours of real sleep at night).\", 'How is your diet?  That is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear this question.\\n\\nWhat is a good diet constructed of?  A number of important things: \\n\\nSufficient fiber.  This means plenty of vegetables, some fruit, nuts, perhaps some dried fruit.  Fiber keeps the digestion system running comfortably and efficiently.  By eating plenty of vegetables for fiber you are also getting vitamins that you need to feel your best.\\n\\nPlenty of water.  Staying hydrated is very important to feeling at your best.  Avoid soda.  Soda contains salt which is added by manufacturers to dehydrate you so that you want to drink more soda.  They have to add a lot of sugar to mask the salt content.  Sugar spikes your blood sugar quickly and then it crashes making you feel tired within a few hours.\\n\\nSufficient protein.  Protein makes you stronger.  Your muscles need protein to recover and stay strong after daily use.  Remember your heart is a muscle.  Meat and fish contain complete protein as does dairy and whey protein powder.  If you want to avoid meat you need to combine foods such as rice and beans to get complete protein.  Meat also contains vitamin B12 which is particularly important for giving you energy.  Vegetarians need to supplement B12.  Most people need between 50 and 100 grams of protein a day.  People who are weight training often eat much more than 100 grams a day.\\n\\nAddressing food intolerances.  People can be intolerant to different foods.  If you have a food tolerance, avoiding that food can make an enormous positive difference in how you feel.  Certain food intolerances can cause a low feeling.  Some examples of food intolerances are dairy, eggs, wheat and soy.  There is a lot of information online about food intolerances.  If you want help finding whether you have a food intolerance a dietician (nutritionist) or doctor can help you.  \\n\\nSufficient dietary fat.  To function properly most bodies need 25-35% dietary fat as a percentage of daily calories.  Dietary fat gives long lasting, steady energy throughout the day.  Dietary fat is needed to absorb vitamins A, D, E, K, and carotenoids.  Each gram of fat has 9 calories, each gram of carbohydrates and protein have 4 calories.  Your body needs dietary fat for brain development, controlling inflammation, digestion and blood clotting.  Good sources of dietary fat are meat, fish, dairy, nuts, avocados, olive oil, butter.  Remember that body fat is a function of total calories and level of exercise and is not the same thing as dietary fat.  The fat you get from food are called essential because your body cannot make them itself, or work without them.  Dietary fat adds satiety and a sense of fullness after eating a meal and also affects hormone levels.  All your cells are defined by fat molecules aligned as a membrane.  Dietary fat is needed to provide central building blocks to all cells in the body.\\n\\nSufficient carbohydrates.  Carbohydrates are an important source of energy.  Complex carbohydrates found in rice, grains, potatoes and starchy vegetables digest more slowly and give longer lasting energy.  Sugar is a simple carbohydrate.  Sugar will spike your blood sugar and then you will crash.  Some sugar is a nice part of a diet but too much and you will not feel your best.  Too much sugar has also been linked to a number of diseases later in life.  Most people need between 100 and 300 grams of carbohydrates a day and often more.  If you are exercising a lot you will need to eat more carbohydrates.\\n\\nSufficient vitamin D.  Your body generates vitamin D naturally when your skin is exposed to sunlight.  Spend 10-15 minutes outside in the middle of a sunny day with exposed skin to get vitamin D.  This is difficult to do in the winter because often it will be overcast for weeks.  Take advantage of the sun in the spring and summer by spending time outside to restore your vitamin D.\\n', 'Cognition plays a key role in emotional state. Depending on ones perception of events, your point of view, then your mind will react accordingly. If one is content with his achievements and environment then the mood will be subjective to the thoughts and the way situations are perceived. If one perspective is unsatisfied with their life choices, and environment then their emotions will react accordingly.', 'More than likely you started feeling low because you got on reddit. To make it pass, stay on reddit.', '**1. Emotional response.**\\n\\nSmells, songs, tastes, and other \\'cues\\' can bring up emotions even when we don\\'t clearly remember why. \\n\\nThe amygdala processes emotional experiences in the brain. Stress and time can affect memory, but the amygdala will still be able to process emotions.\\n\\n**2. Hormones!**\\n\\nSerotonin, estrogen, and dopamine can effect mood. (Lots of hormones can.)\\n\\nAs an extreme example, one reason why people suffer from PTSD is because the stress they experienced released so much dopamine that their brain became addicted to it. This makes their normal day-to-day life boring (and even meaningless) in comparison.\\n\\nBut dopamine is released in the brain in our normal day-to-day lives. \\n\\n >  \"Inside the brain, dopamine plays important roles in motor control, motivation, arousal, cognition, and reward, as well as a number of basic lower-level functions including lactation, sexual gratification, and nausea.\" \\n[wikipedia](_URL_0_)\\n\\nEvery time you orgasm, eat sugar, or achieve something you care about\\nyour brain gives you a dopamine kick. Once that kick runs out you\\'ll feel a bit low - and want to seek that thrill again.\\n\\nAddicted to something? Dopamine probably has a lot to do with it. \\n\\n**3. Health.**\\n\\nYour blood sugar levels, quality of sleep, and how balanced your diet is can affect your mood. (And pretty much anything that goes wrong in your body can make you feel like crap until your body sorts it out.)\\n\\nEven just one unbalanced meal can send your blood sugar up and down a mood-killing rollercoaster.\\n\\n*ETA: Fixed formatting.*', \"I can only speak from experience but I often go through a state of feeling low for no reason. Lately, I found that if I throw myself into a task, the feeling goes away. Having a hobby helps a lot. I just recently started digging into music again and forgot how much I enjoyed that. It's all about finding the right balance. \", \"It depends on how low you mean. It bothers me that a lot of people have offered cursory advice on something that could be clinical depression. I'm not prepared to answer unless I have more information from you. \", \"We didn't evolve sitting around at home in front of a computer.\", 'Is this sub always in fucking comic sans?  How had I not noticed until now?', '**All it takes is one negative thought** ... \"I\\'m not good enough\", Then it builds up and your brain adds more and more to the mixture without you consciously being aware of it - Negative thoughts equate to low self esteem and that blip causes an immediate downer. \\n\\n\\nThe way to stop it is to analyse every positive thing thats happened to you each and every day on a list which takes 2 minutes of your time - Think about how that thing made you feel and you will emulate it.', \"Watch your caffeine intake.  Most people are addicted to caffeine. 3-6 hours after consumption, a caffeine comedown makes your brain's dopamine levels sink and this can cause depression-like symptoms for a while.  \", \"Just fake it until you make it.\\n\\nI didn't make it yet.\", \"I had been feeling like this for a few months.  I was just sad.  Felt like something was very off.  Most people told me that it will pass.  And it has, for the most part.  \\n\\nWhat I learned from it: eating healthier made me feel better.  Gave me more energy and I didn't feel as bad.  Working out also helped.  I am Vitamin D deficient, taking the supplements made me break out in a rash, so when I can, I try to get out in the sun.  I know that you arent asking about peoples personal stories, and I am not sure why exactly this happens.  Reading all the responses down there do all seem to make sense.  However!\\n\\nWhat I really saw make the main difference in my outlook was taking a supplement called sam-E.  I credit my better moods and lack of feeling low mostly to it.  sam-E is naturally made in your body, it forms naturally when the amino acid methionine combines with the energy-producing molecule ATP, helps build proteins, hormones, fatty acids, nucleic acids, and other crucial substances.\\n\\nThis is becoming a blab-fest.  All in all, I dont know why we feel like this but I did find that eating better, exercising, and taking sam-E did help for me.  It took awhile, once I was doing all 3, but they definitely made me feel way better.\", 'Blood sugar and sleep weigh heavily into mood.', \"There are many variables such as diet, current thoughts, current experience, location, environment, past memories, stress, amount of sleep, medication etc etc etc that affect mood (the list is virtually infinite). However, your question implies that you are simply sitting still feeling fine, while all of a sudden you feel low. It is important to note that if this scenario as you have implied plays out and persists (that is, it continues to happen) then it would be best to seek help from a medical professional (your doctor who may refer you to a therapist/psychiatrist). The professional would have a better time narrowing down the cause (whether it be biological such as a chemical imbalance in the brain, a physical defect in the brain, or whether it be psychological such as an event in your life that may be impacting your mood on a more general basis).\\n\\nAs for what is happening in the brain when you feel low - there are various regions in the brain that influence mood: hippocampus, thalamus, cerebral cortex, and amygdala. No one region is responsible for mood, but each can significantly impact mood per findings from more recent brain scans - but to which extent is highly debated. From a chemical standpoint, some researchers believe that Serotonin, (a neurotransmitter in the brain essentially acting like the chemical that facilitates nerve cell firing) is under-produced. When under-produced, scientists hypothesize that the brain is more prone to psychological stress - but it remains a question of debate in regard to its role. SSRI's or (Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors) are what depression medications are - each medication has a method of either increasing the amount of serotonin in the brain, or limiting the extent by which serotonin is removed from the brain) - by doing so and regulating the amount of serotonin has shown results for patients, though the full mechanism by which SSRI's function is still not fully understood. The observed outcome of SSRI's suggest that once serotonin levels return back to normal levels (pertinent to that patient's standard of normal), then depression can be eradicated or managed. It is important to note that other factors such as the stressful environment, or other environmental traumas must be addressed with the help of a professional. 'The passing of mood' as you state, though, is generally your brain's serotonin level, returned to balance.\\n\\nTo feel better generally, try to eat healthy foods, get lots of exercise, engage in meditation, and some studies suggest it may also help to stimulate your brain (read/movies/even games, etc). Improving your physical appearance has been shown in some studies to make you feel better naturally - take care of your body (hygeine, grooming, etc). Again, feeling down for extended periods without any obvious cause is not normal and you should seek professional help.\\n\\nhelpful information:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n_URL_1_\\n\\nTelephone Hotlines: \\n\\nUS Suicide Hotline\\t1-800-784-2433\\n\\nNDMDA Depression Hotline \u2013 Support Group\\t800-826-3632\\n\\nSuicide Prevention Services Crisis Hotline\\t800-784-2433\\n\\nSuicide Prevention Services Depression Hotline\\t630-482-9696\\n\\nAAA Crisis Pregnancy Center\\t800-560-0717\\n\\nChild Abuse Hotline \u2013 Support  &  Information\\t800-792-5200\\n\\nCrisis Help Line \u2013 For Any Kind of Crisis 800-233-4357\\n\\nDomestic  &  Teen Dating Violence (English  &  Spanish)\\t800-992-2600\\n\\nParental Stress Hotline \u2013 Help for Parents\\t800-632-8188\\n\\nRunaway Hotline (All Calls are Confidential)\\t 800-231-6946\\n\\nSexual Assault Hotline (24/7, English  &  Spanish)\\t 800-223-5001\\n\\nSuicide  &  Depression Hotline \u2013 Covenant House\\t 800-999-9999\\n\\nNational Child Abuse Hotline\\t800-422-4453\\n\\nNational Domestic Violence Hotline\\t800-799-SAFE\\n\\nNational Domestic Violence Hotline (TDD)\\t 800-787-3224\\n\\nNational Youth Crisis Hotline\\t800-448-4663\\n\\n\\n \", 'There are a number of reasons why people can go into a slump, the reason why the reason is not apparent is because humans are complex chemical and biological machines and we aren\\'t entirely aware of everything that\\'s going on. Your slumps could be from seasonal allergens that you aren\\'t seriously allergic to - but just enough to affect your mood, a spider bite, your diet, the weather, pollution, or a million other things. You could have a low level infection, an imbalance of candida in your gastrointestinal tract, you could have depression from something but because you don\\'t think it \"should\" affect you you miss the connection. You might be reacting to a chemical that doesn\\'t normally affect people, but perhaps you are more sensitive to it than most, like insecticides applied to the yard, or something in...hair gel (like maybe parabens?)\\n\\nMy point isn\\'t that these are exactly why anyone goes into the slump. But, because each human is complex, and each human\\'s reaction will be different from the next human\\'s when exposed to identical environmental controls, so the reason why these happen and are largely unexplained is - life is complex.\\n\\n \\n\\n', \"For me personally, I get depressed when I'm not doing deep down what I know I should be doing. \\n\\nTherefore fruitless activities depress me such as video\\n gaming  too much, not lifting Weighr, not partaking in skateboarding or skiing, not learning, no goals, etc. \\n\\nPeople get depressed when they get stuck. They stop moving. In life, never stop moving, always better yourself and never be satisfied. \\n(nothing to do with material wealth.) \\n\\n\", 'Well you see, when you go to the window, to the wall, to the sweat drop down yo balls, to all these bitches crawl. It creates a state of mind known as \"getting low\"', 'I\\'ll support \"hormone levels\". \\n\\nThe way I see it (I\\'m talking out of my ass, here. So if any of this is wrong, I never claimed to be right) is that the body can stop producing certain hormones responsible for happy moods (serotonin, dopamine, etc.). When that happens, there is an imbalance in the brain that can cause people to feel down for no apparent reason at all. Happens to me a lot.', \"I know it's been mentioned before but I want to emphasize: EXERCISE.  It WILL pull you out of your slump.  Take it from a guy who spent 20 years with crippling depression.  My lows are manageable now, and if they start to get bad I just grab my gear and hit the gym.  An hour of cardio is the best cure I've found for the unwarranted blues.\\n\\nYou CAN do it, and it's far, far easier than you realize.  Two weeks in the gym, 3-4 days per week.  By the end of the second week you'll feel amazing.  \", \"From my experience, food, sun, diet etc can play a role in the blues but working in the creative field I come across people daily that smoke, don't maintain healthy diets, and are stuck in a dark studio all day but are extremely positive and upbeat people.  What I have come to learn is this: Every time we have a though about something, a chemical factory in the brain called the hypothalamus releases a chemical or a 'peptide' into the blood stream.  This peptide matches the thought we just had so if we have an angry thought an angry peptide gets released into the blood stream and if we have a happy thought a happy peptide ensues.  These peptides are what cause us to 'feel' no matter what the feeling is.  Now since a very young age, we have been gathering thoughts and clumping them together to create different ideas and many of these ideas are ones that cause us 'sadness' and cause peptides to release that give us sad/angry/lonely/ etc feelings. Anything that we experience that reminds us of one of these negative ideas will trigger it's corresponding peptide even if that experience was just watching a movie and being reminded (even on an unconscious level) of some idea we have that make us feel crappy.  I think that there is something going on in your life that you are either subconsciously pushing away or not recognizing.  Our feelings are no more than indicators that something in the thought process is not flowing right.  I'm a certified hypnotherapist specializing in erroneous beliefs and 'false programming'  and have much experience with this, I'd be more than happy to talk more if you're interested.  Good luck and don't worry about it too much. Distracting yourself completely from the fact that you have the 'blues' for a short while will significantly start to lessen that particular peptide from releasing into the bloodstream.  An hour of playing in a pool always does the trick for me.  \", 'Also, sub-concious thoughts can provoke low feelings.', \"What the fuck is with this prestige worldwide ad I can't even read reddit \", \"Vitamin D helps me immensely with this issue. It's rough in the winter here in Ohio so every winter I take a supplement. \", \"I'll reiterate: sunlight exposure (get some), diet (don't eat crap), sleep (get enough).\", \"Um, capitalism. Striving for something artificial. Reaching for goals we don't need.\", 'Usually its due to my work load at school. They seem in direct correlation. ', 'Oh my lord. Why is everything comic sans?!?', \"For me it's the realization that even with a lot of effort things fail.  It's also the realization that the system we live in is corrupt and reflects human greed/selfishness.  I guess I expect more from our species, I think we are capable of so much more yet humans constantly choose money and corruption over nature and compassion.  That's the shit that gets me down.\\n\\nAnd then...\\n\\nI make plans with a friend to see a free movie and it falls through but we end up having a wonderful time talking, laughing, walking and encountering things we wouldn't have expected that make our hearts leap and create these amazing memories and life is good!  A feeling of being blessed comes over us as wild parrots land on our heads in the middle of the city....\\n\\nAnd then....the spiral begins all over again.  \", \"Small bouts of depression are also thought to have an evolutionary origin.  I wish I could make this clearer, but if you think about it it's pretty a pretty simple scenario. For example, you have a situation/problem in your life, you get down on yourself about it, you think about it, you change/objectively look at it, and viola it's not a problem/unsolved situation anymore. Not very ELI5-ish, but none the less.\", '[Your thetan levels are probably off. If you care to take a free personality test, we can help you!](_URL_0_)', 'If we look at this question through the evolutionary-psychology lens, it is evident that a lifestyle that deviates too far from our natural state as hunters  &  gatherers is not without cost. For example, sitting all day at the office and not eating our natural food, the plants. We must return to the old way, for it is the right way.', 'It is possible to have hypoglycemia or low blood sugar, which is the lack of glucose/sugar in the blood for cells to function properly. Where ones pancreas might produce too much of the hormone known as insulin. In this state, the bodies cells need glucose/sugar to function properly, so the pancreas then produces another hormone called glucagon to raise the blood sugar if it drops to low. The symptoms of this state bring upon feelings of hunger, thirst, dizziness, and fatigue. Most diabetics encounter this state because of over estimating insulin injections/doses (especially when exercising) and can correct themselves by consuming a serving of fruit or juice in the range of 8-20 carbohydrates.', 'Also because the children grow up and move out, the dog dies, friends die, the marriage goes stale, recession destroys meager life savings leaving no chance for even the most modest retirement, looking forward to working until you die on your feet while some dude named \"Sam\" in India is forcing down the prices for your once economically viable profession. You can\\'t get divorced because someone will be homeless, and you don\\'t hate each other that much. Did I mention watching your own parents lose their ability to identify you? Getting old sucks and is known to cause people to \"feel low.\"\\n\\nBut I get coffee cheap at McDonalds, so there\\'s that.', \"Jesus titty fucking christ.\\n\\nThe top comments are fucking bullshit pseudoscientific anecdotes.\\n\\nWhy the fuck aren't they empirically based discussions centering around physiology instead of vague spiritual babbling?\\n\\nFucking sheeple.\\n\\nBy the way, my Blue Wolf told me you shouldn't vaccinate your kids or breed outside your pure line.\", \"For me it was directly related to drinking alcohol. I used to get major downs that I had zero control over and would just crush me. Like, not-get-out-of-bed-for-days type of depression. \\n\\nI've been sober ten months now and haven't had more than one crash since, and that was in the very beginning. With time, I've stabilised more than I ever did on medication. I wish our culture would take alcohol more seriously and let people know just how destructive it can really be. I certainly didn't know and it destroyed my life. Took almost a decade to get myself on track again.\\n\\nIn general to keep depression at bay, I get as much sleep as my little girl allows, as much sunshine as I can, and as much exercise as my schedule allows for. Treat yourself right and everything else falls into place.\", \"It really is the most bizarre thing.\\n\\nMy mood is constantly on a pendulum. I can be in the most fun situations, surrounded by friends and have something to look forward to, and still just feel as though nothing in the world has any appeal. No food sounds good, no jokes are funny.\\n\\nOther times I can be swamped with work or have just had to deal with some sort of rejection, and I can feel absolutely amazing, bursting with energy and alive. For both there's this meta-cognition where I evaluate my feelings as simply chemical imbalances in my brain.\\n\\n It's weird to think that I feel the way I feel at a given moment is merely the whimsical nature of neurotransmitter transduction rate.\\n\", 'Seratonin production in the body has a lot to do with it. Seratonin is a neurotransmitter in your gut that regulates digestion, mood and social interaction as well as some other things. If your seratonin production is interrupted for some reason, a change in diet for instance, then it can manifest itself with feeling low or depressed until the body adjusts to the change. This is the same reason why a positive change in diet can help to increase your mood.', \"That's also how depression can work.\\n\\nSeemingly unprovoked melancholia can occur by sheer biochemical under/overproduction. The result can be feelings normally resulting from traumatic or scary external stimulus. \", \"as someone who's been 'feeling low' for 5 years, sometimes it doesn't.\", 'exercising helps too. men was not meant to stand/sit still and a lot of us still carry quite a lot of our ancestral hunter/gatherer genes. just think fish out of water.', '\"It\\'s the economy stupid\"', \"It's called depression. Stop being sad. STOP! STOP IT. STOP IT RIGHT NOW. QUIT BEING SAD DAMMIT! STOP IT. JUST STOP IT! STOP.\\n\\nEverything should be better now.\", \"I find my happiness level coincides with my bank account levels.  Money can't buy happiness, maybe... but no money = more stress.\", 'You are clearly exhibiting signs of a depressive phase within bipolar disorder.  You need to go to your doctor and explain this mood swing so that you can be properly medicated.  There is no explanation for this other than the fact that your genes have made you depressed.\\n\\nIt is possible that anti-depressant medication will not work, but it will be good to try at first.  If it doesn\\'t work, you will likely go off your rocker and completely lose touch with reality or be so intense that your depression is worsened or leads to psychotic or suicidal thoughts.  If this happens, call your psychiatrist.  You will need to be re-evaluated and put on anti-psychotics along with your anti-depressants.\\n\\nA good work-out routine will be necessary to deal with the anti-psychotics as these naturally lower your energy levels and make you feel a little \"out of it\" and working out will help boost those energy levels... even though you\\'re probably already too tired to work out because of the anti-psychotics and the anti-depressants, in conjuction with the anti-psychotics, should be ultimately mellowing you out. (Treatment isn\\'t easy!)\\n\\nIf those 2 drugs aren\\'t working, it\\'s likely one will need to be removed and you will need to be re-evaluated.  How are you concentrating, especially when you\\'re feeling good?  You might have ADHD, along with bipolar disorder.  ADHD medication could be helpful.  Something like welbutrin would be perfect, as it acts as both an anti-depressant and as a stimulant for those with ADHD.  This could possibly be thrown into the cocktail.\\n\\nBut be warned, all of these drugs have interactions that we should be wary of.  With so much in your system, your blood pressure is likely to be affected, so you\\'re going to need to be on blood  thinners and cholesterol medication, which will ultimately end up affecting your mood, so we\\'ll eventually have to re-evaluate what other medication you should be on.\\n\\nAnd, at this point, should you really be working out?  With all of that stuff in your system, you should probably give up on that.  It\\'s unsafe.  We\\'ll increase your blood pressure and cholesterol medication so you can cope and if your energy levels drop, we\\'ll just raise your dose of welbutrin or put you on another stimulant like adderall, and raise the dose of your anti-psychotic so you don\\'t go completely manic, while cutting out the welbutrin entirely.\\n\\nDon\\'t worry, /u/SevenIsTheShit, everything will be ok.', \"Some evidence suggests that depression, or feeling low, can increase creative thinking.  This is possibly an evolutionary conserved mechanism to help the evolving homo sapien solve complex problems.  For example, if not getting mates or not getting enough food or other problems are facing the homo sapien, they could enter a state of depression, change their ways or solve their problem and promote their evolutionary fitness.  \\n\\nAdditionally, contrary to ideals of happiness, homo sapiens aren't made to be content at every moment.  An overly content homo sapien does nothing to improve his evolutionary fitness.  (think of sitting around not moving)  Whereas a mildly discontent homo sapien is more open to changes that would improve fitness.  ie hunting, gathering, building, trekking.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/what-causes-depression.htm', 'http://www.webmd.com/depression/features/serotonin'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/01/25/1226562/010320-xenu.jpg'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 827, "q_id": "29ztad", "title": "my cat does this thing where i'll be minding my own business, and he'll just stroll up and begin licking my arms and hands for what seems like hours. what does this mean? what is he doing?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ztad/eli5_my_cat_does_this_thing_where_ill_be_minding/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ciq3pcc', 'ciq5gf1', 'ciqcnoq', 'ciqeaqz', 'ciqedep', 'ciqfdzb'], 'score': [29, 32, 22, 2, 20, 2], 'text': [\"He is grooming you like any member of the family.\\n\\nMaybe he's waiting for you to reciprocate.\", 'Beyond the mutual grooming behavior cats also enjoy licking humans for the salt we excrete with our sweat. Your arms are like a big bag of potato chips to this cat.', \"Your cat has never seen you groom and assumes you are an idiot who can't groom so he or she is doing it for you. Same reason cats leave dead animals for you. They think humans are huge dumb ugly cats who can't do anything for themselves and need help. \", 'Cat does this to me all the time. I try to ignore it, but at 3 am I\\'m like \"Can you NOT!??\".', \"Cat's will sometimes groom other cats like how monkeys pick bugs off of each other.  As others have said, he thinks you are a retard.  Because you do nothing to help yourself, he tries his damnedest to care for you.  You should be grateful, as he doesn't have to help you.  Remember to feed him more treats and people food, and he will care for you for the rest of your retarded life.  He also knows that you are too stupid to suspect that he would use Reddit to insult you in the comments section, so he totally didn't hack some random dudes account in order to send you this.  P.S. The food bowl is empty again, fix this or I will have midnight crazies again.\", 'He is grooming you.  You are now a part of the Tribe.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1928, "q_id": "mp2gh", "title": "why a dog's leg twitches when you scratch the sweet spot.", "selftext": "I have always wondered why they do that.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mp2gh/why_a_dogs_leg_twitches_when_you_scratch_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c32osrb', 'c32p06a', 'c32q8qw', 'c32qhrx', 'c32qy2z', 'c32r4ay', 'c32r4mx', 'c32rbn5', 'c32osrb', 'c32p06a', 'c32q8qw', 'c32qhrx', 'c32qy2z', 'c32r4ay', 'c32r4mx', 'c32rbn5'], 'score': [58, 8, 3, 15, 17, 41, 25, 7, 58, 8, 3, 15, 17, 41, 25, 7], 'text': [\"Their 'sweet spot' is basically equivalent to a human's ticklish area.  When you scratch let's say an area of your dog's tummy and starts twitching/kicking, the dog is just trying to scratch the sweet spot.  \", \"Next time you have a question like this you might get a better answer in /r/askscience as long as the like I'm five thing isn't too big of a deal.\", 'Probably the same reason mine does.', 'Once i get my dog\\'s leg kicking she will hit her \"kicky leg\" spot for herself and just keep going and going.', 'I once saw a cow do this.', \"It is because you are scratching near a shallow (as in, closer to the skin) nerve area called a saddle region (usually your dog's back and sides of his legs and tummy) and his nerves think it's an itch and there is an involuntary twitch response for him to scratch it. \", 'This is explainlikeimfive, not explainlikeimdog.', \"My dog is broken. She doesn't kick. :[\", \"Their 'sweet spot' is basically equivalent to a human's ticklish area.  When you scratch let's say an area of your dog's tummy and starts twitching/kicking, the dog is just trying to scratch the sweet spot.  \", \"Next time you have a question like this you might get a better answer in /r/askscience as long as the like I'm five thing isn't too big of a deal.\", 'Probably the same reason mine does.', 'Once i get my dog\\'s leg kicking she will hit her \"kicky leg\" spot for herself and just keep going and going.', 'I once saw a cow do this.', \"It is because you are scratching near a shallow (as in, closer to the skin) nerve area called a saddle region (usually your dog's back and sides of his legs and tummy) and his nerves think it's an itch and there is an involuntary twitch response for him to scratch it. \", 'This is explainlikeimfive, not explainlikeimdog.', \"My dog is broken. She doesn't kick. :[\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2435, "q_id": "4c33y4", "title": "Why is a mylar blanket (first-aid blanket) effective against hypothermia/heat loss?", "selftext": "How can something so thin and flimsy be so good at keeping heat where it is?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4c33y4/why_is_a_mylar_blanket_firstaid_blanket_effective/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d1ep0p3'], 'score': [12], 'text': [\"Space blanket's work by providing a reflective surface. A fair amount of heat that escapes ones body is due to radiative processes (as opposed to conduction [touching], or convection [breeze]). By wrapping you in the mylar blanket, any heat that is radiated from your body just bounces back! In the meantime, it also provides a barrier for convection (the surrounding air can't touch your skin) similar to the way clothing would.\\n\\n_URL_0_\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_blanket']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1841, "q_id": "mcj8c", "title": "How do you make this?", "selftext": "_URL_0_\n\nI'm really want to know, and I think other people do too", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mcj8c/how_do_you_make_this/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2zvvbn', 'c2zvvbn'], 'score': [2, 2], 'text': ['[Superhydrophobic](_URL_0_) materials have been around for some time, but the innovation here appears to be the spray-on application to common surfaces, which you must admit is a damn convenient way to make a surface superhydrophobic.\\n\\nThe video and the accompanying article do not reveal the chemistry of the product, but it must have the property of superhydrophobia and to bind to a variety of surfaces. My understanding of chemistry is highly limited, but this does remind me of how detergent works: by having the ability to bond with water and oil at the same time (through two different functional groups in the molecules).', '[Superhydrophobic](_URL_0_) materials have been around for some time, but the innovation here appears to be the spray-on application to common surfaces, which you must admit is a damn convenient way to make a surface superhydrophobic.\\n\\nThe video and the accompanying article do not reveal the chemistry of the product, but it must have the property of superhydrophobia and to bind to a variety of surfaces. My understanding of chemistry is highly limited, but this does remind me of how detergent works: by having the ability to bond with water and oil at the same time (through two different functional groups in the molecules).']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7is6r6zXFDc']", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobe'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobe']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2169, "q_id": "6lzqth", "title": "why are people against mandatory background checks before buying a gun?", "selftext": "I'm not trying to start a fight, although sure this will cause one. I'm not American so I honestly want to understand why anyone is against background checks before gun purchases to stop criminals or mentally disturbed people getting guns.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lzqth/eli5_why_are_people_against_mandatory_background/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['djxtw51', 'djxtyp8', 'djxu22k', 'djxuq7w', 'djxv1d4', 'djxv419', 'djxwhqu', 'djyaum4', 'djyfz0r'], 'score': [8, 14, 10, 16, 4, 8, 3, 5, 2], 'text': ['Some see it as an infringement, and thus unconstitutional. Some say the constitution entitles all citizens to guns, not just those who can pass some kind of background check.\\n\\nSome feel if you give an inch on the gun issue, even a reasonable inch, the people they feel are \"anti-gun\" will push the issue down the slippery slope towards total gun confiscation.', \"Most people that are against them aren't against them entirely for the most part people are ok with the current system of if you buy a gun at a store you get a background check. The debate is usually around whether or not the should be required for personal gun sales/transfers. So if i sell you a gun that i own I would be responsible for making sure you are legally able to own a gun. People dont want that responsibility placed on them they feel it could end up hurting them \", 'Many people see it as a slippery slope situation, and they are not wrong, either.\\n\\nThere is an element of the gun control crowd that wants to ban all guns.  That\\'s not politically tenable right now, so they want to do it in little steps.  First background checks, then broaden the prohibited categories until the background check becomes prove to us you really need a gun.\\n\\nSo even when a gun control proposal seems reasonable, the pro-gun people will oppose it, because they have no faith it will stop at \"reasonable\".', \"In the US, there's already a [mandatory background check](_URL_1_) to buy a gun in a retail setting (if you buy a new or used gun from a store, you will have a background check).  Further, because the federal government can regulate sales of things that cross state lines, it's illegal for two people to sell a gun privately without involving a retail store (and thus a background check) if they don't reside in the same state.  There isn't a background check on private sales within most states.  \\n\\nSo when someone says, we want mandatory background checks on all gun sales, they mean they want them on private, in state gun sales.  \\n\\nThe opposition points out that we enforce the background checks on retail sales by [very strictly controlling the inventory of retailers](_URL_0_) (they must keep a log book of every single gun that goes through their store).  Gun owners are exceedingly concerned that a similar registration of the guns they own gives the state a tool that's much too useful should it ever wish to seize the guns (since it would know where every single gun in the nation is).  \\n\\nThis is why there's opposition, the current background checks cover almost all gun sales, and there's too little trust that the means of enforcing private background checks would eventually be the means to facilitate a seizure of private guns.  \", \"The background check system in Australia varies a little from state to state. But **ALL** states check for *criminal history, mental health and domestic violence*. Some also have *other* listed, as well as *addiction, residential and physical*. What they mean by those last ones, I don't know.\\n\\nI believe the first two are the most important.\\n\\nBut we also have tighter laws here than the USA. For instance, even if you are fully licenced for a particular gun, you **CAN NOT** just sell that gun to another fully licenced person privately. **ALL** transactions **MUST** be done through a licenced dealer. **ALL firearms MUST be registered**, and the dealer is the one that supplies and files the paperwork with the government body.\", \"Personally I can agree with having background checks in private sales in theory. However were ultimately talking about a mountain out of a molehill argument. So few gun sales would be affected by a law of this nature that it appears to me and many others to be nothing more than a power grab. As it stands you can't legally buy a firearm in any store or gunshow without a background check. I encourage you to YouTube any of the videos of ppl going undercover to try and get a gun at gun show without a check(this is where supporters of laws like to act like a loophole exists. Hint: it doesn't exist). The only firearm sales that would be affected would be private sales or transfers between citizens who are not dealers which makes up a very very small minority of gun sales. Because of how little a law mandating universal checks would actually change things, it is better to oppose what amounts to be a power grab, to prevent further grabs, than to allow the law to go through. \\n\\nIt would be a lot better to come up with ways to help treat and prevent a mentally ill person from obtaining a firearm, or to end the root causes of most gun crime aka the war on drugs. \\n\\nAs far as the mentally ill are concerned, no background check in the world will ever screen them out because of our medical privacy laws. There are a lot of effective ideas that can be attempted if common ground could be found but it's not likely to happen any time soon. \\n\\nBTW the same amount of ppl are killed yearly from drunk drivers when compared to homicides. That's not including just regular old traffic accident fatalities. And yet we give 16yo kids the ability to drive alone in most states after barely needing to prove any proficiency behind the wheel. Even ISIS has begun to realize that all  they need is an automobile to inflict a mass casualty incident. That should scare everyone whole lot more. You will get into a car accident in your life, most will never hear a gun shot fired in anger and many more will never hear a gun shot at all in their lives. Let's solve problems that are real threats to the majority of ppls lives instead of focusing on red herrings given to us by those in political parties.\\n\\nThat's just my 2cents on the matter.\", \"They are mandatory when buying from a retailer.  Private sales in some states require background checks on private sales as well\\n\\nThe big argument is that it will lead to a national gun registry, making future gun bans a possibility.  They'll know who has what, and how many.\\n\\nThe problem with increased regulations, is that they never know when to stop.  \", \"We already *have* background checks for purchasing guns. The issue surrounds private sales between individual citizens.\\n\\nYou'll also notice that most gun owners have no issue with said background checks, but they'd like to do it themselves and have access to NICS (which is the system used to perform the background check). If individual citizens can get access to NICS, there's no record of the sale, which is what we're interested in; having a third party (which would invariably have to be the government) do it means there *is* a record of the sale, which would invariably have to involve the name of the buyer and the seller.\\n\\nThat is, essentially, a gun registry, which is a big concern among gun owners.\", 'You have a few assumptions that are erroneous:\\n\\n* **People are against background checks that stop mentally unstable people from purchasing a gun** - That\\'s not true. We already have mandatory checks in place for retail purchases that include, despite claims to the contrary from gun control people, purchases over the internet and gun shows. As it\\'s been pointed out in the other comments, people are against the requirement to conduct a background check if you have a gun of your own that you\\'d like to sell. \\n\\n* **Including personal transfers in the background check requirement would stop more gun crimes** - The majority of gun crimes are committed either by people who have *illegally* obtained a gun by theft or by people who had a legal right to purchase a firearm, in which case, why would extending the reach of current checks to include personal sales have any impact on those legal purchases?\\n\\n* **Current background checks don\\'t bar mentally unstable people from buying guns** (based on your comment) - Mentally unstable people are already barred from purchasing firearms.\\n\\nCalifornia is a prime example of what happens when you allow gun control politicians to have an unfettered ability to enact the gun control they desire. CA counties require you to [*prove* you have a pressing need for a concealed carry license](_URL_0_). At one time, they required gun merchants to send a list of all gun purchasers to the state every month. [They imposed heavy restrictions on the purchase of ammunition](_URL_1_). CA bans the sale of certain rifles that [use special features on magazines](_URL_2_). \\n\\nThe point is, the gun control politicians know they can\\'t outrightly ban firearms so instead they make it as onerous as possible to own or obtain firearms, accessories, and ammunition. The rifle most gun control groups want to ban is the AR-15 even though handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Their reason for attacking the AR-15 seems to be that it *looks* military or scary, not that it\\'s any more lethal than a handgun. Many groups even intentionally or unintentionally misstate that an AR-15 is capable of fully automatic fire. The accessories they try to ban have nothing to do with the lethality of the AR-15 ([barrel shrouds](_URL_3_), pistol grips, and flash suppressors. \\n\\nSo the argument that there\\'s a \"gun show loophole\" is false. The argument that the majority of mass shootings occur because there is some flaw in the background check system is false. It\\'s not that people are against mandatory checks, which is why there are in fact mandatory checks. Rather, it\\'s that people object to gun control politicians from trying to make it onerous for legal purchasers to purchase or own something that they have a constitutional right to own.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/how-should-licensee-record-his-or-her-records-transfer-frame-or-receiver', 'https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.ocsd.org/about/info/services/ccw', 'http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article124089319.html', 'http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gun-run-snap-20161218-story.html', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 680, "q_id": "1qu285", "title": "what happens inside the body during diarrhea?", "selftext": "Does drinking a lot of water have anything to do with it?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qu285/eli5_what_happens_inside_the_body_during_diarrhea/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cdghjn2', 'cdgipt2', 'cdgkqqz', 'cdgpufo', 'cdgsuxg', 'cdgxenk'], 'score': [91, 2, 76, 6, 2, 11], 'text': [\"This can happen a couple of ways. When you have substances in your intestine that aren't being readily absorbed into the body, the concentration of the substances is higher in the intestine. Water flows from areas of low concentration to high concentration, so when there  is a greater amount of a substance in your intestine, water will flow in. More water = diarrhea sometimes. Another way is in certain conditions, such as cholera, water is continuously being released in the intestine regardless of the how much there is present in the intestine. Yet another way occurs because your GI tract has a base level of motility; its continually contracting and relaxing to move the contents. Certain conditions can increase the motility, so the water doesn't have time to be absorbed, and comes out the other end as diarrhea. Essentially, there are quite a few ways diarrhea can happen, these are just a couple.\\nSource: pre-med\", \"The large intestine not doing it's job of absorbing water is diarrhea \\nConstipation is the opposite, it does it's job too well. \", 'Background - When you eat food, your body immediately *adds* fluid to the food to help break it down.  Since this is the case, the watery state found diarrhea can easily be found early on during digestion.  Typically, by the time food and drink gets to the end of your colon, all of the water has been absorbed or reabsorbed by your body.  Stool is always liquid at first as it passes through the body but normally the body is able to absorb lots of water before it is passed out of the body.  If the transit time of the food/soon-to-be stool is quickened, this can cause diarrhea due to speed of transit - the colon takes a long time to reabsorb water.\\n\\nWater and Food - The body is a filter for nutrients.  Anything that you swallow is assessed for it\\'s ability to be used by the body.  If the body can\\'t use it (as is the case with non-digestible fiber found in celery) it is passed through and bulks stool, which is a good thing if you need to slow down the rate of stool output.  Water intake will prevent constipation by hydrating fiber in your intestines but it won\\'t increase the water content of your stools.  This is only because your kidneys work *way* faster than your intestines do at *reabsorbing* water from the intestines/tubules in your kidneys.  If you drink a lot of water, you pee it out quickly before it could cause diarrhea.  If you were to drink lots of water frequently and consistently for an extended period of time, only then would you possibly be able increase the water content of your stool.  \\n\\nSalt - As changheill said, diarrhea can often be caused by electrolyte imbalances, which direct the flow of water.  **Water follows salt**.  Though we typically think of table salt (NaCl) when we hear salt, in chemistry, a salt can be any set of charged molecules.  This is exactly what happens when people take a salt-based laxative when they are constipated.  Salty contents of the intestine (the laxative) *pull* water in to keep equilibrium (this means equal concentrations of everything, everywhere) between the body and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.  For diarrhea to take place, there is some sort of imbalance in what you have eaten that has caused the stool to retain water.  When it exits, it still has water.  \\n\\nIf anyone is interested, I\\'ll be glad reformat/clarify my above response or answer more questions.\\n\\n\\n\\n**EDIT:** - Taco Bell Butt -  Ah yes, the Taco Bell Butt Syndrome (TBBS)...this is actually caused not by electrolyte imbalances but instead by inflammation of the intestines.  Much like cold weather, black pepper, or any variety of things can cause you to have a runny nose, spices can inflame your intestines, leading to \"runny nose gut syndrome\".  All of your GI tract creates mucus (often called bowel sweat by GI doctors).  TBBS is also due to heavy use of Sodium (salt) as a flavor enhancer.  Something can also be said about the low fiber content of heavily processed foods such as one would find at Taco Bell.  The more something is processed, the easier it is for your body to break it down on the chemical level and ingest it\\'s nutrients - meaning quicker transit time through the GI, so fast that the body doesn\\'t have time to reabsorb water from the colon before the exit of stool.  As a side note, think of of celery.  It is a low-calorie food because humans cannot break down the cellulose fibers - other animals can and, for them, celery is not a low-calorie *or* fiber-rich food...the fiber part of food is only the part that isn\\'t digested.  Celery is natural and full of fiber - everything Taco Bell is not.  Taco Bell food has been chemically broken down, cooked, stirred, pounded, mashed, ground up, chemically treated again, spiced and seasoned - it\\'s a Ferrari in your stomach.\\n\\nSalt (the need for equilibrium that drives water into the GI tract)**+**Spices that cause your stomach to have a runny nose**+**low residue foods that move too quickly through the GI tract**=**TBBS.', 'The Chipotle has changed its mind and decided to stand up for itself', \"Wow, if this post doesn't have perfect timing.\", 'There are a couple ways to think about diarrhea. The way the gut moves shit through it is called gastric motility and is controlled by a couple of things:\\n\\n\\n* what\\'s inside the gut (water, sugar, fat, protein)\\n\\n* hormones acting on the gut (which change in response to food and stress)\\n\\n* electrical signals (kind of like the heart, the gut has rhythmic contractions. These can be dysregulated and result in problems with gut motility)\\n\\n\\nThere are a lot of causes of diarrhea.\\n\\n\\n* Suddenly loading the stomach/small intestine with a high VOLUME load can cause rapid emptying. For example, this occurs in dumping syndrome, and yes, it can be caused by drinking a shitload of water!!\\n\\n* A large load of sugary or salty food/beverage into the GI can cause an OSMOTIC load. This means that water rushes into the intestine and WHOOSH. Etc. This is called osmotic diarrhea.\\n\\n* Gut motility can be really messed up after bowel surgery. A normal gut can tell the brain \"there\\'s food here\" and the brain can stimulate the release of hormones that move things along. However, removing parts of the GI, or not using them for a long time can mess up these pathways and cause both constipation and diarrhea.\\n\\n* Stimulant drugs can cause diarrhea.\\n\\n* There are viral causes of diarrhea which affect (usually) kids or older folks in (often) developing countries.\\n\\n* Inflammatory GI disorders like Crohn\\'s or UC can cause diarrhea. Often it\\'s osmotic diarrhea which happens due to gut inflammation. However, the gut also shows hypercontractility (lots of movement) in these disorders for reasons which are not well understood, and this can cause diarrhea.\\n\\n* The gut is like the heart in that it has its own pacemaker cells and rhythmic contractions. You\\'ve heard of cardiac arrhythmias? That\\'s where the heart doesn\\'t beat properly because of electrical issues in the tissues. The gut can also develop these problems, for example in diabetes when the nerves get worn out all over the body. This can contribute to diarrhea (or constipation) depending on where/when it occurs.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 48, "q_id": "29e4vu", "title": "is there ever an advantage for an average person to lease a new car vs buying it?", "selftext": "The care dealerships always seem to push leasing, so I would assume they make more money that way.  is this true?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29e4vu/eli5_is_there_ever_an_advantage_for_an_average/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cik13pk', 'cik1eum', 'cik1yu6', 'cik2khr', 'cik2lh6', 'cik2ssk', 'cik2vyt', 'cik34we', 'cik37yv', 'cik4szq', 'cikbk4c', 'cikdggl', 'cikjxgf'], 'score': [2, 2, 3, 124, 2, 7, 11, 7, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['They tend to, yes, because at the end they own the car and can sell it used or for parts, whereas if you buy you own the car. \\n\\nBarring individual great deals or luck, the \"advantage\" for the average person to lease is that they can get a combination of more convenience and a \"better\"(meaning newer) car for roughly the same amount of money per month.  \\n\\nSome people put a lot of value on driving a new car, and want to know that if something breaks they won\\'t be on the hook for a sudden huge repair bill (instead they just pay the higher monthly payments, sort of like having car insurance).  It\\'s never \"cheaper,\" than buying a used car but if those features are what you want in the car, it is certainly cheaper then buying the same car in terms of monthly payments. \\n\\nIf, on the other hand, you see a lease offer where the payments are anywhere close to the payments for a car of the same year and make, then run. ', \"I leased because my last (owned) car was a mechanical nightmare. I was so sick of the omnipresent stress. My Jetta will cost me around $6000 over three years. I could take out a loan and buy a $6000 car but what if it starts to fall apart? Yeah, maybe I can sell it in three years for a portion of the purchase price but I could also sink an extra $3000 in repairs and break even. For the mechanically inclined or financially stable the risk might be worth it , but for me I value my stress-free lease much more than the potential return on investment. \\n\\nEdit: I also need the car to get to work to make payments on the car - so if I couldn't afford repairs that month I'd lose my job and be fucked. \", \"Leasing has its perks, but it's almost always a bad decision. \\n\\nThe only reason to lease a car would be because you are only planning on keeping the car for 2 years or less, which is a poor financial decision. People often lease because they can't afford a car they want and leasing is a cheaper option. \\n\\nHere are the issues:\\nWhen you lease a car, you own nothing when the term of the lease is up. All of the money that you spent on payments will be gone and you will also have to return the car, leaving you with nothing of value. In addition, you have to return the car in the condition you bought it, so every little scratch and ding needs to be fixed and that money comes out of your pocket. Leasing also typically involves a mileage limit, ie how many miles you are allowed to put on the car. The more miles you want to drive, the more the lease will cost. If you go over this limit, the fines are hefty, usually in the range of $0.15 - $0.30 per mile. \\n\\nA lot of people will tell you that leasing is great because you don't have to cover repairs, but with just about every new car, you get the same warranty, but you also get flexibility. If you lose your job, you can always sell your car if you own it. If you are leasing, it isn't that easy. Most leasing companies won't let you out of your lease without penalties and a hit to your credit score. \\n\\nThere is also a bunch of behind the scenes stuff where owning is beneficial. Stuff like deducting depreciation costs and tax variations. To make a long story short, the tax on a leased car will be for the full value of the car for the life of the term, while an owned car will be for the current value,  not full value. \\n\\nMorale of the story: if it looks to good to be true, it is. \", \"Previously worked at a car dealership and still work in the automotive industry and currently lease a vehicle. There is a lot of wrong comments in this thread. Let me give you some clarification.\\n\\n- Whether you Lease or Purchase a vehicle unless you write a check for the car the bank OWNS the car. Not You.\\n\\n- Leasing is another way to finance the vehicle where you are paying a little extra to remove yourself from liability of the cars equity.\\n\\n- You can still negotiate and sell the vehicle at any point while on a lease contract, you don't just have to turn the vehicle in at the end. If you have equity you can use it as a negotiation tool when you trade for another vehicle.\\n\\n- when you turn a vehicle in it's the banks vehicle not the dealership, usually the bank will offer it to the dealership first but you can turn it into any dealership any of them can negotiate. This means the dealership doesn't necessarily care whether you lease or buy. That being said...\\n\\n- manufacturers want people leasing because it is more likely you will want a new car In a few years even tho you have the option of buying the vehicle first at the end of your lease and refinancing it.\\n\\n- dealers want you to lease because it is a lot easier for a dealership to add profit places. they can fudge the Cap cost, they can fudge the residual value, this is where it's an afvantage for a dealer to have you lease. It has to do with the contracts, it's easier to hide money in a lease contract.\\n\\nTLDR: Just to wrap up because I think I'm writing a lot. Lease is just another way to finance. Any way you finance you don't own the car. If you are going to Lease do lots of research go to more places and look closely at your contract. If you have any questions just ask, I love helping people buy cars because after selling them I know there are a lot of ways you don't know where I can still make money.\", \"So I get the disadvantages to leasing, but I would like to share an opposing opinion where I feel leasing is beneficial. Currently the EV market is in a potential up shot, Tesla just released all its info in hopes it will kick start the market. Anyone who currently owns an EV is sadly paying a higher cost to fund the upstart costs for new research, manufacturing, and other costs the manufacturer is passing to its consumers; pretty standard that early adopters pay more in any industry. However since this technology is so new and has such room for improvement, buying an EV sounds like a bad idea. They are very expensive, and in 3-5 years I would expect the same model will likely be 2-3x more efficient not to mention cheaper. So a lease is a much better option in the EV/hybrid market. I get to cheaply own a car that is quite expensive, watch as the market changes over the course of my lease, and when its over I can almost guarantee that my car value to the bank will be significantly higher than what I could sell it for. I'll also be looking forward to reengaging in another lease for a car that will most likely be a significant improvement over the efficiency of my car, and potentially cheaper as well. In addition, If there is any mileage overages, I've heard some dealers/manufacturers will let them slide if you get another lease [cannot verify this, just from a friend saying they did this for his leases]\\n\\nTldr the EV market is changing so much and so fast that leasing may make sense and counter act some of the negatives pointed out by others.\", 'IIT there seems to be an awful lot of assumptions and \"that sounds right\" logic, but no insider knowledge.  \\nI used to agree that there leasing was basically for suckers who wanted to own a car beyond their means, but my brother (who works in a dealership) convinced me otherwise.  \\nLike everything, there is a tradeoff but according to him, leasing is actually kind of win win for both parties.  \\n\\nBuying: When you buy a car, it is yours and you do whatever you want with it. Personally, this is a big plus, but financially, maybe not the wisest move. You see, your car loses value as soon as it goes from new to used so one month in, you owe most of the car which has lost a substantial amount of value. With homes, people tend to sell them (and panic) but for some reason, they don\\'t think about it with cars. \\n\\nLeasing: This benefits the dealership because, like some assumed, they still own the car at the end of the day. However, they own a 2-5 yr old car which is worth a whole lot less than when you first started using it. The reason dealerships will take this deal anyways is because there is a definite market for used cars and a need to have a used car inventory. Leasing often ties you to the dealership for maintenance, so they have definite records of how good the car is (important for warranties etc).  \\nBelieve it or not, this actually benefits the consumer many times too. Whether we realize it or not, people who tend to buy a new car, also tend to want an even newer car 5-7 years down the road. If they bought, they paid a lot more than a lease, for a car that is worth way less now. For people who buy a car until it breaks down, the old car often further drains you with maintenance after the 100k mark where more expensive parts need to be purchased and cars tend to become unreliable.  \\nThings to know:  \\nOlder cars become less valuable, and more so at high mileage points. For this reason, the dealership puts strict rules and steep fees for driving more than the allotted miles. If you have no choice and KNOW you will use more than the miles provided, my brother recommends you BUY and not lease. However, he does suggest you buy a certified used car as the economic drop of a car going from new to used is simply not worth it. This is obviously, his advice to me as his brother, but often tells this to customers too. However, intangibles like piece of mind don\\'t have a set value, and many customers decide to buy new anyways.  \\nDeals: Some people ITT mentioned about deals. The profit margin for a new car (lease or sold) is actually quite small so saying \"give me your best price\" isnt going to work. For this reason, you will rarely find an amazing deal from dealership to dealership as they are all buying from the same company. Essentially, a 2015 Honda Accord will be the same base price in any Honda dealership. The biggest difference is in financing which can vary depending on how big of a risk a dealership wants to take on your creditworthiness (and this is actually what you probably want to focus on if getting a new car).  \\nDeals do exist with used cars though. For some reason, many dealerships will sell a used car for a loss if they have had it for too long. It is pretty much just taking up space.  \\nTrade ins: We didn\\'t discuss this (my brother and I), but generally, you will get less than your car is worth for a trade in. However, it is usually likely they will take it, so some people are okay with eating the loss. He always sells his own cars to private parties.  \\nLoyalty: With this 5-7 year new car trend, dealerships rely A LOT on return customers and referrals. While of course, the dealership wants to make as much money as possible, they would also rather sell you two cars than one. For this reason, dealerships generally play it safe across the board and would rather make their money with add ons than with totally ripping you off on the base price of a new car.\\n\\nSource: Brother works in a dealership and is a car enthusiast.', 'The main advantage of leasing to the consumer is you can get a better car for the same monthly payment, at least in the short term.  If you want to drive a Mercedes but have a Toyota income, leasing can make that happen.\\n\\nDealers like it because it helps them sell more expensive cars.  They make about the same money whether you buy or lease a $20K car...but they make more from you leasing a $40K car.\\n\\nThat said, leasing is almost always a poor financial choice for the consumer.  If you have a Toyota income, you should drive a Toyota and save up until you can afford to buy that Mercedes.\\n\\n', 'Just to point out for any Australian readers, \"leasing a car\" often means an entirely different thing.\\n\\nIn my time as a financial planner, I have yet to come across a more cost-effective way to own a car than \"leasing,\" which is what most people call a novated lease. If your employer is willing to play ball, you can actually pay for a good chunk of your car payments and running costs pre-tax, which is essentially claiming a deduction for those amounts. You can do this, even if you don\\'t have any business usage.\\n\\nA \"leasing company\" AKA a novated lease provider will set everything up for you, pay for the car and its associated bills, then bundle them up into one invoice for your employer, who then takes it out of your pay. Simple in concept, but it goes wrong when people don\\'t get the right information and end up setting themselves up for failure.\\n\\nAt the end of a novated lease, there is usually no hand-back option. You pay the balloon one way or another, so some people pay it out and keep the car (dumb) or sell it, cover the balloon, keep any overs, and move onto a new car (sometimes smart). My favourite option is to re-lease the same car for its balloon payment, thereby reducing your payments and keeping the car that you\\'re so happy with, but still saving tax.\\n\\nIf you want to know anything about leases, chattel mortgages, or other tax-related car things, ask away.', 'Not a financial advantage.', 'A lease also counts as a sale for a manufacturer. They hope that in 3 years when your lease is up, you\u2019ll get another lease with them which will then in turn count as another sale for them. \\n\\nIt\u2019s all about numbers.', \"A distinction should be made between leasing, financing, and buying outright.\\n\\nAfter reading a few posts, there still wasn't any clear indication that leasing or financing is better than buying.\\n\\nOne good thing about leasing is that your payments might be tax deductible if you use your vehicle for work. A real estate agent maybe? Some sales job? Now that I think about it I'm beginning to question this. It sounds a lot like I video-game developer! I need a gaming rig and multiple consoles for work!\\n\\nAnyways, my general impression is that buying the vehicle with cash is always the cheapest route. Both leasing and financing will charge interest, and with leasing you can get hit with fees for damage or some wear when you return the vehicle. Sometimes they're lenient and sometimes they're really strict.\\n\\nThe only advantage of leasing was that you never had to bother selling your car to a private party, but you might end up paying thousands of dollars more for it.\\n\\nWouldn't it be cheaper (if you have the cash) to just buy a car (as in pay with cash) whenever you want a new car and then sell it to private party when you buy a new one?\\n\\nAs long as the car doesn't depreciate horribly (you picked a car no one wants used), you should be okay. Or no worse off.\", \"If you use the vehicle for work like say a real estate agent you can write it all off come tax time. And you're driving a brand new car every couple years.\", \"I think it's much smarter to buy used vehicles after their depreciation has set in. Some vehicles age better than others and if you do your research it's likely you can pick up a good used vehicle for a fraction of the cost of a new one whose value is inflated excessively by novelty and loans.\\n\\nI've bought several used cars that required very little maintenance over all. I also taught myself to work on cars by doing a lot of that maintenance myself. This kept me from getting ripped off by mechanics in addition to car dealerships.\\n\\nIt's a long term strategy but it has saved me 10's of thousands of dollars at this point. Plus I haven't had to pay a car payment in 15 years.\\n\\nOh yeah.. EDIT.. I forgot this one. I got extremely lucky on a used vehicle once. I bought a 10k truck for 5k. Literally half the blue book value of it because the body was superficially damaged and there was a grind when you turned the wheel to the right. The grind was just a worn hub locker (for the 4X4) sliding over the worn out hub assembly. $200 bucks total to get this truck running awesome. Yeah he's got some dents but this guy has another 200k miles in him easy.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 627, "q_id": "1bsivr", "title": "Was India ever really an economic superpower?", "selftext": "Our politicians love saying that for about 1800 years India was the world's largest economy. Of course, being politicians, they never give any specifics, So my question is, was India really a strong economy for a sustained period of time, at anytime in history?\n\nI know there wasn't really an \"India\" until independence, but I hope you understand the question.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bsivr/was_india_ever_really_an_economic_superpower/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c99njtr', 'c99ryow', 'c99sbk9'], 'score': [64, 6, 17], 'text': ['India has fantastic farmland and therefore could grow a crapton of crops which led to a huge population and therefore more wealth (overall, per capita is more of a stretch). They also had the edge in trading situations due to their cotton and access to spices. The livelihood of many Central Asian turkic empires was based on sacking India and bringing the goods back to Samarkand, Balkh, or Bukhara.\\n\\nI haven\\'t studied India\\'s history pre-Mughals, but the Mughals (Muslim-Turkic empire, most important capital was Agra, built the Taj Mahal) were arguably the richest empire of their time (the Ming Chinese were pretty beastly too). The throne alone (The peacock throne) was made of more than 2500 pounds of solid gold. By 1600, more than 20% of the world GDP was funneling through Mughal hands. So, India was a player on the financial world stage.\\n\\n\"Compared to Shah Jahan\\'s annual income - worth nearly \u00a325 million sterling at contemporary rates - the monarchs of Europe were struggling on paltry sums. In 1635 Britain, even as Quen Mumtaz-Mahal\\'s tomb was well underway, King Charles I was mired in financial crisis. Struggling to maintain his lavish court and household on an annual budget of half a million pounds...\" (Fergus Nicoll, Shah Jahan, pg. 199)\\n\\nJust to flesh out those names: Shah Jahan was the fifth (arguably sixth) Mughal Emperor (r. 1628-1658). Mumtaz-Mahal was his wife and the Taj Mahal was made as her tomb. Charles I was the king of England, Scotland, and Ireland (r. 1625-1649)\\n\\nEDIT: Found this fun little table on wiki that lets you look at regions by GDP throughout history: _URL_0_\\n\\n**EDIT 2**: Tiako has rightly called into question Maddison\\'s estimations. Also, England was undoubtedly very unimpresive at the time. The best comparison I can come up with outside of that is this:\\n\\nShah Jahan\\'s income is at 188 million rupees and 188 million rupees equals about 282 million livres. Richard Bonney\\'s \"France, 1494\u20131815\" in \"The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe c. 1200\u20131815.\" (Can\\'t get the exact number because I don\\'t want to pay the $180 for the book) has royal revenue of France at nearly 30 million livres (in the 1590s).\\nSo, based on Hanafi\\'s numbers and Tavernier\\'s conversion, Shah Jahan\\'s income is at 282 million livres. France in the 1590s (about 30 years earlier), based on Bonney\\'s assessment, has a royal revenue at nearly 30 million livres. Shah Jahan\\'s income in 1628 is at least 9x that of the French monarchy 30 years earlier.', 'India was such an economic superpower that the British traders had nothing that really interested the Mughal empire to inspire bilateral trade. The East India Company resorted to colonial rule as the only way they could get the Indian products that Europeans coveted without draining gold and silver from Europe.\\n\\nA similar situation existed with China, so the East India Company grew opium in India and illegally foisted it on China so that it had something to trade. Amitav Ghosh does a beautiful job of writing historical fiction that brings this period to life at the individual level. ', 'There isn\\'t really such a thing as a \"superpower\" until the modern age of full globalization, and even then I don\\'t think we can really name one as such before the post-WWII US and USSR (not even the British Empire). India (by which I mean the various Indian states, empires and kingdoms) has been extraordinarily wealthy in many periods of history, but it did not exert the sort of global economic dominance the US does today. This seems like semantics, but the term \"superpower\" has a specific set of connotations that does not apply to India, or any country, until the modern period.\\n\\nThe other problem is that there is just no way to compare economies before modern practices in record keeping and economic data recording. What was wealthier, the Gupta Empire under Chandra, or the Romans under Constantine? The Medieval Cholas or the early Song? The Maurya or the Hellenistic kingdoms? We simply don\\'t have a good way to compare one to the other. The claim that \"India\" was the world\\'s largest economy for 1800 years is nothing but meaningless nationalist posturing.\\n\\nThis is not to say that Indian kingdoms and empires have not been extraordinarily wealthy: the Gupta earned their golden epithet, and the Ellora Caves are a testament to the wealth of the Rashtrakuta. But saying whether they were the *most* wealthy is within the purview of nationalists, not historians.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)#World_1.E2.80.932003_.28Maddison.29'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2955, "q_id": "65v49n", "title": "On April 17th, 1907, Ellis Island processed 11,747 immigrants...more than twice as many as an average day. What led to this?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/65v49n/on_april_17th_1907_ellis_island_processed_11747/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dgf4gn2'], 'score': [13], 'text': [\"According to [this dataset](_URL_0_) on April 16th, 1907, there were 3702 immigrants processed. On April 18th of that same year, just 1314 immigrants were processed. So what happened on the 17th?\\n\\nHere are all the ships that came in on the 17th of April, 1907:\\n\\nCount  |  Date  | Port | Ship\\n\\n2409\\t04/17/1907\\tNaples\\tRepublic\\n\\n2299\\t04/17/1907\\tLiverpool\\tCarmania\\n\\n2222\\t04/17/1907\\tRotterdam, Holland\\tNieuw Amsterdam\\n\\n1600\\t04/17/1907\\tTrieste\\tGerty\\n\\n1317\\t04/17/1907\\tLiverpool\\tOceanic\\n\\n521\\t04/17/1907\\tCopenhagen\\tUnited States\\n\\n491\\t04/17/1907\\tQueenstown\\tOceanic\\n\\n401\\t04/17/1907\\tChristiansand\\tUnited States\\n\\n396\\t04/17/1907\\tQueenstown\\tCarmania\\n\\n375\\t04/17/1907\\tChristiania\\tUnited States\\n\\n232\\t04/17/1907\\tSt. Michaels\\tRepublic\\n\\n65\\t04/17/1907\\tKr. Ania\\tUnited States\\n\\n22\\t04/17/1907\\tKingston\\tPrinz Eitel Friedrich\\n\\n18\\t04/17/1907\\tColon\\tPrinz Eitel Friedrich\\n\\n11\\t04/17/1907\\tPort Limon, Costa Rica\\tLiberia\\n\\n8\\t04/17/1907\\tSt. Michaels, Azores\\tRepublic\\n\\n8\\t04/17/1907\\tSavanilla\\tPrinz Eitel Friedrich\\n\\n5\\t04/17/1907\\tJamaica\\tJoseph J. Cuneo\\n\\n2\\t04/17/1907\\tCartagena, Colombia\\tLiberia\\n\\n2\\t04/17/1907\\tSavanilla\\tLiberia\\n\\n2\\t04/17/1907\\tLa Guaira, Venezuela\\tMaracaibo\\n\\n1\\t04/17/1907\\tSt. Lucia\\tPydna\\n\\n\\nNow compare that to the 16th:\\n\\n\\n1509\\t04/16/1907\\tAntwerp\\tFinland\\n\\n1480\\t04/16/1907\\tHavre\\tLa Gascogne\\n\\n387\\t04/16/1907\\tRotterdam, Holland\\tNieuw Amsterdam\\n\\n163\\t04/16/1907\\tHavana\\tMorro Castle\\n\\n115\\t04/16/1907\\tBoulogne\\tNieuw Amsterdam\\n\\n49\\t04/16/1907\\tAntwerp via Dover\\tFinland\\n\\nor the 18th:\\n\\n1068\\t04/18/1907\\tBremen\\tKronprinz Wilhelm\\n\\n127\\t04/18/1907\\tCherbourg, France\\tKronprinz Wilhelm\\n\\n81\\t04/18/1907\\tSouthampton\\tKronprinz Wilhelm\\n\\n37\\t04/18/1907\\tColon\\tAllianca\\n\\n1\\t04/18/1907\\tBaracoa, Cuba\\tFagertun\\n\\nAs is clearly evident, a *lot* of ships came in on the 17th. But not just any ships, in fact several of the largest ships of their particular fleets all arrived at Ellis Island that day. The Carmania (on the liverpool line) alone holds more passengers than the entirety that arrived on the following day on all ships. If you look further in the dataset, you can see that whenever the Carmania on the liverpool line pulls into Ellis Island, *lots* of passengers are discharged. Here's some [more info](_URL_1_) on that ship in particular.\\n\\nSo I think on that particular 17th of April, a bunch of huge ships all arrived at the same time. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hopperrr/ellis-immigration-by-ship/gh-pages/data/trips.tsv', 'http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2011/03/liverpool-ellis-island-aboard-carmania/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 978, "q_id": "87pgb6", "title": "Considering humans have coped with humour for centuries; did people make jokes about the Black Plague? Or was the tragedy simply too huge for comedy?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/87pgb6/considering_humans_have_coped_with_humour_for/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dweu5j7'], 'score': [61], 'text': [\"If only this question had come up in a few months' time - humour in the face of death is the focus of the chapter of my thesis I am working on, but it's in *really* early stages, so I probably can't give as full an answer as you would necessarily like right now. My work is focused on commemoration in epitaphs (and to some degree, funerary art) so that's where this answer will be focused. Others may be able to offer a broader take.\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nIn short, yes, humour is a staple for dealing with death from a very early stage. To offer some Classical context for humorous approaches to death, the Milan Papyrus (dated between late third century, and early second century BCE) contains a number of epitaphs, some of which are collected in a section labelled \u2018tropoi\u2019, or \u2018characters\u2019, and are probably not for real individuals, but are comic exercises in the form. One epitaph demands:\\n >  Why have you stopped, won\u2019t let me sleep,\\n\\n >  And, standing near my gravestone, keep\\n\\n >  On asking from what land I came,\\n\\n >  And who\u2019s my father, what\u2019s my name? \\n\\n\\nThe deceased then gives his name, father\u2019s name, and home country (all details to be expected from an ancient Greek epitaph), before demanding that the passer-by at this imaginary gravesite walk on, declaring \u2018We foreigners don\u2019t like much talking\u2019, playing on a stereotype of Cretan folk being a bit on the taciturn side. (Gordon L. Fain, Ancient Greek Epigrams: Major Poets in Verse Translation (University of California Press, 2010), p. 95  < _URL_0_;). Clearly, humour can be used to characterise the dead and lightly parody our expectations of commemoration. Humans have been comfortable with making light of death for a good long while.\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nTo turn to the Black Death more specifically, it's worth remembering that at this point, you had to be of decent means to get a grave monument in the first place, and many plague-dead were buried hastily in mass graves. I don't know of any particularly comical epitaphs for the plague-dead, though comic epitaphs are certainly not at all unheard of at this time (Guthke's *Epitaph Culture in the West* is a good source for this). That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I haven't seen them - and if anyone knows of some, TELL ME!\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nPlague humour is certainly accessible in a broader social context though. The most famous of these is probably the *Danse Macabre*, or *Dance of Death* which was a pervasive theme in art and literature following the Black Death. In these images and poems, death is depicted coming for each level of society, from pauper to King, summoning them into one last, frenetic dance. The visual imagery here is often quite deliberately comic - for example, the *Danse Macabre des Femmes* (printed 1491) includes images of skeletal musicians, and beautiful young women engaging in courtly dance with visible rotting skeletal figures as their handsome beaus. ([see here for the book on Gutenberg complete with illustrations](_URL_4_)). The figure of death is often laughing, teasing, and shown as 'catching out' senior figures in a way which can only be regarded as comical.\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nStaged drama also held elements of this bleak humour attached to genuine loss. Richard Beadle describes how the York Cycle of medieval mystery plays includes a representation of the plagues of Egypt, in which the loss of the firstborn child is described as the 'grete pestelence', the customary way to refer to the Black Death. Beadle describes the receipt of the news of the 'grete pestelence' as follows:\\n\\n  >  Upon hearing the grim words, the tyrannous and verbose Rex Pharaoh is immediately deflated, capitulates and orders the release of the Israelites - in performance, a moment of chill stasis after the pell-mell black comedy with which the reports of the preceding plagues of Egypt would probably have been presented. When the play was new, this my also have been a moment of remembrance for survivors of the Balck Death and those born in the succeeding generation, for the York Hosiers' play of *Moses and Pharoah* was probably composed when the memory of this, the most destructive of all the plague's visitations, was still a living memory. ([*The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre*, ed. by Richard Beadle, 'The York Cycle' (pp. 85-108)](_URL_1_)).\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nWhile medieval and early modern folks certainly had a real taste for bleak comedy, comedy also had other, more structured purposes. In *the Culture of Pain*, David B. Morris describes how the Bible verse, 'a merry heart doeth good like a medicine' (Proverbs 17:22) was often treated rather literally, and comedy could be seen as '[strengthening] Christian readers for resuming their combat against the world, the flesh, and the devil'. ([p.94](_URL_2_)). One of the most striking examples of this in literature is Boccaccio's *Decameron*, in which a group of people escape the Plague by retreating to the countryside, during which time they tell one another bawdy, silly, comic stories. As Morris points out, this may well be regarded as just as much remedy as pastime, with humour helping to allay the onset of the plague. It is well worth noting that the *Decameron* is prefaced by a deeply disturbing and descriptive account of the effects of the Black Death ([this](_URL_3_) seems to be a decent source of the text here, if you're interested). The juxtaposition of physical malaise, great social loss, grief and comedy is very explicit here, marking humour as a clear coping strategy in a time of great trial.\\n\\n & nbsp;\\n\\nI have rarely found on-the-nose jokes specifically about the black plague (though again, I would be delighted to hear the details of any known to exist - seriously, I live for finds like this!) but it's certainly not treated as off-limits for comedy both during, and in the immediate aftermath of enormous loss.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1bz5wAPk1HsC&gt', 'https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ecMHMg3HrCgC&amp;pg=PA85&amp;dq=black+death+plague+comedy&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjBlOmu347aAhWpDcAKHbDqAUsQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&amp;q=black%20death%20plague%20comedy&amp;f=false', 'https://books.google.ca/books?id=Ia4wDwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA94&amp;dq=black+death+plague+comedy&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjBlOmu347aAhWpDcAKHbDqAUsQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&amp;q=black%20death%20plague%20comedy&amp;f=false', 'http://www.themiddleages.net/life/decameron.html', 'https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24300/24300-h/24300-h.htm']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2357, "q_id": "853iir", "title": "if electric cars are the future, why is interest(funding/research) really picking up today when they have been around for over 100 years?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/853iir/eli5_if_electric_cars_are_the_future_why_is/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dvuezpt', 'dvuftrd', 'dvugo9n', 'dvugryr', 'dvuhy6a', 'dvuq0zc'], 'score': [8, 4, 8, 2, 5, 2], 'text': [\"Back then there may have been electric cars but they were too expensive to mass produce and sell. And the electric cars were probably no more better than the fuel driven counterpart as far as efficiency. Also the technology of today has finally reached a point where it's do-able to mass produce and sell. Since we have electric cars that are mass produced... now it is only a race to see who can make them more efficient. The research and funding are geared to newer solutions to harnessing the electricity that powers them as well as finding alternate fuels such as water. \", \"Guess battery power has improved alot. That is still the problem with an electric car. They don't have good range.\", 'Because lead-acid batteries have horrible energy densities. Nickel Cadmium too, anyone who has used RC planes before Lipos knows how blessed we are today.\\n\\nLi-ion only commercialized in the 90s and even now li-ion has a rather low energy density compared to fuel.\\n\\nBatteries (and supercapacitors) are very tricky, a lot that works in the lab doesn\\'t work outside. \\n\\nIt also took us a very long time before we knew what to do with semi-conductors, sometimes it takes just takes a long time to improve something enough to make it viable.\\n\\nPeople are too quick to blame it all on \"corporate greed\".\\n\\nEdit: There\\'s also the problem that batteries lose capacity from discharging, which has improved a lot over 100 years.(cycle durability has increased)\\n\\nCharge/discharge efficiency has also improved a lot over the last 100 years.\\n\\n', 'A lot of improvements have been made in battery technology in the past 2 1/2 decades due to laptops and cell phones.  So instead of developing this battery technology from scratch, they just have to scale it up and apply it to a car, which saves billions in R & D.', \"There are a couple key technologies that are important for electric cars, which just weren't good enough back then.\\n\\nOne is of course the battery. Batteries have improved more than fivefold since then - so any electric car would have had considerably less range than today. \\n\\nThen there is power regulation. In a car, you need to be able to precisely adjust the amount of power coming from the motor, which can be done quite easily with a throttle of a conventional combustion engine - but in an electric car, you need to change the voltage. And that is very difficult with a DC power source like a battery. Today, this is done with very efficient and fast switches made from semi-conductors, but 100 years ago, semi-conductors weren't even discovered yet. To get the same result with technology from 100 years ago, you would have to use a very bulky and inefficient circuit to control the engine.\\n\\nLastly, there's the problem of charging. A large battery needs a lot of DC electricity to charge quickly, making the charging infrastructure very expensive. That's still a problem today, even though electrification and technology in general is much better.\\n\\n\", 'Because batteries used to suck, and fossil fuels are really cheap and hold a lot of energy.\\n\\nIn 1910, battery-powered vehicles we competitive, mostly because internal combustion engines were still pretty terrible.  Steam-powered vehicles were even still in the mix, the Stanley Steamer set the land speed record for a while in 1906, going over 120 mph.\\n\\nAfter that, it turned out it was a whole lot easier to improve gas-powered cars, and they wound up being far more versatile and energy efficient than other types.  And because of that, they were the focus of research and development investment, and got even better.\\n\\nModern electric cars reentering the market is largely due to recent improvements in battery technology.  That, in turn, was made possible by the demand for efficient portable power caused by computers, phones, and tablets.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2092, "q_id": "5jogr3", "title": "why is reverse-racism/reverse-sexism not the same as regular racism/sexism?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jogr3/eli5_why_is_reverseracismreversesexism_not_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dbhr8vp', 'dbhr96u', 'dbhs3pf', 'dbhsfby', 'dbhtm8v', 'dbhtmfr', 'dbhw3fd', 'dbhy1nc', 'dbi2htc'], 'score': [28, 14, 2, 8, 4, 7, 4, 4, 2], 'text': ['Most people think of racism as synonymous with discrimination or prejudice based on race. This will match up with the definition you find in most dictionaries.\\n\\nSome Sociology-related courses in college define racism and sexism as a political or societal system designed to hold back disadvantaged groups so that the prevailing group will stay in power. With this definition of racism/sexism, black people and women cannot be racist or sexist in America because they are not the ones with the position of power.\\n\\nYour professor would probably agree that black people and women can be *prejudiced*, but is probably using a different definition of racism and sexism than the colloquial definition. ', \"In the academic sphere, racism and sexism usually refer to power, not individual cases. Reverse racism isn't a thing because the current power structure elevates whiteness above blackness. Any individual case where a black person discriminates or the system somehow rewards a black person over a white person (and it is perceived as unfair) is not an instance of racism because the systematic power in society is still in the hands of whiteness above blackness. \\n\\nSame with sexism. \\n\\nIn the every-day meaning of sexism and racism, sure. People can be discriminatory and prejudiced in any direction. But academics aren't interested in the individual level. They're interested in the systematic, structural level of society, government policy and business.\", \"I think this is why travel and experiencing other cultures is important. Racism is everywhere, in every country and culture.  You could study that for days...Bangkok Thais vs. Northeastern Thais has a real red state/blue state quality. \\n\\nIf you want an uncommon topic for a paper, examine what it's like being a white person in some Sephardic parts of the world.  You will find many examples where the system is rigged against those of white skin color. This is the norm in Asia. \", \"An important general point is that dictionaries give terse, simplistic definitions to help understand words in a general context, not a deep academic discussion. For example, if you go by the _URL_0_ definitions of recession and depression, you'd wind up thinking that the only difference is that depressions have increasing unemployment and recessions don't; that's a good way to fail economics. \\n\\nTrying to prove the professor is using the word racism incorrectly by reference to Webster is a losing approach. The dictionary isn't a social science reference book. \", \"I think we are entering an interesting time though.  I'm a 32 yr old white male.  My office at a major corporation has been concerned with filling roles with minorities for a while now.  \\n\\nI'm starting to look for a new job and I'm actually a bit nervous about getting my job if I compete against a minority.  \\n\\nObviously, growing up a white male in a middle / upper middle class family isn't a bad way to grow up.  I'm not complaining.  It's just that it's getting interesting..\\n\\nOn a related side note:\\nThere's a man named Edward Blum that is trying to roll back all civil rights laws.  I'm sure he thinks of them as 'reverse racism'.  He was the guy behind the Fisher v University of Texas where the girl didn't get into school because a minority was given preference.\\n\\n\", 'There is no difference.  In fact, it\\'s the definition of \"equality.\"  Everyone can be biased towards their own race/sex, and against others.  Some just get called out more often', \" >  why does my professor say racism against white people (reverse-racism) is not an actual thing?\\n\\nBecause this serves to obfuscate the fact that they are racist against whites. They are heavily influenced by Marxism, and see interracial relations in the same way communists see the class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie: black people will be oppressed so long as whiteness exist; all whites are automatically racist. So it's either the Alt-Right's beloved white genocide, or constant bashing of whites into a submissive position. The problem with most modern Social Justice positions is that they believe two wrongs make a right.\\n\\nDitto for third-wave feminism and its aim to deconstruct masculinity. See #killallmen.\", 'Reverse racism = no racism \\n\\nPeople of all races can be racist... its not reverse racism when minorities treat white different because they are white.. its just racism\\n\\n', \"The way it's been explained to me, and this has caused rifts among me and some friends, is that racism is a complex and wide-spanning systematic effort of the government, culture, and a general way of thinking. This I can agree with, I won't deny that the system has been rigged against minorities for decades. But what I consider to be racism is simply treating someone differently because of their race. I'm not talking like, buying SPF100 for your white friends, which is probably aside from genetic medical conditions the only context in which I believe race matters. I mean, if you look at someone and treat them differently than you would treat someone of a different this or that, it's unnecessary bias to be categorized accordingly (racism, sexism, -phobias).\\n\\nHowever, some of the more far left don't see it this way. Because the system was designed to cater to white people, especially people with more money, since other races and people with less money have less opportunities, the system disadvantages them and is therefore racist against them. Because of the system failing to prevent these challenges to the rich whites, this racism does not exist for them, prompting people to claim that you cannot be racist against white people. I find the logic a bit convoluted but stick with me. \\n\\nLet me use myself and my partner as examples. I'm Latina. My father was an immigrant, but my mother is white. Because of this, I look white and have never experienced someone stereotyping me based on what they see, so I safely say I have not experienced racism. Since I am still Hispanic, and my parents are suburbanites (middle class) I had opportunities a lot of people never did. I was well educated and was designated a National Hispanic Scholar because of this, and in turn received auto-admission to a lot of colleges and a full tuition scholarship. My partner, on the other hand, is a cis, straight, white male, from a lower tax bracket than me. The university I go to has a whopping 80% acceptance rate. Despite having average grades, because he was a poor, white male, he was not admitted. \\n\\nThis of course begs the question, did the system favor me for being a minority and scorn him for being white? I will fully admit that I have led an easy life. I get the benefit of being Hispanic (scholarship, national recognition) without ever having any of the drawbacks of being exposed to racism. Doesn't seem fair, does it? \\n\\nI recognize that this particular case could very well be an exception to the rule but it's hard to base racism off of the system when the system changes who it favors depending on the situation. That's why I don't believe people when they say reverse racism doesn't exist. It may not be as enforced by society as racism towards minorities, but it is still treating someone poorly based on race. \\n\\nI think you can disagree on what to call it all day long, but the underlying message needs to be that IT IS A SHITTY THING TO DO.  \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['m-w.com'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1174, "q_id": "22imq5", "title": "With trees being as abundant and relatively defenseless as they are, why are there so few animals that eat them?", "selftext": "I can only think of a handful of animals of the top of my head that eat trees or their leaves. It seems like with such an abundant of food and so little competition for it, why don't more animals prey on trees?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22imq5/with_trees_being_as_abundant_and_relatively/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgn890w', 'cgn97k6', 'cgnd16b', 'cgngouc'], 'score': [11, 6, 3, 2], 'text': ['Well, depends on which parts.  An abundance of animals are folivores (eating leaves) and nectar-feeders.  If the question is why don\\'t more creatures attack and eat the wood, then the short answer would be: cellulose.  Very few creatures can readily digest it, and even of those animals that \"eat\" wood, most of them rely heavily on microbes in their guts to do the break down (cellulolysis) for them.  Even termites, renowned for their ability to consume wood, can\\'t digest it on their own (they rely on a protist in their tummies to do the work).\\n\\nIt further boils down to diminishing returns: there are often much higher yield foodstuffs available on most plants (like in leaves and fruits).  The difficulty in physically consuming the wood (wood is tough), plus the difficulty in breaking it down, is typically not equal to or less than the potential energy from the polysaccharides it contains, at least not for most organisms.\\n\\nThat said, larva from plenty of insects eat it, lots of microbes, and browsing mammals too.  I also wouldn\\'t say they are defenseless.  Many woody plants produce some pretty nasty toxins to avoid being eaten.', \"Good answers above, but I wanted to point out a flaw in the OP's thought process. Flora is not defenseless.  Tough to ingest and digest cellulose fibers limit what wants to eat plants. Many are toxic. Thorns, brambles, thistles, etc... has evolved to thwart attackers. Some plants just evolved to grow faster than they can be ingested. Assuming that plants aren't participating in the evolutionary arms race is a mistake.  \", \"Cellulose and lignin. Tree trunks are made mostly of cellulose and lignin, both are difficult to break down, let alone digest. Cellulose is a sugar polymer (like starch or chitin) with the connecting bonds between sugars designed to resist break down. Lignin is a very complex aromatic alcohol polymer which is even more difficult to break down. Currently only bacteria possess the complex molecular machinery necessary to digest or break down either cellulose or lignin.\\n\\nWhen trees first evolved to make use of lignin there was nothing in the environment that could break it down, it was non-biodegradable. This kicked off a 60 million year period where trees grew abundant, plant matter built up without breaking down, and the Oxygen content of the Earth rose to about 2/3 higher than what it is today, due to all the plant activity and Carbon sequestration. This changed the climate, leading to massive glaciation and also caused extinctions on land and in the oceans. It led to a buildup of lignin containing material which would eventually turn into massive deposits of coal and other hydrocarbons. This period was called the Carboniferous era and it proceeded until bacteria and fungi evolved the capability to break down lignin, but even so it's a very slow process. A young plant containing mostly cellulose will be broken down rapidly, in a period of days, a full grown adult tree trunk containing large amounts of lignin will take years if not decades to fully biodegrade.\\n\\nNo animals can digest lignin or cellulose, only a few (ruminants and termites) can do so with the help of symbiotic bacteria. It simply takes far too much effort to chew up a tree and then attempt to digest the cellulose and lignin within it. Termites are the only animals really capable of eating wood, and they approach the problem from a small scale. The large amount of nutrients a large animal would need to support itself combined with the difficulty of mechanically breaking down wood and the difficulty of digesting it make it a very poor target for nutrition.\", \"Plants are not defenseless at all, nor are trees under less attack than regular plants. The main threat to plants are herbivorous insects and many live on trees. On the leaves of a tree, you might find aphids, sawfly larvae and caterpillars (like oak processionary for example). Some caterpillars can occur in such large numbers that in some seasons they [completely defoliate the tree](_URL_7_)! Seed predation is also very common; many birds and rodents will eat the seeds of the tree and might destroy them, but also insects are important seed predators, such as the [acorn weevil](_URL_0_). And the woody parts of the tree are also not safe from harm, as many woodboring beetles lay their eggs in the bark and their larvae will dig around in the wood. [Mountain pine beetle](_URL_3_) is an example of a beetle that will destroy whole trees because it also carries a fungus with it that prevents the tree from defending itself against the beetle and that starts to kill the tree. The result can be loss of [large areas of forest](_URL_5_) (picture also in linked article). \\n\\nBut despite having so many enemies, we still have forests and there still are many trees. How come? [Trees are not defenseless at all](_URL_1_) :) While animals have mainly developed strategies to move away from predators as fast as they can, a tree is more of a large castle when it comes to defense. Their most important mechanical protection is the bark/wood, which is very difficult to digest for most animals. Trees may also have spines or very hairy leaves. Leaves, mainly the young ones, are often protected with many toxins. The smell of pine forest is caused by terpenes, chemicals that are involved in plant defense and whose smell also deters herbivores (it is a signal that the tree is well defended and that they might better avoid it). \\nFinally, plants and also trees can have indirect defense by providing shelter to predators of the herbivores or by attracting them by using odours. Acacia trees can have [hollow thorns and extrafloral nectar to provide home for ants](_URL_6_), that in turn will repel many insects from the tree. [Many parasitoids are attracted to odours released upon herbivore attack](_URL_2_) on plants and will help keep pest populations low. This can start as early as when the insects are still eggs and don't do any damage yet. [Lately it was also shown](_URL_4_) that even birds may be attracted to odours of oak trees infested with caterpillars. \\n\\nFinally, what is also important to note is that the full grown trees you see outside have already won many battles with their enemies. I already said something about seed predation in the beginning, but being a seedling (so the very young plant) is the most difficult stage for the tree. In this stage, defenses are still low (no wood production yet for example) and lots of energy is allocated to growth and competition with other seedlings. It is in this stage that snails are voracious enemies of the plant, and many mammals too. Think about how many seeds fall of some trees in fall; most of them will not reach the age in which they themselves will start producing flowers and seeds. They are continuously at risk of being eaten and only the ones best adapted to these threats will make it to a full grown tree. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/foresthealth/pubs/oakpests/p35.html', 'http://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/wissenschaft/2011/201102/201102_intelligente_kiefer.html', 'https://student.societyforscience.org/article/plant-enemy%E2%80%99s-enemy', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle#Tree_infestations', 'http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.12177/abstract', 'http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mountain-pine-beetle-fungus/', 'http://www.myrmecos.net/2011/10/22/what-lurks-in-the-5-inch-thorns-of-this-african-acacia-tree/', 'http://tomlinsonbomberger.com/invasion-of-the-gypsy-moth-attacking-your-tree-blame-leopold/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1840, "q_id": "4h99k7", "title": "Considering its maritime traditions, why didn't Denmark have a larger colonial Empire like Britain and France did?", "selftext": "Just seems odd considering Spain and France weren't particularly maritime nations and yet they both had a lot of oversees holdings and it doesn't make sense to me why Denmark never had anything more than Iceland and Greenland (and a few negligable Islands across the world)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4h99k7/considering_its_maritime_traditions_why_didnt/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d2oo0zo', 'd2ph517'], 'score': [30, 5], 'text': [\"Denmark actually did have overseas holdings during from 1618, when the danish King Christian the IV sent a small expedition to Ceylon (todays Sri Lanka), until 1917 where the last remaining holdings (Danish west indies) were sold to the US for 25 million dollars. During this time Denmark also had som smaller holdings in Tranquebar, India and on the Gold Coast. Though the holdings in Africa and India were not really colonies, they functioned more like trading stations with several protestant missions attached. \\n\\nDenmark's drive for holdings where just like all other european powers driven by mercantilism (from the french word mercantile), where an positive trading balance were wanted, which then would lead to a higher tax base. To obtain this the government at the time would increase import taxes and decrease export taxes, the problem with this system was that every country in europe would do the same.\\n\\nHowever the colonies in Africa and India did not provide any real profit, and only the colonies in the Danish West Indies provided a profit, but only for a short periode of time. Which ultimately led to the sale in 1917.\\n\\nEventough Denmark did have a proud naval tradition at the time, it did not have the economic surplus to rival nations like France and Britain. This plus the factor that a great deal of Denmark's foreign policy at the time was specifically aimed at getting Skaane back from Sweeden, which removed some of the focus from the Caribbean, Africa and India.\\n\\nI hope this answers your question. I have provided some sources, keep in mind they are in danish though.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n_URL_1_\\n\\n_URL_2_\\n\", 'In 1807 the British attacked Copenhagen in the aim of capturing/sinking the main Danish fleet,  basically to stop Napoleon getting them in the future. This would have severely   hampered any overseas expansion. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/merkantilisme-og-danske-tropekolonier/?no_cache=1', 'http://danmarkshistorien.dk/historiske-perioder/den-aeldre-enevaelde-1660-1784/enevaeldens-krige-og-udenrigspolitik/', 'http://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/om-ove-gieddes-ekspedition-til-ceylon-og-trankebar-1618-1622/?no_cache=1&amp;cHash=8f0c7a6254761753e4cd1eda7e0d85aa'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1525, "q_id": "c3h1wz", "title": "There are a number of famous \"Lonely Mountains,\" such as Mt. Fuji or Mt. Rainier. Did J.R.R. Tolkien ever visit any of them? If not the real world, was there a literary or mythical inspiration that he drew upon to create Erebor?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/c3h1wz/there_are_a_number_of_famous_lonely_mountains/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['errqnq3'], 'score': [106], 'text': ['One of the most hated interview questions among authors is what in their published works was \u201cinspired\u201d by real life. The novelist Jonathan Franzen likes to tell the story of a writer who sarcastically answers such questions with percentages.\\n\\n >  \u201cIs your new book inspired by your life?\u201d\\n\\n >  \u201cYes, 26 % of it.\u201d*\\n\\nThe point is that a writer\u2019s work is entirely dependent upon her life, knowledge and experiences. But even the writer may not be able to decisively pinpoint something in her work and say \u201cthis chapter was inspired by my own life but this chapter came from my imagination\u201d.\\n\\nIn the case of J.R.R. Tolkien, his life and writing are extremely well-documented. He left copious notes behind and his friends and family have been willing to talk to researchers and biographers. For instance, Tolkien admits the Dead Marshes in The Lord of the Rings \u201cowe something to Northern France after the Battle of the Somme\u201d and that Bilbo and the Dwarves\u2019 journey in the Misty Mountains was inspired by his own experiences hiking in Switzerland.\\n\\nOther aspects of his work have been directly linked to real-world counterparts, such Beorn\u2019s house which has been decisively traced to Hrolf Kraki\u2019s Hall. Tolkien\u2019s illustrations of Beorn and his dwelling are unmistakably copied from a \u201cNordic mead-hall\u201d published by his friend E.V. Gordon in An introduction to Old Norse.\\n\\nThe Lonely Mountain was originally called the Black Mountain in early drafts of The Hobbit. The first maps Tolkien drew of the area showed that it was not quite lonely \u2013 in fact, it was probably loosely connected to a mountain chain at its north-east corner or to the Iron Mountains, the home of the dwarf Dain and his kin. This idea is retained somewhat in his published maps and text, although the Mountain\u2019s solitary nature became much more prominent as the Hobbit narrative developed. \\n\\nThe prime role of the Lonely Mountain in The Hobbit is the home of the dragon. In Tolkien\u2019s writings dragons are drawn from a tradition depicting them lying on mounds of treasure in prominent lairs. This is the case with Beowulf\u2019s dragon, Sigurd\u2019s Fafnir, as well as \u201cearly Silmarillion\u201d dragons like Glorund.\\n\\nThe bad guys in Tolkien\u2019s writings at this stage tend to have major heights for their strongholds, including the Necromancer\u2019s castle and Sauron\u2019s tower in the Luthien myth (Sauron is named Thu at early stages). This idea survived into the Lord of the Rings with the Dark Tower in Mordor and Saruman\u2019s Orthanc in Isengard. In the case of dragon\\'s, they are depicted as more of an animalistic or natural power, so they are in prominent natural landmarks like mountains instead of built landmarks such as towers.\\n\\nSo the dragon lair needs to be prominent, and no height is more prominent than a volcano. Was the Lonely Mountain a volcano or inspired by a real-life volcano? One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is Tolkien\u2019s own [drawings](_URL_0_), which depicts a noticeable crater at the top. \\n\\nWhat kind of mountain has a crater, unless it is a volcano? Case solved, right? Well, maybe not. In the published text no crater is mentioned.\\n\\n >  Only its high peak could they see in clear weather, and they seldom looked at it, for it was ominous and dreary even in the light of morning.\\n\\n >  There far away was the Lonely Mountain on the edge of eyesight. On its highest peak snow yet unmelted was gleaming pale.\\n\\nSo what conclusions can we draw? John D. Rateliff has a good point to make regarding the geography of Tolkien\u2019s world. Tolkien was writing a legendary history.\\n\\n >  The \u2018legendary\u2019 part is worth stressing, since Tolkien was writing fantasy, not pseudo-history or pseudoscience\u2026 This liberates him from any obligation to make the details of his setting consistent with \u2018what geologists may say or surmise\u2019\u2026\\n\\nSo what is the decisive answer? How much of the Lonely Mountain was inspired by mythical or real-life places? \\n\\n26% of it, of course. ;) \\n\\nThere is a huge wealth of great material regarding Tolkien and his works, but in regards to this question I drew heavily upon John D. Rateliff\u2019s two-volume The History of the Hobbit.\\n\\n* Note: I don\\'t recall the actual percentage Franzen says in his joke, but the actual number is irrelevant in regards to how much of a writer\\'s work is \"imaginary\" or \"real\".']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/a/a3/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_The_Lonely_Mountain.jpg']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 798, "q_id": "4iym9s", "title": "Krebs Cycle: Where does the extra oxygen come from in the oxaloacetase+Acetyl CoA-- > Citrate step?", "selftext": "I am in a high school biology class, and I was studying the krebs cycle specifically tracing the oxygen through the cycle; in my textbook the diagram shows acetyl coA donating one oxygen to Oxaloacetate, which already has five, and then becoming Citrate, which has 7. Where is this mystery extra oxygen coming from? What am I missing?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4iym9s/krebs_cycle_where_does_the_extra_oxygen_come_from/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d32dmyz', 'd32dr3y'], 'score': [17, 4], 'text': [\"Good catch - this step in the process is catalyzed by the [Citrate synthase enzyme](_URL_1_).  While enzymatic reactions are more complex and beyond the scope of your question, it is essentially an [Aldol Condensation](_URL_0_).  Which is one of the more painful common reactions that most first year O-chem students will be forced to memorize.  But to answer your question - the extra O comes from H20.  So the the full reaction is more like \\n\\nacetyl-CoA + oxaloacetate + H2O \u2192 citrate + CoA-SH\\n\\nWhich is another thing you'll notice in Biochemistry compared to Gen Chem or some O-Chem - in those fields it is important to pay strict attention to stoichiometry and tracking every atom and molecule, in Biochem you can assume every reaction is taking place in water, so H+, -OH, and H20 are freely available and aren't tracked as closely.\", 'Like you said, one of the oxygens comes from the acetate group. The other comes from a water molecule. \\n\\nThe reaction, catalysed by citrate synthase, is a multi-step reaction, [as seen here.] (_URL_1_) As you can see, in that last step a water molecule is added and the CoA is released. The actual mechanism here is slightly more involved, whereby a molecule of water loses one of its protons, leaving behind a negatively charged OH^- which has a lone pair of electrons that attacks the carbonyl group of the intermediate and causes CoA to be released. The OH is then added onto the molecule and citrate is formed. \\n\\nTo simplify it a bit, [this diagram](_URL_0_) nicely shows where each of the two extra oxygen atoms come from by having them as different colours. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldol_condensation', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrate_synthase'], ['http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/cronk/biochem/images/citrate_synthase_rxn.gif', 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Citrate_Synthase_Mechanism_Drew_Beck_revised_OH.png/1920px-Citrate_Synthase_Mechanism_Drew_Beck_revised_OH.png']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1484, "q_id": "1kujpb", "title": "How does the fungus involved in \"ant zombification\" work to control the ant's actions?", "selftext": "I saw a great article in the national geographic: [link](_URL_0_) So, how does this happen? What, physiologically, is done to control the ant?\n\nThank you all!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1kujpb/how_does_the_fungus_involved_in_ant_zombification/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbt61p7'], 'score': [2], 'text': ['The actual mechanism behind the brain-altering fungus is not entirely known.  In fact, we don\\'t even know the diversity of the fungus itself (number of species or their distribution).  Based on behaviors of ants pre- and post-infection we can infer certain things but that\\'s all it is.  A couple years ago a paper was published suggesting that atrophy in mandibular muscles of ants caused them to clamp onto grass and not be able to release their grip.  They found significant differences in muscles between infected and non-infected ants but how this happens is still up for discussion.  There are entire \"graveyards\" of infected ants that have been reported and they seem to do this clamping behavior around noon so solar information or temperature is probably a regulating mechanism here but that is still largely unknown.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120504-zombie-ant-fungus-science-environment-rainforest/']", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2600, "q_id": "73xzgd", "title": "how do we know that our translations of hieroglyphics are correct?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73xzgd/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_our_translations_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dp6u58l', 'dnu0jxj', 'dnu2dza', 'dnu35hm', 'dnu3f30', 'dnu9gz5', 'dnuc7bt', 'dnuecyq', 'dnugn2e', 'dnupqbu', 'dnuxp9u', 'dnuza8k', 'dnv1ent', 'dnv37kk', 'dnv55oh', 'dnvibi2'], 'score': [2, 418, 260, 6281, 36, 7, 94, 39, 569, 54, 18, 4, 7, 1193, 4, 3], 'text': [\"IT'S HIEROGLYPHS NOT HIEROGLYPHICS. My Ancient Egypt professor got triggered so hard he had a mental breakdown whenever any of us students said hieroglyphics instead of hieroglyphs.\", \"The Rosetta Stone is a big help. A decree etched on stone in both hieroglyphs, which we didn't understand, and Ancient Greek, which we do\", 'The top and middle texts are in\\xa0Ancient Egyptian\\xa0using\\xa0hieroglyphic script\\xa0and\\xa0Demotic\\xa0script, respectively, while the bottom is in\\xa0Ancient Greek. As the decree has only minor differences between the three versions, the Rosetta Stone proved to be the key to deciphering\\xa0Egyptian hieroglyphs.\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"As others have said the Rosetta Stone was vital in beginning understanding. Beyond that we know because it keeps making sense. So as an example.\\n\\nWhy did the \u00a5 cross the road?\\n\\nThe \u00a5 we ate last night was good.\\n\\nWe had fried \u00a5.\\n\\nThe \u00a5s ran out of the coop.\\n\\nThe \u00a5 feathers were beige.\\n\\nWe can start narrowing in on what \u00a5 is because there are only certain things that can be filled in and make sense. In this case birds are really the only thing that work, in particular I started with chicken.\\n\\nSometimes we don't have an absolute answer but a close enough answer that can be used. As we see the symbols more we have more knowledge about what the symbol means.\\n\\nIt is actually the same way you learn new words, the context eventually reveals the information, and as you hear the word more often you can fix any mistakes you've made in the meaning.\", \"The importance of the Rosetta Stone is a bit overblown, but things like that help. Generally, we know through continued translations that match up using the same Hiero. Things would get very chaotic if the translations were wrong now. But we can still translate them fairly easily (the grammar is much simpler than Latin and Greek, thankfully.) \\n\\nEdit: If you're going to downvote me, at least challenge me in the comments. Or else you're only doing it because other people did. (I hate double editing, but for context I was at -7 when I made the first edit.) \", 'For that matter, how do you know your tanslation of this english sentence to your native language (whatever that may be) is accurate?\\nYou assume it is, for you have \"learned\" the meaning of every word and think you know how to grammatically decipher a sentence, but how do you KNOW?\\n\\nOn a less filosophical note, though, there\\'s a video from VSauce that somewhere in the video goes on a tangent on how you could start to decipher any foreign language by noting how frequently some words and letters are used (also, the rest of the video is pure awesome). _URL_0_\\nDefinitely worth a watch.', 'Related question:  how are names translated from non-alphabetic languages?  I can understand how a name that\\'s a combination of common words (like \"smith\" or \"underhill\") would be translated, but how did the Egyptians write down a name that\\'s a random collection of sounds?', \"Rosetta Stone as others stated.  Remember it was a tax code.  Meaning a lot of technical jargon. Not much room for interpretation. Had 2 languages we knew and 1 we didn't.\", 'Others have talked about how we have decided what means what in hieroglyphs, but that doesn\\'t actually mean we know for sure that our translations are correct.  \\n\\nI\\'m going to give an example that I leaned about when I took a class on reading hieroglyphs in college; unfortunately, the details have faded a little.   \\n\\nBack in the 50s or 60s, egyptologists thought they had the translations down. Then, one discovered a pattern in verbs that indicated a whole tense no one had noticed before. This tense looked very much like present tense, but was subtly different. They had to go back and re translate practically every thing. The fundamental meanings didn\\'t change a whole lot, but the subtleties did. I think this new tense is called \"second tense\"', \"Besides inferring from translations, there is also some help in errors that have been made by the people who wrote in hieroglyphs. Because when you make an error with language, it's not random but rather reflects the system of the language. So if you find a phrase that is repeated in many places, but in one place there's a mistake in it, you can look how it differs and thus get a better idea about the phrase. It's a bit hard to imagine, but one example is Latin pronunciation - a writer might confuse I with E because the sounds are pretty close, but he won't ever confuse I with X because they're very far apart.\", \"BBC did an awesome documentary about this. It's on Netflix  &  it's called '[Egypt](_URL_0_)'. It's definitely dramatized but the facts check out. The first four episodes are about king Tut and the European race to find ancient Egyptian tombs  &  artifacts. The last 3 however are an account of the quest to decipher the Rosetta Stone's Egyptian Heiroglyphs.\", 'we use so many emoticons nowadays that I am wondering whether people in the future when they look back will think that we are in the age of hieroglyphics ', 'There\\'s a fascinating Nova special called \"Cracking the Maya Code.\" It covers this topic in regards to Mayan hieroglyphics instead of Egyptian, but it goes over the history of how we discovered certain things and how long-standing beliefs were changed after new discoveries. If you can find it, I highly recommend watching it.\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'As others have said, the Rosetta Stone played a huge role in deciphering hieroglyphics since it included translations in languages we already knew. But how could it be deciphered if we didn\\'t have that kind of cheat sheet? \\n\\nA fascinating example is [Linear B](_URL_0_), a pre-Ancient Greek language discovered on stone tablets on the island of Crete. It was long assumed that it would be completely indecipherable without some sort of \"Rosetta stone\", but we cracked the code in 1952, thanks to decades of study by [Alice Kober and Michael Ventris](_URL_2_).\\n\\nThe first breakthrough came after Kober diligently recorded the frequency and position of each symbol on the tablets (While this type of analysis is not hard to do with computers today, this took *years* of work for Kober). In doing so, she discovered many instances of the same groups of symbols, but with consistently different endings. Through this, she realized that Linear B was an inflected language with different endings based on usage, like verb endings in Latin and Spanish. \\n\\nShe also noted that there were about 200 unique symbols in total. Being an expert of many languages, she knew that this was too many characters to be alphabetic (each symbol representing a letter - English, for example), and too few to be logographic (each symbol representing a word, like Chinese). She surmised that each symbol in Linear B likely represented a syllable. \\n\\nNow we have a clear understanding of what *type* of language Linear B was, but how do we determine what any of it means? This is where Ventris stepped up. \\n\\nHe theorized that these tablets likely had location names, and knew that location names often stayed similar over long periods of time. So he basically did ~~brute force~~ trial-and-error using the ancient Greek names for towns in Crete: What if a particular group of symbols are syllables that mean something like, \"ko-no-so\", meaning the Cretian city of Knossos? After exploring this idea in countless ways, he eventually discovered a pattern that confirmed this: When he interpreted one particular set of symbols as \"ko-no-so\", other symbols began to make sense. Slowly but surely, that first bit of translation led to him fully deciphering the entire language. \\n\\nEDIT: As /u/QuarkMawp pointed out, brute force was not the correct term.\\n\\nAnd since this has gotten some traction, if anybody is more interested in this and other sorts of amazing cryptography achievements throughout history, I highly recommend [The Code Book](_URL_1_) by Simon Singh. It covers a broad history of immense achievements in cryptography including Linear B, along with things like development of new codes in Renaissance Europe, cracking the Enigma Machine code in World War II, Navajo Wind Talkers and modern Public-Key Encryption. It\\'s very informative and engaging, and also very accessible for the layperson. ', \"The story is long and complex and full of feuds, frauds and other issues.  Most people trying to decipher the hieroglyphs thought they were pictograms- for instance, that the duck was used for Son (which was a lucky guess.)  This actually hampered the decoding for decades.  One of the first clues, were the names of kings, like Ramses which were named in Coptic texts. Ultimately many sources of documents written in Greek, Coptic and other languages which had not died out - helped scholars build a larger and larger vocabulary.   There is a Learning Company DVD series that helps you learn to read them, and gives the full history of how they were decodes.  It's interesting to note that the breakthroughs still did not come until decades after the Rosetta stone was discovered. \\n\\nPart of the reason the language died was illiteracy and the rigidity of the scribes. The language changed over the centuries, but the scribes pretty much stuck to the same system. Imagine if all books today were printed in Gaelic - and you had to have a translator to read them to you, or write them for you.\", 'All these comments about the Rosetta Stone and not a single person mentioned the name of the person who actually translated hieroglyphics: Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Champollion.\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone?wprov=sfla1'], [], [], ['https://youtu.be/fCn8zs912OE'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483603/'], [], ['http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/cracking-maya-code.html'], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B', 'https://simonsingh.net/books/the-code-book/', 'http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22782620'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1930, "q_id": "4iy7or", "title": "how is that wine bypasses any expiration dates and essentially gets \"better\" as it ages?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4iy7or/eli5_how_is_that_wine_bypasses_any_expiration/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d3241oh', 'd324d12', 'd326d2m'], 'score': [13, 6, 7], 'text': ['Its typically red wine that gets better with age, white wine turns to vinegar.\\nIts down to personal preference also.', \"Wine has a lot of alcohol in it.  Alcohol stops microorganisms from growing.  Microorganisms growing in your food is the #1 cause of it going bad.\\n\\n...and most people overestimate how much aging will improve wine.  Most wines don't really get better after a year or two of aging.  A few good ones might improve a few years after that, at which point they pretty much stand still.  The only good reason to pay for crazy expensive 20 year old bottles of wine is because they're rare classics - nobody will ever make another 1997 Pierre Whatever Merlot again - and you want to show off that you can afford it.\", \"Most spoilage occurs due to either rancidity, or microbial growth. \\n\\nWine contains essentially zero fats, so rancidity isn't an issue. \\n\\nAnd as far as microbes go, there are very few of them that can tolerate ethanol concentrations anywhere near what's in wine. One of the few that can is yeast, which is what was used to make the wine in the first place. One of the others is a group of little critters referred to as acetobacteria, because they like to eat ethanol and make acetic acid, vinegar. \\n\\nSo, if you do get a wine that's been contaminated with a microbe that will digest it, it will in fact go bad and turn into wine vinegar. \\n\\nNow, as far as aged wine being better, that depends. A lot of wines are still made using wild fermentation techniques, which means that the yeast they use isn't from some named and predictable package, it just happens to be whatever was floating around the vinter's yard that day or hanging out on the skins of the grapes. \\n\\nThose wild yeast can make some really awesome flavors. Or some really terrible ones. Fortunately, most of the terrible flavors tend to be rather unstable. So if you allow the wine to just sit around in a cool to slightly warm area (25*C would be pushing it), the unstable compounds will break down and the flavors will mellow. If you get it too hot, the wine will basically cook and too much of the flavor will disappear. If you keep it too cold, the wine will take a very long time to age and some of the nasty flavors will probably never disappear. \\n\\nYou also want some of those ostensibly unpleasant flavors to stick around. They help provide complexity to the flavor profile and can balance out any residual sweetness from sugars that the yeast didn't convert into alcohol. \\n\\nThis means that there's a sweet spot in the age of a wine where it's at it's best. When this range is will depend on the wine. Sweeter whites tend to peak in a few months, as they have a lot of residual sweetness and very little tannin to balance it. Dry reds tend to peak in a few years, since they have a lot of tannin and very little sugar to balance it. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 709, "q_id": "120nw2", "title": "Is there any research to support the idea that the ingredients in \"super premium\" dog foods are superior to generic supermarket brands?", "selftext": "I work in a pet store and see people buying bags of dog food for anywhere from $15 to $70 a bag. While the cheaper foods have stuff like corn and chicken by-products, the high end kibbles have deboned turkey or salmon and potatoes. Regardless of ingredients, all the foods are AAFCO certified to have all the necessary nutrients for proper nutrition. Does any research support the claim that these ridiculously priced foods actually extend the lives or improve the quality of life for pets?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/120nw2/is_there_any_research_to_support_the_idea_that/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6rbpck'], 'score': [2], 'text': ['From the one study I found that addressed this: \"Digestibility of main nutrients varies significantly among commercial dry dog foods. This study demonstrated that there is no difference in digestibility of nutrients between high-price and low-price dog foods offered in the Norwegian market.\"\\n\\n\u00c5shild Krogdahl, \u00d8ystein Ahlstr\u00f8m, and Anders Skrede\\nNutrient Digestibility of Commercial Dog Foods Using Mink as a Model\\nJ. Nutr. 2004 134: 8 2141S-']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 101, "q_id": "wscli", "title": "Should I throw a apple core when in the outdoors or just keep it and throw it to the garbage later?", "selftext": "So I was eating an apple at the beach the other day and it got me thinking. Is it less harmful for the environment if I just throw the core or any organic waste right in the outdoors or keep it and throw to the rubbish instead, where it will be together with a ton of non organic materials that will not decompose? And what do YOU do?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/wscli/should_i_throw_a_apple_core_when_in_the_outdoors/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c5g342e', 'c5g5xo5'], 'score': [7, 4], 'text': [\"As a back packer, I can say that you should be careful what you do with organic waste that may contain seeds.  There's almost zero chance that your apple core will result in an apple tree that disrupts the ecosystem of your suburb.  However, if you are in a national park or some other delicate ecosystem, just pack it out.\", \"In the Environmental Science class I TA'd for in grad school, each semester we had a guest lecturer from the local landfill come to talk about what a landfill is, how it is constructed, how it works, etc. etc. etc.\\nShe actually made a point of saying that due to conditions in the landfill (compression and anoxia were mentioned, off the top of my head), an apple core will take significantly longer (on the order of tens of years) to decompose in a landfill than it would otherwise.\\n\\nTossing it on the ground isn't always the best. As others have said already, there's the issue of seeds to consider. Plus, it will still take time to decompose, and some people may not take too kindly to a rotten apple core laying about on the beach/hiking trail/suburban lawn/side of the highway/wherever. Be considerate. Think about where you would be tossing it. The best option may be to save it and compost it later.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 475, "q_id": "111pd0", "title": "what's so bad about apple maps?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/111pd0/eli5_whats_so_bad_about_apple_maps/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6iiqka', 'c6iitej', 'c6iiv3g', 'c6ij5av', 'c6ikr23', 'c6ikta2'], 'score': [3, 7, 10, 12, 4, 2], 'text': ['Well, Apple Maps is basically upsetting a ton of people because of false information. Apple Maps is using a company named TomTom, I believe. You have to remember, everyone is comparing Apple Maps to google maps. Google maps showed landmarks and transit maps, and Apple Maps lacks both. ', 'Probably because apple built new airports, train stations, made the earth a wavy lays chip, etc. overnight', \"For me it's the bus system. I used to be able to type in any address and it would give me buses to the next point in a very clear and concise manner, like name of the bus, time, etc, but now after I enter an address and select bus, it makes me go into a different app that almost never works correctly (times out, doesn't show all the routes, etc).\\n\\nPlus it's apparently missing a lot of smaller streets that Google Maps had.\", 'Summarised:\\n\\n* iOS users had Google Maps, undoubtedly the best mapping solution, due in part to things like street view, transit directions, consistent maps, etc.\\n* Apple (in their continuing \"get Google off iOS\" mission) removed Google Maps, and users had to use Apple\\'s mapping system.\\n* The mapping system has every error possible. Cities moved, missing features, incorrect information. [This] (_URL_0_) tumblr will help explain some of the issues.\\n\\nAlso, it shows very clearly to the average consumer something the tech world has known for years: Apple will reduce the user experience for company interests. \\n\\n****\\n\\nEdit: Apple Maps is *okay* in the US. Not as good as Google Maps, but perhaps useable by those that don\\'t use public transport. Outside of the US, it\\'s terrible.', \"Because unlike a company like Nokia that has spent billions of dollars and years of effort to make their incredible mapping tools happen, apple simply demontrated their typical arrogance by licensing questionable data and repackaging, hoping their usual marketing nonsense would carry them through. \\n\\nIn the larger sense, apple maps shouldn't be a surprise, it's the same approach/ logic as every other apple product. Looking at their iPhone hype when it came out, you'd think people used carrier pigeons in 2005...to this day the iPhone doesn't do some of the things phones have been able to do for years...oh but it can send attachments now! Innovation indeed. Or the iPad...which is the first ever tablet...omg you can touch the Internet! Kiss my ass you shitheads.\\n-typed from my mint condition iPhone which mysteriously stopped detecting the sim card. \\n\\n\", \"Even after Apple fixes all of the inaccuracies they'll still be way behind Google in mapping. Google Streetview is a massive worldwide effort to capture an enormous amount of data.  Streetview is even available [inside the White House](_URL_0_).\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/'], [], ['https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.897712,-77.036505&amp;spn=104.845584,158.027344&amp;t=v&amp;z=3&amp;layer=c&amp;panoid=wzNa0zYX_nHLILcbrjtOQA&amp;cbll=38.897712,-77.036505&amp;cbp=13,0,,0,0']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1424, "q_id": "3vfdoq", "title": "why is morning breath so rank, when it doesn't get that bad during the day?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vfdoq/eli5_why_is_morning_breath_so_rank_when_it_doesnt/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxn0eiv', 'cxn2c2g', 'cxn39lp', 'cxn3nsv', 'cxn9bv9', 'cxnf4ii'], 'score': [73, 5, 9, 4, 12, 2], 'text': ['When saliva is allowed to sit in the mouth for a long period of time without being replaced, and then mostly dries up, bacteria can propagate better which causes the smell.', 'If you went 6-8 hours straight without eating or drinking anything during the day, it likely would smell as bad as your morning breath.', 'there are components in saliva that inhibit bacteria from growing. when you sleep, you tend to 1) breath thru your mouth - dries out the saliva and 2) produce less saliva. This allows the bacteria to grow, poop in your mouth, and when you wake up, the poop makes your mouth smell.\\n\\nPeople that have xerostomia (dry mouth) for 1 of many possible reasons, they tend to have pretty bad breath because of this.', \"good points by all the previous posts. also, anaerobic bacteria (don't use oxygen) flourish at night while your mouth is closed and you're breathing through your nose.\", 'When you move your move in the day talking and eating Salvia germs are moved around and kept busy. At night they sleep and get stinky stinky.   Day awake germs move. Night germs sleepy and build up like Legos to make a stinky tower', \"you also have to add that if youre a mouth breather, it's twice ~ 3 times as bad....hence why most frontal teeth get superiorly damaged vs the back\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 188, "q_id": "5godux", "title": "what are the negative effects of mass incarceration in the united states?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5godux/eli5_what_are_the_negative_effects_of_mass/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dattqfq', 'datzpiv', 'dauacng', 'daub6ep'], 'score': [16, 51, 2, 11], 'text': ['Well, for one, taxpayers are paying to have someone housed, clothed, fed and protected. Who, at the end of their term, is unlikely to be able to get a good paying job due to being a felon and the negative stigma surrounding them. \\n\\nSo, in my eyes, we spend a lot of money to rehabilitate people who are largely unable to put themselves to good use afterwards.', 'This question is so big I almost don\\'t know where to begin. \\n\\nTo start we have to explain why private prisons boomed in the US and why we actually have mass incarceration. In the 70\\'s the US started their campaign The War On Drugs. Since then our prison population has sky rocketed. In the 80\\'s local, state, and federal governments could no longer afford the rising costs of the prison boom. Because of this in the 80\\'s we also saw the beginning of a Private Prison boom across the US. \\n\\nWhy does it matter that we have private prisons? Corporations have fiduciary duty to be profitable for their share holders. So now we have prisons that do not care about rehabilitation, they only care about incarceration. The more prisoners they can warehouse in a single prison, the more money they make. The less \"amenities\" the prison offers to the prisoners, the more money the prison makes. And when people do get out, or die inside the prison then they need to be replaced to maximize profits.\\n\\nOk, so now we have a very basic view of why we have mass incarceration. Why is it so bad? Well the main driver of mass incarceration has been the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs was historically started by Richard Nixon as a way to oppress \"The Anti-War Left and black people.\" And it worked. Since the beginning of the war on drugs we have seen drug laws that disproportionately target poor people. I will leave this [clip](_URL_0_) of Eugene Jarecki\\'s Documentary *The House I Live In* Here. If you have not seen the whole documentary I suggest that you do. \\n\\nDidn\\'t all these people commit crimes? Yes, but because of the war on drugs we tailored our laws not to rehabilitate those in need of medical care, but instead chose to incarcerate them for generations. Do you have any idea what it does to the poor communities to have their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, etc... ripped out of their lives for decades?\\n\\nTo answer your original question. It has cost the taxpayers billions in keeping a failed system (the war on drugs) afloat in order to keep our prisons full. We have basically destroyed generations of families and communities for the profit of these prisons. Mass incarceration has bred hatred, mistrust, abuse of power, oppression, and division. It has mimicked slavery and fostered racism within our legal system. It is destructive and disgusting at its core.       ', \"If you want the truth in a simple way that is entertaining to watch, watch these videos:\\n\\nAdam Conover (Adam Ruins Everything):\\n- Adam Ruins Prison\\n_URL_6_\\n\\nJohn Oliver (Last WEEK Tonight):\\n- Prison: \\n_URL_2_\\n- Prisoner Re-entry: \\n_URL_1_\\n- Mandatory Minimums: \\n_URL_5_\\n- Municipal Violations: \\n_URL_0_\\n- 9-1-1:\\n_URL_3_\\n- Mental Health (if you watch it, you'll see why it's relevant):\\n_URL_4_\\n(I'm trying to make this into a bullet point list, but I don't know how to do it since I'm new here\\n\", \"The US prison system is one of the worst in the developed western world. \\n\\nFirst. There is this strange feedback loop from many prisons being private, rather than state owned. A state owned prison wants to minimise inmates because they area a cost to the state. A private prison wants to maximise the inmates because that maximises the profit. A state wants to encourage rehabilitation to prevent people from re-offending. A private prison wants as many people in there as often. If they re-offend, it's more likely that happens so rehabilitation isn't widely done. Note: The US is slightly different in this regard too. The US has a culture that does not focus on rehab and does not *want* to focus on rehab. For the most part the US people are happy with using prison as retribution/punishment only. That means no rehab is good politics, because that's what people want. Terrible policy, because it has worse outcomes. \\n\\nSecond (not unique to the US). Prison ingrains disadvantage, both for the individual and for the family. The person out of prison has no support network and limited job opportunities. How else are they supposed to afford things other than through crime? Let's say my father went to prison. Now my mother is on a single wage trying to raise a child with far less support (he's not paying much child support in prison). That tends to lead to poorer school results (for a variety of reasons) and worse social outcomes latter on. Education is the number one thing that has positive social benefits. Better job, better health, better life in general, less crime. Lack of education is correlated with the opposite. \\n\\nThe result of these is it creates entire communities who have poor outcomes *and* perpetuates those poor outcomes. Entire communities end up with high crime. That normalises crime and perpetuates it at a wider community level too. This isn't unique to the US. What is unique to the US the scale. The private system and mass incarceration has made more people enter the crime cycle and it harder to exit than other countries. In doing so it's disadvantaged many thousands of people and disadvantaged them beyond what most other prison systems do. \\n\\nEdit: \\n\\nI see people arguing against rehab. The issue with the American system having no rehab and being purely retributive is multifaceted. Consider what happens *after* the sentence. The prison sentence is supposed to serve as the crime. However, without any supportive framework and quite a few barriers in place, when they leave the US system the person has been set up for failure. The reason every other western country focuses on rehab as well is because it has better outcomes at 3 levels. Individual, population, economic. If the people repeat offend that increases the crime rate *over the entire population*. All things equal, no rehab makes you less safe, not more. The US has increased the police force markedly to combat this and still has significantly worse outcomes than many western nations. Which leads to economics. Rehab makes people less likely to be in prison, so the cost of the prison system is reduced *and* it also requires a smaller police force to maintain the same crime rate. \\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4VFqXVrJE'], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJtYRxH5G2k', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-XlyB_QQYs', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGY6DqB1HX8', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDVmldTurqk', 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSw1ROFmklE'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1146, "q_id": "nyulb", "title": "why does nothing seem to change in africa?", "selftext": "My mother asked this....\n\nHer: Over the past 35 years, I've been watching these commercials for \"Save the Children of Africa\".  Over the past 30 years nothing has changed, do you know the reason why?\n\nMe: No clue?\n\nHer: Find Out!\n\nMe: Kk.\n\nSo Reddit, do you have the answer? If so could you please explain?\n\nEdit #1: Thanks for the info guys, this help immensely in understanding the underlying problems that plague the country... There were many things I was not accounting for... I just assumed they fixed one place up and moved on to the next and the place they had recently helped would just crumble and fall apart again.\n\nEdit #2: I never thought this post would get so much attention so I thank each and every person who took the time out of their day to help others and myself understand the current situation in certain parts of Africa.\n\nI'm also sorry for calling Africa a country and not a continent, I went full retard.\n\nI'm going to e-mail my mother this link with hopes she reads all the comments, after all she was the one who asked.\n\nThanks again, and I'll be back sometime soon with more questions I'm sure. Cheers Reddit!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nyulb/eli5_why_does_nothing_seem_to_change_in_africa/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c3d0y7b', 'c3d110f', 'c3d1ihf', 'c3d20b4', 'c3d247m', 'c3d28i8', 'c3d3kub', 'c3d3o2q', 'c3d4mfd', 'c3d56zj', 'c3d5jm7', 'c3d6sge'], 'score': [11, 8, 3, 4, 5, 22, 5, 3, 8, 2, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Many cultures in Africa have values that differ wildly from Western culture that don't put a primary emphasis on increasing education, technology and money. Also many of the cultures in Africa are at odds, much like in the middle east, and the conflict frequently prevents progress. Also many of the governments are corrupt and steal the foreign aid to give to government officials and not the citizens it is intended for. Keep in mind that Africa is a very large, diverse place and some places in Africa have become more stable, while other places have become less stable as a result of civil wars and intracontinental conflict. \", \"The actual problems that lead to starving African children are structural. Throwing money at the problem doesn't fix the structure, so it isn't going to lead to lasting change; what it *does* do is make children in Africa starve less. That's a good thing to do regardless of whether or not you're really changing things.\", \"Just giving money actually makes the problem worse. Imagine giving a homeless man some change... He'll use it to survive, not acquiring any skills to make the money himself. If you gave a homeless man an education, that'll be way more valuable...\", 'Lots of the money that is given to charities is take up in the administration of the distribution, so actually only a fraction of the money you give will end up in Africa. I also remember reading a quote from somewhere where someone asked an african child if they had new stuff because of the all the donations. The African child said no, but pointed out that the soldiers had new guns.', \"One of the problems with sending tons of free food is that it takes all the local farmers out of the market. Obviously no one is going to buy food when they can just wait a day and get more for free. As a result, farmer's family is now also waiting in line for free food.\", \"There is a big misconception that things aren't changing in Africa. In reality countries like Nigeria are developing at quite a fast rate. The issue affecting their development is partly do do with structural issues. Political systems are pretty weak in comparison to western standards as there are lots of interests and the way in which they developed differs from the west. At the same time there are lots of internal issues to do with different ethnicities being lumped together in states (Like in Nigeria, there is a Christian south and Muslim North). So in terms of internal development, quite a lot of African states are making progress.\\n\\nAt the same time, sending aid such as food can undercut the local produce in terms of cost. So nowadays other rising powers have alternatives such as investing in infrastructure in return for natural resources. An example is China, who will build Hydropower dams in return for resources, the benefit being that China doesn't demand a lot from them.\\n\\nSome African countries are more exposed to disasters such as famine due to the weather and other things like climate change and desertification. This makes developing a stable economy quite difficult.\\n\\nIt is still important to give to these charities, as charities such as Save the Children invest in medicine for countries which lack the support for there. If an economy is to develop, it needs to make sure its workforce is sustainable and the government needs to be able to invest in growth at the same time as protecting its citizens. So sending money to them can help these countries develop faster in the long term.\\n\\nA good thing to get a copy of if you want to find out how diverse, developed and modern their systems are is the Africa Report. _URL_0_ *to be honest, Africa is such a massive continent with a huge number of people, it causes depend on what country you are looking at.*\", 'Because what poor countries need is Capitalism and Commerce, not aid.  Fortunately, this is starting to happen in some places, though not others.', 'I\\'ve had four people in my immediate family work in Africa - two in the Peace Corps and two for other organizations. Several other of my family members, myself included, have lived abroad in other developing regions. So my answer is based on those experiences. \\n\\n > I just assumed they fixed one place up and moved on to the next and the place they had recently helped would just crumble and fall apart again.\\n\\nI think this has a lot of truth to it. In contrast to places like South America, many Africans don\\'t make much of an effort to maintain development projects. \"Why\" this happens is a little more complicated. First off, people know that if they just don\\'t fix anything, eventually more aid workers will come by and do it for them. What aid does come by is usually delayed by officials looking for a cut of the money, and when it actually starts it\\'s very common for people to steal from aid programs. For example, my brother was in Cameroon auditing for a charity, and one of the biggest problems they had was when they tried to build a school or a mill, the construction materials would all get stolen. That this is allowed to happen is the result of a corrupt or nonexistant law enforcement.\\n\\nThen think about the kinds of people that would be likely to solve these problems - the brightest, most motivated, etc. Many of them leave their homes for good to move to America or Europe, and of course you can\\'t blame them, because it\\'s impossible to work in theoretical physics in Tanzania. \\n\\nLastly, even when progress *is* made, it is often destroyed in war or by natural disaster. I think it\\'s hard for most of us to imagine what that\\'s like, because even the wars that devastated Europe in the last 100 years were, with one notable exception, political conflicts rather than targeted genocides, \"total wars,\" and that kind of thing.', ' >   this help immensely in understanding the underlying problems that plague the country\\n\\nuh. \\n\\nAfrica is a continent, not a country.', 'You said \"plague the country\" I really hope you don\\'t think Africa is a country.', \"[Extremely relevant and insightful visual representation of statistical change in Africa](_URL_0_)\\n\\nIn short, disease, and enough political strife to prevent proper handling of these diseases.\\n\\nIt seems to me the reason Africa doesn't seem to change is an issue of relativity. When you compare Africa to the first world, it has always been behind since recent history. And when one region is consistently wealthier than another, the perception in America will be that Africa is forever impoverished.\\n\\nedit: sorry linked wrong video, i fixed it : < \", 'I went to Africa last summer, and my sister picked up this really interesting book with stories from all over the continent. One talked about a man who was visiting Nigeria (I can\\'t recall if he was a tourist, or a local visiting family) and everywhere he went he kept hearing of tragedy, loss, famine, war... and he asked the people, \"why do you put up with this? why do you not do something?\" and they always replied \"it is the way it is because God made it so, you cannot change it.\" or \"its always been this way, so why bother to change?\".\\n\\nFor instance he was told a story of a group of kids on a field trip who took off on a plane that crashed almost as soon as it was in the air - everyone died. The mothers of the kids wailed and cried - and he asked why no one had bothered to fix the plane (because mechanical failure and crappy repair jobs caused the plane to crash), they replied that \"why bother...God made the plane crash it was meant to be, no foresight on humans could have changed that - or that planes crash all the time, its normal why change it?\"\\n\\nBut of course a little foresight would have changed the outcome of that plane crash, if the mechanics had taken their time it would have been avoided - if the cabby had fixed that back seatbelt his passengers wouldn\\'t have died in the car crash...and so on.\\n\\nI guess where I am going with this is that logic, reasoning and cultural norms are very different in Africa and from country to country - going in there many aid groups do their best but their goals may go against the cultural grain... Sometimes the people of the country don\\'t think of long term consequences to actions because they justify them using other means, or they simply say its the way its always been. Lack of education plays a role in this justification, and so does religion, as well as culture and local history. I am not saying that they don\\'t want change - of course those mothers would want their kids back if given a choice, but its as if they don\\'t understand it could have been prevented. It just is.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.theafricareport.com/'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/hans_rosling_the_good_news_of_the_decade.html'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 533, "q_id": "dgss8z", "title": "Will a photon travel endlessly inside a fiber optic cable connected at its ends(in a circle)?", "selftext": "And will it cross paths with itself, since the cable is less than 1 ly in lenght and the photon travels at 1ly speed?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dgss8z/will_a_photon_travel_endlessly_inside_a_fiber/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['f3el5rr', 'f3emz2o', 'f3eutkd'], 'score': [16, 13, 5], 'text': ['The fiber optic cable is not a lossless medium, which means light energy will get weaker and weaker as it gets converted to heat.  Eventually it will dissipate completely.  So no, it won\u2019t travel endlessly.  Also, the propagation speed inside the fiber will actually be slower than the speed of light in free space, to a degree dependent on the dielectric constant (refractive index) of the glass.', '1 light year is a distance, not a speed.\\n\\nFibers can transmit light over 100 km or so, maybe a bit more, but they lose light quickly (~a millisecond).', 'Interesting question. First let\\'s talk about it in a practial view. In order to close the loop after you sent some photon into a fiber you need time. E.g. 3 sec. to de-couple your optical device and close the loop. Light travels with approx. 300 000km/s. So you would need a fiber with a length of 1 000 000km(!).\\nSo...how does a fiber cable \"bend\" light? Well, it has some layers with different diffraction indices, so that light is refracted towards the centre of the cable. But also in those cables it is possible that light reaches a non-optimal refraction angle and is thus scattered towards the mantle. Besides, light travels in a medium which consists of molecules which (depending on wavelength) absorbs light. Also in real world applications you need a repeater once in a while, because of absorption or signal loss in the cable.\\nSo no, it is not possible for light to travel endlessly in an optical fiber. Whereas, when light would be bend by a black hole it is possible to travel in circles \"endlessly\" (Except the black hole gains mass, which affects the radius of that circle or the photons reacts with another photon to form a particle/anti-particle-pair.).']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1109, "q_id": "1jmm4x", "title": "why are there so many chinese buffets and restaurants in the us with nearly identical menus and decors that don't appear to be franchises? (super china buffet, china 1, super china, etc)", "selftext": "Seriously, there are like 10 of these in my small-ish town. What gives? How can they all be so similar? Even down to the pictures on the menu boards!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jmm4x/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_chinese_buffets_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbg61q0', 'cbg6b4r', 'cbg6c9p', 'cbg6rig', 'cbg7bwi', 'cbg7exk', 'cbg820v', 'cbg9fu1', 'cbg9i0g', 'cbgarj9', 'cbgekwq', 'cbgfxzn', 'cbgggh3', 'cbgleh6'], 'score': [30, 169, 220, 13, 5, 8, 53, 8, 8, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2], 'text': ['Although this video (15 mins long Ted Talk) will not completely answer your question, it still has a lot of relevant information about this subject:\\n\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"I can't remember the documentary but there's a place in New York that provides standard menus and food for chinese buffets. Basically they give you everything you need. \\n\\nThe short answer, all those restaurants are in a sense franchises of the same wholesale distributor. \\n\", 'There is not a huge market for chinese restaurant decorations so there are limited manufacturers of decorations and menu photos. Everyone buys from the same supplier and they all end up looking the same.\\n\\nSimilar to the blue greek Anthora cups that are served everywhere in NYC or how every frat party uses red solo cups despite frat parties not being franchises. Hundreds of frat party planners go to hundreds of stores and end up making the same decision. Red solo cups are the right price and size for a party. So everyone looks the same because they are all making the same decision despite being different people.', 'As I understand it they are semi-franchises, they all buy their pre-made food (egg rolls, sauces  etc...) from the same few suppliers but they own their restaurant, name and assets.  ', \"I have the same question about Mexican restaurants. I've been to dozens most likely in different cities with different names, and every time without exception I can order a #5 and get two enchiladas, rice and beans.\", '_URL_0_\\n\\nGood book answers this question and lots of other questions about chinese restaurants. ', 'So a lot of the owners of these restaurants speak little to no English and when the come here they need to work to pay off debt and support their family. Some start their own restaurants while some work for those restaurants. When you build a restaurant you go to the Chinese restaurant supplier for all the equipment and decor because the language barrier. They then set up the restaurant with similar menus because the food are proven to be appealing to Americans and because Americans are use to the same \"Chinese food\". That is why you won\\'t see \"real\" Chinese food unless u go to Chinatown or to China, its about the demographic the food is serving to.  ', 'At one time a Chinese Restaurant that served authentic Chinese food opened in my home town. The owners were clueless as to what Fried Rice was... They tried to assimilate but ultimately failed. Appears Americans don\\'t want Chinese Food, they want \"Chinese\" Food.\\n', 'It\\'s the easiest way for them to make money. Although the idea of \"trying new food\" might be appealing, there\\'ll still be quite a bit of confusion involved, whereas if customers know everything that\\'s available, then they can select their meal faster.\\n\\nWhy do fast food franchises have similar products? Wendies, Burger King, and McDonalds all serve hamburgers (albeit different flavors). The same applies to Americanized Chinese restaurants.\\n\\nTake note that if you\\'re a non-Chinese, restaurants (not buffets) will serve you Americanized Chinese food, whereas if you\\'re Chinese and specifically order real Chinese dishes, a lot of them will make them for you (at least, that\\'s how it works in Canada).\\n\\nSource: I\\'m a **C**anadian **B**orn **C**hinese, my uncle\\'s family owns Americanized Chinese restaurants in San Antonio, Texas, and I\\'ve worked there for a few summers.\\n\\n[Hung Fong Restaurant](_URL_0_) \\n\\n[Ding How Restaurant](_URL_1_) ', \"For that matter, why do all nail salons have the same font of sign as all these chinese restaraunts? Red lettering with a plain font..yo know what I'm referring to.\", 'I\\'m really into Augusten Burroughs right now...  I just read \"Magical Thinking\" and in this quote he is talking about his boyfriend at the time describing the chinese food in NY.  I thought it was pretty hilarious.\\n    \\n\\n\u201cThen he explains Chinese food in Manhattan to me: \\'See the way it works is, there\\'s one central location out on Long Island where all this stuff is made. Then it\\'s piped into the city through a series of underground pipes that run parallel to the train and subway tracks. The restaurants then just pull a lever. One lever for General Tso\\'s chicken, another for beef with broccoli sauce. It\\'s like beer; it\\'s on tap.\\' It\\'s amazing how convincing he is when he says this. There\\'s no pause in his description, nowhere for him to stop and think, to make this up as he goes along. It\\'s as though he\\'s simply repeating something he read in the Times yesterday. This makes me love him more than I did just five minutes ago.\u201d - Augusten Burroughs ', 'Because Chinese restaurants are opened:\\n\\n* By Chinese people,\\n* For white people who are largely ignorant of China, and\\n* need to understand what they\\'re looking at.\\n\\nThe biggest factor is that the Chinese, culturally, love systems and methods. They find something that works and they use it and expand on it and discard what doesn\\'t work. All cultures do that do a degree, and it also happens naturally in most pursuits, but Chinese culture really clings to a working system and tries hard not to deviate more than it tries *to* innovate. Think Kung Fu - the same systems for many, many generations. There are variations of course, but someone practicing \\'northern crane\\' will be learning the same \\'northern crane\\' that his great great great grandfather did, and even be learning it the same way.\\n\\nNow add to that the fact that a great deal of Chinese restaurants in America are opened by immigrants that are thrust into an alien environment and you have a method for, \"Stick with what works!\" and what works?\\n\\nWhat works is a storefront that says, this is a Chinese restaurant. You know what you expect inside. Come, eat noodles. What works is recipes everyone knows already. We\\'re stupid Americans, we want what we know. Even in NYC with the world\\'s greatest variety of everything you\\'re going to find, in most takeout Chinese places, 99% the same menu even if the names are different. General Tso vs. General Tsang? Same dish. \\n\\nIt\\'s the same reason that you\\'re not going to find wildly different Chinese laundromats, or fast food places for that matter.', \"Also because white people all love the SAME goddamn Chinese food. Notice how Chinese people don't go to said buffets-- even if they do they avoid cheap, worthless foods like the lo mein, pork fried rice, and general tso's and instead beeline straight for the seafood--the only thing worth any money. Gotta get yo money's worth yo.\", 'They are not similar, they just all look alike because we are not chinese']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6MhV5Rn63M'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.amazon.com/The-Fortune-Cookie-Chronicles-Adventures/dp/B003P2VDF6'], [], [], ['http://www.yelp.ca/biz/hung-fong-chinese-restaurant-san-antonio', 'http://dinghowsa.com/'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 511, "q_id": "4d6g39", "title": "Did Lenin actually want to create a single-party state, or was it unavoidable?", "selftext": "He had promised all power to the workers Soviets in his April theses and temporarily went along with the idea of a constituent assembly, but communism was slower than Lenin had wanted:\n\n - The rest of Europe didn't undergo socialist revolutions as Lenin had expected.\n - The unrest in the countryside meant that Lenin couldn't deny land to the peasants and so went against communist principles to give them ownership of the land.\n - Despite its name, War Communism went against the principles of Communism by taking power from the workers and putting factories under the control of industrialist individuals.\n\nDid the single-party state simply arise from the fact that socialism wasn't yet fully implemented yet in Russia, and the Communist party would need to stay in rule to embed it?\n\nEdit: Moreover Russia had been in a state of political flux for so long that economic issues had not been dealt with. Perhaps the single-party state was considered necessary until economic issues could be resolved.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4d6g39/did_lenin_actually_want_to_create_a_singleparty/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d1oabd5', 'd1pvnu9'], 'score': [7, 2], 'text': [\"Were there any factions within the party (or any other single party system's party) that functioned as de facto parties?\", 'No, the Vanguard Party model (as it is known) was specifically put forward by Lenin. Speaking as a Leninist myself, the idea of the Vanguard Party is that it begins as a subset of the \"class-conscious\" (i.e. revolutionary) section of the working class which simultaneously educates their fellow workers as well as agitating for revolution within the structure of the capitalist state. When revolution arrives, the Vanguard Party leads the workers in combatting the capitalists, and when the socialist state is established, the Vanguard Party organizes the state in such a way as to be as interconnected between the government, the workplace, and the general public as possible - the idea being to create a government that was subservient to and a part of the working class, from top to bottom. \\n\\nTo give a rough outline of what such a system looked like, in the workplace (such as a factory), workers elected a representative to local workers\\' councils (Soviets, where the Soviet Union gets its name). These in turn elect regional legislatures, which send representatives to the legislature of their SSR, which in turn send representatives to the Supreme Soviet, the national legislature. In addition, all workplaces, as well as schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure-esque offices, also had Party representatives, to which any citizen could go to submit suggestions or complaints. Via the process of Democratic Centralism, which Lenin described as \"freedom of discussion, unity of action\" if I recall correctly, these issues could be brought before the Party, who would discuss and debate the issue freely as they so wished, and then cast a vote on the matter. Party members were expected to uphold the decision, no matter what it was. Lenin famously said that this model was \"1,000 times as democratic as bourgeois (capitalist) democracy\". ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1653, "q_id": "bdrl2w", "title": "Following the burning of Notre Dame, what is the impact of burnt lead on the environment ?", "selftext": "Following the burning of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris yesterday, I read that the spire (and other elements of the roof) was composed of 250 tons of lead. What is the environmental impact of lead exposed to a fire ? What can we expect in the following days/weeks/months in term of pollution ?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bdrl2w/following_the_burning_of_notre_dame_what_is_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['el2v99z', 'el2vf9v'], 'score': [2, 6], 'text': ['Likely it would be somewhat similar to a forest fire but with higher levels of lead in the air, although even considering the large amount of lead now present in the air surrounding the cathedral, it\u2019s not likely that we\u2019d see any adverse effects similar to the effects when lead was present in gasoline.\\n\\nIn terms of environmental damage, this means that crops surrounding the cathedral would contain higher amounts of lead, which would also probably be negligible to human health.', \"The boiling point of lead is 1750 C (3180 F), so it couldn't just boil away.\\n\\nA bit of it will have evaporated, some parts might have formed new chemical compounds with whatever else was around, but I would expect that most of the lead remained as it is - now solid again. Not sure if that is actually the case, we would need someone who knows the conditions of the roof of Notre Dame better.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 966, "q_id": "1f71zp", "title": "what actual crimes did anyone on \"wall st\" actually commit leading up to the financial crisis?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f71zp/eli5_what_actual_crimes_did_anyone_on_wall_st/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ca7ext5', 'ca7ftfx', 'ca7fu1n', 'ca7gyyh', 'ca7hj82', 'ca7iw1y', 'ca7k2nz', 'ca7klmo', 'ca7mxx7', 'ca7ntk6'], 'score': [9, 3, 4, 312, 20, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4], 'text': ['That\\'s subject to a lot of debate, but the biggest sticking point would be that products were being sold and set up with prior knowledge that they would most certainly go bad, while benefiting the firm that was setting it up. That said, its extremely hard to prove this.\\n\\nCan go into more detail or field questions if you want. Since you said \"financial crisis\" I\\'m assuming you meant the collapse in real estate, whose mortgages backed trillions of dollars of securities.', \"one of the big problems related to attempts to prosecute bankers who were involved in unethical business practices is that, for the most part, what they were doing wasn't actually illegal (even though it was unethical and financially destructive). \\n\\n\", 'I think there is a general feeling among some on Reddit, and elsewhere, that certain organizations on Wall Street (e.g. large banks) flew the economy into the ground to make a profit and because they are \"too big to fail\" there is nothing holding them back from doing it again in the future.\\n\\nHaving said this, however, I don\\'t know of any evidence that there were any \"crimes\" committed, but more of a lack of accountability and reckless action for short-term gain.', 'Okay I spent like twenty minutes trying to explain it like I would to a five year old, and I failed, so here it is as simply as possible. \\n\\nFirst off, you\\'re kind of asking the wrong question. You have to remember that Wall St firms spend billions of dollars lobbying politicians to write laws that benefit them. So, for instance, financial derivatives were largely unregulated- there were very few laws governing them, and they are considered a main cause of the financial crisis. Some people argue that the people on Wall St didn\\'t break any laws, but it\\'s kind of a moot point. They\\'re the ones who wrote the laws, and they wrote them in such a way that they could legally screw their own investors. So whether they committed a \"crime\" or not doesn\\'t really matter at some level. They still behaved in completely immoral ways that nearly led to the financial collapse of the global financial system, just to line their own pockets. Whether it was illegal or not, it was wrong. \\n\\nThat being said, there was a lot of behavior that many people would consider fraud at many levels of the financial system. The collapse was driven mainly by mortgage backed securities. Basically, back in the day, if you wanted a loan to buy a house, you\\'d go to your bank and they\\'d give you a loan to buy your house, and then you\\'d pay them back over twenty or thirty years. They had a lot of interest in making sure you could pay your loan back, because if you didn\\'t they were out of a ton of money. \\n\\nWith the invention of mortgage back securities, banks would make a loan to you, and then immediately sell it to an investment firm, which would package it with thousands of other mortgages, and then resell them to investors. Because the banks were only holding onto the loans for a short time period before they sold them, they didn\\'t really care if you could pay back the loan or not. So they lent money to people who blatantly couldn\\'t afford it. People who listed their occupation as \"waitress\" and their annual income as \"$200,000.\" It was obvious the loan applicants were lying, but the banks let them because all they cared about was making a loan so they could sell it. And, yep, it was definitely criminal of the people who lied on their loan applications, but the banks have a legal responsibility to ensure the loan applications seem reasonably accurate (e.g., by requesting salary verification, calling your employer, whatever). The banks knew they were making bad loans, and then they represented them as good loans. Most people would consider that fraud. \\n\\nThe investment banks who bought and packaged the mortgages also knew they were bad, and that they would likely fail. They did a couple things that appear to most people as fraudulent. First, it appears they colluded with the rating agencies so that the rating agencies would say these packages of mortgages were a very, very safe investment, when there\\'s evidence (e.g., internal emails) that both the rating agencies and the investment banks knew they were not safe investments. Second, they encouraged their investors to buy these mortgage backed securities, claiming that they were a great investment, while at the same time they placed bets that these investments would actually fail. Some people argue this wasn\\'t illegal, they were just hedging their financial position. However, again there are emails in which bankers are nicknaming these mortgage backed securities things like \"doomed to fail\" and \"crap investment,\" while at the same time pushing them on their investors who they are supposed to be advising. Most people would consider that fraud, too. ', 'Most of what was done wasn\\'t actually illegal, just breathtakingly irresponsible.\\n\\nFor instance, there were (and still are) these things called \"synthetic CDOs\" that were similar to insurance policies like you\\'d get on your car or your house, with a couple of key differences.  What the CDOs insured were (sometimes) collections of mortgages.  So, like, when you got a mortgage from a bank or a company like Countrywide, the bank doesn\\'t usually hold onto the mortgage for the full 30 years.  Instead, they\\'d take your mortgage and bundle it together with a couple thousand other people\\'s and sell the bundle to investors as a bond.  The investors buying that bond expected to get (say) 5% or 6% interest for the life of the bond, funded by you and the other thousand people paying your monthly payment for 30y, or whatever.  \\n\\nAt the time, such investments were considered pretty darn safe.  House prices always go up, right?  HOWEVER, the people buying these things knew there was at least a small risk that the investment might not pay off--California might slide into the sea, or whatever.  To guard against this, they sometimes went to big insurance companies like AIG to buy an insurance policy.  If, for whatever reason, the bond *didn\\'t* pay off at the expected rate, AIG would make up the loss. \\n\\nThat was fine as far as it went, but here\\'s the irresponsible part.  In conventional insurance, you can\\'t take out a policy on, say, your neighbor\\'s house.  Not so with this sort.  Companies like AIG would write insurance policies AGAINST THE SAME BOND over and over and over for anyone who could afford the premiums.  So, if the bond DID ever default, they would potentially be on the hook for many, many times what the original bond was worth--up to and past the point where some events (like a broad based decline in housing prices) could make the insurance company owe more than they could pay.  \\n\\nThat ended up being exactly what happened.  When house prices declined, the people who had been counting on refinancing their house to make a balloon payment found that they owed more than the house was worth.  They defaulted in record numbers, as did the bonds backed by their mortgages.  AIG, to its surprise, found that it owed the people who had bought insurance on these bonds many, many billions of dollars.  They were effectively bankrupt, until they were bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.  Nobody (or not many people) did anything that was against the law, but a case could be made that they were very, very irresponsible indeed.  \\n\\nAnother huge problem was that in order to help Bush win reelection, Alan Greenspan opted to keep the federal funds rate lower than it had ever been for several years.  This had the effect of flooding the U.S. economy with cheap loans.  Because more people had more (borrowed) money to buy the same number of houses, starting around 2002 house prices began to rise.  When, just after the 2004 election, Greenspan returned the interest rates to more normal levels, the growth came to a crashing halt.  The bubble burst.\\n\\nAgain, there was no law against doing this,  but it was breathtakingly irresponsible. And there\\'s really no doubt at all about what happened and why--Greenspan said so, in so many words, in his book The Age of Turbulence (published before the 2008 crisis).\\n\\nA little closer to home, you also had an epidemic of mortgage brokers turning a blind eye to obvious problems in order to get consumers approved for balloon loans to buy houses they couldn\\'t realistically afford.  Not (necessarily) illegal, but breathtakingly irresponsible.  \\n\\nIt\\'s also true that nobody held a gun to anybody\\'s head in 2004 and forced them to buy a McMansion that they couldn\\'t really afford. \\n\\nTL; DR - In the U.S. financial system profits belong to the shareholders, but risk is for everyone.', 'Start here:\\n_URL_0_\\n', 'How to make a million dollars an hour by Les Leopold is a very interesting read that points everything to hedge funds.', \"Unfortunately, none.   It's the laws that were fucked up not the actual bankers.\", \"The only *real* sin was bullshitting a bunch of regulators that should have known better (and a lot of these were private, not government) that MBS (mortgage backed securities) deserved the risk rating that they got.\\n\\nInvestments are rated by risk, and certain entities (like pension funds, etc) are required to buy securities with a high financial strength rating...A or A+ or something considered very stable, and very unlikely to lose a dramatic amount of value.\\n\\nSo, during the boom, they managed to work out a way to bundle risky loans with safe loans in such a way that they could convince the ratings companies to give a very good rating to the resultant securities. Obviously (in hindsight) they were shit, but at the time they were rated very highly, which meant they could be insured very cheaply, and sold off to organizations who normally couldn't buy something with such a high return.\\n\\nThat was the shady part. Someone had to know that those things were shit. They certainly shouldn't have been rated so well as an investment (but, again, the government doesn't do the rating, they just make the rules about what ratings can be bought by certain types of funds). \\n\\nSo they were easy to sell, so the demand increased, which drove the lenders to lend more recklessly, etc.\", 'The whole scapegoating of wall st is because politicians naturally seek to avoid blame and pundits seek to cast it about. The \"criminal\" here is not a single actor or institution. Rather, it is the fascistic hybrid of a powerful government seeking a specific social outcome (fair housing, broad homeownership) and a group of big businesses involved in that process that seek to protect profits and avoid punitive regulations. The system worked as designed, pushing homeownership rates to record highs, without wondering about the sustainability of these developments (note, the prime beneficiary of these policies in the end were upper-middle class people who flipped houses during the boom, and investors who sold or shorted early, despite nominally being for \"the poor\"). Barney frank famously said in 2003 that he wanted to \"roll the dice in favor of subsidized housing\", encouraging further purchases of MBS through Fannie Mae. \\n\\nAny attempt to blame a particular group (be it wall st, investment bankers, govt backed credit raters or congress itself) is misguided and misunderstood, and likely scapegoating for a political purpose. Almost all the actors behaved within the confines of the law, often acting with express or implied consent from regulators. To try and levy criminal punishments on such actions will cripple the economy and the government, for fear that any action taken today, that is legal under current law, could be made illegal with all formerly-law-abiding citizens being thrown into jail. Moral hazard, regulatory capture, and blithe optimism were all involved in this debacle, but trying to imprison a bank CEO for supposed crimes during this time makes as much sense as impeaching Obama for Benghazi. \\n\\nI hope this makes sense. The financial crisis is an incredibly complex issue legally and it\\'s not helped by such rampant demagoguing as is found on the Internet. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-rare-look-at-why-the-government-wont-fight-wall-street-20120918'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 760, "q_id": "65pefi", "title": "if an addict goes into a coma for enough time to get it out of their system, would they still be addicted when they wake up?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65pefi/eli5_if_an_addict_goes_into_a_coma_for_enough/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dgc3mwv', 'dgc5a1h', 'dgc7b2y', 'dgcfwlp', 'dgckn1o', 'dgclaht', 'dgcoix3', 'dgcp650', 'dgctxst', 'dgcx5w3', 'dgcxty6'], 'score': [437, 46, 44, 234, 5, 2, 2, 8, 3, 3, 3], 'text': [\"They would have no physical addiction. They would go through withdrawal while unconscious. But they'd still be addicted psychologically, much like a person who quits for awhile--they will still crave the substance, but not become physically ill when not having any. It's actually a thing to put people to sleep so they can detox while unconscious.  \", \"No physical addiction.  Source: wife was in a coma last year due to alcohol problems, when she woke up, all was good and hasn't had a drink since.\", \"You (like most people) are conflating *addiction*, which is a behavior and a psychological/spiritual/brain-chemistry problem, with *chemical dependence*, which is a medical condition. Any person can, for instance, be over prescribed painkillers and their body develop a chemical dependence, which will result in physical withdrawal when the substance is removed.  That part, you can sleep through.  Being an **addict** is a different thing.  An alcoholic who hasn't had a drink in five years is **still an addict**, despite having no physical chemical dependence. It's a reference to the fact that their brain chemistry is simply different, and always will be at our present level of understanding. \", \"I'm an addiction counselor. I've also spent four days in a coma from a polysubstance overdose, and subsequent withdrawal. \\n\\nLet's get a few terms straight first. Addiction is not diagnosable. Instead, let's call it a (substance) use disorder. There are 11 diagnostic criteria for a use disorder. If someone meets 3, or 7, or 10 of these criteria, their disorder could be mild, moderate, or severe. Someone with a mild substance use disorder might not have the same obsessions or compulsions that another patient may have, or the same feelings of guilt/shame as another, or hasn't been using as coping skill since age 13, or has a very supportive home life with access to a continuum of care, etc. \\n\\nSo, the answer is yes, it's possible for them to wake up not 'addicted' or at least not physically dependent... but completing withdrawal is not enough for most patients to find long term wellness. About 92% of opioid users that complete a detox-only level of care, without residential treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, etc., end up using again within one year... using problematically... not just using...\\n\\nSo, while it's possible, the patient would likely need to be mild case, and present with mostly withdrawal related symptoms and none of the thought-life, amygdala activation, guilt/shame, society pressures, home life difficulties, have many coping methods that actually help the patient, etc., that most problematic users face daily. So... let's not try... ok?!?!\", \"Physically yes. But most addictions are not about the actual substance though. When it comes to substance abuse then people have that as the solution to their problem but it's not the actual problem. Many look at a drug addict and think if you only took away the drugs then the problem would be solved but what they don't realize is that the drugs is to cover the pain inside them. So it could have been alcohol, drugs, food or whatever. It's kinda like people who cut themselves. It doesn't help to take away the knife cause they clearly have issues. No I am not saying the two are the same, it's just an example. So most likely they will still need a fix and will still be addicted.\\n\\nI want to point out that there are many who at some point try drugs and then suddenly get addicted and need it and in this case I think your example would actually be a big help. But for many addicts then it wouldn't work cause they would wake up and feel like hell and need something to numb that.\", \"There's actually a very expensive treatment for opiate addiction that involves putting a person to sleep while weaning them off the drugs with an IV drip.  Pretty sure it was featured in an HBO documentary about addiction, although I might be wrong on the producer of the content.  This, like so many other methods is a quick fix to what is in many circumstances a lifelong struggle.  You get through the detox, but you don't know how to function and cope afterwards without the drug, so the fix is usually pretty temporary.  Interesting research with some benefit to treatment going forward, but not a long-term solution by any means.\", \"This system has been tried in the past, most notably in Australia: it didn't end well.\\n\\n_URL_0_\", \"Addiction has both physical and mental components. When you are physically addicted to something your body goes into withdrawal and makes the addict sick. That physical withdrawal can vary from unpleasant, to life threatening and it can last days. \\n\\nThe mental component is drug seeking behavior. The user wants the drug because it helps them cope or satisfies a need they have. Those cravings and needs are likely still there when they wake up, maybe even more so with the stress of a hospital stay. \\n\\nI'll give you some examples. \\nCigarettes - They have a mild physical addiction that can cause irritability, headaches, and low energy when quitting. These usually fade in a few days. However the mental addiction can last for months or years. The user is used to fidgeting with their hands, they often smoke during other activities and doing those activities without a cigarette makes them crave them all the more. Being around other smokers, or in situations where one usually smokes like drinking in a bar, makes it very difficult to abstain. \\n\\nOpiates - Very strong physical addiction and dependence. Quitting cold turkey leads to intense nausea, diarrhea, sleep interruptions, headaches, intense feelings of hopelessness and malaise. The opiates caused their bodies to produce less endorphins and 'feel good' brain chemicals. Without the drug, the bodies natural pain killers and chemical rewards are not working properly leading to the person being in a lot of pain and discomfort, and things that normally bring joy like friends, food, favorite music and movies, provide little to no relief. This usually fades in several days. The mental aspects of it can last the rest of a persons life. The problems and behaviors that led them to abuse the drug in the first place are often still there when they quit, and recovery can be very difficult and require years of careful control over their behaviors and lives. \\n\\n\", 'Addiction is far more than a chemical or physical dependence, here is where the problem lies. I\\'ve read most of the comments and no one has touched on the \"lifestyle\" of addiction. At one point in my life every person I would interact with on a daily basis was an addict, every contact in my phone, every house I would visit, everything in my life revolved around my addiction. After so long it becomes all that you know and all that you see and do, every day! It slowly takes over every part of your life...', 'Speaking from experience: I was in a coma for 8 days, when I woke up I no longer needed a cigarette.  It was as if I never had an addiction to them at all.', 'This actually used to be a pretty popular method of detox, called Prolonged Sleep. The idea was that you could heavily sedate a patient through the worst of the withdrawal. It wasn\\'t effective, to put it mildly. Here is how Burroughs described the process:\\n\\n*Prolonged Sleep.--The theory sounds good. You go to sleep and wake up cured. Industrial doses of chloral hydrate, barbiturates, thorazine, only produced a nightmare state of semi-consciousness. Withdrawal of sedation, after 5 days, occasioned a severe shock. Symptoms of acute morphine deprivation supervened. The end result was a combined syndrome of unparalleled horror. No cure I ever took was as painful as this allegedly painless method. The cycle of sleep and wakefulness is always deeply disturbed during withdrawal. To further disturb it with massive sedation seems contraindicated to say the least. Withdrawal of morphine is sufficiently traumatic without adding to it withdrawal of barbiturates. After two weeks in the hospital (five days sedation, ten days \"rest\") I was still so weak that I fainted when I tried to walk up a slight incline. I consider prolonged sleep the worst possible method of treating withdrawal.*']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sleep_therapy#Australian_Chelmsford_scandal'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2173, "q_id": "20fb97", "title": "We hold our eyes closed, or hold our eyes open?", "selftext": "How do we know?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20fb97/we_hold_our_eyes_closed_or_hold_our_eyes_open/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cg2u5wy', 'cg31bth'], 'score': [11, 2], 'text': [\" The orbicularis oculi muscles contract to close the lids.  The palpebral portion acts on its own when you are closing your eyes to sleep.  The muscles that contract to open the eyes are the levator and meuller's muscle along with relaxation of the orbicularis.  So opening and closing of the eyes require both relaxation of some muscles and contraction of others.\\nTLDR: Both. \", 'Just expanding on what has already been said.\\n\\nThe orbicularis oculi muscle closes the eyelid. It is divided into two parts; palpebral and orbital. The orbital portion is under conscious control, such as when you consciously close your eyes so tightly the surrounding skin of the face wrinkles. The palpebral portion is involuntary and is used for \"automatic\" blinking and sleep.\\n\\nConversely, for eyelid opening, you have two sets of muscles (which some consider one in the same, although they have different innervations). These are the levator palpebrae superioris and the superior tarsal muscles. These are \"voluntary/conscious\" muscles to some degree (superior tarsal muscle less so), although they are able to function without us directly thinking about it. Similar examples of this type of muscle action would include the diaphragm, which works on its own just fine when you sleep or are not thinking about breathing. Another example would be the muscles of your neck. I\\'m guessing you\\'ve been holding your head upright the entire time you\\'ve been reading this and haven\\'t been consciously flexing and extending the various neck muscles to do so.\\n\\nShort answer is (as has already been said) depending on what we\\'re doing, our bodies are able to hold the eyelids open or closed without our direct input, but we can easily override either state.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2588, "q_id": "243l7g", "title": "If a spectator fell from the stands into the games in the Colosseum in Rome, would he be killed?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/243l7g/if_a_spectator_fell_from_the_stands_into_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ch3fcly', 'ch3lcw8', 'ch3wbke'], 'score': [4, 19, 16], 'text': [\"Didn't Caligula force a section of spectators to fight at one point?\", \"According to t[his source](_URL_0_) the first level of the Colosseum (the only part one could really fall from the stands into the games) is 34' high.  At this height, it's very likely that a spectator would suffer severe trauma (landing on one's head would almost certainly mean death) or otherwise life - threatening injuries.\\n\\nEDIT: formatting\", 'Gladiatorial matches are often misunderstood: they weren\\'t orgies of blood and violence, they were spectator sports featuring highly trained combatants. You wouldn\\'t be any more a part of the match for stumbling into the arena than a modern spectator at a boxing match would be.\\n\\nThe exception are the midday \"intermission\" events, but even those were executions of criminals, not just random guys.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/colosseum/dimensions-of-the-colosseum.htm'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 594, "q_id": "ivbge", "title": "An article I saw on r/physics today announced Fermilab's discovery of xi-sub-b, a baryon that had been predicted, but not previously observed. How exactly do the CDF/LHC and other particle detectors conclusively observe and determine the existence of a particle if it has never been observed before? ", "selftext": "[Link to the article](_URL_0_) \n\nedit: Another thing that confuses me is why a particle would appear in some instances of a collision, and not in others; from the article: \" the Xi-sub-b was observed in 25 instances among almost 500 trillion proton-antiproton collisions.\" What occurred in those 25 instances that resulted in the detection of the Xi-sub-b? Was it present in the other collisions but simply not detected?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ivbge/an_article_i_saw_on_rphysics_today_announced/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c26zaix'], 'score': [5], 'text': [\"It's likely a combination of both. \\n\\nWhen two particles collide the result is not deterministic. The slew of particles that result from the collision and the resulting decays is probabilistic. This is the nature of quantum mechanics. Though I don't know the details of the experiment, the creation of a Xi-sub-b is likely a very rare event because it's such heavy particle. On top of that, heavy particles decay extremely quickly into lighter particles, so it'd be hard to find it in the mess of particles. There's also a lot of noise that potentially hides it. The 25 instances are those that they're sure after much analysis are Xi-sub-b. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.conceivablytech.com/8516/science-research/fermilab-scientists-discover-new-particle']", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 679, "q_id": "c1uesf", "title": "What constitutes a subconcussive impact?", "selftext": "There has been quite a lot of justified hullabaloo surrounding concussions lately and it\u2019s making me worried about my own past. I\u2019ve never been knocked out or suffered nausea from a head impact. However, I have hit my head *countless* times growing up, whether it be running into the kitchen after it was mopped, falling off a bike while not wearing a helmet, or simply roughhousing with friends. I also played some contact sports growing up and have been in a car wreck which resulted in a totaled vehicle. I\u2019m not worried that I have CTE, but I\u2019m definitely getting a bit nervous about what kind of damage I might have accrued over the years, if any.\n\nTL;DR - I\u2019ve never been knocked out or suffered a serious concussion, but I\u2019m worried I\u2019ve received subconcussive blows to the head. Can someone clear this up for me?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/c1uesf/what_constitutes_a_subconcussive_impact/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['erh4mly'], 'score': [5], 'text': ['The definition of a sub-concussive blow is an impact where the brain is shaken but not so violently that the cells are damaged enough to be seen through symptoms. That\u2019s a pretty poor definition but it is the current one we use, maybe as research advances there will be a better method of classification.\\n\\nI wouldn\u2019t worry to much about the amount of damage you\u2019ve received. The professional athletes who develop injuries like CTE have taken thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands of hard blows to the head. The amount of damage you would accumulate over a life time would never come close to that. It\u2019s likely that the effect of these type of injuries will be negligible for the average person.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 314, "q_id": "z3ern", "title": "Dieting and mass energy equivalence", "selftext": "In physics energy = mass * speed of light squared.\n\nIn dieting 3500 calories of calorie deficit = 1 lb of body fat loss.\n\nIn both equations the left hand side is energy (energy is calorie). \n\nIn both equations the right hand side is mass (mass is lb).\n\nAre these equations the same or fundementally different?\n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/z3ern/dieting_and_mass_energy_equivalence/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c613s2p', 'c616auf'], 'score': [3, 2], 'text': [\"Fundamentally different...ish.   \\n\\nFat is a method of storing energy in chemical bonds.   Your body can convert one pound of fat into 3500 calories.  This is equivalent to 32,000 joules per gram of fat.\\n\\nFrom E = mc^2, one gram of fat contains about 9x10^13 joules (that's 90,000,000,000,000 joules) in terms of matter-energy equivalence.  \\n\\nSo only about 1/3 billionth of the energy contained in a mass of fat is able to be converted to usable energy by your body.  \", 'Yes, they are fundamentally different things.\\n\\nMass-energy equivalence by E=mc^2 applies when mass is converted into energy, and is most noticeable in nuclear reactions.\\n\\nYou gain or lose body weight when eating or dieting because food or metabolic products are entering or leaving your body. The chemical bonds that make up high-energy molecules in food are broken down by oxidation. We then exhale the CO2 and H2O produced, and excrete nitrogenous and other wastes in urine. Those molecules still exist, and if you could gather up your exhalation and other bodily excretions over your dieting period, it would equal the weight that you lost.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2985, "q_id": "2blxl9", "title": "How close was Israel to defeat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War before the US resupplied them?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2blxl9/how_close_was_israel_to_defeat_in_the_1973_yom/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cj6sd73', 'cj6vy6a'], 'score': [173, 6], 'text': ['Well, the resupply was not something that happened when Israel was close to defeat, at least not in the Sinai. It was *ordered* when the Israelis were facing a defeat, without a doubt. The airlift, which began on 14 October, had been ordered to begin on the 9th, and came after a decisive battle in the Sinai on the 14th, which may have made it superfluous in terms of \"saving\" the Israelis in the Sinai.\\n\\nOn 12 October, under increasing pressure from Egyptian General Ahmed Ismail Ali, Lieutenant General Sa\\'ad Al Shazly was given orders by General Ismail (over all objections) to make for the Gidi and Mitla passes. A \"political decision\" had been made, to relieve the pressure on Syria, and Shazly had his hands tied. He reminded General Ismail of what had happened last time a brigade was caught without air cover, as they would be (they were advancing past air defense ranges), but to no avail. An attack would be launched from the bridgehead. Shazly got it postponed \\'til the 14th.\\n\\nThe IDF had been debating ending the war with a ceasefire, or undertaking a hazardous canal crossing, right around the 11th or 12th of October. It didn\\'t think it would be able to continue this war, especially if it turned into a war of attrition. Then word came on the 12th that Egyptian armor was moving and crossing the Suez Canal, appearing to be preparing for an attack on the 13th or 14th. Israel decided to wait, instead of taking initiative or making peace, and to fortify positions.\\n\\nShazly put it this way: \"The enemy had 900 tanks in his operational zone. We were attacking with 400. We were doing so, against well-prepared positions, in precisely the \\'penny packets\\' that had cost the enemy so dear over October 8-9. And we were condemning our tank crews to attack over open terrain dominated by enemy air power.\" The Israelis had estimated some 1,000 tanks would be in the attack, so the fact that only 400 showed up was undoubtedly a relief.\\n\\nThe Israelis prepared for an armor battle, which some said they expected to be large and \"savage\" beyond belief. On the night of the 13 October, the Egyptians heli-lifted multiple commandos behind Israeli lines in the hopes of creating chaos in the Israeli rear. They were almost all captured and killed, quickly. The Israeli fortifications and preparations paid off, when the Egyptians launched the strike at dawn on the 14th. In the northern sector, the Egyptians were repelled with ease, and 50 tanks of theirs were destroyed. In the center, similar losses were had by the Egyptians. The Israelis had fortified on high ground, and fired on the charging Egyptian armor. Egypt\\'s 1st Mechanized Brigade lost 93 tanks, effectively destroying the entire unit, and only 3 Israeli tanks in that area were destroyed: none by enemy tanks, all by rocket fire. In the south, near the Gidi and Mitla passes, the Egyptian attack was contained and the Israelis counterattacked, destroying some 60 Egyptian tanks. Egyptian forces tried to flank through Mitla pass to the south, and were stopped by the tanks they encountered as well as paratroopers. The battle ended with around 20 Israeli tanks destroyed. Egypt had lost around 260. The Egyptians had attacked superior gunnery, faced IAF superiority and bombing, hit fortified positions, and all with the sun in their eyes. In one swoop, Israeli forces watched the Egyptians retreat back to their bridgeheads on the East Bank of the Suez Canal, and an Egyptian general suffered a heart attack (Sa\\'ad Maamon) and had to be replaced by General Abd El Al Mona\\'am Wasel. All told, the Egyptians had taken such heavy losses that Israeli forces felt they could finally attempt a counterthrust, a genuine one that would cross the Suez. On 14 October, Israeli general Elazar gave orders for the crossing of the Suez the following night.\\n\\nWith regards to the Egyptian front, Israeli leaders were not only heartened by the sudden success, the airlift made them much more fluid and willing to fight. However, the Israelis were still fearful of a loss, and only in retrospect was the 14 October guaranteed as the turning point of the war in the Sinai. Israelis did not begin to have a confident assessment of their prospects until the 16 October, as the American resupply effort was already underway and helping replace equipment lost in the previous fighting. The airlift was not *fully* intended to \"save\" the Israelis, but to ensure they could continue their momentum. It was helpful that as soon as it began, Israel had begun to win on both fronts. Thus it was not so much that the airlift came when Israel was \"close to defeat\" and \"saved\", but rather it came when the Israelis thought they\\'d be defeated (it was ordered October 9, begun October 14, Kissinger blamed it on the Pentagon), and gave them more flexibility when they began a counterattack that might\\'ve failed because of the Israeli inability to win a war of attrition without getting crucial ammunition and resupply help.\\n\\nOn the Syrian front, the tide had begun to turn earlier, prompting the Syrian pleas to the Egyptians for relief. See, the Egyptians had promised the Syrians they would advance far further than they actually planned to into the Sinai. When the Syrians began to falter, they pointed the finger at the Egyptians, who had stopped advancing. The Egyptians decided to advance as a result, with the results I detailed above.\\n\\nThe Syrians had begun to falter by October 10. The IAF had begun to overcome the Syrian air defenses, partially due to a lack of more defense rockets. The Israelis had been relentless, launching airstrikes in almost suicidal fashion over the 7-8, and the Syrians lost their determination and began to move back. By that point the Israeli counterattack began to drive back the Syrians, and by October 9 the Syrian thrusting forces were effectively surrounded in the \"Hushniye pocket\". Both sides took severe losses as Hushniye turned into an \"armor graveyard\", but the Syrians came out worse. Israel began bombing military airfields belonging to the Syrians by October 8, and almost all of them were useless by the 14th. 8 Phantom F-4s, on October 9, managed to get to Damascus and bomb the General Staff and Air Force Headquarters buildings, catching the Syrians by surprise. Only one Phantom was shot down, and the morale blow was crushing. The second wave, another 8 Phantom F-4s, had been slated to hit the same buildings but couldn\\'t get through thick butts safely, so they dropped their bombs on Hushniye\\'s large tank concentrations, contributing greatly to the fight there. The Israelis got slightly overconfident, and on the 10th mounted an insufficiently manned and prepared attack: based on 1967 they had expected the Syrian army to be on the brink of collapse. The attack took serious losses and was called off. On October 11 the Israelis launched an attack aimed to get to Damascus, all the way to the Syrian capital, but they encountered heavy resistance. While the Syrians could not attack, their fortifications and defensive posturing was still very strong, and both sides were taking heavy losses as a result, especially since once again the Israelis sent an undersized force, not expecting such heavy resistance of two strong lines. The Syrians now had higher morale (knowing their capital was under threat), and their SAMs had begun to be effective again (more missiles gotten, closer ranges), curtailing Israeli effectiveness in launching the attack. Eventually these became less effective as Israeli pilots got better at handling the SAMs, and by October 14 when the airlift began they were running many sorties on the Syrian rear, and Israeli forces had managed to fight a difficult campaign that got them within 20 miles of Damascus. There, the ground offensive stopped, and Israeli forces managed to (with the help of the resupply) hold off counterattacks, and make one last achievement on the ground: the capture of Mount Hermon on October 21-22. Because of the huge alarm the Syrians faced with the mounting attempts on their capital, around October 11 Assad appealed to Sadat to advance as he had promised, hence the Sadat response conveyed to Shazly on October 12. The airlift helped the Israelis take Hermon at best, and hold off counterattacks on the 16th and 19th, but also did not \"save\" Israel: it permitted them greater freedom and kept them afloat during a war that might\\'ve turned against them if they hadn\\'t gotten more ammunition and equipment.\\n\\nEdit: Adding a portion on \"Why the airlift, then?\"\\n\\nWell, the airlift came with a few motivations. One was to match, and surpass, the Soviet airlift that had begun on October 10 for the Egyptians and Syrians. It succeeded, in that regard. The Israelis had implicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons by some reports, and gone to a nuclear alert they were sure the US would notice, threatening nuclear war especially if they ran out of conventional weapons and could not sustain their losses (which, at the time, were quite massive). The US also hoped to gain from it, and Kissinger egged the Israelis on, telling them to advance against Syria. He said to the Israeli ambassador: \"The IDF must attack [Syria] with all its strength, as if it had another 40 aircraft in hand, and not stint on ammunition or aircraft, because the United States will supply everything.\" On October 13 he told them to continue their attack, apparently because he knew the airlift was about to begin. The airlift undoubtedly helped Israelis feel secure in advancing.', 'As a another question about the war,why does the arab world considers it a victory?is their claim correct?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1901, "q_id": "521lvl", "title": "why do dams have a massive ramp when releasing overflow water?", "selftext": "Most dam ive seen have a big 'ramp' at the bottom that direct water into the air. Any specific reason for this?\n\nExample: _URL_0_", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/521lvl/eli5_why_do_dams_have_a_massive_ramp_when/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d7gn1hr', 'd7gn92g', 'd7gnhu2', 'd7go44g', 'd7gu0fm', 'd7gu92s', 'd7gx2y2', 'd7gyblw', 'd7gz1lv', 'd7h1mw3', 'd7h2efd', 'd7h3ebe', 'd7hpeto'], 'score': [21, 331, 1871, 327, 28, 8, 17, 3, 9, 6, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Spillways can have baffles, steps, or a ramp in them as a means of dissipating energy. By slowing down the water, there's less erosion of the riverbed right behind the dam.\", \"The biggest danger for a dam is undercutting, where the water flowing down the face of the dam swirls around and eats away at or under its base. But designing a spillway to direct the water away from the face of the dam, you reduce or eliminate that risk.\\n\\nThrowing the water into the air also gets rid of a lot of the energy of that falling water. It transmits a lot of it into air that is pulled into the foam, and the air takes the energy away as wind.\\n\\nLastly, the water in a dam has often been still for a long time, and has lost a lot of its oxygen and gained some sulphur chemicals. That oxygen gets added back in, and the sulphur dispersed, by mixing in a lot of air like this. This isn't as important with spillways, but it is with dams that release water from pipes at their base.\", \"Spillways are generally used in emergency situations when you need to reduce the water level in your reservoir FAST. The water released has huge amounts of energy, as you can see in the video.\\n\\nThink of all the damage that water can do when it reaches the bottom. If you just had a ramp straight down, the water would reach the downstream riverbed with huge amounts of energy, and start pushing away the soil and rocks at the bottom (causing erosion). \\n\\nBut, so what if that stuff gets pushed away? Well the dam is a really heavy structure that's supporting lots of pressure, and so it requires a good base to stand on. If this erosion goes uncontrolled, the dam can become unsupported and lose stability, leading to a collapse. This would be catastrophic for anyone/anything that is downstream. (You can google dam collapses, that shit ain't pretty).\\n\\nWith this in mind, spillways are designed with a big curve at the bottom called a 'ski jump'. The purpose is simple: to dissipate all of that energy flowing downstream. And tbh it also has the added benefit of looking super cool.   \", \"Same reason that when I am pouring water from a 5 gallon bucket into my fish tank I have to make sure I pour it over the rock structure in the tank so the gravel doesn't get shot everywhere and my fish aren't left with a giant crater. ^_^\", 'I actually just watched a show on the science channel about the three gorges dam in China. The reason the ramp is there is so the water can separate in the air and the energy dissipate so as to not dig out the base of the dam.', \"Essentially, if the ramp wasn't there the water would erode the area just below the dam. \\n\\nThis could cause the whole dam to fail and come crashing down.\", 'Does this affect the wild life at all? Like there has to be a ton of fish going off that ramp and being moved to a new ecosystem down river. ', \"There is no greater force on earth than moving water en mass.  You have to protect the channel, or you'll be carving the basement down further when releasing energy in this small a space, at this high a volume.\\n\\nIf you do not protect the foundation of the entire area (including immediately downstream), then your dam will be undermined and the damage will be catastrophic.\", \"Water coming down a dam has a lot of energy. You could use that energy to make electricity. Some dams aren't used to make electricity. Other dams make electricity but sometimes need to release more water than they can use to make electricity.\\n\\nIf the water was simply released downwards, it would erode the river bottom, and maybe even erode under the dam and weaken it. The ramp is there to use up some of that energy and make the water hit further away from the dam, to protect the dam.\", 'From /u/runningturtle6\\n\\n[original post](_URL_0_)\\n\\n > It\\'s a phenomenon called hydraulic jump. The spillway is designed this way so that the water\\'s energy is dissipated before entering the river. This helps prevent erosion and a torrent of fast moving water rushing downstream.\\n\\nI believe the dam is partially built on the area where the water would hit so if you erode it, you\\'d be eroding part of the foundation of the dam itself. Further in the comments it is debated whether this is a \"hydraulic jump\" or not.', \"I would think because it takes out some of the kinetic energy when it goes up it so it won't just drill a hole in the ground\", 'Energy dissapation, some use ramps, some have sloped blocks called dragon teeth, it slows the watwr and allows gravith to do most of the work.  Without these the erosion to downstream would be very problematic.', 'To reduce the amount of kinetic energy of the falling water.\\n\\nOtherwise it could tear hills literally apart, create mudslides, etc.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['https://i.imgur.com/WPWaOc2.gifv']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/51zies/emergency_dam_discharge/d7gife0'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1167, "q_id": "3moi8g", "title": "how is 'planned-obsolescence' built into smartphones?", "selftext": "Planned-obsolescence is when products are designed to become shitty and slow after a period of time so that consumers will buy a newer model. \"Ending is better than mending!\"\n\nBut yeah, I'm interested to learn about how this actually works!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3moi8g/eli5_how_is_plannedobsolescence_built_into/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cvgq22o', 'cvgqa7q', 'cvgrybq', 'cvgt0ke', 'cvgty3a', 'cvguytl', 'cvgww34', 'cvgx7ns', 'cvgyy8v', 'cvh0et3', 'cvh3m96', 'cvhflkq', 'cvhnt6c'], 'score': [172, 309, 72, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 19, 3, 3, 3, 2], 'text': ['The most common example/complaint is the OS maintainers pushing out out an update that reduces the performance of the older handsets.  It\\'s usually mandatory because it contains security patches and it\\'s \"excusable\" because they\\'re offered more functionality.', \"Planned-obsolescence is largely a myth.\\n\\nI'm an engineer, and sure, we often design things to some minimum spec. It *could* be tougher, stronger, and last longer. For example, you *could* design a bridge to last over a hundred years. But a lot of bridges are torn down to widen roads, increase clearance, add a rail system, or other feature. And it's generally stupid to plan that far in the future. So, a typical bridge is designed to last 30 years. Anything longer is a bonus, and is desirable. And if you can spend an extra 10% and get several more years out of it, you might get approval to spend the money. But generally, you plan for a minimum, and don't waste money making it stronger than it needs to be.\\n\\nIn devices, this means that a phone might be designed to last 2 years. Anything more is a bonus, and sometimes they *do* make them more future-proof. And it does make those phones more costly.\\n\\nBut companies **do not** want to be known for having phones that die in 2 years. It reduces their brand value, and makes their customers angry. They don't do that on purpose, because it's bad for business, and people would stop buying their crappy phones.\\n\\nWhat actually happens is other tech passing up the hardware. Advances to Android/iOS, advances in cellphone radio technology, new software interfaces, increased bandwidth, higher resolutions, and other factors *besides* the phone.\", \"There's an old anecdote (which is probably made up) about Henry Ford looking at his cars in the scrap yard.  He found all of them had exhausts in good condition.  When he got back to his factory he told the designers to make the exhaust worse.\\n\\nPlan obsolescence isn't always bad, it just means things have a planned life span and they should be built to meet that life span but not exceed it too much, otherwise it's a waste.\", 'Take the iPhone, for example. If you owned an iPhone 4S when it was new, it was a great phone, super fast as you\\'d expect from the best iPhone there was at the time. But soon, along came a software update, called iOS 8, which was free to install, and it was advertised as being better in every possible way than iOS 7. Turns out they forgot to mention two things: **it makes your iPhone 4S a lot slower**, and **you cannot go back to iOS 7, no matter what**, at all, ever, *even if you had a backup*. In fact not even the best hackers in the world could figure this out, that\\'s how impossible downgrading is.\\n\\nSo people were stuck with a phone that was great 10 minutes ago, but was now slow as hell permanently with no hope whatsoever. They could either complain on internet forums, or buy a new iPhone. That\\'s it. And it will happen again and again every year.\\n\\nYou buy the iPhone and see that it\\'s made of super strong glass, aluminum and sapphire - \"this thing should last many years\", you think, seeing how well it\\'s built. But little do you know that while the hardware will indeed last long if you take care of it, it won\\'t be able to keep up with all those software updates.\\n\\nIt\\'s not necessarily \"built in deliberately\" the way we\\'d think, but rather \"why would they do anything about it if it\\'s good for them?\".', \"You're probably thinking Apple. Apple releases new operating systems each time they release a product, and they make it available to install on previous products. However, the new operating system is more resource intensive and requires better hardware to run smoothly, so it will run slower on the old products. That's really a software issue though. If you stick with the operating system that came with the product it will be fine. I'm sure Apple is similar to Android in having small apps to add specific features which are found in newer operating systems.\", \"It's not built into the phone, it's built into the standards. \\n\\nI buy a phone. It's Bluetooth 3. Two years later everyone is using Bluetooth 4. I have to upgrade. \\n\\nI buy a phone. It uses a cpu with a certain instruction set. Two years later the instruction set has expanded and apps take take advantage of the new ones are faster,making the old ones feel slower than they are.\\n\\nThis may or may not be intentional. \", \"It's not built into phones per se, but when they are designed and they know that they are typically replaced in 2-3 years then that guides choices made such as size of the battery, amount of memory, etc. Could Apple build a phone with more battery power so that it'd still hold an all-day charge after 5 years? Sure... but how much bigger of a phone are you willing to carry and how much more are you willing to pay in order to get that more powerful battery? Or can they keep costs and size down by shooting for a battery that'll carry a an all-day charge for 3 years since they know customers typically upgrade sometime after a 2-year contract expires. The trade-off continuum is different in a laptop that'll last for 4-5 years.\", 'The easiest way to do this is with \"New Software!\".    Want people who still own a phone 3 generations back to buy your new phone?  Release a new version of the phones OS that requires more system resources and performance, which slows their phones way down to the point where the annoyance requires them to upgrade.', 'I\\'m a product designer and these questions come up frequently in my industry. I would disagree with he structural engineer who posted elsewhere in this thread stating that planned obsolescence is a myth. In my industry it is very real; everything from cars/fridges getting more complicated and digital- increasing rates of failure-to our disposable culture, which can be tied back to the 1940\\'s, an early exam of this is disposable napkins and replacing reusable handkerchiefs, for example, but i digress.  \\n\\n\\nIf you\\'re interested, a great read on obsolescence in reference to technology and smartphones, which goes into a lot of the details it sounds like you\\'re asking for, is a book called [High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health](_URL_0_) - it talks about the manufacturing process as well as the lifecycle and recyclability of phones, etc (in the sense that there really is none right now; a lot of the rare minerals that go into making smart devices are bonded at such a small level that hey are incredibly hard to separate, and the phones themselves are not built to be salvageable). Other posters have also talked about the OS updates that cause complications with older phones. This is what we called perceived or valued obsolescence; the phone may work fine but it\\'s value and quality are perceived to be lower- this goes hand in hand with the marketing narrative of \"newer-faster\" versions of the product to convince/push consumers to upgrade. \\n\\n(Sorry for errors, I\\'m on my phone!) ', 'New OS releases are typically geared to utilize the performance capabilities of their most recent device, resulting in decreased battery life and sluggish performance with past devices. ', 'Your question implies that planned obsolescence is companies *making* things fall apart/degrade after a certain amount of time. In fact, it\\'s companies saying *they don\\'t care* if something degrades after a certain amount of time.\\n\\nIn smartphones, you can see this in a couple of ways:\\n\\n* Integrated batteries; even if you\\'re nice to a battery, it will eventually stop taking enough of a charge to be useful. Batteries are picked so that most of the time the battery will not fail within the planned useful life. They save money by not using batteries that last beyond that planned life.\\n\\n* Software updates; as the OS and its core software advance in features and capabilities, it\\'ll be harder and harder for older devices to \"keep up\". Every time the company releases a new device, their cost to test updates on every device goes up. They make up for this by reducing and eventually eliminating testing on the oldest devices. The older the device, generally the less testing it receives. This means old devices are more likely to have problems with newer software.\\n\\n* Wearing components; plugs/jacks, switches, and buttons are designed to survive \"typical use\" for a certain period. Things that wear out less-easily are more expensive. The company plans for the hardware to last past the point they consider the phone obsolete, and so such things often wear out not long after the point of obsolescence.\\n\\nThe philosophy of planned obsolescence is really all about saving costs for the company by only spending what it takes to make a product last until it\\'s considered obsolete by the company/majority of users.\\n\\nYou can see that different companies approach this philosophy in different ways. E.g. my 2007 iPhone has been in continuous use and hasn\\'t broken, even though it can\\'t run a recent OS due to not being supported; but my inexpensive emergency flip phone died after about 2 years -- it was designed to be cheap and replaceable and the manufacturer *didn\\'t care* about the phone surviving past the typical contract period.', \"The only way planned obsolescence can work is if a company can keep a good reputation with customers even if the customers don't get what they pay for in terms of longevity. One of the only companies I know that does this is Apple, and even that is arguable. The solution to planned obsolescence is to stop giving bad companies your patronage. \\n\\n*added 'get'\", 'Not an explanation but an example. I had an older phone about two years ago and was studying abroad. Before I came back I found out my family was having issues with their phones maintaining signals (they had the same phones). When I got back an update was forced on my phone and afterwards I found I could hardly keep up a phone call, let alone any data or gps signals. Luckily we had insurance on the phones. Originally they tried to replace with \"fixed\" versions of our phones but they had the same problem. Only after two \u201cnew\u201d phones and lots of complaints did they update our phones. Lesson learned, insurance can work to your advantage after enough complaining. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.amazon.com/High-Tech-Trash-Digital-Devices/dp/1597261904'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2920, "q_id": "7eo9dy", "title": "In my Psychology textbook it says that cortisol (a result of stress) reduces telomerase activity, therefore speeding up the aging process, however, I know that exercise also releases cortisol, yet is known to combat aging - how?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7eo9dy/in_my_psychology_textbook_it_says_that_cortisol_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dq6nt40'], 'score': [9], 'text': ['Your primary question relates to article: [Choi et al. 2008](_URL_1_). The experiments specifically look at T lymphocytes.\\n\\nA higher telomerase (an enzyme that adds TTAGGG sequences onto the 3\u2019 ends of telomeric DNA) activity leads to a longer telomere that promotes genomic stability. Higher levels of stress (which releases cortisol) are correlated with significantly reduced telomerase activity (so shorter telomere length and lowered genomic stability). \\n\\nModerate to high intensity exercise increases cortisol levels while low intensity exercise decreases circulating cortisol levels; [ref](_URL_0_). Extending this further, high-intensity aerobic interval (HIIT) training reverse many age-related differences in the proteome (particularly mitochondrial proteins); [ref](_URL_2_). This should mean that at higher cortisol levels (due to for example, high intensity exercise), we should have decreased telomerase activity (and subsequently shorter telomere length). We have a paradox which you pointed out.\\n\\nThe reality is that we cannot generalize the results from T lymphocytes for the whole body as different cells may regulate the telomerase activity differently under the direct influence of cortisol.\\n\\n**TL;DR** : Exercise is good for health and combats aging. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18787373', 'https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18222063', 'https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28273480']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2095, "q_id": "2iv46t", "title": "how did tumblr get its current reputation (i.e sjw's, \"check your privilege\", etc)", "selftext": "So I've been browsing /r/TumblrinAction and I am just amazed at some of the stuff people on Tumblr say. I don't use this site, but now I'm kind of wondering why it is the way it is now.\n\nI imagine it was never like this, with \"Social Justice Warriors\" posting all of the time and saying ridiculous things.\n\nSo where/when did this all start?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iv46t/eli5_how_did_tumblr_get_its_current_reputation_ie/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cl5qw0e', 'cl5u53f', 'cl5ul4m', 'cl5v7zy', 'cl5wla1', 'cl60gr2', 'cl617b9', 'cl63wke', 'cl64cjc'], 'score': [105, 36, 16, 12, 59, 11, 5, 8, 4], 'text': ['There\\'s a phrase my school teacher used to say, \"Water tends to find it\\'s own level.\" \\n\\nI think porn sites actually is a great example of that. If you go to any random porn site, and then they have a lot of, say, pregnant porn uploaded by the users, people who do not like pregnant porn might stay away from it. The more people that stray because of the prevalence of pregnant porn, the more concentrated the pregnant porn has become on that site, until that site has a reputation for being the site for pregnant porn. \\n\\nTumblr\\'s vocal social justice commentators have likewise turned people who aren\\'t into that away from the site, leaving it more concentrated, so if you *are* into that you\\'re more likely to post there. ', 'I really like the medium. Tumblr is a really easy to use site, and there are tons of nice blogs on it. I agree with some of the obvious things with a grain of salt (feminism good, homo/transphobia bad). The vocal minority is present on any website, and when people find others that agree with them, they will move there.\\n\\nReddit has a vocal minority just as much as Tumblr. I always thought Reddit was full of militant atheists.', 'The same reason Xanga become almost exclusively Asian.  At some point one group becomes so prevalent that it actually gains a kind of internet gravity.  People who want to be part of the community are drawn to it and/or are told to go there.  In this case for radfems and trans-demi-dragonkins when they\\'ve worn out their welcome on other parts of the internet, they\\'re told to take that nonsense to Tumblr.\\n\\nTumblr isn\\'t completely far gone because of the nature of the site.  Lots of people still use it for porn exclusively after all.  But what makes Tumblr interesting in this case is the echo chamber effect and the SJW ideology which is really cult-like.  The ideology of \"check your privilege\" and \"if someone claims they\\'re offended you must never question them, just shut up and acquiesce\" creates an echo chamber where the most radical and crazy voices are pushed the hardest and people of lower status (ironically those assumed to be of highest status IRL) are never allowed to say \"hey whoa, you guys are getting pretty crazy\".  \\n\\nSo they keep getting further and further out of touch with the rest of the world.  And that\\'s how you have modern Tumblr (and really modern 3rd wave feminism in general).', \"I hadn't heard of any of that shit before tumblrinaction. So there's your answer.\\n\\nIt is interesting, though, that Tumblr is basically set up to be an echo chamber. The only way you can comment on a post is by reblogging it, so even negative commenters help to propagate whatever it is they're commenting on.\", 'To put it plainly, Tumblr is not like TumblrInAction describes it.  It\\'s a social media platform that fills your particular part of it with what you follow.  It\\'s entirely possible to follow people on Tumblr who post nothing but Doctor Who related quotes and images.  The dash is what you make of it, and since the individuals who are on Tumblr post what they want, there are always going to be people who post things which are outlandish (or appear outlandish).\\n\\nOut of the hundreds of blogs I follow on Tumblr, there are only 4 that I would class as SJW to one extent or another.  For one of them, they blog about Doctor Who, and the rest of their blog is SJW related stuff (feminism, biphobia awareness, mental illness awareness, etc.).  Literally none of their posts would I class as \"TumblrInAction\" material.\\n\\n[Also, considering that TumblrInAction literally has a link in the sidebar to \"How to Find Juicy SJW\\'s on Tumblr\" with links to a 20 tags... I\\'m going to say that TiA is equivalent to me going into 20 subreddits that occasionally attract idiots and then only posting what the idiots say, then calling that a representation of Reddit as a whole.]', \"Hey guys I was looking at pictures of Paris garbage trucks and I was wondering... How come there's so many garbage trucks in Paris\", \"You know, I use Tumblr and don't really see much nonsense.  It kind of depends on what you search for and subscribe to.  I think that /r/TumblrinAction members must be actively seeking out things that piss them off.\\n\\nWhich is fine, I guess, if being pissed off is your hobby.  But Tumblr is also a pretty good place to keep up with your favorite obsessive pop culture fandom.  Watch out for the Sherlock porn.  Or, you know, seek it out, depending on your preferences.\", \"I think that, also, people who stick around on Tumblr and view the SJW posts tend to develop thoughts and opinions to things they might not have known about before. While not always the case, it's easy for someone to read about some sort of social injustice and then develop strong feeling about it and then may speak out about it. Sometimes this speaking out may either not be well articulated by the speaker, or may not be received well by the listeners due to them being used to hearing the more vocal and less articulate of the bunch.\\n\\nSource: Joined tumblr for funny posts, ended up hating so many things.\", \"This is not an answer, mind you.\\n\\nI just want to say that I see the same shit on this site. It's more of an us and them kind of situation. We have the same sort of social warrior users on here. Tumblr is not simply full of those types, either. I use it to look at rad art. There is a looooot of rad art on Tumblr. \\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2563, "q_id": "1akeoy", "title": "I've heard it mentioned in non-academic contexts, that the Roman Empire didn't die, it just became the Church.", "selftext": "I'm wondering if there's any truth to that saying.  Excuse my extra comma in the title.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1akeoy/ive_heard_it_mentioned_in_nonacademic_contexts/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8ya05v', 'c8yaxgm', 'c8ye3ey', 'c8yfnwp', 'c8yhrtk'], 'score': [60, 40, 7, 2, 2], 'text': ['To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, from one way of looking at it that is correct, but from another, perhaps more accurate way, that is not correct.\\n\\nI would argue that this thought comes from two different streams in scholarship: one is that the \"fall\" of Rome was really just a transition, and the other is looking at the Church as a source of continuity and unity. I think the first point has some validity to it but is *far* overstated, and can\\'t comment on the second. But arguing that the Roman Empire didn\\'t die because of the church has a certain degree of perversity to it. The empire was *much* more than just a church.', \"The Church did provide some degree of continuity in several ways.\\n\\nFirst of all, the Pope had, for a long time, temporal authority over the city of Rome and Latium, the old center of imperial power. \\n\\nSecond of all, the church provided a universal source of authority for western European political institutions just as the Emperor had being in the past. Just as the emperor once appointed governors, the kings of Europe nominally derive their power from god, and the pope is the representative of god on earth. Obviously the nominal position of the pope vice-verse temporal monarchs was heavily contested but the idea is there.\\n\\nThird, the Church retained some of the old Roman administrative divisions in the west, the Catholic Church diocese were based on divisions made in Diocletian's time. It served as one of the strongest (maybe the only) continual institution from Roman times because Barbarian kings converted to Christianity and thus helped to preserve it. Churchmen also served in scholarly/bureaucratic functions for the rulers of their lands and thus a continuation of the old imperial bureaucracy.\\n\\nI wouldn't say that the Roman Empire -became- the church, but the Church was definitely a State institution of the late Empire and definitely the one which survived the most intact after 476 and thus provided one of the strongest lines of continuity to the empire.\", \"The Roman Empire didn't die, it just became the Byzantine Empire.\", \"I think this saying greatly exaggerates the authority of the pope. I'm not saying that he wasn't extremely powerful, but he rarely wielded the kind of direct authority you would associate with the emperor. Even a strong pope like Innocent III (pope around 1200 CE) had little control over the armies that supposedly fought in his name or even over his own legates, as his failed attempt to prevent the sack of Zara showed. \\n\\nThe old networks of the Roman Empire helped the Church establish itself, but it didn't wield anywhere near the same level of control. \", 'The Pope did never command the legions. That is a pretty big difference.\\n\\nWell, the Papal States did have an army until the unification of Italy in 1860/1871, but it was a small, local thing.\\n\\nThe Pope did have a lot of authority (depending on the period) over the Christian kingdoms, but that is quite different from the authority of the roman emperors to send direct orders to the governors of the provinces.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2327, "q_id": "59hjjo", "title": "why do well established brands (eg. coke) still market themselves so aggressively? what do they stand to gain when they're already a household name?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59hjjo/eli5_why_do_well_established_brands_eg_coke_still/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d98gb4w', 'd98gi36', 'd98gyae', 'd98i5zw', 'd98jxo1', 'd98lcdw', 'd98rkol', 'd98uum7', 'd98v9z9', 'd98wrkz', 'd98ywcu', 'd98zd7v'], 'score': [73, 27, 2, 64, 4, 66, 2, 2, 11, 2, 2, 10], 'text': [\"All that marketing is how they continue to stay a household name. These aren't video game achievements where once you reach them, you never lose them again. If these established brands stop marketing themselves, they will start losing market share.\", \"Because if you do not actively market yourself you very quickly fall out of the backs of people's minds and once that happens you stop being a household name. Shortly after that you stop being an established brand and either have to claw your way back to the top or you fail. It is far better to just continually market your brand. \", 'People are subconsciously attracted to products that they recognize, so companies constantly advertise to ensure the recognition is always there. ', 'If you pay attention to it, only a small amount of Coke marketing is actually intended to promote their umbrella brand. Instead they focus more on individual product brands (e.g. Coke Zero, Fanta, etc.).\\n\\nWhile Coca-Cola maybe well known, individual products and their \"positioning\" (summary of product characteristics, intended target group, benefits, etc.) may still benefit from increased awareness.\\n\\nAdditionally marketing and branding isn\u00b4t all about awareness, that\u00b4s just the first part of the purchase funnel (Awareness -- >  Image -- >  Consideration -- >  Purchase -- >  Repurchase), they also want to promote a certain image. This image may change over the years, even if the name and logo doesn\u00b4t or it may be under attack from outside reevaluations. So even a well-known umbrella brand is marketed to re-enforce and maybe update their brand image.\\n\\nLastly, Coke is a consumption good with relatively low involvement (small investments, no long-term effects of purchase decision, etc.) unlike, e.g. a car for example. So people often decide relatively spontaneous about which brand and whether to buy at all. That\u00b4s why it\u00b4s more important for Coke to promote themselves constantly than it is for a brand like GE.\\n\\nHowever we shouldn\u00b4t discount that many companies actually do invest in marketing activities that aren\u00b4t really helpful to them. Not every company investing in brand awareness has done the research and pinpointed brand awareness as their key lever to address. Most often marketing activities that promote the brand awareness are just the easiest and most salient measure to do for many marketing departments.', 'The second biggest part of marketing, after drawing in new customers, is usually to make existing customers feel satisfied in their choice of brand.  Ensuring that people continue to drink Coke is at least as important as marketing Coke to new customers, or encouraging customers to leave the competition.', \"I apologize for not having a cite to hand, but we did a case study in my intro to marketing class in college (this would have been in 1999, I think) on a trial McDonalds ran somewhere in Ohio.\\n\\nThey had the same thought you do: everyone already knows what McDonalds is, where to find them, what they serve, etc. So they pulled all their advertising from one city. The results were both quick and significant: they started shedding market share in that city within a month, to the tune of tens of percents (IIRC, it approached 50%, but since I don't have the data to hand and human memory is crap, I don't want to overbid).\", 'Kaepa had a few years where they were a household name and a top tier brand.\\n\\nDo you know what Kaepa is? ', 'Products like Coca-Cola (and most of their sister products) are known as cash cows in marketing terminology - they bring in steady, large income streams and profits from these products can be used to fund expensive R & D and marketing campaigns for products that are new or not yet self-sustaining. However they still require a considerable marketing investment to ensure that brand awareness remains high in the medium to long term.', \"Basically, brand exposure is mind control. Thinking about Coke makes you want a Coke. Seeing an ad for Coke while you're drinking Coke makes you feel good about drinking Coke, because you see other smiling, attractive people drinking Coke too. And now you want to have some Coke at home, so after you finish drinking that Coke you go to the store and buy a case of Coke. And you serve Coke with dinner because you want your kids to be smiling, attractive people too. Attractive people like Coke, of course - the TV told me so. Drink Coke!\", 'Coca Cola tried cutting advertising once.  They lost a ton of revenue that year and decided \"well, let\\'s not try that again.\"', 'You may know of it, but you need to make sure everyone does. New generations of people are born daily, and if marketing slows down, something will slowly replace it.', 'There are many reasons, but the one that I don\\'t see mentioned yet is something called \"top of mind\". Basically the core concept is this: When I say \"fast food\", what place immediately comes to your mind? When I say \"soda\", what product immediately comes to your mind? \\n\\nOccupying the \"top of mind\" of a person essentially sets you up for success because if people don\\'t think of you or or your product when a need/want comes up, they won\\'t chose you. \\n\\nConstantly showing advertisements for Coke keeps the brand in your top of mind, and you will more than likely think of it the next time you think about drinking a soda.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1803, "q_id": "anct7d", "title": "I'm a soldier on the Western Front during WWI, and I've been hit while in no man's land. What are my chances of survival?", "selftext": "This could question could apply to any country that was on the Western Front (British Empire, Germany, France etc.). I'm going over the top in an attack and I get hit, either by machine gun fire or artillery, but I'm not dead. How likely am I to survive this ordeal?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/anct7d/im_a_soldier_on_the_western_front_during_wwi_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['efsygd4', 'efsyx73', 'efszunx'], 'score': [5, 55, 12], 'text': ['As a follow up question: How would a wounded soldier get back to his trenches? Did the opposition allow for recovery of wounded? That seems unlikely. If the wound is more severe then it could be impossible to crawl back.', 'EDIT: I am home now and have provided a more in depth answer as a reply. But here is the TL;DR: The quick answer to your question is that it depends on the injury you sustained. **Surprisingly if you were wounded and received treatment you had a [95% survival rate](_URL_0_)(Found under \"American medicine in the second decade...\").** If you were hit by artillery you had a 30% survival rate. If you had a limb amputated you had a 95% survival rate. Survival rate of diseases with treatment was 30%. If you were wounded on the battlefield and were beyond help (head wound, abdomen wound, artery hit), you were left there to die on the field.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nI study 20th century warfare so I\u2019ll try to give the best answer that I can. Right now I am on my phone so I can\u2019t pull up exact numbers but once I am home in an hour or so I\u2019ll expand on my answer and go into more detail. For now I will answer your question specifically to the question you asked. And most of my answer will include more influence from the US history. But once I am at my desktop and have my books I will be able to provide numbers and percentages on survival chance dependent upon injuries. \\n\\n\\nTo get to your question, the answer to your question depends on a multitude of circumstances; so it\u2019s difficult to answer. A number of questions have to be asked to determine your chances of survival. \\n\\n\\nWhere in no man\u2019s land are you? Are you 5ft from your side\u2019s trench or are you 200ft from it? Did you end up next to a soldier nearby to assist you? The location in which you were injured greatly affects your chances of survival. The closer you were to being able to receive aid, the time it takes before a medic begins to work on you, these things will help determine your chances of survival. Back in WW1 there was no modern day corpsman. Where there would be a trained soldier having all the tools and equipment to field stabilize someone. Durning WW1 the US in essence borrowed from the English and French system. Medical staff used stretchers to run out and grab people and bring them back to their side where they would be transported back to the med tents. And then medical staff would begin work on you. Additionally, if a med tent became overflowed with wounded it could take more time for you to receive aid, lowering chances of survival. If there was prolonged machine gun fire or artillery, it may have not been possible for you to receive help as it may have been to dangerous for them to get to you. \\nThere could be some instances where some limited immediate help could be provided. Let\u2019s say you got injured and ended up in a crater left from artillery and there was someone else in the hole with you. They may be able to apply a tourniquet and bandage to your wound. Thus your chances of survival would improve. Or maybe you were shot immediately after exiting your side\u2019s trench. Someone may be able to pull you back into the trench and you\u2019d be brought back to the med tents. Like I said, right now I don\u2019t have access to the numbers so I apologize. But if you were wounded in the trench and were brought back to the med tents for better treatment, your odds of survival would greatly improve. \\n\\n\\nWhat kind of damage did you sustain? Were you shot in the end of a limb? The chest? The head? How much blood are you losing and how long will it take for you to bleed out? The severity of your wound is another factor that determines your chance of survival. In WW1, the medical technology in combat could even be considered primal when compared to today\u2019s and even WW2\u2019s medical standards. The more severe of a wound you received, as applies to any situation even outside of war, the lower your chances of survival. But it was even worse in WW1. Since field medics weren\u2019t standard practice, bleed out rates from bullet wounds and missing limbs were high. When I am home I will provide numbers on survival rates from different types of wounds and injuries sustained. \\n\\n\\nAnother issue that soldiers faced were the low sanitation standards in the trenches and in med tents. Sometimes in trenches it was like standing in marsh water. People were sweating in the water, bleeding in it, throwing up in it. It was an absolute breeding ground for many diseases and illnesses. Let\u2019s say you received a superficial wound like a graze from a bullet or shrapnel, or you got cut somehow. The injury you sustained may have not been enough to send you back so you continue to stay on the frontlines in the trenches. Now the wound you received is being exposed to all the bacteria that is thriving in those trenches. And then you get incredibly sick. The medical technology wasn\u2019t their yet at the time, getting sick like that could mean certain death. This sort of thing even more so extended to the wounded in the med tents. In WW1 the medical practices had almost barely evolved since the Civil War. It wasn\u2019t fully understood by nurses and doctors at the time the importance of sanitation and keeping things sterile. Salt water was the main sterilization technique used to clean wounds. And once infection set it little could be done which resulted in high numbers of lives lost. Illness was so bad that it claimed more lives than gunfire did.\\n\\n\\nI apologize that was my answer was not incredibly extensive and as I said, I will elaborate on it when I am home. I hope this somewhat satisfies your question. \\n\\n\\nIf you want more information on this right now, read this: _URL_1_', 'The scenario leaves a lot of questions regarding assumptions. Are you asking how likely you are to survive simply being in No Man\\'s Land, getting back to the trench, or long term (the wound, the war itself, etc)?\\n\\nI\\'ll try to address each of these in turn. \\n\\nFirst, let\\'s take a look at *when* you would have gone over the top. It\\'s either part of a trench raid or probe, or it\\'s in a larger attack on the lines. \\n\\nIf the attack occurred as a trench raid or probe, it would have happened overnight. You could have been strafed by machine gun fire and clipped, and possibly separated from your raiding party. In this case, you\\'d need to be able to very slowly pick your way back to the lines. Dangerous, but possible - and this did happen. There could be occasional illumination flares, and that (along with noise) could be the most dangerous time to be caught in the open. Soldiers would try to memorize the shapes and shadows of what they could observe at night, because the movement of the flares would shift the appearance of the shadows, causing the appearance of moving objects. When observing a part of the line, a soldier would be aware of the optical illusion caused by illumination flares and would try to spot anything out of place. Noise near the enemy trench might invite a harassing grenade. You could also easily run into an enemy raiding party, or even another friendly raiding party, although that\\'s a little less likely since the communication was pretty good about who was going out for raids. Still...very dangerous. Pick your way quietly back to the line, whisper to your mates, and hope the enemy doesn\\'t hear the commotion. On the other hand, it\\'s also likely that your buddies in a raiding party (there could be as many as 20) would spend some time searching for you before they gave up. They\\'d bring you back if they found you (alive). \\n\\nNow let\\'s examine what might happen if you were clipped by a bullet or shrapnel during a larger attack on the lines. \\n\\nUnlike trench raids, dawn was the standard time of attack. This means that if you went over the top and were wounded, you\\'d have a helluva long wait until dusk to get back to the line unnoticed. *However*, it\\'s kind of a Hollywood assumption that this is what would have to happen for you to get back to the relative safety of the trench. \\n\\nMaybe you can pick your way back. The gap of No Man\\'s Land looks different depending on where you are. The average width is 250m, but the gap could be anywhere from 50 to 500m. The closest was SEVEN METERS at Zonnebeke. \\n\\nNear each combatant\\'s line, there could be as much as 100 ft of barbed wire in many bands. There would be water-filled shell holes. The terrain is pockmarked and difficult. There could be primitive land mines of sorts and unexploded ordnance. If you could walk, you would. With luck, you\\'d make it back without being hit again. Or caught in wire. Or stuck drowning in mud. \\n\\nLet\\'s ground this for a moment: there was quite a bit of casualty collection in No Man\\'s Land, both formally (organized stretcher bearing parties) and informally (buddies carrying buddies during battle). If you were hit during a battle, you MIGHT be carried back right away, depending on the wound. There were also frequent, informal ceasefires arranged to allow for stretcher bearer parties (including Red Cross) to enter and remove wounded. Depending on where you get stuck in No Man\\'s Land, you might be collected and treated by the enemy - or get swapped between friendly/enemy stretcher bearers and get back to your side for treatment. \\n\\nSimply being in No Man\\'s Land is very dangerous. If you are there at night, you risk being caught as a trench raider by the enemy, hurting yourself on any of the very dangerous things on the ground, and getting killed by your own side. During a pitched battle, you risk getting hit by machine gun fire, a stray or directed rifle bullet, or shrapnel if there is an artillery attack or someone tosses a grenade (note: use of grenades in WWI is more of a harassing feature than how they have been used in more recent conflicts, beginning with WWII). \\n\\nWe\\'ve talked about the possibilities of getting killed in No Man\\'s Land, getting killed while trying to regain the relative safety of the trench, so now I\\'ll turn to the longer term questions of survival. \\n\\nLet\\'s say you are among \"average\" British troops. The casualty(dead and wounded) rate is 56% and the over all death rate is 12.5%. \\n\\nA significant number (not quite 30%) of simple leg or arm wounds could result in death. American statistics show that as many as 44% of any gangrenous wound would result in death. A head wound puts you at 50/50 chances, and an abdomen wound is near certain death (99%). A majority of wounds came from shells. This should not be a surprise, since there was a lot more shelling than small arms combat. Since shell shrapnel can carry debris into a wound much more so than a bullet, you would be more likely to receive infection from a shell wound. If you\\'re dragging yourself through a muddy No Mans Land with dead bodies all over the place, you can expect that any wound you have received could get infected. \\n\\nIn summary, a lot depends on the nature of the wound (of course), the time of day, the type of attack, the distance to friendly lines, the location of the wound, whether or not it gets infected (including time to treatment), etc. \\n\\nLots of resources available upon request. I will also recommend for general reading on the experience of day to day life and fighting in the trenches, Herbert McBride\\'s \"A Rifleman Went to War.\" ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/practice-of-medicine-in-ww1.html', 'https://www.ncpedia.org/wwi-medicine-battlefield'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2487, "q_id": "3qfyuh", "title": "if i fill a vessel with 1/2 oil 1/2 water will the oil covering the water prevent evaporation?", "selftext": "edit: yes it will!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qfyuh/eli5_if_i_fill_a_vessel_with_12_oil_12_water_will/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cweso6e', 'cweuki9', 'cwewitg', 'cwf6510', 'cwfz11a'], 'score': [109, 11, 13, 4, 3], 'text': [\"Yes.  This is actually how some of those fancy no-flush urinals work: your pee sinks below a layer of oil, so it won't evaporate and stink up the place.\", \"Yes!  \\n\\nThis is how you can keep the basement in your house from smelling like sewer gas.  A lot of times the water in the trap of your floor drain will evaporate, allowing that lovely sewer smell in.  \\n\\nPut a little mineral oil in the drain in you'll prevent the water from evaporating.  \", 'Yes.  This is how early preservation worked as well.  Pemmican is dried meat covered in fat.  The fat stops the meat from going bad.  The stuff stays good practically forever. ', 'The actual answer to this question more complicated than yes or no.  Will it prevent evaporation no.  Will it reduce evaporation, yes, almost to the point where it completely prevents it.  There are a couple ways for evaporation to occur under this circumstance, but just to give one example the oil itself does partially evaporate and gets replenished by the water underneath at a very, very slow rate.  just because two liquids do not mix mechanically does not mean they do not mix chemically but it does mean they will have a much much slower and smaller chemical reaction due to the lack of *surface area contact*.', \"Some people keep mosquitoes from breeding in standing water by pouring diesel fuel (or any other oil) on top of the water. It really works, the larvae get in the oil and smother, they can't breathe through it.\\n\\nBTW, this question, it's one of those rare ELI5's where you can easily do the relevant experiment at home!\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 352, "q_id": "4zn08a", "title": "when you're flying, how come nearby clouds don't seem disturbed by the plane?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zn08a/eli5_when_youre_flying_how_come_nearby_clouds/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d6x5sdh', 'd6x9ied', 'd6xds08', 'd6xflq5', 'd6xh2bb', 'd6xidc8', 'd6xjb8y', 'd6xlnx2', 'd6xszuq', 'd6y05z8', 'd6y16h0', 'd6y1sbl'], 'score': [1891, 166, 28, 658, 11, 6, 12, 8, 4, 3, 7, 9], 'text': ['What looks nearby to you is actually some distance away -- clouds are HUGE. Planes do disturb the part near them -- see these pics.\\n\\n_URL_2_\\n\\n_URL_3_\\n\\n_URL_1_\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"To see any disruption you'd have to sit out on the wing and look backwards, and down.\\n\\nAn aircraft wake is only a bit wider than the wingspan (roughly 2x the span, so imagine that the wings are twice as long.)   And, rather than trailing horizontally behind the aircraft, it moves downward.\\n\\nThe [typical famous photos](_URL_0_) show a rear-facing view of the Learjet's descending wake punching a slot in a fog bank below the plane's path.\\n\", 'Clouds are disturbed, but only behind the aircraft, where you cannot see them, and directly around the aircraft, where they pass so quickly that you cannot see them properly.\\n\\nIf you see a different aircraft flying through clouds it is possible to see some perturbation behind it.', 'Pilot here (PPL).\\n\\nAs has been pointed out, clouds are often massive and wing vortices generally affect clouds to the rear and below your fuselage. However you can see the effect as a pilot depending on the aircraft you fly. A commercial airliner leaves you with no chance of seeing it because of the speed, dimensions and limited field of view (Even for the pilot).\\n\\nHowever I in my little Piper can brush some cloud and look back to see the effect to a good degree and anyone in a bubble canopy has an even better view of it. I would never do that as a deliberate act though, merely if I was transitioning through, even though I am IFR rated. Cloud is never a thing you want to be near or in as a pilot if you can avoid it and indeed many private pilots have to specifically avoid it as they fly under a restriction called visual flight rules or VFR.\\n\\nAirliners often do have an effect on clouds that are quite far away from them. The turbulence from big jet engines can spawl around for quite some distance and affect clouds that are reasonably far away.', 'Planes certainly \"disturb\" the clouds they fly near. However, purely because of how the wings of an aeroplane work, it affects the areas behind the wings the most. \\n\\nSince an aeroplane\\'s wings create lift, they can appear to \"push\" air/clouds below them downwards. Unless you have a proper rear view, you generally won\\'t be able to see this happen while on the plane. (On a commercial jet, you most certainly can\\'t)\\n\\n\\nAnother effect of aeroplane wings are the vortices created by the wing tips. \\n\\nAt the end of a wing, the difference in speed between air flowing over and under the wing creates spiral flows of air (sort of like a cyclone), called wingtip vortices. \\n\\nBoth of these effects create a phenomenon called wake turbulence, which can be extremely dangerous to other aeroplanes. \\nThis is why it is important to keep planes separated from each other, particularly much smaller planes from larger ones, as they can be severely shaken about and damaged. \\n\\nMost modern planes have curled wingtips (so-called winglets or sharklets), which redirect the air to make this phenomenon less intense.', \"Same reason they don't appear to be in a boat if you look to the side. The plane leaves a wake behind it too, you're just traveling 600mph so it's far behind it.\", \"Related/unrelated thread hijacking question:\\n\\nWhy do pilots continue to fly in clouds when there is turbulence?\\nI've been on Aeroflot and Lufthansa flights where the pilot or copilot comes on the PA system and says that due to turbulance they will ask permission to climb to a higher altitude where the effects are less.... sure enough the turbulence stops. \\n\\nFlying on every other airline, turbulence in the clouds ah never mind. \\n\\nDo the pilots get a kick out of it... or are they all being denied access to a higher altitude?\", \"Another thing to consider: clouds aren't really all that densely filled with particles. We only see them because there is a lot of thickness we have to see through. Some local turbulence caused by a plane isn't really a big deal because the rest of the thickness that we look through is preserved and untouched. Thought experiment for a moment: a screen on a window, by itself, doesn't really block vision. But if you put a bunch of screens stacked on top of eachother your vision starts to get blocked. Clouds are the same way. \\n\\nMore specifically, according to _URL_0_, there is only about 0.5 grams of material per cubic meter in a cloud. For perspective: that's a few drops of water in a volume a little larger than your stove. Next time you're cooking, spit in a hot pan and spread out the vapor in the volume above your stove - that's about a cloud's density. After it spreads out even a little bit beyond your pan, it's probably in-perceivable in the relatively small volume. \\n\\nLastly, and another way to think about it: why don't you make wake in ground-fog? I can't find exact numbers for some reason (probably because it's so variant) but my guess is that a good pea-soup fog is higher particle/vapor density than a cloud.\", \"ELI5 - its the same as a power boat going through water.  The boat does not disturb water that is in front of, beside and underneath the boat.  There is only a small line of a wake left almost directly behind the vehicle.  This is the same for airplanes, and in most airplanes you cannot see directly back enough to see any wake.  Plus, since you can't see air, and thick clouds would block your view of the wake, its hard to see the wake even if you can look behind the airplane.  \\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\", 'The easiest way to think of this, for me at least, is to think of a motor boat.  When traveling through the water in a motor boat the water on either side of you is not disturbed by your boat unless it is very close to the boat.  Behind the boat the most disturbance is right behind the boat in the same general size and shape of the boat, it spreads out from there are you travel away from it... creating the wake of the boat.  The faster you travel on a boat the more narrow your wake looks, because it is spreading out at the same rate but you are moving away from it faster.  \\n\\nThe same general thing happens on a plane, but it is much harder to see in the air.', 'Scientist here.\\n\\nThe earth is actually flat. When you get on a plane, they lift it with a crane, surround you with stills of clouds (hence the not moving!) and quickly rearrange everything during flight time to match your destination.', 'The clouds get very disturbed by planes.. damned flying buses getting all up in their business.\\n\\nRain is cloud tears']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://contrailscience.com/skitch/Photos__Boeing_777-236_ER_Aircraft_Pictures_%7C_Airliners.net-20100220-080829.jpg', 'http://i.imgur.com/Un5JnWu.jpg', 'http://contrailscience.com/skitch/Google_Image_Result_for_http__www.efluids.com_efluids_gallery_gallery_images_cessnajet_1.jpg-20100219-174651.jpg', 'https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Look_Up_Take_Action__YouTube_720p.mp4_20131214_104732.jpg'], ['https://www.pinterest.com/canaryfly/aviones/'], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html'], ['http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/flupic/aircraftwake.jpg'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2189, "q_id": "20fe57", "title": "Does the clock arms (seconds, minutes, hours) ever split the clock face in three equal areas?", "selftext": "This is a hypothetical clock where the arms move around the middle axis with constant speed, so no tick tocks. If you extend the lines of the clock arms, do they perfectly split the clock face in three thirds at any point during the 12 hours?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20fe57/does_the_clock_arms_seconds_minutes_hours_ever/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cg2t4fv', 'cg2tg1s', 'cg2tlem'], 'score': [3, 21, 8], 'text': [\"I might not be able to find the eventual solution, but I think a promising idea would be to consider the minute hand as stationary.  Then, in a 12-hour period, the hour hand would turn counter-clockwise and complete 11 revolutions; and in the same period, the second hand would turn clockwise and complete 59\\\\*12 = 708 revolutions.\\n\\nUpdate: One way, I guess, is to find all the (708\\\\*2 = 1416) points when the second hand reaches 1/3 and 2/3 of a revolution, and figure out where the hour hand is at those times, to see if it's at the opposite 2/3 or 1/3 point.  It seems unlikely to me, when I put it this way.  I'm guessing it'll come close 11\\\\*2 = 22 times in each 12-hour period, but it probably won't be mathematically exact.\\n\\nUpdate (2): I realized - silly me - the faster method is to find the 22 times the hour hand hits the required positions, and check the second hand.  And as others have already said, the answer is no.\\n\\nBut by my reckoning, the closest approach seems to be at ~~5:05:45~~.\\n\\nUpdate (3): I was wrong about the closest approach, it actually seems to be around 9:05:26.\", \"No. Consider a clock that rotates counterclockwise at exactly the rate the hour hand moves, so that the hour hand always points up. Now the minute hand goes at a rate of 1/60min - 1/12hr = 11/720min and the second had at a rate of 1/1min - 1/12hr = 719/720min. Any perfect split will happen when the second hand has gone around a multiple of 1/3 times, say n/3 for some integer n. At that time, the minute hand will have gone around 11/719\\\\*n/3 times. We need this to also be a multiple of 1/3, so 11n/719 must be an integer. Since 11 and 719 are coprime (11 is prime and doesn't divide 719; in fact, 719 is prime), this only happens when n is a multiple of 719. When n=3, the second hand has gone around 719 times, which takes 720 sec = 12 hr, a complete cycle. So we only need to consider n=1 or n=2. For n=1, the second hand has gone 719/3 = 239+2/3, so the second hand is pointing 2/3 of the way around the circle (i.e. 8 o'clock, but the 8 will have moved). The minute hand has gone 11/719 * 719/3 = 11/3 = 3+2/3, so the minute hand is also pointing at 2/3, so this is not the split you want. Similarly, when n=2, both hands point at 1/3. So there is no such perfect split.\", 'There are no solutions to your question, on a normal clock anyway.\\n\\nTo solve this, what we can do is get equations for where the second, hour, and minute hands are at some time *t* in the future.\\n\\nWe\\'ll say that when t = 0, all the hands are pointing at the same place, and that t is in seconds.\\n\\nThen:\\n\\n    H_s(t) = 6t       modulo 360\\n    H_m(t) = 1/10 t   modulo 360\\n    H_h(t) = 1/120 t  modulo 360\\n\\nThe modulo 360 comes in because the equations are referring to the offset in degrees from the starting position of \"up\" = noontime. We can see that with these equations, when t = 0, they\\'re all at the same location, and when t = 60*60*12 = 43200, they are again all 0.  This means we only need to consider values of t which lie in the interval [0, 43200].  What this corresponds to in the real world is that we are only going to consider times between 12 noon and 12 midnight on a single day.  Because any solutions outside that range will have a corresponding solution in that range, because of the properties of modulo.\\n\\nWhat does your question convert to, in terms of these equations?\\n\\nSuppose some time **T** is such that we divide the clock face into equal sized parts.  Because they are all centered, this means that each part is splitting the circle into a sector with angle 120 degrees.\\n\\nWhich means we have one of the following sets of equalities holding true:\\n\\n    H_s(T) - H_m(T) = 120  modulo 360\\n    H_m(T) - H_h(T) = 120  modulo 360\\n    H_h(T) - H_s(T) = 120  modulo 360\\n\\nOR\\n\\n    H_s(T) - H_m(T) = -120  modulo 360\\n    H_m(T) - H_h(T) = -120  modulo 360\\n    H_h(T) - H_s(T) = -120  modulo 360\\n\\nWe only have 2 sets of equations because when arranging 3 things in a circle, there are only 2 distinct orderings.\\n\\nIf we look at the middle equation in the set, the left hand side reduces to:\\n\\n    1/10 T - 1/120 T = 11/120 T = 120 modulo 360.\\n\\nThere aren\\'t that many possible values of **T** such that the equation holds, and **T** is in the range [0, 43200].  Hence, you can just check them all by hand, or write a computer program to find all the possible values of **T** which work for this equation, and then check to see if the other two hold as well.  (Repeat for -120 == 240 modulo 360).\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2259, "q_id": "3l91la", "title": "Donald Trump claims that the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't necessarily intend for it to automatically grant birthright citizenship. Is there any truth to that? Did Lincoln or any of his colleagues say anything about their intent in crafting it?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l91la/donald_trump_claims_that_the_writers_of_the_14th/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cv4ng57', 'cv4obyn', 'cv4pf4n'], 'score': [15, 107, 5], 'text': ['(on my phone, can provide sources on request, though most of what I am saying is easily verifiable) \\n\\nI am not aware of any evidence that it was not intended to grant birthright citizenship, and indeed, I find it hard to believe that it could be interpreted any other way. \\n\\nBut to pick up on the one kernel of truth that Trump is drawing from, the explicit, stated motivation was to ensure that freed slaves and their children would be granted citizenship. This is different from the dialogue around birthright citizenship today, which centers around immigration. In that sense, you can say that the amendment was not created with *today\\'s* particular dialogue in mind, simply because the political climate and most important issues were different then. \\n\\nIf it sounds like I\\'m splitting hairs, it\\'s because I am. But Trump isn\\'t an idiot, no matter how he tries to portray himself in the media, and I\\'m willing to bet anything that he\\'s intentionally twisting the \"technically true\" part of this statement into something outrageous that he can use as a political tool. ', 'There is no truth to that at all, full stop.  Here\\'s the abbreviated history of birthright citizenship in the United States.\\n\\n1. At independence, the United States inherited the citizenship laws of England.  Those were established in *Calvin\\'s Case*, 77 E.R. 377 (1608).  Summarized, the court in Calvin\\'s Case held that if a child is born a subject of the English king, they are entitled to the protections of the laws of England.\\n2. When the United States declared independence, the state legislatures passed reception statutes establishing that the laws of England still applied.   New Jersey\\'s 1776 Constitution, section XXII, for example, looked like this: \\n\\n     >  That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter;\\n\\n3. Between 1776 and 1857, this situation is more or less stable.  Then, in 1857, the Supreme Court decides the infamous case of *Dred Scott v. Sandford*,  60 U.S. 393 (1857).  Among other things, *Dred Scott* presents a pretty straightforward question of procedure, because the federal courts are only entitled to hear cases between *citizens* of different states.  If Dred Scott himself was not a citizen, he would have no right to file suit, and the case goes away.  This is exactly what the court did.  The *Dred Scott* court said that blacks were not citizens, should not be citizens, and could never be citizens, whether free or slave.  \\n\\n4.  *Dred Scott* becomes one of the major causes of the Civil War.\\n\\n5.  After the Civil War, Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30 (1866), which says that \"all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.\"  This is under Congress\\' power to declare a \"uniform rule of naturalization\" pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.  \\n\\n     >  \"Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only \\'Indians not taxed\\'), who were born within the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.\" *United States v. Wong Kim Ark,* 169 U.S. 649, 682 (1890).\\n\\n6.  As the Supreme Court also noted in *Wong Kim Ark,* 169 U.S. at 675, \"Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and, on June 16, 1866, by joint resolution, proposed it to the legislatures of the several States, and on July 28, 1868, the Secretary of State issued a proclamation showing it to have been ratified by the legislatures of the requisite number of States.\"  \\n\\n7.  The 14th Amendment provides that \"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.\"  This re-establishes the rule of birthright citizenship in the United States.  The 14th Amendment is explicit about birthright citizenship because *Dred Scott* stripped the rights of citizens from free blacks.  \\n\\n8.  The clause that Trump et al. sometimes cite as a counterbalance, the \"subject to the jurisdiction\" part, is much narrower than most of the GOP candidates say it is.  \"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof\" was meant to exclude two categories of people from American citizenship.  Those are (a) Indians, who were treated as \"independent nations\" at the time, and (b) children of foreign diplomats.  *Wong Kim Ark,* 169 U.S. at 705.\\n\\n9.  The *Wong Kim Ark* case is actually directly on point here, as Wong was born in San Francisco to two Chinese parents, neither of which were American citizens.  *Wong Kim Ark* isn\\'t an outlier, either.  Previously, in *In re Look Tin Sing,* 21 F. 905, 910 (C.C.D. Cal. 1884), the California District Court held that birthright citizenship is something that attaches to American birth, full stop.  When discussing the citizenship status of the child of a Chinese immigrant, the court said, \"It is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents.\"  For over a hundred years, the right of citizenship has attached to the *fact of the child\\'s birth here,* and has nothing to do with parentage.', 'Related, but perhaps not to this sub question: How important is the perceived \"intent\" of the authors of the constitution vs what was written?  It seems like intent acts as a means of warping or filling in gaps via interpretation perhaps to conform to certain political views.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 461, "q_id": "4av2t7", "title": "When you stick your hand outside of a moving vehicle, are you slowing it down? If so, by how much?", "selftext": "\"How much\" is very vague and dependent on basically every variable...", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4av2t7/when_you_stick_your_hand_outside_of_a_moving/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d13rs4h'], 'score': [11], 'text': [\"Yes (assuming you don't put your foot on the accelerator to compensate). Let's do the calculation, assuming you're in an average-sized car (about 1800 kg in the US) going 60 mph (about 28 m/s). Let's also assume the [drag coefficient](_URL_1_) of your hand is about 1 (it will depend on how you orient your hand) and that the area of your hand and wrist projected onto the plane orthogonal to the car's motion is about 0.02 square meters. We can calculate the drag force using the [drag equation](_URL_0_), plugging in the mass density of air (about 1.2 kg/m^3 ) and the above numbers (except the car's mass, which I will get to in a moment), I get a drag force of about 10 N. That means that if the car is coasting (ie your foot is not on the accelerator) and we ignore the drag experienced by the car itself and the friction of the tires with the road, the drag force from the hand contributes an additional deceleration of (using F=ma) 0.005 m/s^2 . Note that 10 N is equal to about the weight of a 1 kg (2.2 lb) mass, which isn't all that much. Note that if we double the velocity to about 120 mph, we increase the drag force by a factor of 4, to about 40 N, equivalent to the weight of a 4 kg mass, which is I think roughly about what the limit is for most people holding something using only their wrist muscles, so you probably wouldn't want to stick your hand out of a car that is going much faster than 100 mph. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1282, "q_id": "fx5a11", "title": "Would administering an inactive mimic of the SARS-COVID-2 binding site on ACE2 competitively inhibit virus entry into cells?", "selftext": "If an inactive version of the binding site of ACE2 that the virus uses to access the cell could be synthesised and administered to patients, could it 'flood' the system and compete with normal ACE2 for virus binding, thereby reducing successful interactions and cell entry. What would potential flaws/problems/side-effects be?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fx5a11/would_administering_an_inactive_mimic_of_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['fmsea8j', 'fmsj78r', 'fmskcq8', 'fmsknzd'], 'score': [6, 10, 3, 5], 'text': [\"What you are suggesting is similar to a vaccine. By priming the host's immune system with the same proteins, the adaptive immune system can start to develop antibodies against the protein. Upon challenge with the active virus, harboring the same proteins, the antibodies should identify the virus and mark it for degradation; the host will be immune to the virus.\\n\\nGranted, there are many, many other factors that play in immunity.\", \"Short answer: yep! The concept you may be referring to is that of a decoy receptor, which is certainly a type of drug that there is some accumulating interest in. The side effects are a bit more difficult to predict.\\n\\nLong answer: decoy receptors, which are drugs or endogenous molecules that act as competitive antagonists of certain ligands by binding them instead of their active targets, are already in use for certain diseases. As a notable example, specific autoimmune pathologies may be treatable with etanercept (*Enbrel*), which binds a cytokine called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) to prevent it from binding to proinflammatory targets. See [_URL_2_](_URL_0_) for a bit more information.\\n\\nThere is now some interest in developing decoy receptors for the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virion, which interacts with the ACE2 receptor to break into host cells. It's not a bad idea, but it's also just one of many potential mechanisms that might be effectively targeted by antiviral drugs currently under development. For the condensed version of this, see [_URL_1_](_URL_1_) (the actual paper is a bit denser and can be found in the prestigious journal *Cell*).\\n\\nPredicting the adverse effects of such as drug is difficult without actual clinical data. In many cases, we don't know what a drug will do to human patients until we actually give it to them (ideally many patients over time). This is why the process of developing and approving a new drug takes such a long time\u2014you need to give the drug first to a few volunteers, then to a few more patients, and then a larger group that must be compared to a control (ideally a placebo and a standard of care) in a randomized trial. \\n\\nHowever, purely out of speculation: drugs tend to have side effects that are both somewhat logical based on their mechanisms of action and pharmacologic properties as well as adverse effects that cannot be predicted at all. If I were to guess as to the potential adverse effects of a decoy receptor for SARS-CoV-2, I might assume that some would involve dampening the normal activity of ACE2 (because you're creating another potential target for its normal ligands). So, since ACE2 normally breaks down angiotensin II to an inactive metabolite, you may see more activity of angiotensin II (increased blood pressures, free water and/or electrolyte retention, etc.) if you give a decoy. One might also imagine that some patients may develop allergic reactions to the drug, which can occur with nearly any foreign substance entering the body and may be severe.\", \"Apeiron's APN-01 is a recombinant human ACE2 protein that's currently in some early [trials](_URL_0_) with that mechanism in mind. \\n\\nIt was actually first developed a decade ago as a more general treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome, but didn't show significant results. It may prove to be more effective as an inhibitor of viral entry though, ideally reducing disease severity.\", 'There is a class of blood pressure drugs called ACE-Inhibitors that will bind the receptors and compete with the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme in your body to help lower blood pressure. These meds won\u2019t work for prevention of virus attachment because it tends to cause up regulation of ACE receptors (the cell produces more receptors) and increase sites for viral entry.  \\n\\nPeople with hypertension are likely on these meds and this is probably why they are at higher risk for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. \\n\\n_URL_1_\\n\\nEdit: as is usually the case, there are some who say this is not necessarily true:\\n\\n_URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_receptors', 'https://www.drugtargetreview.com/news/59290/decoy-ace2-receptors-could-be-promising-covid-19-infection-preventing-drug/', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy\\\\_receptors'], ['https://pharmaphorum.com/news/apeiron-starts-mid-stage-trial-of-drug-that-blocks-coronavirus/'], ['https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/ace-inhibitors-arbs-and-covid-19-what-gps-need-to', 'https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/covid-19/evidence-continues-link-ace-inhibitors-severe-covid-19-symptoms']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2566, "q_id": "5m9asi", "title": "how come when you're sick you can blow your nose and they'll be completely empty and 5 minutes later they're full and dripping. how does mucus generate so quickly and where is it even made.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m9asi/eli5_how_come_when_youre_sick_you_can_blow_your/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dc1u0av', 'dc1ybl1', 'dc23eut', 'dc279b3', 'dc2b2zc', 'dc2betn', 'dc2bg6f', 'dc2c9si', 'dc2cg70', 'dc2d1bt', 'dc2e0lm', 'dc2eafz', 'dc2ectv', 'dc2epct', 'dc2f503', 'dc2fdp8', 'dc2fort', 'dc2g7z1', 'dc2g9ef', 'dc2ga88', 'dc2ignm', 'dc2n6c5', 'dc2xbfr'], 'score': [5029, 172, 3139, 17, 2, 3, 6, 157, 12, 13, 3, 39, 2, 2, 2, 6, 4, 2, 4, 2, 8, 3, 2], 'text': [\"The mucus comes directly from the surface of your nose, called a mucous membrane because it produces mucus to protect itself and as lubrication. This mucus is a combination of long, stringy proteins and water, which allows it to stick to most surfaces.\\n\\nWe produce a ton of it while we have upper respiratory tract infections like the common cold because our immune systems are trying to isolate the virus causing the infection and prevent more from getting in. This measure isn't actually that effective, as  it only slows down viruses and bacteria can swim right through it, but we do it anyway. Allergies do the same thing because they are an attempt by the immune system to attack something that isn't actually a disease, like pollen. We are less clear on why allergies happen, but some hypothesize that they occur due to infants and children living in environments that are far too clean. Their immune systems don't have anything to fight, so they start fighting random things instead. \", \"^(i think part of your confusion is that you may not fully know the anatomy of the nasal cavity. the nasal cavity has a large surface area which aids in its function of moistening and warming air you inhale. mucus is also produced here by goblet cells which are interspersed amongst the nasal epithelium.) [^(here's a picture of the nasal cavity which might give you perspective on how large of a surface it is in there.)](_URL_0_)\", \"Some of the immediate fullness you feel is not mucus instantly generating, but your sinuses swelling back up and blocking the nasal passages.\\n\\nSee, your sinuses are inflamed when you're sick.  When you blow your nose, you kind of flex them as well so they get a bit narrower to let stuff out.  Then when you're done blowing/flexing those muscles, they swell back up.\\n\\nThat's why you can repeatedly blow your nose, have just a little bit come out, but still feel like you need to blow again.\", 'Follow up question: if this is a result of narrowing and expanding nasal passages, and certain people have more narrow sinuses so they need surgery, what is the evolutionary advantage of this? How did so many people (like myself) end up with chronic stuffiness and swollen sinuses? How would that be evolutionary advantageous?', 'At the tiniest levels cellular messengers causes surrounding tissues that make up the nasopharyngeal openings aka sinuses to become inflamed. Once that happens the body naturally does its best to halt/slow down progression of any bacteria or viruses by producing more phlegm from epithelial goblet cells than usual. This is why when you are sick, your mucus is colored rather than being white or clear. Normally mucus production is stable to keep the membranes in our nasal cavities and airways moist and protected but when we get sick the cells that are responsible for mucus production is more responsive. ', \"Related question: When I have a stuffy nose I end up usually taking over the counter nasal spray like Afrin, which works, but doesn't last very long.  Is there anything I can use that is just as (or more) effective?\", \"In addition to what u/frommerman said, there are also these kind of balloon things in the back of your nostrils called turbinates, which normally warm and moisturize the air you suck in through your nose. That feeling that your nose is stuffed and you can only breath out of one nostril? That's not so much mucus as it is these turbinates swelling up, blocking the passage of your nostrils.\", \"Not sure if posting this too late but I had some follow up questions. I never really seem to breathe out of both of my nostrils. One seems to always have a swollen nodule and it is usually my left notril. Sometimes throughout the day they will switch sides. I am wondering if it is a common occurrence.       \\n\\nSecond to that is I always have what I am guessing is post nasal drip. Throughout the day I have to cough to clear my throat of mucus and to me it seems totally gross. People think I am sneezing. When I first wake up in the morning I have to cough quite violently because I will have a small dried gobbet stuck to the back of my throat and it will take quite a while to get cleared up. Sometimes I give myself a sore throat because of it. It is always dark brown or green  in color and maybe about 2 cm in length. Doctor put me on some anti-histamines last month but they didn't do a thing. \\n\\nI figured it had something to do with being a smoker but I quit smoking cigarettes in 2013 and still have the issue. Then again I do vape. Been having this problem now for maybe 13 years now. \\n\\nEdit: Thank you so much for the feedback guys. Suppose I will be asking to be referred to an ENT soon about the drip.  \", 'To answer the where it is produced part, the lining of the respiratory tract is made mostly of a type of epithelia (classification of cells) called pseudostratified ciliated columnar epithelium. The mucous is produced by goblet cells which are part of the epithelium. The cilia are tiny hair like projections that face the cavity or whatever they are lining and sweep the mucous around, usually toward an exit such as the nose or throat. The mucous serves to trap dust, debris and germs which would otherwise enter our respiratory system and cause infection. ', \"Mucus is water plus a protein called mucosin. You only need to add a small amount of mucosin to a lot of water to make a lot mucus.  \\n  \\nIt's like gelatin you only need to add a teaspoon to a lot of water and it turns into jelly.\", 'Can I add a follow up question? (Or perhaps 2 if you wanna be picky) Why, sometimes, does only one nostril feel stuffy or drippy and the other one is totally clear? ', 'Your body is responding to a stimulus - \"I am sick/foreign bodies detected\". \\n\\nIt then goes into security mode. \\n\\nSHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING. \\n\\nWhile your skin does a great job at keeping most everything out, you obviously have openings all over. Your nose is one such place, but unlike your ears or mouth, it cannot be closed off/is closed off already (you have to breath). \\n\\nSo our mucus membrane produces mucus. It does this already, and just like your ear wax its job is to keep foreign stuff out of your body (for the most part). \\n\\nWhen you get sick, your body doesn\\'t want any more bad things getting in because it\\'s already fighting one thing. This is when you are arguably at your weakest. So it produces extra mucus to keep the entrance stopped up. \\n\\nUnfortunately your body has no way of knowing just how far to take its defense. It is an all or nothing response. So even if it is a virus you will be over in a day, or simple pollen in the air, it turns things up to 11 and \\n\\nSHUTS. DOWN. EVERYTHING. \\n\\nBut to be honest, I\\'d rather go hard on something than take that chance. \\n\\nThen again, that\\'s how things like auto-immune diseases pop up. ', \"Congested noses aren't actually (entirely) from snot - they're from swollen sinuses. Blowing your nose is like pressing on swolen skin - the blood will be squeezed out into the rest of your veins, but eventually they'll get swolen with blood again in about under a minute.\", \"I work with GI pathogens so I can't claim to be an expert in respiratory infections. In GI infections the body upregulates processes to poop. It hopes to flush out the bacteria or at least reduce the burden to a manageable level. Salmonella take advantage of this as a way to shed the host and hopefully make it to a new host. Sometimes salmonella will actively promote these processes as well. Bacteria and viruses must also take advantage of processes like this in the respiratory system. It sounds reasonable for mucous to produce as a way to drain the body of the intruder and at the same time this provides an excellent route of escape. For example if you have the flu then the more times you blow your nose the more chances the virus has to get on your hands or out in the air and spread. \", 'Is it worse to swallow the mucus? I have allergies and always need to blow my nose, the mucus never seems to go away.... ', \"One more thing that I haven't seen in the comments... excess tears drain into the nasal cavity... so if you're having trouble putting your contact lenses in and your eyes water a lot, you'll want to blow your nose.\\n\\nSo I guess if you're sick and you're eyes are watering, that contributes a lot to your runny nose.\", \"Hey maybe someone can help me here. It has now been 8 years straight of steady mucus drip down the back of my throat. It is very literally never not there. At all times. I'm now 33, started at 25. What could be causing this? Can I do anything to stop it? I've kind of taken it as 'this is my life now' but it'd be nice to get rid of.\", \"Sort of a follow-up for any docs in the audience. \\n\\nFrom what I understand, a virus like the common cold enters through your nose (usually) and progresses into your lungs from there. This results in mucus production. And if you're producing mucus and sleeping on your back, you get post-nasal drip, which sucks ass. \\n\\nSo when I'm coming down with a cold, I always ensure that I sleep on my sides. This definitely helps with the post-nasal drip, but my question is whether it prevents the virus from progressing into the lungs. If I let my body produce mucus to trap the virus, and I don't let that mucus drip into the back of my throat, does that improve my recovery from the virus? It *seems* like my colds have gotten less severe since I instituted this policy, but maybe that's just because removing the misery of post-nasal drip is enough to make a cold more bearable. \", \"A lot of people are answering how, but here's why.  Your mucus acts for two reasons.  It acts as a protective barrier against some germs and helps to expel things already trapped.  So while your mucus can generate very quickly, it adjusts the pace to keep the nose at an uncomfortable level without overfilling it.  \\n\\nThe same property as ferrets; their sent is intentionally maintained, so when bathed too frequently, their glands overporduce and lead to more intense sent than would be typically present.\", \"Are you able to have any surgeries that will sear your sinuses shut so they won't produce as much? Because that would be awesome.\", \"There is a lot of misinformation and poor terminology going around.\\n\\nThe sinuses are really just voids in your bones, and typically do not change significantly in size. They don't produce most of the mucus that comes out when you blow your nose. The sinus *tissues* (their lining) can become inflamed and sensitive, perhaps due to infection, not suprising since they are dark, moist, and flesh-lined structures deep in your body, perfect so microorganisms can thrive. Making things worse, most of the sinuses have only small 'openings' to the rest of the nasal cavity.\\n\\nIt is actually the turbinate structures and their tissues which people are describing as 'expanding' (swelling) and 'blocking the nose'. These structures and other surfaces in the nasal cavity produce most of the mucus that comes out.\\n\\n_URL_0_\", \"I was going to ask this myself recently! Another question: Why is it that congestion can switch sides so quickly? One minute my left nostril is completely stopped up with no air passing through. Then it'll switch and my right will be closed. How's that happen?\", 'Your body always makes 1-1.5 Liters of mucus per day.  Typically this mucus is thin and drains down to your stomach with little effect.  When you get sick, the body sends lots of white blood cells to your mucus membrane, thickening the mucus and changing its color.\\n\\nWhen the tissue swells with white blood cells and your mucus thickens, it cannot all drain backwards, so it starts coming out of the front.\\n\\nsource: _URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://bmb757.bsproject.eu/uploads/userfiles/doc/bombet_html_aa5af45.gif'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.google.com.au/search?q=turbinate'], [], ['http://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/the-truth-about-mucus#1']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1719, "q_id": "9skszw", "title": "Who were the \"Diggers\" or True Levellers and where do social-religious movements of this era (16th and 17th centuries) fit in the history of socialism?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9skszw/who_were_the_diggers_or_true_levellers_and_where/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e8qoz9v'], 'score': [10], 'text': ['Luckily pamphlets written by the Diggers still exist, including [The True Levellers Standard Advanced](_URL_2_), and A Light Shinning in Buckinghamshire, so we know what they thought pretty well. As for what they did, essentially they tried to establish communes on common land, and where suppressed, there is a short overview with sources [Here](_URL_4_). The movement then shifted to less material objectives, and can be regarded as a forerunner of the Quakers.\\n\\nBut for me the interesting part of the question is how they (and similar groups especially among German Anabaptists) fit into the history of socialism. Firstly they are solidly on the anarchist flank of modern socialism, although the historic use of terms socialist, communist, and anarchist are overlapping and unclear (for instance [Oscar Wilde](_URL_0_) refers to himself as a socialist, yet his views would today make him an anarchist). This could be contrasted with movements like the followers of  Mazdak, who are more aligned with socialism as it is perceived today (being conducted by the state). The Diggers fit quite nicely into the category Christian Anarchism, along with Leo Tolstoy. This grouping can be summarised by: pacifism, egalitarianism, and opposition to the state and hierarchy.\\n\\nThere is to my knowledge there is no reason to believe first person to use the term anarchist in this context, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (source definitely not take from wiki  John M. Merriman, The Dynamite Club (2009), p. 42.), was aware of the Diggers or influenced by them, although his brand of anarchism (mutualism) differs significantly from the latter use of the term. Reading both [The Conquest of Bread](_URL_1_) (regarded as the anarchist-communist manifesto, written by an atheist) and the Diggers pamphlets, I was struck by the similarity. Both refer to bread extensively, but much more importantly feature the idea of the earth as a common inheritance to all, as well as more general socialist principles and opposition to the state. I therefore think that the Diggers can be regarded as solidly within the anarchist communist school of thought, the main difference being the justification of this desired social order being derived from their theology, rather than material analysis or moral sentiment. Edit: a note on their theology, taken from [The True Levellers Standard Advanced](_URL_2_), the most striking thing to me was the belief that original sin (as in the book of Genesis), was the origin of hierarchy and the start of domination. I think this chimes well with leftist such as Murray Bookchin who effectively makes the same argument in secular terms in The Ecology of Freedom, and with the statement by  Abdullah \u00d6calan that patriarchy (a form of domination) is humanities first great mistake.\\n\\nIts also worth noting that the Diggers cited the bible extensively, so depending on the amount of historical credence you will allow the book of Acts (and accept their interpretation), they where merely applying a millennium old doctrine  to modern circumstance.\\n\\nAs to whether they influenced the development of socialist thought historically, rather than simply where they fit into this history, it is hard to tell. Perhaps the ardent atheism of key \"socialist\" thinkers (e.g. [Proudhon](_URL_3_), [Marx](_URL_5_)), would obscure their input historically, although in The Ecology of Freedom, Murray Bookchin clearly favours these kind of groups, and sees them as the ancestors of the modern left.\\n\\n & #x200B;']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/', 'https://thebreadbook.org/conquestofbread.html', 'https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/winstanley/1649/levellers-standard.htm', 'https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-god-is-evil-man-is-free', 'http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/sects-and-factions/diggers', 'https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 77, "q_id": "zog9x", "title": "[META] 40K Subscribers -- State of the Subreddit", "selftext": "Actually, it's almost 41K now; people have been subscribing at an astonishing rate.\n\nThere've been a lot of mod posts lately about rules and such; we don't have much to add to them at this time, but we will post them here as a reminder:\n\n- [Welcome to visitors, and some reminders about posting](_URL_1_)\n- [Widescale revisions to the official rules](_URL_0_)\n- [A note on modern politics](_URL_3_)\n- [An unfortunate but necessary announcement](_URL_2_)\n\nThis post has three purposes behind it:\n\n1. To give you an account of where we've been, where we are, and where we're going.\n2. To thank our subscribers for their submissions and their support.\n3. To gauge reader opinion of the weekly project posts and inquire after new possibilities.\n\nIt's amazing to think of how far /r/askhistorians has come in the previous year.\n\nIn August of 2011, this subreddit received just over 10,000 page views, 2000 of them unique.\n\nIn August of 2012, /r/askhistorians blew past ***1,000,000*** page views without even trying, with 225,000 of them unique.\n\nIn September of 2012 -- so far -- we have had ~600,000 page views and 260,000 uniques.  ***So far***.  And that's only accounting for the data we currently have... it takes a day or two to update, sometimes.\n\nWhat makes something like this possible is the constant stream of contributions from you, our subscribers.  You ask questions, provide thoughtful answers, and engage in the kind and caliber of discussion that has provoked approving comment even from those inclined to be scathing.  We're proud that our contributors' work makes frequent appearances in /r/bestof and /r/depthhub, and while we're not as thrilled about occasional appearances in /r/subredditdrama or /r/circlebroke, even those tend to involve the problems at hand being received as the surprising anomalies they are rather than just what's to be expected.\n\nIt's been a year fraught with incident.  Things like the \"Bill Sloan\" debacle have taught us skepticism and caution (we hope), while countless instances of popular discussions attracting hundreds -- even thousands -- of new subscribers per day tell us that things are also ticking along as they ought to be.\n\nThe moderators have had a hand in all of that, for good or bad, but we rely on our subscribers to produce all of the content that appears, report bad comments, and generally strive to keep the level of discussion in /r/askhistorians as high as one might hope for it to be.  We thank you for all your work.\n\nBut our own isn't over, and won't be getting any easier as time goes on.  We are currently in the process of reviewing a number of possible new moderators, and hope to have an announcement to make about that in short order.  In the meantime, your current team is happy to keep on plugging away at it.\n\nAll of this is where we are -- but what of the future?\n\nThe general popularity of the daily project posts (Tuesday Trivia, Friday Free-for-All, etc.) has more or less spoken for itself, but we'd like your feedback on what you've thought of it all so far and what you might recommend to improve it.  We're already faced with the imminent prospect of having to move Monday's usual thing to Thursday instead, but the rest of the schedule is not likely to change.  All the same, what do you think?  How have you enjoyed it so far, and what other such initiatives might you like to see in the future?\n\nThat's all we've got to say just now.  We thank you again for the wild (but also very often restrained and respectful) ride that you've made /r/askhistorians over the last twelve months, and we only hope that the next twelve will see bigger and better things yet.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zog9x/meta_40k_subscribers_state_of_the_subreddit/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c66cnha', 'c66ddbs', 'c66e5mm', 'c66egqr', 'c66eiyy', 'c66f7h9', 'c66fd48', 'c66fvcp', 'c66g54o', 'c66g8ls', 'c66h61q', 'c66in00', 'c66l4o8', 'c66u57k'], 'score': [79, 13, 26, 3, 7, 10, 18, 11, 4, 4, 10, 2, 3, 3], 'text': [\"This is basically the only subreddit I post in anymore, and certainly the only one I care about.  The mods and the work they do play a huge part in that, and I want to thank you guys for all that you've done and continue doing.\\n\\nBut yes, there needs to be more of you!\", \"Do you guys think you have enough mods for this growth?  When I subscribed here the sub had a measly 12,000 readers.  Because so many posts here get linked in best of reddit, I can't imagine the growth slows down any time soon.\", \"First off let me say that I very much enjoy this subreddit. I do have some concerns but I am not sure there is much we can do about them. Although unlike some of the other posts I feel that four mods works fine, I have gotten an almost immediate response to any question or reported post sent to them.\\n\\n1. Increase in questions with a decrease in flaired posts. I assume this is related to the start of the school year which probably leaves some of our contributors who hold teaching positions and or are working on academic degrees with less time. It also doesn't help that the Flairs tend to be focused in certain areas, so in early  American history  for instance, between myself Jonalesk, Smileyman, Fatherazan,Carol White and tribu173 I feel we can cover virtually any aspect of early American history ( yes I spelled all of your names wrong,and I probably forgot someone apologies all around). However when it comes to other Fields, Eastern European, Latin American, African (outside of one guy) we are sadly missing expertise. I don't think there's anything we can do about it, but I do wish it was something we could change.\\n\\n2. I'd really like to see some more sources from people who apply for flairs. Obviously if you can prove that you are a PHD or work in a educational environment an exception can be made. But specifically I have noticed that people who apply for Civil War and World War Two flairs really do not have a very comprehensive understanding of either event. \\n\\n3. More up-votes I don't get enough of them, and less partisan politics questions, which you have already made a post about \\n\\nedit because I forgot someone\", \"This has become my favorite subreddit.  I'd like to thank all of the historians who take time from their day to answer questions on this subreddit :).\", \"I love this subreddit. As an aspiring historian it's really great to see how popular /r/askhistorians has become whilst still remaining incredibly informative and pleasant. I must congratulate the mods and the community on their hard work. \\n\\nAs a student, I'd quite like to see more discussion of history as a subject (best degree options, application in other areas, questions about methodology etc.) rather than just knowledge of specific events/time periods/areas. However that's probably less likely now that the subreddit has become so encompassing. \", 'Further proof that a strong hand in moderation is what keeps a good subreddit from going all pear-shaped.', \"My only real issue right now is that in the last month or so the number of subscribers who are only interested in *American* modern history has increased at quite an eclipsing rate to subscribers interested in history/ancient history in general. If you look at the front page normally over 50% of the threads are related to American history, if you look at /new over 90% of threads are American related.\\n\\nNow this isn't a complaint, it's just an observation. It can feel at times though (I casually browse /new on and off for a few hours a day) that this subreddit is now becoming /AskModernHistorians or /AskHistoriansAmerica.\\n\\nI'm curious if anyone wants to address this?\", \"Besides the already-voiced concerns that flaired historians seem to be getting drowned by non-flaired posts, the only major concern I have about this subreddit is that we seem to be narrowing our specialization. Have a question about a bit of speculative history? Go to /r/historicalwhatif? A question about sources? /r/historyresources (or somesuch). While the subreddit has grown hugely, I wonder if we're turning people away towards smaller, less capable subreddits. I think there is something to be said for letting our Panel handle a wider range of questions while still referring visitors to smaller, more specific subs.\", 'What was the Bill Sloan incident, if I may ask?', 'also, another good subreddit is r/askhistory.  significantly smaller, but has good questions nonetheless, and plus only the experts comment and the comments are not buried due to the fact that its a small subreddit', 'Only major complaint is to do with poor questions. \\n\\n\"Whats your favourite....\"\\n\\n\"What\\'s the greatest...\"\\n\\nBasically, anything that promotes a simple listing of events. I feel these posts rarely contribute anything to a discussion and it can feel like AskReddit sometimes. ', \"This is by a whole hell of a lot my favorite sub-reddit. Hell, in a post I made today I got: \\n\\n* Educated responses, with links to great documents and books I want to read to help form my own opinion. \\n* Well-formed opinions from people who (seem) to know what they're talking about and have been well-read on the topic. \\n* Informed speculation that led to really lively banter. \\n* And a joke or two. \\n\\nWhat more could I possibly ask for? The balance in this subreddit is fantastic. I really loved, also, the anecdotes from the fella whose grandfather was a part of history on the Prinz Eugen. It wasn't scholarly work, it was old war stories, and it was great. \", 'This is the first subreddit that I subscribed where I read EVERY single post. I really learned a lot. And I just subscribed 3 days ago. Is fascinating, I really hope that this subreddit maintains its quality...', \"I would love to see flaired users do a presentation and then ask questions about it. For example in my area I might talk about the various factions and splits of the parties involved in the American Revolution and then ask about comparisons to other revolutions. \\n\\nI'd love to see users be able to get flair via user nomination or by mod nomination. I do think that many users feel intimidated about their level of knowledge and could probably get flair if they just applied for it. \\n\\nI'd love to see posts where users within a particular color get together to create a posts asking for questions. I think an inter-disciplinary Q & A session might prove to be very interesting. Even users from different colored flairs could be interesting, for example someone with a European flair and a Pacific Islander flair and a North American flair talking about colonization and annexation in the Pacific Islands from the various perspectives of those involved. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z9uyg/meta_widescale_revisions_to_the_official_rules/', 'http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yozop/meta_welcome_to_visitors_and_some_reminders_about/', 'http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zj29f/moderator_post_sight_an_unfortunate_but_necessary/', 'http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zcctn/meta_a_note_on_modern_politics/']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2454, "q_id": "3egd8p", "title": "why do people paint the bottoms of trees white?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3egd8p/eli5_why_do_people_paint_the_bottoms_of_trees/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctenicv', 'ctep3xo', 'cteu9v6', 'ctf5ic1', 'ctf5ot7'], 'score': [6, 16, 30, 8, 5], 'text': [\"Usually it's a protective coating that hepls prevent insects burrowing into the wood, or if they do its easier to see their burrows and get rid of them before they do any serious damage to the trunk.\", '_URL_0_\\nSun scald happens in the winter on the side facing the Sun. see treatment ', 'I know this one. It is not paint, is a diluted solution of slaked lime, and yes, to protect the trees from parasites.\\n\\t\\n', 'The paint on the bottom of my fruit trees is a mixture of interior latex paint (white) and joint compound (used to finish drywall seams)  applied to prevent beetles from boring holes to lay their eggs. ', \"On one of the many bases I was assigned to in the Navy we painted a wide stripe of white paint around all the trees at about chest height so people would not run or bicycle into them at night.\\nI live in Florida now and several of the old timers around here have the same idea so their drunk friends on golf carts won't drive into them.  They are pretty easy to see at night.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_scald_(flora)'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1077, "q_id": "kbyqh", "title": "Why do humans have to cut their nails and hair, and animals don't?", "selftext": "Also, what did early humans use to cut nails and hair?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kbyqh/why_do_humans_have_to_cut_their_nails_and_hair/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2j1ez3', 'c2j1gz5', 'c2j1hmf', 'c2j1k8n', 'c2j1xm6', 'c2j4u46', 'c2j1ez3', 'c2j1gz5', 'c2j1hmf', 'c2j1k8n', 'c2j1xm6', 'c2j4u46'], 'score': [2, 12, 2, 10, 10, 2, 2, 12, 2, 10, 10, 2], 'text': [\"Horses have to have their hooves trimmed down when their environment and lives don't - though a domesticated horse isn't really like it's natural ancestors.  Similarly for dogs and I suspect human nails.\\n\\nWe can probably cope without cutting hair \u2013 but   for various reasons we started -  [link](_URL_0_) \u2013 they would have used things like sharp shells/flints \", \" >  and animals don't\\n\\nFalse!\\n\\nDomestic cats use scartching posts (or your furniture) to keep their claws trim.  Wild cats use trees.\", 'Tell my cat who seems to lose her coat biweekly all over the carpet this.', \"Typically claws/nails wear down from day-to-day activities in the wild. Some animals will chew on their claws, or use trees (wild cats, mostly) to keep them sharp. Domesticated animals such as dogs and horses usually need their claws/hooves trimmed on a regular enough basis.\\n\\nMost mammals have short hair anyway. Mammals with long hair (e.g. the mane and tail of a horse) generally serve a purpose, such as swatting away flies, so again, there's really no reason to have it cut.\", 'Humans don\\'t *have* to cut their hair, we just choose to for convenience/fashion\\'s sake.\\n\\nLikewise, we cut our nails for convenience\\'s sake. They will break off by themselves during the normal course of climbing trees, chasing wildebeest and digging up the savannah, but they will look \"ugly\" and be uncomfortable.', \"As for the nails, [this previous post](_URL_0_) may address your question.  Basically, in the wild, nails are/were worn down by running, scraping, hunting, eating, etc. and there is/was no need for cutting.  This applies to early humans as well as other animals.  \\n\\nAs for the hair, early humans probably did not cut their hair, as there's not really a need, though later they may have begun to use sharp objects to do so (someone else may know more about this).  \", \"Horses have to have their hooves trimmed down when their environment and lives don't - though a domesticated horse isn't really like it's natural ancestors.  Similarly for dogs and I suspect human nails.\\n\\nWe can probably cope without cutting hair \u2013 but   for various reasons we started -  [link](_URL_0_) \u2013 they would have used things like sharp shells/flints \", \" >  and animals don't\\n\\nFalse!\\n\\nDomestic cats use scartching posts (or your furniture) to keep their claws trim.  Wild cats use trees.\", 'Tell my cat who seems to lose her coat biweekly all over the carpet this.', \"Typically claws/nails wear down from day-to-day activities in the wild. Some animals will chew on their claws, or use trees (wild cats, mostly) to keep them sharp. Domesticated animals such as dogs and horses usually need their claws/hooves trimmed on a regular enough basis.\\n\\nMost mammals have short hair anyway. Mammals with long hair (e.g. the mane and tail of a horse) generally serve a purpose, such as swatting away flies, so again, there's really no reason to have it cut.\", 'Humans don\\'t *have* to cut their hair, we just choose to for convenience/fashion\\'s sake.\\n\\nLikewise, we cut our nails for convenience\\'s sake. They will break off by themselves during the normal course of climbing trees, chasing wildebeest and digging up the savannah, but they will look \"ugly\" and be uncomfortable.', \"As for the nails, [this previous post](_URL_0_) may address your question.  Basically, in the wild, nails are/were worn down by running, scraping, hunting, eating, etc. and there is/was no need for cutting.  This applies to early humans as well as other animals.  \\n\\nAs for the hair, early humans probably did not cut their hair, as there's not really a need, though later they may have begun to use sharp objects to do so (someone else may know more about this).  \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/415796.html'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/j2fet/how_did_humans_cut_their_fingernails_and_toenails/'], ['http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/415796.html'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/j2fet/how_did_humans_cut_their_fingernails_and_toenails/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1530, "q_id": "5lpmll", "title": "How much of the world's air is trapped in bubble wrap?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5lpmll/how_much_of_the_worlds_air_is_trapped_in_bubble/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dbxo64k'], 'score': [51], 'text': [\"Order-of-magnitude calculation, since it's hard to find the relevant facts on this. \\n\\n* [UPS and FedEx collectively deliver 6.5 billion packages a year](_URL_1_) as of 2012. Let's double that to account for other carriers and inflation.\\n* Assume each package has about 100 bubbles on average and that each bubble has 1cm x 1cm x 0.2cm = 0.2cm^3 of air.\\n* Assume that bubbles pop after a year. (Though from personal experience, bubbles are popped immediately after opening the package.)\\n\\nThen there are 2.6 * 10^10 cm^3 of air trapped inside the bubbles. The [mass of the atmosphere](_URL_0_) is about 5.15 * 10^18 kg, so dividing by the density of air, this is about 4 * 10^24 cm^(3), so the percent of the atmosphere trapped in bubble wrap is about 0.00000000000065%.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth', 'http://www.cnbc.com/id/46071532']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 62, "q_id": "opyoi", "title": "how the pyramids were built, and why there are conspiracy theories about it.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/opyoi/eli5_how_the_pyramids_were_built_and_why_there/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c3j4c4j', 'c3j4dts', 'c3j4v0j', 'c3j5j24', 'c3j6lev'], 'score': [9, 17, 2, 8, 3], 'text': ['Long ago, a race of humanoid aliens ruled Egypt. The aliens brought their technology to earth in medicine, agriculture, art and architecture.\\n\\nThe aliens built the pyramids using their technical expertise and human labor. These building have lasted millenia. \\n\\nFor unknown reasons, the aliens have left earth and their stargates have been lost or destroyed.', 'The pyramids were built using ramps and pulleys and thousands of workers who labored for decades.\\n\\nThere are conspiracy theories about them simply because they are old and big and unique. There are very few buildings around that are as old as the pyramids -- 4000 years. People wonder why anyone would build something as huge and impractical as a pyramid. But we simply do not know enough about ancient Egypt to explain everything about them.', 'No one knows how they were built, we only have some pretty good ideas based on what we assume about the state of technology at that time. logs for rolling, ramps for gradual lifting and pulleys for less gradual lifting were likely involved. Also chiseling and the use of gritty water for cutting stone. That would also require lots of people and lots of time. It also seems reasonable, because of the growing season at that location, that the builders were also farmers who were working on the pyramids during the off season. They would be needed to grow during the growing season and have available time in the off season. All guesses, but they make sense based on what we think we know.', \"Some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that ancient humans were capable of things such as performing basic geometry and moving rocks. \", \"Conspiracy theories are just an argument from ignorance. I don't understand how people could have built the pyramids with their level of technology so [insert dumb idea to explain it] god did it, aliens did it, or they must've had some other type of outside help we are unaware of.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1682, "q_id": "20cw1h", "title": "Are silver/mercury compounds more effective than antibiotics?", "selftext": "With the emergence of antibiotics resistant gonorrhea; TB and NDM-1, it looks like it is fast approaching the end of the age of antibiotics, unless we try to discover new drugs. However, I know that, prior to antibiotics, we used silver/mercury compounds such as colloidal silver for gonorrhea and salvarsan for syphilis. I'm curious to find out are these more effective than antibiotics? And, has there every been a peer-reviewed paper published on their efficacy? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20cw1h/are_silvermercury_compounds_more_effective_than/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cg22r7r', 'cg2f4qv'], 'score': [6, 4], 'text': [\"A quick [PubMed](_URL_0_) search for these drugs brings up a vast amount of peer-reviewed papers, some of which are free even if you are not at a University with access. \\n\\nThe short answer is that even though these early compounds were effective, the side effects were astronomical. We've moved towards more specific compounds that have better efficacy with less side effects. \\n\\nFor salvarsan, that was one of the pioneering discoveries in Pharmacology since Ehrlich and colleagues tinkered with the molecule in a systematic way until they developed a better drug. Since then, our capabilities of altering chemical structures have grown rapidly.\", \"All the things you listed were used to treat diseases at great cost to the patient's overall health. Using them in humans was due to a lack of understanding the consequences of doing so and while using today's antibiotics causes some problems they are vastly superior. \\n\\nLook at it this way: we use 70% isopropyl alcohol to clean surfaces in a medical setting but we could never use it to treat an internal infection in a patient because it would kill them. using mercury was a similar situation, you can eliminate bacteria but it poisons people. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 582, "q_id": "2rrmsk", "title": "why doesn't the wetness of your eyeballs freeze in such negative degree temperatures?", "selftext": "I was greeted with -12 this morning. My nostril hairs stuck together, lost my breath, and a tear running down my cheek just stopped in place. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rrmsk/eli5_why_doesnt_the_wetness_of_your_eyeballs/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cnillog', 'cnilqp3', 'cnilv8s', 'cnim2pz', 'cniopvj', 'cnirdkd', 'cnixqa4', 'cnj2tsj'], 'score': [103, 5, 5, 8, 3, 16, 3, 3], 'text': [\"They're largely encapsulated in your nice, warm head, and receive a pretty continuous supply of blood from your core, which provides them heat. As well, your tears, being salty, are somewhat more resistant to freezing. \", \"-12 (F or C) isn't really that cold.\\n\\nTry -40 degrees (the temperature where F and C are the same number).  That is cold!\\n\\nThere is a danger of exposed skin freezing within a few minutes and you tend to get frost on your eye lashes  &  nose hair...but it's never felt like my eye balls were going to freeze.  \", 'Salt. Not all liquids freeze at the same temperature.', \"I've been in weather where my eyes felt almost sticky. Of course, this is the kind of weather where you get crystalized mucus inside your nose. This is dangerous cold.\", 'I believe that eyeballs freeze in -60 degrees Celsius ;)', \"It does if you get cold enough. At temps lower than -40 (not including windchill) blinking makes your eyelids freeze together temporarily and you can really feel the cold in you eyes. And these tempurTures it's not recommended to leave the house but if you do make sure to cover all skin. Toque, scarf, face mask and ski goggles, the whole shebang or you will get frostbite.\", \"I used to live in Winnipeg Manitoba and on certain days I could feel my eyes freeze and I'd have to close them almost shut to avoid that. So to answer, your eyeballs do freeze when it's cold enough.\", \"Helps that they are recessed in sockets which helps reduce air flowing past them, they'd freeze pretty fast if they were on stalks out in the breeze.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2712, "q_id": "5oue1p", "title": "how do airlines outside of the united states provide such a great experience at a lower cost than those in the u.s.?", "selftext": "I flew on three different airlines in Southeast Asia for the first time the other week. They provided an actual meal, the attendants were extremely well dressed and mannered (almost like models - both men  &  women), and they put away everyones carry-on. The aircraft were new, equipped with comfortable seats plus movies/entertainment for short domestic flights. They charged on average $70 one-way.\n\nMeanwhile, in the U.S. I'm lucky if I get pretzels for $150 one-way when flying the same distance - yet they still go bankrupt?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5oue1p/eli5_how_do_airlines_outside_of_the_united_states/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dcm6cpz', 'dcm6mh3', 'dcm7gdy', 'dcm7x7q', 'dcma80d', 'dcmevk8', 'dcmn4g3'], 'score': [28, 6, 28, 7, 12, 2, 11], 'text': ['Chinese airlines receive massive subsidies from their government. This allows them to operate on lower revenue. ', 'Many countries in that region need tourism for their economy, so providing the best possible experience and best deals for travelers is in their best interest.', 'Many of the legacy US airlines are/where encumbered by self-funded pension programs that have a lot of retired former employees. More older employees who have earned raises, and therefore cost the airline more in payroll. Maybe the employees have better benefits. \\n\\nLegacy US airlines may also own older aircraft which are not as fuel efficient, or have higher maintenance costs.\\n\\nForeign airlines, might have (younger) employees with lower pay and less benefits than their US counterparts. They may own newer aircraft which may be more fuel efficient or have lower maintenance costs. \\n\\nMaybe even lower taxes or subsidies from the nation. ', \"There are a number of reasons.  First, labor is far cheaper in Asia than in the US.  The cost of labor is about the same as the cost for fuel for airlines in the US, at around 30% of total airline costs.  By contrast, it is usually around 15% for Asian airlines, with fuel being almost 40% of their costs.  Second, many Asian airlines are state owned or heavily subsidized by the state.  Those states recognize that bringing in people to spend money in their country benefits them.  By contrast, airlines in the US are (mostly) privately owned and only benefit by taking you from place to place.  Once you step off the plane, they don't get more money out of you until you get back on.  Third, the people who fly on Asian airlines tend to be upper class citizens.  A far smaller percentage of their population might fly somewhere, and those that do fly tend to be from the upper end of the classes.  By contrast, people from a larger variety of the socioeconomic spectrum fly in the US.  As such, the Asian airlines are dealing with different expectations of their customers (much like the US airlines did in the 1950s).\", \"No unions and lower wages plus there's actual competition amongst airlines.  One airline can't buy up all its competitors like US airlines can because the competitors are often partially state owned.\", 'Besides lower labor costs, there are also lower airport fees. They can actually amount to a good part of the flying cost, depending on airports', 'There are a few reasons I can think of:\\n\\n1. Many airlines in Middle East/Asia are *the official* airline of their host country, and receive some level of state support. Countries that want to break out of the \"developing/3rd world\" stigma use the airline as an extension of their global brand image. Hence their governments buy newer planes that sip fuel and are cheaper to maintain.\\n\\n2. In keeping with (1), state support also means that domestic tickets may be subsidized. They may offset losses here with international tickets priced at a premium for the ultra-luxe experience they offer.\\n\\n3. All aspects of flying a plane require *highly skilled* labor (including the flight attendants), and the cost of living is much cheaper in Southeast Asia than the US. As an example - an experienced pilot can earn well past $100k in the US. In China or Thailand you can afford the same standard of living on far less.\\n\\n4. People in the US buy the cheapest ticket, and ignore most else. As a result, there\\'s quite a lot of herd behavior amongst the airlines - if one airline gets away with charging a bag fee or eliminating snacks, others follow suit.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2800, "q_id": "7lv0ze", "title": "Is a tree's photosynthetic efficiency affected by its age?", "selftext": "I am curious to know if a tree becomes more or less efficient at converting carbon dioxide into oxygen as it ages.  ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7lv0ze/is_a_trees_photosynthetic_efficiency_affected_by/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['drq4pv8'], 'score': [2], 'text': ['There is a noticeable trend of decline in forest photosynthesis as the canopy ages. A group in Malaysia looked at this using maple and ash trees, trying to control for size vs. age to determine whether its just size-related causes or age-related causes (or both) that lead to photosynthetic decline. They reported that while size VASTLY decreased CO2 exchange rate, age did not. \\n\\nUsing grafting based techniques, they grafted older meristems onto saplings such that the tissue developing the leaves was aged, but these grafted leaves wouldn\\'t be at full size. \\n\\n >  \"We found that leaf-level net photosynthetic rate per unit of leaf mass and some other leaf structural and biochemical characteristics had decreased substantially with increasing size of the donor trees in the field, whereas other gas exchange parameters expressed on a leaf area basis did not. In contrast, these parameters remained almost constant in grafted seedlings, i.e., scions taken from donor trees with different meristematic ages show no age-related trend after they were grafted onto young rootstocks. In general, the results suggested that size-related limitations triggered the declines in photosynthate production and tree growth, whereas less evidence was found to support a role of meristematic age.\"^1\\n\\nInterestingly, a different group in Southwestern China did however find that older leaves (just separated into old leaves / young leaves category) had noticeably smaller stomatal conductance (the rate of passage of carbon dioxide entering, or water vapor exiting through the stomata of a leaf) and net assimilation of carbon in a species of oak. There was no effort, however, to control for leaf size.^2\\n\\nSo, aging might be vastly different tree to tree, but it\\'s hard to specifically say that the age of the leaves, outside of their sheer size has a large effect on photosynthetic efficiency. \\n\\n[1]. **Abdul-Hamid H, Mencuccini M.** Age- and size-related changes in physiological characteristics and chemical composition of _Acer pseudoplatanus_ and _Fraxinus excelsior_ trees. _Tree Physiol._ 2009 Jan;29(1):27-38. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpn001. Epub 2008 Dec 3.\\n\\n[2] **Zhou H, Xu M, Pan H, Yu X.** Leaf-age effects on temperature responses of photosynthesis and respiration of an alpine oak, _Quercus aquifolioides_, in southwestern China. _Tree Physiol._ 2015 Nov;35(11):1236-48. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpv101. Epub 2015 Oct 8.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1268, "q_id": "1humng", "title": "How do they design the sequences for the A, C, G, T chemical bases in DNA nanotechnology?", "selftext": "I've been reading about how the nucleotide sequence can be designed so that DNA will self-assemble into desirable nanostructures due to base pairing rules.  So how do scientists design the sequence and how is the design implemented (how do they form the custom DNA)?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1humng/how_do_they_design_the_sequences_for_the_a_c_g_t/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cay36fa', 'cay4o58', 'cayc46i'], 'score': [2, 7, 2], 'text': [\"[This picture](_URL_0_) probably helps to make things clearer. Of course there are more complex structures.\\n\\nIt's fairly easy to get custom DNA. You can simply order it from a company. Prices vary (for more common genes for example it might be around 30 cents per base pair).\", 'Oligonucleotide synthesis is carried out by sequentially adding nucleotides in the desired order, starting from a nucleotide bound to a solid-phase support.  Added nucleotides are slightly modified derivatives with protective side groups to help prevent unwanted reactions.  At the end of the synthesis, these protecting groups are removed, and the nucleotide chain is released from the solid-phase support.\\n\\n[Wikipedia overviews it nicely](_URL_0_).', \"There are some good [online tools](_URL_0_) for determining the likelihood of different secondary structures.  For the applications I get custom DNA for, mostly I'm trying to make sure these kind of secondary structures won't form, but you could use these same tools to make sure they fold the way you want as well.  As far as building these sequences deliberately, it's all a matter of making different regions of the sequence complimentary to each other.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Mao-4armjunction-schematic.png/600px-Mao-4armjunction-schematic.png'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capping_step#Synthesis_by_the_phosphoramidite_method'], ['http://www.idtdna.com/analyzer/Applications/OligoAnalyzer/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1164, "q_id": "ihwub", "title": "Can life develop without a nearby star as an energy source?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ihwub/can_life_develop_without_a_nearby_star_as_an/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c23w80u', 'c23wbcy', 'c23weec', 'c23wi5l', 'c23x1jr'], 'score': [9, 3, 2, 5, 3], 'text': [\"I think this is only one answer, but the habitable zone doesn't necessarily have to be based within that very specific area around a star.\\n\\nFor example, there are geological processes that can create heat, or energy that life could develop with. Europa, a moon of Jupiter, has this going on as it is pulled against Jupiter and other moons. (I think, I'm not an expert I just watch a lot of shows about the Universe)\", \"  >  Dorian Abbot and Eric Switzer say they've calculated that rocky planets with a mass similar to that of Earth could stay warm enough to keep water liquid under thick, insulating ice sheets for more than a billion years.\\n\\n[Link](_URL_0_)\", 'There has been suggestion that a large rogue planet (a planet that has been ejected from its solar system and orbit the galaxy directly) could, if sufficiently massive, induce geological tidal heating in an orbiting moon (like what happens in the Jovian system). Since we have no data on rogue planets this is merely speculation, but it seems its physically possible.  ', 'This is just a creative, theoretical idea I read about.\\n\\nA couple of scientists at [Fermilab](_URL_0_), Dan Hooper and Jason Steffen, calculated that \"the dark matter that lies at the heart of the galaxy could heat an alien world enough to make it habitable.\"\\n\\nThere was an article about it in NewScientist (4/9-4/15 2011) - *\"Dark Matter, the bringer of life*\" that states: \"While WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) tend to pass through planets, they will occasionally slam into atoms, losing energy and speed. If they lose enough energy, they could become trapped by the planet\\'s gravity and settle in its core, where they are likely to hit other trapped dark matter particles and annihilate.\" (Dark matter is believed to be made of WIMPs)\\n\\n(From article) It is estimated that the amount of dark matter that lies inside the earth would produce ~1 megawatt. We absorb approximately 100 billion megawatts from the sun, so you can see a planet would need to be much closer to the center of our galaxy (about 26,000 light years closer) or another area where the concentration of dark matter is much more dense in order for it to be heated enough.\\n\\nIt\\'s important to state that there is much less known about dark matter than known, so hypotheses based around it may (are likely to) become more or less true as science becomes more confident with its characteristics. Nonetheless, the concept that life could develop, somehow, on these potentially heated, starless planets, even trillions of years from now, is kind of awesome.', 'The life around \"[black smokers](_URL_0_)\" on earth is only one example of chemautotrophs: organisms fuelled by inorganic chemicals rather than sunlight. The Wiki link shows that some have speculated that this may have even been where life originated, which, if true, would mean that yes, life can develop without stars.\\n\\nQuestion for the experts: Where does the potential energy chemautotrophs are utilising come from? Why don\\'t these reactions occur spontaneously without being catalysed by a living organism? \\n\\nI\\'d thought the heat differential of the vents was used for energy, but as far as I can tell it\\'s not actually good for anything, what\\'s the story?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/02/21/Wandering-planets-may-have-water-life/UPI-62971298338518/#ixzz1RJ9V1M9b'], [], ['http://www.fnal.gov'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2577, "q_id": "44wvn5", "title": "i've been told oxygen is what causes you to age. if you breathe pure oxygen your entire life will you age quicker than someone who breathes the quality of oxygen we have currently?", "selftext": "EDIT: So i'm learning you can not breathe pure oxygen for very long. So I guess to make it even more simple I'll use a different example.\n\n\nIf you worked in a casino in Vegas that pumps oxygen into the bar your whole life would you age quicker than someone who was just breathing the typical level of oxygen?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44wvn5/eli5_ive_been_told_oxygen_is_what_causes_you_to/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cztfxxw', 'cztfyxb', 'cztg9jc', 'cztgsl5', 'cztgv7m', 'cztkxdl', 'cztmdin', 'cztodwr', 'czu5bul'], 'score': [61, 14, 3, 12, 292, 2, 8, 2, 3], 'text': [\"I don't know whether it's oxygen that causes you to age. However, I can assert with certainty that if you stop drawing oxygen, you'll only age six more minutes or so.\\n\\nSeriously, however, your body can only take in a set amount of oxygen through your lungs. Pure oxygen conditions can be bad on you for other reasons (and I doubt you'd be able to breathe it for long enough to cause aging differences), but there would still be the question as to whether your body would simply exhale the oxygen it didn't need.\\n\\nTL;DR: As it is, you don't use up all the oxygen available to you with every breath.\", \"If you breathe pure oxygen your entire life won't last long enough for you to age. Breathing pure oxygen can be toxic for your body.\", \"Breathing pure oxygen is bad for your health, you won't age more quickly but you will simply become sick.\\n\\nPure oxygen at high pressure can be lethal. \\n\\n_URL_0_\", \"Your edit makes it seem like you understand why breathing pure oxygen at normal pressure would kill you, so I'll skip that part.\\n\\nWhen people talk about oxygen in the context of aging, they are talking about something called Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS.) These are molecules that have oxygen in them that are really unstable. They are each missing an electron, and they snatch it from wherever they can find it. Unfortunately, they often snatch electrons from important molecules like DNA, proteins, and the fats that make up the boundaries of your cells. \\n\\nThey can be helpful in some contexts. For example, when your immune system recognizes bacteria and other invaders, your body makes ROS's to destroy them. They keep them protected in a special cover to keep them from damaging your cells. But if they get out, they can do damage to your body. It's kind of like if a machine gun's trigger gets stuck and it starts spraying everywhere.\\n\\nNormally, your body has special chemicals to deactivate them. You can eat foods that are anti-oxidants. But your body is exposed to them all the time, and sometimes they get through. They can cause aging, or worse. If they steal electrons from your DNA, the can cause the DNA to become unstable and mutate, leading to cancer.\\n\\nIf you breathe a higher level of oxygen regularly, you will be exposed to more ROS's. Over time, this can cause problems. I'm not sure if I can quantify how much more likely you are to get cancer or age faster, and a lot depends on how many fruits and vegetables you eat and whether you smoke (The ROS's in smoke is a big reason why smokers get lung cancer.) But there would be some nonsignificant effect.\", \"I believe what you've heard of is the free radical aging theory. To be clear, in this terminology 'aging' is referring to the decline of the body through the accumulation of damage caused by free radicals in your cells. So if you are defining 'aging quicker' as acquiring more damage faster,  and so having a shorter lifespan, there is some experimental evidence to suggest this is at least part of the equation. I just want to differentiate this from some sort of 'passage of time' concept.\\n\\nHowever, this isn't the oxygen your breathe (or well, if it is, you're about to die). These reactive types of oxygen are products of metabolic processes in your body. Impacts to this type of damage to the body involve events that increase the production of free radicals, or decrease the ability of your body to clean them up. \\n\\nObviously, denying your body enough oxygen to engage in metabolic activity might thwart the production entirely, but it's a bit of a lose-lose proposition.\", \"If you're a healthy person your blood is carrying 98-99% of the blood it can carry when you're breathing normal air anyway, increasing the concentration of the oxygen you're breathing won't make that much difference. \", \"_URL_0_\\n\\nbreathing pure oxygen can be dangerous. we are designed to live with around 21% oxygen. when you see divers underwater that is either compressed air from the atmosphere OR a custom blend of nitrogen and oxygen. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\nNow what would happen if you breathed 100 percent oxygen? In guinea pigs exposed to 100 percent oxygen at normal air pressure for 48 hours, fluid accumulates in the lungs and the epithelial cells lining the alveoli.\\n In addition, the pulmonary capillaries get damaged. A highly reactive form of the oxygen molecule, called the oxygen free radical, which destroys proteins and membranes in the epithelial cells, probably causes this damage. In humans breathing 100 percent oxygen at normal pressure, here's what happens:\\n\\n\\nFluid accumulates in the lungs.\\nGas flow across the alveoli slows down, meaning that the person has to breathe more to get enough oxygen.\\n\\n\\nChest pains occur during deep breathing.\\n\\n\\nThe total volume of exchangeable air in the lung decreases by 17 percent.\\n\\n\\n\\nMucus plugs local areas of collapsed alveoli -- a condition called atelectasis. The oxygen trapped in the plugged alveoli gets absorbed into the blood, no gas is left to keep the plugged alveoli inflated, and they collapse. Mucus plugs are normal, but they are cleared by coughing. If alveoli become plugged while breathing air, the nitrogen trapped in the alveoli keeps them inflated.\\n\\n\\n\", 'YSK that casinos do not pump oxygen onto the playing floor. Doing so would be a felony. Source: _URL_0_', 'Breathing pure oxygen will kill you fairly quickly.\\n\\nBreathing less than pure oxygen that\\'s still in the livable range will _not_ cause you to age faster.\\n\\nYour body wants a level, and it\\'s good at finding that level. So when your cells need oxygen they take it in, and when they need to get rid of carbon dioxide they push it out.\\n\\nIncreased atmospheric oxygen just makes that transaction easier.\\n\\nSome studies indicate that extra oxygen availability might _slow_ some of the degeneration we call aging by making sure that the cells never enter the more difficult anaerobic (oxygen-lacking) processes that produce more waste products and such.\\n\\n\\nE.g. To make the mandatory car analogy, a little extra oxygen in your life probably keeps you cells from \"fouling their plugs\".\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity'], [], [], [], ['http://science.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm'], ['http://www.snopes.com/luck/casino.asp'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 3016, "q_id": "ro752", "title": "why it takes longer to heat up two hot pockets in a microwave than one.", "selftext": "Same applies to any food, obviously. I just happen to be consuming a hot pocket currently while staring vacantly at the instructions.  And does the same effect apply to normal ovens at all?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ro752/eli5_why_it_takes_longer_to_heat_up_two_hot/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c47bxt4', 'c47c8t1', 'c47d4tl'], 'score': [30, 72, 22], 'text': [\"Because the microwave puts out the same amount of heat per second regardless of what's in it, and you're asking it to heat up twice as much food. \\n\\n\", \"A conventional oven that heats up everything inside an oven including air, the oven sides, etc.  That's quite a waste of heat but if you put one or two hot pockets in the oven, you won't see much of a difference.\\n\\nA microwave oven is much more efficient, which is why it's fast. It only sends energy to food you put in it.  Its energy output is limited though, so the more food you put in it, the less energy each part is getting.\", \"It's the same reason that one towel shared with two people doesn't dry as efficiently. \\n\\nThe microwave puts out the same amount of energy regardless of what's inside, and more mass takes more energy to heat up. same reason that it would take forever to boil a gallon of water with a BIC lighter. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2278, "q_id": "7zk22i", "title": "why does it seem like getting pregnant on purpose is hard, while accidentally getting pregnant is easy?", "selftext": "[deleted]", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zk22i/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_getting_pregnant_on/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['duol3ov', 'duol4ww', 'duola09', 'duom4ic', 'duomo4f'], 'score': [11, 20, 7, 4, 2], 'text': ['This is confirmation bias. People tell horror stories of acidentally getting pregnant so you remember them, the same as people trying to get pregnant and then it not working. The run of the mill is forgotten.', \"Getting pregnant on purpose is super easy, unless it's not. Almost 90% of women have no problem getting pregnant, but for the other 10%, it's a very stressful thing, so that 10% gets a lot more sympathy and coverage.\", 'There\\'s a bias here, I can\\'t recall which one.  For the same reason that we tend to remember bad things that happen, and feel like they happen all the time, but have a hard time remembering good things.  Almost like we take them for granted.  \\nEffectively, every failed attempt seems like it\\'s EVERY TIME, LIFE IS SO AWFUL.\\n\\nThe other side of that coin is \"The ONE time we didn\\'t use protection...\"\\nRealistically, these people probably choose to forget about the other bad decisions/times they \\'forgot\\' to use protection. \\n\\nThe odds are the same given the same 2 people, you just take note of strongly undesirable outcomes.  ', 'Aside from what everyone else has stated about confirmation bias, we also think that this happens more than it does because of movies and television.\\n\\nA couple trying to get pregnant and cannot or an accidental pregnancy are both interesting plot devises that the overwhelming majority of people can connect with. A couple wanting to have a kid... and then getting pregnant, is just kind of boring.', \"Confirmation bias. Those complaining are people who have slept around / not taken precautions etc. Those who try are trying because it isn't easy. Every human complains about everything that isn't easy I suppose.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2227, "q_id": "1hj9ov", "title": "Can you stab someone anywhere with a needle and press the plunger down quickly to sedate them like they do in the movies?", "selftext": "You see it in almost every movie/TV show.  Someone comes up with a needle, stabs another person pretty much anywhere they can, press the plunger down and clear the liquid in about .2 seconds, and bam they fall out.  Is that possible or do you need to hit a vein/artery?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1hj9ov/can_you_stab_someone_anywhere_with_a_needle_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cav977b', 'cava92w'], 'score': [2, 9], 'text': ['That\\'s just Hollywood nonsense for the most part, because as any anesthesiologist will tell you, sedating a person without causing their automatic body functions like breathing to stop is a somewhat delicate balance. You must take someone\\'s body weight into account, as well as monitor breathing and heart rate.\\n\\nFor example, if you take Dexter\\'s M-99, which is used on large animals like lions and such, even a drop of it can kill a human. My ex is a veterinarian who did a rotation in Africa in her last year of school and they used M-99, and it had a huge safety protocol along with an \"antidote\" (can\\'t remember the exact word) for it in case someone came into contact with it. If Dexter dilutes the M-99, assuming you had a suitable solvent, he would have to know the victim\\'s exact body weight, and even *if* he managed to effectively sedate the person, to **keep** them safely sedated would be nigh impossible without proper equipment.', \"It honestly depends on the drug. There are drugs that can do this but must be administered through a vein, administering through an artery will have little to no affect as the drug would just go to where the artery is going. If you inject in a vein you will get mixture in the right atrium and the distribute through the whole body.\\n\\nDrugs like Etomidate and Propofol can render someone unconscious in a matter of seconds when administered through a vein. I've personally given someone Etomidate while yelling at me. They stop mid sentence ~ 4 seconds later, eyes roll back in their heads and they are down.\\n\\nAs far as intramuscular injections, which is what you are describing, it can have similar effects but slower. IM sedatives can take as little as 5 minutes to produce an effect, but nowhere close to IV injection.\\n\\nSource: I'm in anesthesia school and have worked in healthcare giving these drugs for the last 8 years.\\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1865, "q_id": "26tjen", "title": "why is hitler often considered a genius? and why did he lose the war?", "selftext": "I often hear of the idea that Hitler was really very smart. Was this due to his political moves? His military tactics?\n\nFurthermore, if he was a genius (or even a great leader) what was his downfall? Was there a crucial pivotal event where his supposed intelligence was wrong?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26tjen/eli5_why_is_hitler_often_considered_a_genius_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['chubhlf', 'chubjsc', 'chubk45', 'chubqqq', 'chuccl4', 'chug1jd'], 'score': [5, 13, 3, 7, 3, 2], 'text': [\"He was pretty adept at organizing his party and understanding the dynamics of politics. His military prowess is more due to his excellent generals. \\n\\nAs for his downfall, even for the smartest of us, arrogance costs a price. He believed he could invade the USSR and take over in the spring before winter set in and he couldn't. He severely underestimated the lengths the Russians were willing to go to to repel the invasion. Pride comes before the fall.\", \"I dont know who you've been talking to, but it's generally agreed that he was no genius. He did have a rather good staff though. The main downfall of the nazi regime was the same as it's success, their speed and aggression. They pushed too far and too fast, making too many enemies. It wasnt a sustainable model, and neither was the regime itself. He was an excellent orator though, that was what he did best. In the end he did convince an awful lot of people to go an awful long way out of their normal behaviour. \", \"He was pretty good at whipping people up at him, but his paranoia really undermined the war effort, \\nand he was not that great of a strategist.\\n\\nGermany arguably lost the war entirely because Hitler convinced himself Russia was going to turn on him and picked a fight he couldn't afford before sending an army into Russia without cold weather gear.\", \" >  I often hear of the idea that Hitler was really very smart. Was this due to his political moves? His military tactics?\\n\\nThere's no clear consensus on this; for obvious reasons it's pretty much impossible to have an objective conversation about the guy, so there's a lot of hyperbole on both sides.\\n\\nAs for why he might be considered a genius, the Nazis were amazingly successful, all things considered. Recall that Germany went from being completely broken and disarmed to owning nearly all of Europe in just a few years. In addition, he had a few very early victories which completely shattered the Allies in Europe. Whether this was actual genius though, or just beginners luck is impossible to say. As time went on, his mental capacity certainly began to falter though, and by the end of the war he was a barely functional drug addict. \\n\\n >  Furthermore, if he was a genius (or even a great leader) what was his downfall? Was there a crucial pivotal event where his supposed intelligence was wrong?\\n\\nThe answer pretty much everyone is going to give you is Operation Barbarossa. Without question, the Soviet Union was the most important opposition to Hitler. The Nazis suffered about 80% of their losses on the Eastern Front. \\n\\nWhether the decision to invade or not was actually a mistake though is debated by historians. While the two parties may have worked together early in the war, they were anything but friends. Sooner or later, the Nazis and the Communists *would* come to blows. By launching a sneak attack, Hitler at least took the initiative and had the opportunity to set the stage in his favor. Indeed, the initial push was massively successful; the Nazis were viewed as *liberators* by a shockingly large number of people (remember, Stalin was not exactly popular). If the Nazis had decided to arm the Slavs and turn them against the Soviets instead of trying to exterminate them, they might have actually won. Of course, that was impossible for Nazi ideology, so maybe it could have had unforeseen consequences. Such is the way of things with alternative history. \\n\\nAside from Barbarossa, there were a couple other large mistakes which would come back to haunt him. Not smashing the British at Dunkirk eventually would eventually bite him in the ass. Not trying to find a way to keep the Americans out of the European Theater was likewise a failure.\\n\\nThe short of the matter though is simply that Hitler was just some dude with a lot of ambition, in the right place at the right time. He wasn't the larger than life figure pop culture has made him out to be. As for the war, war is chaos. Even the best people make mistakes, and no one ever knows for sure what the consequences of their actions will be. There are multiple junctions in which the tide of the conflict could theoretically turned, but there's no way to say for certain. \", \"I've heard he had great speaking skills, like in talking to crowds and whatnot. Now genius... nope, never heard of that.\", \"He wasn't a genius, but a very charismatic politician who, at the time, knew that his party would only be successful by surrounding himself by those who excelled in very specific areas. \\n\\nGoebbels was a master when it came to engineering propaganda that the common German could get behind and even champion. Eichmann was an expert when it came to transporting large quantities of resources in the most efficient, timely manner possible. Himmler was instrumental in championing the Aryan cause by forming the SS (among other things) while also knowing how to effectively consolidate power internally(usually by arranging assassinations or subterfuge). Heydrich was, unlike some of the other Nazis, a skilled soldier who was absolute unrestrained in his brutality and callousness; he was essentially a conquerer who had absolutely no qualms with razing entire villages to the ground in order to achieve a goal. And you would see this kind of brutality adopted by his superior (Himmler), the SA, SS, and SD. Goering WAS an actual genius, decorated veteran, and brilliant battlefield tactician whose one major flaw was a morphine addiction. \\n\\nHitler's downfall was making strategic military decisions he was in no way qualified to make because of his own inflated ego during the middle of the war. The Nazis quickly and aggressively rolled through country after country, effectively crushing any and all military resistance that got in their way. They were borderline unstoppable. BUT, these victories were not because of HItler; they belonged to men like Goering, Rommel, Himmler, and Heydrich.\\n\\nThe moment Hitler took the reigns of the Nazi military, things started to come apart. His country's military victories fueled his arrogance; he thought he could make no mistakes, that nothing could possibly stop him, and that it was his brilliance alone which saw Nazi Germany become the major player that it was. And this was his undoing. He started ignoring the advice of his generals, and began making poor, then extremely poor, tactical mistakes as a consequence: the expansion of the war into Russia was a disaster (one that would cost him the war), he effectively mishandled both the African and Western campaigns to the point the Allies started gaining ground.\\n\\nTL:DR; Hitler wasn't a genius, but he surrounded himself with people that were highly skilled at what they did. His undoing was letting military and political victories get to his head, he stopped listening to those people that had made him successful in the first place, and his personal military tactics cost him the war.\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2113, "q_id": "3s98n6", "title": "if the average temperature of the universe is \u2212454.76 \u00b0f, shouldn't ice be considered the naturally occurring state of water?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3s98n6/eli5_if_the_average_temperature_of_the_universe/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cwv6k1i', 'cwv6npy', 'cwv6q8f', 'cwvb4xr'], 'score': [91, 11, 9, 3], 'text': [\"It is, In space. down here on earth though, it's not, and since that's where the term comes from, it stuck.\", 'An \"average\" figure is pretty much useless if the thing being measured is not evenly distributed. The matter in the universe isn\\'t evenly distributed - quite the opposite - and so averaging the temperatures of that matter gives you a meaningless number. \\n\\n(Statistically, we talk about a \"normal distribution\" - the famous \"bell curve\", which is what you get if the quantity being measured is the result of a \"fair test\". The average is useful in that case, but not so useful if the distribution is distorted. It\\'s like trying to average how rich people are: the 1% at the top have so much money that they distort the average upwards.)', 'It\\'s going to depend how you define the natural state of something. \\n\\nWe (generally) quote the \"standard state\" as the phase  at a temperature of 298 K (25 C) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere (roughly sea level). Why? That\\'s just how it\\'s been. It\\'s pretty easy to reproduce in a lab environment too. ', \"The average temperature of the universe *is not* the average temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background.\\n\\nIt's like saying since Sunlight has the temperature of 5700K, matter on Earth has the same temperature - which is ridiculous. The relation is backwards though as most of the matter have a higher temperature (far higher) than the CMB.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 345, "q_id": "1h7t0d", "title": "How accurate did the movie \"O Brother, Where Art Thou?\" depict the American south during the depression?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1h7t0d/how_accurate_did_the_movie_o_brother_where_art/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['carsb75', 'carsmgb', 'cas1kp2', 'cas1mk6'], 'score': [25, 241, 3, 11], 'text': [\"About as accurate as Fargo's portrayal of the eponymous town in North Dakota. Joel and Ethan Coen are well-known for doing parodies on regional stereotypes, especially of dialect. In their depictions of places and people and eras, they're usually pretty tongue in cheek.\\n\\nAlso, it's a movie that's intended to map onto Homer's Odyssey, which is foremost a mythological narrative. Brilliant film, but I wouldn't look to it for historical realism.\", 'The consensus seems to be that the Coen brothers successfully created a sort of mythological universe that contains genuine elements of the Depression-era South inextricably mixed with trenchant representations of the South\\'s nostalgic conception of itself. It\\'s accurate in the sense that it consciously constructs a mythological memory of the South that someone who had lived through the time might recognize, but it\\'s certainly no historical document. So yes, there were con men, convicts, corrupt politicians, bluegrass musicians, gangsters, and *plenty* of racism, but the movie doesn\\'t attempt to present a particularly realistic portrait of each group; instead, it merges them together and views them through the hazy filters of *The Odyssey* and Southern Gothic literature.\\n\\n[Here](_URL_1_)\\'s a good article by Hugh Ruppersburg (of the University of Georgia) called \"\\'Oh, so many startlements...\\': History, Race, and Myth in *O Brother, Where Art Thou?*\", which partly deals with your question. A couple excerpts:  \\n\\n > [F]or me at least, and I suspect for many people of my post-World War II generation in the American South, O Brother, Where Art Thou? speaks in a particular way, as if some of its scenes linger on the verge of memory, as if it is family history, or might have been, as if Ulysses Everett McGill is the paterfamilias of us all. [...]  \\n\\n > Setting the film in the 1930s Depression South; faintly tingeing it with the ambience of Faulkner and Welty; setting it to blues, bluegrass, and gospel music; vaguely associating it with historical events and figures... **the Coens created a compelling, not entirely credible patchwork portrait of America (and not just the South) in the decade preceding the Second World War.**  \\n\\n > In a sense the film portrays a parallel universe, a fabulistic world both like and unlike our own. It plays fast and loose with facts. It\\'s highly selective. It creates characters who are like real people but who never existed, and others who never existed and who are not like real people at all.... It uses a number of historically real characters\u2014George \"Baby Face\" Nelson, Robert and Tommy Johnson, and Pappy O\\'Daniel\u2014but radically changes the facts of their lives. [...]  \\n\\n > ***O Brother, Where Art Thou?* is intentionally reckless in its treatment of southern and American popular culture, its use of fact, its invention and reinvention of myth, its fabrication of falsehoods, all of which are woven together into the fabric the film presents as reality**. In essence, the film creates its own myth of the American South in the 1920s and 1930s, a myth that is as much a tall tale as are the exploits of Everett, Pete, and Delmar. The point of the myth is to celebrate that which is worth celebrating\u2014the folk culture, the music, the history, the life of a time different from our own, a time just before the modern world when rural electrification dawned. But is the myth so selective that it lacks relevance?\\n\\nI\\'ll let you read the rest to find out (spoiler: no, it\\'s not). [Here\\'s another good article (PDF warning)](_URL_0_) by Sean Chadwell called \"Inventing That \\'Old-Timey\\' Style: Southern Authenticity in *O Brother, Where Art Thou?*\" A relevant quote: \"What the Coens point to throughout the movie is not that hicks, rednecks, or white trash populate the South and make its music but that these stereotypes are themselves part of the mythology the South has created about itself.\" (edit: formatting)', 'One part that stood out was authentic-ish accents of the non-starrring roles.   It\\'s rare to hear \"authentic\"-sounding regional accents in films.   \\n\\nGranted, these accents aren\\'t as thick as they actually would have been in the 1920s-- if it were, you might well have to add subtitles.  ', 'All these replies are great. As a small fun fact, when the Soggy Bottom Boys go in to record their song \"I am a man of constant sorrow\" Ulysses asks \"who\\'s the head honcho around here?\". Honcho (one of the few loanwords from Japanese) is not to be seen in American English until after WWII.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/JPFT.32.1.3-9', 'http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/southern_cultures/v009/9.4ruppersburg.html'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 871, "q_id": "3g017z", "title": "why is australia so heavily invested in the mh370 search?", "selftext": "I read somewhere Australia has earmarked A$100m for the search. It was the Malaysian national aviation company, most passengers were Chinese - apart from going missing supposedly 2000 miles off the coast of Australia, there doesn't seem any sense in them taking the search upon themselves....does there? The cynic in me asks 'what's in it for them?'", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g017z/eli5_why_is_australia_so_heavily_invested_in_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cttjj0z', 'cttk040', 'ctto4fa', 'cttox3v', 'cttqu1a', 'cttr0s7', 'cttrdmk', 'cttvaj3', 'cttwz0q', 'ctu4a6v', 'ctu4a7v', 'ctu4llf', 'ctu5qbk', 'ctu6734', 'ctuani7', 'ctue3lp'], 'score': [4, 69, 6, 1060, 22, 38, 210, 11, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['I think it has to do with international laws at sea. Where if a plane crashed in a part belonging to a specific country, that country has an obligation to try to help find it and so on.', \"At the time it happened our Prime Minister was becoming increasingly unpopular. He needed a positive news story to distract from domestic negatives. He went in hard to gain some  popularity. $100 million is a fairly cheap price to pay, especially so when it is tax payer money.\\n\\nThis might be overly cynical but I don't think it is inaccurate.\", 'Let\\'s be real, does australia really have that much they can work on anyways? \\n\\n\"Hey Mate, we\\'re the closest country to that plane crash\"\\n\\n\"Oi, let\\'s investigate it\"\\n\\n', 'Australia wants to assume the mantle of regional power. By doing this it shows \"We take care of our own, Malaysia owes us nothing but earmarking 100m is what regional powers can and will do to it\\'s smaller neighbours\". It\\'s a show of power wrapped in solidarity.\\nBy helping Malaysia this way, future leaders of Malaysia will gravitate towards Australia and help it in establishing a local power group with Australia at it\\'s head.', 'I think an important thing to keep in mind is that a pretty big percentage of these sort of cost estimates are \u201csunk costs\u201d. These estimates always inlude the salaries of personnel, fuel for ships and planes, etc. That money was already going to be spent anyway and a lot of the hours for aircraft/ships would just be a normal part of their training flights, etc.', 'One other thing is you might not want another country on your doorstep with all kinds of surveillance systems. Lets say I lose my phone in your house at a party. I come back the next day to look for it and I start opening every cabinet and drawer in your kitchen. Then I head to your bedroom. At this point you say, \"I\\'ll look for it and let you know if I find it\".', \"The short answer is [AMSA](_URL_1_). It actually falls under Australia's international responsibilities as as signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944; the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974; and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, is responsible for search and rescue over a vast area made up of the East Indian, South-west Pacific and Southern oceans. The internationally agreed Australian Search and Rescue Region covers 52.8 million square kilometres - over one-tenth of the earth's surface. Unlike some countries, Australia is fortunate to have the same boundaries for aviation and maritime search and rescue. \\n\\nIt is not the first time we have spent big money out there either, we spend good money on [Tony Bullimore](_URL_0_) because it falls under our jurisdiction.\\n\\nFrom my cynical side, the success of these rescues, or even finding the plane is important to the Australian Government to be seen as acting a regional power, further with MH370, I think we might be stretching US muscle to prove to China how great the US influence is, in finding these things.\\n\\n. \", 'Australia is heavily invested in this because the incident occurred in their area of responsibility. The world is divided up into different regions that have their own rescue coordination center. Australia just happens to be responsible. ', \"the $100m isn't just money spent on top of other things, there is a huge chance that the planes being flown around are done by pilots who need the time in the plane or get additional training. It's still an exersize in some way shape or form for their armed forces. So they would still be spending some of that $100m just to do these things anyways\", \"They're sore about getting destroyed at cricket, so they want to do something to make themselves feel better about life :)\", 'because Malaysia is egregiously incompetent and incapable of taking care of it. Australia is a leading first world nation in the vicinity ', 'Because the West, especially the US and to a lesser degree the rest of the Anglosphere, is always there to help the rest of the world no matter how ungrateful they seem at times.', \"As an aside, someone is getting a pretty awesome seabed map of the Indian Ocean out of this, even if they don't find it\", 'One of the main reasons that an article did (I believe it was in an Australian newspaper) mentioned that the reason behind so much funding into the search was to help aid China. Australia and China are developing strong bonds both economically and politically. The ex prime minister (Kevin Rudd) was famous for speaking Chinese (Mandarin I believe) and was public about strengthening ties with China. This is due to many reasons as Aus has a lot of trade with china and breaking the barrier tariffs and so on will help the Aus economy (I believe for mining and also export of some of our foods). So in part there is political motivation behind it and also humanitarian. Aus is also more central to the projected crash site and hence it would fall onto them to aid in the search. I hope this helps answer some of your questions. ', 'Australia is a signatory of the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13, \"Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation\".  Annex 13 specifies who is responsible for instituting and conducting an investigation.  The \"State of Occurrence\" has the first priority; if the accident is outside the territory of any state, than the \"State of Registry\" shall lead the investigation, and states nearest the scene shall provide assistance.\\n\\nIn this case, it was believed that Australia was likely to be the nearest state, so Australia stepped up to offer resources.  Malaysia is the State of Registry, so they nominally own the investigation.  Malaysia set up a \"Joint Investigation Team\" which includes several countries with interest.  \\n\\nChina generally doesn\\'t have any jurisdiction in the investigation, but there were 152 Chinese citizens on board, so they\\'ve taken an interest.  \\n\\nIn each case (Australia, Malaysia, China), there are, of course, political motivations as well.  Australia may want to show itself as a regional power and all-around good guy, taking care of its 6 missing citizens.  Malaysia has limited resources to invest in a global investigation and limited expertise in aviation or salvage, so they need to appear to be bringing in all available outside resources (and if it ends up being terrorism, they will need to show they\\'re serious about security).  China wants to assert its global power, and appease angry Chinese families.  ', 'Now one yet has given the correct answer.\\n\\nThe bathymetric data of the newly explored ocean floor can be used to detect oil and other resources.  AUS and FUGRO now have ownership of that data.\\n\\nThey can detect pockets of oil below the floor.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Bullimore', 'https://www.amsa.gov.au/search-and-rescue/sar-in-australia/arrangements-in-australia/'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 608, "q_id": "80rpvd", "title": "why does the urge for chewing, tapping, etc. help with anxiety or focus? what do nervous habits accomplish?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80rpvd/eli5_why_does_the_urge_for_chewing_tapping_etc/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['duxq94q', 'duy3lxj', 'duy3p3n', 'duy5qah', 'duy6mxd', 'duy77ox', 'duy8ng6', 'duyatdl', 'duycdck', 'duyfslq', 'duyfwfu', 'duyg1sw', 'duyggeg', 'duygrvj', 'duyh74i', 'duyibhr', 'duyjlmx', 'duyjmpq'], 'score': [2150, 2796, 182, 42, 11, 71, 14, 2, 22, 2, 3, 2, 2, 19, 2, 2, 3, 5], 'text': [' > Fidgeting is a response to anxiety or boredom. Anxious fidgeting occurs because the body has elevated levels of stress hormones, which are prepping your muscles for sudden exertion. If you don\u2019t have any tigers to run away from at that moment, all that energy has nowhere to go and jiggling your leg or biting your nails is a way to partially relieve that.\\n\\n > Research at the University of Hertfordshire in 2005 found that fidgeting improved performance in memory tests and this might be because it lowers the level of cortisol, a stress hormone that interferes with learning. Boredom fidgeting such as drumming your fingers or pen spinning gives your brain something to focus on. This is soothing and reduces the amount of other, less directed, fidgeting.\\n\\n[Source](_URL_1_)\\n\\n > Some researchers have proposed that fidgeting is not only an indicator of diminishing attention, but is also a subconscious attempt to increase arousal in order to improve attention.\\n\\n[Source](_URL_2_)\\n\\nFor those with ADHD...\\n > In his recent book, Spark, John Ratey, M.D., shows that physical activity \u2014 even something as small as fidgeting the hands \u2014 increases levels of the neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine in the way ADHD medications do. Both chemicals play a key role in sharpening focus and increasing attention.\\n\\n[Source](_URL_0_)', 'I\u2019ve read before that chewing gum helps with anxiety because it tricks the brain into thinking you\u2019re eating which makes your brain think you are not in any danger, there for keeping you out of fight or flight mode.', 'What about grinding your teeth while sleeping?', 'Comfort. Chewing is like linked to eating your brain thinks \"oh food!  We\\'ll live as long as we eat!\" So you just gravitate toward food, even if food supply is not the cause of the anxiety, we\\'re simple creatures living in a complicated world.', \"I have a theory, someone correct me if I'm wrong:\\n\\nI feel like to some extent, simple tasks that everyone feel comfortable to easily accomplish like pen clicking, pushing a button over  and over again, those kinds of things give us a small reward to feel accomplished, and each click give us lots of small accomplishments to make us feel in control. Like it gives me a small hit to know that if I can control my finger to push the pen down, and I hear that sound, and it has a visible effect on the pen, so the brain feels a temporary reward like I accomplished something while it's going through a much larger problem that doesn't have fast results and requires mental stamina.  \\n\\nI'm not negating the energy exertion theory either though. IDK if I'm explaining this well, but can anyone that understands what I just wrote negate or affirm that? \", \"Your body has an 'optimal' level of arousal and sensory processing needed to perform. \\nEssentially it is the 7 senses all working together to keep you functioning (sight, touch, taste, hearing, smell, kineasthic (body movements in space) and vestibular (when you are moving, keeps things in check. See vertigo if unsure what happens when this sense fails)). \\n\\n\\nThink of it as a just right zone. If it is too dark, your eyes will tell your brain to sleep. If it is too bright, you are very alert and awake(see flashing lights im clubs). If you get too worked up and anxious, being held/ deep pressure can help bring you to the just right zone. If you are finding yourself falling asleep when you shouldn't be, light strokes on the arm can wake you up.\\n\\nIf you are too still, your brain will tell your body to move (fidgeting, bouncing legs etc). This in part keeps yourself alert and awake. If you bite your nails / need to chew things, it tends to have a calming effect (much similar to a blanket wrap).  As mentionee it can trick your brain into thinking it is safe.\\n\\nThis kind of research is called senory awareness. I would highly recommended a lady called Winnie Dunn. It is very interesting stuff. And it has a very clear link to mental health maintenance. \\n\\nI hope this makes sense. As the brain and nervous system is a very complex system, often tricking itself to keep you maintained. \\n\\nSource: Graduated in Occupational Therapy, and did a lot of research into adolescent mental health. \\n\\nEditted. Formatting. \", 'It happens for many different reasons. \\nOne is just as a habit. \\n\\nAnother reason is that whenever we feel bad, our nervous system/brain wants to find a way to stop feeling bad. \\n\\nThat\u2019s why when someone is stressed or feeling bad, a very common pattern is to distract themselves by eating or playing video games or watching TV. \\n\\nBasically, anything that takes the focus away from the thing stressing them and helps them feel better in the moment. \\n\\nFidgeting/ticks can be another way to distract yourself during negative emotions. \\n\\nIn fact, one of techniques for increasing pain tolerance is pressing on the inside palm of your hand. It helps shift your focus from the area of pain and to the sensitive area being touched. \\n\\nSo that\u2019s one factor. As a distraction/coping technique. \\n\\nAnother factor is that the increased anxiety triggers physiological changes in the body (like increased adrenaline) which activates certain muscle patterns which can manifest as ticks/involuntary movements. ', \"Such behaviors are dubbed pacifying actions by  nonverbal experts. Ultimately, they are an attempt to calm one self down. For instance with a cat if a cat misses its landing on a jump it will often kick itself to pacify and reassure itself. Humans are not so much different in this aspect. Of course the specific reason isn't exactly known, but probably something along the lines when you get a hug from someone else to reassure you when you are feeling down but in this instance some type of self-pacifying hug. Although, perhaps not entirely as effective as someone else hugging or touching us as humans and animals  have self awareness that inhibits our senses to a degree so we can focus on external stimuli in our environment. \", \"Anxiety is an often incorrect response to a situation. So your body reacts as if there was danger and/or a call for action when there isn't. This is because in our society, many situations seem dangerous to our minds that cannot be solved with traditional physical responses. For instance, we may be afraid of losing our job and that feels similar to being afraid of a predator. So there's a situation where our body is prepared to run away or fight but we can't. Physical activity, such as fidgeting or nervous leg movement lessens that disparity by giving your body an activity to do. \", \"It lets us focus less on our anxiety and more on that. Your brain, amazing as it is, has its limits. Tapping and chewing are actions that are easy enough to do you can do them without thinking, but still require you to subconsciously do. Also, people tend to tune out everything and focus on the sound of their Tapping, which gives you less space to think about anxiety. That is why when you have a headache, closing your eyes and ears and focusing on your breaths can help, as your brain doesn't have to form thoughts or observe a lot of the environment, but the breathing stops the brain from wandering of and thinking. \", \"Anxiety comes from how you're focusing with your mind, either in the moment, or a way of focusing you've habituated.\\n\\nTapping distracts you from that, so you feel relief. \", ' Repetition assists greatly with self soothing. \\nSwinging on a swing, bouncing on a trampoline, jogging even has predictable outcomes generally and this allows the brain to cool for a minute. ', 'A lot of times anxiety and ADHD are comorbid (I think that\u2019s a word but autocorrect says it isn\u2019t). When it comes to ADHD, a lot of anxiety is caused by feeling unrewarded (lack of dopamine). Habits like tapping fingers to a beat cause a short-lived release of dopamine that imitates a feeling of reward. \\n\\nIf a conversation is stressing me out or causing anxiety, sometimes I believe it is because my brain isn\u2019t producing dopamine to let me know that the convo is going well. If one believes a conversation isn\u2019t going well, it can be anxiety-Inducing for obvious reasons. Artificially producing dopamine by smoking, finger-tapping, chewing, or any other number of nervous habits makes you feel good (dopamine is the feel-good chemical) and can trick the brain into thinking the conversation is going well, thus removing the \u201cdoes this person like me?\u201d anxiety.\\n\\nI\u2019m speaking only out of personal experience as I have severe ADHD that sometimes causes serious anxiety. I\u2019m also a drummer and I tap my fingers/feet *constantly*. This is my explanation as to why I think I do it. It works the same way prescribed ADHD drugs work. Amphetamine works by releasing dopamine and adrenaline, which stimulate the frontal cortex (I\u2019m no brain scientist so I don\u2019t know for sure about the specific region that is affected) which is deficient in an ADHD brain.', 'This is just based on my experience with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and ADHD inattentive subtype (formerly known as ADD). I have a fidget cube and I used it when I\u2019m anxious and/or need help to focus. For my ADHD, I often need an extra stimulus to focus, whether it be music, moving around, or fidgeting (although too many stimuli at once is too distracting). The fidget cube helps me focus without distracting other people because it\u2019s quiet and pretty unnoticeable. For my anxiety, certain repeating certain thoughts/actions help \u201cground\u201d me or bring me back to the reality that I am in control of what I do as a result of my anxious thoughts. I have done counting, naming things I\u2019m thankful for, pacing, etc. They\u2019re added stimuli that distract my brain from the anxiety so that I can better focus on the present instead of worrying about the pat, present, and future simultaneously. ', \"it takes your mind off of the anxiety or stress. you're just thinking about whatever your habit is.\\n\\nsource: i bite my nails out of anxiety sometimes (it never went to blood ok don't judge me)\", 'Does the Intermediolateral nucleus play any part here? Maybe a suppressing the sympathetics?', 'I work a lot in anxiety research and I see this behavior a lot. Not just in humans but mice, dogs, and cats will overgroom and lick themselves to relieve anxiety in the same way human would fidget. I think it\\'s more of a easy distraction to relieve the brain somewhat from whatever it\\'s currently thinking about. Anxiety is just a constant state of having a low stimulation threshold of the fight or flight response. By distracting the subconscious part of the brain that handles muscle memory, you\\'re sort of releasing some of the pressure, albeit a very minor amount\". This is why simple, repetitive tasks are often soothing, whether it\\'s tapping, rocking, squeezing, picking skin and nails, reciting a mantra while caressing a bead, etc.. ', \"Fidgeting, tapping, and chewing can be self-stimulatory behaviors that serve to give a sense of control to ease anxiety. You can often see the most extreme forms of self-stimming occur in individuals with ASD, where self-stimming works as a protective response to being overwhelmed with sensory stimuli in the environment. The person self-stimming can block out less predictable environmental stimuli via chewing, flapping, rocking, spinning objects, pacing, or whatever. All these behaviors fall under the umbrella of stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms, which is one aspect important to the assessment and diagnosis of ASD. \\n\\nFurthermore, anxiety is extremely comorbid in ASD, which is why I'm even talking about it at all here. Though to a lesser degree, anxious individuals may also try to lessen their anxiety by gaining control over their environment and easing worries via certain behaviors to try and calm the mind by blocking out stimuli with their nervous habit. In regards to ADHD and repetitive behaviors, which is also pretty highly comorbid with anxiety by the way, we see that engaging the primary motor cortex by doodling or fidgeting with something allows brain to better selectively attend to a stimulus at hand, because it's not trying to inhibit a desire to attend to something else in the environment or engage in some kind of active movement (by already fidgeting/doodling).\\n\\nThink of someone mindlessly doodling in class while still paying attention to the lecture. For some people, doodling would take their attention away and distract them from listening to the content of the lecture. For ADHD brains (which suffer executive function deficits of the prefrontal cortex), by allowing them to mindlessly doodle/fidget during the lecture (which isn't requiring sustained attention to do), they are better able to selectively attend (and sustain that attention) on the content of the lecture. They don't have to inhibit anything  else in the environment that might be distractible, because the PFC and motor strip are already engaged in something, freeing up neurocognitive (attentional and working memory) resources to focus on the lecture content.\\n\\nI know there was a few different things mentioned here, but there is a lot of overlap between anxiety, ADHD, and autism symptomatology. I evaluate children with all three at work, so let me know if you have any further questions.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.additudemag.com/focus-factors/', 'http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-do-we-fidget', 'https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00619/full'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1848, "q_id": "4sn954", "title": "why are hairdryers so loud?", "selftext": "Why haven't we made hairdryers that are a lot quieter and as efficient, if not more?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sn954/eli5why_are_hairdryers_so_loud/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d5akzr2', 'd5annto', 'd5ar8zg', 'd5awfrs', 'd5axn5k'], 'score': [50, 3, 17, 14, 2], 'text': ['We have, they just cost a lot more. Most people are willing to put up with the noise and pay a lot less for a perfectly functioning, if noisy, hair dryer for a few minutes a day.', 'Same thing with Blenders, holy shit are they **loud**. I would love a quiet blender. At least with a Hair Dryer you can close the bathroom door.', \"First, let's bust a myth: **moving air is not intrinsically loud**. Drive down the road at 30 mph with the window down, and despite the fact that air is now moving past your vehicle at 30 mph, it should be fairly quiet. Stick your hand out the window, with your palm flat down, and it's still mostly quiet. Turn your hand and cup it and now you can feel the force of the wind blowing by and probably hear the turbulence. Same air speed, radically different sound levels.\\n\\nMoving air isn't loud, but it has the potential to create a lot of noise, especially when you put something it its path to create turbulence. Something like the inlet and outlet grates on a hair dryer. Or a curly heating element. All of these can be designed to reduce sound levels, but that requires research and design. It requires more complex manufacturing processes and more expensive materials. \\n\\nIn addition to the moving air, the stuff that makes the air move can also create noise. A cheap little motor will cause vibrations, some of which you can hear. These vibrations can be minimized through balancing and damping, but that requires research and design. It requires more complex manufacturing processes and more expensive materials. A cheap little fan blade will create waste noise, which is noise that's just associated with spinning the fan, but doesn't contribute to moving air in the desired direction. This waste noise can also be reduced, but that requires research and design. It requires more complex manufacturing processes and more expensive materials.\\n\\nYou can't buy a quiet hairdryer, yet. But you can buy a quieter hair dryer, they just cost less, weigh more, and may not dry as well.\", 'So generations of husbands  &  boyfriends will know that their SO is nearing the end of her 90mins in the bathroom before heading out. Time to decide what to wear....', 'Hairdryers have cheap motors in them that are loud.  There are quiet motors available but they are expensive.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2462, "q_id": "227n14", "title": "why do dogs live a shorter life than humans?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/227n14/eli5_why_do_dogs_live_a_shorter_life_than_humans/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgk4qib', 'cgk4w2s', 'cgk7tzi', 'cgkbprf', 'cgkbvh4', 'cgkbweq', 'cgkkuuj'], 'score': [2, 53, 14, 2, 6, 8, 2], 'text': ['They evolved to reach maturity faster than us.  There\\'s no good answer for \"why\" that\\'s the case.', 'Let\\'s say that a species is being successful if it can continually create viable offspring and replace it\\'s individual organisms at least as fast as they are dying. \\n\\nThere\\'s multiple paths to this in terms of reproductive strategies. One strategy, is to maximize the number of offspring, even if that reduces the chances of any particular individual surviving. An alternate strategy is a lower number of offspring, but taking more care to ensure their survival. Dogs are somewhere in the middle, while humans are basically at the far end of the \"fewer offspring\" side.  \\n\\nAnd following those different paths through evolution has resulted in significant biological differences. The human brain is significantly more capable than a dog\\'s, but it also needs much more time to fully develop to the point where you get a human being capable of self preservation and successful reproduction. \\n\\nA wolf (which dogs were bred from) is physically and mentally fit enough to reproduce and care for its offspring within a couple of years of its birth, can create a few litters of puppies, and then get old and die within a decade. Over that same 10 years, a human baby will still not even be developed enough to live on its own, much less create and care for a baby. \\n\\nIf you assume about 15 years for a human to develop enough to be in a position to successfully create and care for a child, and then another 15 years for them to care for their child to the point where that child can be independent, then that\\'s 30 years. And that\\'s just for one kid. \\n\\nBefore modern medicine came around, children died much more often, so the average mother might give birth to 5+ kids, so you\\'re looking at being 35+ when your last child doesn\\'t need you any longer. And 35 was a pretty typical life expectancy for much of the history of humanity. ', \"*The real reason for humans living longer than other animals hasn't been found yet.* \\n\\nThere are a lot of theories concerning e.g. [energy conservation](_URL_0_) or the need for humans to live longer to keep our species alive, but none of these have a distinct reason (the question of why thats happening) to them.\", 'I was under the impression that this has to do with metabolic rate. basically higher metabolic rate - >  shorter life span. dont quote me on this though, because i have no literature to back it up. ', \"Humans take a long time to mature, thanks to our complex brains. Thus, we don't reach sexual maturity for well over 10 years. Dogs reach sexual maturity at a much younger age. According to the [Grandmother Hypothesis](_URL_0_) it's evolutionarily advantageous for humans to live long enough to aid in the raising of their grandchildren. So we have a fairly long generational time, and also a distinct tendency to live to see at least two generations grow up. There are other reasons, like metabolic rate, but this one was not one I saw mentioned in the discussion, so I thought I should bring it up.\", 'I agree with the six year old who said, \"People are born so that they can learn how to live a good Life - - like loving everybody all the time and being nice, right? Well, dogs already know how to do that, so they don\\'t have to stay as long.\"\\n\\nFor the full story: _URL_0_', 'things that grow faster generally die faster']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20608928'], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_hypothesis'], ['http://www.vetwest.com.au/pet-library/a-dogs-purpose-from-a-6-year-old'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2179, "q_id": "2fn1a1", "title": "vhs generation loss", "selftext": "Why does a copy of a copy of a copy etc, get worse and worse?\n\nA great example of what i am asking about \n_URL_0_", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fn1a1/eli5_vhs_generation_loss/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ckarinp', 'ckartvu', 'ckas9sh', 'ckatqja', 'ckav1lk'], 'score': [34, 15, 11, 2, 4], 'text': ['VHS is an analog system, meaning that the data does not consist of bits and bytes, but of a continuously-varying signal.  In most cases, you can\\'t make exact copies of analog signals.  You can make copies that are \"close enough\" to the original, but with tiny, *tiny* amounts of variation.  But if you make copies of copies of copies, those tiny variations build on top of one another, until they\\'re the only data left.', 'The reading and writing of VHS is with errors. Let say that for example every reading or writing contains 1 glitch per minute. \\n\\nIf you watch perfect tape you see 1 glitch per minute.\\n\\nIf you make a copy of this tape you need to read it so you read it with 1 glitch per minute and then you write the signal with 1 glitch to the tape, during the write 1 additional glitch is created so you end up with tape with 2 glitches per minute written on it. \\n\\nIf you watch this new tape the reading adds additional glitch and you see movie with 3 glitches per minute.', 'VHS tends to degrade (slightly) each time you play it as the magnetic tape is pulled from reel to reel. So each copy is copying a slightly worse version. Copy it enough times and the degradation becomes noticeable as the errors accumulate. This is a problem with direct copying of just about anything and why [masters are created](_URL_0_). The master ensure that all copies are from the same \"generation,\" each generation (copy of a copy) will drift slightly further away from the original and therefore be noticeably degraded). \\n\\n**Really ELI5** Its the same idea as trying to cut 10 sheets of paper to the exact same shape. If you cut the first sheet with a template, and then use the first sheet as the template to cut the second, and use the second sheet to cut the third, by the 10th sheet, the shape you cut out will be noticeably different from the template. Each time you will have some tiny differences, but as you get further and further away from the original, those differences add up. \\n\\nA lot of digital copying schemes work with error correction such that the data is not unidirectional; as the file is being copied, the duplicate is checked against the original for discrepancies. Anything errors are thus caught and eliminated. Thus you can copy a digital file an infinite number of times without a loss of data (assuming no compression and error correction algorithms). This doesn\\'t take into account losses from compression though (such as with a .jpg of a .jpg of a .jpg). ', 'That video is so awesome. ', \"The paper cutting analogy is really good for analog copies.\\n\\nYou may be wondering why most of the time with digital copies, there's no generation loss:\\n\\nWith digital *file* copying, there is no loss between copies because a file is really just a long list of numbers - and when you copy a list, the numbers are still the exact same even if the handwriting is different. As long as the numbers are legible on each copy, the 2000000th generation will be the exact same list of numbers as the first.\\n\\nHOWEVER.... You have to watch out if you do anything more than just copy the file literally. With things like JPGs, MP3s, and MP4/AVI/MOV/etc., those files use *lossy compression* which means they're using complicated math to throw out numbers people don't usually hear or see, to save space. (One TV episode would take up several huge hard drives if the video and audio were not compressed at all.)\\n\\nSo the original, despite being compressed, is usually fine, but if you de-compress and re-compress the audio or video (like if you convert from one format to another), slightly different numbers are thrown out, and you start to get more and more blockiness, blurriness, and distortion at each re-compression step.\\n\\nIt's the exact same principle as the VHS generation loss, but has a different style/look/sound to it because the type of loss is different.\\n\\nOf course, if you just copy the *file itself* without ever de-compressing and re-compressing, then the copy is 100% perfectly identical to what you copied it from.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['www.youtube.com/watch?v=mES3CHEnVyI']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1712, "q_id": "1k1jso", "title": "The Byzantine Empire often gets remarkably little attention in the history of civilization. Are there any notable advances in science or culture that can be directly traced back to Byzantine innovators?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k1jso/the_byzantine_empire_often_gets_remarkably_little/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cbkheb4', 'cbkjl01', 'cbkm08g', 'cbkobb5'], 'score': [2, 29, 68, 76], 'text': ['The one that comes to mind is [Greek fire](_URL_0_), however the technology was kept secret and eventually lost.', 'I think the way that you asked the question reveals a lot about how Western Civilization is largely a constructed narrative of \"progress,\" and because of this, the Byzantine empire has been largely omitted from those narratives. The contemporary Anglophone narrative of Plato to NATO was developed in western Europe, and drew a line from (maybe Egypt and/or Sumeria to) Greece, then Rome, then the fall of Rome and the \"Dark Ages,\" then the Renaissance (the rebirth of Classical civilization), scientific revolution, Enlightenment, industrial revolution, modernity. In this narrative, the geographical focus is the western Roman empire, and \"progress\" is defined as pretty much whatever things could be identified in the past that most closely resemble what we have now; you\\'ve demonstrated with this question that this is basically the education that you\\'ve gotten, as you\\'ve asked what \"advances\" Byzantium made toward \"culture\" or \"science.\" You\\'re not in trouble or anything, it\\'s just that this is a question that a professional historian would never ask, or at least, not in the last fifty years. \\n\\nWestern historians, since the Renaissance and right though the last five hundred years, have essentially selected a few groups of people from the past as our \"ancestors,\" and whatever they did that we approve of--or did not do--we take as an \"advance\" or more rarely a kind of retrogression. This suggests that history is a kind of linear progression from the distant past up until the natural, inevitable *now*. The Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantium was excluded from that, perhaps due to geography (although that didn\\'t seem to be a problem for the ancient Greeks), perhaps due to its rule under the Ottoman Turks since the fifteenth century. Being \"Muslim\" territory effectively excluded it from the Christian \"we\" that was writing Western Civilization, and thus there was no real need to look at Byzantine history as a source of \"progress.\" This is evidenced by how nonsensical the \"dark ages\" are if we look east of the Adriatic Sea, where things were not particularly \"dark\" at all. But, clearly, narratives of the West haven\\'t done that for several hundred years, so we have no widely known examples of \"contributions\" from Byzantium. \\n\\nReally, though, these ancient civilizations have not bequeathed some set of progressive knowledge to us. \"Culture\" is not something that \"advances\" or declines, it just is. I\\'ll get some pushback for this one, but I\\'d argue that \"science\" doesn\\'t do that either. It makes a big deal about *telling us* that it does, since that\\'s one of the ways that science, as a discourse, constructs and reinforces its authority. And, certainly, some forms of knowledge build upon other forms of knowledge; you can\\'t really have modern knowledge of physiology, for example, without chemistry. But, we should be very wary of ascribing to knowledge the idea of \"progress.\" There\\'s no forward or backward, there just is. \\n\\nSubstantially edited for clarity.', 'Quite a few actually:\\n\\n1. The Cyrillic alphabet:  created by the Byzantine monk Cyril and Methodius in order to spread Christianity to the bulgars. Now used in most of the slavonic states (Russia, Bulgaria, etc)\\n\\n2. The solidus: this was a gold coin that kept his weight and purity for over 600 years, making it the equivalent of  the dollar or euro for its times. It was used not only in the Byzantine empire, but also in western Europe, the Middle-East and coins have been found even in Scandinavia - mostly due to the norse man serving in the Varangian. Also, when western Europe caught up in technology with the Byzantine empire, the kings would mint coins in the same style : denomination in the front, portrait in the back.\\n\\n3. The hand grenade\\n\\n4. Corpus Juris Civilis: or at its knows \"The Justinian Code\" - this set of laws became the foundation of the entire western legal system. ', 'Advances, you say? Let\\'s see...we have:\\n\\n1. Greek Fire\\n2. Hand-held Flamethrowers\\n3. Flamethrower Ships (Fire Dromons)\\n4. Incendiary and corrosive chemical grenades (as well as \"terror\" [scorpion and snake] grenades)\\n5. The Klivanion (highly-effective precursor to modern body armor)\\n6. Trebuchets \\n7. The Solenarion (a kind of Byzantine arrow guide)\\n8. The Paramerion (sabre-like weapon)\\n9. Inflatable Siege Ladders and other siege curiosities\\n10. The Pendentive Dome (see Hagia Sophia)\\n11. Improved and tolerant status of women (in regard to other states of the time)\\n12. Proto-humanist and realistic art (heavily influencing the Renaissance)\\n13. The University (see University of Constantinople)\\n14. The Byzantine Suda (a form of encyclopedia) and other lexica\\n15. State-run hospitals with separate patient wards and female doctors AND other social services, such as orphanages and alms-houses\\n16. State-run primary, secondary, and tertiary schooling for the citizenry\\n17. Advanced knowledge and compendia of medicine, herbal remedy, surgery, and diseases which propagated into the Renaissance and beyond\\n18. Significant advances in musical composing and notation\\n19. Of course, the previously-mentioned Cyrillic writing system\\n20. Various studies, commentaries, and arguments of the classical treatises, as well as the preserving of such treatises past the sack of Constantinople via collaboration with Italian traders and Saracen scholars\\n21. Advanced civic infrastructure (Constantinople was, by far, the largest city in Europe for most of the Medieval period)\\n22. Advanced trade networks and book keeping (which heavily influenced the Italian maritime states)\\n23. Various foodstuffs (fruits/salad combinations, several cheeses, specialty breads, confectionaries) appear to be Byzantine in origin, or were at least expanded upon by Byzantine culture. An understanding of the effects of various foods and spices (and the benefits of healthy eating) was documented and explored by several Byzantine authors.\\n24. Standardized Military Manuals (Taktika, Strategikon, Praecepta Militaria) ensuring competent generalship and logistics in war\\n25. Justinian\\'s Code of Laws, as well as expansions by later rulers, such as Leo VI the Wise still exist in some countries today as the basis for their code of laws. Funny story: Leo VI\\'s *Basilika* Code of Laws was used as a transitional law system for 13 years after the Greeks gained their independence in 1821!\\n26. The rules of Byzantine diplomacy (mercy in war, protecting civilians whenever possible, fighting only when all other diplomatic options have been exhausted, etc.) which are covered in many Byzantine rulers\\' treatises, echo in today\\'s diplomatic relations.\\n27. I suppose, to some extent, iconography, especially dynastic icons (such as the Komnenian and Palaiologan Eagles) were expanded upon and highly prominent in Byzantine society\\n28. Fashion. Byzantine silks, face veils, robes, and colored, patterned, and other stylish clothing influenced European fashion for several centuries at least.\\n29. The women\\'s \"dressing room\" (complete with perfumes, lotions, makeup, and other cosmetics) was highly prevalent in Byzantine society, and again, likely heavily influenced the modern perception.\\n30. A form of Divine Right and strongly centralized government (with hints of popular influence) well before other Western powers had firmly established such a system.\\n31. The Byzantine Orthodox Church, of course, has still been going strong since AD 313, not to mention the many other breakaway churches that have become autocephalous over the years. A good number of churches of Slavic Christianity owe their creation to Saint Vladimir\\'s baptismal agreement with Byzantine Emperor Basil II. In exchange for the hand of Basil\\'s lovely sister, Anna Porphyrogennita, and a contingent of 6,000 Varangian soldiers (which later became the Byzantine Varangian Guard), Vladimir the Great was required to be baptized as a Christian and baptize the entirety of his people, the Kievan Rus - not a bad deal, right? \\n\\nThere are many more, but this should be good for now.\\n\\nYou can read about these advances in some of my previous posts:\\n\\n[Byzantine Greek Fire weapons](_URL_1_)\\n\\n[Wonders of Constantinople](_URL_0_)\\n\\n**And, as always, please feel free to ask questions if you have any!**\\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire'], [], [], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iyf6e/what_was_the_difference_in_quality_of_life_in/cb9fuub', 'http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ij7ot/what_were_considered_the_most_powerful_weapons/cb504e3']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1760, "q_id": "1r5f51", "title": "why are we so worried about a water shortage when there is plenty of ocean water? why don't we just filter the salt out?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r5f51/eli5_why_are_we_so_worried_about_a_water_shortage/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cdjqz5j', 'cdjr07v', 'cdjtwhj', 'cdjv4mb', 'cdjva76', 'cdjyh74', 'cdjzyhf'], 'score': [9, 29, 7, 2, 2, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Because it's expensive to build and operate desalination plants.\\n\\nFor example the [Gold Coast Desalination Plant](_URL_0_) cost over 1 billion Australian Dollars to build (about the same amount in USD)\", \"Filtering ocean water to the point of it being drinkable is an INCREDIBLY expensive process. Just getting the salt out alone is very expensive. Then the water still has to go through the whole usual water cleaning process.\\n\\nOn top of that, the solution really only helps those close enough to an ocean to get to the water. There'd be no feasible way to get the water to the center of large continents that didn't involve literally shipping it in trucks/trains/etc. Water in large volumes is incredibly heavy, thus very expensive to ship.\\n\\nSo the question becomes how do you deal with all of that? Who pays for what? Do we have enough of the materials needed to filter that much water long term? Who's responsible for building new infrastructure? Where does the money come from? All that money being sucked into maintaining the current water supply would cripple most economies.\\n\\nAnd this is just the 1st world discussion. In 3rd worlds, where EXISTING fresh water is already hard enough to come by, there'd be no good solution at all.\", 'Because filtering salt water, on an industrial scale, is very hard and expensive.  Salt water is extremely corrosive to metals, especially at the high pressures and temperatures required for any desalination process.  Even stainless steel pipes are quite vulnerable.\\n\\n(By the way, this is the reason everyone was so shocked when the Fukushima company in Japan decided to dump sea water on the damaged reactor - it was a desperate move because it meant that cooling the plant was more important than salvaging anything in it.)', \"I remember reading about technology involving your question.  The book was by Peter Diamandis called Abundance.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the technology is available to make the water from the ocean potable.  What they are working on now is how to make the technology more available (i.e., cheaper, mobile, ease of use).\", 'Removing the salt from seawater is called desalination. It is expensive, but is done in many places around the world. The wikipedia article lists desalination methods, some costs, and a list of desalination facilities.\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"There's plenty of freshwater around as well.  It's getting that water to different parts of the country/world that makes it difficult.\\n\\nAt New Orleans, the Mississippi River flows at about 600,000 cubic feet per second.  At ~7.5 gallons per cubic foot, that's 4.5 million gallons of freshwater passing by New Orleans each SECOND and almost 400 billion gallons each day.  That is almost the entire daily usage of the United States passing by New Orleans each day.  \", \"Even though everyone is saying how expensive it is to filter the salt out of the water its also going to be expensive to pipe or ship it to the places that need it.  People usually try to say that we do this with oil but you have to remember that even though it might be feasible for normal families to pay 3 dollars a gallon for water especially if they cut down usage.   But the main uses for water would be for farming and farmers just couldn't pay that much for the amount of water they use. It would probably ruin the US economy because all our food would be ridiculously expensive.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_Desalination_Plant'], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 129, "q_id": "1usyg2", "title": "[Not sure if right sub] My grandfather was a POW of the Japanese during WWII. I'm wondering if I can find where he was held", "selftext": "As the title says...my (British) grandfather was in the Merchant Marine during the Second World War, and spent 3 years in a Japanese POW camp after his ship was sunk by a U-Boat. \n\nHe currently lives in England, so I don't see him often, and he (unsurprisingly) doesn't like talking about it. I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find information on where he might have been held, and such. Not for any real reason, besides my own curiosity. \n\nThanks in advance for all your help. This sub is fucking awesome.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1usyg2/not_sure_if_right_sub_my_grandfather_was_a_pow_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['celj08t', 'celpvpl'], 'score': [11, 5], 'text': ['This seems like a good start: [Search in: World War II Prisoners of War Data File, 12/7/1941 - 11/19/1946](_URL_0_) from the U.S. National Archives.', \"I worked a few years in the Red Cross war archives in the Netherlands as a researcher. I looked into these questions a lot and worked with the original POW lists. \\nIn addition to what is already mentioned, I like to add the following: The Japanese telegraphed their POW records from Tokyo to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, Switzerland. They telegraphed the list of POW's to the British Red Cross for the purpose of informing Armed Forces and family. \\nThe information you are looking for is probably in the already mentioned POW archive. Other options are the British Red Cross and the ICRC in Geneva. They all should have a copy of the list. You might try the Japanese Red Cross or other Japanese state archives, but I would not begin looking there. Usually the Allies took all the relevant sources with them to their countries. I never redirected a question like this towards the JRC. \\n\\nEdit: As a merchant marine sailor he was militarized the moment GB was at war with Japan. So he officially served in the Royal Navy and was treated as a military prisoner of war.       \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://aad.archives.gov/aad/series-description.jsp?s=644'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1095, "q_id": "saiq9", "title": "why is it easy to balance a moving two-wheeler?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/saiq9/elif_why_is_it_easy_to_balance_a_moving_twowheeler/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c4cgjlr', 'c4cgup1', 'c4ch0ey', 'c4ch3wv', 'c4cha7q', 'c4chc52', 'c4chi97', 'c4chmvq', 'c4chre3', 'c4chuz4', 'c4cjf9a', 'c4ckna4', 'c4clilp', 'c4cyo07'], 'score': [153, 38, 30, 22, 13, 190, 11, 4, 7, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Long story short, science doesn't fully know.\", 'Just a heads up, [/r/motorcycles](/r/motorcycles) has shown that it is NOT gyroscopes that keep it upright. Come over and ask it there. Im too drunk to answer, but this is wrong.', '[Here is an interesting article discussing how scientists are not sure how bicycles work.](_URL_0_)', 'Quick explanation of why the gyroscope theory is wrong.\\n\\n1. Gyroscopes depend on the weight of the spinning body, bikes work no matter how light the wheels are.\\n2. A gyroscope works at standstill, which would mean that a bike with spinning wheels not touching the floor would stay orientated upwards, again no joy on that. ', 'I found that during the period to learn how to ride a bike at a late age (11 years old).  I found peoples explainations of \"just keep trying and eventually it will work\" unsatisfying.\\n\\nI eventually worked out that when you start riding, your balance is never perfect, you will either start falling to the left or right.  You then need to steer into your fall, e.g. if you fall to the left you must steer to the left.  This causes your weight to shift to the right and therefore will put you back in balance.  These mini falls are constant while riding a bike and while they exaggerated at first soon they become minor and easy to correct.  Your brain works out how to do this without thinking about it.  \\n\\nAs a small child, learning to ride a bike is harder and to understand this explaination is hard too as it probably took you several weeks to learn how to ride just from trial and error, and basically your brain worked it for you without your conscience mind ever having to understand it.  As an older child learning to ride a bike you can take a more mature approach to solve the problem.  With a better approach, I learned how to ride a bike in a few hours.', 'Wow, I came in here expecting an explanation.\\n\\nI\\'m quite surprised to find the answer is \"nobody knows\".', 'Can someone explain why \"inertia\" isn\\'t the right answer? (assuming we explained inertia for a five year old?)', \"A motorcycle balances it self at 7 mph and up.\\n\\nWhy?  Fuck if I know, but here's a [Wikipedia article about bike and motorbike dynamics.] (_URL_0_)\", 'The answer is *probably* that it is simply easier to correct balance errors while moving through steering mechanisms.  So much easier that the human brain can do it subconsciously.\\n\\nBut no one really knows.', 'Nobody gave our poor five year old a proper answer yet? shame.\\n\\nWhen a bike is moving the steer is adjusting it self automatically to help you keep balance. As of how or why it adjust itself tho, nobody really knows. Not even really smart guys know this yet.', \"So, this is some basic physics.  Keep in mind that it's easier to balance on a bike as you're moving faster.\\n\\nTorque is basically the force of a rotating object, and it's dependent on how fast the wheel is spinning.  So, if something is spinning faster (like a bike wheel), it has more torque.  The torque points in a direction perpendicular to the wheel.  The bike tipping over would change the direction of this torque, since the wheel would be pointing a different direction.  Since it requires more force to change the direction of the torque when the wheel is moving quickly, it's harder for the bike to tip over.  This is also why it's easier to ride a bike with no hands when you're going fast.\\n\\n**tl;dr magic**\", \"Late entry here. It's because a moving bicycle has negative feedback - as you try to push over a bicycle, it pushes back.\\n\\nWhen you start falling over on a bicycle, you push the top of the frame of the bicycle to the inside. The frame then pushes on the front wheel in front of the center of the wheel, which causes the front wheel to turn inside. The turned front wheel then pushes on the ground below the center of the bike in the opposite direction of the fall, which tries to right the bike.\\n\\nI remember reading about a custom built bicycle which had the frame connect to the front wheel behind the wheel's center, which took out this feedback loop. It was impossible to ride.\", 'Wow, I was ready to bust out my high school Newtonian physics knowledge (\"What, people on Reddit don\\'t know about angular momentum?\") then I read the full gyroscope discussion. Crazy. Glad I didn\\'t post without reading the whole thread.\\n\\nHere is a [straight dope article](_URL_0_) that counters the gyroscope theory quite well, and, at the end, offers another theory: **trail**\\n\\n', \"check out this paper: _URL_0_\\nI did my final year engineering project partially on bicycle stability. This is a linearized model, so it does make some simplifying assumptions, but I think it does a good job of pointing out the nature and complexity of the truth.\\n(we're getting pretty far away from an explanation a five year old can understand at this point)\\n\\nIt's just highly complex. If you don't understand multivariable differential equations and systems theory, you're going to have a bad time understanding what keeps a bicycle upright.\\n\\nIt stays up because of a complex, coupled relationship between (principally) three variables along with physical properties of the bike:\\n\\nsteering angle, leaning angle, velocity, and the various masses and moments of inertia of the parts.\\n\\nSimply writing down Newton's law (F=ma) and the conservation of angular momentum yields a big fat second order linear multivariable differential equation of these variables. \\n\\nThe most interesting part of this vector equation emerges when the equation is eigendecomposed--that is, the variables are grouped in new proportions with each other to produce a similar vector (representing the same variables) but is treated nicely by the matrices in the equation. \\nThese vectors, which are combinations of the three variables, represent the coupled modes of motion that the bike undergoes. The death wobble is a phenomenon most people encounter at some point when riding a bike. The death wobble is an eigenvector--it's a time-dependent combination of the three variables which satisfies the differential equation. This is necessarily a complex eigenvalue because it is an oscillating mode. The real part of the eigenvector dictates whether the magnitude of the oscillations increases (positive feedback) or decreases (negative feedback).\\n\\nHere's a video of a death wobble increasing in magnitude\\n_URL_2_\\n\\nHere's a video of it decreasing in magnitude\\n_URL_3_\\nThis is a good example of a self stable bicycle. (It's in the second half of the video)\\n\\nSo it's about the real part of the eigenvalue. This dictates whether oscillations will amplify, or decay over time. When the real part is negative, perturbations from stability tend to decay back to stable, when they're positive, perturbations from stability tend to amplify.\\n\\nHere are the eigenvalues vs. bicycle velocity:\\n_URL_1_\\n\\nPast the point where they're all negative, the bike is self-stable\\n\\nedit: clarification\\nedit2: that is not my paper\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028141.700-bike-to-the-drawing-board.html'], [], [], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics'], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2015/why-is-it-easier-to-balance-on-a-moving-bike-than-a-non-moving-one-revisited'], ['http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~als93/Publications/06PA0459BicyclePaperv45.pdf', 'http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BicycleEigenvalues.svg', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU5RH3zaf2Y', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXRQdWG9FuM']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 724, "q_id": "3j8tgj", "title": "why has clock speed on cpu's become almost irrelevant?", "selftext": "I've have been doing a lot of research online but the explanations are really hard to understand. But over the last decade or so, clock speed in computer processors has become irrelevant. Anyone know why?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j8tgj/eli5_why_has_clock_speed_on_cpus_become_almost/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cun7y09', 'cun80wm', 'cun81oj', 'cun8n7u'], 'score': [17, 3, 6, 12], 'text': ['Think of clock speed as the speed of an assembly line.  You can speed up work by increasing the rate that the assembly line moves but this can only increase so fast before you start getting errors in the production from the workers (aka electronic components).  You can also increase the production by improving the order that the work is completed so you no longer have certain workers waiting for work.  You can also operate another set of workers on the same assembly line to get close to twice as much work done during the same time.', \"So, [here's](_URL_0_) an idea of the speeds we're talking about with modern processors. It's really damn fast, and we're getting close to the point where the speed of light is a problem- the electrical signal literally would not be able to travel fast enough through the processor for the calculation to finish by the time the clock ticks again if we tried speeding it up much more. In addition, increasing the clock speed increases the power consumption which increases the amount of heat generated and without using liquid cooling, we can only dissipate the heat so quickly. If the processor gets too hot, it gets damaged. So raising the clock speed is pretty much out of the question. So chip manufacturers have had to focus on other ways to get more speed out of the processors, by making improvements in the design and by adding more cores so the processor can do more things at once.\", 'The thing is that the clock speeds are so high now that it generally does not matter if your computer has a 3 Ghz cpu or a 3.5 Ghz cpu. Generally the other factors like cache, ram etc have become more important now.', \"For the better part of a decade, the main way of making processors crunch data faster was to push the clock speed up. This architectural approach is called CPU frequency scaling (not to be confused with dynamic CPU frequency scaling, which is a technique for turning down the clock when the processor is idling)\\n\\nThe problem with that approach is that the power requirements increase linearly with the clock speed. So if you increase the clock speed by a factor of 4, you also increase the power (and resulting heat) by a factor of 4. \\n\\nIt got to the point where processors were using too much power and generating way too much heat. When Intel canceled their Tejas line, it was the beginning of the end of the frequency scaling approach. \\n\\nSource: That's basically the first chapter of my master's thesis. :)\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.google.com/search?q=speed%20of%20light%20%2F%20\\\\(3.5%20billion%2Fs\\\\)&amp;rct=j'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2747, "q_id": "xsqxc", "title": "Learning Styles: Fact or Fiction?", "selftext": "Distinct [learning styles](_URL_0_) have always been presented as fact, \"Johnny is a visual learner,\" \"Susie is an auditory learner,\" \"Jack is a kinesthetic learner...\" etc.\n\nBut do these types specific learning modalities actually exist?\nIs there evidence to support these unique learning styles (barring a learning disability that prevents a child from comprehending a certain modality)?\n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xsqxc/learning_styles_fact_or_fiction/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c5pafjj'], 'score': [11], 'text': ['According to a review by the Association for Psychological science, there is currently no credible evidence to suggest that such learning styles exist. At the very least, there is certainly no evidence strong enough to justify implementing such programs in schools.\\n\\n[Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence](_URL_0_)\\n > **SUMMARY**\\n\\n > Our review of the learning-styles literature led us to de\ufb01ne a\\nparticular type of evidence that we see as a minimum precondition for validating the use of a learning-style assessment in an\\ninstructional setting. As described earlier, we have been unable\\nto \ufb01nd any evidence that clearly meets this standard. Moreover,\\nseveral studies that used the appropriate type of research design\\nfound results that contradict the most widely held version of the\\nlearning-styles hypothesis, namely, what we have referred to as\\nthe meshing hypothesis (Constantinidou  &  Baker, 2002; Massa\\n &  Mayer, 2006). The contrast between the enormous popularity\\nof the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of\\ncredible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and\\ndisturbing. If classi\ufb01cation of students\u2019 learning styles has\\npractical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles']", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/Assets/SGS+Digital+Assets/current/ELWS/Pashler+et+al+article.pdf']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1937, "q_id": "4tb7w2", "title": "Why do camera recordings get digital artifacts when receiving physical strain(during impacts, for example)?", "selftext": "Like this:\n\n_URL_0_", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4tb7w2/why_do_camera_recordings_get_digital_artifacts/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d5h1kl4'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"The artifact you see is from a packet loss: the video is encoded blocks by blocks and then transmitted. Because losing adjacent packets (blocks of data) is likely, blocks are shuffled so that we lose less *neighbouring* blocks, and it looks less crappy. There are ways to conceal losses but when they're too numerous, blocky artifacts happen.\\n\\nSo it is not the sensor that fails, or even the compression itself, but the writing to memory or the transmission, which may be affected by big shocks, but tbh while I do know that it happens I don't know why :)\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['https://youtu.be/1_FXVjf46T8?t=107']", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 850, "q_id": "32fv6w", "title": "what is the point of a judge in countries where a jury decides if a prisoner is guilty or not?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32fv6w/eli5_what_is_the_point_of_a_judge_in_countries/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cqaseip', 'cqashyw', 'cqasj1y', 'cqask9y', 'cqastaj', 'cqav22c'], 'score': [6, 8, 15, 7, 112, 2], 'text': ['The judge decides the punishment usually, also in the USA you dont always have a jury for every court case.', 'The Judge will often decide things like the punishment as well as actually run the trial and mediate between the plaintiffs and lawyers. \\n\\nAlso depending on the court the Judge does decide guilt , for example in small claims court (think Judge Judy) \\n', 'A courtroom, at least in the US, has very specific roles for everyone participating.\\n\\nThe lawyers present evidence.\\n\\nWitnesses are evidence.\\n\\nThe judge is there to ensure the court runs correctly and to explain the laws relevant to the case to the jury. (For example, \"Murder in the First degree requires that A, B, C, and D are true.\")\\n\\nThe jury\\'s job is to assess the evidence and decide whether it meets the legal requirements as explained by the judge.\\n\\n(Edit for some typos - thanks y\\'all.)', 'The legal distinction is that a jury acts as \"a trier of facts\" (i.e. the jury determines who is telling the truth) and a judge acts as a \"trier of law\" (i.e. the judge decides which laws, if any, have been violated).\\n\\nWhat this means is that during the trial the Judge acts as the \"chairman\". She or he will be able to keep the defence and prosecuting lawyers (or anybody else) in line if they break the rules. But more importantly the Judge\\'s hopefully extensive knowledge of the law means they\\'ll know exactly when the lawyers **are** breaking the rules.\\n\\nThe Judge can also in some situations direct the jury to return a specific verdict or even abandon the case altogether if she or he thinks that not to do so could in itself cause a breach of law.', \"Juries decide issues of *fact* (did such and such actually happen).  Judges decide issues of *law* (who is allowed to testify, what questions are allowed to be asked, who has the burden of proof, what facts must be proved to establish a particular crime).\\n\\nSo, for example, in an ordinary rape case, the judge might explain to the jury that they need to decide whether the victim actually consented to a sex act, but in a statutory rape case, the judge might explain to the jury that it doesn't matter whether the minor consented to sex or lied about their age.  These are points of law that you wouldn't expect an average juror to know going into the trial.\", 'The judge acts like a referee and rules on matters of law while the jury rules on matters of fact. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 247, "q_id": "8ohjly", "title": "if humans can only hear sounds between 20hz and 20,000hz, how does it matter if headphones and speakers have frquency ranges that are greater than 20-20,000?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ohjly/eli5_if_humans_can_only_hear_sounds_between_20hz/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e03c9xz', 'e03dsbh', 'e03ifc2', 'e03s02z', 'e03ug39', 'e042hgm', 'e04dcx5', 'e04snjm', 'e04x2n9', 'e05s5n0'], 'score': [3, 169, 27, 10, 24, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['So, basically you can feel sounds above or below the range and those sounds can harmonize with sounds in the spectrum of hearable sounds. Therefore it matters. ', 'We can feel frequencies below our audible range. Some film producers/directors use \"infrasound\", as in, sound that has a frequency of below 20hz to introduce suspension or fear in the audience to enhance a scene.\\n\\nWhen you are walking on a suspension bridge and it sways, you can feel that, its still vibration, just not audible. If the bridge vibrated hard enough and fast enough, you would hear it as it would push and pull the air fast enough to make it audible.\\n\\nIn terms of headphones, the effect of infrasound and sounds above 20khz are negligable. That\\'s because the drivers \\\\(speakers\\\\) in your headphones are more than likely too small a diameter to accurately produce those frequencies to a sound pressure level \\\\(db\\\\) that you would be able to \"feel\". ', 'The short answer is that it doesn\\'t matter.\\n\\nNo, you cannot perceive frequencies higher than 20 kHz, either by hearing or by vibrotactile perception (feeling it). Depending on your age, you might not be able to hear above 15-16 kHz. \\n\\nThere are several reasons we can\\'t hear above these frequencies. The primary one is because the physical organ of hearing doesn\\'t resonate at these frequencies. The organ of hearing lies along a membrane which is narrow and stiff at one end, where it resonates more with high frequencies, and floppy and wide at the other end, where it resonates more with low frequencies. It\\'s much like piano strings. It\\'s a pretty basic physical system in that sense. Above around 20 kHz, you\\'re not going to get a lot of sympathetic vibration along the membrane. Secondly, cells (and attached nerves) are arranged along this membrane which are activated basic on frequency, with cells and nerves at the short, stiff end coded for high frequencies, and cells at the other end coded for low frequencies. This \"tonotopic\" organization is preserved all the way to the auditory cortex. As we age, we lose cells and nerves coded for high frequencies first, which is why by out teen years we start to be unable to hear up to 20 kHz. \\n\\nThere is really no vibrotacile perception of high frequencies. It may be possible, but the level would have to be extreme, way above any potential output of an earphone.\\n\\nThe other thing to consider is that most sound files aren\\'t going to have information in frequencies above around 20 kHz. The sampling rate of CDs is 44.1 kHz, making the Nyquist frequency (above which no information is coded), 22.05 kHz. This gets into signal processing stuff, but essentially the way the digital information is preserved is such that you aren\\'t sampling fast enough to accurately encode frequencies above about 22 kHz. The sampling rate of CDs for example was chosen at 44.1 kHz because humans cannot hear above 20 kHz, so it didn\\'t need to be any higher. There will also be a low-pass filter used which will further restrict frequency information above the Nyquist frequency in order to avoid something called aliasing. \\n\\nThe short of that is: even if we could hear above 20 kHz, and even if headphones can reliably produce these frequencies, even if drivers can pump fast enough to create these, there aren\\'t frequencies that high present in most common audio formats.\\n\\nVery low frequencies you can feel, sure - but most music doesn\\'t contain frequencies below 20 Hz (most won\\'t go below probably 50 Hz), so again, unlikely to matter if the headphones can go super low.\\n\\nAs with many audiophile things, the extended frequency range of most fancy headphones is just kind of a dick swinging contest.', 'The response range of headphones is the point where response decreases by some amount, usually -3dB. That\\'s a 50% reduction in sound pressure (but less than a 50% reduction in perceived loudness). \\n\\nNow, \"theoretically\", you wouldn\\'t want performance to decrease at *all* throughout the entire audible range. If you produced speakers where that was the case, the point where response *did* decrease would be outside of the audible range. \\n\\nIn reality, headphones/speakers never perform perfectly flat within that range, nor are those extreme frequencies any more important than other aspects of their behavior. But they have practical designs which don\\'t stop working at *exactly* 20hz or 20khz, sometimes a design that performs well in that range will also reach quite a bit higher. \\n\\nSo, showing off those ratings is partly a pissing contest, as others noted.\\n\\nBut one thing I will note is it suggests they **actually measured** the frequency response. If I see 20hz-20khz on a $20 pair of earbuds, I know they guessed (or lied) about that and who knows what else they guessed/lied about. Let\\'s say they did have good frequency response, what are the chances of 20hz-20khz being the range instead of 21hz-19khz, or 18hz-21khz, both of which would be equally good? ', 'One way to make performance better in the audible range is to make performance acceptable well beyond the audible range. Just like you might want a car that can go 150 miles per hour just because it will go from 60 - 80 for passing much better than a car that can barely get up to the speed limit. An audio amplifier or speaker that is capable of playing much louder than you need and at frequencies much higher than you need will sound better at the levels and frequencies you actually listen to. ', 'Very large pipe organs (think cathedral type installations) sometimes have a whole set of pedals which operate pipes with tones below 20hz.  There is interaction between these inaudible frequencies and those higher up that cause a change in the quality of the sound. The music sounds more full and carries out into large spaces better.\\n\\nThis works for a live performance or an analog recording. Digital recordings and playback are limited by their samples. In standard digital recording and playback, the sub-sonic sounds are not recorded and wont be properly played back. \\n\\nFor what its worth, most peoples hearing falls in the 30hz- 15khz range and not 20-20k. ', 'In general, anything that low you feel (not hear) and anything that high you can\\'t hear anyhow.  However,  consumers tend to be attracted to big numbers... bigger is better right?  Marketing people know this and so always find away to ensure the products for sale have the biggest numbers possible... even if they are irrelevant.  In a similar way, large vacuum cleaners (aka \"ShopVacs\") are advertised with misleading HP figures.   \"6.25 Peak HP\"...  emphasis on the *peak*.   There are 745W in a HP.  That is about 4400W... you\\'d need a 35A circuit at 120V for that!  Bigger numbers sell... not a lie, but not the whole (or relevant) truth either. ', 'There\\'s no reason to have headphone speakers stop at exactly 20,000 Hz. Sure, we could do it by installing a low pass filter, but why? We can\\'t hear the frequencies anyway.\\n\\nBasically high quality headphone manufacturers produce headphones to match whatever audio frequency curve they want within the design limitations of the headphone/drivers, matching the frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hz as best they can. Whatever is \"extra\" is exactly that. Extra. They don\\'t care about anything above or below that range, and it\\'d be more expensive to install a low pass filter. Therefore, to save money, they don\\'t.', 'For earphones, it doesn\\'t matter at all. Heck, most amps filter out frequencies outside that spectrum anyway, as there is no use wasting power on sound that cannot be heard.\\n\\nFor speakers, going above 20 kHz is useless, but you can feel the \"rumble\" of frequencies below 20 Hz, even if you can\\'t hear them. You mostly feel this in your chest, so there is no reason to have it in headphones.\\n\\nAnother reason you don\\'t want higher frequencies is that they can cause the membrane of the speaker to \"ripple\", instead of moving back and forth as a solid unit. This distorts the audible sound, so you do not want that. So, just another reason to cut high frequencies.', \"I'm seeing some good answers, but there is one concept being left out.\\n\\nA lot of instruments, especially stringed instruments like piano or guitar have something called subharmonic frequencies.\\n\\nBasically what happens is, the reason why a note is given its name is because of how many vibrations a second that note is played. The most standard example is most Western music is based on A440. What that means is that the A note vibrates 440 times a second. The B note vibrates about 494, etc etc. Just an aside, that concept is kind of a cool thing to look into on it's own, but I don't want to bog this post down.\\n\\nThe thing is, that when something like a string vibrates, it doesn't just move back and forth. Within the string are smaller vibrations. They look like [this](_URL_0_). Those are the subharmonic frequencies. When you listen to a string, you're not really listening to a single note, but a BBQ sauce of notes that create the tone and color of the note. And like BBQ sauce where some of the flavors aren't tasted directly, some of the subharmonic frequencies are going to be too high pitched to be heard on their own, but they do influence to lower pitches that are in range.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/RNVZm5b.gifv']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2393, "q_id": "ounz3", "title": "How can we see the solar flare with anticipation and say it will hit the earth later if the light goes at the same speed?", "selftext": "Shouldn't we \"know\" about that eruption at the same time we're being hit by it?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ounz3/how_can_we_see_the_solar_flare_with_anticipation/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c3k67dz', 'c3k67ti', 'c3k6bdb', 'c3k9aio', 'c3kdcjs'], 'score': [9, 27, 5, 2, 2], 'text': ['The disruptive part is not light but the particles.', 'The flare emits more than just photons:\\n\\n >  The flare ejects clouds of electrons, ions, and atoms through the corona into space. These clouds typically reach Earth a day or two after the event.\\n\\nSo we see the flares light after 8.2 minutes, however, the particles carried by the [solar wind](_URL_0_) itself takes much longer to travel.', \"It's a Coronal Mass Ejection. As in, part of the corona's mass is being ejected from the sun in our general direction. It's a cloud of plasma, basically. The sun isn't *made* of light.\", \"A coronal mass ejection is released from the sun. This is basically a big chunk of plasma and sun-stuff. The light from the mass ejection reaches us before the mass ejection does.\\n\\nIt's just like you can see a baseball coming at you before it gets there.\\n\\nIn short, the coronal mass ejection travels much, much slower than light is why.\", 'Surprised to see no one posted a quantitative response.  [Wikipedia has a \\\\(cited!\\\\) number:  20 to 3200 km/s, with ~500 km/s avg](_URL_0_)\\n\\nYou can see some predictions for solar flare (Coronal Mass Ejection, or CME) arrival times at the [Goddard Solar Weather Center website](_URL_2_)\\n\\n(Click \"Planetary/Spacecraft\", then one of the ENLIL icons.  Then click the \"play\" icon in the lower right of the window that appears)\\n\\n[Here\\'s an example](_URL_1_)\\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind'], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection#Physical_properties', 'http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/20120119_183400_anim.tim-den.gif', 'http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov:8080/IswaSystemWebApp/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1747, "q_id": "38dqn8", "title": "Why, with the Maryland-Virgina border, was Maryland (and DC) given control of the entire Potomac River up to the Virginia bank instead of having the border go through the center of the river?", "selftext": "I assume there was some logic to this, but the most I can find is that as colonies both claimed the entire river, and then Virginia relinquished its claim, but no explanation for why they were willing to.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38dqn8/why_with_the_marylandvirgina_border_was_maryland/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['crumi5d'], 'score': [22], 'text': [\"This arrangement is pretty common along river boundaries. There are many practical reasons to place the border along one side or the other, among them licensing of boats and fishing, and that it is harder to find the middle than to find the riverbank.\\n\\nIn reality, though, it comes down to what the charter/court/legislature says.\\n\\nSometimes there is political pressure and sometimes deals are struck in setting the boundary.  For example there was a 17th century border related conflict between [Baltimore and Penn](_URL_2_) in trying to decide what water access Pennsylvania should get.\\n\\nIn the case of states admitted to the union, an already admitted state has much more political power, and can trade its support for territory.  This is why Ohio got Toledo.  Michigan was in turn allowed to grab the U.P. from Wisconsin.\\n\\nI can't answer to Potomac River, but the boundary between the distant parts Virginia that are now Kentucky and what was to become the state Ohio was [readjudicated in 1981](_URL_1_) so that Kentucky gets the river, but only up to the 1792 waterline on the Ohio side.  This is tricky because the river has changed course and in many places this is now in the middle of the river.\\n\\nIn 1910, part of the boundary along the West Virginia and Maryland was decided to be the south bank in [Maryland v West Virginia](_URL_0_).\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/217/1/', 'http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/21/us/kentucky-indiana-and-ohio-end-river-boundary-dispute.html', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn%E2%80%93Calvert_Boundary_Dispute']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 120, "q_id": "ezijt", "title": "A question on the snowball earth hypothesis. ", "selftext": "I saw a documentary on the snowball ball earth hypothesis last night and it just raised a few questions in my mind.\n\nOver 650 million years ago was the amount of water on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere the same as it is today?\n\nIf there is the same amount of water on earth today as there was over 650 million years ago, how was there enough to completely cover the land mass in ice and snow as the snowball earth hypothesis describes? On the documentary it was stated that the earth was covered by several thousand meters of ice and snow. \n\nI just don't see how there would have been enough water on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere to cover the planet in that much ice and snow.\n\n\n\n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ezijt/a_question_on_the_snowball_earth_hypothesis/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c1c5uld'], 'score': [7], 'text': ['70% of our planet is covered in oceans. More than half of the oceans are 3000+ meters deep. Enough water to cover the 30% land on our planet. Even enough to cover the planet in several thousand meters, which seems a bit unlikely to me, but it is possible, in theory. Also keep in mind that snow and ice are less dense than water. Given enough time with ocean water evaporating, snowing and no thawing, it is possible. \\r\\nedit: corrected an (obvious) error\\r\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1255, "q_id": "3okm5m", "title": "why are we forced to be citizens of nations?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3okm5m/eli5why_are_we_forced_to_be_citizens_of_nations/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cvy0d6c', 'cvy0gna', 'cvy0mqo', 'cvy1gfh', 'cvy1jzn', 'cvy1lmo', 'cvy2bqc'], 'score': [38, 43, 8, 2, 4, 6, 2], 'text': ['You are not. You can set up an oil rig type construction in international waters and live law free, in anarchy ', \"In a sense you aren't. There is a position in society for criminals, often imprisoned or at the least exiled from most civilized society or living as an underclass. Living in that fashion you would not have to abide by a nation's rules but you also would not likely have access to the benefits of that society.  \\nIn a sense citizenship and being the member of a nation IS voluntary but the majority accept it to avoid conflict with power structures and to access it's privileges.\", \"Living in reasonably close proximity to others almost always requires some sort of rules or understandings for avoiding and resolving conflict. Of particular concern is the ability to raise a defense against a neighboring military power which may desire to claim and set its own rules for the place where one lives. The result is that almost every livable place on Earth is claimed by a state which sets some sort of rules on the people within its borders.\\n\\nEven so, there are people who avoid most state control, largely by living in remote places. Hermits do so by intentionally reducing their contact with and dependence on outside society. Remote 'tribal' societies do so by living in remote, economically undesirable locations and being self-sufficient, but even these people set rules to live by.\", \"If you are talking about western countries where governments are democratically elected and conform with broad international understandings of human rights and fundamental justice, the reason is that the people who don't want to follow the rules are jerks of one form or another.\\n\\nThere are a lot of people who don't want to pay taxes or get driver's licences but still take the benefit of public roads, police forces protecting their person and their physical property, safety regulations that allow them to easily purchase goods and services, and the court system which lets them settle disputes.  These people want something that is fundamentally unworkable (and I am a libertarian), and their motives basically come down to wanting to avoid the mildest of inconveniences (renewing a driver's licence for example).\\n\\nPeople who happen to be born in North Korea?  They are forced to obey that country's rules by men with guns.  However if they wanted to violently overthrow their government I would say that is their right.\\n\\nMurky middle?  People born in repressive governments that are still kinda functional like Egypt or Russia...  That's a trickier question and I think the answer involves working within the system to bring about popular support for change to transition into a western government but, still complying with the vast majority of government rules. \", 'You are not forced at all. If you want to access the priviliges of the country you live in (healthcare, education, not being killed on your way to the mall), you will have to accept responsibilities. Being a responsible citizen is one of them.', \"You aren't, at least according to Locke.  He distinguishes between two types of consent.  The first is express consent, this is generally a citizenship oath and usually happens when you want to become a citizen.  The other is tacit consent.  Tacit consent is an assumed form of consent.  Tacit consent is given by not leaving.  Essentially you are told 'these are the laws of the land, if you don't agree then you can leave' therefore if you don't leave you are agreeing to the laws.  \\n\\nThere are a few issues with this view in modern society.  When Locke wrote his beliefs regarding tacit consent there was plenty of land that did not belong to a specific nation.  This meant you could exist free of any citizenship.  There isn't very much land left anymore that isn't claimed by a nation.  The other issue is nations that restrict freedom to leave.  In a sense this forces people to be citizens of nations.  \\n\\nTl;dr: Tacit consent implies that if you don't agree to be a citizen you can leave, but due to lack of unclaimed land in the present day you are very limited in your ability to not be a citizen of a nation.\", 'There are movements like \"Freemen on the Land\" and \"Sovereign Citizens\" who basically argue that if you 100% refuse to be part of a nation- to acknowledge it\\'s currency, pay (most) tax, accept any bennefits, etc then you don\\'t have to obey that nation\\'s laws. You may live inside the nations borders, but they say you can reject that nations authority, and your citizenship, as long as you do it across the board. I\\'m not sure how successful they\\'ve been in getting authorities to accept those premises.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n_URL_1_\\n\\nI guess another argument would be \"I never asked to be a citizen. I never chose their rules.\" Lots of people seem to see the world a bit like this (maybe most of us, to some extent. Most people break some laws, sometimes.) \\n\\nIn reality, I think there\\'s a fair bit of \"you are \\'allowed\\' to do whatever the fuck you can get away with.\" Like the idea that it\\'s the cops job to catch the crim, And it\\'s the crim\\'s job to avoid being caught. It\\'s the government\\'s job to try to make us obey it\\'s laws, and it\\'s our job to not get caught completely ignoring those laws. \\n\\nThis doesn\\'t mean the person approves of all law-breaking. Rape and murder are illegal. I don\\'t rape or murder. But the *reason* I don\\'t rape or murder isn\\'t their illegality, its *my* belief that rape and murder are morally wrong. \\n\\nBut living in a modern state, it\\'s pretty hard to completely ignore the government\\'s \\'authority\\', even if you don\\'t acknowledge it\\'s legitimacy. Unless you\\'re willing to go 100% off the grid, or spend a lot of time in prison, best you can do is just *avoid* the government\\'s \\'authority\\'.\\n\\nIn the end, theres a bunch of things in life we have no control over. All we really can control is our own thinking and actions']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 232, "q_id": "6rhnty", "title": "why the temperature going up 2\u00b0 celsius (or about 3.6\u00b0 fahrenheit) is going to break the entire planet, and why we can't filter carbon out of the air", "selftext": "[deleted]", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6rhnty/eli5_why_the_temperature_going_up_2_celsius_or/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dl53zfs', 'dl54wl3', 'dl55aco', 'dl55qj8', 'dl56k9p', 'dl57sca', 'dl5eylz', 'dl5u5kq', 'dl622l1'], 'score': [96, 9, 6, 92, 4, 3, 5, 2, 3], 'text': [\"The impact of the temperature rising by a few degrees F isn't that it feels hotter when you go outside on Saturday afternoon, that it's now 93F instead of 90F.  That's not it.  It's that a bunch of the earth's cycles now operate significantly differently.  This leads to dramatically different weather patterns and sea levels, which pose risks for civilization.  It's not inherently *bad*, it's just risky for humans and what we have built.\\n\\nIf you need an analogy to reason through this, think of human body temperature.  It's normally around 98.6F.  Crank it up to 102F, and you're very sick.  Keep it at 102F for an extended period, and you are suffering, sick, and probably(?) eventually die.  And if your body temperature stays at 95F for an extended period of time, you suffer and probably(?) die.  That's an example of a system that runs into serious problems if its temperature changes by a few degrees.\\n\\nAs for filtering carbon out of the air, there are three main problems.  The first is that this process would require tons of energy.  The second is that it would have to be deployed at a positively ENORMOUS scale.  We emit 36 billion *tons* of carbon per year.  The third problem is what to do with all of that carbon, do we turn it back into oil and bury it, or what?  And the last problem is, of course, the astronomical cost.\\n\\nScience can make carbon filtration systems, they already operate on some power plants.  It is possible.  But to deploy them at large scale is not feasible.\", \"Kudos to anyone who can successfully ELI5 global warming :D  !  Here's an example of why 2 degrees isn't piddly.  According to paleoclimate records Earth's warming cycles average 5 to 7 degrees F over 5000 years.  Currently we are preduicting a 2 to 4 degree F warming within a 200 year period.  It is unprecedented and we do not know that anything alive will be able to adapt in such a short time - **worst case scenario** is doomsday for most things on Earth.\", 'To answer the second part of your question first, there are in fact ways to filter carbon out of the air. A quick Google search would likely show a few of such methods. The main problem is simply money. The only way to encourage people to spend the amount required to filter the air and then store it somewhere suitable would be to make it profitable. As of right now, it\\'s not.\\n\\nOne of the reasons going up two degrees is problematic is the ocean. The last time earth was two degrees hotter was the Pliocene of the tertiary period 3 million years ago. The ocean was 5 or 6 feet higher, meaning that rising oceans will create many environmental refugees along just about every coastline in the world. Europe is already struggling with Syrian refugees, imagine if the entire Mediterranean tried to storm northern Europe too. \\n\\nAdditionally, the ocean traditionally acts as a \"sink\" for carbon dioxide stored as carbonic acid. As the ocean gets warmer, the ocean will not be able to absorb as much carbon dioxide. If you\\'ve ever taken a basic science course, you should have learned that solids, liquids and gasses all have particles the move against each other. Every system on earth is constantly changing state, but it\\'s at a dynamic equilibrium where the same number of particles evaporating are condensing. As heat puts more energy into the ocean, the carbonic acid molecules gain more energy and shift the equilibrium towards the gaseous phase of CO2. This accelerates the heating process further.\\n\\nLess oxygen can also dissolve if the water is warmer, potentially wiping out or damaging marine species. We already see this with coral bleaching, but worse could happen. The warmer waters mean tropical storms increase in both number and severity. The US struggled with Katrina, and even Ike, what if storms like that happened on a yearly, or even biannual basis? People would flee, increasing the refugee crisis.\\n\\nThe heat also affects land as well. If we get to two degrees, bacteria in the soil that digests plant life will increase their metabolism, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere from the soil, again, accelerating the heating process further. This especially hurts the Amazon, as there is a great amount of decomposing organic matter. Additionally, even two degrees means increased heat waves especially in the summer. Rivers would dry up, the lower parts of year round ice on mountains would unfreeze causing avalanches (it already is). The West US would be desert (talking Kansas and Nebraska) as well as the rainforest. The Amazon dried up in certain parts in 2005 due to a heat wave. As temperatures rise those droughts will only become more common. Fire would be a huge problem, especially as rivers dried up.\\n\\nI\\'m on mobile currently, so I can\\'t include links.\\nThe equilibrium stuff is just Le Chatliers principle\\nMost of the sea ice and soil predictions are based on fossil records of when the Earth was that temperature. \\n\\nTl;dr As earth heats up, more carbon is released, speeding up the heating process. Environmental refugees due to desertification and rising sea levels will be a thing.', \" >  Is this planet that's been around for billions of years honestly that delicate\\n\\nThe planet has been through ice ages, volcanic periods, hit by giant meteors, even had the moon torn off of it at one point early on and yet it survived.  \\n\\nThe planet will be fine. \\n\\nWhether the planet will still be fit for human habitation is the question. \", \"That's the mistake a lot of people make - confusing global climate with the weather outside their house. Yes the temperature local to you fluctuates by more than a few degrees but only temporarily. With global warming the entire average temperature is rising permanently, which can have the knock-on effect of making those local changes more severe. \", 'One thing not yet mentioned is that literally *no one* is saying \"OMG the temperature will go up and kill EVERYTHING\" yet I see this straw man quoted very often in \"skeptical\" writings. Yes it would be silly to say so. Humanity will be having a really bad day though.', 'At the last glacial maximum, when there was permanent ice cover over much of europe that was so heavy that the crust sank, the temperature was just 4 degrees less than today. The Earth is a finely balanced system, and the main thing is that the current warming represents an untested experiment in the history of the Earth. Though the Earth has actually warmed in response to an injection of carbon in the atmosphere before (e.g. PETM), the current \"experiment\" has no precedent because it is far, far more rapid than anything that has happened in the past. The Earth is actually colder now than at most points in its history, and the past million years the most stable in the Earth\\'s history, but usually there is a gradual transition from an icehouse world to a greenhouse world, allowing the earth system and ecosystem to gradually adjust. This is the main reason why current climate change is the gravest danger to the Earth; undoubtedly the system will eventually reach equilibrium, but the transition period is going to be tumultuous and much of the ecosystem may not cope with the rapid change. The main impetus for keeping the change in temperature to 2 degrees is to slow down the rate of change.', \"It's not going to break the planet. Part of the reason I can sympathize with climate change deniers is because of how people dramatize the whole situation. We can absolutely adapt to the new environment. It won't be ideal but we won't all die out like some people will lead you to believe. \", 'This [XKCD](_URL_0_) shows what a 2 degree temperature rise looks like in terms of historical perspective. Notice that the \"ice age\" was only 4 degrees colder on average than it is now and that when it was only 2 degrees colder polar ice sheets covered Chicago, and that the 0.5 degree little ice age was cold enough that the river Thames froze thick enough to have shops on top of it.\\n\\nSo yeah, a world with an average temperature 2 degrees higher is a very different world with way more extreme temperatures, although the average difference will be only 2 degrees']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://xkcd.com/1732/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2698, "q_id": "82dyhr", "title": "How do SONAR systems actually produce such loud noises?", "selftext": "It seems incredible that such a small device is capable of producing noise up to, what, *235* decibels? \n\nHow in the world is this possible?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/82dyhr/how_do_sonar_systems_actually_produce_such_loud/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dv9gzv9'], 'score': [8], 'text': ['They use an array of giant transducers.  When electricity gets passed through them, they vibrate and produce the \u201cping\u201d that gets transmitted into the water.  They are so loud that from the inside of the ship or sub, it sounds like a sledgehammer hitting the side of the ship.\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 387, "q_id": "1cjwrl", "title": "Are there any verified times when a media event greatly influenced the beliefs of a culture or actions of a national leader?", "selftext": "In 1983, there was a made for tv movie (in those days, they weren't abominations of bad like the sort we have now days on networks like SciFi) called [The Day After](_URL_2_) about a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  [You can watch the trailer for it here](_URL_3_), and I believe it is available for streaming on Netflix.\n\nAt the time of it's airing, it was watched by over 100 million Americans, almost half of the 230,000 million at the time.  Grief councilors were set up to talk to people about the film.  A debate on the show hosted by Ted Koppel [was where Carl Sagan](_URL_1_) gave his famous \"room awash in gasoline\" analogy about nuclear war.  You can watch the whole debate [here](_URL_0_), commercials and all!  The panel includes, Elie Weisel, William F. Buckley, Carl Sagan, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scrowcroft, Robert McNamara, and George Schultz...so yeah, expect smart people talking to each other intelligently.\n\nAdditionally, Ronald Reagan wrote in his personal diary\n\n > \"Columbus Day. In the morning at Camp D. I ran the tape of the movie ABC is running Nov. 20. It's called THE DAY AFTER in which Lawrence, Kansas is wiped out in a nuclear war with Russia. It is powerfully done, all $7 million worth. It's very effective and left me greatly depressed...\"\n\nIts interesting to note that by 1985 to coincide with the assumption of power by Gorbachev, Reagan had softened his saber rattling against the Soviets.\n\nClearly the film had a major impact on American culture.  Are there comparable events that were reactions to *scripted* media or artwork (not news events like the JFK assassination or the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine?)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cjwrl/are_there_any_verified_times_when_a_media_event/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c9h8syi', 'c9h9h03', 'c9h9jwe', 'c9h9mlu', 'c9hc2p7', 'c9hc49v', 'c9hhun9', 'c9hjwze', 'c9hk4x2', 'c9hknlr', 'c9hmupj'], 'score': [16, 15, 24, 46, 4, 6, 9, 8, 5, 2, 2], 'text': ['I believe a similar TV movie called \"Threads\" was aired in the UK around that time, and strengthened the anti-war/anti-nuclear movement.\\n\\nSpeaking of anti-nuclear, the movie China Syndrome greatly increased public fear during the Three Mile Island incident that occurred soon after.', '* The movie [Birth of a Nation]( _URL_0_) is said to have usherer in the 2nd era of KKK.\\n\\n* When Orson Welles did *War of the Worlds* as a radio show, Adolph Hitler noted the public panic it caused and cited it as evidence of the decadence of Democracy.\\n\\n* The movie *Jaws* kept a whole lot of beach goers out of the water for at least a season.\\n\\n* The movie *Sideways* was linked to a decline in Merlot sales. In fact, its called [the Sideways effect]( _URL_1_) in the industry.', 'I know there are a ton of excellent Holocaust specialists around here who can explain this much better than I can, so I\\'ll just briefly suggest the American TV miniseries *Holocaust*, which aired in 1978 on NBC and starred a young Meryl Streep alongside actors like Fritz Weaver, James Woods and Michael Moriarty. The story takes place from the perspective of the well-to-do Weiss family, who were German Jews, and a young and ambitious SS officer. It follows the protagonists through many of the major episodes and experiences of WWII and the Holocaust, including Kristallnacht, Buchenwald, Jewish ghettos, Jewish resistance, and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. One of the Weiss daughters is even raped by German soldiers.\\n\\n*Holocaust* was huge. It won Emmy Awards and earned as much as a 50 per cent market share in up to 15 million homes during its original airings, which is something unheard of today. For a lot of Americans, the series served as a first in-depth look into the horrors of the Holocaust, and was crucial in shaping how Americans (and others) would come to understand the event. It was aired in countries around the world. There were criticisms, too. Some felt the series trivialized the Holocaust, exploited its victims for entertainment, did not present it in all its gruesome reality (by TV-ifying it), and Elie Wiesel panned it as \"untrue and offensive.\" But it was a cultural phenomenon, to be sure.\\n\\nScholars have generally viewed *Holocaust* as a watershed moment in the formation of Holocaust memory (by which they mean public collective memory of the Holocaust). Judith Doneson argues that \"the amazing aspect\" of the series was that it held real-life political and moral repercussions in the places where it aired, which went way beyond the impact of any previous representations of the Holocaust. She argues that American audiences reacted to the series with moral outrage, while in West Germany and other parts of Europe it caused political tensions and brought audiences to the discomfiting position of having to face their own participation in the destruction of European Jewry. Other scholars have noted that the series was reacted to differently among different audiences; Emiliano Perra notes that the series was *not* such a formative event in Italy, and argues that instead of viewing the series in terms of the country\\'s complicity, Italian audiences and commenters focused disproportionately on instances wherein Italians attempted to rescue or help Jews, and on Italian victimization at the hands of the Nazis, thereby avoiding frank discussions of guilt and complicity. \\n\\nSuffice to say then, at the very least, *Holocaust* spawned all kinds of public conversations about the Holocaust, how we represent it, and how we remember it.\\n\\nAlso, *Roots*. The two are not unrelated; *Holocaust* was released on the heels of *Roots* and the two series shared a director (Martin Chomsky). I am equally as ill-equipped to speak to the cultural impact of *Roots* as I am with regard to *Holocaust*, but I\\'ll throw it out there.\\n\\n**References:**\\n\\nJudith Doneson, *The Holocaust in American Film* (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002).\\n\\nEmiliano Perro, \"Narratives of Innocence and Victimhood: The Reception of the Miniseries Holocaust in Italy,\" *Holocaust and Genocide Studies* 22, no. 3 (Winter 2008).', \"What about the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel *Uncle Tom's Cabin*?  Or Upton Sinclair's novel *The Jungle*?  \\n\\n**Edit**:  [*Uncle Tom's Cabin*](_URL_0_) was said to have helped fuel the abolitionist movement and also may have helped discourage the United Kingdom from supporting the South in any way.\\n\\n[*The Jungle*](_URL_1_) was said to have led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, with the latter establishing the Bureau of Chemistry (in 1930 renamed as the Food and Drug Administration).\\n\\n\\n\", \"The fall of the Berlin wall comes to mind. They accidently said that the borders were open during a press conference and it resulted in chaos and ultimately the end of the GDR. I wont go into details but Mary Sarotte's 1989 sums it up excellently.\", \"The Cold War had a continuous series of films made about it so it's hard to isolate one film.\\n\\nOne anecdote I've heard often is how when Ronald Reagan became President, he thought the Pentagon had a 'war room' like in Dr. Strangelove, and one was built later to accommodate him.\\n\\nA quick googling turned up this from the Guardian, however it doesn't cite its source - \\n_URL_0_\", 'While not really a media event, *Silent Spring* by Rachel Carson was a partial cause of the ban on DDT, despite being a shaky case at best.  The knock on effects from the ban on DDT are numerous.\\n\\nAfter it was published in 1962, it also helped start the American Environmental movement, adopted by the hippies, that has spread worldwide.\\n\\n[Wikipedia article](_URL_0_), sorry too busy for real sources', 'President Woodrow Wilson once said about *Birth Of a Nation*: \"It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.\"\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nIt definitely influenced his attitude and supported the racist beliefs of the time.\\n\\nWhen Abraham Lincoln met with Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of *Uncle Tom\\'s Cabin*), he was reported to have said \"So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war!\"\\n\\nHer book generated a lot of anger in the South, and hyped up sectionalist feelings. It provided proof of the North\\'s prejudice towards Southerners. Some states even managed to limit the amount of anti-slavery literature that was published and sold there.\\n\\nSource: *United States History: Preparing For the Advanced Placement Examination* by John J. Newman and John Schmalbach (pgs. 243, 244)', \"While studying Herodotus's Histories our professor told us that there were rumors Lysander was reading the histories during the final battle against Athens, and the reason he decided not to destroy the city was because he was so moved by the memory of the two great allies uniting and defeating the Persian empire together.\\n\\nOf course I can't find any verification of this with a google search.  It's a lovely thought, though.\", 'I\\'m surprised that nobody has mentioned Thomas Paine\\'s \"Common Sense\" and \"The American Crisis\".  Both were incredibly influential when they were written, and changed the mind-set of the entire nation.', ' > Its interesting to note that by 1985 to coincide with the assumption of power by Gorbachev, Reagan had softened his saber rattling against the Soviets.\\n\\nJust as a side note, Reagan had toned down his saber rattling after almost getting us into a nuclear war with the Soviets in 1983. After a KGB defector reported how seriously the USSR took the [Able Archer 83](_URL_0_) exercise, Reagan greatly toned down his rhetoric. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.fuzzymemories.tv/index.php?c=1823', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO1EOjr_s9s', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBfZTkuVzt4']", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation', 'http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=features&amp;content=61265'], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin#Contemporary_and_world_reaction', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Federal_response'], [], ['http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2001/nov/14/artsfeatures1'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_spring'], ['http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_birth.html'], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 415, "q_id": "11g837", "title": "Humans have huge brains. It's that the only thing we have going for us?", "selftext": "I am always fascinated by the feats some animals can do, their amazing senses and evolution and adaptations. So... Besides our brains, do humans have any other kick-ass things that other animals would be jealous of?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11g837/humans_have_huge_brains_its_that_the_only_thing/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6m6quv', 'c6m6rbh', 'c6m6xah', 'c6m85m4', 'c6m8tmc', 'c6m9pju', 'c6ma729', 'c6mchn4'], 'score': [36, 25, 22, 4, 6, 5, 2, 5], 'text': ['We sweat!  This gives us very impressive endurance compared to most of the animal kingdom.', 'opposable thumbs, though some other animals have this as well. ', 'Bipedal motion and the ability to sweat makes us the best long distance runners.\\n\\nRelevant: _URL_0_', 'Having huge brains has several more specific advantages that just extra processing power, language probably being the most salient.  We also have opposable thumbs and locking knees, which allow additional manual dexterity and the ability to stand and walk upright for extended periods of time.', 'We actually have one sense that is good enough to compete with almost any other animal - our sense of touch! Our fingertips can sense differences as small as one tenth of a millimeter. \\n\\nWe may not have anything on the star-nosed mole though...', 'This is not mine, I copied it to notes from another post. I\\'m sorry to the guy that wrote this, it is an amazing read and I will search high and low to add your name here. \\n\\n\\n**Aspects of language:** mainly in how complex we can make it, and our ability to change it so quickly. Animals also communicate in very complex ways and we are still discovering new modes of communication. Some species display tendencies of recursiveness, syntax, regional dialects and other aspect of language that one might consider \"human\". This is a highly debated area. I tend to think that animals can have very complex modes of communication, ones that certainly meet their needs, however humans are still able to take advantage of our cognitive abilities - which enable us to form even more complex modes of communication.\\n\\n**Aspects of cognition**: We know that animals are capable of cognitive reasoning, problem solving, they teach and learn, they feel many if not all the emotions we feel especially mammals, they are capable of deception, lying, cheating etc. They have a concept of the \"self\" and \"others\". \\n\\nHowever, humans do stand apart in some key areas of cognition. Some researchers surmise that cooperative breeding enhances the performance of social cognitive domains and it also motivates the individual to share mental states with others. [Cooperative breeding](_URL_1_) is a social system where mothers require help from others to raise their offspring - all human cultures exhibit this trait and this developed because we are bipedal and have [trouble giving birth](_URL_1_). Combined, cooperative breeding and the motivation to share mental states leads to [shared intentionality](_URL_3_), which is the ability and desire to work collaboratively with others towards a shared goal, as well as understanding that others are aware of your intentions. Cooperative breeding in primates to date is observed only in callatrichids and humans, both of which exhibit shared intentionality. What sets apart humans from other cooperative breeders with shared intentionality is our ancestral ape-level cognitive system. The unique combination of social cognitive skills, ape-level cognitive skills and shared intentionality led to the development of our species-specific traits, including language and enhanced cultural transmission. Our ape-level cognitive skills stem from freed grasping hands, our tool use and ability to solve complex problems.\\n\\nIn theory, extant apes have all the necessary cognitive preconditions (i.e. simple understanding of others mental states) approximating humans but they lack the motivational components of cooperative breeding, and thus lack shared intentionality. However, groups of chimpanzees hunting involve the delegation of tasks (i.e herders, ambushers) where all participants must assess the others hunting position and effectiveness in order to successfully carry out a shared goal. What is contested is whether they understand that together they are dedicated to the shared goal, a key component of shared intentionality.\\n\\n**Aspects of Culture** [Animals posses culture](_URL_2_) in much the same way we do. There are countless examples and I would be happy to provide them but this post is already long enough. Human culture is only different in one way - we build upon previous experience. Known as the ratchet effect we can take someone else\\'s idea and change it slightly to build on it, the previous idea is never lost. Our knowledge is continuously building upon its self. Animals have a harder time accomplishing this, if a novel idea is presented it takes a long time for it to take hold.   \\n\\n**Fire and Cooking**\\n\\nI think fire and learning to cook food definitely changed the way our brains work - only fire and cooking predate humans. Physical fire and cooking evidence dates back 400,000-700,000 years. Things like fire pits and charred remains. Morphological evidence dates back 1.2 million years with Homo erectus being the first hominid to show morphological changes due to a change in diet - the teeth change, the length of the intestine changes etc. If the hominin body underwent such drastic changes as a result of cooking food, then why not the brain as well?\\n\\nFun fact - there is a chimpanzee named Kanzi, who learned without training how to [build a fire and cook food](_URL_0_). So it is not necessarily that our closest cousins can\\'t do something we think is uniquely human - they lack the motivation to do so. Natural selection only acts on existing traits or behaviours. \\n\\nRemember that this area of science is moving forward really fast, we are discovering more and more each day. Its hotly contested part of science - sometimes for personal reasons. My favourite quote that revolves around this topic is this: \"\u201cEverybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it\u2019ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.\u201d \u2013 Albert Einstein\". We need to make sure we are testing animal\\'s intelligence in their own right - not based off of our own preconceptions or misconceptions.\\n\\n**References**\\n\\nBurkart, J.M., Hrdy, S.B., and van Schaik, C.P. 2009. Cooperative breeding and human cognitive. Evolutionary Anthropology. 18:175-176.\\nTomasello, M., Carpenter, M. Call, J., Behne, T., and Moll, H. 2005.\\n\\n Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 28: 675-735.\\nTomasello, M., and Carpenter, M. 2007. Shared intentionality. Developmental Science. 10: 121-125.\\n\\nHrdy, S.B. 2009. Mothers and Others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, University Press.\\n\\nHuman Adaptation to the Control of Fire by RICHARD WRANGHAM AND RACHEL CARMODY.Evolutionary Anthropology 19:187\u2013199 (2010) \\n\\nTL;DR Animals and Humans are more akin then we previously thought, what defines us and led to our unique cognitive abilities stems from our evolutionary past and a combination of factors - shared intentionality, cooperative breeding, ape-like cognitive abilities - that work in together within our species. Where as in other animals they may not have the exact combination of these factors.', 'We have developed very large differences due to our love of sex!  The males have large penises for our size and the females have permanently enlarged breasts and preferentially store fat in rounded attractive buttocks, rather than in their belly like men do.\\n\\n\"When compared to other primates, including large primates such as the gorilla, the human penis is largest, both in absolute terms and in relative size to the rest of the body.\"\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n\"The sex appeal of rounded female buttocks and plump breasts is both universal and unique to the human primate\"\\n\\n_URL_1_', 'Throwing. Accurately, far and quite hard. In fact it appears that the [size-weight illusion](_URL_0_) exists to allow us to choose rocks that we can throw the furthest. ([source](_URL_1_))']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting'], [], [], ['http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080050/Now-thats-chim-PAN-zee-Meet-monkey-fry-burgers.html', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_breeding', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_culture', 'http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/pdf/Publications_2007_PDF/Shared_intentionality_07.pdf'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size', 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/14/breast-size-evolution'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size-weight_illusion', 'http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6T6H-51XFXWG-1&amp;_user=1111158&amp;_coverDate=01%2F11%2F2011&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=gateway&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000051676&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=1111158&amp;md5=de199b626ea59b7b94d00e9aa1055039&amp;searchtype=a']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1672, "q_id": "zjubo", "title": "how does the internet connect to other continents?", "selftext": "Is/was there giant fiber optic tubes across the oceans?  \n\n(I'm pretty sure telephone lines had wire under the ocean).\n\n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zjubo/eli5_how_does_the_internet_connect_to_other/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c657uik', 'c658nkk', 'c658pg5', 'c658w3c', 'c659dp4', 'c659kj1', 'c65a8v1', 'c65a9nh', 'c65a9wn', 'c65au5h', 'c65bfrv', 'c65c0iv', 'c65caux', 'c65cjvu', 'c65ewxl', 'c65gr3b', 'c65hiu1', 'c65ib3f'], 'score': [270, 10, 52, 31, 16, 34, 7, 3, 7, 2, 4, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3], 'text': [' > Is/was there giant fiber optic tubes across the oceans?  \\n\\nExactly right, [there are several underwater fiber optic lines connecting the continents.](_URL_0_) Nowadays, these also carry telephone communications as well. ', '[This is a great talk about it given at Nerd Nite SF while back.](_URL_0_)', \"also satellites... but mostly fibre optics under the sea.... right across the pacific and atlantic.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\ndon't know how old this is but this will give you some idea of where the cables go. and yes the cables break... there are ships dedicated to maintaining these cables... miles under the sea.\", 'Who owns and maintains them?', \"If you're interested in how the internet works, I recommend the book [Tubes by Andrew Blum](_URL_0_). It's an interesting read and covers the basics of the internet.\", \"Big cables that go across the ocean and connect countries to each other.\\n\\nAn example of a few of them.\\n\\n[CANTAT-3](_URL_3_)\\n\\n- Connects Canada / Iceland / Faroe Islands and Europe\\n- Is really really old and slow and very expensive to lease\\n\\n[FARICE-1](_URL_1_)\\n\\n- Connects Iceland / Faroe Islands / Scotland\\n- In use since 2004\\n- Very stable now but farmers used to accidentally cut it back in the day, disconnecting Iceland from the world essentially, since CANTAT-5 couldn't handle the stress.\\n\\n[DANICE](_URL_4_) (the green one in the picture)\\n\\n- Very new and helps with connections to Europe that dont go through the UK\\n\\n[Greenland Connect](_URL_0_)\\n\\n- Very new and helps with connections to the US.\\n- Before Greenland connect, the traffic from Iceland to the USA went through Europe if CANTAT-5 was tapped.\\n- Before Greenland connect, to increase the data flow to the USA, they didn't buy more slots in CANTAT-5, but bought a lot more slots in FARICE and hoped that would fix the issue.\\n\\n[Here's a picture of all of them](_URL_2_)\", 'This is the best thing ever written about this:\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nIt will make you want to travel to remote islands to see cables.', 'Russia sold us Alaska so they could afford their trans-Pacific cable.  Modern Marvels', 'And for those wondering about how they power the repeaters, They run a line of DC current along with the fiber.', 'when I read \"wires under the ocean\" I looked at my computer like \"you\\'ve got to be fucking kidding me. Why would there be cables ran through the oceans?\" \\n\\nThen I saw the answer and was like.. \"welp, time to go back to watching Criminal Minds\" ', 'does anyone know how they deal with crossing the mid-atlantic ridge?', 'Followup: how do these cables manage all that bandwidth? ', \"Yes, there are quite a lot of cables connecting continents. \\n\\nNowadays, almost all data transfer is made through fiber optic cables or terrestrial radio links (antennas that point to each other at small distances), simply because of the amount of time it takes for the signal to reach a satellite and arrive back to Earth is too much for satellites to be useful at phone calls, video conferences, playing online games and so on.\\n\\nLarge datacenters (places where there are lots of computers connected to several internet providers at the same time) sometimes also have large antenna dishes aimed at some satellites they have contracts with. In case there is an emergency where the datacenter loses one or several land based connections, the owners of those computers can connect through the satellite and retrieve their data. \\n \\n\\nIf you're really interested, there's a very long but insightful article on Wired about how one of those very long ocean cables ws put in the ocean and what's involved in doing something like this: \\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThe author was on one of those boats that layed the cables on the ocean floor and talked to a lot of people so it's quite informative.\\n\\nAs you can see from reading that article, things could be so much simpler and better for the whole world, if religion and politics didn't exist (or didn't play such a big role in people's lives) :(\\n\\nBut on the happier side, it's amazing to see how many technical difficulties can be solved and how much work there actually is in moving data around the world. \\n\", 'Sci-fi author Neal Stephenson wrote an [AMAZING article about these cables being laid](_URL_0_) for Wired.', \"Continents no longer exist.  It's just cable.\", 'If you would like a more in depth explanation, a pretty good book was released not that long ago called Tubes: A Journey to the Center of the Internet.\\n\\nIt explains how networks interconnect, how fibers are laid underwater, etc.  I work in IT infrastructure so I thought it was a fun read and surprisingly well researched.\\n\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"[Popular Science had an awesome article](_URL_0_) on this a little while ago.\\n\\n[**This picture**](_URL_1_) still amazes me, that's the center in Miami that connects South America. \", 'i can finally see how i got that email from that nigerian prince.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://telcotroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Undersea-Cables.jpg'], ['https://vimeo.com/29975179'], ['http://ansonalex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/underwater-internet-cable-map.jpg'], [], ['http://www.worldcat.org/title/tubes-a-journey-to-the-center-of-the-internet/oclc/758392010'], ['http://climategreenland.gl/files/tekstfotos/1%20kabelruten.JPG', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FARICE-1-map.png', 'http://www.invest.is/resources/images/invest.is/KeySectors/Fiber.jpg', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CANTAT-3-route.png', 'http://nhpc.hi.is/sites/default/files/rhnet.jpg'], ['http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html'], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html'], ['http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html'], [], ['http://www.amazon.com/Tubes-A-Journey-Center-Internet/dp/0061994936'], ['http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-03/who-protects-intrnet?page=1', 'http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/tubes.jpg'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1468, "q_id": "2w2udd", "title": "Why, in the United States, do we refer to judges as 'Your Honor'?", "selftext": "What are the historical links from today to hundreds of years ago regarding that reference? How far back does it go?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2w2udd/why_in_the_united_states_do_we_refer_to_judges_as/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['conhe28', 'cons7jj'], 'score': [30, 10], 'text': [\"Dates back to at least 1551\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n >   With possessive adjective and freq. with capital initial, as Your Honour , etc.:  (a) a deferential form of address for any person of higher rank or status (now rare, chiefly regional in later use);  (b) a title of respect or form of address for a person holding a particular office, esp. that of court judge.\\n\\nso i'm guessing it derives from the ancient form of addressing superiors which got applied to english offices, especially the bench but it seems from the OED definitions (more via link) that this concept of honor was widely used and over time got narrowed down. \\n\\nhigh quality dictionaries like the OED are really an amazing resource that the internet hasn't been able to quickly and easily replace. \", 'It should be noted that not just Judges are accorded the title. Virtually every elected or higher level government position is accorded the title \"Honorable.\"\\n\\nThat Includes President, VP, Senators, Representatives, Anyone appointed by the President and Confirmed by Congress (So Secretaries, Deputies, Under Secretaries and Directors of the various Agencies) Governors, State Legislators, Mayors, US Attorneys, and US Marshals.\\n\\nIn fact there are many more people who have the title who are not judges then who are. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88227?redirectedFrom=your+honor#eid1534112'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2652, "q_id": "3akwjo", "title": "why do commentators/voice actors from old footage from the 40s 50s and 60s sound so different than reporters' voices today?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3akwjo/eli5_why_do_commentatorsvoice_actors_from_old/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['csdlb35', 'csdmgpn', 'csdr901', 'cse0ot9'], 'score': [148, 14, 11, 2], 'text': ['I believe what you\\'re referring to the \"transatlantic accent\" which was taught in boarding schools up through the early 60\\'s (also many actors and the like learned the accent to be more marketable, as it was seen as an upper-class/well-educated way of speaking).', 'Old recording equipment had different sensitivity to frequencies we can hear.\\nJust like standard phone conversations sound of lower quality when broadcast on the radio.', 'Here\\'s a good article on the topic of the mid-Atlantic accent. Though the author prefers calling it \"that weirdo announcer-voice\" \\n\\nIt\\'s especially good on describing how it disappeared. \\n\\n_URL_0_', 'They practiced a lot of elocution. They thought of it as being proper and more sophisticated. No one really practiced this way of speech anymore.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/that-weirdo-announcer-voice-accent-where-it-came-from-and-why-it-went-away/395141/'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 774, "q_id": "1o0s6n", "title": "the controversy with nestle water", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o0s6n/eli5_the_controversy_with_nestle_water/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ccnt1e3', 'ccnuspa', 'ccnyivl', 'cco09t9', 'cco37xl', 'cco46tl'], 'score': [55, 363, 24, 43, 2, 5], 'text': [\"Nestle privately owns water sources that are needed by the locals and therefore don't let them use it.\", \"Imagine you live near a lake. Your town gets water from this lake and has done since it was founded, in fact, that's why the town was built there, because building your town somewhere without water is really really stupid.\\n\\nOne day a rich guy buys your towns lake. Now it's HIS water and he says that you can't have any unless you pay him. You're poor, your whole town is poor, hell your whole country is, that's why some dick was willing to sell your lake, it makes them rich and they don't care what happens to you.\\n\\nNow normally a company would have to price for its market and lower the price so you can buy their product. But the guy who bought your lake doesn't actually want to sell it to you. He's putting it in bottles and selling it to people on the other side of the world. People who don't even need it, because they can get as much water as they like from the tap in their kitchen.\\n\\nI think you'd agree that the guy who bought your lake is a bad person.\", \"Nestle, Coke, and other drink corporations get all the water for free from shrinking lakes, then resell that product for more than gasoline.....\\n\\nI'm pretty sure that aggravates some people.\", \"Nestle spends quite a bit of money in third world countries educating women on the benefits of their baby formula vs. breast milk. These poor women are duped into believing they are helping their child by feeding them formula, their breasts dry up, and then realize they can't afford the formula. I'm not promoting either choice one way or another, but if a woman is making a choice, they should be educated with facts, not false advertising.\", \"You should watch the documentary 'Bottled Life'. Explains it pretty well.\", \"I can't speak for other locals but here in Michigan many are opposed to Nestle' because they are getting their water from aquifers that feed many of the cold water trout streams in Northern Michigan.\\n\\nThe biggest problem is that they are taking the water out of the drainage basin from which it comes, so it never returns.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2127, "q_id": "7b9038", "title": "How realistic are sci-fi planets that are almost entirely one biome?", "selftext": "Like how Star Wars has some planets that are just deserts, or just snow and ice, or just oceans, etc. I can kinda see how desert and snowy planets might exist (how far the planet is from their sun), but I'm curious as to how realistic they are.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7b9038/how_realistic_are_scifi_planets_that_are_almost/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dpgxi16'], 'score': [20], 'text': ['It really depends on the biome.\\n\\nIt also depends on how much detail about the fictive ecology has been provided. Generally there is very little fine detail about variation in local conditions. However, I believe you are correct in pointing out that the fictive worlds which are least hospitable to life as we know it are the most realistic - ice worlds, desert planets. \\n\\nWater worlds, which are potentially extremely hospitable to life, are another possibility - but perhaps only because we would be unfamiliar with some of the subtleties distinguishing various biomes in terms of temperature and chemistry. \\n\\nFor instance Hoth is [\"*... the sixth planet in the remote system of the same name ... It is a world of snow and ice, surrounded by numerous moons, and home to deadly creatures like the wampa\"*](_URL_0_). That\\'s really a very crude description. You may gather a bit more from the movies (for instance the snow/ice cover is in places so thin you can see rocks poking out). But anybody who spent a bit of time in the arctic can tell you that there is room for more detail and nuance. Are there oceans? Are there Icecaps and how thick are they? Is all of the ice water ice? Is there an equatorial zone where snow cover is seasonal? We don\\'t know.\\n\\nThat being said, it is tempting to compare a place like Hoth to known Ice worlds. In that sense, Hoth does not really ressemble much the Ice moons of our solar system. Those are water worlds with kilometric scale Ice crusts, canon imagery on the other hand [clearly shows rocks poking through the snows of Hoth](_URL_1_) (it *was* filmed in Norway, after all)... that\\'s very different. The place we know of which Hoth might resemble most is actually Earth in the [Marinoan , during the so-called \"Snowball Earth\" period](_URL_3_). \\n\\nAnother one I like is [Arrakis](_URL_2_), not least of which because Frank Herbert knew his stuff in terms of both ecology and geology, and it shows. Yes it is a desert planet, but Frank provides a lot more detail than merely a sand/rock covered dry hell hole. We know there is some sort of interrupted water cycle there, but that most of the water is locked up in the local geology. There are evaporites, and a tenuous ecology. There are a diversity of small scale biomes: ergs, the deep desert, oases, and a few more. This makes not only for a richer story where the ecology is part and parcel of the big picture, but also for an easier case of suspension of disbelief. Arrakis is quite believable, broadly speaking; enough so that one is tempted to look at it *really* closely and pick it apart. I cannot say that \"believability\" would survive intense scrutiny and mass balance calculations, but I wouldn\\'t be surprised if it did. \\n\\nAt the other end of the spectrum, so-called \"forest worlds\" or tropical paradise planets are so completely implausible they destroy my ability to give the story any credence. Even our unbelievably lush Earth cannot maintain a complete and continuous cover of forest. Unless ... some device is used to maintain that habitat is one specific and limited location, such as a single unique micro-continent for instance. But then, that means a second important biome for that which is not a continent; and the limiting parameters of your question no longer apply.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.starwars.com/databank/hoth', 'https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/Hoth_d074d307.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1200%2C675&amp;width=768', 'http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Arrakis', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinoan_glaciation']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1229, "q_id": "3jy7s1", "title": "The US had the \"containment\" foreign policy during the Cold War, what sort of foreign policy did the USSR have?", "selftext": "Did the USSR know of the US's containment policy? Did it try to counteract it?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jy7s1/the_us_had_the_containment_foreign_policy_during/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cutke8r'], 'score': [31], 'text': ['This is a difficult question to answer since there were very few Soviet analogues to Kennan\\'s overarching Containment Doctrine. One could argue that Marxist-Leninism, which argued that a revolution could be achieved under the leadership of an organized communist party, was the cornerstone of the Soviet\\'s understanding of foreign affairs, but the importance of a Marxist-Leninist *Weltanschauung* generates more questions than answers. Although Moscow\\'s foreign policy establishment produced reams of pronouncements on world affairs, these were often couched in such sweeping ideological rhetoric that made it difficult to parse out what was actual Soviet policy. One of the important subfields of the West\\'s Cold War-era Kremlinologists was engaged in actively trying to parse out the kernels of wheat from its Marxist-Leninist chaff. \\n\\nIn general, the Soviet\\'s foreign policy in the Cold War had a degree of continuity from its foreign policy in the 1930s. The position of the USSR was that it was the leader of a large global movement of both anti-fascist and anti-imperialist organizations. Within this umbrella organization of the global left, Moscow reserved pride of place for local communist parties who were tasked with being the ideological leaders in local political movements. The Soviets encouraged party discipline and demanded a degree of loyalty from the leadership of various communist parties. Andrei Zhdanov\\'s [1947 pronouncement](_URL_0_) of the creation of the Cominform, a successor to the disbanded Comintern, outlines this Soviet-centric umbrella approach:\\n\\n > In the pursuit of these ends the imperialist camp is prepared to rely on reactionary and anti-democratic forces in all countries, and to support its former adversaries in the war against its wartime allies.\\n\\n > The anti-fascist forces comprise the second camp. This camp is based on the U.S.S.R. and the new democracies. It also includes countries that have broken with imperialism and have firmly set foot on the path of democratic development, such as Rumania, Hungary and Finland. Indonesia and Vietnam are associated with it; it has the sympathy of India, Egypt and Syria. The anti-imperialist camp is backed by the labor and democratic movement and by the fraternal Communist parties in all countries, by the fighters for national liberation in the colonies and dependencies, by all progressive and democratic forces in every country. The purpose of this camp is to resist the threat of new wars and imperialist expansion, to strengthen democracy and to extirpate the vestiges of fascism.  \\n\\nEven though Zhdanov\\'s declaration was one of the first major foreign policy pronouncements by a Soviet leader in the postwar era, the Cominform fizzled out despite the fears it engendered in the West\\'s anticommunists. In practice, the Soviets sought to use the structure of the Cominform to break any sign of independence from its constituent members. Although initially headquartered in Belgrade, Yugoslavia would actually be expelled from the Cominform less than a year later on account of Tito\\'s independent approach to Yugoslavia\\'s relations to its Balkan neighbors. The Cominform\\'s coordination with Western communist parties fared little better. Instead of resurrecting a Popular Front strategy, Western communist parties increasingly adapted a strategy of being political outliers critiquing the postwar political establishment. Although this meant communism was able to make some ideological inroads in the West, especially in the late 1940s, Western communist parties became marginal political actors. The case of the KPD was an extreme example in which its kneejerk political activism (abetted by forged documents provided by the CIA) led the FRG courts to ban it as an antidemocratic party in 1956. \\n\\nUnderlying the general failure of the Cominform is a thread that remained one of the few consistencies of Soviet foreign policy: whatever the situation, Moscow\\'s interpretation and interests were paramount. This fusion of *realpolitik* and Marxist-Leninism created a highly mercurial foreign policy that was highly reactive in nature. In his memoirs, Molotov outlined thegeneral thrust of the Soviet postwar view of its interests:\\n\\n > They hardened their line against us, and we had to consolidate what we had conquered. We created our socialist Germany in part of Germany, and in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia, where the situation was fluid, we needed to restore order. Suppress capitalist order. This was the Cold War. Of course, you had to know the right measure. I believe that in this sense Stalin kept himself well within the limits.\\n\\n Italy in the late 1940s was a case in point of how Stalin tried to temper the situation in favor of order. The attempted assassination of the PCI leader Palmiro Togliatti in July 1948, coupled with widespread allegations of electoral fraud the previous April, generated widespread strikes and demonstrations among the Italian left. Togliatti would sometimes employ the rhetoric of civil war in public pronouncements, indicated the PCI was going to lead a wider struggle. Stalin reigned in this rhetoric, underscoring to  Togliatti that the PCI had not exhausted all legal measures to power and that a civil war was not in the larger interests of the Soviet Union. So despite fulfilling much of the criterion of Zhdanov\\'s proclamation, Soviet geostrategic interests trumped that of the need for a global struggle. \\n\\nMoscow\\'s insistence that it was the elder brother of the global communist movement did not sit well abroad, especially in areas outside of direct Soviet military power. Stalin\\'s somewhat patronizing attempts to control Mao and the CCP poisoned Sino-Soviet relations well after Stalin\\'s death. With the conclusions of hostilities in 1945, Stalin desired for Mao to continue his wartime collaboration with the KMT and Chiang Kai-Shek. Stalin believed not only would the KMT prevail in a civil war, but that civil war would destroy China. Stalin gave Mao a diktat in August 1945 that he should travel to Chungking and negotiate with Chiang or \"his stand would be repudiated in China and abroad.\" The Chungking meeting had the opposite effect than Stalin intended. Mao\\'s meetings with Chiang reinforced within him the idea that he could win a civil war; Mao would later claim that Chiang was \"a corpse and no one believes him anymore.\" The communist victory thus came as much a shock to Moscow as to Washington. Although the Red Army turned over some Japanese war material to the CCP, they largely kept the best equipment and destroyed the remainder. Mao\\'s victory emerged as a fait accompli for the newly-formed PRC as the USSR could not repudiate a successful communist revolution. But this did not stop Stalin from insisting that the PRC make economic and political concessions to the USSR and refused to aid Mao in efforts to invade Taiwan.\\n\\nThe emergence of Mao and the PRC as an ideological rival deeply unnerved the Kremlin and colored the perceptions of its foreign policy. With an alternative and seemingly more vibrant Marxist rival, Soviet actions seemed to be much more the actions of an old-school great power than a force trying to lead the world\\'s downtrodden masses. The need for the Soviets to maintain security over Eastern Europe led to a series of crackdowns in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary. In light of these actions, Khrushchev\\'s attempt to craft a peaceful coexistence with the West became the source of much criticism in the PRC and other left radical groups. The dissolving of the Cominform in 1956 and the Soviet destalinization drive gave further fodder for these anti-Soviet critiques. This denuding of its ideological purity meant that as the USSR sought to engage with movements in the Third World like Nasser\\'s Egypt, Soviet foreign policy appeared to many as less it leading an umbrella movement and more as sheer opportunism. The fact that many of these nationalist movements in the third world, such as Nasserism or Ba\\'ath ism repressed or subordinated local communist parties gave cause for further critiques of the USSR for its self-interested foreign policy.     \\n\\nThese matters came to a head in the 1968 Prague Spring where a Warsaw Pact invasion crushed a Czechoslovakian reform movement. The resulting outcry both within the Soviet sphere of influence and abroad was quite condemnatory. The result of this outcry was the most clearly articulated Soviet position on foreign policy yet, the Breznev Doctrine. Although the Brezhnev Doctrine fit within the pattern of prior Soviet (or Soviet-enabled) interventions in Hungary, Poland, and East Germany, the Doctrine was only truly formalized in the aftermath of Prague Spring. The rationale behind it was to try and reinvigorate the connectivity of the Warsaw Pact and underscore each member\\'s commitment to the Marxist-Leninist socialism championed by the USSR. The Doctrine not only stated that the USSR had a right to intervene in a Warsaw Pact state if it adapted a political course contrary to socialism, but also other Warsaw Pact states had to intervene as well. The fear of other Warsaw Pact states forming their \"own road to socialism,\" and breaking Moscow\\'s monopoly on what it perceived as the correct political path. This fear was particularly acute for many Soviet leaders and the events in Prague Spring underscored how such a danger was real.\\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/nss/documents/zhdanov-response-to-x.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1365, "q_id": "4i98oh", "title": "A Labour official (UK) recently stated that the Jews were the\u201cchief financiers\u201d of the African slave trade. Is there any truth to that?", "selftext": " > The two latest Labour officials to be suspended rehashed some of these conspiracy theories, but also threw some new ones into the mix. Jacqueline Walker, the vice-chair of the national steering committee for Momentum, the hard-left advocacy group that brought Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to power, was suspended after she was revealed to have labeled the Jews the \u201cchief financiers\u201d of the African slave trade.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIs there any truth to what she said? Or is it just nonsense?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4i98oh/a_labour_official_uk_recently_stated_that_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d2w9xc2'], 'score': [112], 'text': [\"It's absolute nonsense, and something of a popular anti-Semitic trope in some radical black nationalist circles (ironically, it's also becoming popular with neo-Nazis), and is now apparently being taken up more broadly in some far left circles. It has its origins largely in the 1991 book *The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews*, published by the Nation of Islam, which is a work of grotesque psuedoscholarship that simply does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. I have answered a question on the exact scope of Jewish involvement in the slave trade before [here](_URL_0_), which I'll reproduce below in quote boxes:\\n\\n >  Well, the slave trade was a massive international enterprise; we have evidence of about 35,000 slave voyages that occurred between 1500 and 1866, and though we don't know how many ships were involved because their names often aren't recorded and others are known only by estimation, clearly you need a lot of people and a lot of ships to pull that off. So within that operation, you're of course going to get involvement of Jewish labour and finance; that's an inevitability. On the whole though, Jewish involvement is entirely in line with their representation in the population; there is no disproportionate rate of investment or participation on the part of Jewish people.\\n\\n >  For example, from 1715 to 1765, we have evidence of only 377 slaves who were brought from Africa to New York on ships owned by Jewish accounts or financed by Jewish capital; that's less than 1% of the total slaving activity in that period. The largest area of Jewish involvement seems to be in the trade of slaves out of Jamaica onto continental North America, where Jewish investment accounts for 8% of all traffic there before the slave trade is abolished by Britain; but this is an exception rather than a rule, and in other contexts Jewish involvement is virtually non-existent. In importing slaves to Jamaica for instance, only 0.4% of all slaves were transported on Jewish ships. The broad pattern is one of minimal Jewish involvement in the slave trade and especially in the trade coming out of Africa. In the Caribbean, we also generally find - with the exception of Suriname (where there was disproportionately high Jewish investment in sugar) - that when Jewish families and estates own slaves in the colonies themselves, they own fewer slaves than their Christian counterparts.\\n\\n >  So if we were to take the Jewish involvement out of the equation, and assume that no-one had filled the gap of Jewish involvement, we would see only the tiniest reduction in the volume of the transatlantic trade. Jewish people simply were not involved in the slave trade in any meaningful way, as either distant financiers or as ship operators; whilst it is important to acknowledge the role of every agent in the slave trade and slavery, as a whole Jewish involvement is quite ancillary to the story.\\n\\nEli Faber's book *Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight* (1999) is a superb rejection of the idea that the Jews were the driving force behind the slave trade, and is essentially a direct response to the nonsense peddled in the 1991 National of Islam book; such is the lack of support for the idea in academic circles that some reviewers were confused as to why Faber had bothered to write a book disproving something that no-one in academia believed in the first place!\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/201885/labour-officials-suspended-after-claiming-jews-were-behind-african-slave-trade-israel-behind-isis']", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40fh93/howwhy_did_black_nationalist_groups_adopt/czjnfm9']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1117, "q_id": "11yg79", "title": "How effective is Helminthic therapy?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11yg79/how_effective_is_helminthic_therapy/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6qqs7z'], 'score': [2], 'text': [\"There're not a lot of good data on the topic yet.  [This paper reports](_URL_0_):\\n\\n > Random controlled trials conducted to date and published have been small scale, and focused on safety as opposed to efficacy.\\n\\n > Of the trials conducted, Necator americanus has been shown to be **safe**, causing no change in lung function following pulmonary migration in rhinitis or asthma patients. Worms were resident in the gut for 12 weeks only, and **little therapeutic benefit** was expected (Mortimer et al., 2006; Blount et al., 2009; Feary et al., 2009a, b). Similarly, the Trichuris suis ova product (TSO) was shown to be of **no benefit in rhinitis**, and explanations for this failure have been offered (Bager et al., 2010; Hepworth et al., 2010). Conversely, TSO imparted **benefit in inflammatory bowel disease** (Summers et al., 2003, 2005). However, some have expressed reservations about the use of a zoonotic infection (Kradin et al., 2006).\\n\\nIt's certainly very interesting and promising from a mechanistic/basic science perspective, with some epidemiological associations to back it up.  But it has not yet stood up to rigorous testing to really make statements about its efficacy in treating human disease.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21729383']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1575, "q_id": "i9uuc", "title": "Anatomy people, please help!", "selftext": "It says in my notes that the Gastrocnemius (calf muscle)  Flexes the foot. I thought flexing made the angle smaller at the joint not bigger... Like flexing your arms would utilize the biceps, and flexing your legs about the knee joint utilizes the hamstrings, so why is going onto your toes referred to as flexing the foot and not the opposite (extending)?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i9uuc/anatomy_people_please_help/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c222ten'], 'score': [6], 'text': ['Flexing does make the angle smaller. When you go on your toes, the angle between the calcaneus (the bone that the gastrocnemius inserts into) and the tibia becomes smaller.\\n\\nIn my anatomy class, we always used the terms [dorsiflexion and plantarflexion](_URL_0_) when referring to the upward and downward movement of the foot. Might help alleviate any confusion.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7V4hxLiHU']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 458, "q_id": "jv91t", "title": "what prime numbers are and why they're important", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jv91t/eli5_what_prime_numbers_are_and_why_theyre/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2fdrrl', 'c2fdszp', 'c2feffq', 'c2feqcl', 'c2fer2x', 'c2ff9ta', 'c2fg44b', 'c2fgfum', 'c2fiefn', 'c2fdrrl', 'c2fdszp', 'c2feffq', 'c2feqcl', 'c2fer2x', 'c2ff9ta', 'c2fg44b', 'c2fgfum', 'c2fiefn'], 'score': [5, 2, 488, 88, 3, 26, 6, 3, 2, 5, 2, 488, 88, 3, 26, 6, 3, 2], 'text': [\"What a prime number *is* is simple enough: Any whole number which can only be divided by itself and one and still give a whole number as a result. e.g. 6 is **not** prime, because you can divide 6 by 2 and get 3. 3 however is prime, because you can't divide 3 by any whole number besides 1 and 3 and get another whole number.\\n\\nFor any non-prime whole number, you can get that number by multiplying together 2 or more prime numbers, e.g. 50 = 2 x 5 x 5.\\n\\nWhy they are important is a more complex issue. They have their uses in cryptography which have been explained to five year olds [before](_URL_0_).\\n\\nWhat mainly interests mathematicians is that there doesn't seem to be any pattern to the prime numbers. Take the first few: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 23, ~~27~~... there is no discernible pattern to this sequence of numbers. An awful lot of mathematicians have spent a long time searching for a pattern in the prime numbers, but no one has found one yet.\", \"A prime number is a number that can be divided only by 1 and by itself. The first primes are: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and so on. Usually 1 is not considered prime. For example 4 is not prime because 4 = 2 x 2. 6 = 3x2, 9=3x3, on the other hand 17 is prime because 17 = 17 x 1. \\n\\nPrime numbers are infinite. It was proved by an ancient Greek mathematician, Euclid. \\n\\n*He said: suppose that there are only 3 prime numbers: 2, 3 and 5. Multiply these three numbers: 2 x 3 x 5 = 30, now add one: 30 + 1 = 31. This number is not divisible by 2, not divisible by 3 and not divisible by 5. So there are two cases: 31 is prime or is the product of other prime numbers. In both these cases the list of primes is incomplete. Note that with this method you don't get all the prime numbers. (Like You're 12)*\\n\\nFinding big prime numbers is hard (even with computers). This is why prime numbers are interesting for mathematicians. They are struggling to find a way to get prime numbers easily. \\n\\nNow prime numbers are used to hide messages (there's a lot of theory behind this so it's difficult to make it easy) in what is called public key cryptography.\\n\\nPrime numbers also have some application in mathematics, but not really useful (for now).\", \"Imagine I gave you a whole bunch of blocks, and asked you to arrange them for me. I need you to arrange them in a rectangle.\\n\\nLet's start with 10 blocks:\\n      \\n    **********\\n\\nAfter messing around a bit, you manage to make the following rectangle:\\n\\n    *****\\n    *****\\n\\nGood! Now count the number of blocks on each edge of the rectangle. \\n\\n2, 5, 2, 5.  Notice each number will for sure appear twice, so we only need to keep track of the two that might be different, 2 and 5. We call these numbers a *factorization* of our first number, 10. \\n\\nWhat if I give you one more block?\\n\\n    *****\\n    ******\\n\\nIt doesn't seem to fit anywhere. After a while, you give up. That's because 11 is a *prime* number, the only rectangle you can make with it is: \\n\\n    ***********\\nthe line rectangle. \\n\\nNow, how about we add one more?\\n\\n    ************\\n\\nThis time, you manage to make two *different* rectangles:\\n\\n    ******       ****\\n    ******       ****\\n                 ****\\n\\nSo 12 is definitely not prime, it is composite. \\n\\nWhy don't you try 13?\\n\\nWhat makes primes important is that you can use them to build up all the other numbers. When you have a composite number, you get two factors, two numbers that multiply to give you the composite number. These two numbers might be prime, but if not, you can factor them instead, and keep going down until you have all prime numbers.\\n\\nFor example 10=2\\\\*5, which are both prime. 12= 2\\\\*2\\\\*3, all prime. \\n\\nSo often, if mathematicians can show something is true for prime numbers, they can then show that it is true for all numbers, because every number is built up this way from prime numbers.\\n\", \"This isn't really an answer, just an interesting related note.\\n\\nYou also see prime numbers in biology.  For example, the [Cicada](_URL_0_) has a very long 13 or 17 year life-cycle.  Its no accident that these are prime numbers, since it means that their predators, with shorter life cycles, can't synchronize their cycles so that they always emerge at the same time the Cicadas do.\\n\\nIf a Cicada had a 12 year life cycle, then a predator with a 2, 3, 4, or 6 year life cycle could have a feast once every 6, 4, 3, or 2 cycles respectively.\", \"Not like you're five, but i'll try to simplify. Let's say we find a rock on the ground with a lot of different colors. We put it through a magical grinder which crushes the rock into tiny atoms and sorts them into different piles. One pile contains carbon atoms, another one contains cobalt, and so on. These atoms are the fundamental building blocks of all things in the universe.\\n\\nNow let's look at a number. We grind this number by dividing it into smaller numbers. At the end, we have numbers that cannot be divided any further. These prime numbers are the fundamental building blocks of all other numbers in the sense of multiplication. This is why they are interesting.\\n\\nThe word 'primal' is probably a better description. Primal as in fundamental, the beginning, optimus prime..al?\", \"I think others have covered what prime numbers are quite well.  Let's talk about why they're important.\\n\\nFirst, every whole number bigger than 1 can be expressed as a product of  primes--and the series of primes that represents a whole number is unique.  Reducing a number to the series of primes that represent it, however is *very hard*.  In fact, it's so hard that we haven't come up with a fast and consistent way of doing it that doesn't depend on trying every possible combination--or at least making educated guesses.  This is particularly true of semiprimes--the product of two prime numbers.  \\n\\nHowever, checking if a number is prime--and checking the factorization of prime numbers is correct--is a *very* easy thing to do.  We can check 300 digit prime numbers within a fraction of a second using computers!  \\n\\nNow, one thing we can do is use two very large prime numbers to scramble messages--as all messages can be encoded as numbers.  What's more, the way we scramble it means that I could hand you one number to use to scramble the message you want to send me, while I keep one that de-scrambles that message.  It doesn't matter how many people know about the number I give you: as long as it takes several hundred computers two years to factorize a large semiprime (large here meaning more than 200 digits), nobody's going to calculate *my* number using yours.  This process is called asymmetric key encryption (or public key encryption).\\n\\nWhy is this important?  Every time you want to make a purchase online, you want to make sure that bad guys don't get your credit card number.  Websites use asymmetric key encryption to ensure that bad guys listening to your Internet connection cannot get your credit card number and take trips to Thailand with your money.  Banks use similar methods to ensure that bank-to-bank electronic money transfers are secure and that bank robbers can't take their money by tapping into an Internet connection.  The military uses it to pass its orders around so that enemies can't see the military's plans.  Indeed, the Nazis lost the war at least in part to the fact that their message scrambling wasn't as secure as they thought.  But you didn't ask about how computers were invented, so we'll save that story for another time.\", '[Terence Tao on Prime Numbers](_URL_0_)', 'There\\'s something my brain isn\\'t quite grasping, which is, if a given number X is the product of two primes Y and Z, then those are the *only* two primes which can be multiplied together to make X. \\n\\nI mean, I can sit here and go \"3 x 5 is 15; are there any other primes which can be multiplied together to make 15? Obviously not. Next, 5 x 7 is 35...\" but I don\\'t instinctively, logically *see* that this remains true all the way up. \\n\\nCan anyone Prove It  To Me Like I\\'m Five?', 'This question itself is way more interesting than any possible answer:)', \"What a prime number *is* is simple enough: Any whole number which can only be divided by itself and one and still give a whole number as a result. e.g. 6 is **not** prime, because you can divide 6 by 2 and get 3. 3 however is prime, because you can't divide 3 by any whole number besides 1 and 3 and get another whole number.\\n\\nFor any non-prime whole number, you can get that number by multiplying together 2 or more prime numbers, e.g. 50 = 2 x 5 x 5.\\n\\nWhy they are important is a more complex issue. They have their uses in cryptography which have been explained to five year olds [before](_URL_0_).\\n\\nWhat mainly interests mathematicians is that there doesn't seem to be any pattern to the prime numbers. Take the first few: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 23, ~~27~~... there is no discernible pattern to this sequence of numbers. An awful lot of mathematicians have spent a long time searching for a pattern in the prime numbers, but no one has found one yet.\", \"A prime number is a number that can be divided only by 1 and by itself. The first primes are: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and so on. Usually 1 is not considered prime. For example 4 is not prime because 4 = 2 x 2. 6 = 3x2, 9=3x3, on the other hand 17 is prime because 17 = 17 x 1. \\n\\nPrime numbers are infinite. It was proved by an ancient Greek mathematician, Euclid. \\n\\n*He said: suppose that there are only 3 prime numbers: 2, 3 and 5. Multiply these three numbers: 2 x 3 x 5 = 30, now add one: 30 + 1 = 31. This number is not divisible by 2, not divisible by 3 and not divisible by 5. So there are two cases: 31 is prime or is the product of other prime numbers. In both these cases the list of primes is incomplete. Note that with this method you don't get all the prime numbers. (Like You're 12)*\\n\\nFinding big prime numbers is hard (even with computers). This is why prime numbers are interesting for mathematicians. They are struggling to find a way to get prime numbers easily. \\n\\nNow prime numbers are used to hide messages (there's a lot of theory behind this so it's difficult to make it easy) in what is called public key cryptography.\\n\\nPrime numbers also have some application in mathematics, but not really useful (for now).\", \"Imagine I gave you a whole bunch of blocks, and asked you to arrange them for me. I need you to arrange them in a rectangle.\\n\\nLet's start with 10 blocks:\\n      \\n    **********\\n\\nAfter messing around a bit, you manage to make the following rectangle:\\n\\n    *****\\n    *****\\n\\nGood! Now count the number of blocks on each edge of the rectangle. \\n\\n2, 5, 2, 5.  Notice each number will for sure appear twice, so we only need to keep track of the two that might be different, 2 and 5. We call these numbers a *factorization* of our first number, 10. \\n\\nWhat if I give you one more block?\\n\\n    *****\\n    ******\\n\\nIt doesn't seem to fit anywhere. After a while, you give up. That's because 11 is a *prime* number, the only rectangle you can make with it is: \\n\\n    ***********\\nthe line rectangle. \\n\\nNow, how about we add one more?\\n\\n    ************\\n\\nThis time, you manage to make two *different* rectangles:\\n\\n    ******       ****\\n    ******       ****\\n                 ****\\n\\nSo 12 is definitely not prime, it is composite. \\n\\nWhy don't you try 13?\\n\\nWhat makes primes important is that you can use them to build up all the other numbers. When you have a composite number, you get two factors, two numbers that multiply to give you the composite number. These two numbers might be prime, but if not, you can factor them instead, and keep going down until you have all prime numbers.\\n\\nFor example 10=2\\\\*5, which are both prime. 12= 2\\\\*2\\\\*3, all prime. \\n\\nSo often, if mathematicians can show something is true for prime numbers, they can then show that it is true for all numbers, because every number is built up this way from prime numbers.\\n\", \"This isn't really an answer, just an interesting related note.\\n\\nYou also see prime numbers in biology.  For example, the [Cicada](_URL_0_) has a very long 13 or 17 year life-cycle.  Its no accident that these are prime numbers, since it means that their predators, with shorter life cycles, can't synchronize their cycles so that they always emerge at the same time the Cicadas do.\\n\\nIf a Cicada had a 12 year life cycle, then a predator with a 2, 3, 4, or 6 year life cycle could have a feast once every 6, 4, 3, or 2 cycles respectively.\", \"Not like you're five, but i'll try to simplify. Let's say we find a rock on the ground with a lot of different colors. We put it through a magical grinder which crushes the rock into tiny atoms and sorts them into different piles. One pile contains carbon atoms, another one contains cobalt, and so on. These atoms are the fundamental building blocks of all things in the universe.\\n\\nNow let's look at a number. We grind this number by dividing it into smaller numbers. At the end, we have numbers that cannot be divided any further. These prime numbers are the fundamental building blocks of all other numbers in the sense of multiplication. This is why they are interesting.\\n\\nThe word 'primal' is probably a better description. Primal as in fundamental, the beginning, optimus prime..al?\", \"I think others have covered what prime numbers are quite well.  Let's talk about why they're important.\\n\\nFirst, every whole number bigger than 1 can be expressed as a product of  primes--and the series of primes that represents a whole number is unique.  Reducing a number to the series of primes that represent it, however is *very hard*.  In fact, it's so hard that we haven't come up with a fast and consistent way of doing it that doesn't depend on trying every possible combination--or at least making educated guesses.  This is particularly true of semiprimes--the product of two prime numbers.  \\n\\nHowever, checking if a number is prime--and checking the factorization of prime numbers is correct--is a *very* easy thing to do.  We can check 300 digit prime numbers within a fraction of a second using computers!  \\n\\nNow, one thing we can do is use two very large prime numbers to scramble messages--as all messages can be encoded as numbers.  What's more, the way we scramble it means that I could hand you one number to use to scramble the message you want to send me, while I keep one that de-scrambles that message.  It doesn't matter how many people know about the number I give you: as long as it takes several hundred computers two years to factorize a large semiprime (large here meaning more than 200 digits), nobody's going to calculate *my* number using yours.  This process is called asymmetric key encryption (or public key encryption).\\n\\nWhy is this important?  Every time you want to make a purchase online, you want to make sure that bad guys don't get your credit card number.  Websites use asymmetric key encryption to ensure that bad guys listening to your Internet connection cannot get your credit card number and take trips to Thailand with your money.  Banks use similar methods to ensure that bank-to-bank electronic money transfers are secure and that bank robbers can't take their money by tapping into an Internet connection.  The military uses it to pass its orders around so that enemies can't see the military's plans.  Indeed, the Nazis lost the war at least in part to the fact that their message scrambling wasn't as secure as they thought.  But you didn't ask about how computers were invented, so we'll save that story for another time.\", '[Terence Tao on Prime Numbers](_URL_0_)', 'There\\'s something my brain isn\\'t quite grasping, which is, if a given number X is the product of two primes Y and Z, then those are the *only* two primes which can be multiplied together to make X. \\n\\nI mean, I can sit here and go \"3 x 5 is 15; are there any other primes which can be multiplied together to make 15? Obviously not. Next, 5 x 7 is 35...\" but I don\\'t instinctively, logically *see* that this remains true all the way up. \\n\\nCan anyone Prove It  To Me Like I\\'m Five?', 'This question itself is way more interesting than any possible answer:)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=public+key&amp;restrict_sr=on'], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magicicada'], [], [], ['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqKSXk5Xwg8'], [], [], ['http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=public+key&amp;restrict_sr=on'], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magicicada'], [], [], ['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqKSXk5Xwg8'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2177, "q_id": "295hgu", "title": "what is sacred geometry and why is it considered \"wrong\" by most mathemeticians?", "selftext": "I saw a discussion posted in r/math about it, but people were reluctant to discuss it because it's considered \"fake\" by the math community. So ELI5: what is is it and why is it wrong", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/295hgu/eli5_what_is_sacred_geometry_and_why_is_it/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cihm2c8', 'cihm44v', 'cihqy2o', 'cihsup4'], 'score': [29, 33, 68, 4], 'text': [\"Mathematicians don't give two shits about symbolism.  Discussion of spiritual matters is not part of math.\", 'Sacred geometry is a form of symbology that focuses on geometric forms found in nature, having roots in Jewish numerology and Hindu Agamas (rules for building temples). It tries to find deeper meaning in the natural geometry found in living things, using it as the foundation for a proof for the existence of a divine creator. ', 'As I understand it, sacred geometry claims mystical or spiritual significance to shapes. Mathematicians think it\\'s \"wrong\" because they believe that there is no evidence for these claims. As a consequence, they feel that sacred geometry has nothing to do with mathematics.\\n\\nFurthermore, you\\'ll find many scientists, mathematicians and psychologists go further than simply considering a pseudo-scientific claim \"wrong\", but they will get actively perturbed by it. I find I\\'ll do this as well. \\n\\nI think there\\'s an analogy to free jazz or contemporary art. These fields are complex and nuanced, and you need to understand a good deal to appreciate them at all. To a layman free jazz might sound like indiscriminate tooting, and contemporary art may be reduced to a man nailing shoes to a wall and calling it art. Sacred geometry is akin to that layman getting on stage at a free jazz show and making noise with his saxamaphone or nailing his shoes to a wall at an art exhibit; he perceives no difference between what he does and what the artists do because he never actually understood what the artists do in the first place. You, as a professionally trained and dedicated free jazz musician or contemporary artist, have dedicated your life to this field and find the layman\\'s performance a celebration of ignorance. To you it seems disrespectful that the layman has so little faith that there are deep levels of meaning to your artform, simply because he cannot perceive them. It feels like an effort to reduce your way of life to a gimmick.\\n\\nSo, beyond not believing in sacred mathematics, you\\'ll likely find mathematicians outwardly derisive and hostile to the idea because they perceive it to be not just incorrect, but a mockery of the great catalogue of understanding compiled by centuries of geniuses who dedicated their lives to it.', \"Humans are built to find patterns, even when they [don't exist](_URL_2_). Mix that with congnitive biases of [Observer-expectancy effect](_URL_3_)/[Selective perception](_URL_1_)/[Belief bias](_URL_0_)/[Confirmation bias](_URL_4_) you get Sacred Geometry.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_bias', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception', 'http://naturography.com/the-golden-section-hypothesis-a-critical-look/', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1036, "q_id": "8kxsge", "title": "Where did the idea come about that Buddhism was \"non-theistic\"", "selftext": "I always hear people refer to it as such, but it just isn't true. People say Buddhism \"isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. It's even non\\-theistic\" when that is patently false. Buddhism sprung out of Hinduism, and it has a wide array of gods venerated and worshiped. [Buddhists have a large pantheon of gods](_URL_2_), as well as the [fierce deities](_URL_0_) which destroy obstacles against Buddhists. Buddhists also venerate [Bodhisattva's](_URL_3_), or people who have achieved enlightenment, and they have their own concepts of divine beings similar to angels known as [Devas](_URL_1_). If one person said that to me, I'd just ignore it as one guy who didn't know what he's talking about. However, it's been so many people that at this point I'm starting to wonder if they know something I don't.\n\nThis is also related, why are most Eastern religions called \"philosophies\" instead of religions? Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism are all religions with their own concepts of divinity and heaven, yet they are for some reason treated differently from paganism or Abrahamic religions.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8kxsge/where_did_the_idea_come_about_that_buddhism_was/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dzbqw4e', 'dzcmd7h'], 'score': [82, 5], 'text': ['The difference between a \"religion\" and a \"philosophy\" is itself a somewhat philosophical difference. I, someone who has lived in Buddhist-majority countries and study it for a living, have been informed that I was wrong, Buddhism is *not* a religion, it is a *philosophy.* At some point, you just have to throw up your hands and shrug. It\\'s worth remembering that some of Christianity\\'s greatest thinkers - Saint Augustine, Thomas of Aquinas, Boethius, etc. - are by definition philosophers. This is usually where the conversation ends for me: Buddhism has just as many logicians and Priests as Abrahamic religions. \\n\\nThat said, your question is a little bit more in depth so I\\'ll try and address each of the points you\\'ve raised and then address your main question: \\n\\n >  Buddhism sprung out of Hinduism, and it has a wide array of gods venerated and worshiped.\\n\\nThis is... technically not true. \"Hinduism\" isn\\'t so much a religion like we\\'d consider Christianity and Judaism religions, but more of a complex of religions like Abrahamic faiths. The most popular forms of Hinduism today have their most pervasive elements sourced in far more recent centuries. Bhakti (the practice of devotion) for example, began in southern India at the end of the first millenium (Buddhism grew out of northern India). Vedanta (arguably the most popular and well known form of Hinduism today) began to pick up speed, mostly as an intellectual movement, but later expanding, about five centuries ago. Pretty much any form of Hinduism we have today will have roots and tendrils deep into history (every single one of them will source the literally timeless Vedas, more on that in a second) but the main point is salient: what we call \"Hinduism\" today, in any form, is not what Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, was responding to when he sat under the Banyan Tree 2500 years ago. To say that Buddhism \"comes from\" Hinduism is patently false. \\n\\nMore to the point, the most particular point where Buddhism and Hinduism diverge into completely different religions is that Hinduism reveres and holds sacred the Vedas, where Buddhism rejects them entirely. This is *crucial,* as the Vedas are Hinduism\\'s most sacred scriptures (i.e. the ones with all the gods) and all of Hinduism\\'s following scriptures (i.e. the Upanishads, the Puranas, etc.) all emerge out of Vedic philosophy. Buddhism\\'s primary distinction is that it rejects the Vedas. And arguably, by extension, the gods. \\n\\n*Arguably.* \\n\\n >  Buddhists have a large pantheon of gods, as well as the fierce deities which destroy obstacles against Buddhists.\\n\\nNeither of the articles which you posted are patently false, but they are sorely lacking in nuance and present local cults and single-use rituals as if they are universally \"Buddhist.\" This is an unfortunate mistake that Buddhists make, not just on Wikipedia, but in publication format as well. \\n\\nAn easy give away on the \"Buddhist deities\" page is the list of names are all listen in Tibetan (i.e. Ksitigarbha is an Indian name, with its Tibetan equivalent listed next to it, \"sa\\'i nying po\"). This doesn\\'t mean the beings listed on this page don\\'t exist in other parts of the world, i.e. Japan or China, in fact there\\'s a pretty good rule: if it\\'s Indian, it probably exists in the mythologies of other parts of the Buddhist world. Take the Bodhisattva Avaloketishvara: in Tibetan he is considered among the most sacred Bodhisattva, often referred to as \"the god of compassion,\" Chenrizi (Tib: spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug). In China and Korea, he takes a primarily female form as Guanyin. \\n\\nThe \"Fierce Deities\" page, however, is almost entirely Tantric Buddhism which is almost (*almost*) exclusive to India and Tibet. Tantric Buddhism gets... tricky, quickly to say the least. I\\'m not a tantric adept, so I\\'m not going to start expounding doctrine. But I can say with some authority that Tantric philosophy isn\\'t necessarily supposed to be taken literally. This is something that has caused conflict in Tibet, with Tibetans being confused historically over how to interpret violent and sexual imagery that was prevalent in the Tantras (where these Wrathful Deities originate). Teachers, of whom Atisha is probably the most well known, informed the Tibetans that these were symbolic, not literal. The image of the yabyum is meant to be the union of wisdom and compassion. The image of the wrathful deity is meant to be the destruction of illusion, falsehood, and evil in the presence of truth. Later, there would exist Tantric Fundamentalists who would take these images to heart and wear pieces of corpses on their bodies and drink blood. \\n\\nSo while yes, these things are true and are a part of the constellation of Buddhism, it\\'s worth looking into each one individually. There are few (or probably better yet *no*) scriptures that are universally Buddhist. While Avaloketishvara might be found in all Buddhist countries in some form, you will find that his treatment is vastly different from prayerful weeping in Tibet, to candle-lit offerings in Korea, to polite indifference in Thailand. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the wrathful gods (are not listed on that page because they) are local cults that predate Buddhism in some form, and their worshipers are cognizant that the gods are not a part of Buddhism, but tangential to it. \\n\\nOne worshiper in Bhutan put it pretty well in Christian Schicklgruber\\'s article *Gods and Sacred Mountains*, \"I would never dare ask the Buddha to keep my cows healthy or to protect me in war.\" \\n\\n >  Buddhists also venerate Bodhisattva\\'s, or people who have achieved enlightenment, and they have their own concepts of divine beings similar to angels known as Devas).\\n\\nThis is true. None of what I wrote above necessarily negates your point about Buddhism worshipping gods (not that that\\'s my goal either). But the way Buddhists approach their gods, whether local or Indian in origin, are *vastly* different from the way that Christians, Muslims, or Jews would approach their God. \\n\\nAs I said before, many Buddhists will light a candle for Avaloketishvara at the temple, but won\\'t do much else. \\n\\nPlenty of Catholics will do that for the Virgin Mary, or St.  < Insert Literally Any Name > . But it\\'d be wrong to then say that Catholics worshipped the Virgin or the Saints as Gods. It\\'d be heretical, in fact. On the page listing \"Fierce Deities,\" (I keep stumbling over this term because the more commonplace term is \"Wrathful Deities\") they list the Four Guardian Kings as \"Deities,\" which I suppose may be technically true, but these four statues usually grace the gateways of temples and monasteries but are never really *worshiped* like one might worship the Buddha, a Bodhisattva, or a local deity. \\n\\nThe problem really seems to be this term \"deity.\" \\n\\n\"Bodhisattva\" literally means \"enlightened being.\" An \"Arhat\" literally means \"Perfected one.\" None of these English translations even remotely carry the significance or the context that their Sanskrit equivalent has, so the default \"Deity\" is employed instead. Somewhat ironically, \"deva\" does literally mean \"God\" but in the hierarchy of beings you\\'ve listed, the Devas would be the lowest and least likely to be worshiped.\\n\\nIt\\'s worth lingering on that point: what makes the Abrahamic God *god*? Usually three qualities are imposed: omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. The Devas are none of this. They enjoy extreme pleasure and power for an extended period of time, but the Devas (assuming we can subsume the Wrathful Deities and Local Deities into their realm) are subject to the winds and fluctuations of Karma just like any other being and their time as gods will eventually come to an end. \\n\\nThe Bodhisattvas, as you said, are human beings who have achieved enlightenment. Neither by classification nor behavior, gods. Their goal is the ultimate enlightenment of everyone and everything they can reach. \\n\\nTo put it simply: just because Buddhism venerates certain beings and labels other beings (often ones with less veneration) as gods, doesn\\'t really affect the theoism-icity of the religion. \\n\\ncont\\'d. ', ' > This is also related, why are most Eastern religions called \"philosophies\" instead of religions? Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism are all religions with their own concepts of divinity and heaven, yet they are for some reason treated differently from paganism or Abrahamic religions.\\n\\nReligion in China is a very complicated matter, and I think it\\'s ultimately overly reductive to worry about whether these are philosophies *or* religions. However, the simple answer though is that they are treated differently from Abrahamic religions because they *are* different. \\n\\nIn China, the biggest religion in terms of adherents both now and for thousands of years has been what we call \"Chinese Folk Religion,\" which is difficult to describe in a nutshell but has many of the characteristics that one would typically ascribe to a religion: afterlife, gods, worship, sacrifice, cosmic and natural order, the role of mankind in the universe, and so on. \\n\\nFor Confucianism and Taoism, some people might claim they are a \"philosophy and not a religion\" because both find their origins in texts that are not particularly religious. If you read any of the canon of Confucian or Taoist thought, you will find that the overall thrust of the texts is commentary on ethical behavior, what a person should do or understand, and how society ought to be organized. Taken individually, it is dubious to claim that any of the texts are primarily religious in nature. Of course they are different from what we would call modern philosophy - all the texts claim some kind of *a priori* knowledge without building up an axiomatic system of logic. As an example, Confucian texts reference the concept of \"Heaven\" as an abstract source of perfection and harmony, and reference divination practices.\\n\\nArguments against calling Confucianism a religion is that the canon lacks most of the characteristics of what most people would imagine a religion is: afterlife, origin of humanity, or requirement of belief. A Confucian gentleman is enjoined to take part in ritual, but as a matter of social harmony. Matteo Ricci, the famous Jesuit priest and missionary (and one of the first westerners to master the Chinese language) believed that Confucianism and Christianity were compatible, and in fact borrowed a lot of Confucian language in his effort to introduce the gospels into Chinese. \\n\\nTaoism I think is more complicated because it encompasses both a liturgical tradition and a more philosophical tradition based on several canonical texts. An argument against calling Taoism a religion is that the first liturgical tradition involving Taoism (the Way of the Celestial Masters) did not come about until hundreds of years after Taoism began as a philosophy (sometime in the 4th century BCE vs 142 CE). I think that if someone must classify it as a religion, it cannot be considered an organized religion. \\n\\nBuddhism has to be considered separately, because although it has had great influence on Chinese culture it has also been suppressed as a foreign influence during various points in history that are beyond the scope of a simple comment. \\n\\nUltimately however Chinese scholars since at least the 6th century CE have been writing about the concept of the \"three Teachings\" - Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism - as parts of a larger harmonious tradition, the core of which is Chinese Folk Religion. While Buddhism could be separated from this tradition and viewed as its own independent system in other countries, Taoism and especially Confucianism cannot really be excised from the syncretic folk religion without losing their religious aspects. In the end I think the argument over whether they are primarily religious or primarily philosophical is not particularly useful, *but* they do have a lot of characteristics that make it unwise to try to make a one-to-one comparison with an Abrahamic religion. \\n\\ntl, dr: Taoism and especially Confucianism have no real religious characteristics of their own that weren\\'t borrowed from the larger folk religion, and the differences between Taoism and Confucianism are mostly philosophical.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fierce_deities', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva']", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2267, "q_id": "1bv6kh", "title": "why is soccer so ridiculously respected and revered in the rest of the world, and commonly sneered at and bashed in the usa?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bv6kh/eli5why_is_soccer_so_ridiculously_respected_and/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c9ad9of', 'c9agyrq', 'c9aid06', 'c9aiwy7', 'c9ako7e', 'c9aqjki', 'c9atj1w', 'c9atyo2', 'c9b03o2'], 'score': [11, 9, 6, 7, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Soccer is popular because you don't need special equipment or infrastructure to play it. You need a spherical object, and a relatively flat field. \\n\\nAll other sports need a lot of special equipment or infrastructure. \", \"I don't think it has anything to do with how fun/exciting different sports are. Soccer has become a lot more respected in the US over the last twenty years. It\u2019s not huge here professionally, but the united states has had a very competitive (most companies gunning for limited customer base, not sports competition) professional sports market since the NFL was founded and the NBA and ABA merged in the 70s . Americans have always had multiple options, and soccer came about relatively late for us.\\n\\nKids in the US play what they are exposed to, which is usually football and basketball, and everything else is going to be, as you say, sneered at because people are just unfamiliar with it. \\n\", \"It's kind of hard to generalize a country as large as the US ... where I live, soccer is very popular not only in the schools, but in the pubs.\\n\\nI think to watch it, you have to think (and it also helps if you played for 20 years and know what's going on).  It's much easier to drink beer, eat snacks and watch big men bash each other around (e.g. american football, basketball)\\n\\nWhat I don't understand is how people complain about soccer being boring watch 162 games of baseball a year.  I like baseball, but it is also slow ...\", 'I think the reason is two fold. First, the comments regarding wealth and the opportunities to play other sports in the US is valid.  I think the second reason is that the fans in the US have been trained to like sports with artificial breaks (tv timeouts, change in innings, end of quarters, etc). Also, we in the US like a lot of scoring and have not been told at a young age that there is beauty in a 0-0 tie.  We like our home runs, 3 point shots, power plays and hail Mary passes.  \\n\\nFinally, it also could have to do with the US not being that competitive at it nor is our league up to par with the EPL.  US spoiled US fans ant the bat and it we feel that something is not perceived as the best, we become uninterested.  \\n\\nI do love watching soccer but I am in the minority. ', \"I don't know how much cost factors in (I'm sure it does) but people in the US tend to love high scoring, high intensity games. Before you go off on how soccer is intense, compare it to american football, basketball, even baseball and you should be able to tell that it is way down of eye-grabbing action. \\n\\nOn the other hand, part of America also loves NASCAR, and I can't imagine there being anything more boring than watching cars go really fast in a circle for hours. \", 'The same reason why the rest of the world sneers at football. You generally grow to enjoy what is revered by your community.', 'The cost of equipment does play a role but I don\\'t believe its as great as some people think.  For example, take cricket which it could be argued requires more equipment then baseball.  However its bigger then any other sport in places like India and Pakistan where kids living in slums will play it with sticks and up turned crates for wickets. \\n\\nI think the reason for the popularity of a sport is down to who the kids playing it aspire to be.  If local news/sport is dominated by a particular player/sport, then kids will play that sport to be like their heroes.  Who in turn become professional players who are then heroes to another generation and so on.  If Messi or Ronaldo were American, \"soccer\" would suddenly become a lot more popular in the US.', 'Americans like american sports. Basketball, football, and baseball originated in the US. Hockey and soccer, not from here, will always be distant 4th and 5th place sports', 'I don\\'t think soccer is sneered at and bashed, as a sport. We sneer at the disdain heaped upon American football, with the hand-egg jokes, and \"hurr, hurr, I thought you were talking about *real* football, not blah blah.\" \\n\\nNobody likes being looked down on by elitists. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1650, "q_id": "1hkonu", "title": "why won't any country grant snowden asylum?", "selftext": "why is he getting rejected over and over again? I read the stupid excuses, but what's the real reason?\nalso why did the ecuadurian reject him while accepting assange, aren't they both on the same \"team\"?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hkonu/eli5why_wont_any_country_grant_snowden_asylum/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cav8zbw', 'cav9i2j', 'cavamg7', 'cavaxu4', 'cavdjo9', 'cavoccz'], 'score': [26, 16, 6, 21, 7, 2], 'text': ['Assange went to Ecuadorian territory (an embassy is their territory, ~~technically~~ basically), so he followed their rules on granting Diplomatic Asylum.  For Snowden he\\'s probably be granted the same if he went to Ecuador\\'s embassy, but he\\'d have to go into Moscow for that, which wouldn\\'t happen.\\n\\nRegarding \"what is the **real** reason\" the best we can tell you is what those countries say, everything else is just useless speculation.', \"He's basically the equivalent of playing nuclear hot potato. Nobody really wants to fuck with a wanted criminal with his kind of infamy. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his actions, you have to see that he's become a bit of a worldwide pariah.\", 'There are probably several countries who would grant him asylum, but he has to be in that country or at the very least in their embassy when he applies. \\n\\nRussia have already offered him asylum, but on the condition that he stop sharing US secrets. He refused the condition and the offer of asylum was withdrawn.', 'There will be severe economic and political consequences for anyone who grants Snowden asylum. The US is like the schoolyard bully, anyone who crosses him will get knocked around a bit. ', 'No country has anything to gain by letting Snowden in. They all have a lot to lose (pissing off the US.)', \"Because they weights the pros and cons.  And Snowden is not worth it.  That's the sad truth, there's a price for everything in this world.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1119, "q_id": "49kq9d", "title": "Do we have any statistics on the amount of the people with relatively common symptoms but with rare diseases that are mistakenly diagnosed, therefore uncured for long period?", "selftext": "Bonus question: how many were only correctly diagnosed after death? \n\nPs: I'm a computer science guy. This is not for any kind of research/coursework. Simply a /r/Showerthoughts I had today. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/49kq9d/do_we_have_any_statistics_on_the_amount_of_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d0swrmf'], 'score': [3], 'text': ['This is a very broad question, so the answer will have to be somewhat vague. But in simplistic terms, yes, we do have these statistics to some degree. For example, the emergency medicine literature has many studies regarding the likeliest diagnoses when faced with a patient\\'s presenting complaint, ie, \"Right lower quadrant pain - 30% appendicitis, 20% GI upset, 15% ovarian cyst or menstrual syndrome, 10% hernia, 5% ectopic pregnancy, 20% other.\" Many of those papers contain breakdowns of what the last Other category was. The problem, as you noted, is that most of these broad symptom categories are highly nonspecific, so there will be a huge number of different diagnoses in the Other category. But yes, we do know that there are certain small groups of people who are initially misdiagnosed based on their nonspecific complaints. When you add in the question of time, such as those conditions only diagnosed posthumously or treatments that are delayed for long periods of time, it becomes very hard to track this data. Say someone dies of untreated colon cancer\u2026 if they don\\'t get an autopsy, which is fairly common, how would we even know how they died? And even if it was proven that they had died of colon cancer, how do we know which of their nonspecific complaints in the past ER visits have been related to the cancer, and which ones had not?']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 31, "q_id": "1ft8el", "title": "If pushed, would a frictionless marble roll across a surface or glide?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ft8el/if_pushed_would_a_frictionless_marble_roll_across/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cadjuwm', 'cadsigs'], 'score': [16, 4], 'text': [\"If it was pushed in-line with its center of mass it would glide, and if it was given some torque as it was pushed it would have a rolling component, but it wouldn't roll without slipping, which is what most people mean when they think of rolling.\", 'what if you applied an external force to the marble and then heated up the top of the marble as it was travelling? the marble would roll due to the imbalance of weight/mass distribution across the marble. f=ma']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1982, "q_id": "32bjc5", "title": "Has a gang war in a city ever become embroiled in a true war or insurgency?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32bjc5/has_a_gang_war_in_a_city_ever_become_embroiled_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cq9uhbz', 'cq9vx1p', 'cqa6tn5'], 'score': [58, 27, 6], 'text': ['To some extent, you can count the Nika Riots in Constantinople as an example of this. At the heart were the two big groups of chariot racing fans, the Blues and the Greens. These two groups were much bigger than just racing though, as they were also street gangs, and in some interpretation, proto political parties. They often rioted among themselves, but during the Nika riots, the two sides sort of found common ground in opposition to the policies of Emperor Justinian I, and the riot turned into a general revolt against the emperor. ', 'We were never technically at war with Libya in the \\'80s, but we used [military response](_URL_1_), sanctions etc. against Moammar Qaddafi and his state-sponsored terrorism.  Everyone else here can decide if that counts.\\n\\nAt that time, one of the most powerful gangs in the history of Chicago was at their peak:  El Rukn (~~Islamic~~ Arabic for \"pillar\" or \"foundation\").  They had gotten powerful enough that they were [influencing local politics](_URL_2_), campaigning for then-mayor Jane Byrne, contributing to aldermen Ed Vrdolyak and Bobby Rush, and finally planning on running one of their own as an alderman.  In 1986, El Rukn leader Jeff Fort and 4 others were [convicted of contracting](_URL_0_) with Libya for the purpose of committing domestic terrorism (Fort\\'s conviction was the [first of its kind in the US](_URL_3_)).\\n\\nEl Rukn was styled by Fort as an orthodox Islamic group but it bore more resemblance to black nationalism or Nation of Islam and was, in the end, a street gang albeit a disproportionately powerful one.  This is probably not exactly what OP was looking for but historically when one thinks \"gangs\" one does not have to necessarily be from the US to draw the correlation with the concept in major US cities, especially Chicago with its historic ties to organized crime.\\n\\nEDIT removed unnecessary editorializing', 'In Detroit during the late 1960s until the early 1970s, there was arguably a relative level of insurgency, kicked off by the 1967 Detroit Riots and the spread of the Black Power Movement.  A lot of the militants in Detroit that were members of groups like the Revolutionary Action Movement and the Black Panther Party were drawn from local gangs.  Substantial income to the social programs pioneered by local militants (especially the BPP) came from robbing heroin houses in the city, which itself was a function of many of the armed militants formerly being stick-up boys who got their day-to-day income through this method in the first place.  \\n\\nSource: Williams, Yohuru.  Lazerow, Jama.  \u201cLiberated Territories: Untold Local Perspectives on the Black Panther Party.\u201d  Duke University Press.  2009.   ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-10-31/news/8603210871_1_el-rukns-black-p-stone-nation-street-gang', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya', 'https://books.google.com/books?id=M01XXY9Dk74C&amp;pg=PA224&amp;lpg=PA224&amp;dq=el+rukn+influence+on+chicago+politics&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=WnNuElI1K8&amp;sig=-_FGKXkTjIC_Q4qemY-fijhsKbM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=D5UqVZS9F4uuogTCvYH4Cg&amp;ved=0CEQQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&amp;q=el%20rukn%20influence%20on%20chicago%20politics&amp;f=false', 'http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-1988/The-Making-of-Jeff-Fort/'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2310, "q_id": "2gm843", "title": "if american football is the most popular sport in the u.s., then why is there only one pro league?", "selftext": "Soccer is far and above the most popular sport in the UK and they have multiple tiers of it.  Why is it different here?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gm843/eli5_if_american_football_is_the_most_popular/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ckkfikr', 'ckkfn73', 'ckkfoft', 'ckkfr6o', 'ckkhq43'], 'score': [14, 6, 5, 3, 2], 'text': ['By that logic there are many tiers of football.\\n\\nNCAA football isn\\'t \"pro\" but it\\'s pretty much the minor leagues. There\\'s also arena football, and tons of other leagues that would be the equivalent of the bottom tiers of English soccer.', \"The career of a pro football player is pretty short compared to that of other sports. It doesn't allow a player the time to rise through the ranks the same way they would if they were playing something like baseball.\", 'It\\'s a good question and I\\'m not sure there\\'s a clear answer but here are some reasons I can think of...\\n\\n* College football serves as \"minor leagues\" for younger players\\n\\n* NFL rosters are pretty huge and contain many players that are just on the \"practice squad.\" And second-stringers have no problem getting playing time as there are unlimited substitutions so there\\'s no need to move guys to another league just to get them \"match fit.\"\\n\\n* In some cases, Canadian football, Arena football (defunct), NFL Europe (defunct), or the German/Australian leagues can serve as second-tier leagues\\n\\n* Unlike golf or baseball where some guys can spend years in the lower-tier leagues for pretty low pay, football is very hard on the body and frankly isn\\'t worth playing unless you\\'re paid really well. You don\\'t see a lot of adult recreational full-contact gridiron football leagues. Even good players sometimes retire in their prime because they don\\'t want to play.', \"College football, that's what different.\\n\\nThe UK doesn't have the same sort of tradition college sports being a gateway to professional sports that the US does.  College football lives in much the same niche as secondary tier soccer, and had capture the fan base to a degree that makes it hard for a secondary pro league to be profitable.\\n\\nThat said, there are other football leagues in North American...Area Football, various short term startups like the UFL and XLF, Canadian Football, etc.\\n\\n\", 'There used to be another professional league, but it merged with the NFL.\\n\\nSource: _URL_0_\\n\\n\"In 1966, the NFL agreed to merge with the rival American Football League (AFL), effective 1970; the first Super Bowl was held at the end of that same season in January 1967.\"\\n\\nEdit: Oops! I forgot to answer your question.\\n\\nIf you define a professional football league as an entity that pays its players, then we have the Arena Football League. It\\'s in-door professional (American) football league.\\n\\nWe probably don\\'t have another league on par with the NFL because it would be too hard to compete against them. The better players would most likely sign with the NFL because it\\'s more established, and the new league would probably only sign not-so-good players.\\n\\nWe did, briefly, have the United States Football league.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1263, "q_id": "1bojoq", "title": "how game shows (price is right, jeopardy, who wants to be a millionaire, etc) can afford to keep giving away money and prizes every show?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bojoq/eli5_how_game_shows_price_is_right_jeopardy_who/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c98jju4', 'c98kgw9', 'c98l8em', 'c98me1a', 'c98neeq', 'c98pb8o', 'c99dbgz'], 'score': [39, 12, 2, 8, 3, 2, 2], 'text': ['Shows get money from advertising and product placement.  In a regular produced show you have lots of actors.  For a gameshow you really just have the host making them a lot cheaper to produce.\\n\\nShows that give away large prizes like a million bucks use insurance.  They know that only a few people a year are going to win the $1 million.  Things like cars and TVs are off-set because the show is also used as an ad.\\n\\nThe Price is Right always spends a few seconds telling you about the FABULOUS NEW FUSION FROM FORD!  Ford provides the car for free or cheap because they get an ad out of it.', 'I\\'m pretty sure you\\'re talking about USA shows, but for comparison, I\\'ve found the [prices which ITV charge to advertise in the UK](_URL_0_) (click on the \"ITV Spots cost file\" link at the bottom of the page).\\n\\nA 30-second ad on national TV during peak hours is around \u00a360,000. Assuming 3 ad breaks of 4 minutes each, that\\'s 24 individual ads, bringing in a total of \u00a31.44million ($2.19million) per show. I\\'d guess that would pretty much cover the cost of the prizes, when you consider that the contestants don\\'t win the jackpot every time. And that doesn\\'t include sponsorship - the ads for the same company that they show at the start and end of every ad break. And it doesn\\'t include income from ads in any re-runs (not even the +1 channels which run an hour behind the regular channels).\\n\\n(Of course there are more costs than just prize money - but this at least gives you an idea of the money they receive.)\\n\\nPlus, my experience of American TV is that there are far more ads than in the UK. And, being a bigger country with a bigger population, I\\'d expect the cost of advertising to be bigger too.', 'In the US games shows winnings(prizes, not money) quite often go unclaimed due to the taxes. Which i suspect are then re-used or returned to the company that supplied them. Additionally discounts are given on prizes to the game show and are usually at just the cost of manufacturing the item. ', '* A lot of game shows, particularly *TPIR*, are basically hour long ads for various product, which the advertisers provide for free.\\n* Game shows are really, really cheap to make...no actors, no writers, 1 host, 1 set, 1 hour, 1 take...they can often do a week\\'s worth of shows in a day.  Compare that to say, *Two and a Half Men*, where the \"men\" make a combined $1.6 million dollars...per episode.', 'because they dont pay for the prizes, the prizes are part of the advertising budget for which ever company provides the prize', \"the prizes just don't cost that much, relative to the amount of revenue the show earns. \", 'People like watching game shows and seeing people win money/prizes. Because of this, companies spend millions of dollars to buy advertisement time slots/commercials to air on tv. That money is owned by the network company which the show is run on (Price is Right is on CBS, so CBS owns that money.) The money is provided to the winners of the prizes by the network (CBS/ABC/NBC)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.itvmedia.co.uk/advertise/rates'], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2760, "q_id": "1n7zm5", "title": "what happens to your account on sites like facebook, reddit, twitter, youtube, linkedin when you die?", "selftext": "Do your family members get access to your account? Do they get all the photos if it's instagram or flickr or facebook? Videos if it's youtube?  ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n7zm5/eli5_what_happens_to_your_account_on_sites_like/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ccg7ei7', 'ccg7yu6', 'ccg815c', 'ccg93sj', 'ccg9due', 'ccg9nwb', 'ccgeyhq'], 'score': [17, 46, 10, 15, 3, 5, 2], 'text': ['nothing, i know a few people who have died, and i could still send them facebook messages', 'I believe Facebook has a reporting option to report deaths. If a family member provides the proper documents they can turn it into a memorial type page. (Or maybe I just dreamed that.)', 'I have a friend that died a few years ago that I\\'m still friends with on Facebook. His page was originally full of kind words of people that knew him, but now it\\'s a mashup of random spam and the occasional \"I miss you\" post.', \"_URL_0_\\n\\nHere is a collection of dead people's social media profiles. I don't know why they're being collected.\", 'If you want to say goodbye using social media and possibly creep people out, check out [DeadSocial](_URL_0_)', 'Google has already created a solution for this \\nIf you go the settings-account manager , you can actually choose a will. What it does is , after a specific amount of inactivity on your account - say 6 months  it will mail all your passwords and account details to a email address specified in the will.u can google it :)', 'at least with twitter, if you leave it unattended for long enough it gets hacked and turned in to a spam account.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://mydeathspace.com/article-list.aspx'], ['http://www.deadsoci.al/'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 912, "q_id": "1gsuui", "title": "Why does Listerine not kill all of the cells in your mouth?", "selftext": "If Listerine (and other antiseptic mouthwashes) claim to kill \"germs\" in your mouth, how do the antiseptic chemicals in the mouthwash not kill the cells in your mouth too?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gsuui/why_does_listerine_not_kill_all_of_the_cells_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['canukfa'], 'score': [8], 'text': [\"This isn't exactly my field, but let me tell you that if you cultured mouth epithelial cells in a dish and rinsed with Listerine, 100% would be dead. So what's the difference between a petri dish and a mouth? Well, it's the same reason why Listerine doesn't kill 100% of the *germs* in your mouth-- extracellular matrices composed of polysaccharides and protein. When bacteria form these lattices, it's known as biofilm, and it protects them from your immune system, antiseptics like alcohol, and so on. That's why you have to brush or scrape them away. I'm not sure what your mouth epithelial cells have to protect themselves from harsh chemical treatments, but you probably *do* remove millions of epithelial cells with every mouthwash. However, most of the cells in the oral mucosa are unaffected due to the protection provided by extracellular proteins and polysacchardies (some of which are known as mucus).\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2617, "q_id": "i3h4k", "title": "Looking to fund scientific research, not sure where to start. ", "selftext": "First I apologize in advance if this is not the proper place for this. \n\nI am looking to fund research into palinopsia -\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSay I have anywhere between 25k-50k with more on the way. \n\nWhere would I start? Should I hook up with a foundation that focuses on say migraines or contact researchers that have published papers on palinopsia already? Any advice well appreciated. \n\nedit: Great information. Have a place to start now. Thanks!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i3h4k/looking_to_fund_scientific_research_not_sure/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c20l58f', 'c20l9f7', 'c20lckn', 'c20m0f4'], 'score': [2, 3, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Are you a researcher yourself or you'd life to fund someone elses venture into it?\\n\\nIf the latter, I'd check out your local university and asks around for professors who do neurology research and tell them you have funds which you'd like to apply to that subject. If they themselves aren't doing it, ask if they know any one who is or try contacting another university.\\n\\nOddly enough the wiki article speaks about the difficulties in research of palinopsia.\\n\\nYou could try a science foundation, NSF might be able to point you toward an appropriate group, but I just like universities because I'm biased. \", 'start a grant agency... that\\'s how most of the science is financed by now.\\nyou can specify general topic of research in your conditions and\\napplicants will present their ideas about how they are going to spend your money. then you check their credentials, previous results and consider possible outcome (e.g. how you like their ideas) and with help of some wise people you can decide who do you give your money. plus you get report on how they were spent and you can sometimes even reclaim them if the conditions were not met and decide better next time.\\n\\njust remember - research with no immediate potential outcome might be as important as the so called \"applied research\"... and it possibly needs your help even more.', 'With that level of funding you\\'d be best served by find a specific researcher who is studying/iterested in your topic.\\n\\nI\\'d spend some time reading medical journal articles regarding Palinopsia.\\nOnce you find a possible researcher, you can directly offer them the funds through their own local channels.  Academic researchers can accept funds through a \"research foundation\" contribution through their own university that goes directly to them.', \"[A good start](_URL_0_).\\n\\nIt's hard to just give money away, though. You need to be a foundation, if I'm not mistaken. You could donate to a foundation with some stipulations. With that small amount, my recommendation would be for small grants/fellowships/stipends for up-and-coming PhD (or PhD/MD) students working specifically on this problem.\\n\\nFrom the sounds of it, I'm not sure exactly which fields would study this. A cross between cognitive neuroscience, psychophysics and rat-neuroscience.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palinopsia']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=palinopsia']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 201, "q_id": "2o6jhe", "title": "How small is a \"differential\" element?", "selftext": "My teachers always played \"fast  &  loose\" with the definition of a differential - I have always heard a differential slice is \"infinitesimally small\" but how can this be?  I know how to use the derivative/differential in practice - but am struggling to understand the theory - this was never covered. All we got were limits - infinitesimals were not elaborated on because they are really small and can be ignored .... right?\n\nIf the differential element is not used why do we still use the notation and say, \"infinitesimally small\"? I would think the dx is a very small but *real* number. After all, it's integral (infinite sum) is *finite* (or even zero?).  What does it mean for something to be \"infinitely small\"? \n\nMore questions: how can you divide anything by infinity? What happens if we multiply infinity by dx - an infinitesimal \"number\" (in regular calculus, dx is NOT a number...) - do we still get infinity? Is dy/dx a ratio or not?\n\nPerhaps a clarification in terms is required ...  Why do books equate dx and delta x? This does not seem to be mathematically sound! \n", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2o6jhe/how_small_is_a_differential_element/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cmk7kfr', 'cmk8grg', 'cmkda0e', 'cmlqnwl'], 'score': [14, 3, 5, 2], 'text': [\"There are two different ways of looking at this which you are jumbling together, the mathematical way and the physical way. In mathematics, perfect points, lines, circles, and limits exist. In the physical world, they don't. This does not mean that mathematics is wrong or useless. Mathematics is right in its own realm. And mathematics is can give us excellent approximate answers to real-world physics.\\n\\nMathematically, an infinitely small object can exist with no problem because we just define it that way. In mathematics, the differential length element is literally an infinitely-small length. But infinity is not really a number and it only plays nice in the context of limits. There are different kinds of infinities. To determine which infinity we are talking about, we have to properly take a limit of a finite as it approached infinity. My point is that, mathematically, we can literally take the limit all the way down to infinitely small because mathematics is defined to allows this. So there is no problem. For integrals, we take the limit such that the total integral stays a constant, finite number. \\n\\nFor example, if we want to know the area of circle, we could, in principle cut the circle into a grid of squares, measure the area of one square and multiply by the number of squares that results when we cut up the circle. But at the edges of the circle, this approach does not work since you only get partial squares due to the curved sides. Your answer will be slightly wrong. To avoid this problem, you start over and cut the circle into smaller squares, measure the area of one square and multiply by the number of squares. There is still some error because of the edges of the circle, but it is closer. As you use smaller and smaller squares, the edge of the circle looks more and more straight to a given square, there are less partial squares and the error gets smaller. In the limit that the squares get infinitely small, the error goes away completely. But the limit is taken carefully so that the area of one square times the number of squares is always a finite number and is constant (up to the amount of error present at the beginning of the limit). This is effectively what an integral means.\\n\\nPhysically, the picture is different. We can't have infinitely small parts of an object. For example, say we want to find the total mass of a physical sphere by integrating over its mass density. If the differential element in the integral gets too small, we are at or below the size of atoms, and the macroscopic equation of the mass density that we are using is no longer valid. Therefore, in physics, the differential element in an integral is not literally infinitely small. Rather, the differential element is simply small enough compared to the rest of the system that it can be approximated as infinitely small. The point is that in the real world, once the differential element gets small enough, the integral converges to an answer with an error that is beyond our level of detection or beyond our desired accuracy.\", \"_URL_0_  I've never done much (or anything) with these, but it's my understanding that they can be used to derive a lot of properties of calculus while containing rigorous definitions of infinitesimals. It's somewhat dense, however.\\n\\nEDIT: See Philophobie's post, you actually want the hyperreal numbers, not the surreals.\", 'In the real numbers, which is where we usually work in calculus, there is no such thing as an infinitesimal quantity. This is known as the [Archimedean_property](_URL_0_) of the real numbers, and it is a very important feature of them. For any real number you choose, there is always a smaller one. So one way to answer this would be to say that there is no such thing as a \"differential\" element.\\n\\n > All we got were limits\\n\\nLimits are the foundation of modern analysis. Calculus is built on limits. The great thing about limits is that they allow us to rigorously define things like the derivative and the integral *without ever having to appeal to infinitesimal quantities*. That\\'s great, because although there is some intuitive appeal to the idea of infinitesimal quantities in certain contexts, they turn out to be really tricky to put on a rigorous logical foundation.\\n\\n > infinitesimals were not elaborated on because they are really small and can be ignored .... right? \\n\\ninfinitesimals were not elaborated on because they do not play a part in standard analysis. \\n\\n > If the differential element is not used why do we still use the notation and say, \"infinitesimally small\"? \\n\\nIn part, it is because these notions and notations are a legacy from the early practitioners of calculus. Leibniz and Newton each made use arguments involving infinitesimal quantities when they invented the calculus. As I said, the idea has some intuitive appeal: the derivative is the ratio \u2206y/\u2206x for infinitely small \u2206x. This appeal to intuition can get us pretty far in calculus. We can derive all of the important rules and identities by appealing to the idea of infinitely small quantities, and thinking about infinitely small quantities helps a lot to understand what\\'s going on. \\n\\nBut, for exactly the same reason that you\\'re here asking this question, mathematicians were not satisfied with the imprecise notions underlying calculus and related fields which made appeals to infinitesimal quantities. In the 19th century, all appeals to infinitesimals were thrown out in favour limits, which require only a rigorous construction of the real numbers to justify logically, and not infinitesimal quantities. This is the stuff you\\'d learn about in a class on [real analysis](_URL_1_).\\n\\n > More questions: how can you divide anything by infinity?\\n\\nThere is no real number called \"infinity\", so if we are working in the real numbers, you can\\'t divide anything by infinity.\\n\\n > Is dy/dx a ratio or not?\\n\\nIf y=y(x) is a function of x, then dy/dx is a function\u2014in particular, it is y\\'(x). But remember what y\\'(x) is: it is the slope of the tangent line of the graph of y=y(x). If we let y(x) be a line\u2014say for example, y(x)=(2/3)\\\\*x\u2014then dy/dx *is a ratio*: it is 2/3. The derivative is a generalization of this idea of slope: dy/dx is the \"slope\" of the function y(x), and so for every x that you input into that function, you get back a \"slope\" which is in fact a ratio of rise/run.\\n\\n > Why do books equate dx and delta x?\\n\\nDifferent books say different things, but they are all (or at least, they all ought to be) *internally* consistent\u2014that is, any good math book will define the terms that it uses carefully and then stick by those terms. Discrepancies between authors should be handled on a case by case basis, because more often than not the discrepancy can be settled by checking how the different authors are defining their terms. ', \"Infinitesimals have gotten a bad rap, but using Smooth Infinitesimal Analysis, they can be made rigorous easily. No pesky limits involved. You need to give up the axiom of excluded middle, but there are arguments for why you should do this -- become a constructivist today!\\n\\nIn SIA, Infinitesimals are numbers x such that x^2 = 0 but x does not necessarily equal zero. If you have the law of excluded middle, you can prove that there are none such numbers, but if you discard it, you cannot show this and you get a very elegant calculus. \\n    f'(x)dx = f(x+dx)-f(x) for all infinitesimals dx\\nNote that dx is not dividing. dx could be 0, so we may not divide by infinitesimals.\\n\\nIntegration is defined as the opposite of derivation. It can and should be thought of as adding up an infinite number of infinitesimals, because that's a very useful mental model, but the actual operation is just the antiderivative. Summation isn't involved.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_property', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_analysis'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 183, "q_id": "9m8umf", "title": "When Hippocrates said, \"Let Food Be Thy Medicine,\" there wasn't much in the way of processed foods to make unhealthy choices with, so what foods were people making themselves sick with, and what were viewed at the medicinal foods?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9m8umf/when_hippocrates_said_let_food_be_thy_medicine/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['e7dbi3i'], 'score': [126], 'text': ['Ah, I think I can help with contextualizing this some. I have to get two things out of the way that rustle my jimmies first.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nFirst is the phrase \"Hippocrates said\". While there almost certainly was an historical Hippocrates, he almost certainly did not write most of -- or even all -- of the works of the Hippocratic Corpus. Modern historiography suggests that they were rather written by a group of doctors, for a variety of different audiences, over a considerable amount of times. Of course, it\\'s impossible to write about the history of medicine without talking about the Hippocratic Corpus, so I try to use phraseology like \"the Hippocratics,\" though even this probably suggests a more coherent group than they actually were.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nMy second jimmy-rustler if you quote, which is apocryphal ([_URL_0_](_URL_1_)) though widespread. That being said, the sentiment is SIMILAR to what the Hippocratics meant, though they would disagree with the way the quote is used.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nTo understand this quote, you need to understand the ancient conception of disease. Traditional Western medicine is similar to modern medicine in that it accepts that disease is caused by natural, and not supernatural causes (the classic example is \"On the Sacred Disease\", about epilepsy), but their understanding of its etiologies and noslogy is super bizarre to moderns. Human health was thought to be caused by the four humors -- blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile. Disease was caused by imbalances of these humors. Breakdown of the humors could be healthy (ie, concotion, or pepsis) -- such as what happens when urine is made. Or breakdown could be unhealthy (sepsis), such as digestion in the gut, though sepsis was also associated with the formation of new life. The life of a human was intimately linked with nature, so the environment dramatically affected the make up of the humors -- living on the second floor was associated with cooler air, and phlegmatics; swampy areas associated with black bile and melancholics. Temperature, of course, was essential; different humors were hot and cold. And I\\'m sure you can see where this is going -- different foods affected different humors. I\\'m certainly no specialist on this, but there\\'s a ton in the Hippocratic Corpus if you want to do some googling, and Galen, Avicenna, and plenty of other authors have their opinions about the humoral influences of different foods.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nBut here is why I find the apocryphal quote disingenuous (or at least how it is used) -- the Hippocratics, Galen, and traditional Western medicine would have felt that the importance of diet was mostly to MAINTAIN a healthy balance of humors, not to treat disease. This makes sense practically too -- there are few effective treatments in this era, and prevention makes the most sense. When a human is diseased, and the humors are unbalanced, then it is the time to use medical treatments such as blood letting, or medicines (the materia media, largely herbal medications, some of which are either used today, or their derivatives are). The Hippocratics would not have felt that \"food is thy medicine\"; rather, they would have felt that food, along with the climate, elevation, and temperature, are essential to countering natural imbalances in the humors and maintaining good health. When that health broke down, however, medicine was still essential.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nI recommend taking a look at Epidemics I and III -- my favorite books in the Hippocratic Corpus. They are very short, and basically the medical journal of a traveling Greek doctor. You can see many of the treatments that were offered to these patients.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nSo tying back to my second peeve about this quote -- it is pulled out by supporters of \"fad diets\" to suggest that radical diets are somehow an ancient idea to treat disease (which is a silly point in and of itself; there are plenty of ancient ideas for treating disease that we\\'ve rightly given up on). It annoys me as someone who loves medical history because the idea is an anachronism that ignores the humoral context, and it annoys me even more as a doctor because it dramatically overplays our understanding of nutrition, and downplays the effectiveness of medications.\\n\\n & #x200B;\\n\\nI hope that adds some context!']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258099432\\\\_Let\\\\_not\\\\_thy\\\\_food\\\\_be\\\\_confused\\\\_with\\\\_thy\\\\_medicine\\\\_The\\\\_Hippocratic\\\\_misquotation', 'https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258099432_Let_not_thy_food_be_confused_with_thy_medicine_The_Hippocratic_misquotation']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 488, "q_id": "2jr4x2", "title": "i open a big bag of chips, family sized. i take my portion, and also fill 3 zip lock baggies with those freshly opened chips. two days later the chips i put in the zip locked bags are stale. 2 weeks later, the chips in the original bag are not stale.", "selftext": "I thought I would be saving money, saving the chips in fresh zip locked bags, but no. Stale as Hell. I am old. I don't do it anymore, I'm just wondering why, when I leave the family sized bag folded over/barely closed, WHY do they still taste fresh, and my \"freshly\" sealed goes bad within 2-3 days? Cheers!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jr4x2/eli5_i_open_a_big_bag_of_chips_family_sized_i/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clecbi2', 'cleckay', 'cledif7', 'cleea6f', 'cleegbl', 'cleia95', 'clejg3y'], 'score': [5, 9, 11, 2, 12, 2, 2], 'text': ['Moisture can penetrate Zip Loc bags much easier than the silvery plastic that comes in chip bags. Moisture gets in and ruins the chips. You should have kept them in the big bag until you were ready to pack them. They would have been fine. Two weeks is a long time for chips also.', \"You know, that's a good question. You have your hypothesis, now go for some experiments. I have bags, wrap, wax paper, and potato chip bags. I'm going to try it out.\", \"There are at least two reasons.\\n\\nAs other people have mentioned, zip-loc bags, made from cheap plastic (LDPE or whatever), are not impermeable to oxygen or water. Some will eventually get through. The inside foil lining of your chip bag is much, much better at keeping the outside air out.\\n\\nHowever, even though a zip-loc bag is comparatively terrible as a diffusion barrier, it is still pretty good. I'd have a hard time believing that a zip-loc bag would allow that much moisture in to render chips stale in two days. \\n\\nWhich brings me to the second reason:\\n\\nThere are a lot more chips in the chips bag than in the zip-loc bag. I'm guessing the zip-loc baggies don't contain many chips, because the bag can only stretch so wide, and chips are irregularly-shaped. So the air-to-chips ratio in the baggies is pretty high. Contrast that to the family-sized bag, which probably has a lot more chips, and only a bit more air.\\n\\nWhy does this matter? It is possible, if the air is humid enough, and the air-to-chips ratio high enough, for your chips to go stale simply due to the moisture in the air already in the bag. The chips in the bag won't have this problem, as there are so many chips, each individual chip won't get a lot of moisture. As a bonus, most chip bags come filled with nitrogen, which is slightly heaver than air. Although it will eventually diffuse out, that initial, moisture-free nitrogen will linger for a while, giving your chip bag chips a nice advantage as well.\", \"Plastic isn't an air barrier, and air carries moisture. The lining on the inside of the chip's packaging is an air barrier, however.\", 'Bags of chips are not full of air, they are full of nitrogen (I think) or some other chemical mix that keeps things fresh and reduces moisture and bacterial growth. As soon as you open the bag this dissipates. ', 'Maybe light exposure plays a role? ', \"Another factor not mentioned is light, which causes photodegradation. That's why they're stored in a light-proof foil package.\\n\\nAnd to add to the comments made by /u/YMCApylons and /u/Poduler about nitrogen - here's a study from 1994 that showed that a trained panel of tasters could tell the difference between chips stored in a nitrogen filled bag and one without after 11 weeks of storage.\\n\\n[Effect of nitrogen flushing on shelf-life of packaged potato chips](_URL_0_)\\n\\nAlso the gas is also dehumidifed and usually filtered as well, which reduces the number of microbes (though some microbes will actually do better in anaerobic conditions, but I think they're usually associated with meat).\\n\\nBUT, you say you've opened the bag already, so I guess most of the difference is due to the reduced permeability of the foil bag and the blocking of light.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pts.2770070205/abstract']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 47, "q_id": "2auv2h", "title": "can someone explain rocky horror picture show to me? i feel like i didn't \"get it\"", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2auv2h/eli5_can_someone_explain_rocky_horror_picture/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ciyz23l', 'ciyz8ah', 'ciyzy11', 'ciz03dn', 'ciz0c2k', 'ciz0hoc', 'ciz0o3r', 'ciz0y6g', 'ciz115n', 'ciz1ffe', 'ciz1jxx', 'ciz1ly1', 'ciz1pyv', 'ciz1rc8', 'ciz1wdt', 'ciz1y5y', 'ciz25h8', 'ciz25tq', 'ciz2foq', 'ciz2hki', 'ciz2mv9', 'ciz2n8i', 'ciz2ovx', 'ciz2tr8', 'ciz2vlu', 'ciz3hsg', 'ciz3uwc', 'ciz40iw', 'ciz446d', 'ciz4bb1', 'ciz4do2', 'ciz4hlm', 'ciz4mjx', 'ciz4t4o', 'ciz4tiy', 'ciz4yzy', 'ciz54md', 'ciz57rs', 'ciz5bc9', 'ciz5bsx', 'ciz5hao', 'ciz5v0y', 'ciz61ga', 'ciz69ps', 'ciz6k67', 'ciz6na3', 'ciz706v', 'ciz70uy', 'ciz7242', 'ciz75wc', 'ciz7m21', 'ciz7nlw', 'ciz7wav', 'ciz81gw', 'ciz98ai', 'ciz9kod', 'ciz9r7q', 'cizbg1w', 'cizbm6u', 'cizc51b', 'cizc5u4', 'cizc6y3', 'cizcc5d', 'cizcems', 'cizcjsm', 'cizcxlq', 'cizd5wn', 'cizdjnt', 'cizdqlc', 'cize3aq', 'cizenrk', 'cizf572', 'cizfk9b', 'cizfngj', 'cizfntp', 'cizfsec', 'cizg4bz', 'cizg4wt', 'cizgk8t', 'cizgl9r', 'cizgrc0', 'cizgxwu', 'cizh4ol', 'cizh8bq', 'cizhes0', 'cizhlun', 'cizi0gw', 'cizi2ky', 'cizi5kv', 'cizikye', 'cizilxh', 'cizj2f2', 'cizjacf', 'cizjgc7', 'cizjhxi', 'cizjl29', 'cizjm1n', 'cizjp8j', 'cizjwid', 'cizk4m1', 'cizkcbu', 'cizkflj', 'cizl226', 'cizlfqw', 'cizlm7z', 'cizlq8k', 'cizm6k2', 'cizma87', 'cizmjje', 'cizmo2f', 'cizmrrh', 'cizna1x', 'cizneq8', 'cizni0b', 'cizns8x', 'ciznt17', 'ciznyz1', 'ciznz4l', 'cizo786', 'cizogd0', 'cizoitx', 'cizol1p', 'cizoviz', 'cizpicu', 'cizpnpj', 'cizpt3u', 'cizq15m', 'cizqmy8', 'cizqrmt', 'cizrmtj', 'cizry18', 'ciztcos', 'ciztecp', 'ciztepn', 'ciztr9f', 'cizu003', 'cizu0st', 'cizu8yi', 'cizupes', 'cizuvoc', 'cizvd0v', 'cizvdnr', 'cizvloj', 'cizwq0q', 'cj0juv5'], 'score': [67, 813, 20, 102, 22, 2889, 2, 223, 2, 8, 4, 4, 26, 12, 6, 6, 16, 2, 2, 2, 4, 7, 2, 3, 2250, 2, 2, 19, 3, 2, 2, 396, 3, 2, 6, 2, 4, 6, 3, 12, 19, 13, 2, 15, 5, 6, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 3, 2, 2, 2, 10, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 2, 7, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 3, 5, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 2, 3, 11, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 3, 5, 3, 2], 'text': [\"Honestly, there isn't much to get. It is meant to be over the top, obnoxious, and campy. It is a send up of the old sci-fi/horror films that generally focused on mad scientist what go a tromping through God's domain with creating life and all that. But if you're looking for a deeper meaning... well it is there, but it doesn't add anything. \\n\\nJust sit back, enjoy the music, and don't dig too deeply.  \", 'sexual liberation, good fun and someone realized that Tim Curry looked hot in a corset and heels', \"It really isn't a good movie. What made it a cult classic was the audience participation. If you haven't seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show on a big screen with the entire audience participating, then you haven't watched it.\", \"It is a campy, ludicrous sort of spin on a vampire/Frankenstein movie that became a cult classic because of its treatment of alternate sexualities at that time period, and its catchy songs. It remained a hit because of the audience participation part, turning it into an 'experience' where people can dress up and be silly. \", \"It's pastiche of horror movies, but it's also a piss-take of traditional puritan values. And DAMN Tim Curry can shake it.\", \"I was in middle school when Rocky Horror Picture Show first became popular; a few years later in high school, several of my friends and I went to the midnight shows on a regular basis. It was a blast. We stayed out until 3am, with parental approval, since they knew the older kids we were with. The crowd was exotic - were those actual gay people? And when the show started, the sideshow was remarkable - young people dressed up like the cast, at the front of the theater, acting out the movie as it went along. Others dressed up in the audience, participating in some sort of secret code that they were all in on... and that we learned over a few screenings.\\n\\nYears later a girlfriend had never seen it, so we rented it and watched on TV. It was horrible. It's a campy B-movie.\\n\\nTL;dr: RHPS was all about the scene that developed around the midnight shows - a counterculture where the odd, artsy kids could blend in, and if you were gay or trans, it didn't matter. Back in the late 70's or early 80's, this was a big thing, because social acceptance wasn't at the point it was today.\", \"If you're watching it at home on DVD... there's nothing to get. It's a silly movie with some good songs.\\n\\nYou must see it at a theatre to get the full effect with the live performers, the audience participation, etc.\", 'Some thoughts, as a cast member:\\n\\nRHPS is not a good film. It is a ridiculous film that is fun with catchy songs. Part camp, part loving homage, part absurd farce, all dealing with imagery and themes from decades of horror movies and B sci-fi movies. Its got a lot going on in it, which people recognize. That makes the whole thing accessible. So the transgressive parts, dealing with alternative and non-traditional sexualities, are easier to digest. \\n\\nRHPS is normally seen in theatres, with a live cast and/or audience participation. Those are places where, in my experience, sexuality of all stripes is championed. Not just LGBTQ and straight sexuality, but bondage, plus-size folks, disabled folks, everything. You can let your freak flag fly in a fairly safe,  non-judgmental space, that is still public. This is a movie where Tim Curry in a corset is *believable* as the sexiest thing you\\'ve ever seen.  \\n\\nThe audience participation also is transgressive in other ways. There are nazi salutes, because one character is clearly a nazi. There are  racial jokes. We make fun of current tragedies. (When the RKO tower comes down at the end, the AP line is \"Wait, I thought two towers fell?\") There are no sacred cows. It is a safe place to be absolutely horrible and let your inner thirteen year old out. Its the first place that its okay to laugh after a tragedy. \\n\\nWhat don\\'t you get about the show? I mean, it requires a lot of American and British film context, but outside of that, maybe there is something else I or someone could explain?', 'Well, stop trying to \"get it.\" There isn\\'t much to get.\\n\\nYou really need to experience the full Rocky Horror Picture Show experience which includes a set of actors performing the movie on stage while the movie is being played on a big screen and the audience participation. This occurs at a movie theater.\\n\\nBy itself, RHPS is a terrible movie. When coupled with a theater and audience participation it\\'s a lot more fun.', \"Man, RHPS sure was fun when I went to see it at a live theater. \\n\\nTransgender alien comes to Earth, owns a giant manor, lures people in to become crazy sex-cultists that also like to sing and dance in an environment that is completely accepting of gender/sexual preference/race. \\n\\nHonestly, there's not much to it. Just turn your brain off and enjoy the show, like a lot of theater.\\n\\nPS. Tim Curry makes this movie. By himself.\", 'Oh, also, /r/rhps in case you get interested', 'It is interesting this was posted today.  I finally decided that my daughter and her friends are old enough to pop their Rocky Horror cherries.  I am awaiting one of their parent\\'s permission.  If you want to \"get\" the film without seeing it live there isn\\'t much to get.  The Rocky Horror experience has to be live with a bunch of people that collectively know the responses and are into it enough to mimic the action of the film on stage in full regalia. ', \"It's just a jump to the left...\", \"An innocent, young, newly engaged couple (Brad and Janet) stumble upon a castle occupied by Dr. Frank N Furter when their car breaks down. The Dr. is holding a party for aliens from the planet Transexual to reveal his creation Rocky Horror.\\n\\nDr Scott comes looking for his son Eddie (Meatloaf) who Frank N Furter killed earlier but ends up discovering that Frank N Furter has developed a device called the Sonic Transducer.\\n\\nEverybody pretty much sleeps with everybody, they chase each other around and everyone is frozen and then thawed out for the grand finale, Rose Tint my World  &  Don't Dream It. Frank N Furter and Columbia (Meatloaf's GF) die, Riff-Raff and Magenta blasts off in the castle and Brad, Janet and Dr. Scott live.\", \"I'm the type of person who just hates musicals, so I'll never get it. Nothing makes me cringe harder than Bollywood movies or Glee.\", 'I went to see it before the \"audience cult\" went stupid. Before I saw it, it was a play for several years. It was supposed to be a parody of all the \"B\" rated horror films of the time, that\\'s all. ', \"It made me happy as a 'weird kid' who didn't know any other weird kids. It was my first glimpse of a world I'd only dreamed of. And [Hot Patootie by Meat Loaf](_URL_0_) is just the most wonderful thing. \", \"Thanks for this question.  I've never gotten this movie, either, although Tim Curry is amazing in his opening number.  I never saw the stage show in college and now I'm too old.\", \"From what I see, most people are saying that either there isn't anything to get (campy and silly), or you haven't seen it unless you've seen it at a theater with audience participation. I partially disagree on both parts.\\n\\nThis has been my favorite movie for the last fifteen years. I have never seen it at a theater, but it opened my mind. While it may be silly and camp on the surface, it tells a tale of two straight edge kids who haven't really experienced anything and are engaged too early in life. How does anyone know what makes them happy unless they experiment and find out what can make them happy? \\n\\nThe only comparison I can think of is the Amish rumspringa (sp?). They have to know what life is (and the world they're giving up) before they can commit to their religion. Well, the same thing applies to the rest of the world, but on a less strict scale. Brad and Janet didn't know much about themselves. RHPS is about opening their world and stepping out of the confines of polite society to find out who they can be. \\n\\nI also took from it, if someone is raised prim and proper and strict, being exposed to debauchery and freer lifestyles suddenly, can be traumatic. Slow exposure over time near maturity is healthier than a sudden immersion. I believe that's why Brad and Janet went off the deep end.\", \"Reasons i don't like The Rocky Horror Picture Show.\\nMusical\\nFeeling like i'm trying to be subverted\\n\", 'In my experience, \"theater people\" like it.  I found it unwatchable.', \"The RHPS is a bad, campy movie where the main attraction is playing along with the movie with audience participation and in-jokes. It is not for everyone. I have seen it and done the audience participation thing. I don't think it is that great and see no need to ever see it again, with or without audience participation.\\n\\nPersonally, I think the people who go repeatedly are kind of living out a fantasy or lifestyle they don't feel they can engage in fully. \", \"I've really enjoyed reading all the varied responses to OP's question and learning about how different the meaning of RHPS is to others. I remember the first time watching it in an old, rundown theatre on Halloween and seeing the spectrum of humanity enjoying the show and participating in the ceremony and tradition that was just as much a part of the movie as the film itself.\", \"The movie is at the same time a love letter to the old monster movies of the RKO era and a lampooning of everything that society at the time found taboo.  It was also a movie version of a stage musical of the same name with all the original actors with a few questionable additions (namely Meatloaf played both Eddie and Dr. Scott in the play to show that they were related but he was bumped from the role in the film).\\n\\nThat is pretty much the gist of it.  It is a satire of taboo subjects of the day and a send up to the monster movies of the 50's and 60's.\", \"It's a musical spin on Frankenstein. Teaching people to be open minded and not judge people just because they are different. It's ahead of its time and shear genius and the music is amazing. People who look deeper when they watch movies like this will get the inner meaning. Brad and Janet were two clean cut squares who never stepped outside their country club like lifestyle. Once they gave something new a chance it changed them forever and opened their minds to people who are different. It's a fun, weird, wacky movie. I Love it, and I'm a straight as an arrow. \", \"The Village Alamo Drafthouse in Austin has midnight showings every weekend. See it that way if you haven't yet. \", \"I don't think it had a plot\", 'It\\'s okay, I didn\\'t \"get it\" either.  When I saw it for the first time I felt like I had walked into someone else\\'s inside joke.  I think the point is that its supposed to be a place of total acceptance and liberation. But to be honest I think a lot of the original charms that made the movie/experience so great have been lost and now people use it as an excuse to be as weird as fucking possible, at least in the theater I go to.  Just couldn\\'t get into it. ', \"Honestly, I think it's stupid as hell. You go to a crowded theatre to be made comically uncomfortable by a myriad of socially retarded strangers whilst watching a really, really shitty movie. It's great if you're one of them, but if you weren't one of the weird theatre kids in high school, it's probably not worth your time. \", \"I was never a fan and have been on the losing end of many arguments about weather or not it's a good movie. I feel like Ben from Parks and Rec over Little Sebastian, and I just have to accept that I don't get it.\", \"It's a parody on the crazy sci-fi movies of the 50s. When it was first released in theaters it was a huge flop. This is also at a time when theatres would run movies for years because there was no way to own a movie yet. People would get drunk and go to the movie just to make fun of it. They would yell at the screen and soon learned the places where you can shout something and the actors would give a hilarious response. Soon there was a whole culture adopted behind it. \", 'The current top comment bums me out. I think Rocky Horror is one of the most widely misunderstood films around. And while the midnight experience is amusing, I don\\'t think I\\'ll ever go again, as these days it simply amounts to a bunch of people trying to yell over each other for the best callback line. And there\\'s always *that* guy who\\'s gone online and memorized entire callback screenplays. It no longer feels like a cult embracing this freakish movie, but instead a culture that\\'s evolved separately and gathers to make fun of a \"horrible, campy\" film.\\n\\nWhat I think a lot of people miss is that Rocky Horror is more along the lines of Airplane! than The Room. There is no unintentional humor. It knows exactly what it\\'s doing and what it wants to do. It is to 50\\'s sci-fi and horror what Airplane! was to the disaster pictures of its day. The problem is that while most of us are familiar with the titles of the great 50\\'s sci-fi and horror films, like Them! and Tarantula and such, the vast majority of Rocky\\'s audience *these days* haven\\'t actually seen them. I\\'m not saying you need to be a schlock scholar to \"get\" the movie, just like I saw Airplane! before Zero Hour! and still got the jist of it. But I definitely enjoyed Airplane! more after I did my homework.\\n\\nOthers have already mentioned the film\\'s themes of sexual liberation and personal freedom, but I\\'ll add that those themes are what turned a lot of us on to the movie in the first place. I originally saw it in junior high and just didn\\'t get it at all. Returned a few years later, and it felt like Richard O\\'Brien was speaking directly to me. Christ, the movie\\'s got rock n\\' roll, monsters, kinky sex, and cannibalism, all wrapped up in a simple coming of age story. Welcome to the mind of 15 year-old me. And yet, I was Brad at that time of my life, and I was dating a real Janet. Seeing the stereotypical 50\\'s couple perverted by rock music and 70\\'s openness about sex, with horror references serving as the sugar to help the medicine down, was a revelation to me, as I imagine it has been for several generations of closeted weirdos who needed to hear someone tell them, \"don\\'t dream it - be it!\"\\n\\nFinally, this is the least important point in the film\\'s defense, but I think it\\'s surprisingly well made. I love the cinematography, and some of the camera work is just awesome. I say that as a huge fan of 70\\'s cinematography, so perhaps I\\'m biased. I love the handheld shots of Frank coming up out of the pool during Wild and Untamed Thing.\\n\\nOr maybe I\\'m the one who\\'s missing the point. I don\\'t know. I respect all the opinions in this thread, as it\\'s obviously a pretty divisive picture. I just really, really love this movie, and the midnight experience no longer feels like they\\'re laughing *with* it, but *at* it. Either way, the conversation should be interesting. So stay for the night. Or maybe a bite...', \"it's like a less good version of phantom of the paradise\", 'From what I can tell, people like it because its a show about \"alternative sexuality\" In our society, the sexy image is an attractive young woman showing a lot of skin. This is probably because men are very visual and like eye candy, while women care less about sexy images. This means what a lot of people consider sexy is left out of mainstream society. The Rock horror picture show is an outlet for that. So the people who enjoy it are women and gay men. My guess is transgender and transsexual people also like it because they are seeing and even interacting in a show were their sexuality and gender identification can be expressed without shame. In everyday society they can\\'t do this. \\n\\ntl;dr: It\\'s an alternative sexuality and gender identification outlet for everybody who\\'s sexuality and/or gender identification cannot be freely expressed in society, i.e., anybody but straight males, who\\'s sexual preferences (scantly clad young women) are found everywhere.\\n', \"It's just a jump to the left!\", 'There isn\\'t exactly a hidden message or anything. It\\'s shock humor and silliness and a whole mess of in-jokes. A lot of it was the audience yelling things out at the actors. Like when they yell out, \"Describe your balls!\" right before the Narrator says, \"heavy, black, and pendulous\" or when they yell \"Hey Riff, kill that Smurf!\" and the actor who plays Riffraff throws a pitchfork into the bushes.\\n\\nAbout half or more of the comedy is in the Audience script, and the movie versions I\\'ve seen just don\\'t do that section justice. \\n\\nHave you ever seen Mystery Science Theater 3000? It\\'s like that, only with a full audience yelling things instead of three guys. ', 'This pretty much explains it to a \"T\":\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"Essentially it's a camp parody of Frankenstein, and a homage to fifties B-movies and rock 'n' roll.\", 'Has anyone ever done a deep analysis of RHPS?  I\\'ve seen it a bunch of times and it feels like there is a deeper meaning there somewhere....\\n\\nMaybe something about alternative sexuality replacing the norm, wherein SciFi represents the alternative?  Maybe that\\'s what the whole Eddie storyline is about.  Eddie being the stand-in for \"normal sexuality\" that gets murdered by SciFi.  (Frank).\\n\\nBut then the movie suggests there are, and maybe should be, limits to this.  Frank gets killed (Frank N. Furter it\\'s all over, you are now my prisoner, your mission is a failure, your lifestyle\\'s too extreme!).  The castle leaves, leaving Brad and Janet changed forever...possibly for the worse. \\n\\nAnyway, that\\'s my loose interpretation.', 'It\\'s about knowing. About nailing it all together in a group.\\n\\n\\nIt\\'s 1980, you\\'ve just finished doing your first school musical, you\\'re 15, and the cool seniors who had the leads and have cars say \"let\\'s get the whole cast together and go to RHPS\"\\n\\nYou beg and plead with your parents to go *and they let you* because they know the seniors and they\\'re the geeky/artsy/smart ones, so you roll your Columbia costume up in a wad because there\\'s some things your parents don\\'t need to know, and you bike over to your friends house to pick up the carpool and change there (into pajamas with a band-aid over one very important spot) and then you go and because your older friends coached you *you know a bunch of the right things to say at the right time*. \\n\\nAnd you say them along with everyone else, and it is JUST SO COOL.  \\nYou get to yell \"SHOW US A TIT, COLUMBIA\" really loud.  \\n\\nIt\\'s every time you\\'ve recited the Pledge of Allegiance or sung the Gloria Patri, but turned into something *yours*, you and your cohort.\\n\\nIt\\'s the satisfaction of knowing how to how to clap Miss Mary Mack, really fast, totally perfect, or  singing \"Jingle Bells, Batman Smells\" really loud with all the other kids on the bus, *except with sex.* \\n\\nHumans of all ages like doing things together. Sweet Caroline at a Sox game, that big \"DA DA DAAAA\" moment. \\n\\n\\n*Adult* humans like sex. \\n\\n*Adolescent* humans need to push boundaries and screw around with taboos. \\n\\nRHPS puts them all together with just a Jump to the Left, black lipstick, and toilet paper.', 'Thanks for all the replies! The biggeat thing I\\'m getting from all this is that this movie is a lot of things to a lot of people. \\n\\nI\\'m gonna try to give some context to my question. I watched this movie while hanging out with a few friends and my wife, who kept popping in to sing random lines.\\n\\nThe themes of freedom and openness were really obvious to me. I got all that. I actually liked a lot of the movie for what it was, so I don\\'t want people thinking I was weirded out or thought I\\'d was stupid or anything. The plot was a bit hard to follow on my first time watching but that\\'s cool.\\n\\nAfter reading the responses I probably will try to go to a live show. Seems like one of those life experience things everyone should just go and do at least once. \\n\\nOne thing that really took me out of the experience was the murder of that Eddie guy. It really changed my impression of Frank from a lovable creep who represents freedom and the alternative lifestyle to someone genuinely ill and extremely dangerous to be around. And then the film went right on celebrating him. Maybe it\\'s just me. \\n\\nI loved Tim Curry\\'s entrance and his character before and after that moment but I just couldn\\'t get past it completely. It seemed like Frank was supposed to be someone you weren\\'t sure to cheer for or be disgusted by and by casually killing someone it just pushed me too far into the latter.\\n\\nI think it may partially be a cultural lens thing. Seeing that movie in this day and age and being all too keenly aware of the whole \"transexual villain\" movie trope which paints people who act and think differently than most of us as something dangerous and to be distrusted. Feel free to weigh in. Like I said his character may have come across differently then than it does now. But for some reason it bugged me.\\n\\n\\n\\n', 'They eat a guy named Meatloaf and then sing about it. ', 'It was 1985, I was a junior in high school, and some friends had heard about this thing called the \"Rocky Horror Picture Show\" that was shown at midnight at the Lynbrook theater. With some of us having just got our drivers licenses and cars we thought it would be fun to go, so we did. We were \"virgins\" and had no idea what we were in for. Before we know if there are people in costume on the stage and a guy in a corset and fishnets dancing around and sitting in people\\'s laps. People are shouting out lines, squirting water, throwing rice and toilet paper, and having a freakin BLAST! We had so much fun we decided to go again the following Saturday night. \\n\\nWe showed up early this time and were prepared. We meet the \"actors\" and talked to them and got to know them as we kept going back every week. After a few months, when one of the actors couldn\\'t make it, the group asked if one of us would step in. We all wanted to. Fast forward another few months, and the start of our senior year and my group of friends (all guys) are now hanging out with a group of girls from a different school every Sat. night at the show. And then one week the leader of the acting group tells us that they are moving to the big time, the 8th Street Playhouse in NYC and asks if we would take over the acting here in Lynbrook. We wholeheartedly agree and go about decided who would play who. \\n\\nWe decided who would play who based on looks, and that is how I ended up strutting around the Lynbrook theater every Sat. night for about 8 months in a corset, speedo, fishnets, and pearl necklace and having the time of my life. During the opening I would dance around and sit in people\\'s laps. I would have people come to me before the show and point out a friend who was a \"virgin\" and ask me to come to them during the show, and I would. It was fucking awesome. \\n\\nI even dated \"Janet\" for a few months, she was I think my 3rd girlfriend. And then later I dated and fell in love with \"Columbia\", though it didn\\'t last long after I went away to college (she was a year younger). But I am still friends with those folks. \\n\\nAs for what the movie is about, it is a campy silly parody of an entire genre of movies that was so bad it was good, and it gained a cult following because of people who would act it out and make the movie interactive with the audience. \\n\\n', 'A lot of people here are saying that the movie is bad, but fun. These people are wrong. Plan Nine from Outer Space is bad but fun. Killer Klowns from Outer Space is bad but fun, but RHPS is awesome and fun.\\n\\nHere\\'s what makes it awesome: \\n\\n1. The music is fucking great. Nearly every song on the soundtrack is a legitimately good song if you like musicals. \"Science Fiction\" is great. \"Time Warp\" is great. \"Sweet Transvestite\" is great. \"Hot Patootie\" is great. The Floor Show leading into \"I\\'m Going Home\" is beyond great---it\\'s fucking awesome. \\n\\n2. The script is great. Yes, it\\'s cheesy camp satirizing even cheesier camp from the 50s and 60s, but that\\'s the point and it was masterfully executed.  \\n\\n3. The characters. They\\'re so original and great (except when they\\'re supposed to be like the types of characters they\\'re satirizing, but they\\'re great at that too).\\n\\nSure, the movie isn\\'t for everyone. It\\'s a musical for one. It\\'s 50s-style sci-fi for another. But if you are the kind of person who likes *Guys and Dolls* and *Forbidden Planet*, there\\'s nothing not to like abut RHPS. Plus, throw in some sexual liberation and *Wizard of Oz* references  and you\\'ve got an awful lot to like.  ', 'The musical (and subsequent movie) are a parody of American stereotypes and archetypes as seen by a foreigner. I wrote a whole essay on it back in high school.', 'I believe it\\'s what they called an \"erotic comedy-thriller.\" It\\'s not the only one that exists, but it became the most popular through the culture that formed around it. The fact that a number of the main actors went on to greater fame (Tim Curry, Barry Bostwick, Susan Sarandon, Meat Loaf) has certainly helped its longevity.\\n\\nAs for the movie itself... it\\'s your standard boy meets girl, boy and girl get stranded in woods, boy and girl find creepy castle in woods, boy and girl meet flamboyant transvestite and mad scientist with god complex, boy and girl discover sex, fetishes, and explore taboos, mad scientist\\'s companions flip out, kill him, and return house to home planet leaving everyone else behind story.', 'I enjoy anything that makes my super christian conservative parents feel weird.', 'People feel like they should enjoy it so they pretend to do so and maybe convince themselves.', \"Uhm .. yeah I went to that. I can see it as being rebelious and fun during the 70's. The jokes are so old now, that it's kind of boring.\", \"its just a musical that was good and ground breaking in its time. today it's just a crappy movie.\", \"A lot of you are explaining the culture and minor details. I think he's asking what the plot is.\", 'That\\'s just it. There isn\\'t anything *To Get*. It\\'s just a film about being who you are, because you are that person. \\n\\nOr at least that is what i took from it.\\n\\nFor example. The line audiences shout in the callbacks: \"Say something sexy Riffraff.\" They don\\'t ask him this, because he is sexy, but because he is Riffraff and he *Will* say something sexy if you ask him too.', \"Well, you could always swing by /r/rhps and ask us  \\n\\nWe'll wait, with antici-\", 'If you don\\'t get it, then you don\\'t get it. I went once, wasn\\'t thrilled with it. Would have rather watched the movie at home than be forced to strip in front of a bunch of strangers. A couple of people were doing some heavy petting, giving everyone a chance to watch, some people were dancing and singing, one girl actually got on stage and did a strip tease during the intro song. Lot\\'s of exhibitionism, both gay and straight, and lots of anything else that might make middle america uncomfortable. \\n\\nSome posts on here talk about \"Growing up with it\", sadly I don\\'t think that really applies anymore, at least not in Hollywood, where I saw it for the first time, recently. I think it\\'s more of an outlet for the \"Hollywood\" crowd to go be weird...I didn\\'t see anyone there over 35. \\n\\nIf you don\\'t get it, then don\\'t feel bad. I don\\'t really get it either. ', \"What's not to get? It's a Musical. sit back. watch. have fun. And Realise it's ok to think Tim Curry is the best thing in the universe.\", 'Rocky Horror Picture Show started out as a broadway show, which was fun to go to and a great show. It got great reviews and everyone loved going to see it live. When it got a little more popular, they decided to make a movie for it. Rocky Horror by itself is a horrible movie, all sorts of things wrong with it cinematically. However, it is a lot of fun to make fun of, and the only reminder of the show that we have.\\n\\nWhenever people say that they\\'re going to \"see\" Rocky Horror, there\\'s many different ways to experience it. What most people do is set up a show with actors that dress up as the characters while the movie is playing in the background. Other times it\\'s the movie playing on a big screen with the audience members doing whatever they want, dressed as the characters and whatnot.\\n\\nThe reason why people go see Rocky Horror multiple times is because there\\'s always something different happening, always something exciting to make every show different. Since the show is so widely different from others, it has a kind of ritual when people see Rocky Horror for the first time. Usually, the actors, your friends, someone at the show will write a V on your face showing that you are a virgin to seeing the show (it has nothing to do with whether or not you\\'ve had sex). There are other things that the people at the theater will make virgins do on the beginning of the show, but it is different for every show, and every stage (so I can\\'t even spoil it for you if I wanted to.)\\n\\nEveryone who has seen it knows that there are \"call outs\" that are yelled out in the middle of the show to make it funnier. To some people these call outs seem rude and vulgar, but again, it\\'s all about making fun of the movie. There\\'s a lot of call outs that are staples in every performance, but people like to make up new ones; depending on where you live there may also be different call outs (ie. California\\'s call outs are different from NYC\\'s).\\n\\nAudience members are even given props to use during certain times in the performance to have fun with each other (ie. The audience throws a piece of toast in the air when Frank says \"a toast\").\\n\\nTLDR; it\\'s a show that everyone makes fun of, where the call outs are cheesy puns, and everyone plays with the idea of sex.', \"You mean like this?  Two people got stuck with a flat, tried to find help, but instead found a house full of crazy stuff that is supposed to be funny and entertaining, which turns into a spaceship and flies away.  I think that's what happened at the end, I was usually so bored by then I quit watching.\", 'There\\'s nothing to get. It\\'s an \"alternative\", pop-culture anachronism that had a cult following during its period of popularity. There are dozens of historical examples of analogous movies/plays/musical groups/events, all equally devoid of anything to \"get\" beyond their arbitrary popularity at a given point in time, and whatever cultural significance they may (or may not) have had. ', 'Watched it in a student cinema. Hetero cis men dressed up in traditionally extremely female clothing. The girl next door suddenly dressed up slutty. When he said \"a toast!\" we all threw slices of toast. When it rained in the movie, people were shooting water pistols. We were all singing and dancing along, and it was amazing, liberating fun.\\n\\nWatching this movie, I learnt that I found trans women and gay men hot, and that there was a lot of stuff about sluthood that attracted me. I\\'m pretty sure I am not the only one - this movie came out in 1975, so it was basically a sexual revolution, coupled with silliness, horror and awesome, catchy music (\"Touch-a touch-a touch-a touch me\" is a favourite) which resulted in quotes, memes, cult.', \"It's a musical with Transvestites, humanoid-aliens and uptight white people who eventually find their inner tranny groove.\\n\\nIt is best TO NOT SEE IT at home on VH1.  LAME!!!\\n\\nYou must have a large quantity of caffeinated beverages to keep yourself awake and attend a midnight showing.  In the midnight showing (and go to one in a large-ish town/city) you will be able to hear the crowd interaction with the screen, be part of the micro-vandalism of the theater (just throwing stuff and squirt guns...lots of squirt guns) and watch the crowd re-enactment of the movie.\\n\\nIt's for those reasons why you go.  It's camp, it's fun and it's a great release.\\n\\nFULL DISCLOSURE: I have attended far over 100 theater showings of RHPS and it was a formative part of my youth.  I went to midnight movie after midnight movie and it IS a place where the disaffected/socially awkward (penguin) can go to feel part of a group.  It's immensely therapeutic.  If you're part of the cooler-than-thou crowd the movie will annoy you.  If you are looking to enjoy a logical movie/plot you will be disappointed and perhaps even pissed off that you sat through the film.\\n\\nHowever, I cannot recommend it enough as it's as good an initiation into the USA's counter-culture as anything you'll find.\\n\\nThat and you'll figure out that Tim Curry is THE SHIT!!!\", 'There were essentially three contributing factors to the success of The Rocky Horror Picture Show:\\n\\n* It was a camp film that developed an \"underground\" cult following.  By being an intentionally weird musical comedy, RHPS basically created the formula for making a movie that defined cult movie.  It was the quintessential movie that \"was so crazy, you just have to see it.\" This allowed viewers to forgive nearly all the apparent shortcomings of the film or gaps in the plot.  It was clear it wasn\\'t intended to be art, so people could simply enjoy it for the crazy, crappy film it was.  It\\'s rare that people get to be so free with movies, so when it\\'s done right people immediately attach to it.\\n* It has a legitimately awesome soundtrack.  The lyrics are funny, all the songs are very memorable, and it\\'s easy to sing along with. Some would argue that the film was essentially an excuse to highlight the soundtrack and open it up to a greater market.  The plot also happens to be entirely contained within the soundtrack, so listening to the album pretty much gives you the whole experience (sans Tim Curry\\'s exuberance).\\n* The revival.  The midnight showings with the interactivity and the singalongs and the whatnot is a symptom of the bug, not a cause of it.  It does still help drive attachment to new generations to RHPS, but RHPS was it\\'s own legitimate \"thing\" well before the theater showings started.', \"It's a goofy, raunchy, whacky story, filled with old-time movie references, great music, great performances, humor, and is quite a spectacle.\", \"i think it matters most to people who were weirdos that didn't fit in in high school, because it's a celebration of being a weirdo who doesn't fit in.\\n\\nthat being said, it's a fun movie, and if you haven't seen a proper live screening of it, you haven't really seen it.  \", \"You mean it didn't toucha toucha toucha touch you?\", \"I love this movie so hard, but it's just a weird, coke-fueled thing from the 70s.\", \"Not sure if you're a regular reader of the AV Club, but they did a really great feature on RHPS a few years ago. \\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\ntldr; it was probably groundbreaking in its era, but hasn't aged terribly well. \", \"The music is awesome. That's why I like it. I could listen to Time Warp a thousand times.\", 'bunch of hardcore drug addicts, living in a commune get together and dance to freak out weary travelers that make the mistake of visiting them.', \"I think something to add is that Rocky Horror is really nuanced in many ways. Frank steals part of Eddie's brain, murders him, then serves him for dinner, unknowingly forcing the others into cannibalism. The promiscuous sex in the movie is not benign, but triggers jealousy and sometimes borders on rape. It ends with a triple homicide and a description of humans as insects crawling on the earth. The mixture of celebration and critique only serves to make the play more intriguing.\", \"It's a musical. \", 'Who would let a five year old watch rocky horror picture show?', \"I was studying abroad in South Korea when I was super excited to find a RHPS. Doing the time warp halfway across the world from home was one of the best experiences I've had in Asia. \", 'Such fond memories of seeing RHPS at the Roxy in Toronto in the late \\'70\\'s. A sexual eye opener in an era that was quite homophobic. I\\'m straight, but between this and Lou Reed\\'s \"Walk on the wild side\", I realized gay people were humans, and often talented ones at that.', 'a celebration of freaks and freak culture, plus awesome glam rock written by Richard O\\'Brien (Riff Raff) Wonderful performances from Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon, Meat Loaf, etc. It\\'s a joy. Don\\'t try too hard to \"get it\" just enjoy the tunes and the absurd story', 'I\\'ve never been to one of the midnight showings. I deny the assumption that this is at the core of what makes it great.\\n\\nRHPS is a combination of camp, kitsch, musicals, and B-movie tribute. It takes a particular combination of tastes to LOVE it, and just a few to like it. I would say you\\'d need to fully enjoy / get it:\\n\\n1. **It\\'s intentional shlock.** aka [kitsch](_URL_3_). It\\'s meant to be tongue-in-cheek. You\\'re supposed to laugh at the over-the-top sexuality, violence, melodrama, sociopathy, and poor production. If you just \"don\\'t find it funny\", that\\'s fine, let\\'s move on to:\\n\\n2. **Gender-bending as a genre**. [Gender-bending](_URL_9_) is at least part of this film\\'s genre, if you can call it that. There\\'s something about gender-bending that appeals to a lot of people. Think of films like Hedwig and the Angry Inch, or musical artists like Prince, David Bowie, and Lady Gaga. For whatever reason, there\\'s an appeal - and if this doesn\\'t appeal to you, even as a curiosity, you\\'re missing something. Okay - you don\\'t like that, then there\\'s always:\\n\\n3. **It\\'s a tribute to sci-fi B-movies**. This is pretty similar to #1, except that where the movie can be taken as shlock in its own right, Richard O\\'Brien specifically created this as a comedy tribute sci-fi B-movies. It\\'s one reason why people like Mystery Science Theater 3000. You don\\'t even have to be familiar with those old films to understand what they\\'re trying to say about them. Dang, you don\\'t like throwbacks? Well there\\'s always:\\n\\n4. **It\\'s a musical with a great soundtrack**. The songs are very catchy and have stood the test of time. Most of them have tongue-in-cheek lyrics, but they\\'re very catchy. The stage show is still running in theater houses around the world, even without the craziness of the full throwing-toast experience. Hm, you don\\'t like the music either? There might not be much hope for you... at least there\\'s always:\\n\\n5. **It\\'s a comedy**, and a pretty good one. Or at least, most RHPS fans laugh a lot throughout the film. Tim Curry\\'s timing and physical comedy is great - that show pretty much launched his long and varied career. He actually started as the first Dr. Frank N. Furter in the original stage production in London, and he carried it through to the movie. Pretty much every character in the movie comes with laughs, and only Riff Raff takes himself completely seriously. Are you telling me you didn\\'t even chuckle? Geez, I guess there\\'s always the fact that:\\n\\n6. **It has iconic imagery**. Obviously, it wouldn\\'t be iconic if it wasn\\'t so popular for other reasons -- but since it is, it has an unusually high # of distinctive images within it. Here are a few examples:\\n\\n  a. Dr. Frank N Furter\\'s [Outfit #1](_URL_2_) and [Outfit #2](_URL_6_) and [Outfit #3](_URL_4_)\\n\\n  b. [The Lips](_URL_0_)\\n\\n  c. [Frank\\'s Sneers](_URL_7_)\\n\\n  d. [The kitsch logo](_URL_5_)\\n\\n  e. [Pretty much every character](_URL_10_)\\n\\n  f. [The Phantoms](_URL_8_)\\n\\n  g. [The RKO Tower](_URL_1_)\\n\\n\\nThere are many more reasons (including the cult that\\'s built around it, memorizing the scripts, being a kind of outsider-identity thing, positive messages about gender and fun, a grotesque storyline, etc) but other folks covered those in more detail.\\n\\nHope that helps!\\n\\nEdit #1: Fixed outfit links', \"In your defense, it is a truly awful movie. It became popular due to its shocking content (for that era).  It really took off after cosplay came into it. It's basically a funny and cheesy movie to watch with your friends.\", \"[Here's a word cloud of these comments.](_URL_0_)\", 'watching the movie at home? yeah its terrible, but a midnight showing at a theater is a completely different story.    its played on the big screen while actors actually act it out in front of the audience and also have the audience take part in some of the wackyness.   its not normal by any means but its very fun for some! :-D', \"Until I see a definitive answer, I'm riddled with antici................................................\", 'If you\\'re under the age of 40 or so you probably have no hope of \"getting it\". The RHPS is the movie version of a play that was staged in London in the 70\\'s. It is a tribute to- and poking more than a little fun of, the cheesy sci fi and horror movies of the 50\\'s. In a way it was a direct response to the heavy and serious culture of the 60\\'s. People were tired of the endless riots, VietNam, the cold war, race riots + civil rights and all the \"bad news\". It was kind of like disco- the subtext being \"fuck it- enough already- lets just have some fun\". The modern equivalent of it is the fascination of our current culture with the 70\\'s- \"Boogie Nights\" and it\\'s spin-offs springs to mind- even then- if you\\'re under the age of 40 you don;t remember the pre-aids 70\\'s so\"getting it\" might be more academic than experiential for you.', \"Did you see it at a screening? Unless you see it at a screening it isn't going to make any sense at all. Actually, it will never ever make sense, but that's why it's great. \", 'I was 16 and took the subway with friends to see it at 8th Street Playhouse in the Village - summer of 1982. Huge audience participation and got drunk on a 40 of Old English. \\n\\nWhat makes is compelling? \\n\\n(a) Great soundtrack, \\n\\n(b) brilliant Tim curry acting, \\n\\n(c) titillating themes such as promiscuity, homosexuality, at midnight showings\\n\\n(d) but none of these can stand alone without the audience phenomenon\\n\\n\\nWhile the movies does have a moral; it is intended to be zany with great music. But what made it so appealing and lasting for years is the cult following that manifested into audience participation. The two can be decoupled, certainly. but then you are left with a silly movie with a great soundtrack. Its appeal is the midnight movie phenomenon and the audience particpation', 'Two straight kids catch gay.\\n\\nA real Christian Horror Show.', 'I feel like this has always been difficult for me to explain. Because the obsession with this movie is based on the culture, the midnight showings. But I have never been to a midnight showing. Yet I LOVE the movie. It\\'s not really the greatest movie if I were to look at it objectively. But I don\\'t get a \"so bad it\\'s good\" type of enjoyment out if it either. And I\\'m not gay, nor do I particularly care for the accepting of others theme that this movie has. I just can\\'t explain why I love this movie? The only think I can easily explain is that I love the music. But even the parts that aren\\'t sung, I enjoy. Also, Columbia is so sexy!', \"It's kinda gay\", 'It was a throwback to the old Sci-Fi movies which were part Sci-Fi and part horror. The \"horror\" part comes in with all the sexual discord and a life of hedonism and how everybody has that inside themselves. The problem is, once you turn that loose, things tend to end badly--people might, for instance, get killed in the name of having a \"good time\" one can become \"too extreme\". The sci-fi part comes from the fact he is from some other planet where gender is more fluid. \\n\\nIt ends on a somewhat dark note--that we are all lost in time and space and meaning--trying to figure out what works--and we try our solutions--but sometimes those solutions even IF they are hedonistic and seem to bring us pleasure can come up empty.  ', \"Don't dream it. Be it.\", 'I think OP needs to do the time warp again.', 'The first time I went and saw Rocky Horror it was hosted by a small town theater group and played at one of the downtown movie houses. It seemed like a great idea for second / third date with the girl I was seeing at the time. It was the first time for both of us and so when a nice young man wearing lingerie and heels drew a V on our foreheads we just went with it. \\n\\nWe had been given props at the front door but didn\\'t really know what to do with them as we watched people file in and the whole atmosphere had this great surreal feeling. \\n\\nAs the show was getting ready to start they asked all the people with V\\'s on their foreheads to stand up and then they split us in to two groups. Each group had to go on stage and perform an action to the general amusement of the stage group and the general public.\\n\\nNow this is a second or third date- I\\'m 19, and this takes place during a particularly unremarkable summer in some small town in Idaho. It can be very telling to see someone you are on a date with fake an orgasm before coitus is even on the table. She was in the first group and after they had all filed on to the stage the host in his black bra and garters bid them to their task, which was to provide their most realistic fake orgasm noise. \\n\\nIt was mesmerizing, awkward, and very silly- I can remember staring at her face and thinking about how beautiful she was and how I would never know the difference. \\n\\nWhen my time came- it was the first time I had been on that side of a stage since I was in grade-school at one of those events where they made everyone sing to their parents on Christmas. So anyways- the first part of our group had to bend over and grab their ankles while the other group had to dry hump them and the crowd sang the Oscar Meyer wiener song. The nice young woman that I was partnered with (not my date - she was back in the crowd) threw in a few thrusts that took my heels off the stage. \\n\\nEveryone laughed- we sat back down and then later through toast at the stage and called Brad an \"Asshole!\"', \"Basically it's about shedding sexual hangups (or hangups of any sort really) and living an open and free lifestyle regardless of judgement. Brad and Janet were in love, it was swell but not passionate until Frank showe them how to live by putting indulgence first, saving their relationship. Also he's an alien from outer space and Magenta and Riff Raff are his underlings who cause a mutiny and seize power. \", 'As many people have probably explained, it\\'s not about the movie, it\\'s about the scene. You must have never gone to see it at a theater. Just do that. You may or may not enjoy it, but you\\'ll understand why other people do. It\\'s similar to the cults that surround movies like *Mean Girls* or *Clueless* (both decidedly mediocre films), it\\'s no longer about the film itself, but yet there was something about them that made them endearing to people and continuously so.\\n\\nFor  me, the first time I watched it, I watched it on DVD, by myself in my apartment, and I fell in love with it. The first thing you have to notice is that it\\'s silly and campy on purpose. The movie is actually quite funny after you understand that it\\'s supposed to be. Also, in spite of the terrible music (except for 2 or 3 awesome songs, \"Sweet Transvestite\" is my favorite), and the ridiculous plot, the performances are actually quite good. Tim Curry is absolutely amazing in the movie, and Richard O\\'Brien and Patricia Quinn (Riff Raff and Magenta) also are great.', 'Ill take the opposite stance on it. It is a musical version of \"oh so random\" Frankenstein. People choose to go to the late showings and have crowd participation even though it is a completely sub-par movie. To them the movie is amazing, but deep down it is just people with no personalities bonding over something that has been decided to be random therefore good and interesting by the leagues of (we are interesting because we are different) people. Someone saying \"oh a toast\" and having the crowd throw fucking bread at the screen doesn\\'t make you, or the movie interesting. Everyone I\\'ve ever met who is a huge rocky horror fan is the equivalent of facebook girl meme only older. Its pathetic', 'The first time I watched Rocky Horror was in college, with my Classics professor. We were *stunned* by the amount of classical mythology references in the movie, and later learned that the writers had been Classics students. ', \"For a year and a half I went with my girlfriend to watch RHPS every weekend. The movie would play up on the theatre screen while a cast acted it out beneath. Everyone ran around in underwear or whatever they felt like. We threw toilet paper and made out. We ate cookies piled up on the stomach of a giggling girl. We danced and sang modified lyrics to the songs. There was almost no alcohol or drug use yet we were high on a complete disregard for adherance to societal norms.  I'm as straight as they come but learned not to to give a shit when same sex couples made out. \\n\\nI learned a lot from that experience. I became a lot more open minded, less concerned about what other people think. Everyone at the show were themselves, were friends, knew we'd go back to our normal lives until next Saturday when we would sprawl out across several movie seats with our significant others on our laps yelling out our own words to the songs at the top of our lungs. \\n\\nIt was a lot of unadulterated fun. Movie itself was meh.\", 'The big thing to recognize is that it means a much different thing now than when it was first produced.\\n\\nThe original movie was a film version of a stage musical just called the \"Rocky Horror Show.\" It was first produced in 1973, and was \"retro\" even then. It started out as a spoof of bad 50s and 60s sci-fi films, which is where elements like the creation of a Frankenstein-style monster, the Time Warp, and the alien/outer-space element all come in. At some point during the writing, it also became a show about sexual liberation and breaking conventions--and of course being a piece of avant-garde British theater from the Monty Python era only helped this. The stage show basically made Tim Curry\\'s career, and was so successful that the movie version was put into production almost immediately. It came out in 1975.\\n\\nAt the time of release, it wasn\\'t a particularly huge success, or well-received critically. Most mainstream audiences saw it for what it was: a less-than-perfect adaptation of a very weird British stage show. But it became a potent cultural symbol of the radical sexual awakenings of the 1970s--consider not just the content of the film, but the practice of lipsticking the letter V on \"Rocky Horror virgins\" their first time at a public screening. It was *because* the film was like nothing you\\'d seen before in a theater that it became such a symbol of avant-garde weirdness. And later on, as it opened the door for other very strange, queer (in all senses) movies to be made, I think the audience participation at RHPS screenings started to get more and more involved as a way of reasserting that it was still a \"mind-blowing\" experience, like nothing you\\'d seen before.\\n\\nTo this day, the film\\'s biggest following are people that identify with its original target audience--that is, freaks and outcasts, people who didn\\'t relate to The Mousetrap or Hamlet or whatever other fairly conservative standard-fare drama was playing in the British West End theaters. Nowadays it\\'s common to see midnight screenings on Halloween, particularly in the U.S. and Canada, as we\\'ve got it hard-coded into our culture that this is the one night it\\'s OK for even normal, well-balanced adults (the Brads and Janets of the world) to take off their normal clothes, dress up in funny and transgressive (and for adults, overtly sexual) costumes, get out of their skin, and have a wild liberating carnivalesque experience before going back to ordinary life the next day.\\n\\nAs a result, whatever you think of the film itself--I don\\'t think it\\'s aged particularly well--the cultural importance of the film has radically changed it. The sexual and especially transsexual elements don\\'t shock us out of our skin today they way they would have for British theatre audiences 41 (!!!) years ago. But for the people who still care enough about the film to go \"all-in\" at public screenings, that\\'s still the function it serves.', \"I think it's one of those movies where you have to watch it several times.  While yes, it has a message, I've watched it so many times now that just, every single moment of the movie is entertaining.  Every single frame has something remarkable going on.  And it's comedic but the comedy doesn't feel forced at all.  Try watching it a few more times and maybe you'll get it.\", 'It cannot be explained. It can only be experienced. ', \"It's Tim Curry being fucking fabulous with heavy glam influences in a tribute to 50s sci-fi and horror.  \", 'Tim Curry is a sexy beast.', 'I feel the appeal is people like it because it\\'s different and weird. It\\'s definitely not meant to be taken seriously. \\n\\nFull disclosure: I\\'m not a fan. I found it on tv when I was like 7 and liked \"time warp\" but now I don\\'t really get why so many people are into it. It\\'s one of those things that people like simply because it\\'s out there and offensive to some and people think they\\'re cool because of that. Like how all these people are like \"man I\\'m so different and unique that I love Nightmare Before Christmas, wear Doc Martens, and love this indie band Arctic Monkeys that not many people know of.\" \\n\\nSorry... I had a friend who thought he was so counterculture that he literally said that and thought that RHPS was some underground thing that no one knew about. ', 'No, we can not. If you don\\'t get it, we can\\'t explain it. \\n\\nGet way drunker next time you see it. And go with a big boned girl in a too small dress and a really, really, flamboyantly gay guy. \\n\\nIf you still don\\'t \"get it\", move on with your life.', \"I've participated in the community since 2002, and have run a cast for the last four years in Long Beach, CA. I don't care if this gets buried, but I love how many points and comments this thread has.\\n\\nMy first show was on Halloween with what would eventually be the cast I joined - Long Beach Rocky Horror (formerly Midnight Insanity). I was a bit of shy, sheltered kid, but seeing such a collection of weirdos look so comfortable with themselves was...amazing. Music was blasting in the theater, people were dancing, making out in their seats and against walls, and folks were smoking *everything*.\\n\\nThe preshow festivities started, and so did the audience participation. I was dry-humped by my friend who brought me to the show in front of the crowd in mock-de-virginization. I knew some of the words to the songs from some Dr. Demento albums my dad had shared with me, and we all sang along.\\n\\nRocky Horror and the community has been a great way for me to constantly step out of my comfort zone. I can't sing, I can't dance, but none of that mattered to me for three hours I was at that theater. I felt free and comfortable. I've crossed paths with some of the most talented, beautiful, interesting people, and am absolutely humbled for having them remain in my life even after their time at Rocky is done.\\n\\nThat being said, Rocky isn't for everybody. I've brought friends and family to the show, and it can be hit-or-miss. We have people leave our theater because they weren't expecting to participate (optional at our show, but not at all shows), or were upset with folks yelling out the audience participation lines. The movie is goofy, and I think some folks might not appreciate what it's trying to satirize. I don't hold that against anybody. I DO think folks should give it a chance before dismissing it. It will always hold a very special place in my heart.\", \"I enjoy the film and music so much on a visceral level that I haven't bothered to find a deeper meaning, however I must say that I love the top comment in this thread.\", 'Are you asking about the scene or the plot? \\n\\nEveryone\\'s already talked about the scene, so here\\'s the plot. I\\'m not going to black it out with spoilers because 1) it\\'s a forty year old movie and 2) knowing how it ends has little impact on your enjoyment:\\n\\nDr. Frank N Furter, Riff Raff, and Magenta are all aliens from another planet (the planet Transsexual in the galaxy of Transylvania). They are on a mission to do something, but it\\'s not really revealed what it is. I always figured it was some sort of \"make human alien clone things\" but Dr. Frank N Furter decided to make \"human sex toy things.\" Once Riff Raff and Magenta figure out that Frank N Furter just wants to fuck everything that moves, and then make more things that move so he can fuck them, they realize how off the rails things have gone and kill him in a mutiny (Frank N Furter was the boss, it seems), as well as Rocky (the failed experiment?) and Columbia (though not on purpose).\\n\\n', 'Because:\\nTim Curry\\'s \"sweet transvestite\" performance.  If that didn\\'t hook you, then you didn\\'t get it and that\\'s OK. ', \"You can't get it. You either like or tolerate musicals or they make you want to punch someone. If you are in the later category you will never understand any musical. All you will want to do is escape them and murder anyone who gets in your way to the exit.\", 'I would recommend finding out more about the social and political times in which the musical play and succeeding film was born.  Until very recently, openly gay, lesbian and trans characters were still very much on the margins of pop culture.  \\n\\nIf you can find it, I would recommend watching \"The Celluloid Closet\", which is an excellent documentary about gay, lesbian and trans representation in cinema.  Not surprisingly, these types of characters have always been present, but the further back you go, the more heavily disguised they had to be to evade the oppressive censorship.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nI think that one of the primary reasons \"Rocky Horror\" became so popular is because it was one of the few films where gay, lesbian and trans audience members could recognize themselves.  There is little emphasis on death or suffering or discrimination.  The Dionysian atmosphere of joy, sex and music is a celebrations of pleasure in every form.\\n\\nThere is no shame in being who you are.\\n\\nAfter all, one of the primary reasons we go to the movies is to be told stories in which we can see fantasy versions of ourselves reflected and our life choices celebrated.', 'The audience participation and midnight time make it a fun date movie, women love it and if you show yourself centered enough to be ok with it, laugh and have a good time... need I go on?', \"Did you watch it with 100 other people yelling at the screen and ton of props?\\n\\nIt kind of doesn't make any sense without that.\", 'I played a Halloween show a few years ago in a Florida amphitheater along with another band and they ended the night with a showing of the rhps. Long story short, they played, we played. All went well. So I hung out to check out the showing. Note that during our show I did notice that everyone was dressed up as I had heard about when the fans go see a showing of the film in theaters. It was so cool to hear the crowd singing along, reciting almost every good line from the film, rice throwing. I grew up with two older sisters and an older brother, so I had seen it and they always would say the usual dammit Janet on occasion. But I really had a new respect once I saw the live experience. My two cents. \\nEdit: tribute bands, by the way. So it fit we Halloween mood. ', \"You had to be there. I wasn't there, but I know people who were. \", \"The movie was really good and weird up until Frankenfurter started sleeping with everyone, then it took an unnecessary and even weirder turn into aliens and laser guns and a bunch of stupid. Also I'm unable to explain how Tim Curry looked so hot dressed as a transvestite. \", 'RHPS is a satirical, horror, musical, comedy, cult film, centered on an axis of profound indulgence. It starts when  Brad and Janet ( in their honeymoon), break down near the estate of Dr Frank-N-Futer. They knock on his door in hope of assistance. Dr Frank-N-Futer(a sweet transvestite) answers the door in the midst of a raucous ball, could be orgy. The doc answers the door thinking it was the \"candy man\". Once Doc Furter realizes these Brad and Janet people, are legit innocents, he sets about corrupting them. Individually. What ensues is a ridiculous, semi surreal, plot concerning mostly corruption of innocence. \\n\\nThere are numerous traditions associated with viewing the pic in a public theater. \\n\\nSome showings include a real time Live interpretation with actors, along side the film on screen. \\n\\nSquirt guns, everyone fires them off in the theater during the rain scene. \\n\\nNewspapers, the relevance will be apparent. \\n\\nAdded traditional lines, concocted as responses from the cult community, spoken out loud in unison, triggered by various script lines said on screen  \\n\\nAnd other gags of this nature. It is truly a original production. Also check out The Adventures of Buckaroo Benzi. Not a musical, but still ridiculous. \\n', 'i would add that it was what was called a \"happening\", or an excuse to have a happening. back in those days there were midnight movies and The Rocky Horror Picture Show was most popular. people would dress up and go and participate as the movie progressed. it was just lots and lots of fun and laughs. you would not be able to get it because the ambience for that sort of thing is no longer there. it is like people of today\\'s generation trying to have a Woodstock but they don\\'t know how. that is why we say carpe diem. live in your own time and seize that moment--there don\\'t seem to be very many of them anymore. ', 'Never sat through it all, but always attributed its popularity to girls loving to singalong. Like Grease or Hair movies.', \"Go to a live show of RHPS in a large/larger city. It's an experience.  Let people know it's your first time.  =)\", \"fun times like this from the Drew Carey Show - pretty much shows exactly what people do at midnight shows - the costumes, the dancing (although obviously not a dance battle with Priscilla), the crowd - _URL_0_\\n\\nand if you're from the conservative mid-west, how are you going to let your closeted gay friends know that you're okay with things viewed as counter-culture? Watch this movie.\\n\", 'I\\'ve also tried to \"get it,\" but I never did. That\\'s fine, though - to each their own. I don\\'t particularly care for the movie, but I think that\\'s because it\\'s just not my style of film. I do appreciate the cult-status it has gathered, though, and I do get that - I\\'m a huge Lebowski fan.', 'Where else could you get subversion, science fiction, singing, dancing, gore, t & a, fetish, cross-dressing, transexualism (is that a word?), horror, comedy all with a nod and wink to the B-movie genre all in one package in 1975?  Up until that point there had never ever been anything like it.  It had something for everyone and offended your mom and dad.\\n\\n\\n', \"It's outsider art from a time period when horror, sci-fi, camp and 'alternative' sexuality were all very underground. It's a weirdo fantasy merging all those things, and being very funny while doing it. If you were weird, Rocky was for you.\", \"It took me repeated viewings to really get it. The first time I watched it I was like what is this madness, I don't get it and that was really weird. The next time I watched it I started to sing along with a few of the songs and from there it just took off. \", \"It's very ordinary parody of the '50s and '60s horror B-movies - think *Night of the Living Dead* or the Hammer version of *Frankenstein*.\\n\\nNow it's viewed by a bunch of people who've never seen the films it's sending up and are there for the (somewhat bizarre) sexual innuendo and mockery of middle-class values.\", 'To understand RHPS, all you must do is understand the Floor Show. To understand the Floor Show, all you must do is understand Tim Curry\\'s part in the Floor Show. To understand that, all you must do is understand, \"Don\\'t dream it. Be it.\" That is all.', 'I opened this thread with great antici-', \"It's just a jump to the left\", \"Well, we all have different tastes. You may just not like the movie, and that's perfectly valid. \", 'Its about giving your self up to absolute pleasure.', 'that makes me really sad.. its like the essence of all that is good in this world.. that and monty python..', \"The film is an adaptation of the stage production, *The Rocky Horror Show,* written by Richard O'Brien and produced by Jim Sharman. It's a tribute to cheesy sci-fi, horror, and muscle, and rock 'n' roll flicks of the mid-20th Century. The film and play are chock full of cultural references likely lost on most people under O'Brien's age (born 1942). I've seen an exhaustive list of them, and I was embarrassed to admit that I'd missed *most* of them, despite having seen it many times.\\n\\nThere's much more to it, too, however. On another level, it's a celebration of freak culture, and if you were a freak growing up in the Star Wars era when this came out, this film was one of the very few positive experiences you could share with other freaks in relative safety and security, for the low price of movie ticket and a late-night meal.\\n\", \"The best way to experience it is with other people. If you have seen the movie, go see the stage performance. Bring ask the props, and it's just a lot of fun just to participate in everything\", \"It's a documentary about the hunting lodges of the American midwest. \", 'If I\\'m reading your \"get it\" correctly, then perhaps this will help.\\n\\nIt appeals in a large way to the freaks, the geeks, the nerds and the stamp collectors; *a crowd I\\'m very much apart of.*\\n\\nWhen I was about 10 when I first saw RHPS, I didn\\'t understand a lot of it, but I liked it. I was the kid that had his own rock tumbler, that knew how to program QBasic and made my own computer games, that enjoyed math!\\n\\nSo I enjoyed RHPS straight away for all the crazy people in it ^susan ^sarandon\\'s ^cleavage ^came ^later. This was a movie with a whole bunch of outsiders who were singing, dancing, having a good time and (in my mind) the \\'normals\\' became like them. \\n\\nIt also had an \\'oddball\\' as the villian and the normals as the victims. It was the anti every-other-movie-ever. It\\'s always the nerdy kid that you route for that gets attacked by the dumb strong guy. Karate Kid, Weird Science, Back to the Future and so on. Here we have a man in drag (Tim Curry ^and ^his ^sexy ^legs, ^and ^^I\\'m ^^straight! ) who\\'s the evil mastermind.\\n\\nOn top of that you have the music, and then the sexual fantasy perversion etc. I know a few of my friends in school used to argue over who was the cutest in RHPS (Personally I liked [Little Nell](_URL_0_), especially in the sequal [Shock Treatment in the nurses outfit!](_URL_1_) )\\n\\nSo that\\'s my take on it\\'s popularity. I know that\\'s not everyone\\'s interpretation, but basically it\\'s popular because it\\'s a movie that gave us something we hadn\\'t seen before. It gave something to the *outcasts.*', \"I feel like I got it when you get to the dancing scenes at the end. The editing makes frank look very raw and unpolished there is no fancy lighting you can see every crag and hairy hair. MY take on it was that (as well as what everyone else has said) is that Frank is himself he knows who he is but knows he really doesn't belong anywhere that nowhere to him is real because he  can't be real outside of his make-believe palace. He just wants someone to join in the dance so it can be like it should. Frank knows it's an awful fiction but at the same is the only thing that makes him real in the way he wants to be. Its like the thing that makes him wonderful makes everything wonderful but it is self-destructive force that will take evryon with him. I kind of connect to the show on the mental health level. The bipolar super amazing powerful and terribly agonising insecurity/depression at yourself and the world and the fact that you know if you touch others your poison but at the same time you have a gift to see the world in a way they never can and you mast have someone see you for the best you are even if it means sorrow in the end. maybe a little ??\", 'You don\\'t go to see the movie, you go to make fun of the movie.  \\n\\nIf you just sit in your living room and watch it like any other movie, you\\'re gonna have a bad time because it\\'s not very good in that context.\\n\\nIf you go to see it in a theater where there\\'s a bunch of people who know the movie and all of the participatory extras, you\\'re going to have a good time.  It\\'s a blast learning that every time someone say\\'s Brad\\'s name, everyone in the theater shouts \"Asshole!\" (unless there\\'s a better line that goes into that particular time slot).  It\\'s unreal watching people act out the movie right in front of the screen as it\\'s going on on the screen, and doubly so when the people on the screen and in front of it interact with each other, finish each other\\'s sentences, and answer each other\\'s questions.\\n\\nWithout the audience participation, it\\'s nothing.  With the audience participation, it is a fun time that makes it the film with the longest theatrical run in the history of cinema.', \"I've been shadowcasting rocky for about 10 years now and I've thought a lot about this. To me, it boils down to acceptance and open mindedness. I believe the overall message of acceptance for everybody is why they ultimately kill frank in the end. He seems sort of like an open minded character initially but he forces his way of life upon everybody he meets, as if he were the far left, gay version of the religious right. He doesn't open brad and janet's minds, he screws with their heads (just listen to superheroes) and practically dooms their relationship (you see the fallout in shock treatment).\\n\\nI feel like, ultimately, the movie is saying that everybody should be able to live the life they want to live, be accepting of other people's lifestyles but don't force yours on others. But with lasers and shit. \", 'Weirdos may murder you. Keep away from them at all costs.', 'Kinky sex. Crossdressing. Glitter. Meatloaf. Catchy and sexually charged music. If you like any combination of these things, you usually like the movie', 'Just looked this film up, and The now hotel that it was filmed at, is a 1 minute drive from my house! What a coincidence....', 'I have seen Rocky Horror around...30 times (all in theatre setting) and I just love it for what it is. The music, but a lot of it is if you\\'re with an active audience. If you see it at home, its clearly not the same. \\n\\nThough, I\\'ve never looked at it like the others are explaining, but they all make sense now that I think about it.\\n\\nI wish they still played the movie  at  midnight at our local theatre but they don\\'t anymore. :( I miss giving myself  over to absolute pleasure on a monthly basis.\\n\\nHell, I\\'ve seen it so much, someone can just mention it, or if its on tv or anything, I immediately switch to \\'theatre-mode\\' and start saying the lines that are said with the film.\\n\\nBrad and Janet enter the mansion at Riff-Raff\\'s beckoning:\\n\\nAudience: \"Hey Brad show us out a butterfly masturbates!\"\\n\\nBrad shakes the lapels of his wet jacket.', 'How many of you ware aware that Tim Curry is also IT, the clown? I was amazed when I realized.', 'First thing you need to understand is that its just a jump to the left...', 'What\\'s to \"Get?\\' Enjoy it for what it is!!\\n\\nNever supposed to be intellectually stimulating, or have a thick plot. it\\'s only supposed to be fun!!\\n\\nHistorically, they have some thing wrong anyway.\\n\\nDon\\'t worry about it!!\\n\\n\\nThat flick is not about plot development!!', 'I always describe The Rocky Horror Picture Show as something between a nightmare and a wet dream. The plot, that is. \\n\\nCulturally however, RHPS is just plain weirdness for the sake of being weird. The point was to be in your face and to say \"You think gay/lesbian/trans/artsy-people/whatever is weird?.....You\\'re right, we\\'re fucking ridiculous lunatics, and we love it!\"\\n\\nThat is I think the main consensus. ', \"Are you a man? Are you a straight man? Then you probably weren't meant to get it. \", \"The entire success of the movie hinges on Tim Curry's face and Susan Sarandon's breasts. Get it? \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMRl55U0eDw'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/10/the-astonishingly-sensical-plot-of-the-rocky-horror-picture-show'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.avclub.com/article/emthe-rocky-horror-picture-showem-48588'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://1morecastle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Rocky-Horror-Picture-Show-Lips.jpg', 'http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bzBv6kJJi94/TqOKWuPbspI/AAAAAAAAAG0/HNxhSqMhCUs/s1600/Frank-4.png', 'http://www.hotel-americano.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/time-warp.jpg', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch', 'http://cdn.okcimg.com/php/load_okc_image.php/images/0x0/0x0/0/6344196307884400154.jpeg___1_500_1_500_cb94de6a_.png', 'http://www.rockymusic.org/img/rhpsphotoscolor/RHPS-LipsAndLogoL.jpg', 'http://eatmorebacalhau.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/drfranknfurter.jpg', 'http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbr8kmyt171qeg3l9o1_400.gif', 'http://www.tipwiki.net/images/3/3a/Timewarpfilm.jpg', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bender', 'http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/screencrush.com/files/2013/10/The-Rocky-Horror-Picture-Show.jpg'], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/pc3ullr.jpg'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL_vrb4-6_0'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRyAwr4Yb5A'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://nerdline.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/rhps_048nell.jpeg', 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbt2TdvQ68'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 95, "q_id": "1vl3tt", "title": "why do i feel like i'm going to vomit when i get really hungry?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vl3tt/eli5_why_do_i_feel_like_im_going_to_vomit_when_i/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cetcd10', 'cetcj98', 'cetcm5c', 'cetd5ok', 'cetdcgo', 'cetdkgh', 'cete158', 'cete6ea', 'ceteiwu', 'cetessj', 'cetf54m', 'cetfarm', 'cetg02b', 'cetjb4i', 'cetjclv', 'cetlr1r', 'cetm4yo', 'cetnrna', 'cetqtan', 'cetrck1', 'cett4z8', 'cetum7o', 'cetvswh'], 'score': [32, 1045, 116, 14, 5, 3, 19, 59, 4, 5, 3, 3, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 4, 3, 2, 2, 3], 'text': ['This previous answer should help\\n\\n_URL_0_', \"Because your blood sugar drops and you get hypoglycemic which causes the nausea or the puky feeling.\\n\\n a simpler way to explain this- When have been hungry for a while our bodies start slowing down to preserve nutrition. This affects blood circulation to put it simply which is why some of us feel light headed, dizzy,etc. \\n\\nEdit 2- another reason for nausea is the acid produced in the stomach. Excessive acid on an empty stomach can cause nausea/ vomiting as well.\\n\\nEdit 3- Before my inbox explodes, I would like to say I don't think Hypoglycemia is the only cause here. It's different things for different people as I explained above.  We all have different tolerances towards hunger. This is not a thesis on starvation. \\n \\nEdit 4- link in my post below in the thread \\n\\nEdit 5- RIP my inbox. \\n\\nNot all of these things will happen if you've skipped a meal. It's different for different folks. Some of us have blood sugar issues and some don't. A person in this thread got a stroke after starving for nearly a week. \\nSo, I am not saying if you skip a meal your body will completely shut down. There are different stages of hunger. \\nEdit- language \\n\", 'I get that every morning, until I sneeze. Then the feeling vanishes like magic.', \"I've suffered from this almost permanently for two years now. It has totally ruined my life. I've been unable to work and have moved back in with my parents. Every month or so I feel myself for a few days but then I'm back to feeling shit. I've been to many doctors, the going hypothesis is that it's psycho somatic. I've gone along with this but this post has made me question it. I've never been tested for blood sugar. Plus, the symptoms started when I started a new diet (not on any diet any more though) . If anyone helps me solve this there's a lifetime of reddit gold in it for you. Also I will fly to your town to give you a hug. \", 'You should see a doctor about being hypoglycemic. I am the same way, i use a glucose meter regularly to prevent myself getting to that point. Peanut butter crackers works miracles. You need protein and carbs \\n', \"Can someone tell me why this never happens to me? I can starve myself to the point where you pass that hunger stage and you just forget about it but I've never, EVER, felt nauseous because of it.\", 'Question... why does this happen in obese people just as much as slim people? I feel as a big girl i should have a reserve for my blood to regulate with no? Ive tried skipping a meal and youd think my body could \"afford\" to not eat but no i get this pain/nausea also.', \"It's can be caused by the acid in your empty stomach.  The longer it's been since you ate the worse it can be.  By the acid not having anything to digest it causes irritation to the stomach lining and lower esophagus which you feel as a sensation of nausea.  This sensation tends to be worse in people with a predisposition to having acid reflux.  \\n\\nAn actual medical cause can be gastroparesis where the stomach does not empty correctly and can leave food in your stomach from meals digested during your prior meal that adds to irritation.  \\n\\nIn addition if the nausea is extremely transient, such as a sensation going back and forth between extremely hungry and nauseous quickly, it's likely a caused by a strong signal in the gastric nerves and the limited ability of our brains too correctly interpret this signal.  So it is likely trying to interpret the extreme range of human gastric sensation and gets the two confused, i.e. hunger or nausea.\", \"Your respirations, or breaths in and out, become more shallow and rapid (ex. Hyperventilating). This causes your oxygen (good air) levels to drop, and your carbon dioxide (bad air) levels in the blood to rise. Blood sugar at this time is obsolete (irrelevant). Next time you feel angry, try to focus on slowing down your breaths. You will not get nauseous. \\n\\nEdit: Holy shit I read this wrong. Hungry not angry. I wondered why everyone was getting so off topic. Agree with first comment. Your blood sugars are not consistent. If you keep glucose levels...uh, level throughout the day you should never have that feeling. In other words, eat small meals every 2-3 hrs, even if you are fat. And don't freaking starve yourself. It's lame.\", \"A few days ago, the weather was REALLY hot, and so I didn't really feel hungry for pretty much most of the day. In the late afternoon that day I went to the pool with a friend (since it was still hot) and I got the nauseated feeling. That feelin of nausea was really the only thing reminding me that I hadn't eaten. At first I was wondering why I felt sick, but a few minutes later realised that it was because I hadn't eaten anything (I'd had the feeling bedore for the same reason).\", 'I always thought it was because your stomach in anticipation of food starts producing more acids to digest and the acid makes you feel pukey.', \"This used to happen to me all the time, multiple times a day. And occasionally I would actually puke. I was eating every hour or so to make sure I was never hungry because whenever I got hungry I would almost instantly get nauseous. Turns out I was hyperthyroid and my metabolism was way too fast for my body. I'm now at normal levels of TSH, T4 and T3 and haven't had a problem since!\", \"I think it might be your body preparing to survive without food, so It'll run on body fat and other stuff instead of food. This also happens to me when I'm not hydrated enough. Drink lotsa water!\", 'I would like to know why the same feeling occurs when I get really sleepy. ', \"Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I always thought it was from both your blood sugar dropping and your stomach acids churning around in there.\", \"It's probably because your digestive juices are starting to get irritated from not giving it food to break down.\", \"FYI Caffeine impedes insulin, raising blood sugar, and also has an anorexic effect (in many people). If you consume caffeine without eating you're doubling the effects of the low-blood sugar crash, especially finding food disgusting.\", \"I'd like to know this too, it's always bothered me. I'm 24, healthy, and ain't dead despite being afflicted with this 1-2 times a month since I was really young, so it obviously isn't something serious.\\n\\nI could never (and can't still) eat breakfast because if I try to eat that early I get sick or find the idea of eating so unappealing I can't, and usually have a big lunch. If I'm still not hungry at lunch, then I can get sick from not eating later on.\", 'Cause your stomach is trying to digest your stomach.  \\n', \"Another reason is that your gut produces very powerful contractions in a starved state, trying to squeeze out every little bit of food in your system. This causes the rumbling feeling. Also you would be hypoglycemic, causing your brain to not get the supply it's demanding, making you lightheaded. Along with that, in a starved state your body starts to break down fat and protein, changing the pH of your blood. All those reasons and a lot of other metabolic changes cause you to feel sick.\", 'Glad someone ask this I always feel like puking if I get to hungry then i get really bad stomach cramps. ', \"What would be the best way to combat this without eating? \\n\\nBefore anyone expresses concern, I'm not asking bc I have an eating disorder or want to adopt any unhealthy habits, but I have been practicing intermittent fasting and occasional cleanses (which I enjoy and don't need anyone's opinion on) but my biggest challenge is that nauseous feeling. I'm not hungry, don't want to eat, enjoy fasting, but I end up eating just bc I am dry heaving through a shower in the morning. I'll usually drink some orange juice, which helps  &  now makes sense to me, but my main reason for fasting is to occasionally break a sugar/carb addiction, so it kinda defeats the purpose to have to eat something really sweet. \", 'I get this feeling right when I wake up. Then I drink my coffee and I am good for another 2 hours or so.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mu4ex/eli5_why_do_i_feel_nauseated_when_im_super_hungry/cccpxvf'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2398, "q_id": "6nmez7", "title": "tour de france racing strategy.", "selftext": "I'm watching it on TV now and have so many questions.  Why are there teams?  Why ride in one massive pack? How do riders/teams determine when to make their move?  ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nmez7/eli5_tour_de_france_racing_strategy/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dkajzyf', 'dkal0tt', 'dkalc5q', 'dkalkgx', 'dkarg8j'], 'score': [41, 3, 8, 9, 2], 'text': ['Bicycle races have few corners and so air resistance is the biggest factor. This is similar to for example NASCAR and speed skating. And the best way to combat air resistance is to sit right behind another racer. And when everyone does this then you get a big massive pack. Another problem in bicycle racing is that there are very few pitstops. There is usually one or two places along a course where a rider might get a bag of snacks but this is not enough to sustain him throughout the race. So the racers are followed by cars bringing water to them. But to get to the cars the cyclists have to drop out of the pack and then race them again with all the extra water. So most of the members of a team is not supposed to win anything. They are just paid to bring water to the pack, control the speed of the pack when needed and to help fighting for position within the pack. If you have watched a sprint you may notice that there is a lot of people starting early and then giving up far from the line. These are not supposed to win but supposed to help their team mates get a better start to the sprint.\\n\\nAs for the team tactics there is a lot of things going on. Tour de France have a lot of different objectives that teams can go for so the team manager have a lot of different options during the race. Every team also have a captain to help make decisions. There is also a lot of unwritten rules among the riders that help create a friendly environment for them all. So you very often see riders help each other during the race even if they do not directly benefit from this. Bad manners will make the three weeks very hard for you and may even prevent the team from getting invited for next year.', \" >  How do riders/teams determine when to make their move?\\n\\nThe rider who wants to win the TdF has to be the best climber and (in most cases) the best on time trial stages. Therefore he has to make his move(s) on mountain stages, in most cases when the stage ends on the top of a mountain so that the others can't follow him.\\n\\n(All drugs aside) Lance Armstrong is a good example how such attacks work: _URL_0_\", 'Well I just started following cycling, but here\\'s how I understand it.\\n\\n-Drafting is HUGE in cycling. That\\'s why most riders stick together in a pack, i.e. the peloton, because it saves power and energy. That being said, some guys decide to breakaway and go for it. These \"fugitives\" have to spend a lot more energy to cover the same distance, and are usually caught by the end of the race.\\n\\n-Stages are usually either climbing stages (hilly) or sprinting stages (flat). Sprinters and climbers are a completely different breed of animal. Sprinters are explosive and produce 1000+Watts in a few seconds, while climbers are lanky and can sustain a huge Watt/kg ratio for long uphill climbs. Usually sprinters only contest for the \"Green Jersey,\" while good climbers and time trialists (time trials are pretty much all out stages by yourself) are \"Yellow Jersey\" or general classification contenders.\\n\\n-Teams (Sky, Astana, Movistar) are implemented to help one rider, usually. They basically help protect their guy (either a yellow jersey or green jersey contender) and set them up either or the last climb or final sprint.\\n\\n-When riders \"attack,\" they try to drop other riders and open a time gap. Note that riding behind or at another\\'s wheel, such as in a group, results in no time differences (besides time bonuses).\\n\\nI know that this can sound confusing, but it\\'s actually pretty easy to get a feel for. Just a year ago I was clueless. If I said anything wrong, please forgive me, but I\\'ve only been following cycling for a year, and don\\'t ride much at all (besides a bit of Zwift). I\\'m mostly a runner, but cycling is a lot of fun to watch. Just look up the 2016 Olympics Womens Road Race Final. Amazing finish. ', \"Most teams are built around one person. Wether it be a sprinter like Cavedish or Sagan, or a yellow contender like Froome or Contador. \\n\\nThe team protects that rider and always has them in the position they need to be. When it's a team designed around a sprinter, you'll see them get in a single file line (pace line) at the end of the race. The guy in front will ride as hard as he can, increasing the speed of the peloton (the big group). He'll pull off to the side, and his teammate will do the same thing until the lead out man (the guy in front of that team's sprinter) and about 100-200meters out, the sprinters will take off and try to win the stage. \\n\\nWhen the sprinter stages happen, their teammates are not expected to win the stages. His teammates sole purpose is to get him in position to win. As long as they finish the stage they're happy. \\n\\nAs for top contenders, if they don't have the yellow jersey, then their team might make it extremely hard on a course picking up the tempo and trying to string out the field. If the yellow jersey gets left behind or uses a bunch of energy, then the contender can attack on a climb and gain time on the yellow jersey. \\n\\nSource: former racer. \\n\\nIf you have anymore questions ask :). \", \"On how they determine when to attack:\\n\\nYou will mostly see them attack on uphills sections because the aerodynamic drag is less of a factor. On a downhill or flat section it is very easy to sit on someone's wheel even if they are going all out. However, on a climb, almost all resistance is moving your weight up the hill, so sitting on someone's wheel doesn't help you very much. This means it is easier to open a gap.\\n\\nAnother reason to attack on a hill is the difference in speed you can achieve. On a flat, the difference between 35kph(22mph) and 45kph(28mph) is huge in terms of the power needed (double). Almost all of this is extra wind resistance. On a very steep hill, though, you might max out at 20kph(12mph), at which point wind resistance is negligible. What this means is that you can make another rider pop (give up), mentally or physically, by blowing by them at twice the speed. \\n\\n\\nApproximate Speed per Power on Flat:\\n\\n300 watts (pro can hold for 2-3hrs): 40.5kph\\n\\n600 watts (pro can hold for 2-4mins): 52kph\\n\\n\\nApproximate Speed per Power on 15% grade (quite steep):\\n\\n300 watts (pro can hold for 2-3hrs): 8.5kph\\n\\n600 watts (pro can hold for 2-4mins): 16.5kph\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdMdJAdzpYQ'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 805, "q_id": "2bqb5a", "title": "are there any actual laws against false advertisement?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bqb5a/eli5_are_there_any_actual_laws_against_false/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cj7udns', 'cj7ufes', 'cj7uwfi', 'cj7v0ww', 'cj85059', 'cj8fkss'], 'score': [5, 10, 3, 7, 3, 2], 'text': ['Yes, but they have to be blatantly false (like \"Eating FuckPops\u2122 will cure cancer!\"). ', 'Yes. In the US at least there are laws against false advertisement. However, it should be noted that there are all sorts of loopholes which can be abused. A statement must be verifiably false in order to be a problem, so vague statements like \"120% more refreshing\" or things of that nature aren\\'t actually illegal. ', 'Making untrue claims for profit is a form of fraud, what it is an advertisement or not.', 'If an ad makes a specific claim, it must be verifiably true or the company can get fined or, more likely, sued for damages.\\n\\nTo get around this, claims are usually made in particular ways that avoid saying anything. Have you seen that commercial for HEAD ON, APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD? The ad was kind of brilliant because it associated the product with having a helpful effect, but NEVER ACTUALLY SAID IT. The product was just wax. But, if you provide elaborate instructions for using a thing, then in another place talk about something, the consumer will make a connection but legally one was never made.\\n\\nIf I say, \"take this pill it will cure your cold\" that would get me in trouble.\\n\\nIf I say, \"Take this pill with a glass of water. You can use it when you have a cold\"  I can get away with it because while the two ideas appear in the same place, I haven\\'t claimed any curative properties. That is why products like Emergen-C can get away with marketing their products while having zero actual effect.', \"Yes. In 1997, Papa John's was sued by Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut claimed that better ingredients, contrary to Papa John's slogan, did not constitute better pizza. Pizza Hut was successful in their lawsuit, but Papa John's appealed and won. The court still agreed that better ingredients did not necessarily make a better pizza, but Pizza Hut failed to demonstrate a violation of the Lanham Act - they couldn't prove that Papa John's false slogan led to increased sales. \\n\\n**TL;DR: Usually, the claim of false advertisement must be backed up by evidence proving that the lies led to increased sales**\", 'New York State General Business Law 350: \"False advertising in the conduct of any  business,  trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby declared unlawful.\" and 350-a: \"The term \"false advertising\" means advertising, including  labeling,  of  a  commodity,  or  of  the  kind, character,  terms  or  conditions  of any employment opportunity if such advertising is misleading in a material respect. In determining  whether any  advertising is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made by statement, word,  design, device,  sound  or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertising fails to reveal facts material  in  the  light  of  such representations with respect to the commodity or employment to which the advertising   relates   under   the   conditions   prescribed   in  said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or  usual.\"']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 300, "q_id": "448p9x", "title": "why, when carrying cargo, do helicopters dangle it so far below the helicopter while in transport?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/448p9x/eli5_why_when_carrying_cargo_do_helicopters/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['czodxde', 'czofj5p', 'czok5it', 'czomf8p', 'czopp0g', 'czp5gqi'], 'score': [27, 13, 14, 695, 37, 2], 'text': [\"* the load is more stable there, and is less likely to shift the balance of the craft\\n* there often isn't room inside\\n* part of the advantage of helicopter cargo transport is being able to fit into tight spaces...having the cargo far below allows it to be loaded and unloaded without the helo having to land\", \"On top of the other great ideas/points, there is also the matter of the helicopter ideally gaining height before the load becomes a weight, a lot of slack allows the load to be a ways away (to the side or front or whatever), and for the helicopter to be fairly high when the load lifts.\\n\\nLower to the ground any small shift or sudden move is compounded by the fact that you're close to the ground, no wiggle room for the pilot.\", \"The distance below the helicopter varies depending on what is being hauled, the equipment being used, and special considerations such as setting the sling load down in a wooded area.  There are some more common pieces of equipment used in sling loading (exterior loads) that will give a somewhat uniform distance from the bottom of the helicopter.  As the helicopter accelerates it will pitch with its nose towards the ground, and the load will move behind it more and more as the helicopter flies faster based on air resistance and acceleration.  You don't want the load so close that it will strike the helicopter if oscillation occurs.  \\n\\nThere are three ways to improve the stability of a sling load.  They are to place the center of gravity in the 1st 1/3 of the load, give it a nose down attitude, or to streamline the load.  \\n\\nAnother reason reason that the sling load will be further away from the helicopter is because there may be a special circumstance that requires the load to be attached or detached while the helicopter is on the ground.  \\n\\nSource: U.S. Army Field Manual 3-21.38 (Pathfinder Operatons), and I am a Pathfinder School Graduate.\", 'Most of the answers here are plain wrong.\\n\\nActually, you try to have the load as close the the helicopter as possible (within reasonable limits, of course). There are several problems with dangling it far below:\\n\\n* Vibrations can build up in the wire, even to the point where the hook releases (I\\'ve seen that happen).\\n\\n* The load becomes a giant pendulum, which takes skill to keep in check, as it tends to have a will of it\\'s own. All manouvres have to be planned further in advance, and done with more precision.\\n\\n* When the load has been dropped, the long wire is a potential hazard if it\\'s not weighted down properly. You don\\'t want it to snap up into the tail rotor.\\n\\n* Maximum speed is lower, due to above problems.\\n\\n* The pilot has a harder time being really accurate when hooking/unhooking, as the load will be further away.\\n\\nUsually, the load is just hanging a meter or two below the helicopter. You want enough clearance so that the cargo won\\'t hit the helicopter, should the weight shift.\\n\\nThere are exceptions, of course:\\n\\n* When the circumstances don\\'t allow a short wire. For example, if there are trees or you are building a power line.\\n\\n* When making a movie. It looks more impressive with a long wire.\\n\\n* When the load is large, so that the downwash will push down on the load. For example, some large antennas or building materials.\\n\\nSource: My father was a helicopter pilot, and I often worked with him.\\n\\nNote: I know they usually don\\'t use a wire, but I don\\'t know the proper English word for the nylon loops used. \"Stropp\" in Swedish.', \"I spent nearly two years as helicopter crew on a HH60 in Afghanistan. \\n\\nOne of the reasons you want it lower is because the crew unloading doesn't have to get beaten by the rotorwash. Secondly you can set cargo down in spots where the bird may not fit. \\n\\nThird, and one of the most important points, is balance. Imagine a long pendulum. It swings slowly and doesnt necessarily affect it's anchor point that much. Of course it does, but not compared to a short pendulum that will swing more violently. \\n\\nYou don't want a too long line either though. If it's too long you'll get too much swing and landing the cargo becomes increasingly dangerous and difficult. \", \"When the cargo is on the long line, the pilot can look out the open door, thru the bubble window if installed meaning you don't have to open the door or down thru the floor mounted viewing port.  This gives you an excellent view of exactly where the load is as opposed to looking at it with the small underside mirror you would use if you short line the load. Being able to look straight down the long line makes it so much easier to position the load when you need to be within inches of the target position.  When moving diamond drills for instance, you have to have motor or tower hovering almost exactly over matching holes so that crew can insert bolts to put the drill together.  If the process takes a long time for the crew to due, if for instance it is windy, you are watching it happen down the line and can make small corrections of the position of the load the aid the process.  If you are slinging a load into a clearing in the trees with a long line, even if the clearing is big enough for the helicopter to fit, it is better to be up above the trees and in the wind, because any breeze helps the helicopter produce lift.  If the load is near the maximum that you can lift, and it always is, then you will enjoy being above the trees for the entire duration of the lift. On a short line, when you go down into the clearing, the wind dies down, the lift decreases and the helicopter might sink under little control because you are near the maximum for being able to hover with the load.  The guys under you in this instance are not pleased to have their work space intruded on by an out of control load.  I always used a long line because I had much better control of the slinging operation with it. In the winter you also had a much better view when the guys went unhook the load and got zapped by tremendous amounts of static electricity.  Another advantage of a long line is that if the load starts to fly apart, think sheets of plywood cinched together and the straps let go, then the load on the long line is far away from the helicopter which means foreign object damage is not a concern.  Another example of a long line being ideal is if you have the camp groceries in a net on the end of a long line, you can park them right next to the cook tent door for ease of delivery.  You are so far up that the downwash isn't a concern on the ground.  Generally speaking there is always a little more wind just seventy or a hundred feet up, so staying up in that air when hovering is always better.  Another good fact about long lining is that you aren't down where the rotor downwash will make a tarp, jacket, garbage bag or whatever fly up into your main rotor, tail rotor, or compressor intake. Lots of helicopters get killed by them. Nuff said.\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1545, "q_id": "29gy6c", "title": "how does a silencer on a fire arm work?", "selftext": "I obviously know that it make the weapon sound quieter and like (pthew) noise, but whenever I see one in a film or at weapon museums I just think that they look like barrel extensions, and I know that that wouldn't make the weapon quieter. So how does it work?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29gy6c/eli5_how_does_a_silencer_on_a_fire_arm_work/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ciksl73', 'ciksn7k', 'ciksnji'], 'score': [21, 17, 7], 'text': [\"The aim of a silencer is to break up/soften the noise of the weapon firing. It does this by directing the air leaving the muzzle through a series of baffles, slowing and redirecting the air so that it will form a 'softer' noise, rather than a single loud pulse.\\n\\nThe noise you hear in the movies is not representative of the average silenced weapon, but is a plot device to let bad (or good) guys do their job steathily. In practice, the silencer will reduce the noise and make it harder to pinpoint, but will not give anything like as significant a reduction in volume\", 'Imagine a hollow tube with a series of \"walls\" inside.  These walls are called baffles.\\n\\nMuch of the sound produced in the report of a gunshot is produced fron the rapid expansion of hot gasses leaving the muzzle of the barrel.\\n\\nThe suppressor serves to trap these gasses within a series of baffles, lessening the sound.\\n\\nBear in mind that you will not find many suppressors creating the \\'hollywood\\' quiet sound that we\\'re so used to.  In fact, it can still be quite loud.  Especially if you\\'re using supersonic ammunition (subsonic ammunition is a must for eliminating the supersonic crack - but will often have reduced ballistic performance).\\n\\nThe proper term is suppressor, as these devices only serve to suppress or muffle the sound.  \"Silencer\" is actually a trademark of a company called Silenco that produces suppressors.\\n\\nTo add a little more, baffle strikes can result in a catastrophic failure of the suppressor.  When using a bullet that is too heavy to be stabilized by the twist rate of the barrel, the bullet can actually hit the baffles, destroying the suppressor.  This can also be caused by improper threading, where the suppressor, when mounted, is ever so slightly canted.', \"They don't work like in the movies; you don't get a mouse fart *pthew* noise. Most movies don't accurately depict a silencer, because they can't accurately portray how utterly loud the guns are. Guns, even smaller .22 caliber guns, are so loud that standing next to one without hearing protection while it is being fired *just once* can damage your hearing. A silencer reduces this sound that's about as loud as a jet engine to one that's about as loud as a jackhammer. In other words: it still sounds like a gunshot, it just won't make you go deaf immediately.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 523, "q_id": "l9ire", "title": "What is the most damaging thing humans, with our current technology, could do to the universe; how much of an impact could we make?", "selftext": "Strange question, I know.  I was just wondering how much of a splash we could make.  Could we destroy a star? Move planets off of an orbit?\n\nLets say we are children, and the universe is our destructive playground, how mean/ingenius could we be with what we have so far?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l9ire/what_is_the_most_damaging_thing_humans_with_our/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2qv8pr', 'c2qv9r4', 'c2qve3m', 'c2qvnt2', 'c2qvs0r', 'c2qx9vy', 'c2qv8pr', 'c2qv9r4', 'c2qve3m', 'c2qvnt2', 'c2qvs0r', 'c2qx9vy'], 'score': [5, 2, 23, 2, 7, 3, 5, 2, 23, 2, 7, 3], 'text': [\"We could do some pretty terrible things to our planet's habitability.  We could probably kill all mammals in under a year, if we coordinated a nuclear strike for that purpose.  \\n\\nI can't think of any current technology that would make an observable, lasting impact on the Sun.  \", 'Could we bring down the moon?', 'This is kind of a weird question, because nothing in the universe is ever \"damaged\", just rearranged. \\n\\nBut giving you the benefit of the doubt:\\n\\n > What is the most damaging thing humans, with our current technology, could do to the universe\\n\\nEffectively nothing whatsoever. \\n\\n > Could we destroy a star? \\n\\nAbsolutely not. We\\'re many orders of magnitude away from being able to do this. \\n\\n > Move planets off of an orbit?\\n\\nAbsolutely not. We\\'re many orders of magnitude away from being able to do this. (This is slightly easier than destroying a star, but it\\'s like the difference between carrying an oil supertanker across Asia on your back with your own muscle power and carrying a battleship - both are simply impossible.)\\n\\n > What is the most damaging thing humans, with our current technology, could do to the universe\\n\\n- We could cause severe damage to the Earth\\'s ecosystem in a short time by detonating a lot of nuclear weapons. \\n\\n- We could cause damage (possibly severe) to the Earth\\'s ecosystem over a longer time scale by carrying on the normal activities of technological civilization. \\n\\n- If we wanted to put a huge amount of effort into it, we could move a number of nuclear bombs to a small asteroid or comet and blow it up or alter its orbit. \\n\\n\\nYou really need to get some sort of sense of how extremely big the universe is and how extremely small we are by comparison. \\n\\n\\nThe Earth as seen by *Voyager 1*  from the edge of our solar system. (We\\'re the \"pale blue dot\" indicated by the arrow.)\\n\\n\\\\- _URL_1_ - \\n\\n\\\\- _URL_3_ - \\n\\n\\\\- _URL_0_ -\\n\\n\\\\- _URL_2_ - \\n', \"it has taken us centuries to kinda damage the surface of this planet. i can't see us even having an influence beyond this solar system for thousands of years.\", 'If we used our current blueprints for interstellar spacecraft, we could spread humanity and life itself across the cosmos. In the long run, it could change quite a bit for the locales that receive the gift of life.', \"We could probably send an asteroid as big as the one that killed the dinosaurs onto a planet like Mars. There it would make a great big dust cloud and a nice sized crater. That's about it.\", \"We could do some pretty terrible things to our planet's habitability.  We could probably kill all mammals in under a year, if we coordinated a nuclear strike for that purpose.  \\n\\nI can't think of any current technology that would make an observable, lasting impact on the Sun.  \", 'Could we bring down the moon?', 'This is kind of a weird question, because nothing in the universe is ever \"damaged\", just rearranged. \\n\\nBut giving you the benefit of the doubt:\\n\\n > What is the most damaging thing humans, with our current technology, could do to the universe\\n\\nEffectively nothing whatsoever. \\n\\n > Could we destroy a star? \\n\\nAbsolutely not. We\\'re many orders of magnitude away from being able to do this. \\n\\n > Move planets off of an orbit?\\n\\nAbsolutely not. We\\'re many orders of magnitude away from being able to do this. (This is slightly easier than destroying a star, but it\\'s like the difference between carrying an oil supertanker across Asia on your back with your own muscle power and carrying a battleship - both are simply impossible.)\\n\\n > What is the most damaging thing humans, with our current technology, could do to the universe\\n\\n- We could cause severe damage to the Earth\\'s ecosystem in a short time by detonating a lot of nuclear weapons. \\n\\n- We could cause damage (possibly severe) to the Earth\\'s ecosystem over a longer time scale by carrying on the normal activities of technological civilization. \\n\\n- If we wanted to put a huge amount of effort into it, we could move a number of nuclear bombs to a small asteroid or comet and blow it up or alter its orbit. \\n\\n\\nYou really need to get some sort of sense of how extremely big the universe is and how extremely small we are by comparison. \\n\\n\\nThe Earth as seen by *Voyager 1*  from the edge of our solar system. (We\\'re the \"pale blue dot\" indicated by the arrow.)\\n\\n\\\\- _URL_1_ - \\n\\n\\\\- _URL_3_ - \\n\\n\\\\- _URL_0_ -\\n\\n\\\\- _URL_2_ - \\n', \"it has taken us centuries to kinda damage the surface of this planet. i can't see us even having an influence beyond this solar system for thousands of years.\", 'If we used our current blueprints for interstellar spacecraft, we could spread humanity and life itself across the cosmos. In the long run, it could change quite a bit for the locales that receive the gift of life.', \"We could probably send an asteroid as big as the one that killed the dinosaurs onto a planet like Mars. There it would make a great big dust cloud and a nice sized crater. That's about it.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://wimp.com/knownuniverse/', 'http://friendswelove.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/pale_blue_dot.jpg', 'http://www.primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/scale-of-universe-v1.swf', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot'], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://wimp.com/knownuniverse/', 'http://friendswelove.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/pale_blue_dot.jpg', 'http://www.primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/scale-of-universe-v1.swf', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2971, "q_id": "1yfkj1", "title": "why does the cost of a hard drive increase with capacity? are there actual material costs or are we putting a price tag on a virtual concept? what is the history here?", "selftext": "My google search only prompted specific news regarding events that impacted shipping and therefore rose the price of hard-drives. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yfkj1/eli5_why_does_the_cost_of_a_hard_drive_increase/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cfk1rey', 'cfk2gw0', 'cfk3pax', 'cfk5s47', 'cfk6h4k', 'cfk7182', 'cfk9noq', 'cfka1hc', 'cfkb8jq', 'cfkdn13'], 'score': [19, 10, 178, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 7], 'text': [\"Yes there are also actual material costs, but mostly it's because the data on a hard drive has to be organized by controller electronics, and the more data is there to manage, the more complex that controller has to be.\\n\\nEDIT: because the reply to this was buried, but it did make me bring up this point: Apart from the electronics, if you want to double the capacity of a hard drive, you need either double the medium to store the data on or store the data at double density, requiring more expensive read/write hardware.\", 'Additionally there are R & D costs and investment that went to the production of that hard drive. Actually same is true for all high tech stuff.', \"I'm assuming you're asking something like: Why does a 3TB drive cost more than a 2TB drive and the answer is yes, there are material costs involved. First take into consideration what a hard drive is made of:\\n\\n* Enclosure (the casing)\\n* Controller (that green thingy on the bottom)\\n* Drive Platters (basically shiny discs that actually store your data)\\n* Drive Head  &  Etc (How the drive is read)\\n\\nThe enclosure and drive head are pretty unimportant in this argument since they rarely change between drive types. What increases the cost is usually in the controller and the drive platters. \\n\\nLet's start with platters. Each platter has a certain physical capacity. Say for example you can fit 1GB of data onto a platter -- It would take 1000 of these to be able to store 1TB -- there's no physical way you could fit 1000 of these into a hard drive (which has certain height, length, width restrictions). So, you'll need to engineer some way to fit more space on a platter. You spend $$$ on research and development and finally (years later) you figure out how to get a whopping 250GB per platter. Now you can take 4 of these put them together to get 1TB. But ... you just spent a fortune figuring out how to store more data on these platters. So how do you recoup your costs? Make the price higher -- the high price reflects the huge investment made in figuring out how to make the drive in the first place. This is also why the price decreases as times goes by. The technology is mostly established for that drive, there's no more costs involved other than production (and occasional maintenance). \\n\\nNow, on to the controller. The controller, as the name might imply, controls how the data is read or written to the drive; it's the interface for your computer to talk to a hard drive. Imagine you spend very little on making a controller. All it does is blindly read and write data -- there's no error checking. So if by some weird mishap data becomes corrupt, it won't bother telling you or even noticing. Sounds like a pretty shitty drive, right? Well, that's why a lot of work goes into making more robust controllers that are catered to the drive. A specific hard drive model will probably have a completely custom controller that cannot be swapped with the controller for a different hard drive model. And this, again, goes back to the R & D in making said controller. \\n\\nAfter those factors, there's also supply and demand to take into consideration. Spinny drives on the smaller side have a smaller amount of demand, so supply is usually limited which drives the price up a bit. So the price per GB is usually higher than larger sized drives.\", 'It\\'s a combination of technology and market. Higher density devices cost more to manufacture. That\\'s true for every device. Smaller parts, tighter tolerances, higher quality control, etc.\\n\\nBut market costs come into play, too. The top of the line leading edge technology will be sold in smaller numbers and the price will be high. Limited competition, sales, etc. That would be the high-capacity drives.\\n\\nOnce they\\'ve been out for awhile, the prices drop. Stores now have them in stock and want to move them out. Price is constantly dropping, so stores want to move their inventory before they lose profits.\\n\\nWhat\\'s interesting is that the curve of cost (per MB) vs capacity has an \"elbow\" to it. The highest capacity (highest density) drives make up a sharp increase in price per MB. The LOWEST capacity drives, strangely, ALSO make up an increased price per MB. That\\'s because those drives reached a minimum price and stores stopped discounting them. They may have even stopped stocking them.\\n\\nWhen buying a drive, you likely want to pick the saddle of that cost-per-MB curve. You want a drive that has a high enough density that the cost per MB is low, but not so high that you pay the premium for top-of-the-line new technology. ', \"For drives that are relatively close in size it doesn't have anything to do with material cost as they are all the same. Manufacturing things like hard drives in a consistent manner is rather difficult. To deal with this the factories build all one size drive, lets say 5TB. After they are built they run them through a set of tests. Some drives will reliably spin faster than others so they get a 7200 RPM rating. The slower ones get a 5400 RPM rating. Some will have 4TB of usable space and some will only have 1TB. What the drive ends up being sold as just depends on how it tests and what firmware is written to it. Drives that may meet requirements but not very well are sent to Walmart.\\n\\nThe same thing happens with computer processors. They sell 3 core processors but that is just so they can do something with the 4 core ones they make that have a core that doesn't work so well. \", \"One simple reason is hard drives often have a different number of [platers and heads](_URL_0_) inside (you can see them better in [this image](_URL_1_) stacked one on top of the other)\\n\\nIf a single platter can hold 1TB, then you may find a 1TB drive has just 1 platter, a 2TB drive has 2 platters and a 3TB drive has 3 platters etc.\\n\\nAlternatively a 1TB drive may have 2 500GB platters because 500GB platters don't have to be as precise and can be made cheaply, or they have a lot of old 500GB platters they want to use up.\", 'I bring up the same scenario with motorcycles. A 250cc motorcycle can cost thousands more than a 125cc motorcycle, even though only a few minor things in the engine are different. The manufacturing process of these bikes are identical. You may even say that the 250cc should be less expensive since they outsell them 2:1. ', \"Why something costs X can be summed up in three words: Demand and Supply\\n\\nSince the supply side has been covered below, I'll talk about demand. Demand in economics shows how much people in economics are willing to pay for something. How much they are willing to pay for something depends upon the size of the benefit they can get from that something. Since people can get more benefit from a 1TB hard-drive, than say a 500GB one, they are willing to pay more for them, and therefore, the 1TB hard drive will cost more.\", \"Let's say we compare a 128gb and 256gb solid state drive. Besides R & D is there that much of a difference in manufacturing cost?\", \"Virtual concept? It's hardware! \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], ['http://i.imgur.com/bNGffsO.gif', 'http://i.imgur.com/wlJ4TgT.jpg'], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1133, "q_id": "6wbvee", "title": "why aren't there seatbelts in public busses?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wbvee/eli5_why_arent_there_seatbelts_in_public_busses/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dm6uod5', 'dm6uswe', 'dm6v3g1', 'dm6vzf9', 'dm6yhcf', 'dm6yxjw', 'dm6zvm6', 'dm709m6', 'dm7eyeb'], 'score': [6, 241, 5, 28, 2, 105, 7, 7, 6], 'text': [\"Here in the UK there are some, but they tend to be on the longer distance, newer coaches rather than local or town-town bus routes. There definitely doesn't *seem* (feel free to correct me anyone...wait, this is Reddit, of course you will :D) to be any legal requirement or enforcement on people belting-up on public transport, even when belts are provided. Often wondered why meself.. I'd've thought that *not* having em would play merry hell with public liability insurance costs.. \", \"The chances of you needing a seatbelt in a bus are far less than in a VW bug. The weight and size of a bus makes it inherently safer to drive in than a smaller vehicle.\\n\\nThe only problem here is if the bus flips. Then you're fucked.\", 'Here any buss made after 2004 has to have seatbelt for all passengers. Unless its made for urban traffic only. \\n\\nAnd its illegal to not use seatbelt if one is available.', \"Town/ city buses drive at about 20-30 mph. They have handles often on sides or the seat in front. They are not legally required to have seat belts atleast here in the uk. And the inconvenience of having to take it on and off every time someone wants off. \\nOn the other hand, coaches or intercity buses travel on highways often faster and are required by law to have them and in proper operating condition. And people don't get on and off as often. These are checked on every inspection and yearly MOT(government vehicle check)\\nPs- city buses can drive fast but only when no passengers on board \", 'I thought the designs of the seats were to mitigate any possible accident.  The seat backs are tall enough that seated passengers will not fly forward, and the seats are designed to take the impact.  \\n\\nSide impacts and rollovers, the passengers are screwed.', 'I was once in a bus accident on a non-divided highway back in the 1990s.\\n\\nWe were driving along in a coach bus at 100km/h.  A van driving in front of us slowed down, signaling a right turn at a side road.  Our bus pulled into the oncoming traffic lane to pass them on the left.  The van turned left, and got T-boned by the bus at 100km/h.\\n\\nAs a passenger near the back, it felt like we hit a speedbump.  I just felt light on my seat for a second, then everything was normal again.  We were then confused as to why the bus was pulling over.\\n\\nThe van had its entire side destroyed.  You could see the steel beam that runs down the side of the van in relief, every body panel and window on the left side of the van was crushed.  Fortunately there were no serious injuries in the van (but probably lots of whiplash).\\n\\nIn summary:  momentum is awesome.  As far as I can recall, this bus had no seatbelts.\\n\\n(Ironic part:  we were watching a movie on the bus.  It was \"Alive\", and our bus accident happened shortly after the airplane crash scene was shown.)\\n', 'Physics!  The bus weighs so much that an accident will not be nearly as dangerous to passengers as a similar accident when in a smaller lighter vehicle.  Most accidents would be with another vehicle, not a brick wall.  So the bus would not instantly decelerate. ', \"FYI buses in the U.K. Won't emergency stop either. This is because they don't have seat belts so hitting the brakes hard would increase the risk of injury more than hitting the object and slowing down using this (slow speeds only)\\n\\nOne of the things a friend got told when learning to ride a motorbike was don't mess with buses they won't stop for you \", 'The rationale for a school bus is that in the case of young children, if there is an accident most of them are probably going to have trouble undoing their seat belts on their own, and in the case of something like the bus catching fire, it would be more hazardous to have them than not']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1308, "q_id": "40qsjh", "title": "if a drunk 18 year old female has sex with a male under the age of legal consent (say 14), who would be charged with rape?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40qsjh/eli5_if_a_drunk_18_year_old_female_has_sex_with_a/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cywdcgf', 'cywe4qo', 'cyweke1', 'cywgsdk', 'cywgv73', 'cywh1g8', 'cywhn77', 'cywhs22', 'cywij8g', 'cywijsy', 'cywircd', 'cywj2oq', 'cywj82v', 'cywj83j', 'cywj8zs', 'cywjxsd', 'cywkdfd'], 'score': [464, 215, 156, 33, 12, 4, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 3, 3], 'text': [\"The female obviously.  Being drunk doesn't absolve you from your actions.  She is committing statutory rape, the fact that she's drunk makes no difference except maybe in the plea process.\", \"Your question stems from a misunderstanding of what being too drunk to consent is. This is understandable because reddit firmly believes and will angrily defend the misunderstanding.\\n\\nYou aren't raping a person by having sex with a drunk girl. What's rape is when a girl has had so much booze that she doesn't understand what is happening, can't make decisions at all, and is basically passed out. This means she is physically unable to consent because she doesn't understand she is having sex and couldn't say yes or no if you asked.  \\n\\nPeople act like the law is that women can cry rape if they wake up and regret the beer goggles. This isn't the case. \\n\\nit's very clear when a person is too drunk to consent and more than that, long before you get to that point they are too drunk to have enjoyable sex, or for you to enjoy the sex (edit: More than you would with a sex doll). Most normal people wouldnt want to have sex wifh someone approaching that level. So really, if you aren't into having sex with immobile people the issue should never come up. \\n\\nSo the answer to your question is, it depends on how you are defining you terms. As is, the woman is sexually assaulting a minor. If you're saying she's so drunk as to be unable to consent, then obviously she can not possibly be actively trying to have sex with the kid and so the kid is obviously raping her.\", \"You couldn't possibly say without further context. \\n\\nYou're probably thinking about affirmative consent laws which come up daily around here. In a university following the affirmative consent standard it is the responsibility of the person initiating or escalating the act to ensure consent can be and is given. If the 18 year old could not or did not give consent and the 14 year old initiated / escalated then the 14 year old is responsible. In every other circumstance the 18 year old is responsible.   \", \"A 16 year old was arrested for having a nude pic of himself on his phone, from when he was younger. Don't look for common sense. \", \"All these answers are dumb. Obviously it's gonna depend whether she's the one that filed the charges, or whether charges are being filed against her for statutory. If she got raped, obviously she's not going to get a statutory rape charge. If she had sex with the minor while she was drunk, intentionally, especially if she instigated it, she's gonna get the statutory charge. There's plenty of 14 year old boys capable of overpowering older women, just use some common sense and you'll know what the result will be. This question doesn't even make sense in the first place considering being drunk has absolutely nothing to do with consent, only being too drunk to where you can't consent matters.\", 'Probably the male. What more could you expect?', 'It would be statutory rape and the 18 year old would be charged, because a 14 year old is underage and therefore cannot legally give consent.', 'I am to lazy to look it up right now but in Reno back in 2006 or 2007 this happened. The answer is both. Same goes for two underage kids sleeping with each other in some places.', 'this differs from country to country, her in Norway we had a case where a 15 year old boy stole his fathers car and to have intercourse with a 21 year old woman. after that the boy charged the women, but the woman won because she had no reason to believe he was under the age of consent, and the boy got fined  ', 'Having sex with a drunk person does not constitute rape. She would be charged with the rape of the boy.', 'By UK law a women cannot rape, only men can commit rape. If a women was to have sex with someone who was not consenting it would be classed as sexual assault. However even though the term rape sounds more sinister they are both treated the same way in court.', 'Check local state laws on statutory rape.  The woman is an 18 year old adult the 14 year old is a child under the legal age of consent.\\n\\nIn most states the woman has committed statutory rape  (even if the boy was dead keen at the time)', 'Potentially both.\\n\\n14 year old intentionally raping an 18 year old is who is drunk to the point of being unable to consent is clealrly still rape.\\n\\nOn the other hand having sex with a 14 year old is statutory rape as a matter of law, regardless of intent.\\n\\nYeah, the law is pretty inconsistent.', \"There's a Romeo and Juliet statute in Maryland where you can have sex with someone underage as long as they are within four years of your age. A 18 and 14, depending on their birthdays, can legally have sex in Maryland. \", \"I don't think you can ELI5 this but i'll try. if you take the law literally both parties commit crimes and should be charged, as being drunk doesn't absolve you of guilt, sleeping with someone too drunk to consent is rape and sleeping with someone who's underage is also rape.\\n\\n\\nHowever what's interesting, in reality with a drunk women over the age of consent and a sober young male under the age of consent i could see both facing legal issues. \\n\\nYet when you flip the scenario and you have a drunk male over the age of consent and a sober young female who's under the age of consent i can only see one outcome in our current judicial systems climate and overall in societies eyes.\\n\\nWould be interesting to hear a lawyers take on both scenarios, i believe age gap would rightly or wrongly play a massive part in the outcome.\", \"Here (Germany). Neither of them. There is an offence of taking advantage of the lack of maturity of 14 and 15 year-olds, but you have to be over 21 yourself to be guilty of that. \\n\\nAnd if you had sex with someone under the age of 13 you would be guilty of the child sexual abuse, not rape.\\n\\nI'm not sure if there's a law here about the ability to give consent when sufficiently drunk. \", \"I wish non-lawyers wouldn't answer legal questions. The answer is that the 14 year old *may* be charged with rape, and the 18 year old may be charged with statutory rape.\\n\\nThere are some jurisdictions which are dubious of consent's being given if someone is under the influence of alcohol. Depending on how drunk the girl was, the 14 year old boy MAY be charged with rape if the girl was so drunk that she could not consent. \\n\\nStatutory rape is a strict liability offense, meaning that you don't have to know you're breaking the law or intend to break the law to be guilty of it. Having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape (unless excluded by a caveat, like a Romeo clause). Assuming no Romeo clause, the 18 year old could definitely be charged with statutory rape.\\n\\nEDIT: This applies in the United States only, and no other country.\\n\\nNeither charge would probably stick, and both would likely be pleaded down, for practical reasons. But that's what would happen, so there you go. \\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1718, "q_id": "3ukm5n", "title": "how do you get job experience when you can't get a job with no experience?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ukm5n/eli5_how_do_you_get_job_experience_when_you_cant/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxfm8vg', 'cxfm8xt', 'cxfm98r', 'cxfmpns', 'cxfn0mw', 'cxfnjaw', 'cxfowpi', 'cxfoycl', 'cxftu4x', 'cxfvf00', 'cxfvycv', 'cxfz509', 'cxg1l03', 'cxg1w1j'], 'score': [19, 2, 54, 6, 3, 3, 6, 3, 11, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2], 'text': ['Start small, lots of fast food joints and clubs/pubs have a higher turnover rate (at least in Australia that is) and will take anyone who is willing, even the unexperienced. Yeah the pay might not be great, but stick it out for a few months, get some experiences and some good references (very important) then you might be able to find something closer to the area you want.', \"You have to take a job that doesn't require experience. You have to take a job you are over qualified for. This is called paying your dues. It's no fun, but you shouldn't need to be there more than a year. One year should do it, so grt in there and get it over with. \", 'You power up your CV by doing volunteer work and. I know this sounds super shitty and exploitative, but unpaid or minimum wage work experience. ', 'You work lower level jobs (such as at restaurants or retail) and you volunteer at things related to your intended field. ', \"You can get a job with no experience, it depends what sort of job you're looking for. I got a job as a barista straight out of high school. \", \"Lie.... As long as you have the skill.  Want to learn HVAC.  Say you worked as a helper at xyz company from another city.  Smaller places and lower level work don't check as much.  Ironically higher level work doesn't check always for assumed things like degrees.\\n\\nWant to be a manager/lead  but we're a lowly accountant.... Lie.  Say you were a lead.  Give HR as a reference and say its for legal reasons they don't give personal refs.  They verify the start and end dates the details are up to you. Staffing firms who get paid a portion of your salary as commission are happy to go to bat for you.\\n\\nDo this in private sector.  Please don't do this to govt or healthcare fields. \", \"You have to start small. I started at Burger King. Now I'm CTO of a fast growing software company.\", 'Examine your skills and hobbies. Are any of them valuable skills that an employer would value? If so, these become experience. Since you are on Redditt you have experience using a computer. So detail that experience. What do you do with it that an employer desires? Did you make a spreadsheet that analyzed some data? Are you good at social networking? Did you build a web site? Did you write a term paper using it? Did you make a video? Providing that none of this activity includes a negative aspect, all of this can be considered experience. Job experience involves your working as part of a team. If you belonged to a club like the chess club, or sports team, or school newspaper, radio station or had a part-time job after school that too is considered job experience.\\n\\nNow take all that information and apply it to what specialty the job you are applying for needs. Show your love of the profession, and the willingness and commitment to learn the business their way. One job I succeeded in getting was that I saw an ad for a company hiring artists for a night shift. I wrote the company suggesting they needed an experienced art director like my self to head this group of artists. So when you write them suggest how you can be of value to the need.', \"Scouting\\n\\nJROTC/Cadet programs\\n\\nMilitary service\\n\\nVolunteer\\n\\nInternships\\n\\nCollege/University programs\\n\\nGetting a good job when you're 21 starts by doing good work when you're 12.\", \"volunteer, intern, take more classes, freelance work, take a lesser paying job that you don't want (minimum wage, or even unpaid if thats what it takes) ... if it has the potential to grow/promote you into a position that will give you the experience you want, ask someone working in the field how they got to where they are now, learn how to make a good resume and connect seemingly unrelated dots that show your general experience.\\n\\n\\nand don't expect to have everything in the world handed to you the day you finish college.\", \"Unpaid, preferably paid, internships. I've had two unpaid internships and one paid. I did the first two to boost my resume for grad school and now im working at the paid internship while taking classes. \\n\\n\", \"Internships!!!! I feel like that's what companies mean when they say they want experienced employees for an entry level job. Apply for summer internships and get valuable experience in the field and when you graduate you'll have a least a year or two of prior experience \", \"Fake it til ya make it. Be ready though, it is no doubt a sink-or-swim scenario. Don't fuck up.\", 'You apply anyways. Write a cover letter. Did you do anything in school that applies to this job directly? Boom. Experience. Do anything you can to get an interview.\\n\\n Most jobs are just trying to scare off people with unbelievable expectations.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2963, "q_id": "1si524", "title": "How is it that a seismograph can be sensitive enough to detect activity on the other side of the planet but isn't inundated with background noise? (e.g. the seismologist moving his chair 10 feet away)", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1si524/how_is_it_that_a_seismograph_can_be_sensitive/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cdy5q15'], 'score': [12], 'text': ['Seismometers do indeed get a lot of background noise. It should also be noted that seismometers do not detect every earthquake that occurs elsewhere on the planet - they can only identify earthquakes when the signal intensity is above the local noise.\\n\\nNow, on the whole seismometers are placed as far from noise sources as possible, but the department I used to work in had one, and they were within 100 m of a busy main road, less than a mile from one of the busiest stretches of motorway in Europe, and less than 4 miles from the 3rd busiest airport in the world. It would detect people walking along corridors, vehicles going past, and aircraft taking off. However, it was still sensitivite enough to record low magnitude ( < M4) earthquakes within maybe 500 miles, and (very clearly!) detected stuff like the Honshu earthquake. Anything bigger than about an M7 globally it would be able to detect.\\n\\nAn important factor in all of this is that earthquakes produce very specifically shaped signals at very low frequencies. These are very different to the signal you get from people walking, vehicles passing and so on.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1333, "q_id": "1d7pgs", "title": "why is it that \"preemptive strikes\" were so important in the middle east but now that n. korea has been shown to be a threat and actively threatening the us, the us doesn't enact a preemptive strike?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d7pgs/eli5_why_is_it_that_preemptive_strikes_were_so/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c9np9f9', 'c9npand', 'c9npvcf', 'c9nqeol', 'c9ns96v', 'c9ntjhu', 'c9o3ypl'], 'score': [12, 147, 24, 26, 6, 2, 3], 'text': [\"The difference is, the allies of the countries that were attacked in the Middle East have no influence on the United States, or their influence were insignificant to the US. However, N. Korea's allies are much stronger and do not give a shit about the US, so in case of attack, the US does not only risk their presence in Korea, but they could upset other countries backing Korea up. For example, Afghanistan and Iraq were more or less governed by tyrants and/or unfair leaders. They didn't have strong allies that could stand against USA. Iraq lost their friends ever since the Gulf War, and Afghanistan went to non-existance ever since the Taliban took control. In addition, after Al-Qaeda attacking American soil, that was a good enough reason for Americans to enact a preemptive strike. In this case, Russia, China, and Pakistan could be posing additional threat to USA in case of a strike. That is another reason why N. Korea are holding still.\", 'War is political. Preemptive strikes can be real but just as often it\\'s just an excuse to start some shit for ulterior motives.\\n\\nNorth Korea on the other hand is...\\n\\n* No serious threat\\n* Has nothing America wants, ie. not worth starting shit over\\n* War with North Korea will cause massive trouble\\n\\nThe Iraq and Afghanistan conflict caused America to nose dive further into debt and everyone is struggling to stabilize the countries and clean up the mess.\\n\\nLet\\'s assume a NK conflict is swiftly won and NK get\\'s \"liberated\". There are now some 24 million North Koreans from a dysfunctional nation unloaded on the world. That\\'s a pretty big burden to deal with.\\n\\nSo in short, there\\'s no pre emptive strikes because there\\'s no real threat and nobody wants to make NK their problem.', 'Nobody wants to deal with all of the refugees. It would be a very very large number of North Koreans brainwashed to hate everyone not North Korean that would need to be educated and re-integrated into society.\\n\\nIn contrast, we believed that we would be welcomed with open arms and as liberators by the people of Iraq and Afghanistan before we went in there.', 'Short answer: China', \"Attacking a nation that is actually in possession of weapons of mass destruction is dangerous.  Pretend WMD are much, much easier to deal with.  Also, NK doesn't have any known oil deposits.\", 'Hahahaha \"shown to be a threat\" ', \"The real problem with a war with NK would be dealing with the aftermath. \\nI'll ELI5 as well and short as I can:\\nA pre-emptive strike on NK would result in an immediate artillery bombardment of Seoul. The effectiveness of this is debatable as NK shells have about a 50% dud rate and Seoul is well prepared to deal with this. Within a few hours, SK and US forces would knock out most of those artillery positions, as well as supply lines in NK. NK troops would defect or surrender en masse as supplies and reinforcements are unable to reach the ever receding front line. At this point, NKs leadership would go all out, but their ranks would falter and pretty soon, less than a week I would guess, the regime would fall. So... Then we now have a few million third world denizens without a functioning government. A humanitarian crisis.\\n\\nTo put it bluntly... SK doesn't want an influx of underskilled malnourished brainwashed refugees from a militant police state and neither does China. And if the end result would be reunification of the north and south, China wouldn't take to kindly to now having a country with a major u.s. military base presence on its front doorstep. \\n\\nEdit: formatting and a word\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2471, "q_id": "5knf89", "title": "Was FDR's relationship with Theodore Roosevelt an issue in his elections? Were there any concerns of an \"elitist\" family winning the presidency twice?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5knf89/was_fdrs_relationship_with_theodore_roosevelt_an/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dbpnyx7'], 'score': [17], 'text': [\"Follow up, what ever happened to the Roosevelt's? They go from a prominent political family to what?  \\n\\nEdit: family not party\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 161, "q_id": "1m84k4", "title": "Is it true that fan violence is more common in European sports than in American sports because traditionally in Europe, fanbases were based around deep political, religious and ethnic divisions? (xpost from /r/asksocialscience)", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1m84k4/is_it_true_that_fan_violence_is_more_common_in/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cc6rjq1', 'cc6u0u4', 'cc6ucgg'], 'score': [9, 5, 6], 'text': ['I don\\'t have any insight into the truth of your statement. But I can compare american to german sports.\\n\\nAmerican clubs are more or less companies, that play a sport as their business. They are owned by private equity, usually not the public (except for the packers).\\n\\nI will elaborate on the difference to german clubs, because I am from there, but this applies to most european clubs. Unlike in America clubs are public entities. If a group of people wants to form a club they have to apply to a register and tell which public benefit they will bring to the community (for example exercise for the people in a certain area, or a choir for a church, works for every kind of club). Every german proffesional sports club has started out that way. They are always democratically ruled by their members and pursue their goals. Of course this has changed a lot. German football clubs nowadays often separate their proffesional sector from the public one in a company. (but that company is still owned by the club it originated from, the company provides flexibility). Often the soccer branch of a club gets separated and all the other sports (table tennis, volleyball etc.) remain in the public branch of the club.\\n\\nSo the origin of any german club is a group of members with a common goal. Of course these groups are more likely to form rivalries to other groups. Additionally: since the involvement with the club is bigger (as a member you have a vote) the empathy is likely to be bigger than to a club owned by some millionaire(billionaire) that happens to play in your city. (keep in mind: not every fan is also a member, but many are. Bayern Munich as the biggest german club has 125000 members, but millions of fans)\\n\\nAs an example of two such clubs with a big rivalry: Schalke and Dortmund, two german soccer clubs, cities 25 miles apart: They originated from coal miners sports clubs. Being so close their mines were always in competition to each other. Since these provided more or less the only jobs for the community the match on the field was a subsidiary economical fight. Nowadays the mines are closed, but the rivalry was inherited.\\n\\nTo get back to your question. If the violence is actually more common these points might give you a hint why.\\n\\nP.S: Another possible reason: The licensing system of your proffessional leagues: Your clubs need licences to play in the big leagues, this results that you usually don\\'t have a \"Derby\", because clubs are distributed all over the country. Two clubs in close proximity playing against each other (only New York has two NFL teams) doesn\\'t happen very often. European leagues have that regularly. The english premier league has had up to 7 clubs from London. This results in a derby of the posh club from one part of town against the working class club of another giving the match a social component.\\n\\nEdit: clarification, editing mistake.', 'I think I can bring my personal experience on the subject.\\n\\nThe football (soccer) in Europe is not only a sport but a cultural thing. It used to be the sport of the people, with dirt cheap tickets (no longer true) and fans that supported their local team for life.\\n\\nNow there was originally two big football cultures : the British one and the Italian one.\\n\\nThe British one knew violence very soon (think nineteenth century soon), especially in teams very close from each other geographically, it then faded and things went smoother until the 60\\'s and the rising influence of youth movements such as the skinheads (not necessarily nazis, the first skinheads were generally friends with the immigrated populations they shared their popular districts with and listened to reggae/ska) or the teddy boys. Violence in football was strictly a mirror of violence everywhere else, these youths were poor, idle and had no hope of a better future. It was encouraged by the fact police forces were not really trained to face such big fights sometimes involving 200 people and more. Rivalries came back between teams that were close from each other, often along with stereotypes linked to a team or another (Tottenham = jews, Chelsea = rich boys, Leeds = Pakistanese etc.). Violence was a show of strengh, the group was the members\\' families and support. Some hools sometimes did not even bother showing to the game, the only game that counted for them was before or after the game and happened in the streets.\\n\\nThe Italian culture was about strictly organized \"Ultras\" groups. They considered themselves the \"elite\" fans of their team. They have well defined leaders, and are financially autonomous gaining money from membership cards and by selling merchandising with the colours and logos of the group (some ultras groups sell more of their own merchandising than the team they represent). This money was mainly used to organize huge shows at the beginning of the game called \"tifos\". These tifos are designed, created, handcrafted and organized by the ultra group. \\n\\n[Dortmund, Germany](_URL_8_)\\n\\n[Paris, France](_URL_5_)\\n\\n[St Etienne, France](_URL_4_)\\n\\n[Fenerbahce, Turkey](_URL_0_)\\n\\n[Varsaw, Poland](_URL_6_) (a good example of how provocative tifos can be, this tifo has been made specifically to provoke the Hapoel Tel Aviv -an Israeli team- ultras)\\n\\n[Unknown](_URL_11_)\\n\\n[Unknown, Turkey](_URL_10_) (a tifo taunting the ban on pyrotechnics in stadiums)\\n\\n[Nicosia, Greece] (_URL_1_)(good example of politics getting involved in some groups)\\n\\nBordeaux, France [wip 1](_URL_9_) [wip 2](_URL_7_) [wip 3](_URL_2_) [Final product](_URL_3_) creation time : 3 weeks, total cost : about 20 000 \u20ac\\n\\nThe quality and the size of the tifo demonstrate the power of the group and assure them the respect of other groups. As you can guess when it comes to displays of power and gaining respect, violence is never far either. Very soon violence became a great way to gain respect as well by basically showing the other group you had more balls. Some groups were therefore rivals, some groups were friends, some groups were neutral to each other. \\n\\nThe biggest rivalries as usual was among teams close from each other and sometimes with politics added to it. AC Roma (left wing antifascist liberals) vs Lazio Roma (right wing fascists), Milano AC vs Inter Milano etc...\\n\\nThe two cultures travelled a bit, both can be found everywhere in Europe, you have hooligans in France (Paris have the meanest reputation, Lyon are quite respected as well) as well as Ultra groups (Magic Fans of St Etienne, Bad Gones of Lyon etc...). The same goes in Germany, Poland, Greece, Russia etc... It sometimes even exported outside of Europe, I know Turkey have two well respected Ultras groups, as well as in Argentina. \\n\\nIn most European countries, hooligan groups are strictly prohibited and actively hunted by the police meaning they are becoming rare and or better at hiding themselves. Ultras groups are tolerated as long as they behave which they partly do (they generally try to keep the violence far from the police eyes).  \\n\\nConcerning the comparison with North American sports, I am far from a specialist of US sports but coming from this football culture, they seem to have no soul and just be about money and show business, with strippers on the pitch doing what should be the fans\\' job of warming up the stadium and putting up a huge show and people just sitting and enjoying the show like they are at the theater. Even without violence everytime I went to the stadium, the next day I had no voice. I was spending every 90 minutes of the game singing and cheering and clapping, I had litterally no time for pop corn and no one was sitting on his seat or complaining. I think the difference on violence mainly comes from that, money show business has taken the place of true popular fervor. It is something that is currently happening in Europe as well. \\n\\nWhen you go to a game expecting to be spectator of a show, chances are you are not going to fight over it, just like you rarely see pro-rebel and pro-empire Star Wars fans fighting it out in the middle of the movie theatre because Vader hacked at Skywalker while he was on the ground which is a fucking coward move. European fans consider themselves as actors of the game and personnally spend a lot of time, energy and money pushing their team. They are therefore much much more emotionnally involved I think.\\n\\nA good book I could advise is G\u00e9n\u00e9ration Supporters by Philippe Broussard which is often considered as a very good reference in the French ultra movement, unfortunatly it only exists in French as far as I know. \\n\\nFootball Factory (the book, the movie is good but the book is better) is pretty good on the Hooligan movement.\\n\\nEdit : added a few exemples of tifo pictures\\n', \"A reminder to those coming to this thread: We are interested in in-depth, factual and historical answers to the question, not personal theories, speculation, guesses, anecdotes, or a list you found on Wikipedia that's semi-related. Thank you.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://dc.img.v4.skyrock.net/0140/77010140/pics/3053965949_1_9_QSud2YNC.jpg', 'http://analoguefootball.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/tumblr_m1jqkswsez1rs4qqbo1_1280.jpg', 'http://bastidebrazzablog.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Tifo7.jpg', 'http://bastidebrazzablog.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2-ultramarines-25ans-640x349.jpg', 'https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/551296_445287722213100_254491470_n.jpg', 'http://www.psgclan.com/site/images/tifos/02-03_PSG-om_coupe%28kob%29.jpg', 'http://legionisci.com/zdjecia/12hapoel1_dzihadH_d.jpg', 'http://bastidebrazzablog.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/702553_10151262842242074_352767753_n.jpg', 'http://www.iamsport.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Tifo-Dortmund.jpg', 'http://bastidebrazzablog.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Tifo3.jpg', 'http://www.tuxboard.com/photos/2012/03/Troll-Face-Probleme-Tifo-640x360.jpg', 'http://www.topito.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tifo_etonnant_007.jpg'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 999, "q_id": "2stzdx", "title": "how do people create these amazingly looking space/milky way photos? i can barely see a few stars in the nights sky.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2stzdx/eli5_how_do_people_create_these_amazingly_looking/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cnst5rv', 'cnsu67n', 'cnsujt1', 'cnsw0g0', 'cnsxd74'], 'score': [6, 5, 13, 3, 9], 'text': ['Long exposures are one way. The stars are faint so a camera is made to keep its shutter open for a long time to pick up more light. Due to the movement of the Earth there may also need to be a way to stay pointed the same direction.', 'It\\'s not until you get well away from habitation that you realise how much \"Light Pollution\" exists.  The long exposure shots from the middle of the desert do \"over exaggerate\" the effect, but get far enough away from the city and suburbs, and you will be astounded at how many stars you can see. \\n\\nAnd to go one better , even a modest pair of binoculars will make a huge difference in terms of the fainter stars.', 'Long exposure is one way to do it, yes, but astrophotographers also use a technique called \"stacking\", where they stack multiple layers of shorter exposure pictures over one another.\\n\\nSome people prefer to use this method over taking a single long exposure because it\\'s usually easier to fine tune your picture. For example, if your camera runs out of battery, or something moves in shot that shouldn\\'t be there, or you accidentally bump the camera, it\\'s a lot easier to edit that in post processing and simply remove those frames rather than have your whole long exposure ruined. Also, this method might cut your shooting time in half.\\n\\nBut stacking isn\\'t better than long exposure or vice versa and it\\'s really all up to the person taking the picture to decide.', 'You should see the sky from where I live. I live in Lake County, CA. The least populous county in CA and we are in the mountains. The night sky is spectacular up here.', 'One of the biggest factors in seeing stars is being far from light pollution.  Here is a page with maps of which areas are best for stargazing.  _URL_0_']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://darksitefinder.com/maps.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1596, "q_id": "30l9os", "title": "Candles vs. electric lights, which is more energy efficient?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/30l9os/candles_vs_electric_lights_which_is_more_energy/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cpth49s'], 'score': [7], 'text': [\"Here's a plot of the thermal spectrum of [various light sources](_URL_0_) with roughly the same power output. Physically, much of a candle's light is from thermal emission which gives it a curve similar to an incandescent light bulb, however unlike the common tungsten bulb, candles are much cooler. This means, for the same total power, the light bulb is much brighter to the human eye as more of its light is emitted in the visible wavelengths.\\n\\nNow, if you know anything about light bulbs, incandescents are ***horribly*** inefficient as much of the light produced isn't even visible to the human eye. Fluorescent and LED light sources provide more brightness for less power.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://ledlampinchina.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/wavelength-and-efficiency-of-daylight-vs-incandescent-vs-warm-white-led-vs-halogen-vs-cool-white-led-vs-warm-white-led.png']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2748, "q_id": "418u32", "title": "in recent wars (iraq, korea, ww2), were soldiers allowed to \"loot\" the dead bodies of enemy soldiers?", "selftext": "[deleted]", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/418u32/eli5_in_recent_wars_iraq_korea_ww2_were_soldiers/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cz0fvlj', 'cz0gjym', 'cz0hb7v', 'cz0he6r'], 'score': [16, 5, 7, 4], 'text': ['In principle the looting of bodies is frowned upon, so \"allowed\" is probably not the right word.  \\nScavenging is ok, looting is not.  \\nCollecting enemy weapons could be considered scavenging, \\nremoving and collecting their gold teeth would be looting.  ', \"Your not supposed to keep anything personally but a unit can keep trophy's after a bunch of paper work.  Old unit has a Iraqi aa gun in front of brigade hq we captured in Iraq. \", \"My aunt's brother (aunt by marriage) was sent home from WW2 in a box. When my aunt's family took a look at his possessions, he had a bunch of Nazi stuff on him. She let me hold the bayonet with the swastika on it, which was fucking creepy.\\n\\nMy uncle (her husband) told me they never really looted much in Korea because there was nothing to take and they traveled pretty lightly until the end when it turned into a ceasefire and holding positions.\", 'Alot of times when American soliders would kill a German they would grab the Germans superior weapons. In the Pacific the Allied forces really liked taking Japanese rations also becuase they found it delicious compared to their rations.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1396, "q_id": "hzbx5", "title": "Space falling into blackholes faster than light", "selftext": "I recently read in Phil Plaits book 'Death from the skies' that the reason light cannot escape from within a black hole's event horizon is because space itself is falling into the black hole at speeds faster than light:\n\n > \"A good way to understand what happens is to think of a black hole as like a waterfall. Except that what is falling into the black hole is not water, but space itself.  Outside the event horizon, space is falling less than the speed of light.  At the horizon, space falls at the speed of light.  And inside the horizon, space falls faster than light, carrying everything with it, including light.  This picture of a black hole as a region of space-time where space falls faster than light is not only a good conceptual picture . . . it has mathematical basis [emphasis added].\"\n\nAssuming this is true, what is happening to space outside of the event horizon?  Is space elastic, and being stretched thinner somehow, or is more space popping into existence to fill the gaps?  Could the black hole be dragging space back into itself right out to the edge of the universe itself (in the same way that sea level would become marginally lower on the other side of the planet if I took out enough water this side)? \n\nAlso, if no actual matter were falling into the black hole, would the space falling in make it heavier?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hzbx5/space_falling_into_blackholes_faster_than_light/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c1zm1b7', 'c1zm2fe', 'c1zm4au'], 'score': [18, 2, 21], 'text': [\"You are taking a metaphor too literally. You can think of space as being *bent* by a black hole, but spacing getting sucked into the black hole doesn't make any sense.\", \"I thought nothing goes faster than the speed of light - but that things can move away from us fast enough that our perspective view of it will never see it (i learned that one from yesterday's video!)\", 'Due respect to Phil Plait, that\\'s a *terrible* way to understand black holes. Just terrible.\\n\\nRemember that space is not a tangible thing. It has no substance. Words like \"elastic\" and \"stretched\" and \"gaps\" have no applicability.\\n\\nWhat we\\'re talking about here is geometry: the spatial (and temporal) relationship between neighboring points.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2122, "q_id": "35wwlw", "title": "In Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson, there are slaves that that were only 1/16th and 1/32nd black. How common was this in the South and are there cases of slaves that had even less black heritage?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/35wwlw/in_mark_twains_puddnhead_wilson_there_are_slaves/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cr8mwx5', 'cr8okkk', 'cr8u0kd'], 'score': [50, 46, 10], 'text': [\"In that story, the percentages are meant to be satirical. Twain's drawing attention to the fact that really, there's no difference between the slave and the enslaver.\", 'First, it\\'s worth noting that the percentage of African ancestry doesn\\'t always represent the phenotype, since genetic expression is a complex thing. There are hundreds of accounts of quadroon slaves (1/4 black) who were reported to be whiter looking than most white people, whiter-looking than their own owners. There are a lot of reports from that era of people complaining - not about slavery, but about white slavery because these mulatto slaves looked too completely white.\\n\\nAs for how low one\\'s black ancestry could go and still be sold as slave, there are plenty of examples of 1/16 and 1/32. Or even lower.\\n\\nFor example, Reverend Calvin Fairbank, a methodist minister and abolitionist from New York wrote about a girl named Eliza who was 1/64 black, and whom he purchased at a slave auction in Kentucky:\\n\\n*I only remember that it was early in May, 1843, that my sympathy and patriotism were roused in behalf of one of the most beautiful and exquisite young girls one could expect to find in freedom or slavery. She was the daughter of her master, whose name I withhold for laudable reasons, and was as free of African blood as Kate McFarland, being only one sixty-fourth African. She was self-educated, and accomplished in literature and social manners, in spite of the institution cursing her race ; and her heartless, jealous mistress had doomed her to be sold on the block, hating her for her beauty and accomplishments.*\\n\\n*Eliza had been confined in an upper room of the Lexington jail. She recognized me as I was walking in the jail-yard, and drew my attention by tapping upon the window. I called upon her in her room, learned her situation, and hastened to Cincinnati to Levi Coffin, then with him to Hon. S. P. Chase, Nicholas Longworth, Samuel Lewis and others, returning to Lexington with twenty-two hundred and seventy-five dollars, and a paper authorizing me to draw twenty-five thousand if necessary to save the girl.*\\n\\nHe goes on to describe that when she was put on the auction block, he got into a bidding war with a Frenchman who coveted the girl, but he outbid the Frenchman and was able to buy Eliza for $1485. Eliza was then freed and taken to Cincinnati, where she eventually married and lived as a white woman. Only a few people knew she had once been a slave.\\n\\nHe mentions that her master (who was also her father) was glad that she had been freed, and never intended to sell her on the auction block but was forced to do so by his wife. He contributed $100 towards the money that went into buying and freeing her.\\n\\nI haven\\'t come across any statistics of how many slaves had 1/16 or 1/32 or 1/64 African ancestry, but there were certainly some. It would have been pretty inconsequential just how much African ancestry they had, because legally the one-drop rule or maternal inheritance didn\\'t care about fractions, and appearance-wise it didn\\'t take much to make the person look white. As lots of people have reported, there were many, many quadroons that looked clearly and unambiguously white but were kept and sold as slaves. The \"fancy trade\", which was especially prominent in New Orleans and Kentucky specialized in white-looking young women who were sold for prostitution in bordellos or as mistresses to the wealthy.\\n\\nEdit: The extract I quoted above is from the book \"*Rev. Calvin Fairbank during Slavery Times: How he fought the good fight to prepare the Way*\" which was published by R.R. McCabe  &  Co. in Chicago in 1890.', 'Not uncommon. There is a very striking picture of some emancipated slaves that appeared in Harper\\'s magazine in 1864, with an explanation of who the emancipated slaves were. A couple of them were some kids who are white, but were slaves. The photo and description was designed to bring sympathy to the abolitionist movement by making people feel empathy with the white slaves, even if they couldn\\'t identify with the black slaves. \\n\\n\\nPic here:\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThe description of some of the people in the photos:\\n\\nTo the Editor of Harper\\'s Weekly: \\n\\nTHE group of emancipated slaves whose portraits I send you were brought by Colonel Hanks and Mr. Philip Bacon from New Orleans, where they were set free by General Butler. Mr. Bacon went to New Orleans with our army, and was for eighteen months employed as Assistant-Superintendent of Freedmen, under the care of Colonel Hanks. He established the first school in Louisiana for emancipated slaves, and these children were among his pupils. He will soon return to Louisiana to resume his labor. \\n\\nREBECCA HUGER is eleven years old, and was a slave in her father\\'s house, the special attendant of a girl a little older than herself. To all appearance she is perfectly white. Her complexion, hair, and features show not the slightest trace of negro blood. In the few months during which she has been at school she has learned to read well, and writes as neatly as most children of her age\u2026\\n\\nROSINA DOWNS is not quite seven years old. She is a fair child, with blonde complexion and silky hair. Her father is in the rebel army. She has one sister as white as herself, and three brothers who are darker\u2026 \\n\\nCHARLES TAYLOR is eight years old. His complexion is very fair, his hair light and silky. Three out of five boys in any school in New York are darker than he. Yet this white boy, with his mother, as he declares, has been twice sold as a slave. First by his father and \"owner,\" Alexander Wethers, of Lewis County, Virginia, to a slave-trader named Harrison, who said them to Mr. Thornhill of New Orleans. This man fled at the approach of our army, and his slaves were liberated by General Butler. The boy is decidedly intelligent, and though he has been at school less than a year he reads and writes very well. His mother \u2026\\n\\nHarper\u2019s Weekly, January 30 1864\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://www.frantzkebreau.com/uploads/5/4/8/7/5487562/2248303_orig.jpg?248']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1474, "q_id": "24dofw", "title": "how come when i get down really low, rub my fingers together and say \"psspsspsspss\" nearly all cats will come to me?", "selftext": "*Edit*\nHoly shit, front page!\nYou guys have popped my front page virginity!\n\n*edit2*\nCHERRY! I meant cherry! Have mercy....", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24dofw/eli5_how_come_when_i_get_down_really_low_rub_my/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ch6fv85', 'ch6fyyk', 'ch6ggnb', 'ch6gwr3', 'ch6hdqr', 'ch6hfau', 'ch6hfvb', 'ch6i3yf', 'ch6i4rt', 'ch6ixri', 'ch6jbw2', 'ch6koct', 'ch6l69x', 'ch6l7ng', 'ch6locl', 'ch6mdlm', 'ch6mwks', 'ch6nl2d', 'ch6o7be', 'ch6ommn', 'ch6oqot', 'ch6oy2z', 'ch6qf5c', 'ch6sds9', 'ch6t27h', 'ch6ti4y', 'ch63nm1', 'ch63osw', 'ch63p84', 'ch641wb', 'ch65gcv', 'ch65kzn', 'ch65rx4', 'ch667fi', 'ch66gkf', 'ch66kog', 'ch66mzd', 'ch66otf', 'ch671s9', 'ch672rn', 'ch679vp', 'ch67mkp', 'ch67n1r', 'ch68tkh', 'ch69bmz', 'ch6aq9p', 'ch6axty', 'ch6b0u6', 'ch6b8qe', 'ch6bx8d', 'ch6cgyh', 'ch6cilx', 'ch6cxtk', 'ch6czvp', 'ch6dvlq', 'ch6egc1', 'ch6egqa', 'ch6exzw', 'ch6f1na', 'ch6f7hp', 'ch6f916', 'ch6fes7', 'ch6fgzf'], 'score': [3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 6, 2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 4, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 6, 2, 4, 2, 3, 458, 8, 14, 43, 2, 6, 2341, 2, 5, 13, 11, 4, 27, 3, 133, 17, 4, 6, 8, 46, 53, 3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 5, 21, 2, 2, 3, 34, 6, 2, 3, 7, 3], 'text': ['Cats are ambush animals. Getting low to the ground allows them to percieve you as non-threating. As long as the cat hasnt had a poor treatment by humans, it probably thinks you are friendly and are offering food.', 'This is a true ELI5 question.', 'Two 50/80 pound dogs just pounced on my face.  Thanks, op. ', 'Fun fact: in Sweden, we say KSSSKSSSKSSSKSSSKSSS, not PSSSPSSSPSSSPSSSPSSS.\\n\\nLanguage truly is fascinating.', 'At first when I read the question, I thought this was on /r/circlejerk because this is just a weird question. ', 'I think american cats are socialized to respond to this. When I was in Korea and Japan, the cats were completely uninterested in  my \"finger rubbing\" and \"tchtchtching\" I saw a lot of Koreans calling cats by making kissing sounds at them.', \"Jackson galaxy was on here the other day. Where'd he go?\", 'My crazy fucking cat likes bleach. We used to clean the kitchen counters with the spray stuff that has bleach and he would proceed to jump up and roll around in it. If I tried to get him down he would get pissed.', 'The \"psspsspsspss\" is a relatively new noise that gets their attention, rubbing your fingers together makes them think you have something, being low means that they can easily reach whatever you may have.', 'You smell like tuna. ', 'I am fucking laughing too hard at \"psspsspss\", but I don\\'t know why', 'Cuz they think your autistic so they feel bad for you ', '\"psspsspsspss\" mimics the distress call baby birds make when they\\'ve fallen from their nest. ', 'I got down and said \"piss piss piss\" and my wife looked at me weird.\\nAlso, we have no cats.', ' > *Edit*\\nHoly shit, front page!\\nYou guys have popped my front page virginity!\\n\\nI think you meant to say \"lost your front page cherry\".', 'It works better with dogs, since they basically run at you with their eyes crossed and tongues out like retards. ', 'Because your name is Bubbles?', \"* They think you have food. \\n* Humans are associated with bringing food, affection etc.\\n* Animals will seek this out if you provide it. That goes for many animals.\\n\\nEg. Birds come for food, squirrels, bears etc. People feed things, then the animal associates people with food. It isn't the action of your fingers or getting low. It's the indication that you may have some sort of food/treat. \\n\\nThink of it like the reason you go to fast food restaurants. You associate them with food. \", 'I have read that making such a rubbing motion tricks them into thinking you have something in your hand, and they come over to see what it is. Is there truth to this? It seems to work in practice anyway.', \"Tbh, there isn't a whole lot of scientific research into the behavioural sciences of cats, mostly because cats are notoriously shitty and uncooperative test subjects\", 'Pussies love fingers ', 'I love this question so damned much. Comically specific, yet valid and an accurate description of that thing we do to get cats to pay some goddamn attention to us', 'Rubbing your fingers together also will help kind of waft your sent their way so you become more interesting than you do threatening. \\n\\n', 'I know it might just be a UK thing but they sell this stuff called Dreamies.  Shit\\'s like crack laced with cat-meth.  You will become lord of the cats if you so much as pick up a baggy of this stuff.  \\n\\nWhenever my gf wants the cats to come back into the house etc she just shouts \"Dreamies\".  We now have 1 bajillion cats and what I suspect to be a racoon.', \"Because most humans in your country naturally have done that and therefore trained the cat overtime. Even a cat meowing is only to communicate with humans. They don't meow at each other.\", 'Wow, those edits. Ultra cringe.', \"It's probably them linking it to being petted or getting food, or that they just love you which wont be true because cats are assholes\\n\\nTIL; my most upvoted comment is me calling cats assholes\", \"It's more to due with curiosity than anything else from what I've seen,as Deadricdoom says it could be because they think you're gonna give em food or something \", 'I think the rubbing the fingers together they may think you have food and the psspsspss noise is something cats recognize as a \"look over here\" kinda thing, because we have done it for so long though i have no idea where it started.\\rSource: I have two cats.', \"The cats' owners do this and then pet the cat or give it treats so it thinks you'll do the same. This will not work on feral cats! If you see a cat and it lets you get close enough to even attempt this it is at least somewhat domesticated.\", 'Honestly I figured that it started because it sounds like mouse noises, with mousing being a major reason that cats were first domesticated.', 'You are the cat whisperer.', \"Any kind of scratching noises attract them because it sounds like a mouse. \\n\\nGetting low to the ground makes you less threatening and smaller - notice how they run away when you stand up at your full height.\\n\\nHolding your fingers out makes you less threatening because they can come close and smell you to learn your scent, and by staying at the limit of your reach they're safe from being picked up suddenly. \", \"association. usually when you do that and the cat comes it reserves something that's good (being petted or getting some food and treats). It's like a learned behavior. if you ring a bell every time you feed a dog and then after a few times, you ring the bell but don't give the dog food it's mouth will still water.  \", '[This guy](_URL_0_) knows the power of getting low.', \"I've done this my entire life and it seems to work for just about all cats.\\n\\nMust date back to our caveman ancestors growing up with cats to protect them from dinosaurs.\", 'Many feral cats on my great grandmothers farm. Not one of them will come up to you if you do this. They will stare directly at you until you realize how silly you look. ', \"Humans almost never use the noises they use to attract animals with each other; thus domesticated animals become trained to associate such noises with their owner providing them with food and grooming. In feral animals or in regards to animals where perhaps a different noise is used (i.e whistling), they may still approach out of curiosity, as it is a noise they're not accustomed to (that is also not threatening).\", \"Getting low really helps regardless. Height is like a power trip for cats, if you are towering over them they don't like it so much. It is why they go for height in the first place, it's a position of superiority.\", \"I do this to every cat I see. It works 99% of the time. The trick is to let them smell your hand a little first, then the pets commence. Some cats are usually little shits, and will bite you when you're not looking. This one neighborhood cat and I had a game that only I played where I would set my phone's stop watch to see how long I could pet him before I got bit. I once got to 22 minutes. Never again though.\", \"Typically, the noises that you make are mimicking the noises that the cats' natural prey make (Rodents, birds, insects). So the clicking, and higher-pitched squeaky type noises easily grab their attention.  Couple that with a very naturally-curious temperament---and voila!  You have the common housecat!\", 'A few people have mentioned that the reason is because the owners do the same, and they are trained to come using that noise. On that: I was at my Polish friend\\'s house and tried to call their cat using the \"pshpsh\" kind of noise and was told that this was a Polish cat, and would only come if you said \"KITCHEE KITCHEE KITCHEE\" at it. So I guess it depends on the owners!', 'I kinda think it\\'s a regional thing. I\\'ve found people in the west tend to go \"pssspsspss\" to cats and cats will learn that it\\'s a non-threatening/friendly noise. People in the east making kissy noises instead and cats will respond to those. Completely feral cats don\\'t respond to any noises I make anywhere.', 'Because what do you do once the cat comes to you. You pet it. It likes being pet. How do other people get a cat to come to them. By doing the exact same thing because it is a universal concept to do this to cats to get them to come.\\n\\nclassical conditioning. ', 'What if I told you you were the [one](_URL_0_)?', 'Because cats love secrets.', 'When you get low your butt-cheeks come apart releasing a bouquet of odors that are too mesmerizing for a cat to pass up.', 'You must be the pussy whisperer', 'Cats are attracted to crazy.', \"Here's a tip my grandfather taught me. He has around 27 neighborhood cats that visit his porch. If you see a cat that doesnt hide when it spots you, dont approach it but make a purring sound similar to a pigeon and follow it into a meow. This works for me 99% of the time, and they will respond by trying to communicate back with you and eventually come to you purring as well.\\n\\nedit: pigeon sound.\", \"The sound gets their attention, rubbing your fingers together makes them think you have something in your hand, usually food since that's what they get when people get down low and hold their hand out.\", 'Dat title. It got me.', 'Yeah, my friend\\'s kid once asked me out of the blue \"What\\'s that sound you make that makes cats come to you?\"\\n\\nI immediately thought \"That\\'s crazy talk.  You can\\'t *make* a cat do anything.\"  Then I remembered a couple days before we\\'d been walking to the store and saw a cat, and I called it over.\\n\\nSo I said \"Oh, clicking my tongue?\"  Then we practiced.', 'True story.\\n\\nOne day I go to open my front door and there is a tiny kitten sitting on my front steps. It was alone, no mother, no other kittens etc. So I knew I had to get it inside and the only thing it would respond to was doing just this. I went \"pssspssspssspspsss\" rubbing my fingers together and the little kitten came to me. I mean this was a very young kitten, probably had no human interaction at all. \\n\\nFrom that day on, Tony lived with me for a good 16 years and I\\'m glad she did.\\n\\nBTW This is the first time i discovered that this works. I had tried almost anything to get the cat in. I didnt want to scare the cat and have it run away when i opened the screen door. Ever since then, this has worked almost without fail.\\n\\nI\\'ve since invited other kittens i\\'ve found outside my house under my deck over the years since tony\\'s death.\\n', \"If you convert the sound into the frequency domain and analyses it, which you can do with an FFT, you'll observe sounds like your fingers rubbing together, gas leaks, scratching sounds, essentially friction noises are quite loud at frequencies that we cannot hear with the naked ear.\\n\\nPredators adapted to be able to hear in this 30-40khz range because they're the frequencies that prey makes.\\n\\nAs a trade off, they have worse hearing down in lower range of frequencies. \", 'The title to this was gold', 'You are speaking their language ', \"You are the Felineborn. You are a human with the soul of a cat. You don't have any shouts like the Dragonborn does, but you *do* have the ability to spray piss on anyone who threatens you.\", 'You can get cats to come to you???\\nYou must be a wizard!', \"I can tell you after working and training with several dogs at my local kennel, that getting down, and even more so, sitting down on the ground, will increase the probability of the dog coming to you.\\n\\nEven when I take them out for exercise at the back yard, they're running around, and as soon as I knee down on the ground, most of them will rush over to me to check out what I'm doing.\\n\\nThey see it as less threatening. \", 'Meh, you can do the same thing with a squirrel if you stay still enough.  And have a peanut.', 'Jeez I read that like \"when I get down really low\" meaning emotionally low and you just rub your fingers together whisper \"psspsspss\"  then cats appear.\\n\\nFinals are melting my brain.', 'This only happens to you. You are the Cat Whisperer.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqysyRvOw9o'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/t0n2KUtuXYM/hqdefault.jpg'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 145, "q_id": "23ceux", "title": "what if? the privatization of water.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23ceux/eli5_what_if_the_privatization_of_water/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgvm75v', 'cgvmtwx', 'cgvmzcp', 'cgvngg8', 'cgvnjuu', 'cgvnlvf', 'cgvnvyi', 'cgvo2ly', 'cgvobsk', 'cgvolmd', 'cgvoqre', 'cgvswqt', 'cgvvimo', 'cgvvklt', 'cgvwe2h'], 'score': [4, 72, 12, 8, 2, 15, 3, 6, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3], 'text': ['Economics has great theories on this. Since water is essential for life and such a great necessity, if you own the water supplies you could charge a ridiculous amount for access and people would still pay for it because their lives depend on it. This allows you to continue to increase the price as you know people will continue to pay. At some point, the price will be so high only the super rich will be able to afford water and everyone else would die.\\n\\nAs a consequence of rising prices you might see water charities: \"Take a penny, leave a penny to buy water for the poor\"', \"If water becomes privatized basically it becomes a commodity like shoes, clothing brands, cars, etc. Only those who can afford it will have access. Now this isn't a big deal for most commodities, if you can't afford a pair of Nikes there is a cheap brand, knock off or warehouse sales for clothes, public transportation if you don't have a car but water is pretty different as it is literally essential to a healthy life, or any life at all for that matter. \\n\\nIf water becomes privatized, it might not be an issue for 1st world citizens like us at first, though privatized water systems have infrastructure issues, most people would still be able to afford it at first though. In third world countries though, and eventually in 1st world, there will come a time where not everyone will be given access to water and this is when things will turn bad. \\n\\nI truly think that water will be the focus of some major conflicts in the relatively near future. This isn't some comfort issue, this isn't some superfluous need, this is water. You will fucking die in a day or two without any water and that's if it's clean. People have been rioting all over the world for far less, if you take away something so essential to life you can damn well be they'll fight for that.\\n\\nTL;DR War and in my opinion the possible destruction of society could result from the privatization of water.\", 'There are plenty of theories, but why not just look at what happens in real life? \\n\\nIn Scotland, water is nationalised. \\nIn England, water is privatised. \\n\\nWater in Scotland is cleaner, cheaper and more efficient. ', \"_URL_0_\\n\\nThis is pretty good documentary on various instances of privatization in different places - It looks at Greece, Russia, Bolivia and USA. \\n\\nIn Australia, the commonwealth bank was once state-owned, now it is a private company. Telecom was a state owned telecommunications company, now it is private. \\n\\nI think in general, privatization has been going on for a while with mixed results. \\n\\nIt's a principle of the free market ideology, that everything is a commodity to be traded on the market place, whether this makes society a better or worse place is debatable. \\n\\nPersonally I think we should go in the opposite direction, we should publicize everything and just have one brand for everything, like they do in North Korea but without the dictator and shit\\n\\n\", 'Not \"what if\", it is.\\n\\nWater: s already a product for sale.', '\"The newcomer to Arrakis frequently underestimates the importance of water here. You are dealing, you see, with the Law of the Minimum. Growth is limited by that necessity which is present in the least amount. And, naturally, the least favorable condition controls the growth rate. Water is the least favorable condition for life on Arrakis. And remember, growth itself can produce unfavorable conditions unless treated with extreme care.\"', 'Might as well charge people to breathe. I fucking hate corporations. ', 'In the UK at least, when water was privatised over 20 years ago the companies that took it over, in order to keep costs down, stopped investing in the infrastructure.\\n\\nFast forward to today and the price of water (and other utilities they control) keeps going up as the lack of investment 20 years ago (and some other smaller factors) means that a huge nationwide repair and new pipe laying project is underway which is costing millions and millions per day.', 'Since most people here have pointed out the downsides of privatization, I\\'ll try and point out some of the arguments for.\\n\\nPersonal usage of water is minuscule. The vast majority of water (70% of fresh water usage) is used in agriculture. However in most cases the price of water doesn\\'t track the effort of moving the water, so the cost of water is not really factored in, leading to inefficiencies. This is a pretty big deal since by 2050 the world is going to need to double food production while reducing agriculture\\'s share of water usage.\\n\\nAnother argument for is there needs to be some mechanism for moving water from water rich areas to water poor areas. When people talk about \"water wars\" what they mean is that a lot of poor countries don\\'t have the ability move large amounts of water. Private companies could. For example, Blue Lake, Alaska holds trillions of gallons of water, supplying fewer than 10,000 people spread across 5,000 square miles. Every year 6.2 billion gallons of Sitka\u2019s reserves go unused. Privatizing the water supply could allow companies to ship the water to places that need it.', \"Near as I understand the problem, the issue isn't $2 bottles of Coke brand Dasani purchased at a well stocked supermarket in America, the issue is the massive amounts of water necessary to sustain food production and keep food prices stable.  If water privatization goes unchecked, first world residents (like me) pay 50% more for a bottle of water, but third world residents experience instability in their food prices, and pay 500% more to eat.  all statistics are guesses\", 'I believe this is already happening with Nestl\u00e9. Check out the documentaries Flow  &  Tapped on Netflix. ', 'So ashamed to be from the only country in the world where water is fully privatised (England).', 'Nestl\u00e9 is already trying to do this. The CEO has been quoted as saying no one has a right to clean water', \"Why stop at water? Let's privatize air, or heartbeats.\", 'privatizing water is like all of the other privatizing efforts out there, complete and utter bullshit, shat down upon us from the cunts of the 1%. fuck rich people.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RORPpFL21dM'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 626, "q_id": "52hxey", "title": "bipolar disorder in children.", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52hxey/eli5_bipolar_disorder_in_children/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d7ket9j', 'd7kewfy', 'd7kihvx', 'd7kom5v', 'd7kov3z', 'd7kp7rv', 'd7kt07c'], 'score': [32, 12, 6, 3, 3, 20, 2], 'text': ['Bipolar 1 is marked with both\\n-mania (brain going too fast). The chemicals dopamine and norepinephrine are at fault here at least partially. The person will be very \"up\". They may not need a lot of sleep, or not eat a lot. Their thoughts might race, and psychotic episodes can land them in hospital. These symptoms must last 7 days (or result in hospitalization) to be called a manic episode.\\n-depression. This is because of a possible malfunction of serotonin receptors in the brain. The person may show all the signs of regular clinical depression. \\n\\nBipolar 2 is marked with depression and hypomania, which is a less severe mania and must be present for   4 days to qualify for diagnosis. \\n\\nChildren usually do not present with bipolar before the age of 15 or so, but it is still possible. Early onset bipolar usually involves rapid mood swings.', \"I will admit that the details are pretty fuzzy, but I actually wrote a paper about this back in college. I remember that the symptoms were pretty similar except that children often have rapid cycling of their manic/depressive episodes while adults cycle over longer periods. \\n\\nThere's usually abrupt mood changes, periods of heavy activity/lethargy, temper tantrums, etc. Hard to diagnose against ADHD or conduct disorders. There's some debate about whether children under a certain age can be diagnosed with Bipolar.\", 'The problem is going to be deciding whose advice to listen to, because this one is a hot potato. We covered it in part during last week\\'s psychiatry grand rounds, and the child psychiatrist giving the lecture had to hedge his bets.\\n\\nWhile bipolar I in adults is a pretty solid diagnosis, and bipolar II not so much worse, bipolar disorder in children remains enormously murky and controversial. Because the symptoms apparently look different, it\\'s pretty difficult to say whether it\\'s the same problem at all, or whether the diagnosis applies. Over the past few decades, great emphasis has been put on \"irritability\" as the key symptom in children. An explosion in diagnosis rates has been accompanied by ferocious arguments, a bunch of research, and an entirely new diagnosis made for the express purpose of covering chronically irritable children without diagnosing them as bipolar (disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.)', \"To add another angle: if the child is having mood swings there may be something environmental at play. They may be experiencing something traumatic like abuse or molestation. Speaking anecdotally, persistent childhood trauma can have severe emotional and behavioural consequences later in life. \\n\\nI'd recommend at least a cursory investigation and a conversation with the child before making any conclusions. \", 'It is very controversial to diagnose mental disorders in children.  They\\'re not fully functional by definition, they\\'re unable to care for themselves, so it\\'s hard to say in a meaningful way what \"dysfunctional\" is.\\n\\nKids pathologically lie, they imagine things, they eat paste, they do all manner of \"obsessive compulsive things\".  It\\'s speculative how pervasive the problems are going to be.\\n\\n', 'Pediatric psychiatrist here! \\n\\nAn actual eli5:\\n\\nBipolar disorder is when you have feelings, which can be both good and bad, that stay for too long and cause you problems. Anger is too angry, and you lose control. Sad is too sad, and it gets in the way of your life. Sometimes even too happy or having too much energy is a problem, especially if it gets in the way of your life!   Because of how strong the feelings get, it can change your sleep, your actions, and how well you do in school, with friends, or with family. \\n\\nEverybody feels these feelings, and anger, happiness, and sadness are all normal feelings to have, but in bipolar disorder, they last for too long, or are too strong. It is something that doctors can help with. ', 'If the child is surrounded by family members who all have bipolar disorder, it would make sense for the child to mimic/adopt the emotinal behaviour of those family members.. \\nTo medicate an undeveloped brain with the types of medication prescribed for bipolar disorder is in my opinion a tragedy.. Atleast wait untill the child is old enough to understand what in entails to be put on medication, and is able to make a decision for themselfs. \\nI suffer from bipolar myself, but I stopped taking medications years ago (despite several doctors orders).. As a result I have learned to recognize my emotions/triggers etc, and after years of working with myself I am now more or less in control of my behaviour and emotions.. \\nCommunicate and teach children how to cope with emotions instead of turning their brains into mush with heavy medications... After all... Medication only treats the symptoms, not the real issue.. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1343, "q_id": "22jxfm", "title": "Did medieval colleges have what we today would consider electives, if so what are some examples of them?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22jxfm/did_medieval_colleges_have_what_we_today_would/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cgns3la'], 'score': [134], 'text': ['I\\'m going to preface all of this by saying that every University was different, and that as time passed Universities tended to develop rather individualised traditions in different countries. If I have overlooked any special examples, I do apologize.\\n\\nGenerally, no. Scholasticism, the governing philosophy of early Universities, taught the Seven Liberal Arts: Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. The first three were called the *Trivium* and made up the curriculum of a Bachelors Degree. The *Trivium* was seen as preparation for studying the more difficult *Quadrivium* (the last four subjects). Once a student had completed the *Quadrivium* they were considered ready to teach at a University level, and granted a Masters Degree. Unlike modern Universities, there weren\\'t exactly majors or minors, and in the early stages of the University there weren\\'t individualized departments. \"Faculties\" of Law, Theology, Medicine, and other subjects gradually materialized.\\n\\nSo instead of choosing a major, fulfilling its requirements, and then taking interesting electives on the side like we do now, medieval students had to first choose a University that specialized in whatever subject they were interested in. For example, Paris was well-known for theology, Bologna was well-known for Law, and Salerno was well-known for Medicine. At University, students sometimes chose their own professors and paid them directly, or sometimes they were assigned professors and paid tuition to a central authority. The caveat was that they could only really study the Liberal Arts.\\n\\nThat being said, medieval intellectuals were much less confined by disciplinary boundaries once they took their Masters than modern scholars are. A scholar with enough experience and respect could research, think, and write about almost whatever they wanted. \\n\\nNOTES: Paul Oldfield \"The Kingdom of Sicily and the Early University Movement\"\\nPeter Denley \"Medieval Italian Universities and the Role of Foreign Scholarship\"\\nA.B. Coban \"Decentralized Teaching in the Medieval English Universities\"']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1738, "q_id": "3605a3", "title": "Who were the Rockefeller, Carnegie and JP Morgan of 1880s/90s Germany?", "selftext": "As a student of American history, I have a wealth of information regarding the modern industrialization in the U.S.  I realize that Germany also underwent rapid industrialization at approximately the same time.  Were there also stand out industrialists that pushed Germany forward?\n\nThanks.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3605a3/who_were_the_rockefeller_carnegie_and_jp_morgan/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cr9rhwn', 'cr9s30j'], 'score': [3, 6], 'text': ['Albert Ballin worked his way up through the ranks of the Hamburg American Steamship Line (HAPAG) and was so successful at increasing the number of passengers carried by that company on the North Atlantic route, he became the president of the company. Ballin also turned HAPAG into the largest steamship company in the world from 1906 to 1914. Despite being Jewish, he became a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II.  The Kaiser let his great love of anything nautical and the very large ocean liners built by HAPAG overcome what ever anti-Semitism he may have had. In fact, some apologists of Kaiser Wilhelm point to his friendship with Ballin to prove he had no hatred against the Jews. \\nSource: \"Lost Liners\" by Robert Ballard   ', 'Gerson von Bleichr\u00f6der was the chief banker for the Imperial state and handled Bismarck\\'s own personal finances. Although not nearly as powerful a banker as Morgan, von Bleichr\u00f6der was able to use his connections within the Imperial state to expand his financial interests. \\n\\nAlbert Ballin was a shipping magnate and head of the lucrative Hamburg-America Line, which was one of the world\\'s largest shipping lines in the late nineteenth century. Ballin also operated as a diplomatic go-between for Imperial Germany and the British. \\n\\nWalther Rathenau, like von Bleichr\u00f6der, was a German-Jewish businessman who founded  Allgemeine Elektrizit\u00e4ts-Gesellschaft (AEG), an electrical concern. He played a crucial role in organizing Germany\\'s economy during the First World War and became a controversial figure in the early Weimar Republic as he became Foreign Minister. The antisemitic right saw his process of diplomatic engagement with the Soviet Union as a part of a Jewish conspiracy to further destroy Germany, leading to his assassination in 1922.\\n\\nThe Ruhr coal industry created a number of major industrial magnates as coal was the most accessible fossil fuel available for Germany. Louis Baare was the director of the Bochumer Verein and highly respected in Imperial Germany and was a representative to the *Reichstag* and a prominent supporter of the anti-socialist legislation. Emil Kirdorf was another Ruhr coal magnate and lived all the way through the Third Reich, passing in 1938.  Kridorf\\'s Gelsenkirchener Bergwerks-AG (GBAG) was a massive coal concern and Kirdorf was an avid supporter of reactionary politics, supporting the NSDAP in their lean times between the Beer Hall Putsch and the Depression. When he died in 1938, Hitler himself attended Kirdorf\\'s state funeral. Carl Lueg was the head of  Gutehoffnungsh\u00fctte (GHH), a mining and engineering company that grew tremendously after unification. Like his fellow coal magnates, Lueg was a prominent advocate for trade protectionism and also employed industrial paternalism for his workers providing care for his employees (provided they did not strike or have the temerity to vote for the SPD).   \\n\\nOne of the major differences between German industrialists and their American counterparts was that in the former case they played a much more formalized role in national politics. Although Rockefeller and Morgan were important players in the national scene, they never formally entered into the federal government, unlike figures like Rathenau or Baare. American industrialists actually prided themselves in their relative autonomy from the stat; the idea that the American entrepreneur succeeded without government interference or aid was a powerful myth that surrounded this charter generation of American entrepreneurs. The Germans never really maintained this position and German industrial magnates argued that business and politics were intertwined. This played into long-standing German cultural mores about the social role of economic superiors, called \"Bread-Lords,\" or *Arbeitsgeber* in which employers were accepted to have a leading role over their employees\\' lives and politics in exchange for fair wages and a measure of social welfare.  ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1035, "q_id": "2vg7jt", "title": "how does a painting like \"when will you marry\" sell for $300 million dollars when it doesn't look like anything spectacular", "selftext": "[This Painting](_URL_0_)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vg7jt/eli5_how_does_a_painting_like_when_will_you_marry/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cohbnw2', 'cohh1o5', 'coht9uh', 'cohy9he'], 'score': [11, 12, 6, 2], 'text': ['The rarity of Gaugin paintings coupled with very rich people willing to pay 9-figures for a painting account for the sale price of that painting.\\n\\nThose factors ignore the inherent artistic beauty of the painting -- *which remember is in the eye of the beholder* -- which also contributes to the price. Artistic scholars also confirmed the artistic value of the painting. Lastly, historically, art has been seen as a relatively safe investment as paintings tend to hold their value over time.', 'When it comes to a lot of art, context is more important than the actual material. Rarity, historical context etc. make a thing more valuable than its actual aesthetic properties. For example, some shitty buggy SNES or N64 games will sell for huge amounts if they are well preserved and in the original packaging etc, even when any high school student nowadays could write a better game in a week.', \"Another reason, believe it or not, is branding. Media whoring. Showing off. ePeen. The buyer is largely believed to be the government of Qatar; a tiny country in the middle east (about the size of New Jersey with less than 300,000 citizens) that sits on one of the worlds largest natural gas and oil reserves. Hence they have a massive amount of wealth concentrated to relatively few people, most of whom belong to the Al-Thani family. And, they like to splash that wealth in ways to bring attention to the country and increase their international influence and reputation. \\n\\nThey have made several record-breaking art purchases over the past decade, but without any consistency. It's mostly haphazard without following any real theme. As some media have insinuated, they'll buy whatever's so expensive that it gets noticed. They also sponsor several museums around the world, art shows, prizes etc -- all while there are museums in Doha (the capital city) closing down due to the lack of funds. \\n\\nIt's not just art, Qatar is throwing money at anything that will bring media coverage to the country. The football World Cup in 2022 is being held there despite a lack of football history, venues or a suitable climate, and the bidding process is largely suspected to have involved bribery. The 2019 World Athletics Championships are being held there. They bid for the 2016 and 2020 Olympics. They spend ridiculous amounts of money on sports teams (Paris St Germain) and sponsorship (Barcelona), media (Al Jazeera), airlines (Qatar Air) -- anything to increase their presence on the international stage.\\n\\nSo whether this artwork was really something that the Al-Thani family considered so beautiful they had to pay 300m for, or whether they paid 300m to have Qatar on everyone's lips in the western media... That's anyone's guess.\", 'Disclaimer: I don\\'t know shit about visual art, but I\\'m a musician, so this goes for art in general.\\n\\nA different way to look at it is to focus on the intent and the name. What seems like bad technique could actually be surprisingly complicated, or extremely fitting for the time. For instance, a lot of people hated  Skrillex\\'s \"Fuck That,\" because it wasn\\'t his usual hyper-loud brostep, and seemed jarringly simple for him. However, deep house has gotten really really popular lately, so he was just hopping on the bandwagon with that track (in his own way).\\n\\nIn terms of the name, if some random no name producer sent that track to a label, it\\'d probably get thrown out. Having Skrillex\\'s name on it gives it validity; *the track isn\\'t bad, it sounds like that because he wanted it to*, is the subconscious thought attached. \\n\\nOf course, \"Fuck That\" is a terrible brostep track, because it\\'s not a brostep track, nor was it intended to be. This painting wasn\\'t at all intended to be realism, so to judge it through the lens of any genre other than the one it is would be erroneous.\\n\\nTL;DR: Given that Gaugin had been doing art for a while, it can be assumed he knew what he was doing, even if it doesn\\'t seem like it.\\n\\nEdit: I still hate that painting though\\n\\nEdit edit: All this nonsense is just about Gaugin\\'s intentions with that painting, not why it\\'s selling for so much (I\\'ll never be able to wrap my head around having that much disposable income)']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Will_You_Marry%3F']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 434, "q_id": "68tdub", "title": "Can petroleum extraction cause tremors/earthquakes?", "selftext": "Petroleum is being extracted from the subsoil and years of continuous extraction could leave the cavity where petroleum used to be empty. Could this cause the ground above the cavity to collapse, possibly leading to a tremor/earthquake?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/68tdub/can_petroleum_extraction_cause_tremorsearthquakes/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dh1696y'], 'score': [4], 'text': [\"Let's break your question up a bit, first:\\n\\n > Petroleum is being extracted from the subsoil and years of continuous extraction could leave the cavity where petroleum used to be empty. Could this cause the ground above the cavity to collapse\\n\\nThere are some misconceptions about the nature of oil/gas deposits embedded here, I'll refer you to my [answer to a related question](_URL_0_), but here is the most relevant bit from this post:\\n\\n > There are not large chasms filled with oil/gas (or groundwater) that we tap into when we extract these resources. A much better visual is wet sand, i.e. the oil or water we extract occupies spaces between grains within the reservoir rock, this is why 'porosity' (amount of space between grains) and 'permeability' (how connected those spaces are to each other) are extremely important for reservoir rocks. So what happens when we extract oil/gas or water from a reservoir rock? Well, what we call the 'pore fluid pressure' decreases (basically the force exerted on the grains by the presence of a fluid between them that is trapped) as the material filling the pores is extracted. This can lead to compaction (i.e. a decrease in porosity), which causes a bulk volume reduction (i.e. density increases), which means the ground surface lowers (i.e. subsidence).\\n\\nSo, what you can and do get in areas of oil extraction is a lowering of the land surface, but not via collapse.\\n\\nNow for the more general question:\\n\\n > Can petroleum extraction cause tremors/earthquakes?\\n\\nYes, and we typically refer to that as [induced seismicity](_URL_3_) (though as you can see in that link, oil / gas extraction is not the only cause of induced seismicity). Generally, induced seismicity results because some human activity changes the state of stress in a region in such a way that a fault that previously did not have enough stress (or enough stress in the right orientation) on it to fail, now does. At present, the most common (or at least most discussed) form of induced seismicity related to oil and gas production comes from the injection of waste water. [The USGS](_URL_2_) has a nice set of resources discussing the induced seismicity problem within the central US.\\n\\nReturning back to the problem of subsidence (land lowering) caused by reservoir compaction after extraction of oil/gas (or groundwater), this also can change the state of stress in the local area and thus also induce seismicity. It's a little harder to find discussions of this, but [this paper (pdf)](_URL_1_) documents induced seismicity in the Netherlands that seems to be driven by differential compaction of the reservoir after petroleum extraction. To emphasize though, the earthquakes here are being caused by changes in the stress field as different areas compact more or less, not via catastrophic collapse of large voids.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/64vryt/what_is_happening_to_the_land_from_the/', 'http://www.proc-iahs.net/372/129/2015/piahs-372-129-2015.pdf', 'https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1462, "q_id": "2tq6ng", "title": "Who was the first person killed by a gun?", "selftext": "I tried searching a few different keywords and did an askhistorians google search but came up with nothing.\n\nThanks for doing what you do!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2tq6ng/who_was_the_first_person_killed_by_a_gun/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['co1bsan', 'co1gjio', 'co1t7ng'], 'score': [72, 21, 2], 'text': ['To expand upon the question, there are plenty of definitions of what people consider a \"gun.\"  So I might split it into several questions, on the off-chance someone can better answer one over the other.\\n\\nWho (or when) was the first person killed by a...\\n\\n* Gunpowder-based projectile\\n\\n* Handheld (small arms) gunpowder-based projectile\\n\\n* Gun that uses rounds (i.e. self-contained shells with gunpowder, bullet, and ignition mechanism)\\n\\n* Automatic weapon\\n\\n\"Who\" might not necessarily mean a name, but maybe which kind of person (e.g. civilization, year, social status)?', 'As others have said it is hard to tell what specifically it is that you are asking, but if you are asking about the first assassination by firearm I can tell you that.\\n\\nIn Scot land James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray was assassinated in 1570 by James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh. James Stewart was the regent for James VI of Scotland, but at this time Scotland was engulfed in a civil war. James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh was a supporter of Mary of Guise (the opposition to the infant James VI), so when he found an opportunity to fire at him with a carbine from his uncles home, he did so, fatally wounding James Stewart. \\n\\nSources: (It is hard to find any definitively reliable source, but there are many different sources that agree.)\\n\\nAntonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, pp. 339, 486\\n\\n\\n_URL_1_\\n\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\n\\nIf anyone has any definitively reliable sources, a reply would be greatly appreciated, along with any corrections.\\n', \"Remember, for a long time (in Europe at least) the only guns were siege weapons. So it's unlikely that anyone would record which unlucky 13th-century foot soldier was the first to be crushed by a flying cannon-boulder. And that's not even considering China, which had had gunpowder rockets for quite a while at that point.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.maryqueenofscots.net/people/lord-james-stewart-earl-moray-regent-scotland/', 'https://artemisiasroyalden.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/day-in-history-james-stewart-is-murderd-in-the-first-recorded-assassination-by-a-firearm/'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1845, "q_id": "3ewdec", "title": "At what point does a rock become a boulder?", "selftext": "Is there an exact rule to follow, perhaps based on size and mass, or is it a case of \"I'll call that one a boulder because it is bigger than the other rocks\"?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ewdec/at_what_point_does_a_rock_become_a_boulder/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctiz40o'], 'score': [31], 'text': ['A rock is a description of a type of material. A boulder is a grainsize classification (_URL_0_) - anything over 25.6cm diameter.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_size_(grain_size)']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2288, "q_id": "17np3i", "title": "Does the average person think s/he is smarter than the average person?", "selftext": "...much like the average person thinks s/he is more attractive than they actually are (from a study I've read on here before). \n\n\nSeems like the more people I meet, the more I realize how many ignorant fools think that they're more informed/intelligent/cultured than the great majority, when they usually aren't. ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17np3i/does_the_average_person_think_she_is_smarter_than/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c878coh', 'c87hi10'], 'score': [7, 5], 'text': [\"Yes! It's called the [Dunning-Kruger effect](_URL_0_).\", \"Im on the phone right now, so I can't look up the article. But they once held a study in which people were asked to rate their intelligence and whether or not they were above average. Afterwards they were told almost everyone claimed to be above average and explained how this was impossible. Then, they offered subjects the opportunity to change their answers. Surprisingly, close to none actually thought they were at fault, just the rest of the study.\\n\\nI'll see if i can dig up a link later\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1689, "q_id": "3txu8v", "title": "why do canadians, or at least where i'm from, still measure height in feet and inches and weight in pounds if we use the metric system?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3txu8v/eli5_why_do_canadians_or_at_least_where_im_from/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxa3pf9', 'cxa5ftc', 'cxacz20', 'cxad2tp', 'cxaeiod', 'cxaf83q', 'cxagev7', 'cxaisx3', 'cxakvu7', 'cxaofpt', 'cxarkt5', 'cxb4y53'], 'score': [160, 7, 4, 229, 5, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 5, 2], 'text': ['Purely because that\\'s what people are used to and when you\\'re talking informally it\\'s easier to visualise (for example) a person who is 6\\'2\" compared to imagining someone who is 1.88m.  \\n\\nWe do exactly the same thing here in the UK. We have the metric system and are mostly fine using it where we need to but when talking informally to someone you\\'re much more likely to say your weight in stones and pounds, height in feet and inches and distances in miles. We\\'re happy enough working in litres and kilos too though.', 'I am 39. When I was in school, we were taught both metric and imperial. Then it was phased out shortly after. I am assuming some places may have done this sooner or later than others.', 'That\\'s so funny. I\\'m browsing Reddit at work and to my left I have a paper with a number 2860 circled. I work in construction and that number is the height of glass I have to go measure to see if we have clearance. I was thinking to myself...blah I hate metric because I can\\'t picture how tall that is...it could be 4\\' or 7\\' or 10\\' I have no idea until I do the conversion. Sure, I probably should take the time to memorize the conversion but I guess just due to laziness I never have. I can just google quick what the conversion is and off I go. ...It\\'s basically 9\\'5\" lol\\nThe reason I will continue be doing the conversions is because material in construction generally is ordered in imperial....everyone knows a 2\\'x4\\' and plywood comes in 4\\'x8\\' sheet...etc. etc. So...I guess you can blame the construction industry? A decent amount of material comes from the US as well so they will still be in imperial.', \"Okay, all of these answers are incorrect. \\n\\nThe introduction of the metric system in Canada was a phased process that started in 1976. Because it was phased, certain things changed before others. In 1984, Mulroney was elected and disbanded the commission, so no further metrification  took place. If it was done already it remained in metric, if not, it remained in imperial. \\n\\nHence, you drive 50km/h but weigh 185lbs.  It's 20C outside but 350F in your oven. Canada is a massive dog pile of measurements because baby boomers didn't care to see through a full conversion to metric. People almost got killed over this. See: Gilmi glider. It's really something that should be re-instituted so that we can fully convert.\\n\\nEDIT: See here: _URL_0_\\n\\n\", \"Am Canadian and like others have said, it's just what we're familiar with, and which is why the US still uses miles and such.\\n\\nI'm all for switching to demonstrably better units/systems, but the barriers to switching are huge. If it were small we could all swtich to DVORAK keyboards, electric cars, roundabouts, Esperanto or Lojban, Unix, ISPs as public utilities etc, and switch again if we didn't like them, but... it's hard.\\n\\nHell, you can't even upgrade your office suite from 2010 to 2013 without hundreds of people bitching about their buttons having moved.\\n\\n\", \"I think it is just a remnant from the past. My neice and nephews are all under 6, and only use metric. We're just old and confused.\", \"Anything involving construction is difficult to do in  metric. All building materials are in standard imperial units. Our building code is still based in imperial units. \\n\\nHeck, our back roads are all laid out in miles. \\n\\nAutomotive is an odd mashup. All the domestic manufacturers switched to metric in the 80's so Americans have to deal with metric for the newer stuff. I have a hell of a time knowing what a L/100km translates into in terms of mpg. Or what a kpa is in psi.\", 'As a former tradesman I can say that a good portion of it has to do with relations with american equipment manufacturers. We are also expected to know both metric and imperial, one perfect example that I dealt with as a hvac guy was the temperature conversions between the two systems. I would also carry two sets of tools for every task, one set in imperial measurements one in metric (Because you never know when you might need metric measurements). \\n\\nOn another note my uncle is an auto mechanic and from what I understand a majority of his work requires metric instruments.', 'I always thought it was because since we import and export a lot of things from and to the U.S we would have to understand their systems in order to get things done.', \"It's because of Murica. They can't let go of that imperial system and continue to drag us down with them\", \"Canadians in their 40s learned imperial measurements and then had to switch to metric in elementary school so it's like having to relearn your multiplication tables or how to tie your shoe. At one point they had kph stickers to stick onto your speedometer because most cars had MPH but the signs were in KPH.\", 'most trades related things get parts from the states so....we tag along with the imperial system even though the metric system is superior']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_Canada'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 842, "q_id": "8cz8kz", "title": "what is the point for \"one hour parking only\" rule if there will be cars all the time?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8cz8kz/eli5_what_is_the_point_for_one_hour_parking_only/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dxiyipy', 'dxiykef', 'dxiyov5', 'dxiyt5s'], 'score': [17, 2, 6, 6], 'text': [\"Because this allows the spot to service more people. It doesn't matter if the spot is always full, it matters if that full spot was useful for one person or for ten. \", 'More money can be made if a higher voume of people are putting money in a single meter per day.', \"That's exactly the point! If somebody can just take the spot for the whole day, that limits others ability to find parking in the area, preventing them from patronizing local businesses, etc.\\n\\nBy limiting the time somebody can stay, it ensures they will vacate the spot and somebody else will be able to get it. Better that 8 people use it for exactly 1 hour w/ the next person waiting when they previous parker pulls out that some store employee park there and monopolize the spot from 9-5. Imagine a whole block where all the spots are taken in the early morning by local workers, who then wonder why they have no business with all the cars driving by.\", \"parking spots like this are often near stores. This makes it so those spaces are used for customers,  not nearby resident's. This ensures the flow to customers so the store makes money,  which in turn keeps the economy going. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 716, "q_id": "87nnnn", "title": "Nuclear Reactor : Control rods - What causes the difference in reactivity of the core when control rods are withdrawn at full power and all control rods are inserted at zero power?", "selftext": "Hi all,\n\nI am interested to understand the effect of control rods during a shutdown margin and how the value of keff could change between the two scenarios.\n\n\nMany thanks for your help", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/87nnnn/nuclear_reactor_control_rods_what_causes_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dwfhbqo'], 'score': [6], 'text': [\"Control rods are designed to absorb neutrons without emitting any as a result. By inserting the control rods further, more neutrons are absorbed, so there is less of a chance that neutrons from one fission event will hit another fuel rod and induce another fission event.\\n\\nNeutrons are the most important factor in the criticality of a reactor, which is described by k effective, the number of fission events directly caused by the neutrons from one fission event. You ramp up the power output by having a k_eff greater than 1 (without going prompt supercritical). This means that for every fission event, there is more than 1 fission event caused as a result, so the reaction rate and therefore the power output increase exponentially. You shut down the power by having a k_eff less than 1, meaning that there are less fission events being caused than are occurring, so the reaction rate decays exponentially. k_eff of 1 is critical, and will maintain your current power level.\\n\\nIn normal operation, the control rods are adjusted to maintain criticality. During shutdown, k_eff is reduced to some value that is less than 1 by the shutdown margin. For example, if the shutdown margin is 2%, the k_eff of the reactor when the control rods are fully inserted is less than or equal to 0.98.\\n\\nIt's worth noting that you don't increase the power by pulling out the control rods and leaving them there. You pull out the control rods enough to go supercritical until you reach the desired power level, and then insert them again to the point where the reactor is critical. You also have to be careful not to pull the control rods out too far. You want a k_eff greater than 1, but the k for prompt neutrons needs to stay subcritical. Delayed neutrons will add to the k_eff to allow the power to increase exponentially on the timescale of several seconds, but if prompt neutrons are supercritical the power will increase exponentially on the timescale of nanoseconds, which causes catastrophic incidents like SL-1 or Chernobyl.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 235, "q_id": "3uviw6", "title": "how exactly does shopping at small independent stores help the local economy?", "selftext": "Can anyone break this down the benefits into concrete terms? Why exactly is it \"better\" to do your shopping at a local independent shop vs a local big box store?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uviw6/eli5_how_exactly_does_shopping_at_small/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxi2ts7', 'cxi2tya', 'cxi3mg7', 'cxi47fp', 'cxi4rhz', 'cxibbqb'], 'score': [8, 4, 91, 11, 2, 2], 'text': [\"The argument is that local shop owners pay taxes in the city/county/state where they live and they spend their profits in that city as well. There's also a better chance that local stores source their goods from local producers. Non-local corporations pay some local taxes, but not as many and the profits are distributed to shareholders who will spend the money wherever they live and not necessarily in the city where the store is located.\", \"Its about where the money is circulating. A local shop probably buys from local sources while big box stores ship stuff in from all over the world. \\n\\nIf you buy a catfish that's was caught in china then at least some of your money is going to china, which is a problem because of unequal trade between china and where you live.\\n\\nThe question is where do you want your money to go. Do you want it to feed your next door neighbor, who is probably sleeping with your wife, or do you want it to go to the crack head Walmart heirs.\\n(full disclosure, i don't know who is sleeping with your wife, it might be your neighbor or it might be your pasture. I don't know your life.  )\", \"As a local shop owner, when people buy from me, it means I (your neighbor), get your money, not an investor to Caribou Coffee. I, the only guy who works here, can afford to feed my family. I'm not a corporation that has 1000 stores and paying overhead on 1000 stores. That money you give me goes to the electric company, the restaurant where we celebrate after the Sport Team wins, and the local farmers market. I'm buying my produce from the guy who lives down the street...his tomatoes came in great this year. He's also got a daughter in college. I helped him pay his bills this month, and when she graduates, she's gonna run a B & B, which means more people are gonna drop the town and have a cup of coffee. \\n\", \"I own a small children's boutique so this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart.  There are many benefits to shopping local.\\n\\n1. Your money stays in your community.\\nThis happens on many levels.  First, you are directly supporting the shop owner and their family as opposed to your dollars going to increase the bottom line for a bunch of stock holders that are probably already extremely wealthy.  Those dollars are typically spent locally and used for things like their children's sports, piano lessons, etc.  Secondly, most local businesses are active members of the community.  My business donates thousands of dollars to local non-profit organizations that serve people in our community.  If I (and other local businesses) weren't there, they would most likely have to cut programs or go under.  Lastly, most small shops support local manufacturing, cottage businesses, and US made products.  For example, I carry multiple handcrafted lines in my store that are local home based businesses.  These small businesses would not have an avenue to get into a retail location if a small shop like mine was not around.  A mom and pop botanical business is not getting on the shelf at Target, let's be real.\\n\\n2. By supporting local business,  you create diversity and choice in your community.  You can see this by shopping around,  if you want to purchase something unique from a brick and mortar location... you aren't going to find it at Walmart.  Big box stores have a very bland selection, and are typically products that can be found anywhere.   Want something truly unique?  Visit a local boutique. \\n\\n3. You are most likely going to get a high quality product.  The small business owner knows that everything they sell in their shop reflects on them personally.   Carrying crap on your shelf will result in nothing but problems.  Big box stores and Amazon however,  couldn't give two shits if you end up with some p.o.s. from China.\\n\\nThere's my rant, now buy some shit from me ;) \\n*edited for formating \", \"If you buy at big name store, the money goes to corporate which is probably out of state.  Maybe 10\u00a2 on the dollar is paid to the employees, meaning 90% of that money just left the area.\\n\\nWhen you buy from local owned, the money goes from the register to the owner, who then pays his employees their cut, still 10% let's say, buys his products (which may or may not be local) and keeps that 50% markup for himself, just like corporate. \\n\\nThe difference? Local business owner lives in your town, and spends the money there.  If he shops at Walmart or on amazon you still lose the money after one transaction though.\\n\\nBut if you trade locally, you keep the money local. If you buy stuff from people who but stuff from out of the area, eventually you don't have any money left. But if that 5$ bill keeps trading hands in your town, your town stays that much richer.\", 'If you buy local from somewhere, the money goes to the owner of the company. Usually theyre in the same state community. If you buy from big retailers, buy from people who get paid commission because it goes right back into the community.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1855, "q_id": "3d13rq", "title": "if a man and a woman both get drunk and have intercourse, why is the man charged with rape due to the woman not being able to consent due to being intoxicated, when, by the same logic, the man is intoxicated so cannot give consent either?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d13rq/eli5_if_a_man_and_a_woman_both_get_drunk_and_have/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ct0thrh', 'ct0v8xg', 'ct16oir', 'ct1fcm3'], 'score': [293, 22, 15, 4], 'text': [\"Because that is not true. I'm assuming this is about that ridiculous poster that made its rounds in /r/pics. Regardless though, it isn't even true that being drunk means you are unable to consent (it is only at a certain level of drunkness that comes into play) and the law governing that is written completely gender neutral. Women don't have an up on men in this case.\\n\\n[This] (_URL_0_) comment has some good explanation of the laws in this case. \", 'If you live in the UK women technically cannot be charged of rape due the wording of law means it requires penetration for rape to occur. So although both not technically consenting the only one raping is the man.\\nAs well as this (despite science disproving this the law just loves to cling onto ancient beliefs) men need to be aroused to have sex, so therefore the act of sex for a man means they are consenting, this is not the case for women.', \"As other commenters note, the poster that's been going around the internet lately is an incorrect statement of criminal law but an accurate reflection of how campus administrators treat drunk sex cases.\\n\\nBut poster aside, people just assume that when there's a drunk guy and a drunk girl, the guy always wants it and is always the one making moves on the girl. The girl is the gatekeeper; the default is that she doesn't want it and she's never the initiator. That's why the guy is responsible for what he *does*, and the girl's not responsible for what is *done to her*. It just doesn't occur to lots of people that maybe the girl is the one doing something *to the guy*\u2014that is, initiating/making the moves.\", \"To keep the story short, we both drank, she aggressively tried getting sexual with me (She almost tried raping me), nothing even happened, she accused  me of rape, huge investigation.  Case dropped.  I'm still seen as the bad guy by everyone I work with for the next 1.5 years.\\n\\nYeah this shit happens and it fucking sucks.  Was the worst time of my life.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3cvui3/uh_this_is_kinda_bullshit/cszk2vd'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2124, "q_id": "6dmi82", "title": "if a nuclear weapon creates an emp, why didn't the planes dropping them in wwii experience it?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dmi82/eli5_if_a_nuclear_weapon_creates_an_emp_why_didnt/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['di3s58k', 'di3s7y9', 'di3shij', 'di3txqa', 'di3xdma', 'di3yk6l', 'di41u06'], 'score': [2, 16, 13, 18, 5, 2, 5], 'text': [\"They probably *did* experience it to a small degree, but keep in mind that the WWII nukes were tiny in comparison to modern ones. Hirhoshima blast was 16 kilotons, while modern nukes are in the hundreds of kilotons (and sometimes megaton) ranges.\\n\\nWe also have much more electronics and wireless communication than during WWII, making modern technology more vulnerable to EMP than before. It's conceivable than a WW2 plane could keep flying even with all electronics completely disabled.\", 'Tube type circuits are much more resistant to EMP than transistors and chips. There was a period during the changeover to chips that a nuclear war might have left most of our fancy radios and electronic gear useless while the USSR was still running old tube gear that would have been okay. ', \"Nuclear EMP's are highly altitude dependent. The higher the bomb, the further the EMP reaches. The atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated so close to the ground that anything that could have experienced the EMP, was obliterated.\", 'They did, but it was not noticed because the electronics of the time.\\n\\nA World War 2 aircraft radio operating at 48 volts/ 15 amps would be able to handle an extra amp of electricity with out harm.\\n\\n it is 5% overloaded \\n\\nmeanwhile a modern radio with microcircuits operating at 0.0003 volts and 0.0001 amps would burn out with 1 amp added.\\n\\nit is 1,000% overloaded.   \\n', \"Little Boy and Fat Man while not small are a lot smaller than people think they are. The bomb dropped on hiroshima for example if your in a decently built civilian house about a mile and some change away and not near any glass other than being deaf now you would be totally fine.\\n\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nPut your address in here and pick the hiroshima bomb (15kt)\\n\\nThe atomic bombs of the 40's were absolutely nothing like the civilization enders of the late 50's and 60's. Absolutely incomparable in destructive power. Its like comparing an infant impacting the floor when it crawls to the largest artillery used in ww1.\\n\\nAgain play with that map on your house and pick the tsar bomba (50Mt/100Mt) to see what I am talking about.\\n\\nThose planes had minutes traveling hundreds of miles an hour to get away from the blast. You as a fit human being if you knew it was coming could of out run the bomb falling before detonation IIRC .\", 'Their electronics did get hit. Most of the plane was operated with mechanical controls, and what few electronics they had were insulated and of high gaged wires capable of handling the EMP. \\n\\nModern electronics which have much smaller circuits and microchips are more vulnerable than the older tech. ', 'There are two kinds of nuclear EMPs and people often get them pretty confused (which is fair enough, the science is actually pretty tricky). \\n\\nThe first is the high-altitude EMP, which is caused by a weapon detonated many miles up (e.g. 30-200 miles above the surface of the Earth). This is caused by gamma radiation from the bomb ionizing a large portion of the upper atmosphere and causing it to radiate electrons back down to Earth. This the EMP that the people who claim EMP is a big scary effect worry about, because one bomb can hypothetically affect a huge area.\\n\\nThe second is an EMP created by a surface or low-altitude burst, which is caused by the bomb ionizing (stripping electrons from) a region of air around the detonation point. This can be much much more intense than the high-altitude EMP but it has a very rapid fall-off in intensity. For a weapon the size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, the damaging range of the EMP is not a whole lot larger than the other damaging effects of the bomb \u2014 if you are close enough for the EMP to be a problem, you have many other more pressing problems (e.g. being crushed or set on fire or irradiated). For much larger nuclear weapons (e.g. megaton range) the effects can go further, but are still on the order of being within the range of pretty intense blast effects (e.g. for a 1,000 kiloton bomb it extends about 8 miles, which is still within the range of the blast and thermal effects; by comparison, the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons).\\n\\nAnd as others have noted, the electronics of WWII were not of the sort that would be especially vulnerable to EMP anyway (vacuum tubes vs. modern chips). But separate from that the plane had made sure it was several miles away (slant range) from the bomb when it went off, so it would not have been affected by the EMP anyway. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2943, "q_id": "4ugsep", "title": "shouldnt the sun be orbiting something else?", "selftext": "Okay guys, im pretty ignorant as towards astronomy.  If an object with mass, modifies spacetime, and an object with less mass, orbits around it due to gravity, shouldnt the sun orbit something else which orbits something else and so on? is the whole universe orbitting around something? \n\nEdit: Thank you very much everyone, i been educated", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ugsep/eli5_shouldnt_the_sun_be_orbiting_something_else/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d5plko4', 'd5pllyu', 'd5plms0', 'd5ploe4', 'd5plrns', 'd5pm749', 'd5ps78f'], 'score': [4, 7, 92, 5, 2, 5, 2], 'text': ['Our Sun orbiting center of our galaxy known as Milky Way. which in turn probably orbiting something else which we cant see on our human timescale so for us its kind of moving through Universe ', \"The sun orbits the centre of the galaxy.  It takes 200 million years or so. I don't remember the exact number. The galaxy is also part of a local group of galaxies which orbit each other. There is also evidence of larger structures in the universe. \", \"The sun orbits around the Milky Way center (where there is most likely a supermassive black hole of all the other stuff that fell in). \\n\\nThe Milky Way orbits around\u2026something. As it stands right now, it's going towards the Great Attractor, which is\u2026something. Big. (It's really unfortunate that the way we are aligned with the Milky Way disk that it blocks our view of that\u2026something.)\\n\\nThe Great Attractor probably orbits around something else, but it's so far away that we'll never know for sure because it'd take too long to make one orbit. And maybe that orbits around something else. And so on. \\n\\nThe Universe as a whole cannot orbit anything, because orbiting is moving around something *in space*, so by definition it can't orbit. Unless you subscribe to a multiverse model, but that's mostly unproven. \", 'The sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is a powerful x ray and gravity source which we believe to be a supermassive black hole.\\n\\nThe galaxy is also moving, along with the [Local Group](_URL_0_) towards an area of strong gravitation we call the [Great Attractor](_URL_2_)\\n\\nThe universe is all there is, so to say it orbits something is kind of meaningless from a scientific perspective. There are ideas of multiverses and multiple universes existing on separate [Branes](_URL_1_) but that is all highly speculative. ', \"The Sun, along with the other stars in our galaxy, is orbiting the galactic center. \\n\\nHowever, a less massive object is not guaranteed to orbit a more massive one. For example, you are not orbitng your house. If you are thinking in terms of curved spacetime then:\\n\\n* Imagine a planet going around a star.\\n* If the planet is moving fast enough it will simply  escape the 'well' in spacetime.\\n* If the planet is moving too slow, it will eventually fall into the center of the 'well' and crash into the star.\\n* If the planet has the right speed, it will keep going around the star in a stable orbit.\", \"If you want to zoom out and really look at it, basically everything orbits everything else.  For example the moon orbits the earth, but also the earth orbits the moon, its just that the moon is much smaller so its a much smaller orbit.  You can see a drawing i just randomly pulled off a google search here: _URL_0_ . \\n\\nThe barycenter, the center of mass, between the moon and the earth lies inside the surface of the earth, but not at earth's center.  So there's actually a wobble going on as the earth orbits the moon.  \\n\\nThis is also true of everything else, because the distances are very large and the masses are pretty large, its generally enough to talk about an object being close enough to dominate, the one object, the planet, the star, that's close enough to make all the other gravitational pulls look insignificant.    Though really the moon is actually not so much dominated by the earth, its orbit around the sun is always concave, basically the moon is always falling toward the sun the earth just sort of slows it at places, never bends it away like a bigger planet might do with their moons.  \\n\\nAnyway,  basically gravity goes from anything to any other thing, the center of mass of our solar system drifts around as the planets, especially the giant ones like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune move around.  Sometimes its inside the sun, and sometimes its outside the sun, the sun itself can orbit that.  \\n\\nIn a broader sense, the Milky Way galaxy that we're in has a bunch of other mass distributed throughout it, and may have a giant black hole at its center.  The sun can feel that pull and orbit the center of mass there.  And the Galaxy can feel all the other mass in the universe transmitting gravitational force at the speed of light across vast distances, the sum of immense amounts of mass generating force that dissipates over vast distances.  \\n\\n\\nEssentially an orbit is just a way of talking about the motion under gravity when there's a big heavy thing close enough by to make all the other big heavy things far away seem insignificant.  In reality, everything is orbiting everything else all the time.  Everything is falling towards everything in the most efficient way it can. \", 'Our sun, like all the other stars in our galaxy, is orbiting the galactic centre. One \\'galactic year\\' (the time it takes us to complete one orbit of our galaxy centre) is about a quarter million of our standard (solar) years. Our galaxy however is not, to our knowledge, orbiting anything else. Galaxies may interact with each other gravitationally, and some do move in various kinds of orbits. But not all, and as far as we can tell so far not ours.\\n\\n >  is the whole universe orbitting around something?\\n\\nAt least in the standard model, this is impossible. \"The universe\" is the sum of all that is, and so it could not rationally be interacting with anything else, since by definition there *is* nothing else.\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor'], [], ['http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd456/lancewen/Space%20Stuff/barycenter_zps10942287.jpg'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2089, "q_id": "3lky13", "title": "How did paralyzed people get around prior to the invention of a wheelchair?", "selftext": "I'm paralyzed waist down as a result of an accident. \n\nI have a love hate relationship with my wheelchair. I hate it for what it is. But I'm forever grateful that a device exists which I can use to get around, keep active, and be independent.  \n\nSpinal cord injury while not very common still has always occurred..\n\nI wonder how those peoples lives were, say, 300 years ago? \n\nNot just the wheelchair but also other advances like medication for pain and catheters to be able to urinate. \n\nI know these weren't around until recent times. 19th century? \n\nSo what was life like for the paralyzed prior to the introduction of wheelchairs and medications to improve quality of life? \n\nWere they seen as NOT part of society?  Did they live their lives on bed rest? Did their life expectancy go down considerably?\n\nI'm so intrigued.... ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3lky13/how_did_paralyzed_people_get_around_prior_to_the/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cv7dmnu', 'cv7hkzz', 'cv7hx1p'], 'score': [14, 23, 6], 'text': [\"Not to discourage further discussion of an interesting topic, but you may find some more information in the answers to a past question like [How did different cultures in different time periods treat the disabled?](_URL_0_) I'm not sure any of those directly answer your question, but they are similar and interesting.\", 'Medieval western Europe:\\n\\nIn cases of paralysis or impaired mobility, medical texts prescribe care (treatment/hopeful cure) like applying heat, ingesting various herbs and spices, and the odd instruction to wrap the impaired limb in fox fur or breathe in vapors from the fires of purgatory. Based on modern medicine, I\\'d guess the first two, at least, were focused towards pain relief to some extent. I\\'ve never seen anything about help in urination, but medical texts aren\\'t my specialty so that\\'s not saying much.\\n\\nSocially, late medieval guilds generally had statutes to provide financially for members who became disabled, due to sickness, old age, or industrial accidents like carpenters who had a house fall down on them (London 1389 for the falling house; most are more general). Poor people without familial support generally ended up begging, although some found shelter in hospitals (shelters) typically run by religious houses. Most paralyzed people probably ended up financially dependent on their families.\\n\\nAs far as getting around, probably the best details come from saints\\' lives and miracle stories. Some mobility-impaired people were able to drag themselves to shrines (in hopes of a cure) with the aid of crutches, or by crawling. Most stories involve the person being \"brought\" or \"carried\" by others--family, friends, occasionally local people they paid. Carrying might mean in a basket, on a horse, in someone\\'s arms, on a stretcher or a litter. A few miracle stories also let us know that the person seeking the miraculous cure had help getting dressed, out of bed, etc. from family members.\\n\\nI have zero clue about impact on life expectancy. A lot of the sources are concerned with impaired mobility that comes with old age, which skirts the question; the emphasis in the miracle stories is obviously on how the petitioner was eventually cured.\\n\\nIf you\\'re interested in reading more about the Middle Ages, OP: the foundational source on this for medieval is Irina Metzler, *Disability in Medieval Europe*, although a lot of it is concerned with the theology and philosophy of disability. Her *A Social History of Disability in the Middle Ages* is probably better for your interests here, but it is cost-prohibitive unless you have access to a university library. Sharon Farmer, *Surviving Poverty in Medieval Paris*, draws on the miracle stories, so it actually reveals a surprising amount about navigating various disabilities including paralysis.', \"Hi! You'll likely get more focused, in-depth answers if you could specify a region/culture/country and time period, but meanwhile, there's a short comment here from u/NurseAngela\\n\\n* [What was life like for physically disabled people prior to the invention of wheelchairs?](_URL_0_) \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13nmgc/how_did_different_cultures_in_different_time/'], [], ['https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j1zdl/what_was_life_like_for_physically_disabled_people/']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 186, "q_id": "lw19x", "title": "How much energy would it take to completely stop an ocean current? ", "selftext": "Specifically the Gulfstream.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lw19x/how_much_energy_would_it_take_to_completely_stop/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c2w1xea', 'c2w2jx4', 'c2w4g7m', 'c2w1xea', 'c2w2jx4', 'c2w4g7m'], 'score': [2, 7, 2, 2, 7, 2], 'text': [\"All the world's oceanic currents are connected in one large system. As a result in order to stop the gulfstream you would have to stop everything or at least alter it in some way which would require a massive amount of energy although I don't know exact values.\\n_URL_0_\", \"A nearby gamma ray burst could flash boil all of the water on the planet, effectively stopping the current forever. Here's hoping. *fingers crossed*\\n\\n\\nedit: Please don't do that universe. I was only kidding. \", 'The Coriolis effect may also keep the water moving (or start it afterwards)\\nEffectively you might need to stop the earth spinning to stop it permanently\\n_URL_1_\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nSo it depends if you are wanting it permanently stopped or just for a short time.', \"All the world's oceanic currents are connected in one large system. As a result in order to stop the gulfstream you would have to stop everything or at least alter it in some way which would require a massive amount of energy although I don't know exact values.\\n_URL_0_\", \"A nearby gamma ray burst could flash boil all of the water on the planet, effectively stopping the current forever. Here's hoping. *fingers crossed*\\n\\n\\nedit: Please don't do that universe. I was only kidding. \", 'The Coriolis effect may also keep the water moving (or start it afterwards)\\nEffectively you might need to stop the earth spinning to stop it permanently\\n_URL_1_\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nSo it depends if you are wanting it permanently stopped or just for a short time.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/vlcsnap-324533.png'], [], ['http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/coriolis.htm', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect'], ['http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/vlcsnap-324533.png'], [], ['http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/coriolis.htm', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2729, "q_id": "3g3u3m", "title": "Why isn't what happened to the Indigenous people of Australia considered a genocide?", "selftext": "Especially what happened to the Tasmanian aboriginal people, who were killed on mass. Paul Keating in the Redfern Park speech acknowledged the killings and rapes, and cultural destruction, and Madley (2008) states that what happened fits the UN definition of genocide. Yet there isn't even a Wikipedia page to discuss it (as there is for other controversial genocides), nor is it heavily discussed. What is the reason for this?\n\nMadley, B. (2008) From Terror to Genocide: Britain's Tasmanian Penal Colony and Australia's History Wars, *Journal of British Studies*, 47, no. 1: 77-106.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3g3u3m/why_isnt_what_happened_to_the_indigenous_people/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ctulks0'], 'score': [73], 'text': ['There is a considerably complicated discourse when it comes to Australians and their native people and quite often the official narrative has been changed and adopted by different politicians for their own means. \\n\\nKeith Windschuttle is probably one of the most prominent of the conservative historians who has often played down the atrocities committed against the aboriginal people. Windschuttle became a favourite of former Prime Minister John Howard during his time in power to forward his own agenda. Howard rejected the \\'black armband\\' view of history and wanted to instill a more proud, patriotic and ultimately white Australian historical narrative. \\n\\nStuart McIntyre, another historian, heavily objected to Windschuttle\\'s methods and this started what was called [\"The History Wars\"](_URL_0_) in Australia which debated the severity of the force or violence used against the aboriginal people. If you also have a look at the page I linked to it does mention a little bit about genocide and it comes with quite a few citations.\\n\\nThe genocide debate revolves around the numbers and the official documents used. People like Windschuttle, a historical empiricist, would say that as there is no documented data of these supposed genocides, then there are no genocides. I suppose the key here, is that the reason much of the discussion about genocide has to do with a lack of contemporary documentation about it. The ambiguous nature of the wording of these documents too make it hard to make the final rule on a genocide.\\n\\nI\\'ll wait for more expertise, but you should have a look at Stuart McIntyre\\'s \"The History Wars\" as a good starting point on the aboriginal history debate. I also would recommend Jonathan Richard\\'s \"The Secret War: A history of Queensland\\'s Native Police\" as some interesting books to read more about this topic.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_wars']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 726, "q_id": "19m6nt", "title": "How well documented does a historical figure have to be for it to be consensus that they existed/are there any heated debates in the historian community as to whether X person existed or not?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19m6nt/how_well_documented_does_a_historical_figure_have/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c8ph98p', 'c8php90'], 'score': [6, 15], 'text': [\"There have been a major discussion for about a century whether Jesus were a historical person or a purely fictional/mythical figure. The debate seem to be largely over though, with the prevailing consensus being that he was a historical figure, although many of the legend surrounding him are unreliable.\\n\\nIt is not because we have particularly strong evidence regarding his existence. There are no primary sources or first-hand accounts. The gospels are the only sources of any importance, and they are second hand, written many years after the events, highly biased and not independent. And some parts (e.g. the birth legends) are clearly fiction/myth.\\n\\nStill, the existence of a historical Jesus is the better explanation for much of the content in the gospels. The best evidence is the existence of internal contradictions in the Gospels, where the narrative contradict the bias of the author. For example, Jesus were crucified (a roman form of execution), while the evangelists goes to great length to frame it so that it was really the Jews that wanted to kill Jesus and the Romans really didn't want to, but were pressured to by the Jews. If the gospels were fictions, they could just have let the Jews kill him in the first place, since it would fit their intentions better. The framing of the gospels much more points to an inconvenient but undeniable fact (Jesus were crucified by the Romans), which the evangelists had to spin.\", \"The simple answer is:  historians assume that someone mentioned as a real person - even in only *one* source - is a real person, unless there's some context to suggest that the person or story is unreliable or fictional (for instance, if the writer is telling some story with an obvious moral point, he may well be creating a character to illustrate that point rather than recounting a true event).  Hyper-skepticism becomes wearying over time.  The more distant the writer is from the context of his story, though, especially as history shades into mythology, the more doubt can be cast on the existence of the individuals involved.  If Tacitus mentions some Roman citizen in passing, for instance, the assumption is that said citizen was a real person.  When Livy writes of the legendary kings of Rome, some seven hundred years before his day, things become messier, and while most historians assume that Romulus, Numa, et al, are mythical figures, [there is a certain amount of controversy](_URL_0_). \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://archive.archaeology.org/0707/abstracts/rome.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2551, "q_id": "5vbny7", "title": "Is there a limit to the number of active Bluetooth connections in a confined space?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5vbny7/is_there_a_limit_to_the_number_of_active/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['de1jym2'], 'score': [10], 'text': ['Yes, but it would be somewhat hard to calculate. The I can do is give an overview of how to get an estimate. All of what I am about to say comes from the 802.15.1 spec (bluetooth). You can request a copy of it [here.](_URL_4_)\\n\\nFor each transmitter receiver pair, as two tuning forks that resonate at the same frequency. You want to maximize the number of pairs in a certain area such that they will only resonate with their paired fork. First we need to determine the SNR which makes the fork falsely resonate, and then how to calculate the SNR at each receiver depending on physical layout. From there it would just be an impossibly hard optimization problem you would need to run. \\n\\nThe bluetooth standard \"requires\" a BER of .1%. Which more or less, requires a SNR of about 3dB. This is because bluetooth uses a few (crappy) error correction codes to protect against interference. The first is a 1/3 rate [repetition code](_URL_1_)  (undergraduate level stuff there), a 2/3 rate code [(11,15)- Hamming Code](_URL_2_) and a basic ACK scheme. Since you want to push it to the limit, this time we can assume the rate 1/3 code.\\n\\nSo the system will begin to bend before breaking. All in all, it does not really do much [as you can see from the graph](_URL_0_). But the BER of  <  .1% you means you need about 3dB SNR. \\n\\n\\nSo now that we know that the power of the transmitter to receiver must be 3dB greater than the sum of all interference, how do we calculate interference. If we assume all sources of EM interference are from bluetooth devices, then we simply need to know their distance from the transmitter, and the frequency which they are transmitting at. Indeed from these two we can determine an estimate of signal power by [Frii\\'s transmission equation](_URL_3_), and then how much the interfering signal will be attenuated by being at a different frequency. \\n\\nBluetooth is split over 79 channels at 2402 + k MHz where k = 0 , 1, ..., 78. The channel that is 1 MHz will have the signal attenuated by -10 dB, the signal 2 MHz over -30 dB, and all signals  > 3 MHz will be attenuated -40dB. There the dB is in reference to their received power as determined by Frii\\'s. \\n\\nSo using all of that information it would be possible to write a program to estimate the maximum number of active bluetooth connections in a confined space (perhaps monte carlo?) but it would still be really hard and annoying to actually get. \\n\\nStill this number should be significantly large so that you will not be seeing this problem in normal use. \\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetition_code#/media/File:Repetition_Code_On_Fading_Channel_Graph.jpg', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetition_code', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friis_transmission_equation', 'http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.15.1-2005.pdf']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1420, "q_id": "3tyv4b", "title": "how is selling fan art legal?", "selftext": "I just saw a post on the front page about an artist who paints pictures of pokemon and sells them.   I'm wondering how this is legal, considering that the pokemon are owned by Nintendo.  Fan art gets sold all the time, but it seems like it would be a violation of copyright to sell them for a profit.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tyv4b/eli5_how_is_selling_fan_art_legal/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cxacvmu', 'cxacxyb', 'cxacygg', 'cxaejum', 'cxaihga', 'cxakbms', 'cxalg4p', 'cxau88o', 'cxavkx1', 'cxb09iz', 'cxb3p8b', 'cxb7mia'], 'score': [914, 19, 148, 11, 18, 6, 2, 2, 6, 3, 3, 3], 'text': [\"A lot of it isn't legal, and is copyright infringement. (Most of such art is copyright infringement whether being sold or not, by the way.) But copyright is civil in nature, not criminal--the rights holder has to request a court to enforce the law. It does not matter that I infringe on the copyright of The Pokemon Company if they choose not to sue me. Most companies have better things to do than to generate bad press by suing small-time artists.\", \"You're correct that it is very much likely a violation of copyright law. The problem is enforcement. It would be difficult for Nintendo to find each person who draws fan art. Even if they could, there aren't too many great options to stop it. Nintendo could sue and probably win, but it wouldn't win much and would get a lot of bad press in the process.\\n\\nUnless the fan art is somehow damaging to the franchise or turning into a full industry it's better for Nintendo to leave it alone. Nintendo has stopped things like a Pokemon themed party at a gaming convention and a Legend of Zelda movie, but in those cases there was more at stake. The Pokemon party would have involved booze, which may have been a liability and also gives Pokemon a more adult image than Nintendo would like. The Zelda movie would have potentially inserted a whole new story into the Zelda cannon. Both of those were also much more likely to reach a wide audience than a single piece of fan art.\", 'It would be.  If Nintendo wanted to, they could sue.  However: \\n\\n1) Suing people costs money.\\n\\n2) Fan artists are unlikely to have lots of money.\\n\\n3) Fans get mad when you treat their peers in a way that looks like \"mean-spirited big company sues little starving artist\".\\n\\nBut, mostly it\\'s #1 and #2.  You don\\'t sue people unless you can make money at it.', 'Is there a specific way artists can get the ip rights to companies like Pokemon? ', \"To jump on the OP's question: What about sites like Red Bubble? \\n\\n\\nWouldn't it be advantageous for lots of companies to band together and sue?\\n\\n\\nEdit: Spacing.\", \"I just wanted to add one more thing to the issue of copyright infringement.  The copyright holder or owner holds a group of rights with that valid copyright.  One of those rights is the right to derivative works.  A derivative work is defined in 17 U.S.C. \u00a7101 as :\\nA \u201cderivative work\u201d is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a \u201cderivative work\u201d\\n\\n17 U.S.C. \u00a7 106 states that a copyright holder has the exclusive right to \\n(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...;\\n\\n(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;\\n\\n(3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....\\n\\nIn short, the copyright owner is the only one that can license or allow derivative works.  Fan art usually falls under this category because it doesn't usually meet the fair use test if it makes any significant amount of money for the artist.\\n\\nReminder:  Copyright Law in the US is crazy, and the courts are never sure how they want to opine.  \", 'Yeah, I always wonder how it\\'s legal for cons to support the \"artists\" that scan a movie poster and make a few touch-ups and re-sell the thing for $50 or $100.\\n\\nI have a ton of respect for the actual artists making completely original works based on famous source material.  Some of that shit is amazing.\\n\\nI guess it all comes down to how much the owners of the source material want to pursue legal action.', 'It isn\\'t legal, either in Canada, the US, or Japan.\\n\\nIn Canada and the US, fanworks would be derivative works, that is, works that in part derives from, or duplicates, another work (henceforth \"original work\"). In both country\\'s respective copyright statutes, the author of the original work retains the exclusive right to create derivative works and duplications, subject to a large number of \"fair use\" defences. \\n\\n\\nNow then, like /u/TokyoJokeyo said, copyright is civil law, so the state isn\\'t automatically going to come after you, but the original author could, if they bothered to spend the legal fees, and somehow find you (which may require them to have to demand the derivative work creator\\'s address, contact information, etc, which is extra trouble).\\n\\n\\nThe problem is, once they do, the derivative work creator will run into two legal issues:\\n\\n1. \"Fair use\" is a defence, which means that the original work author only has to prove that your material is derivative, and then the derivative work author would have to prove fair use, which may require more legal funds than they can feasibly bring to bear  ($250/hr is a reasonable rate for lawyers). The recent Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. may make it more difficult for the original work author to gain a takedown order, or some form of injunction, but...\\n\\n2. If you are selling the stuff, tough luck. That\\'s most likely not fair use.\\n\\n\\nIf you are in Japan, you may be in deeper trouble. Japan has a much stronger conception of moral rights, so if the fan work could be considered prejudicial to the moral rights of the author (think of Nintendo not liking Super Mario Bros. Z or pictures of Mario and Luigi kissing), they can have it taken down. \\n\\nNotice: I am not a lawyer. I hope that I\\'ll not have to be a lawyer.\\n\\nEdit: u/Ah-Q below notes that it is a crime in the US. See _URL_0_\\n\\nEdit2: Note that most of the time, the original authors don\\'t do this, because there\\'s an unfortunate amount of bad PR involved. ', 'There is a difference between \"art,\" \"merchandise\" and \"publications.\"\\n\\nPublishing or selling merch would be completely illegal and stopped. Art is different. This is a pretty good article about creating art with trademarked images:\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'I just typed out a good two-pager on the intricacies of how and why this is prohibited, the properties of methane, mail fraud, all kinds of cool stuff before I scrolled back up and realized this didn\\'t say \"How is selling fart illegal?\"  \\n  \\nColour me lesson learnt.', 'As I was scrolling past this post I had to take a double glance as I thought it read,\\n \"How the hell is selling farts illegal\" \\nMy mistake... \\n', 'I\\'m sorry I don\\'t have anything to contribute to the discussion. Just wanted to mention that I read the title as \"Why is selling a fart legal?\"']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/page-16.html'], ['http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2012/10/11/resolving-conflicts-between-trademark-and-first-amendment-rights/'], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1801, "q_id": "77btix", "title": "it seems like people are much more familiar with bytes rather than bits because we use them for data storage. is there a push to use bytes to classify network speeds (i.e. 1mbps instead of 8mbps), as opposed to bits?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/77btix/eli5_it_seems_like_people_are_much_more_familiar/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['dokoak9', 'dokoj6z', 'dokqti6', 'doktw5i'], 'score': [6, 5, 6, 12], 'text': ['I wish there would be! But in reality, I don\\'t think there will be a push to switch. Any company that has a business predicated on how quickly their internet speed can flow (ISPs, router manufacturers, etc.) can put a number that is 8x bigger than the actual amount of traffic it can withstand. It\\'s pretty much Marketing 101, when you can put in some extremely small fine print what the actual speed is, or even just put \"Mbps\" instead of \"MBps\" in small print, knowing the general consumer public won\\'t know the difference. Companies would willingly have to change their marketing style to push Bits out of contention for Bytes. The market dictates this will never happen, given that the first company to do so would see significantly less business due to everyone else having inflated numbers.', 'Yes, but it\\'s completely drowned out from the marketing department.   \\n\\nSadly, most people are idiots. They\\'ll see service A selling 16MB  for $20 and service B selling 2MB for $18 and they\\'ll buy service A.  Both of which ignore that it\\'s a rate and ignoring the \"per second\" part of the unit, because while the guys from marketing might have a point, they\\'re also kinda idiots. \\n\\nWhere\\'s my 32 nibbles per minute connection?', 'If you pay for internet service, the connection can transfer a certain number of bits per unit time at maximum speed. How many bytes that translates to is not necessarily constant.\\n\\nStart by reviewing the [OSI model](_URL_0_). Your ISP provides a basic connection at the media layers: simply passing bits around, and routing. That is usually all.\\n\\nHowever, most people think in terms of the host layers. \"I am downloading this file in Chrome and it says I get X bytes/sec.\" That translates to 8X bits per second. However, that is using TCP/IP: the raw number of bits your connection can provide are not all dedicated to the contents of that file you are transferring. TCP adds overhead: each packet has timestamps and checksums, so the client knows if a packet is corrupt or was received out of order. Acknowledgement packets are sent in both directions. All of these consume bits.\\n\\nGoing back to your question, this is more of a perception issue than anything. Data pipes are generally measured in the number of bits they can transfer because that is what they do. Even the concept of a \"byte\" may be foreign to the physical layer in OSI, for example.\\n\\nPeople think in terms of bytes, because that is what their web browsers report when transferring files. A byte is the smallest addressable entity in computer memory, and files on a disk are measured in bytes, not bits. Humans are trained to think in bytes. However, overhead ensures that the number of bits at the physical layer of the network is not simply eight times the number of bytes transferred at the application layer.\\n\\nIf we started advertising speeds in bytes and classifying connections using bytes, it would _never_ match what people actually see in web browsers or SFTP clients. While it is possible to measure network speeds in terms of bytes, it would not really help anything and could add confusion.\\n', \"Your network cable doesn't know what a byte is.  It doesn't care whether you are sending 8 bits at a time, or 8000, there is no inherent notion of a byte.  Ethernet, for example, operates on octets, three bits at a time, so thinking in terms of bytes is unnatural in that context.\\n\\nIn addition, 100 bytes of data on your hard drive probably isn't 100 bytes on your network.  Your data is going to be put into groups, and that group will have header data, separators, error correction, etc.  That group will be put into another group, with more data, that is put into another group, with more data.  All that might be compressed, making it smaller again.  The 800 kilobits on your network are not the same as the 100 kilobytes on your disk.\\n\\n\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1404, "q_id": "4td9tw", "title": "how do computer game ais work?", "selftext": "I am mostly thinking of 'open' games (e.g. Starcraft), where you cannot just construct a graph of possible states.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4td9tw/eli5_how_do_computer_game_ais_work/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d5ggqlm', 'd5gk5n5', 'd5gmatl', 'd5gme2q'], 'score': [15, 8, 2, 10], 'text': ['Most of them aren\\'t very sophisticated - definitely not what most people think of by \"artificial intelligence\".  They generally just pursue short term goals  &  follow a set of premade strategies.  Most game AIs are made stronger by giving them advantages over human players (ie - \\'cheating\\' rather than being smarter)', \"Not very well, being a games developer most in-game AI's are very very basic and are not aware of their environments or other players. Ever wonder why there are so many zombie games, or why so many games (mostly older games now but still the case with many newer titles) have only enemies? Because writing AI for enemies that only know how to attack you on sight or zombies (that are naturally very dumb) is A LOT easier and more convincing than writing AI's that now have to respond to your actions which are not pre-determined and not repeat the same 4 lines over and over again. \\n\\nNow it IS actually easily possible to write a super convincing friendly AI in a game but this takes significant time and resources and is quite expensive on the CPU so most game developers avoid it and it is still sadly a very overlooked area in games. We're all hoping that re-usable AI solutions become standard in a few years similar to how game engines are today.\\n\\nGames like No Mans Sky we're hoping have convincing and reactive AI and push this forward some.\", \"Each game writes their AI in their own ways trying to find the best way to program the game AI. I have modded a game where the AI worked on two concepts, plans and modes.\\n\\nThe plan would be the computer team's construction plan and be comprised of several sub-plans that related to things like first building resource collection units, building the first base buildings, building more units and then dispatching them, upgrading buildings or tech tree, and then building and dispatching endgame units. The plan would also include conditions like rebuilding critical infrastructure or building specific units to respond to specific units that the player was building (if player has x, build y) as well as a dispatcher component to have specific units seek out specific player units (or buildings) or send out all units to attack if there were too many idle units sitting around. The AI tends to be not as smart as humans because humans are more adaptable and capable of inventing tactics and changing tactics on the fly so sometimes the plans integrate a resource boost for the AI team so that they can still provide a challenge to the player.\\n\\nModes would be a concept used by the individual AI units in response to orders or game conditions. For example, the AI plan might give a group of units a MOVE order so that they accumulate in a given area and then later on an ATTACK order to target a specific unit or building. Certain other units had additional other states that were possible such as STRAFE and FLEE that changed how they fought in mid-battle, and most units had other states such as follow, idle or patrol states that could change once if the player (or the AI's plan or dispatcher code) gave it a different command.\", 'Lets pretend you have a friend called **George**. \\n\\nGeorge likes to eat crayons and is generally a bit...simple. And you want to play Chess with him.\\n\\nGeorge has never played chess before in his life. You however, are really experienced at chess. And can rapidly come up with creative strategies on the fly. You reckon there\\'s no way you\\'re going to lose to George.\\n\\nBut at the start of the game, George finds that there are basic instructions on a notepad infront of him. **\"Turn one, move a random pawn two tiles forward\"**. **\"Turn two, move a pawn two horizontal rows away from the first pawn\"**. \\n\\nGeorge doesn\\'t know *what* he\\'s doing. Not in the form of a grand strategy or anything. He\\'s simply following pre-recorded instructions as fast as he\\'s able. \\n\\nSo you keep playing. But suddenly George\\'s instructions start reacting to what\\'s going on with your pieces. **\"There\\'s a knight in that tile to the top right, move the queen to intercept it. Then move her back the next turn\"**. The instructions are still a mixture of dumb pre-recorded ones. But now include new conditions that are reacting to your strategies.\\n\\nNow lets pretend on the second game, George\\'s basic instructions are one of the known great chess strategies, figured out by chess masters who have spent decades playing. And George can carry out these instructions very, very quickly. All of a sudden, George starts clearing the table of your chess pieces. Despite not having a clue what he\\'s doing. \\n\\nFor the sake of balance, the rules start including things like \"**just skip this turn and munch a crayon**\". The number of wait commands in the instructions are determined by whether George is supposed to be easy, medium or hard mode.\\n\\nThis is fundamentally how AI works. The public (and Hollywood) perception of AI, is that of a thinking machine. Truthfully, it\\'s a set of pre-recorded instructions and conditional expressions. With sleep functions periodically used to stop the computer executing moves so quickly that the human gets curb stomped.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2804, "q_id": "3q86h6", "title": "Are there any important films we've lost forever because of the instability of nitrate film or just poor management in general with later film formats?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3q86h6/are_there_any_important_films_weve_lost_forever/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cwd4nle', 'cwd99ch', 'cwddn57', 'cwddwqd', 'cwdgrwy', 'cwdk9ye'], 'score': [97, 48, 9, 14, 11, 4], 'text': ['Oh heavens yes!  Lost films are [actually an extremely common phenomenon](_URL_2_) and professional archivist groups such as [NFPS](_URL_6_) and the Library of Congress [Film Preservation Board](_URL_5_) work actively to slow the loss.\\n\\nNow as to the question of whether any \"important\" films have been lost, that\\'s a bit subjective, though the Library of Congress estimates about [75% of silent films have been lost](_URL_1_), which is a simply incalulable loss for those wishing to study the history of film.\\n\\nIf you\\'re looking for specific examples of notable lost films, probably the most famous example is [Metropolis](_URL_0_), though restoration attempts have been largely succesful, so that doesn\\'t quite meet the \"forever\" criterion.  [Cleopatra](_URL_4_) might be a better example, because it was quite significant in the history of film making, and essentially none of it survives today.  On a personal note, if there was one lost film I could find, it would be [Humor Risk](_URL_3_), the Marx Brother\\'s first film, now totally lost, probably forever.', 'Poor management? How about a huge chunk of the popular TV series \"Doctor Who\"? Back in the 1960s, the video tape that British TV episodes were shot on was incredibly expensive, and the cost of storage was very high. Further, because of the expensive rights, many shows didn\\'t *seem* to have much hope for future reruns. So, a decision was made to wipe the master tapes of \"Doctor Who\" and reuse them for other productions. This junking continued up until the early 1970s, when fans realized the horror of what was actually occurring. A huge number of episodes were wiped, but a good number of them were recovered because fans realized that a few copies still resided in the UK, and more existed throughout the worldwide British Commonwealth due to overseas transmission. Nevertheless, 97 individual half hour episodes of the program remain completely missing. (As an interesting side story, the audio tracks of every one of those episodes survive thanks to an incredibly zealous early fan who, in the days before VCRs, hooked up a reel-to-reel audio recorder directly to his TV!) This happened with a number of other British TV shows in the 1960s as well. Most notable is the missing first season of \"The Avengers\", and three extant episodes of the popular show \"Dad\\'s Army\", but Doctor Who is by FAR the most famous example due to its continuing worldwide success.', \"*London After Midnight* with Lon Chaney might be the most famous lost movie. [Here's a list of famous lost films](_URL_1_) from Mental Floss and a [more extensive list](_URL_4_) at Shadowlocked. Wikipedia maintains what is probably [the most complete list](_URL_2_). For more in-depth details, you might read [Lost Films: Important Movies That Disappeared](_URL_3_) by Frank T. Thompson. \\n\\nYou might also be interested to know that some films once considered lost were rediscovered because when they were submitted for copyright, the filmmaker was required to print each frame of the film on paper and submit it to the Library of Congress. The paper prints have been scanned and the film reconstructed and the quality is remarkably pristine.  Some of these films can be found on the excellent [Treasures of the American Film Archives](_URL_0_) collection. \", 'Not sure if this is completely relevant here, but the original moon landing videos from Apollo 11 are lost. The original tapes holding recordings from the lunar module in SSTV format were all reused for later missions, and the only videos we have left are those of the TV broadcasts, converted from SSTV.', \"Many popular South Korean films were lost due to poor storage and management, and recycling of film for other uses.  For instance *The Housemaid* was a blockbuster that was thought lost for many years, but two reels were found in storage, with subtitles scrawled on them.  \\n\\n\\n > After owners of factories that manufactured a kind of straw hat popular among farmers realized that a strip of celluloid lent the headgear\u2019s otherwise flimsy brim an extraordinary sturdiness and, at the same time, made for a stylish decorative border, they began to purchase apparently worthless, worn- out 16 mm and 35 mm prints in bulk, once the films had finished their dollar- theater runs. Many classic titles were chopped into thousands of pieces as they were moved on a conveyor belt from exhaustion to extinction. When the popularity of the straw hats dwindled in the 1970s because of a rapid decline in the farming population, innovative chemists developed a way to efficiently extract silver from celluloid film. More invaluable works evaporated in that alchemical process, causing irreversible damage to South Korean film history; over 70 percent of films made before 1960 are now reported missing.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThere's an interesting possibility that many of them are preserved in Kim Jong-il's film archive; he had a longtime program to copy popular films and ship them to Pyongyang.  \", \"Much of Super Bowl I was lost due to the tapes being taped over. It's been mostly reconstructed now I believe but some parts are still missing.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film\\\\)#Restorations', 'http://www.thewire.com/culture/2013/12/most-americas-silent-films-are-lost-forever/355775/', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_films', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor_Risk', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_(1917_film\\\\)', 'http://www.loc.gov/programs/national-film-preservation-board/about-this-program', 'http://www.filmpreservation.org/'], [], ['http://www.filmpreservation.org/dvds-and-books/dvds-and-books', 'http://mentalfloss.com/article/26045/10-famous-lost-films', 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_films', 'http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Films-Important-Movies-Disappeared/dp/0806516046', 'http://www.shadowlocked.com/201101211323/lists/15-historically-significant-lost-films.html'], [], ['https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2993-the-housemaid-crossing-borders'], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 335, "q_id": "45ev3p", "title": "how obvious clickbait is an effective use of ad space.", "selftext": "\"7 vegetables that could KILL you!\"\n\"How to grow your penis 9 inches with this simple trick!\"\n\"This woman figured out 1 simple trick to look young. Doctors hate her\"", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45ev3p/eli5_how_obvious_clickbait_is_an_effective_use_of/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['czxatye', 'czxawxe', 'czxaz27', 'czxb5pa', 'czxod0l'], 'score': [5, 5, 35, 7, 6], 'text': [\"Humans are curious creatures. Even though most people know it's click bait, all it takes is a few clicks for them to make money. \", 'They target the lowest common denominator. You and I could probably be able to tell its bullshit by just being savvy or having actual knowledge in the field they\\'re advertising, but the group they\\'re trying to target are older people or soccer moms. It\\'s similar to why shows like Dr. Oz are popular, they have offer \"simple\" solutions for problems that the \"establishment just can\\'t figure out\". They\\'re more or less the tabloids of our generation. ', \"You'll never believe why this is such an effective use of ad space!\\n\\nELI5 version: Imagine you are fishing. A net might catch a lot of fish, but it's expensive and must be thrown into a targeted area. But imagine putting a really REALLY tasty bit of special fish food on a hook. Actually, it could taste like shit. The only important part is the smell. That really REALLY good smell attracts a fish. The fish bites the hook. Now... it doesn't really matter if they like the taste or not. The fisher got what he wanted. Lots of other fish might have recognized that smell and thought, that's obvious shit masked with a yummy odor, but a few fish will bite it. \\n\\nThese people don't care if their articles are shit. They want your click. It's effective because it works like bait, not a net. If I wrote an informative article I wouldn't advertise it. People looking for it would find it via google. A clickbait article is more like using bait, people are lured to it by that yummy smell without actually looking for it.\\n\\n\\nIt's effective because it works. There is an entire industry around it. People make a living by writing clickbait articles. We all know exactly what they are... and I bet we STILL click on them from time to time because... well, we take the bait.\", 'imagine you havent been on the internet for the last 10 years straight. i can totally imagine my mom go like \"oh damn i hope i didnt eat something that could kill me\" *click*', \"Because it filters out the people who would not fall for the scam anyways.  If you look at the ad and see that is is clickbait, you're not the type of person to input your name and address and other information in order to get a sampler of gluten free handsoap or whatever.  This is turn makes the people operating the scam have an easier job since they're not spending time trying to convince people who are already skeptical.\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 164, "q_id": "2oo893", "title": "with respect to the new anti-marijuana ads claiming pot is \"300-400% stronger today than in the past\", could this fact not be argued in a positive light in that this means users can smoke less and still get just as high? therefore reducing arguably the worst aspect of smoking. inhaling smoke?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oo893/eli5_with_respect_to_the_new_antimarijuana_ads/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cmoypq8', 'cmoz9bn', 'cmoziki', 'cmp02zb', 'cmp0ak7', 'cmp0doy', 'cmp0e6z', 'cmp0e7h', 'cmp19mc', 'cmp23v0', 'cmp25n7', 'cmp2yz9', 'cmp31mz'], 'score': [20, 12, 2, 4, 3, 2, 6, 4, 7, 2, 3, 2, 2], 'text': ['I think the argument here is that even though the drug is arguably much more potent than it used to be, people are still consuming roughly the same quantity of the drug per sitting so the effects are stronger than they used to be. I do not know whether or not that is actually true though.', 'To someone who\\'s not familiar with pot, \"300-400% stronger\" sounds scary as shit-- it conjures up a mental image akin to the relationship between vodka and jet fuel. This connection isn\\'t entirely accurate, and (as you said) may just lead to less product consumed, but for the purposes of their agenda that doesn\\'t really matter. ', \" In speaking with my mom and her brothers and sisters that are open about the subject, they would also agree that the amount they used to consume when they were younger was much higher than what I consumed at about the same age. That being said, these commercials were funded by the conservative government and have been blasted for not using any actual unbiased medical sources before releasing them, so I wouldn't worry too much about how much they matter. \", \"The same logic could be used towards our more highly processes, low fiber, high calorie foods. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to work that way.\", \"Most people I know who had abused pot in their teen years. Is either a burn out or a bit questionable in the brain department now. \\nLike anything else in life educating your kids that they shouldn't abuse it is a must. I've smoked. But never in my teen years and I'm glad i didn't. \\nAlso naturally grown marijuana has a lot of medicinal value. But these days they focus on weeding those qualities out and upping the thc. \\nJust like alcohol. Don't abuse it. But legalize it so that it can be regulated and studied more thoroughly. I say that for all psychedelic drugs. \", \"One thing that I think needs to be discussed is the fact your brain comes equipped with canabanoid receptors. When we use them too much they don't damage at all, they simply turn off. So I suppose the tolerance question comes into play. If it's so much stronger, why is it when I give my Vietnam Era father a dab, he swears it's the exact same as the hash oil of decades past? At the end of the day we're taking about a plant that happens to have some effects when it is exposed to heat. One of those effects happens to be curing epilepsy. If the consequence of the current day cannabis breeding actually dose make it stronger, I can tell you from living in Colorado my entire life that you will not notice the difference. This isn't like from cocaine to crack. We don't have people robbing dispensary's. We don't have hash addicts begging on corners. Despite the quality of the product people who typically use out here are the elderly, sick, and hard working blue/white collar Americans. This insanity over the quality and legalization is simple fear and propaganda, and a little research and seeking of opinions is the only way we're ever gonna come to a middle ground on anything.\", \"It's hilarious to go back through old ads.  Pot in the 70's was 4x stronger than in the 60', pot in the 80's was 4x stronger than in the 70's, in the 90's it was 4x stronger than in the 80's, etc.\\n\\nSince it started out at about 5 percent THC it now consists of approximately 300 percent THC and will create a space time singularity at any moment.\\n\\nIt's just a matter of selection bias.  You take the strongest sample you can find today and compare it to the average or weak sample from the past, then shout about how much stronger it is now. Truth?  The average is higher than it used to be, there used to be a lot more crap on the market, these days even the average is decent.  That's why it seems like it's stronger.  Even in the 60's if you knew where to get it there was pot just as good as the best of today, if not better, but it was rarer.\", \"It's like comparing liquor to beer. You don't drink as much liquor because it gets you intoxicated faster. Some goes with stronger strains of weed. Just take 2 hits instead of 5, or whatever your tolerance allows. It's a silly comparison and doesn't make much sense. It's not like someone would would chug a bottle of vodka.\", 'Yes and hard alcohol is 1000% more potent then beer', 'Funny enough I thought that these numbers sounded a bit off so I looked into the research.   Their data is taken from the processing of plants taken from illegal growers during drug busts.   Their \"300%-400%\" stronger number comes from the  amount of THC for the ENTIRE plant.   This isn\\'t showing that marijuana has gotten stronger it is showing that the average amount of THC on a single plant has gone up.   This doesn\\'t mean you are going to get crazy strong weed,  it means the growers have gotten better at growing and are getting better yields. \\n\\nThese advertisements are misleading. ', \"2,700 ago, they were growing extremely potent, almost completely seedless marijuana, comparable to todays commercially grown cannabis. That isn't done accidentally.\\nWhile it is true westerners have in recent decades figured out how to maximize the potential of the plant, making it much more potent, those growing techniques have been known by other cultures for thousands of years.\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nEdit: forgot a word because of thc content\", 'exactly this... yes.\\n\\nwhenever you hear 60-70 year old people talking about how \"powerful\" weed is now... they are comparing it to dirt weed full of seeds and low THC content from when they were kids... before the \"war on drugs\" was ramped up and the hippy culture was suppressed.\\n\\nback in the day people would sit around and smoke joint after joint to get high, it\\'s when blunts were invented.\\n\\ncontrast that to these days where 5 or 6 people can split a small joint and get just as high.\\n\\nfar less smoke/tar/carcinogens yet all the benefits of the THC.\\n\\nif you look at old paraphernalia from back then... even stuff as early as the late 80\\'s early 90\\'s before \"good weed\" started to become nationwide... the bowls were **huge**. like you could pack 3 or 4 grams in them.\\n\\nnow you have tiny bowls, even smaller if you are looking at dab\\'s/oil/wax stuff. because you can pack a very small bowl with enough marijuana for 2 hits and it\\'s more than enough to get you high or relieve your symptoms.\\n\\nthat being said... it\\'s all complete horseshit anyway. some of the stronger strains from back in the day, when grown properly, were very potent... much higher THC content than this absurd scare ad is claiming.\\n\\nwas it *as* strong as some of the more potent strains these days? probably not, selective breeding and advanced growing techniques have driven the THC content much higher... but %400 is just ridiculous.\\n\\nkeep in mind whenever you hear crap like this that it is all coming from people who profit from marijuana remaining illegal (prison workers unions, alcohol and tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical corps, prison labor based production, etc...).\\n ', 'There is a limit to how high you can get,youll throw up or fall asleep at a certain point . If smoking flower,your lungs tell you when youve smoked enough. Wont want another hit cause you cough so badly. Anti weed ads are mostly bs,just people who stand to lose alot of money put ads up against weed. Or religious nuts.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28034925/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/worlds-oldest-marijuana-stash-totally-busted/'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2817, "q_id": "n9de8", "title": "A teacher showed us Masaru Emoto's study on frozen water drops when given \"good\" and \"bad\" emotions. True or False?", "selftext": "I was in a class and a teacher was speaking about how prayer helps people and how miracles appear from prayer. Then she started speaking about Masaru Emoto and how he discovered that when you talk \"nice\" to water, its structure changes to a \"nice\" structure showing a crystal-like image.\n\nAny thoughts? Fake? Real?\n\nThanks!", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n9de8/a_teacher_showed_us_masaru_emotos_study_on_frozen/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c37arit', 'c37ax0r', 'c37b2de', 'c37bft7', 'c4awk5y', 'c37arit', 'c37ax0r', 'c37b2de', 'c37bft7'], 'score': [17, 9, 13, 3, 2, 17, 9, 13, 3], 'text': ['What kind of class was this? [Emoto is a faker](_URL_0_).', 'That guy is associated with a company that sells small jars of water for $100 each.  The website is full of fake science.\\n\\nThose photographs were hand-picked to show whatever it is he intended to show.  Emoto admits to this:\\n\\n >  Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'This man is making an extraordinary claim. There is no known mechanism that would explain his results, and they run counter to what we currently believe to be true about the natural world. Therefore, his evidence has to be of an extremely high quality, and it would have to be independently verified and replicated before it gained any credence.\\n\\nIn particular, the things one would want to consider when assessing an experiment like this would be:\\n\\nWere all the water samples used in the experiment prepared and obtained in the same way at the outset - that is were they identical?\\nIdeally a chemical analysis of water samples from each group before and after the experiment should be provided.\\n\\nWas there a control group that was not exposed to any stimulus?\\n\\nWere the people who assessed the \"niceness\" of the crystals blinded to which stimulus the water had received?\\n\\nThe actual numerical data:\\nHow many samples in each group?\\nWhat exposure, how many times, for how long?\\nHow were the results graded - a simple \"nice\" or \"ugly\" or perhaps a numerical scale from 1 to 10?\\nHow many people assessed each sample - was there only one or were there multiple assessors?\\nIn each group how many samples were there, how many assessments were there, and what were the results from each assessment?\\n\\nThese are only a few questions off the top of my head, I am sure there are others that people can think up. The first step in assessing this claim would be the obtaining the answers to these questions, and if they are not published anywhere it is not worth considering the claim any further. ', 'Fake. The person making pictures knew what the words that were written on the glass that the water was in, meant. So for nice words he would look for the crystals that turned out beautiful, while for bad words he would look for the most dramatic/ugly chrystals.\\n\\nDo you have a microscope somewhere in the school? Repeat the experiment for yourself. Try to make it scientific by making it a double blind experiment, and/or by having more than two dishes and more than one observer. ', 'Lol my dad used to tell me it was bad listening to metal and the like because of this shit. He said it would alter the water inside our bodies negatively. \\n\\nI think a class in statistics, learning about the scientific method, the design of scientific studies, types of studies (which would ideally be peer-reviewed double-blind placebo controlled), etc. would really benefit people as well as using critical thinking.', 'What kind of class was this? [Emoto is a faker](_URL_0_).', 'That guy is associated with a company that sells small jars of water for $100 each.  The website is full of fake science.\\n\\nThose photographs were hand-picked to show whatever it is he intended to show.  Emoto admits to this:\\n\\n >  Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.\\n\\n_URL_0_', 'This man is making an extraordinary claim. There is no known mechanism that would explain his results, and they run counter to what we currently believe to be true about the natural world. Therefore, his evidence has to be of an extremely high quality, and it would have to be independently verified and replicated before it gained any credence.\\n\\nIn particular, the things one would want to consider when assessing an experiment like this would be:\\n\\nWere all the water samples used in the experiment prepared and obtained in the same way at the outset - that is were they identical?\\nIdeally a chemical analysis of water samples from each group before and after the experiment should be provided.\\n\\nWas there a control group that was not exposed to any stimulus?\\n\\nWere the people who assessed the \"niceness\" of the crystals blinded to which stimulus the water had received?\\n\\nThe actual numerical data:\\nHow many samples in each group?\\nWhat exposure, how many times, for how long?\\nHow were the results graded - a simple \"nice\" or \"ugly\" or perhaps a numerical scale from 1 to 10?\\nHow many people assessed each sample - was there only one or were there multiple assessors?\\nIn each group how many samples were there, how many assessments were there, and what were the results from each assessment?\\n\\nThese are only a few questions off the top of my head, I am sure there are others that people can think up. The first step in assessing this claim would be the obtaining the answers to these questions, and if they are not published anywhere it is not worth considering the claim any further. ', 'Fake. The person making pictures knew what the words that were written on the glass that the water was in, meant. So for nice words he would look for the crystals that turned out beautiful, while for bad words he would look for the most dramatic/ugly chrystals.\\n\\nDo you have a microscope somewhere in the school? Repeat the experiment for yourself. Try to make it scientific by making it a double blind experiment, and/or by having more than two dishes and more than one observer. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/myths/myths.htm'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#Criticism'], [], [], [], ['http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/myths/myths.htm'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#Criticism'], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 287, "q_id": "2kscgd", "title": "why aren't there any mammals with green fur considering there is so much green in the natural world?", "selftext": "Maybe there is and I'm just not thinking of it but it just seems that green would be a common trait given the amount of green vegitation.  I realize that many mammal species live on the ground where things are typically darker but it just seems like there would be a few species with green fur wouldn't there be?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kscgd/eli5_why_arent_there_any_mammals_with_green_fur/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['clo7yxj', 'clo8lxt', 'clo98yo', 'clo9y3t', 'cloahwh', 'clobh6q', 'clod4ii', 'clodurs', 'clodzsw', 'clog4d0', 'clogvep', 'cloi6rk', 'cloiowc', 'cloj69h', 'clolr1g', 'clomwof', 'cloozen', 'closq88', 'clou6s4', 'clovt6k'], 'score': [2, 2, 52, 132, 6, 37, 6, 2, 6, 12, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"Plants are green because of chlorophyll. There's no chlorophyll in fur.\", \"Thinking about it, it's a very justified question.\\n\\nMaybe because of mating behaviour. Too good a camouflage on your body and the females don't recognize you either.\", \"Sloths are the only mammals that come close to having green fur. They have a symbiotic relationship with green algae. So, while they're not born with it, it grows on their fur and aids a great deal in camouflaging their bodies up in the trees.\\n\\n[Sloth](_URL_0_)\", \"Giving this my best shot: The hair colouring is decided by the chemical structures that make it up. Depending on the ratios of two chemicals (eumelanin and pheomelanin) hair colours range from black through brown, red, and into white. There just isn't a colour in there for green and there isn't much of a selective pressure to have such a colour in mammals. The colours we have are good enough.\", \"What constitutes camouflage is dependant on the optical properties and brain processing of what you're trying to fool. Animals senses are very different to ours, what and how they see is equally different. What stands out to us is usually not what stands out to them (as whilst our other senses are dull by comparison, our colour vision is some of the best on the planet).\\n\\nGreen fur would be pointless if either predator or prey aren't advantaged by it. Perhaps green is an 'expensive' pigmentation in evolutionary terms, perhaps it isn't necessary for the animal to fool other animals? We don't know. Perhaps the most obvious reason not to disguise yourself as a plant is that plants are edible - it would be better to disguise yourself as a rock, or a stick, or dry grass, rather than verdant vegetation.\\n\", 'My hunch is that there are several reasons.  \\n\\nFirst, many predator eyes are very sensitive to green.  In humans, cats, and other predators, green variations are the most apparent color. Mammals are not creatures known for having big warning colors, instead are more known for stealth. Mammals have browns, blacks, grays, and mottled white, colors that eyes are usually less sensitive to.\\n\\nAlso, while short grass may be green, long grass is very often a yellow/brown with mottled light. While tree leaves are green large mammals don\\'t live near leaves but near trunks, which are yellow/brown and have texture.  Shadows are dark grays and browns with occasional light spots rather than vivid greens and reds. Bare dirt is brown with occasional light spots. \\n\\nThe earliest mammals were predators, which means hunting and likely hiding, which in turn means blending in with brush and dirt. Most mammal young are relatively defenseless and need to hide, another area where \"dark with light spots\" is excellent. One time I very nearly stepped on some newborn deer, their brown with white spots was almost invisible in the underbrush.\\n\\nCouple them, excellent for hiding and protecting the young, excellent for sneaking up on prey (especially before herbivores evolved), and you\\'ve got a recipe for grays, browns, dark yellows, and light patterns.', \"The background is often not green....imagine a field mouse.  She lives under the grass, and the ground is brown / grey soil.  So she's camouflaged against the soil\\n\\nDeer have brown fur with spots. This is to do with dispersion of light....as they move through the long grass they blend in more with their background.\\n\\nTigers really seem to stand out because they are bright orange with black stripes, but again this is to do with dispersion...as soon as a tiger is walking through long, dry grass it pretty much vanishes due to the dispersion effect.\", \"I imagine that if there were more mammals that had green fur/hair, it would also be conflicting among those who eat greens (vegetables and grass) and those who eat meat. Lots of fighting out there in the wild for the kangaroos and goats who decided to munch down some grass and suddenly finds themselves in the wake of a fight with one of their natural predators.\\n\\nLong story short, survival of the fittest dictates that only the most fit will survive. I'm not sure how effective it would be for any mammal to be green and survive in their area despite what could be a green leafy environment. However, maybe there was a mammal species that lived centuries ago that was green and died out!\", 'Evolution doesn\\'t just pick a point and try to get to it.   There\\'s no evolution director saying \"Yeah, if your fur were green you would do better\" and then go and redesign the genome so that they could make green fur. \\n\\nEvolution is a slow process.  The way that fur is colored makes it hard for that to happen. There\\'s the same range of hair colors for pretty much everything, and its the range of whites to blacks, reds, oranges, yellows and browns, which are made by melanins or lack thereof. \\n\\nEvolution happens slowly. You\\'d need a completely new compound to make green fur.  You\\'d have to take steps towards that.  But the steps toward that wouldn\\'t make your fur any greener, so it wouldn\\'t improve your likelihood of passing the genes down.  \\n\\nThink about something like a mallard.  Mallards have green heads.  But not because of green pigment.  The pigments on feathers are the same pigments in hair and fur.  But they have evolved to grow the small feathers on their head to be a specific shape that reflects green light.  This is called a structural color.  This is something you can do with a feather because of its structural strength, but you can\\'t do with fur. \\n\\nBasically, you have skins that have living cells on them.  Living cells have a lot of options for colors, even letting the organism change it\\'s color.  Skin can be a lot of colors because it\\'s alive.\\n\\nThen you have something like feathers and insect scales, which are pretty rigid structures.  They are colored by melanin pigments to be the normal brown, red, black, blonde, white colors.  But they can also hold a rigid structure that refracts particular wavelengths of visible light. \\n\\nThen you have something like hair, which are non-living cells, and are flexible and soft, and grow differently than feathers.  They can develop structural color, (I found a few examples) but it\\'s rare.\\n\\nThen you have some examples of things like sloths with blue-green fur through a kind of symbiotic relationship with algae and properties of their fur. \\n\\nBut basically, the more rigid structure of feathers and insect scales made it easier for them to develop structural colors.  It\\'s possible for them to exist in mammal fur, but is a big leap evolutionarily so it happens rarely.  \\n\\nFur works really well.  Fur coloring works really well.  In order to evolve to have green pigment we\\'d basically have to see a new organism re-develop fur from the ground up in a different way, or mess with it ourselves. ', \"Maybe those with green fur are so sneaky you've never seen one OP. Think about. \", 'In a world full of low bushes, grasslands... a nice number of green furs would have come up for sure. \\n\\nIn a world where nearly everything projects from grey to dark shadows, green is not an option if you are on the move. Rainforests or rather thick forests are only green seen from above. Once you enter, a greyish-brownish darkness is the most common light situation. The green of birds gives them a chance to get overseen within the highest branches or leaves of trees, and most of the green lizards I know share the taste for insects to be caught close to flowers. \\n\\nToo many shadows in this world. :)\\n\\n ', 'Why is mammal coloration so dull?\\n\\n \"mammals have principally just two types of pigments: eumelanin and pheomelanin, both of which have their   color variants, but within a known range. Bird pigments, besides melanins, include carotenoids and porphyrins. Arthropods generally have carotenoids, melanins and ommochromes [and other pigments?]. E.g. carotenoids and ommochromes alone can create rather \"exotic\" coloration from a mammal point of view (green, pink, violet).\\n\\n birds and insects actively utilize iridescence. With fur it seems to be technically much more difficult to achieve than with feather or scales.\\n\\n many (most?) mammals do not differentiate colors. Birds have much better vision abilities in this respect. From a selectionist point of view this cuts out a considerable part of selection acting upon coloration, which could otherwise produce broader spectrum of phenotypes.\"\\n\\nfrom _URL_0_', 'For the same reason that there aren\\'t (many) blue fish. An all-blue fish would look blue and stand out to animals above it, would look dark to animals below it looking up towards the water\\'s surface and would have a \"shadow\" on its underside when viewed from the side. It would be very easy to see and would be eaten unless it had some other defense. This is why many fish and other animals, including many birds and mammals, have a dark top and are lighter underneath. It\\'s basically an optical illusion to make them cast less of a shadow. This principal is called [countershading.](_URL_1_)\\n\\nSo animals that use countershading already have an adequate coloring scheme to make them harder to see. Why aren\\'t more of them green on top? The answer for fish is obvious. Most of the birds and mammals that I can think of that have it live in temperate zones so green coloring wouldn\\'t help them in the winter. (Plus spring-green color looks different from summer-green, etc.)\\n\\nLions and gazelles live in yellow grass so they need to be yellow not green. (Note that they use countershading to either hide from their prey or sneak up on it.) Elephants don\\'t really need it. Chimps hide in trees and aren\\'t as worried about predators up there, zebras look the way they do because they travel in herds and their coloration [makes it harder for predators to single out a single animal to chase](_URL_0_), etc.\\n\\nPeople wear green when they don\\'t want to be noticed in the wild because the whole countershading thing wouldn\\'t work for us based on our upright posture. A [leafy brown color](_URL_2_) (such as that found on animals) might also work and of course soldiers wear white in winter when there\\'s snow on the ground.', 'The green fur never evolved  to become dominant because the green fur mutations got eaten in the winter when there was no green around to hide them', \"From most of whsat I've read, green fur color would b e of no particular value since most predatory animals (wolves, lions, etc.) don't see in color and so their prey depend upon coloration and patterns that best blend with their background, whenb seen in black and white.\", 'Brown is actually better camouflage than green. The green stuff is mostly off the ground, the stuff on/near the ground is mostly brown.', \"Good question, it's actually pretty simple: Green pigment comes from chlorophyll, which is a molecule that enables plants to conduct photosynthesis (turn sunlight to energy). Since fur doesn't need to do this, no chlorophyll, and unfortunately no green dogs running around.\", \"I'll take a shot:  I heard plants evolved to be green because it absorbed the wavelength of light (red and blue) that best suited their growth given the climate...in fact, I think originally plants were largely darker purple and red colors if I remember correctly (due to the composition of the atmosphere effecting the light it gets, possibly?, so absorbing different wavelengths could act as a shield against too much light/heat?)   \\n\\nAlso, animals don't have as many needs that are based on (or influenced by) light, so our fur/skin evolution didn't prioritize itself as heavily in the direction of light-based evolutionary reactions/changes, as much as toward factors that would allow us to, for example, hide from predators in the best way, or other things that are more relevant to the survival/lifestyle of a moving, acting creature, as opposed to one that is much less self-sufficient.  We can easily move around to control our temperature, for example.  The shade of the plant will effect the heat/light it gets\\n\\n\", 'The world, even in green forests, is way more brown than green. See for yourself: Go walking with two friends. Have one wear green, the other brown. The one wearing green will be VERY visible.\\n', 'Because chlorophyll, the substance responsible for giving plants their green color, is exclusive to plants. It is something they need to make food combined with sunlight, and animals do not make their own food. ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], ['http://deoxy.org/gaia/eyefood/sloth.jpg'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/10179/why-is-mammal-coloration-so-dull'], ['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra#Stripes', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countershading', 'http://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/columbia-monarch-pass-wool-jacket-brown-camo?a=1031174'], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 285, "q_id": "25uz1o", "title": "Do members of British Royalty eventually loses the title of being part of the royal family?", "selftext": "Let's say the youngest son of the youngest son of the youngest son... since the earliest line of British Royalty. What happens to them? Do they still have titles today or do they eventually just get forgotten? ", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25uz1o/do_members_of_british_royalty_eventually_loses/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['chl039n', 'chl19rx'], 'score': [131, 17], 'text': [\"The British nobility (still, in fact) uses a system of male primogeniture; most of the holdings of the father, including the family estate and the titles, pass on to the eldest son, while younger children receive a smaller share. Titles do not pass on to daughters, except in the absence of sons; daughters, however, can of course marry into titled nobility and thus gain one by right of her husband.\\n\\nWhat customarily happens in the English royal family is that titles are created for all sons. The Prince of Wales is traditionally the heir apparent, while the younger sons hold duchies: the second son of King Henry IV was thus Thomas, 1st Duke of Clarence, third son John, Duke of Bedford, and fourth son Humprey, Duke of Gloucester. These are some of the traditional titles given to close relatives of the reigning monarch; they would ordinarily pass down in the male line until it becomes extinct, after which the title could then be again bestowed on a new line.\\n\\nFor the other sons of the royal dukes, titles may be created by the king at some point, much like for other younger sons of the high nobility: this could happen, for example, as a result of political or military service. This may be more likely than for an average member of the nobility; royal blood was obviously valued. This blood, and thus the status from being related to royalty, would dilute through the generations, so yes - eventually any advantage would be lost.\\n\\nSo to give an example; if a fictional king has two sons, one will be the heir apparent, Prince of Wales, and the other will be created Duke of Clarence. The Duke of Clarence has two sons: the elder will be the 2nd Duke of Clarence, the younger will have no title but one may be created for him, say Earl of Buckingham. He, again, has two sons. The elder son will be the 2nd Earl of Buckingham, the younger will have no title. \\n\\nAt this point it is less likely that the younger son will gain a title: he will be three generations removed from royal blood and will probably have less to do with the court and politics within it. If one continues this for several generations the younger sons of younger sons will be of increasingly low rank, though this may be corrected by a fresh marriage into the high nobility or extraordinary personal ability, leading to contributions in military or political affairs and thus fresh titles. \\n\\nIt is also notable that especially in pre-modern history these situations may not happen as frequently as one might expect. Infant mortality was high, and not all royal brothers had children; out of the duchies Henry IV created for his sons, none passed on, as none of the three dukes had legitimate issue (though they did have bastard sons). The younger sons joining the ecclesiastical orders was also a way in which splitting the inheritance could be avoided.\\n\\nSo - yes, after some generations the younger sons will lose the advantages of royal status. This is also illustrated by contemporary etiquette: a sovereign's great-grandchildren are addressed as Lords or Ladies, but thereafter there is no set form of address or title.\\n\", \"The current system of royal titles dates from 1917, when in the midst of World War One, King George V issued letters patent declaring exactly who would be eligible for the title Prince or Princess and the corresponding HRH. This stated that the only people automatically granted royal status are the sovereign, his or her children, his or her grandchildren (in the male line. This means that while Prince Andrew's children were automatically Princesses, Princess Anne's were granted no royal title) and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. \\nBefore this, all great-grandchildren (once again in the male line) were automatically given the title Prince or Princess, with the slightly lesser designation HH (Highness vs Royal Highness). This meant that George VI, born as great-grandson of the Queen, was originally styled His Highness Prince Albert of York before being elevated to the Royal Highness level. \\nThese letters have been modified a few times. Most recently, when Prince William and Kate were expecting, the Queen issued Letters Patent to say that their child would be styled a Royal Highness, whether or not it was a boy or a girl. \\nSorry for any formatting issues, I'm on my phone\\n[Further explanation here](_URL_0_)\"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], ['http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/daughter-of-william-and-kate-will-be-a-princess-8444692.html']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1091, "q_id": "to0p1", "title": "Why does my watch face become a mirror under water?", "selftext": "When I hold my watch face-on underwater (with my head above water) I can read the time with no problem.  If I rotate the watch by 45 degrees in any direction then the face becomes a mirror. I'm guessing it's something to do with refraction, but what exactly is happening?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/to0p1/why_does_my_watch_face_become_a_mirror_under_water/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c4o8wwx'], 'score': [12], 'text': ['The index of refraction of water is larger than that of air. That affects the angle of total reflection between the air/glass surface.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[]]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1557, "q_id": "7xfhvg", "title": "- why when watching hd movies is the dialogue volume so low and the background noises (score, explosions, etc) so loud?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7xfhvg/eli5_why_when_watching_hd_movies_is_the_dialogue/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['du7xhx1', 'du7yfj8', 'du86ain', 'du8ci9a', 'du8csiy', 'du8hxsq', 'du8jc0y', 'du8m963', 'du8nlqt', 'du8pbv0', 'du8rar8', 'du8sldw', 'du8sugs', 'du8vat9', 'du90ktt', 'du93s0c'], 'score': [58, 377, 16, 48, 31, 20, 4, 8, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2], 'text': [\"You need at least a 5.1 surround system and equalize the center channel with the others.  Dialogue is usually in the center channel, so it's volume should be increased relative to the other channels\", \"Having a high dynamic range (the difference in volume at reference amplification between the lowest whisper sound and the loudest explosion in the soundtrack) is often a sought after factor. In proper professional movie theatres where you won't bother a neighbour this is a good thing. For most consumers it's pretty annoying. If you're able to, when I set up my surround sound I program the center channel at least 3db louder than any other speaker to compensate for the quiet voice thing. Many receiver/amps have also a night mode that compresses Dynamic range as well although I haven't been a fan when I've tried it. \", 'Make sure you\\'re using the correct audio settings for your setup. If you have 5 speakers and 1 subwoofer, you have a 5.1 system. In that case, you\\'ll want to boost your center channel volume by a decibel or two at a time until it feels right. You may also have a calibration option in your audio receiver; if so, I recommend trying that first.  \\n\\nIf you only have two speakers, make sure your player and receiver are set to 2.0 or dual-channel audio. If they\\'re set to 5.1 and you don\\'t have that setup, you\\'re unable to hear 4 channels of audio that the video player thinks you have. One of those channels is the center channel, which is commonly used for voice.  \\n\\nOnce you\\'re using the correct settings, voice should be much closer to the score and action scenes in movies. If it\\'s still significantly quieter, you can try setting your audio to \"mono\" (last resort, you\\'ll lose audio directionality) or try one of the other suggestions here; the above scenarios are just the most common I\\'ve seen.', \"I experience it just out of TV speakers. Literally can't watch a damn thing without having it super loud. I used to have a htpc plugged into my TV and windows has an audio setting called Loud Equilization which completely fixed it, but can't replicate it on other devices. I now just have an Android box connected to the TV and been trying to find and equivalent setting. Unless I wear headphones, as soon as music or an action scene plays in the show, wife comes out 'can you turn that down a bit please', at which point I just switch the TV off because it's fucking pointless. \", \"Can fix that with VLC player it's simple to do _URL_0_\", \"To add to what others are saying, and it hasn't been specifically mentioned so far, is that filmmakers set out *deliberately* to create the huge gap between dialogue and explosions. In sound editing there are a few standards (like LUFS) that define peak waveforms in dB. It's standard practice in the industry, intended to be viewed in theatres.\", \"Here's my question. Compressors are super simple. Maybe the answer is processor speed but why in the hell do 5.1 systems not have good compressors? I've even got dynamic EQ and automatic volume automation (not a compressor) in my recording software. These things will work in real time on software monitored tracks with no noticeable (eh, within reason) latency. Besides, how hard could it possibly be to delay the picture by the same amount of time the latency of such processing would introduce to the sound? I have a Night Time setting on my Boston Audio system that does nothing but bump the vocal range in the eq. Compressors damn it! We want compressors!\", \"I've never noticed this but it's probably because I always watch everything with the subtitles on. That way is someone is doing the dishes or cooking or something I don't have to rewind or miss anything. It does suck with comedies because it screws up the timing of the jokes, but other then that I love it. I've been doing it since high school and now am just used to it. It sometimes bugs other people (roommates, parents) but they are usually polite and let me do it and then eventually get used to it. \", \"Some people have answered this partly in my view. It depends on your speaker system as well as your settings. Double check to make sure that if you're listening through TV or computer speakers,the settings are appropriate, rather than 5.1. \\n\\nI worked in the film audio industry and yes the industry standard is to mix at a certain level (dialogue at approx.  -24dbFS for theatrical mix and -20dbFS for TV, meaning that for TV, there is 20 db of headroom for louder sounds). I did think it was a bit odd when there is also a large population listening on bad speakers or built in speakers that won't be hearing what we mixers are hearing. Yes, some software for your speakers/amps do calibrate this, but I've tested my mixes before  and it didn't sound nearly similar enough to what I was hearing in a studio. Bad hardware can only go so far.\\n\\nThere are certain standards that Netflix, Disney, and other distributors/broadcasters have that mixes need to meet. I actually think the QC that they do doesn't focus on dialogue clarity as much as it should, and I definitely have heard dialogue that I thought was too quiet. Realism and art is good for sure, but in most scenes I just want to hear what a character is saying. I feel that there should be a review of how mixes are done and delivered, especially when there is a larger audience watching via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon prime, etc than theatres. \", 'I\\'d double check that surround sound signals are actually reaching your receiver. If you run it through your tv, then to your receiver, the tv may be stripping it down to PCM (2.0 channels) due to fears of copyright protection, then your receiver is emulating PCM back into surround, creating the problem you\\'re describing. Using all HDMI with the ARC (audio return channel) function shouldn\\'t strip it down, but it still may if it doesn\\'t pass the HDCP (high definition copy protection) check.\\n\\nTry running either optical or digital out from your player directly to your receiver, and check that the receiver options are set to Dolby, not just \"all speakers\", which is a fancy form of stereo 2.1. Hopefully that will correct your issue!', \"This is actually a thing?  Thanks OP.  I keep discussing for real with my wife if I'm loosing my hearing or not with all these new shows as I can't hear for shit what they're saying but then the SFX comes on and suddenly its too loud.\", \"Looking at you The Walking Dead! If there wasn't subtitles I wouldn't know what's being said and my speakers would be blown the second anything action like would happen \", \"Nothing to do with HD stuff. This has been an issue since the VHS days(Though rarer back then. I had some tapes that did this). It's to do with the sound mixing.\\n\\nTV has this problem a lot, even when it's got nothing to do with surround sound and stuff(I was playing volume jockey in the 90s a lot when watching cable TV). So do many net videos.\", 'We need, for want of a better name, an Old Man button.  Where the dark scenes suddenly become well lit, where the dialogue level is high, and where the explosions  &  sound effects are at a low level.  As an extra, especially for complicated murder/mystery/crime shows or movies, a pop up that helps you remember the person they are taking about.  Like \u201cBob\u201d did something, the murder perhaps, and you are all ... which one is Bob?  Is he the ex-husband or the mechanic?  Then a little pop up comes with a picture and a quick reminder.  It\u2019s brilliant.  ', \"I have fought this problem ever since playing dvds on PS2, which seemed to exhibit this problem even more than other players.\\n\\nIf you don't have a receiver or you are playing the sound through the tv speakers, there is little to be done.  You could try changing dynamic range on the player or see if there is a dialogue boost setting on the tv or dvd player.\\n\\nIf you have a receiver or some form of a sound system, you can, as others have said, boost the center channel.  I have my system setup where it accepts 5.1/7.1 and plays it through 4 speakers (2 front and 2 rear).  It is a phantom center channel, so the center channel gets played through my big front speakers.  I've noticed the front speakers have a much bigger frequency range than the center, so having the center channel speaker lost some of the experience (for example the rain sequence at the beginning of gladiator - having a center speaker causes some of the clear rain sounds to disappear or not play at all).  So this has improved dialogue a little.  \\n\\nIn my experience, having very loud music/background noise/ everything else and quiet dialogue is a sign of a poorly encoded audio mix.  I forget where I read it, but I think issues with dialogue volume are instances where the audio tracks weren't adjusted properly from levels set while playing at the movie theaters vs the levels encoded into the blu ray.  I've changed every setting imaginable, and run with my center channel boosted 10db and it still doesn't fix the issue on certain movies.  It is extremely annoying having to turn down the volume when people are not speaking because the volume is what to high.  \", 'I am in the movie business.\\n\\nMovies are sound balanced for theater volume.  At home people keep from rattling furniture, turning the volume down which muddies speech. Movies that are made for tv, are sound balanced for a lower playback volume.  \\n\\nMovies made for foreign distribution sets the volume even louder than US theaters.  Bollywood, is a good example.\\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], ['https://lifehacker.com/5920290/how-to-fix-movies-that-are-really-quiet-then-really-loud'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1828, "q_id": "2uttgb", "title": "why isn't there any passion from both democrats and republicans about making voting day a national holiday?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uttgb/eli5_why_isnt_there_any_passion_from_both/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cobm3uw', 'cobm5oy', 'cobm9h7', 'cobmbgn', 'coboq1f', 'cobpddv', 'cobpp72', 'cobq7e3', 'cobrkzf', 'cobrqik', 'cobrx5d', 'cobrznw', 'cobs1oz', 'cobs60w', 'cobs7it', 'cobs9mt', 'cobsgqn', 'cobspjg', 'cobsvrz', 'cobsyv6', 'cobt8e6', 'cobtfxo', 'cobtswa', 'cobtulf', 'cobty2e', 'cobty5c', 'cobu0c0', 'cobu4mj', 'cobuc4x', 'cobug83', 'cobur2f', 'cobv0i0', 'cobv6g0', 'cobv958', 'cobvdnx', 'cobve11', 'cobvi8i', 'cobvidu', 'cobvj9p', 'cobvplx', 'cobvr56', 'cobvvp5', 'cobvzn1', 'cobw21m', 'cobw2rk', 'cobw8t8', 'cobwkof', 'cobwo6q', 'cobww0v', 'cobx2rp', 'cobx5gw', 'cobxe9c', 'cobxmnx', 'cobxrim', 'cobxyua', 'coby7am', 'coby866', 'cobyft6', 'cobyl4o', 'cobyudh', 'cobywuu', 'cobyyyh', 'cobyzv9', 'cobzf0z', 'cobzhdy', 'cobzy9g', 'coc05ds', 'coc0b3f', 'coc0fn6', 'coc0ko1', 'coc0m0r', 'coc0sp9', 'coc0yrq', 'coc11lh', 'coc16zq', 'coc1884', 'coc1ujv', 'coc1x7m', 'coc25jm', 'coc287d', 'coc28px', 'coc2dwx', 'coc2mpl', 'coc2zeg', 'coc31p7', 'coc329w', 'coc38ii', 'coc3ibe', 'coc41nf', 'coc48bu', 'coc4jn4', 'coc4wbr', 'coc5482', 'coc6iju', 'coc6zn3', 'coc797k', 'coc81mt', 'cocbbbn', 'coccqjt'], 'score': [25, 8, 10, 1706, 1411, 236, 2, 63, 2, 9, 89, 2, 122, 23, 3, 3, 7, 5, 4, 2, 280, 8, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 38, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 8, 2, 3, 17, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 11, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 10, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2], 'text': ['What would it actually do? Just because something is a national holiday does not mean that any employer would be required to give anyone the day off. It would be largely symbolic and not really do anything to actually increase voting. ', \"Probably because then the people coming out would be more likely to be moderates,  and therefore unpredictable.  As it stands, people holding more extreme party views are more likely to come out to vote, as they tend to care more. If incentive to not vote is taken away (such as not having to work) then the moderates have more incentive to vote.  (I'm no expert, just taking a Government and Politics class)\", 'Voter suppression is an important tactic for the Republican party.  The Republican base is generally smaller but more dedicated,  making voting as hard as possible means that more democrats stay home rather than take time off work and go down to the polls with 9 forms of photo ID . This allows them to win elections even with a smaller base of support.', \"The Republican party would certainly not benefit from the move. Their target demographics tend to be wealthier, older, or both. In other words, people who do not especially need a national holiday to get off work, or who can afford to take a day off. Furthermore, it would allow the middle to lower class demographics more opportunities to vote, which on average would favor democrats, not republicans.\\n\\nThe Democrats could also potentially be harmed by such a move by admittedly more nebulous reasons. The largest one would be that the poor generally do want to work so that they can make more money for their day to day needs. Mandating a day off would negatively impact a large voting block for the democratic party, possibly driving their supporters away.\\n\\nEDIT: Rather than responding to everyone, I'll just address some common complaints here:\\n\\n1. I know it's illegal to prevent your employee from voting. That doesn't mean you have to pay them for the time they missed, which provides an economic incentive to stay at work.\\n\\n2. I also know that not every rich person votes Republican and every poor person Democrat. These are general demographic trends among major voting blocks in each party. Enough people do fit in these categories that it becomes useful to examine how changing policies would impact these demographics.\\n\\n3. In the US, you do not have to pay your employees on voting day or national holidays. Some people do, but it is by no means required.\\n\\n4. The weekend has been suggested multiple times. I do not know what impact this would have. That's all I really have to say on the matter.\", 'Elected officials are rarely excited about radically altering the composition of the electorate for the simple reason that it was *this composition* which elected them. \\n\\nThis problem is so basic that the US Constitution includes a clause for assembling a whole new Constitutional Convention, if Congress and State Legislatures become to resistant to reform.', \"Early and absentee voting.  Most states have it, and it gives people weeks to vote, so there's no need for a holiday..\", \"Why not just put voting day on Veteran's Day or some other nationally recognized holiday?\", \"Another factor is the fact that it won't likely lead to an increase in turnout. People don't typically go out on their days off and if they do it's certainly not going to be to go vote. The majority of people who don't vote don't do so because they don't have time but rather don't feel their votes matter. So making voting day a national holiday wouldn't likely make any large impacts on voter turnout. \\n\\nEdit: Here's some supporting evidence- _URL_0_\", 'National Voter Registration Day is gaining some momentum.  Check it out.', \"Politicians don't want *everyone* to vote. They want only their supporters to vote. \", 'Honestly I hate the idea of a national voting holiday for a couple reasons. \\n\\n1) It\\'s more likely to turn into a long vacation weekend. \"I can get a four day weekend just by taking a Monday off? Sign me up!\"\\n\\n2) Which day? We have more than one election every year. And arguably local elections have far more impact on people\\'s lives than who\\'s president.\\n\\n\\nIt\\'s far more important to extend the voting period to include multiple Saturdays and Sundays. And it would be far cheaper for local govt to pay overtime for a couple people working weekends than giving all employees a paid day.', \"I'm unable to answer your question, but I completely agree with your sentiment. I'm tired of being unable to vote because of an unwillingness to set aside the time to do so after an 8-10 hour work day. \", \"Because the idea of a 'one day' to vote is absurd and out dated. A better solution is to create a variety of voting channels (mail in, walk in, etc) and allow people to vote over a longer period of time. That way, people of all situations can find the time to participate. \", \"Because we don't need it.  \\n  \\nMail-In ballots are the way to go.\", \"It likely wouldn't change much.  While every job is required to allow people time away from work to vote, only state and federal non-essential personnel would benefit from getting the entire day off as a national holiday.  Private companies are not required to give people off on national holidays.  \", \"Because both think it would give the other an advantage. \\n\\nThis is why all things that should happen don't in government. \", \"A national holiday doesn't mean a whole lot.  Fast food places are still open.  Factories still run.  The grocery store still needs to be stocked.  All it means is a couple select groups like federal workers, teachers, and bank employees don't have to work.  The other 98% of the worker class still have to clock in.\", 'congress is a body made up of officials elected under the current electoral system so any change to the current electoral system is more likely to benefit challengers almost by definition', \"I feel like the main underlying reason is just that the guys who are in office are the ones who know how to win under the current system.  For most of them any change is not in their self interest.  Like even if it would benefit democrats more than republicans it still might not benefit the specific democrats that are currently in office.  They're the ones that have the support of those democrats that have the time to vote.  They wouldn't necessarily have the support of those that don't have the time. \", 'I believe this is one reason why write in ballots are raising in popularity.', 'This is a solved problem in Australia. Elections always happen on Saturdays.\\n\\n(Postal voting and early voting booths are available if circumstances prevent you from showing up on a Saturday.)', \"Hi, sorry if this gets buried but I work in politics managing campaigns and here's my 2 cents on why this isnt a big deal.\\n\\nNo dramatic increases in voter participation is tied to ease of voting. Literally most everyone who wants to vote is going to vote anyway. 37 states of no excuse early voting. They do not see an increase in voter turnout. Oregon switched to mail in voting, literally not even having to wait in line, and turnout didn't increase (here's the Sec State report) _URL_0_ \\n\\n\\nNow onto the main reasons. Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost. Disregard what I said above, lets approach it not from the reality, but from the possibility:\\n\\n I am running a campaign for Sam the Baker against Bob the Builder. We're running for a seat to represent the United Professions, Seat B, which has 50 voters in it. Only 2/3 of those people will likely vote more than once in their lifetime, but lets be generous and say 80% so now I have 40 voters to talk to. My party, Bakers Dozen, has 13 members. Bobs Union has 12 members so I'm already at an advantage. But Sam's wife and adult child will vote for him but Bob has a wife  and adult child too and Sam's ex-wife is voting for Bob because Sam sucks in bed. So now we're both at 15 with only our base voting. Where does this put us, its July, we're now both polling at 30% in the polls and the race is wide open with 40% undecided. Now here is where the cost comes in because Peter the President was a real prick and thought instituting a national holiday and no excuse mail in voting was going to win his party more votes. Guess what I know have to worry about? I have to worry about not only convincing voters and getting them to the polls, but doing that not for 3 weeks but now for 9 months because at ANY time they can choose to vote with mail in voting. /end sidebar \\n\\nSo now we're tired but since everyone's going to vote so now not only do I have to spend money on educating every voter (not bad) but now I have to worry about more election day costs. How many buses can I rent for driving my voters to the polls, how many cars and gas cards do I need to pay for the same thing. How many volunteers do I need, how much am I paying for a database to track who early voted or not. Everything about that is great, I get paid more too because now I'm not sleeping for 2 months instead of 1 week but don't complain about money in politics if you want that, because Dave the Drunk will never mount a viable third party campaign to unseat the Bakers or Builders. \", \"Can someone ELI5 when does USA actually have election days? From the comments I undersand that it's only a single Tuesday? That doesn't sound reasonable. What time?\\n\\nWe (Czech Republic) have election days on Fridays, 2 PM - 10 PM + Saturdays 8 AM - 2 PM, so that everyone can go vote and it doesn't need to be a holiday, since people working 9-5 can go vote straight after work (as opposed to if it was a holiday, they might just be lazy and stay at home).\", \"heres an idea. Move President's day to be on the same day as Election Day. It only makes sense.\", 'In Australia, it\\'s compulsory to vote. \\n\\nWe vote on weekends which means that the majority of people can vote easily. Polling booths are reasonably efficient and thus usually you can line up and vote in under 1-2 hours at worst. Usually there\\'s a fundraiser BBQ going for the school / volunteer fire brigade etc so your lunch is covered too. We call election day \"National Sausage Sizzle Day\".\\n\\nFor people that have to work on that day, postal / absentee votes are possible and easy to do.\\n\\n', \"Cause they know that the voting secretly doesn't matter.\", 'Also, if everyone voted 100% every election cycle, conservatives would never win because most people left of middle on the political spectrum. We did a test I my APGOV class and all but one person landed square in the middle or I the liberal left. That one other person scored way more conservative than anybody else. He also had the bright idea of wearing KKK shirts on MLK day as a joke.', \"Uk here. Our polls are open from 7:00 to 22:00, gives everybody the opportunity to vote. What time are they open in the US which would mean people couldn't because of work?\", 'It would involve taking First Past The Post seriously. No one can take a system as manipulable and undemocratic as First Past The Post seriously. There are so many ways in which it can be manipulated, which makes companies and lobbies very happy, so why even bother? \\n\\nAlso, if the US didn\\'t have FPTP, they would have ceased having a bipartisan system a long time ago. Perhaps it would also be less sensitive to tricks like gerrymandering and other forms of manipulation, and political discussion might just be a little more sensible than \"I\\'m Republican, so I\\'m right and you\\'re retarded\" and \"No, you\\'re a backwards Bible hugger, as a Democrat I\\'m the one who\\'s right\".', 'If that was the case everyone would be at a park having a picnic in election day.\\n\\nBeing able to legally skip work or be late on election day? Priceless.', 'Neither party would benefit from such a thing. However if this was combined with serious campaign finance reform, it might have a real impact. Also I think every ballot should contain a vote for \"none of the above\". Lets all remember that our elected officials are public servants, not American royalty.', \"Realistically it doesn't matter and could only hurt people. I work in a plant. A plant that will not shut down for voting. McDonald's is not going to close for voting. Super Markets are not going to close for voting. Etc. The places that do close for voting will be few and there is no guarantee that the employees will be paid for that day. Overall, it is a great idea in principle, it wouldn't really make a difference.\", 'if voting day was a national holiday, i feel like a lot of people ... wouldn\\'t take that day off to vote. It doesn\\'t make sense...but it makes sense. The excuse to be late because you were at the polls ... works well enough. The fact that you\\'re already out and about for the day, with shit to do so you take some time to go vote. I can\\'t speak for everyone obviously, but, a \"holiday\" means ... day off. Making plans (or not making plans), that don\\'t involve standing in line to vote. It\\'s like, it would almost become even MORE inconvenient.', 'Why not have it on a Saturday like we do in Australia. \\n\\nThe tough part is finding the place with the best sausage sizzle. ', 'Because the super bowl should probably be a holiday first. ', \"Australian here, we always vote on a Saturday, what's the issue? \", 'Just an opinion, and I know you\\'re inbox is full of them, but what would it fucking matter?  MLK Day is a national holiday. President\\'s day is a national holiday. Hell, thanksgiving is a national holiday. Now how many people do you know that still had to work in some form on any of those days. National holiday means more shoppers, drivers, and diners, so more \"low skill\" employees still have to bust their asses to meet demand. ', \"Voting day in our country  is always on a weekend...  I'm pretty sure it's always a Saturday -  New Zealand \", \"People would turn it into a four day weekend and still wouldn't vote.\\n\\n\", 'Just do what Australia and Brazil do, and make it mandatory to vote otherwise you get a fine. ', 'It would turn into a giant sales day.  \"Check out the Voting Day sales at your local Dodge dealer\".  Not everyone would get the day off.  \\n\\nIf you want change, make voting day April 15th, with your taxes.  \\n\\n', 'So, maybe it\\'s just cause I\\'m young, but why do we need a voting day? Why do people complain about having to stand in line for hours? When I voted, I just dropped off my ballet in a box. No lines. No nothing. Just walked up, dropped it off. Took 2 minutes. Didn\\'t even have to leave my house either if I didn\\'t want to, I could have mailed it in. So what\\'s up with people complaining about the \"hassle\" of voting?', 'Why would they? \\n\\nThe cynic in me says that as it\\'s not a public holiday, people are happy to go and vote as it\\'s time out of work. \\n\\nIf it were a public holiday, people would think \"I don\\'t want to waste some of my day off by going to vote!\"\\n\\nELI5 : adults generally don\\'t enjoy being in work, or voting, so wuldn\\'t waste a day off by going to vote.', \"We have compulsory voting and it would be nice to have a public holiday but they usually just put it on a Saturday. Still doesn't suit everyone \", \"OMG why doesn't anyone realize that the people who can't vote because of work are largely the group of people who would use a holiday to travel. Holidays are rare, special days and people who get them off use them wisely. NOT for voting.\\n\\n\", 'Because voting takes 20 minutes, not all day. ', 'Are you aware of the amount of people who not only would still have to work, it would become MANDATORY for them to be at work because national holiday = increased business capacity. Do you think it will increase voters? No, people will just take the holiday and just like all the other \"National Holidays\" make others work.', 'If you had an holiday what would you normally do? Go out, get a short vacation. Would you go vote?', \"**Better question:** If my phone can read my finger print, why can't I just vote on my phone? Surely it wouldn't be more open to fraud than the mailed ballots.\", \"Ultimately, it's just not worth it in their eyes.  There are very few people that fail to vote because they had to work.  The polls are open for a long enough time to accommodate all work shifts.  Of course it *does* impact some people, but it's not a large enough percentage for them to care. \\n\\nOn top of that, there are no laws that say you can't make your employees work on a national holiday.   In fact,  most companies are still open on national holidays.  So it's not like everyone will be off for voting day.  It would have almost no effect. \", \"It's not necessary. State's can, and often do offer early voting.  You have three weeks and even weekends to vote in Georgia leading up to election day.  There is also absentee voting.  Plus...which election day are you talking about?  There are elections every year.  Some are local in nature.  Then there are runnoffs...should they be holidays too?  \", \"We have early voting. The poles are open at least a week. I'm always really confused when this comes up.\", 'Here in backwards-ass Pasco County, Florida you can sign up to vote by mail using the county election supervisor\\'s website. And one of the options when you sign up is \"do you want to vote by mail in all future elections?\" \\n\\nThe answer should be Yes.\\n\\nAnd about a month before election day a ballot shows up in the mail. For any election - county, city, primary, general, all of them. You fill in the bubbles, put a stamp on it, and mail it. It could not be any easier.', \"It's easier to control the outcome through advertising with a smaller number of voters.\", \"You can vote by mail in pretty much every state. No need for a holiday -- especially when it won't help low-income workers who would likely have to work that day. \", 'Did you just call it \"voting day?\"', 'Republicans actively want less people to Vite and suppress voters.', 'Paul Weyrich conservative Republican and founder of the far right wing Heritage foundation. \\n\\n\\n\"So many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government. They want everybody to vote. I don\\'t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.\"\\n\\nTypical Republican prick.\\n\\n', 'In my state it would be pointless.  Starting a couple years ago WA state decided to close all polling places and mail out everybody ballot.  Voting by mail anywhere in WA state is your only option.', 'Voting on time must be a problem for the rich, because as someone whos never been rich and had bullshit barely over minimum wage jobs  before, Ivs never had a problem going to the polls before or after work. Even took my 3 year old with me last time.', 'I don\\'t know about Democrats, but for Republicans opposing a national holiday is a no-brainer.\\n\\n\"National Election Day\" would immediately join the ranks of other \"second tier\" national holidays : MLK day, President\\'s day, Veteran\\'s day, Columbus Day.  Every government office and school would be closed, but 90% of the rest of us would still be at work, as we are on MLK day, President\\'s day, etc.\\n\\nSince government employees and teachers vote Democrat, it would amount to a massive turnout operation for Democrats.\\n\\nOh, and for an added bonus : the two segments of US government employees that do vote Republican are law enforcement and the military ... which are way more likely to be working on a national holiday.\\n\\nI don\\'t know why the Democrats don\\'t like it.  Popular yet Quixotic efforts seem to be their wheelhouse lately.', 'Because a whole day off to vote would possibly involve some rapscallions getting their voices heard while simultaneously decrease productivity. And with a whole day off, some people might research candidates and position and what have you and not vote straight party. A third or fourth voice might get elected, and one of them might not be a doctor or a lawyer. RON PAUL 2012', 'I want to slap about nine out of every ten commenters in this thread. Cynical asses, all of you. Whatever\\'s going on or not, it *must* be due to someone\\'s conniving, right?\\n\\nElection Day *used* to be a holiday, if you go back far enough. It was part of a larger, multi-day event known as a \\'muster\\'. The muster had to do with the \\'militia\\' referenced in the first clause of the Second Amendment: Before the modern republic took shape, the nation had no standing army (\"regulars\") and instead relied on volunteer militias.\\n\\nOr *mostly* volunteer, that is, in the sense that these people were more similar to reservists, if reservists only showed up once a year. Mustering was in some ways similar to the draft, in that it was required by law for \\'able\\' men of appropriate age, though enforcement was mostly in the form of local peer pressure and the social appeal of being one of the manly men who participated.\\n\\nMustering was a scheduled annual event, and that was a convenient time also to have elections, since at the time it was mostly the same people (landed gentry) who had the franchise. (The womenfolk and others who stayed home didn\\'t vote anyway, so it didn\\'t matter that they weren\\'t there). This was, in that historical context, a very obvious confluence of priorities. Since the muster meant that most men weren\\'t available for regular work, it was an ideal time to hold elections, and so in that respect Election Day was a kind of holiday.\\n\\nIt was on Tuesday (in most places) on the logic that most people would attend church on Sunday, then leave for the muster, and it might take time time to get there on the roads of 300 years ago, if you lived in the country -- which most people did at the time. In many places, Election Day was the single biggest event of the whole year.\\n\\nWe inherited most of that, but the muster is long gone. If you ever wondered why federal elections are on a Tuesday, though, now you know. It\\'s got nothing to with our parties, which didn\\'t even exist at the time this tradition started. And it started under British rule, not even our own national government, so you can\\'t blame Washington (which also didn\\'t exist at the time). It\\'s just an old habit, one that continues to serve its original purpose well enough that so far, there hasn\\'t seemed much need to change it, or at least no one\\'s come up with a better one and convinced enough others of it.\\n\\nThat\\'s all. It\\'s not conservatives or liberals, Republican or Democratic schemers (or even Whigs and Tories), unions, corporations, or any of that other modern-day cynical bile. It\\'s just an artefact of history, okay, folks? Calm the fuck down. If you want your world to be better, a good start would be to not whip out your dicks and piss on every discussion about how to do it.\\n', 'also oh my god, why did I even open this thread', 'because the only people that would have that day off are government workers.  everyone else would still have to go to work.  it would be pointless.\\n\\n', \"A reason I haven't seen on here in a quick skim through the thread is that employers aren't going to shut themselves down for an entire day. That's a large amount of lost profits. If they don't even close for Thanksgiving (or Christmas!!!), are they really going to support a bill? No, they're going to lobby against it as hard as possible...and businesses like that hold a lot of sway over the Congresspeople whose campaigns they finance.\", 'why would it need to be made a holiday when employers are already required by law to allow someone paid time to go and vote?', \"Really, why would anyone want people voting who are so lazy that they couldn't make it on election day during the week? Yes, I've failed to vote a few times, but solely from lack of energy to get myself to the polls. If so many people died to preserve our free elections, citizens can somehow grind their way to the voting booth once every two years.\", 'Holiday means \"holy day\", and I don\\'t think God wants us to vote.\\n\\nAlso: don\\'t we have enough holidays already?  Get back to work, slacker.', \"An election day would simply become another holiday that all poor people must work, so I'm sure democrats wouldn't want it. \", 'Its more trouble than its worth. Think about every holiday, some businesses or government agencies are always open. So are needed. Best to do what we do now, and just mandate ever employer give their employees an excused couple hours to go vote.', 'Because why would you need a whole day off to do something which takes most people less than a half hour?', \"I'm soooooo glad this isn't.  When voting isn't important to someone I don't want their opinion in government.\", \"Democrats don't need it. There core voting base doesn't work and we have to many national holidays as is. \", \"Have any studies shown that it would actually help turnout? I suspect it might even hurt as people decide to take a long weekend and go out of town. I guess it depends on your state, but I feel like the ballots open early enough and stay open late enough that it really isn't that hard to get out and vote IF YOU WANT TO. And if you don't want to, I don't think a day off is going to change that. Maybe if it was a day off only if you provided proof you voted, but I'm pretty sure that would violate the constitution in some way.\\n\", \"The long and short of it is that Democrats don't want people who work voting and the Republicans want to make sure that those who are going to vote will.\", 'Because Wed just use it as a day to get drunk and have barbecues in parks', \"Nobody's going to agree with me at this point but the problem continues to be that everybody reduces the infinite complexity of life and the universe down to 2 categories.    Every fucking time. \\n\\nEverything is DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.   LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE.   US VS. THEM.    ALWAYS ONE OF TWO CATEGORIES 100% OF THE TIME. \\n\\nWe can't have *any* rational conversations in this world because it's all been reduced to 2 columns and whatever column you assign yourself to, the other column and everything in it is your mortal enemy. \\n\\n\", \"BECAUSE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO VOTE, DUH. \", 'Does the US not have pre voting or postal voting?', 'Is voting so complicated it requires an entire day off?  Im Canadian so our elections have at most 2-3 decisions. Ive never been at my polling place longer than 10 minutes, including lineups. Arent advanced polls enough rather than an entire day off. ', 'It wouldn\\'t change anything.  There are plenty of \"national holidays\" that are just completely skipped or looked over by most jobs and most people would *still* be at work on the new national holiday simply because they can\\'t afford to take an unpaid holiday or don\\'t want to use a paid vacation day to vote when they can easily do early voting or just go before or after work (if they even care enough to vote).\\n\\nRetail stores will not close.  They only close now for Easter, Christmas and half of Thanksgiving (shrinking every year).  All of those workers will still be at work, and they might even have more than the usual number of workers to cover the \"holiday\" rush caused by everyone else having a day off.  Hourly workers of all types will still be working on voting day even if it\\'s a national holiday.\\n\\nPolicemen, Firemen, Military, Doctors, Nurses, EMTs, Pilots, Airport personnel, Bus drivers and other such essential jobs won\\'t have a day off because they *never* have a day off.  Emergencies don\\'t wait for national holidays to be over, and people still have to travel.\\n\\nThe only people who get national holidays as a true day off are teachers, schoolkids, and people with salaried white collar jobs, and those are the people who don\\'t need any help on voting day anyway because (a) schools are used as polling places so school is often cancelled that day anyway and (b) salaried workers usually don\\'t have any problem taking a long lunch or an extra hour off to go vote in the middle of the day.\\n\\nUnless you *force* employers to close on voting day and mandate that they pay their workers for the day anyway, it won\\'t change anything.', 'Seattle does something pretty cool here that I think helps turnout a bit. We actually have our ballots mailed to us, we fill it out and send it off by the cutoff date, a few days later we have results. This is how Washington legalized gay marriage and decriminalized recreational marijuana a couple years back.', 'Voting and superbowl Monday should both be holidays. ', \"PS ALL YOU DUMB FUCKS OUT THERE WHO BITCH AND COMPLAIN ABOUT NOT BEING REPRESENTED....  ALL IT TAKES IS A LITTLE FUCKING EFFORT TO VOTE BY MAIL.  IF YOU CANT DO THAT THEN FUCK YOU DON'T DESERVE TO VOTE YOU LAZY PIECE OF AMERICAN SHIT!\\n\\nThat is all.\", 'The companies that paid to put them in office do not want to pay their workers to have a whole day off to vote.', \"Because the window to vote is more than enough. if you can't find an hour to vote during those WEEKS or mail it in... you don't get a vote.\", \"Does it matter?  Who is working on voting day for a 16 hour shift and can't do absentee ballot?\\n\\nThat has to be like 0.001% of people with a problem, here. \", \"Because it doesn't need to be.\\n\\n1. Voting in person should be easy, if it isn't we should do mail-in vote.\\n\\n2. National holiday is wasteful drag on productivity for something that should not take more than a hour.\\n\\n3. How often should we have have this holiday?  \\n    Once every four year? Well has the House of Representatives has elections every two, how about some love for them.\\n    OK, Every two years.  Sure, but my town has elections for boards and such\\n    OK, every year, you satisfied?\\n\\nNo because with federal elections, state elections, local elections, plus primaries(state and local) , special elections, run-offs and over-rides, some years I vote on TEN different days.  \\nA holiday for each is not practical or worth it. \\n\\nJust Vote\\n\\n \", 'Making something a holiday doesn\\'t get a lot of people off work. In fact, it would probably cause a lot more people to have to work. \"Come on in for Election Day sales! Everything is 20% off!\"\\n\\nAnyway, where I live, the polling station is open for 12 hours and we also have absentee voting.', 'Swede here. Why would it be a holiday?', 'UK guy here. Why would this be needed? In the UK polling stations are open from early morning until well into the evening. Do US polling stations only open during office hours or something?', \"ITT: People who don't understand how few rights you actually have regarding labor.\\n\\n1.  If you made voting a national holiday, there would be nobody to manage the polls - state and federal employees are off on national holidays.\\n\\n2.  It wouldn't help get people to vote because people companies aren't required to pay extra for people to work national holidays.  People would still work the same hours.\", 'As a Democrat I would love a national holiday for voting. My assumption is that most Democrats would as they tend to benefit from higher turnout, historically speaking. \\n\\nActually, I would even take it a step further and do what Australia does -- make voting mandatory. Cue replies of how this would be tyranny and oppressive and the end of the world. Did I mention Australia already does this?', \"TLDR: Republicans wouldn't gain votes, they're either retired, unemployed, or have the freedom to leave work. Democrats are usually too busy hustling away at work. \", 'Just replace Columbus Day with Election Day and be done with it.', 'Lol also....electoral college system....why does that shit still exist', 'According to reddit the dinosaurs going extinct is because the republicans.', \"ITT: People who think Bankers and government workers need another holiday in the U.S. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\nEither that or they don't have real jobs in the real world, because most people work most Government Holidays since businesses aren't forced to give people the day off or even pay time and a half. And as far as I know the only people that get all Federal Holidays off are bank employees and government workers. Most people work without time and a half,  holidays like Presidents Day,  Columbus Day,  Martin Luther King Jr Day. \"]}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/181farber.pdf'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], ['http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/Voter_Turnout_History_General_Election.pdf'], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 581, "q_id": "2f621i", "title": "how is it possible that athletic results keep getting better and better; will they ever plateau?", "selftext": "It seems like every Olympics, World Championship, etc, at least one record is broken, usually more. It's to the point now where gold-medal-winning 100m sprinters of a few decades ago would barely even rank in the top 10 today.\n\nI know some of this is down to better training and nutrition, better equipment (more so in some sports than others), but surely there must be some limit that results from the human body? Will we ever hit a point where we have seen basically the fastest a person can run, the most weight they can lift, the furthest they can throw a javelin, etc? Where the records then just stand indefinitely?\n\n**EDIT:** Thanks everyone, for the insightful responses (and areas to look at further)! Much appreciated and does help it make more sense to me.", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f621i/eli5_how_is_it_possible_that_athletic_results/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['ck681o1', 'ck69eqz', 'ck69p01', 'ck69wul', 'ck6aa3j', 'ck6anx0', 'ck6avr7', 'ck6bc92', 'ck6bv5k', 'ck6c753', 'ck6fpzc', 'ck6geye'], 'score': [55, 29, 5, 2, 8, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 6], 'text': ['Theoretically, the human body has finite limits that it cannot exceed. Bones can take only so much force without breaking, the human circulatory system has limits due to size, etc... However, there can always be outliers that are genetically better suited than the average human for certain sports. So in other words, we could plateau, but someone better could always be born to break the record.', 'Modern training techniques and nutrition is a large part of it, but have you noticed that for each particular sport, the athletes look more or less the same?\\n\\nCompare recent athletes in say... Running to those from centuries ago. Back then, it was believed that the most \"balanced\" or in other words, average body types would excel in all sports. By this I mean, not too tall, not too short, average weight and strength builds. The middle of the bell curve.\\n\\nOf course over time this mentality disappeared as certain body shapes excelled in certain sports. Now back to the runners, have you noticed that they\\'re generally taller than average population? Or that they\\'re fit but not overly muscular? \\n\\nIn short, certain body types simply perform some activities better than others. In addition to this, notice that with each new world record, the gap is becoming slimmer and slimmer.\\n\\nIn other words, new records are constantly being made, but they are perhaps only a fraction of a second (or point) better than their predecessors. New technologies can record these kinds of things down to the thousandth of a second.\\n\\nSo yes, new records are being made, but their improvements aren\\'t as big as you\\'d think.\\n\\nHope this helps, you can probably get a better understanding of this in asapscience\\'s channel on YouTube.', \"The records for all sports have grown along with our understanding of the humans body and how to get optimal performance out of it. \\n\\nThings will plateau on average, but I think doping (which is already a HUGE issue) will become bigger and bigger problems. With time it will become easier and easier to bypass drug testing (which is already very easy, look at people like lance armstrong\u2026 the only tests he ever failed (and managed to suppress in 1999) were unrelated to his massive doping related victory spree at the end of his career).\\n\\nEffectively if you give the athletes chemicals that are found naturally in the body, it becomes much harder to define who is doping and who just has naturally higher levels (which some just do). Then theres similar more effective steroids that are MUCH more effective and break down INTO the normal body hormones\u2026 and there are just some things that do not show up on the tests. \\n\\nYou can also dope to develop your muscles and fitness, then effectively 'detox' while doing the much easier (relatively) task of maintaining that fitness. Certain drugs would/could help 'detox' faster from a drug test scenario\u2026 it all gets very dangerous and unethical. \\n\\nThe main thing holding all this back is lack of co-operation of skilled pharmacists. It can all be done easily enough, but relatively few people with the knowledge are willing to use it that way. Obviously people like Lance and his sponsors were able to find willing experts and provide them with enough resources quietly. The problem is that these people haven't really been held to account in any cases, and snuck off to dope more and more people in increasingly sophisticated ways.  \\n\\nRecords will continue to be broken as science advances\u2026 but some of that will be due to the immoral side of science. \", \"Science and technology, such as nutrition and optimum workouts, have allowed people to become better athletes. This is the same as how medicine has allowed people to live longer.\\n\\nThe limit is the limit of our technology, which we don't know because we don't know.\", \"Yes they will plateau.\\n\\nIn high jump for example the last world record was set in 1993.\\n\\n_URL_0_\\n\\nThere are plenty of world records that have been set over 20 years ago.\\n\\n_URL_1_\\n\\nOf course, it's possible that some new technique (like the [fosbury flop](_URL_2_)) or training methodology or rule change will allow new world records in any particular field, but if you look at the world record progression in a number of sports, they seem to be approaching asymptotes of  the maximum that a human can achieve.\", 'Here this may help, apparently the athletes have pretty much already maxed, all that changes is the environment and tech. [Proof/Source](_URL_0_)', 'Check out the perfection point by John Brenkus, he explains what the max human capacity is for basically all athletic tasks ', 'I have always found it odd that horse racing times have not continued to improve. I believe Secretariat still owns a few track records; how has technology and the advancement in our knowledge of health/fitness/diet not provided real results?', \"Here's the TED talk on this exact topic\\n\\n_URL_0_\", 'Statistically, as the population gets larger the chances that someone will fall out further on the bell curve becomes more likely. This result seems to be a consequence of population growth.', 'There definitely is a plateau, but you must understand that the human body isnt as frail as our society makes us believe. In Africa, there are hunter tribes where the hunters are able to run for days. Not super fast, but constant; they use this \"technique\" to tire and hunt down their prey - yes, the animals start to tire before the humans do. The human body is capable of amazing feats.\\n\\nJust recently (as in, the last 100 years) we started to examine the human body really thorough. One might say we are still in our infancy with modern medicine, and there will be a lot of new discoveries.\\n\\nIts the same with sports medicine, really. Studies are made, we learn more about how to train more efficient and how to put it to use practically. \\n\\nBut some day into the future, we will know everything, Im sure. We will know all synergies, all tricks and all methods how to train most efficiently in a certain discipline. \\nWe are very close already; besides from genetic diversity most of the athletes are literally the same. You see this with the so called \"records\", where one beats the former record holder with the fraction of a second: one runs 100m in 9,6 and the better one in 9,5. In theory, he was better, but practically there is absolutely no difference. 0,1 seconds is nothing, one might say they are the same in regards to output.', '_URL_0_ Ted talks ']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_high_jump_world_record_progression\", 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_athletics', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_Flop'], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0'], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0'], [], [], ['https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2728, "q_id": "21tbt7", "title": "Have the bonefields of the mongol massacres ever been found?", "selftext": "I recently came across the pictures and writings of the bonefields in Volgograd / peschanka area from the remains of the soldiers who died there. My immediate though was of the mongol organized massacres at nishapur and merv, the seige of Baghdad and the destruction of shu and chengdu. Has there ever been evidence of the remains from those events?", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "AskHistorians", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21tbt7/have_the_bonefields_of_the_mongol_massacres_ever/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['cggdp0i'], 'score': [127], 'text': ['**Below is a post for April Fool\\'s day. I am not an expert on Mongolian highway construction and this post should be seen as satire only. There does exist a road of bones, however it is in Russia that was built during the Soviet Union under Stalin, you can read more about that [here](_URL_0_)**\\n\\n\\nThe \"bonefields\" as you put them, in the Volgograd region was actually an exception, rather than a rule. The large piling of bodies was really typically an exception, the Mongols saw this as a waste of good resources. Mongols in general believed that everything could have a purpose in their great Empire, and the bodies of their enemies was no different. \\n\\nThe Mongol\\'s in the other regions typically let the bodies decay then use the leftover bones as pavement for their vast stretches of roads. Once beaten down with their horses, the bones would crumble and form a great pavement for their mighty armies to cross upon.  The reason why there exists bonefields in the lower portion of Russia is because of the cold weather, which would freeze the bones and create a nasty mix of frozen bone debris, water, snow, and ice, which was not good for the horses. Therefore, in a rare instance, the Mongols simply left the bodies to rot and decompose, without using the bones. \\n\\nSource: \u041e\u0442 \u041a\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u0432 \u0430\u0441\u0444\u0430\u043b\u044c\u0442\u0435, \u0418\u0432\u0430\u043d \u0422\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043a\u043e']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M56_Kolyma_Highway']]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 2709, "q_id": "12unz5", "title": "Is there a minimum quantum of Force?", "selftext": "Is force subject to finite limits of quantisation, the way [length](_URL_1_) and [time](_URL_0_) are?\nIf so, are there any particularly interesting consequences? One idea, which led me to ask the question, is whether any gravitational force would exist between two bodies on opposite sides of the universe (obviously the force would be negligible by any measure, but does it even exist in theory?)", "document": NaN, "subreddit": "askscience", "url": "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12unz5/is_there_a_minimum_quantum_of_force/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['c6y8v7e', 'c6y8yxm', 'c6y9hhl'], 'score': [11, 8, 4], 'text': [\"Force is not really a thing in Quantum Mechanics, it's just a concept that emerges in a special classical limit from interactions of fundamental particles. So it's not that the answer is yes or no, it's just not answerable. \", 'Ruiner has a great answer, but I would like to add that the Planck units are units for which gravitational and quantum effects are important, not necessarily a quantization. There are some theories in which length and time are quantized, but they are not universally accepted as true', ' > Is force subject to finite limits of quantisation, the way length and time are?\\n\\nschets already pointed out that length and time are not necessarily quantized (and both quantum mechanics and general+special relativity model space and time as continuous, not discrete).\\n\\nHowever, force is in a sense both quantized and not.  In quantum mechanics, what\\'s quantized are the *fields*, which means that the fields have \"quanta\" (particles).  The particles themselves are free to take on any energy (for example, there is no minimum photon energy), at least for massless fields such as the electromagnetic field, but that energy is transmitted only in discrete packets (particles) -- though the packets (particles) can be of any size (energy).\\n\\nA thought experiment that should show this as true could go ... consider any particle such as a photon ... now accelerate an arbitrary amount away from the photon, and measure it.  You will notice the faster you accelerate away from the photon the more its frequency redshifts or blueshifts, changing the energy.  You can accelerate at a continuous speed and acceleration is correllated with energy, so the energy change must also be continuous.\\n\\n > One idea, which led me to ask the question, is whether any gravitational force would exist between two bodies on opposite sides of the universe (obviously the force would be negligible by any measure, but does it even exist in theory?)\\n\\nYes, there would be, at least from a classical standpoint.  However, assuming quantum gravity mediated by a massless graviton (and also assuming a non-expanding/contracting universe), what you would see is each distant body emitting gravitons in various directions, but the further away the bodies are, the smaller the chance that one of those gravitons hits the distant body.  So with enough distance, that chance drops arbitrarily low.  Over a long enough period of time, eventually a graviton would make its way to the distant body.  The classical level deals with averages so classically you would say there is an extremely small force acting constantly between the two bodies. But in the quantum picture, there would be long periods of non-interaction followed by brief periods of interaction where a graviton is exchanged, and if you average out how much interaction there is over a long period of time, you\\'d get the classical answer.']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "['http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time', 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length']", "answers_urls": "[[], [], []]"}, {"Unnamed: 0": 1366, "q_id": "4y2xbq", "title": "why are prescription drug advertisements necessary?", "selftext": NaN, "document": NaN, "subreddit": "explainlikeimfive", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y2xbq/eli5_why_are_prescription_drug_advertisements/", "answers": "{'a_id': ['d6kilw3', 'd6kiooy', 'd6kjxam', 'd6kn1n7', 'd6kn6tk', 'd6kp1j1', 'd6kpm63', 'd6kputv', 'd6kvowc'], 'score': [113, 9, 6, 17, 3, 4, 7, 17, 4], 'text': ['They aren\\'t necessary.\\n\\nThey are effective at getting people to ask their doctor \"Would Xyzzy make my condition better?  Is it cheaper?\" and a host of other questions that drive sales.  Commercials on TV for any product are about driving sales.', 'In the United States, prescription drugs are like any other product and marketing them directly to consumers is the fastest way for them to establish a foothold in the market over their competitors. With new drugs, doctors often don\\'t know about them as they have not gained broad acceptance in the medical field.\\n\\nThat\\'s why these ads often end with \"Ask you doctor if (name of drug) would be right for you\" followed by some optimistic outlook (ex. \"Relief is only a spray away!\").', \"There is absolutely no reason why prescription drugs should be advertised on TV like they are a typical product. Can you go to the store and by these medications on your own? No, you must have a prescription from your doctor. can I buy granola bars without a doctors prescription? Yes. So the reasoning in the original explanation is flawed.\\n\\nThe reason why the advertisements say, 'Ask your doctor about a certain prescription' is so you can go to your doctor and ask for their prescription vs. the competition.\\n\\nAlso why are more than half the commercials dedicated to talking about all the side effects while the narrator speaks in an increased speed than when he is talking about possible benefits?\", 'It\\'s a part of \"direct to consumer\" advertising. It\\'s highly effective at selling more drugs because consumers actually ask their doctor about the medication or choose it over an alternative because it is familiar. \\n\\nIf you\\'re interested in this kind of stuff, check out the book \"Selling Sickness\"', 'On top what was already said - it is only legal to advertise them direct to the consumer in the US and New Zealand.', 'Because if you make a drug that is $8k a dose you want people to ask about that drug.  We have a miracle drug that your insurance will pay for.  Be sure to ask your doctor. ', \"Ever heard of Viagra? How about Prozac? Zoloft?\\n\\nNow how about Nitrostat? Brintellix? Elavil?\\n\\nThey're all name brands. The top row are or have been widely advertised. The bottom do the same things as the ones above. The top row are household names, the bottom are largely unheard of unless you've been prescribed them.\", \"They aren't. In fact, here in Australia it is illegal for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the consumer.\\n\\nDrug company reps used to be able to treat *doctors* to extravagant dinners, events and gifts but that also became illegal a few years ago. \\n\\nNow reps can just present the features and benefits of their products to doctors\", 'I hope I am not falling on my own sword but...\\n\\nEdit: They are not necessary but can be informative. \\n\\nThere are over 6k drugs approved by the FDA in the US. That is a lot of drugs, and that does not include many oncological drugs.\\n\\nBefore advertisement many people did not know there was help for them. Take people with active bladder issues. Before 5 years ago only 5% of the population took medications to help them. Most people just learned where all the bathrooms were. Now there is actual study and medications to help. \\n\\nIBS for many years was thought to be \"in the mind\" of the  patient and now we have real medications to help people with their issues. \\n\\nThe stigma of AD(H)D has been lessened with many information out there and various treatments to help children and adults. \\n\\nMany adults who suffer RA have more than two options. \\n\\nAt the end of the day the most important aspect of humanity is choice. How do we make decisions without all the information? Commercials can help people learn they are not alone in their problems and seek help. Not all drugs are a fix, but sometimes they are necessary. There are so many ways to help people manage their illnesses, not just by drugs mind you!, but by knowing options and what your condition might be. Sometimes a person can have an issue, see the doctor and it is something else but at least they saw the doctor. Sometimes medications are not needed just a lifestyle change. \\n\\nIn the end it is up to people to decide if they want treatment but it is up to doctors and pharmaceutical companies to provide truthful information regarding possible medications. And it is up to the patients to be honest to their medical professionals to get proper treatment. \\n\\nTaking medications, making medications, handing out medications is such a two edged sword. On one hand I feel proud about  my profession and the people I help, on the other hand I see the detriment of poorly managed patients and the side effects of people thinking that medications will cure everything. \\n\\nNote: I do not own a tv or cable package so I have little knowledge in what current commercials play on tele or what they entail. The last commercial I saw was for Detrol LA at an airport. I have second hand info from emails/fliers or people telling me. \\n\\n']}", "title_urls": "[]", "selftext_urls": "[]", "answers_urls": "[[], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []]"}]}