[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Black Panther] Here in Wakanda we have flying cars, city-spanning invisibility fields, and... a despotic karetocratic monarchy?

How is it that Wakanda has made colossal strides in technology and art but has not budged an inch in its government, and maybe even took a couple steps back.

1. A fight to decide who rules over millions of people? How is this still accepted? It doesn't result in better rulers, it just results in more deaths after the inevitable purgings and civil wars when one dynasty is exchanged for another.
2. How can the new king just decide to overturn an entire country's heritage in a day? Is there no constitution? some guidelines the king must adhere to? The British figured out constitutional monarchy in the 17th century, why is Wakanda, this supposed gem on the earth, still run like it's the 12th?

[Assistant]
Damn outsiders thinking they know better.

The King of Wakanda has a tribal council and is advised by all members of the tribal leadership. He isn't an absolute monarch, Africa rarely dealt with such concepts historically as is.

And do you have all the luxuries and beauty in your "superior" governments? From what the War Dogs tell me it isn't exactly sunshine ans rainbows right now.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [LoTR] Why did Gondor survive but not Arnor?

[Assistant]
Arnor had always had a smaller population than Gondor. Then it splintered into three kingdoms after the death of King Erendur.

And those three kingdoms were at odds - often fighting each other for territory.

The Witch-King took advantage of that disunity and destroyed them.

Meanwhile, Gondor remained united - the only major 'split' was when it gave away the territory that became Rohan. Gaining an ally, rather than two rivals.

The Witch-King **did** end the line of kings there, but the kingdom itself remained, being diminished only slowly.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
In Minority Report, is there ever any discussion of the ethics of keeping the precogs drugged 24/7?

Based solely on the movie, they seem to be in a drug induced sleep 24/7 so they can receive their visions. Is there any discussion or story about their situation being voluntary or involuntary? Are they indeed drugged in some way or is something else going on?

[Assistant]
People are willing to overlook and ignore a lot of things if they think it will keep them safe.

When the public learned the Precogs could prevent ANY murder and make the city one hundred percent safe from violent crime, any sort of massive reaction disappeared with a whimper. There would still be discussions are arguments on the internet and some political circles, but they wouldn't convince anyone beyond those who were already convinced it was a bad thing to keep them in slavery.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: How do wireless chargers work, wouldn't the energy get wasted during transfer?

[Assistant]
Some of the energy is wasted. That's why they charge slower than directly plugging in the device. On how they work. They work through induction. There is an electrical current run through the charging pad. This creates a magnetic field. When the phone is placed on the charging pad, that magnetic field induces an electrical current in the phone's charging mechanism. But charging through induction means a lot of energy is wasted into thin air through the electromagnetic field generated by the charging pad. These pads usually don't have a current running through them unless the phone is on them to prevent constant energy use. But once the phone is placed on the pad and the pad activates, any electromagnetic radiation that doesn't induce a current in the phone is wasted energy.

You can do a little test if you have a phone that can charge wirelessly. Put it on the charging pad and see how long it says it will take to charge. Then take it off and plug it directly into the charger and look at the charging time. Plugging it in charges it faster.

The benefit of wireless charging is the convenience of not having to mess with a cord. So if you have it at your desk, you can just set your phone on it and have it charge and then pick it up and go when you need to without having to plug it in and unplug it.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: Why cant we build factories to just crank out tons of solar panels?

Maybe Ive been playing too much factorio, but if the main ingredient is silicon it seems like we should be easily able to turn out TW worth of solar panels every year.

[Assistant]
In the real world there is more than just making sure there are enough belts and trains.

Each process takes time, space, and capital to produce.
Mining the silicon, smelting, crystalizing into wafers, forming it into panels, coating them to reduce reflection, and wiring them all take steps and labor.
Eventually there will be a bottleneck.

Theoretically, it's possible to do crazy things with manufacturing. It's been seen in war time economies like during WWII where factories standardized designs, setup their tools to make specific products as fast as possible, and focused all efforts into making ships, planes, rifles, etc.
So if a powerful nation just really wanted to absolutely print them, and had the political will to point a bunch of resources at the problem it's technically possible. China often will "direct" its economy to produce things it wants. Command economies have their benefits and drawbacks which is an entire other economic discussion. It's not perfect though, like during WWII when factories retooled to make war materials, consumer good production fell and quality of life suffered, or if the central power makes an inefficient decision you end up producing a bunch of products that simply aren't needed.

Plus factorio has the benefit of centralized command to vertically integrate the entire process.
Factorio, not enough red science? Well just work on that copper production. You're in charge of it, you can work that problem.

Real world, not enough circuit boards? Well... unless you make your own factory then you're kind of just waiting like everyone else. And making a new factory cost money and expertise. Not enough aluminum in real life? Well unless the solar company owns an aluminum mine, the rail company to transport the ore, and the smelter, they can't really do much besides ask nicely.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: Underground Nuclear Tests

Where does all the energy from the testing go ? Is the underground test an actual full scale explosion ? I read that North Korea most likely did their Hydrogen Bomb test underground which caused a 5.1 reading on the Richter Scale.

[Assistant]
Underground Nuclear Testing is basically burying the bomb very deep underground to help ensure that none of the radioactive fallout goes into the atmosphere. The main idea is environmental protection. There are no special big gigantic underground laboratory structures that the bomb goes off in... it's more or less just a hole in the ground (although generally there are still sensors everywhere to test things).

When the bomb goes off, all of the energy is dissipated into the ground around it. The dirt/rock directly next to the bomb will be vaporized creating a cavity, and a much greater portion of the rock/dirt will be cracked, crushed, and/or undergo irreversible changes from stress. Often the top of the ground will be partially blown upwards, and the cavity can collapse forming a crater.

Large underground explosions, nuclear or otherwise, can be read by seismographs as they are more or less causing earthquakes (although by a completely different method than natural earthquakes) so the 5.1 estimate of North Korea's bomb means it released a similar amount of energy into the surrounding earth that a 5.1 earthquake would have. It's also important to note that data about what happens in North Korea is sketchy, so there is no definite evidence that it was actually a nuclear bomb or something else that North Korea took credit for (like, say, an actual earthquake). However, many other nuclear tests have been detected using seismographs and in some cases they were published as earthquakes by public media first before anyone learned a bomb had gone off.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
How is it that cable lines transmit real-time video for 100s of TV channels without a problem, but it takes hours to download that same amount of video data?

I have a basic understanding of how a television receives a signal and displays its information. I understand how that it so fast. I just don't understand why downloading a video can't happen equally as fast. Is it just a limitation of how fast your computer can write the information to the hard disk?

[Assistant] Each channel is broadcast over a specific range of frequencies to each and every end point simultaneously. Non-overlapping frequencies can be summed together to produce the entire cable signal. Internet, on the other hand, is not multi-cast this way and requires careful routing and quality of service algorithms to queue up which packets get sent first at each router/switch. Data is sent in packets that are often acknowledged for receipt as well. Your internet "bandwidth" (as in frequency band width, not the misused common term of mbps) is much smaller than the bandwidth for all channels combined. Consider that each end point needs to both transmit and receive on the same wire.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: Why TV-series often have a different director every episode.

Isn't it difficult for the actors to have to work with so many different directors on a TV-show since they all have a (slightly) different approach and work method? As well as that every director has his own style and how he perceives certain characters and situations might be completely different from previous directors and how does a show manage to keep the same vibe in their show and why don't they just pick one director and stick with him?

[Assistant] Guest directors don't have the kind of power that a movie director may have. While a movie may be mostly the director's vision, many television shows are more the writers vision. A guest director can't really mess with the canonical structure of the show.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: Can we build a man-made ecosystem in the form of a space craft which makes infinite space discovery possible?

Is it possible to build a fully self-sustainable space ship boarded with people that can travel for numerous lifetimes; collecting information on the outside universe and reporting it back to Earth?

[Assistant]
Let's simplify this to the greatest level. To work perpetually (ignoring the practicality of technology), your spaceship would have to have a net balance of energy- no energy could leave the ship, ever- or, it would have to be made up by energy coming in.

This obviously prevents navigation of any sort, unless it's balanced out by some other intake of energy. Because deep space largely doesn't have anything in it, such intake would have to be in the form of electromagnetic radiation- which is at a premium in space.

Thus, you'd be limited to navigation when in areas of space with electromagnetic energy freely available- in and around solar systems.

So, it's POSSIBLE, but the limitations would be very severe.

Bear in mind that the ship would somehow have to recover ALL energy expended- body heat, motion of the occupants, etc, etc, etc. The ship would have to reflect or absorb all energy coming its way- it could not emit anything on its own- unfortunately, this includes radio waves back to Earth.

Now, if you just want a ship that will go for a very, very long time, then it's much simpler.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
A common advice given to runners is to perform a "leg drain". Does the practice have any real basis in physiology?

One website (and it is by no means alone in making this claim) suggests: > Do "leg drains" by lying on your back with your legs extended vertically and feet propped against a wall for three to four minutes. This drains the blood out of your legs so fresh, clean blood can be pumped back into them when you stand up.

Something about the idea of "fresh, clean blood" rings false. But is it?

[Assistant] Fresh blood is always being pumped into your legs by your heart, so that part is BS. However, propping your legs up can help the flow of lymph fluid (which cleans your tissues of metabolic wastes) and help reduce swelling in the event of injury so it might be beneficial in that sense.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [The Bible] How far in advance did God have to create that star in order for it's light to reach earth on Jesus' birth?

[Assistant]
The god *imagines* (for want of a better word) the universe. In the first text, the god says "Let there be light," and there is light.

The god does *not* say "Let there be fusion, which will release photons, which will carry energy at a finite velocity from the place of fusion outwards." That is what a god would say if the god "implemented" (for want of a better word) the universe.

The Magi have a finite vocabulary for celestial objects. The god imagines - proclaims? - an unmoving light above Bethlehem, visible for hundreds of miles. The Magi have no observational tools other than sharp human vision. They see a light: is it a star, a planet, a comet, a meteor, a cloud, lightning? While they watch from the East, the light does not move relative to the stars, so it would be wrong to call it a planet. They start traveling west, and once they move, the light *does* change its position relative to the stars. They solve for the parallax and hey presto Manger.

When asked, they say "we saw his star in the East," instead of "We observed an anomalous astronomical object and did the geometry" because, you know, shepherds and carpenters, and non-technical chroniclers.

The god-who-implements requires a star and pre-event planning. The god-who-imagines does not.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: How are colleges and universities allowed to handle drug cases without getting the police involved?

I go to college in the US and whenever someone is caught with illegal substances such as marijuana/LSD, the college handles the issue themselves without getting the police involved. How do they have the right to do so?

[Assistant]
They have the right to confiscate items due to contract.  Under contract, you agreed to abide by the college rules for being there.  They don't have any right to do anything with the criminal justice system, only their own rules that you sign that you agree to.  You gave them the right.

Colleges have a financial interest in keeping crime quiet and handling crimes in-house where they can.  If a crime that happens on a campus gets reported to police, then that becomes part of the DOJ statistics for that college, which can affect how many customers want to pay them.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: Why does wetting your finger create extra grip when opening a plastic bag or picking up a piece of paper?

I always thought dry surfaces would have more grip compared to wet surfaces. Like athletes using chalk.

[Assistant]
It's because water sticks to things in ways that aren't friction based.

When you put chalk on your hand, you're increasing the friction between you and say the climbing wall you're on. Friction only works under compression, so any time you need to pull or slide past, it doesn't really work.

When you put water on your finger, it sticks to both you, and the plastic bag. This stickiness is better in shear forces (sliding past) and tension. Not great mind you, but better than pure friction.

If it doesn't stick to the thing you're up against, then it doesn't give any extra grip. That's why ceramic tile floors and rocks are slippery, the water would much rather stick to you and itself than the ceramic.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
How was it possible for people to train pigeons to take messages between places?

Wouldn't they just fly away?

[Assistant]
Carrier pigeons aren't exactly trained to take messages between places. For one thing, they only take messages one way. For another, they're more bred than trained.

A long time ago (probably around the time of the ancient Egyptians, from what historians can tell), people realized that there was something kind of special about pigeons. Most pigeons spent a lot of their time around there "home area" where their nests and their mates were. And, when they went somewhere else, they were really good at finding their way back home.

When people realized that these birds were inclined to return home and also good at it, they realized they could use these wild birds if they domesticated them. So they started selectively breeding them. They picked the birds that were the best at finding their way home and bred them so their babies would be even better at it. They also bred them to be comfortable around humans. What they ended up with is what we call a homing pigeon.

A homing pigeon can find its way home from a way further distance than a wild pigeon can, and it does it pretty much any time it's free and it's not at its home.

So what people can do is raise a bunch of homing pigeons in one place, and then anybody who might need to send messages to that place in the future could take some of the homing pigeons with them wherever they were going. They keep the pigeons in cages, and when it's time to send a message, they tie the message to the pigeon's leg and let it free. It flies home, delivering the message in the process.

So, as you see, for someone to send you a message by pigeon they need to have one of your pigeons in captivity first, because your pigeons always want to fly back to your house.

When homing pigeons are used this way they're called carrier pigeons. Homing pigeons are also used for other purposes -- pigeon racing, dove-release ceremonies, stuff like that.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: The backstory behind the Elder Scrolls games.

I'm planning on buying Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and it'll be the first elder scrolls game I've bought. Is there any general storyline I need to know about?

[Assistant]
Frodo, the main character, is trying to destroy the ring of power that Sauron, the bad guy, made to enslave mankind. He gets the help from 8 people of different races which included a dwarf, wizard, two men, elf, and 3 hobbits(Frodo's a hobbit as well) so together there were 9 in the fellowship. They travel together until they get to the ancient dwarf kingdom under the rock, Moria. There they were encountered by a Balrog, a fire demon with wings and a fiery whip, and they all escape except the wizard Gandalf. The fellowship treads onwards towards the mountain of fire where only the ring can be destroyed by throwing in the fire where it was made. It lies to the southeast. They get help from some elves and travel down the river called the Anduin. Here they get separated and Frodo and one of his fellow hobbits named Sam go off by themselves to the mountain of fire Mount Doom. The two other hobbits get captured by orcs, evil creatures of Saruman who is a wizard in the same order as Gandalf, are taken to Saruman's strong hold in Isengard. Boromir, one of the two men on this journey, is killed by orcs after he tries to steal the ring from Frodo. The man, elf, and dwarf then run after the band of orcs, or uruk-hai, trying to save their friends. The orcs run across the land of Rohan and are later destroyed at night by one of Rohan's marshalls and the two little hobbits escape into the forest of Fangorn, a deadly creepy forest of the tree shepherds. So the three man crew comes upon the massacre that took place last night and go into the Fangorn forest to find the two hobbits who unknowingly to them has already been rescued by Treebeard, the shepherd of the forest Fangorn. The elf, man, and dward run into someone they didn't expect, Gandalf. It turns out that Gandalf defeated the Balrog and died but was returned back to Middle earth to finish his conquest and his new name was Gandalf the White. So they head to Rohan and find that the king has been mind-poisoned by Saruman and his minion so they cured him, his name was Theoden. Together they ride to Helms deep and defeat the army of Saruman. Frodo and Sam meet Gollum who originally found the lost ring of Sauron and together they make their way to Mt. Doom in the land of Mordor. Sauron unleashes his army on the city of Minas Tirith and Gandalf and Pippin, one of the hobbits, rides off to warn the city of the attack. So war is unleashed on the city and they valiantly fight agaisnt the orcs and Southerners that are slaves of Sauron. The city of Minas Tirith was at a loss until the men of Rohan and Aragorn ride into the battlefield and destroy the orcs of Sauron. After the war of Minas Tirith, they head to the gates of Mordor to draw out the army of Sauron so Frodo and Sam can destroy the ring. Frodo and Sam are betrayed by Gollum who tries to take the ring away. Sam gets knocked out by Gollum who chases Frodo into the mountain where the lake of fire lies. Together they fight over the ring until Gollum bites off Frodo's finger that was holding the ring. Gollum and the ring fall into the liquid fire and they are both destroyed. Evil has been conquered by Good. The Hobbits head home and Aragorn was anointed King of Gondor and Arnor, the South and North. Gandalf, Frodo, and his uncle Bilbo who won the ring from Gollum many years ago, head off on their final journey to the land of the Elves in the west. They are never seen again in Middle Earth.

The end.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Batman v. Supermans] {Spoilers} So why didn't...

Superman give the spear to Wonder Woman? I understand Batman was some distance away, but Wonder Woman was RIGHT there and he could've easily been the one to distract Doomsday while Wonder Woman stabbed him with the spear.

[Assistant]
I think Superman wanted to die.

The entire movie centered around how Kal El feels out of place, hated and alone. He has vast power, but can't make everything right. He loves a woman, but sows chaos trying to protect her. People accuse of of acting like a god, and then accuse him of not using his godlike power enough. They accuse him of acting unilaterally, but when he tries to speak to the government, a terrorist murders the entire capitol.

He was done. He basically said as much to Lois on her balcony. He knew he couldn't please everyone,  knew he couldn't live up to the example his father set for him.

That's why Ma Kent told him he didn't owe the world anything. Because she could see him cracking.

I think this Superman wanted to go out in one last, glorious battle. That's why he attacked Doomsday himself, and that's why he flew with the Kryptonite instead of just throwing the spear like a, well, spear.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[District 9] What's it like for cat owners in Johannesburg?

Has the alien residence with their addiction to cat food skewed the market enough that owning cat is not really fiscally possible anymore?

[Assistant] The Prawns seem to prefer wet cat food.  The price of wet is probably high but the cost of dry shouldn't change.  Also cat food shouldn't be difficult for anyone to import in huge amounts its not a restricted good and its only that desirable in the Alien ghetto.  You'd just get most people feeding thier cats dry and bigger then normal imports of wet to the city.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
Why is it more fun to save in games than in real life?

I've always noticed that in games like lets say RuneScape, saving really feel like a goal. It becomes very nice to see that first 100k, got into 1million, than to 10, 100, etc. It really motivates.

However, in real life this is a bit different. I personally have the will to touch it. It doesn't feel like it's really growing (even when it does). I guess in most games you don't really have to pay as much rent as in real life...

Why do you think this is, based on behavioural economics?

[Assistant]
Games are nothing more than accomplishment machines. They have straightforward rules and guaranteed payoffs for exactly the amount of difficulty you tell it you want. If they didn't then you wouldn't play them.

Reality is messy and slow by comparison. Payoffs are never guaranteed, difficulty is uncontrollable and either so low as to be boring or so high as to be frustrating or impossible. What's more, payoffs take much longer to achieve.

That being said, there are some mental tricks I've learned that can turn certain aspects of life and some types of careers into a much more game like experience. The main one being to find something that is sufficiently challenging.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [MCU] I, a normal human dude, was given a set of infinity stones for my 33rd birthday. What kind of training do I need and who do I talk to in order to use them to their fullest potential? Can I even take them out of the box?

[Assistant]
You Simply lack the strength to wield them. Your bodies will crumble as your minds collapse to the madness.

\-Thor

Also see the scene from GotG1 where people are torn apart by the power of the stones, or driven into madness.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5:What is that newborn baby smell and how does it stay for weeks?

[Assistant]
You mean the one from the head? Those are pheromones released by the baby to make people love them. It's almost intoxicating, and even stronger if the baby is yours.

And yes, humans are subject to the effects of pheromones.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[fairly odd parents] how much autonomy do the godparents have?

like, are they limited to grant only what their godchild wishes for? if, for example, they are assigned a child in an abusive home, but the child does not see it as abusive because its been their whole life/any other reason, can the godparent use their magic to improve the situation or do they have to wait until their godchild explicitly wishes for it to be done?

[Assistant]
They are only assigned to kids who are miserable. If a kid doesn't know he is being abused he won't be miserable.

But Cosmo and Wanda have both gone out of their way before and worked their magic to protect Timmy, even getting other fairies to help teach him a lesson.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: What is a triple point in physics

I am starting physics and came over the definition for kelvin wich was: A kelvin is defined as being 1/273,16  of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. Could omeone please explain what a triple point in this context is?

[Assistant]
Water boils at 100C, right.

But go to the top of mount Everest, and it will boil at a lower temperature. Closer to 71C. Why? Because the air pressure is lower.

One the pressure gets very low, the freezing point and the boiling point get to the same temperature. It can still be water at this temperature and pressure, but it can also be ice or water vapour.

Decrease the pressure further and ice will go straight to vapour without turning to water. But at exactly the right pressure, it can be solid, liquid or gas, but only at one very specific temperature. This is the triple point.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: Why did the automatic transmission catch on in the United States, but not nearly as much in Europe?

[Assistant]
Cost is a huge decider.

Europeans face far higher gas prices then in the USA. Hence, European cars often focus on efficiency and good kilometers to the litre ratio. They generally have smaller engines, and thus a manual stick is necessary to get full usage out of the car. As Americans have cheaper gas to burn and bigger fuel tanks, they can afford the extra cost of automatic transmission.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Harry Potter] How did wizards and humans evolve together, when neanderthals roamed the earth?

My headcannon is that we're a same species, while ability to control magic is either a trait like hair color or the likelihood to end up with Alzheimer's disease.

However as we live now, most humans don't even know magic exists, let a lone an entire *thriving* society of magically imbued beings.

But besides that, why wouldn't the *obviously* stronger group of magicians win over the homosapiens, if a divide was ever established?

[Assistant]
> obviously stronger group of magicians

I dunno. We know that wizards didn't outbreed us in prehistoric times, so they must not be as prolific as we are. And they seem to need an awful lot of training to be any good at it. But any muggle village can conjure up a mob with spears and pitchforks and torches.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: How was the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's so successful at conveying a message and organizing it's members with the technology of that time? Why, with today's wealth of information at our fingertips, is the current movement for equality in the US such a mess?

[Assistant] It only seems all super organized because you are reading it in textbooks as a historical thing where they pick out the key points. It seems so clean and neat when it's just told as a story where rosa parks invented the idea of equality, then everyone had nonviolent sit ins, then martin luther king invented the idea of equality and died for our sins and then racism ended forever. All the rest gets edited out.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [DC] How would the characters of the DC universe react if the Registration act affected them? Which sides would each character most likely pick?

[Assistant] The entire Justice League will side with anti-registration. Superman will be for people's rights, Batman already operates outside the law, Wonder Woman and Aquaman are foreign sovereigns, Green Lantern works for a much larger government, and Martian Manhunter is an alien.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Wall-E] How does Wall-E determine which objects are valuable/important?

I  mean, he's a robot. AI and stuff... is it just thousands of years of  learning what humans had certain affinities for and sorting the items  based on that? I mean, as far as collecting spare parts for himself,  that's fundamentally logical, but as for all the little tchotchkes he  was collecting... why? And beyond that, how did he decide what was  worth collecting?

[Assistant]
He seems to have built-in routines for collecting spare parts, storing them in a home base, cleaning or repairing the parts, and using them to perform self-repair. But collecting random things he finds pretty or interesting and watching films and other recordings of humans? That's straight-up anomalous behavior for a Wall-E unit. Still, it's interesting how the hard-coded behavior almost directly developed into the emergent behavior.

It's likely a result of adaptive behavior routines to help robots adjust to foreign environments. In Wall-E's case, his routines are running amok and he's more or less self-aware at this point. It's meant to make robots operate longer and more efficiently the older they get, but it can lead to unpredictable behavior like collecting relics that look pretty, or putting the ship on lockdown and lying to the captain, or staging a mutiny.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[General Superheroes] We all have our favorite superpowers but what are the subpowers that make the main powers possible?

I am thinking of heroes like archangel whos subpowers are things like hollow bones, protective eye coverings, etc.

[Assistant]
**1) Super-efficient mass-energy conversion.** Often unappreciated, but most superheroes are slim and attractive because super-powers require massive energy needs, far beyond what their normal caloric intake would sustain--especially for heroes that regenerate or have permanent pyrotechnic effects! Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so many of these supers have hyper-efficient metabolisms, able to generate far more energy than you'd expect from normal foods.

**2) Subconscious Telekinesis** - The unspoken friend of superstrength, telekinesis keeps large objects intact when a superstrong person picks them up, distributing the forces evenly across the invisible telekinetic field. Otherwise, large and heavy objects would tend to bend or break when force is applied to only the small area represented by the superhero's hands. A sub-set of this power is used by many superheroines in place of a bra.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
when can you say you KNOW a programming language?

when i started to learn programming, i had the goal of wanting to learn/know a programming language, but now i feel that everyday im just digging myself a hole that goes deeper with learning, and theres not really such a thing as knowing a language fully, or maybe there is. i feel i can always improve.

has there ever been a switch where you may have felt completed with your language of choice? do you ever feel you will reach that point?

[Assistant]
When you can list half a dozen things wrong with it. Bonus points if you know why they ended up that way and why they can't be easily fixed.

Also  and possibly related   when you know when _not_ to use that language.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
Hard determinism and the meaning of life

If everything really is determined why bother living? You aren't really making any decisions yourself, it's like being on a roller coaster, on a ride you cannot in anyway control. The path has already been decided and it is inevitable.

[Assistant]
Your analogy works perfectly in order to illustrate why we should indeed keep on living. Even if you know that the roller coaster is predetermined, even if you learn about its inevitable end, the enjoyment of the ride is not reduced.

As many people have said before, poor is the poet that stops thinking of sunsets as beautiful after being told that the sun is a huge sphere of burning plasma.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: Why do we laugh at things when with a peer that we would not even find amusing alone?

[Assistant]
It's a bonding mechanism. A lot of laughter can be attributed to bonding with others:

- when people are in a group and laugh, they tend to look at the person they feel closest to or would like to feel close to

- in dating, humor is big factor for how well 2 people connect.

You tend to feel close to those who laugh with you for the same reasons.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [Hellraiser] I've solved the lament configuration, how do I save my self from eternal hell?

[Assistant] Sneak out and get someone to give you victims so you can absorb their blood and restore yourself.  Pinhead & Co. don't seem to keep track of the inmates very well once they are in Hell so sneaking out shouldn't be a problem.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [Star Wars] Where are all the aliens in the Galactic Empire? All the officers are human, the Stormtroopers are human clones, there's no alien representation in the fleet at all. Is the Empire racist?

[Assistant]
The Empire is a human superiority government. In one legend, Count Dooku was a human supremacist, and part of the Clone Wars was to divest many alien governments of their wealth and have it all come under a supreme central human authority.

Stormtroopers are not all clones, as some are conscripts to support the Imperial war machine and garner public favor through loyal service. Most alien species are regarded poorly by Imperials, and Grand Admiral Thrawn is one of the few to rise to such a rank given his species.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] Why does hair sometimes grow out of 'disrupted' skin (moles etc) and why do they tend to be much longer than other hairs?

[Assistant] The last time this was asked here, the top answer was that there is typically a larger amount of blood supplied for a mole. This provides, as a secondary effect, more nutrients for hairs in that location compared to the surrounding area. This leads to the longer, faster growing hairs.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
Are different atoms of the same element identical?

It's always irked me when people say in wonder that no two snowflakes look the same. I believe that no two ANYTHING look the same. But that led me to wonder if this holds true at an atomic level.

[Assistant] Two real atoms, i.e. that are not infinitely far from all other atoms etc., are certainly not identical. The electron density and nuclear spin densities will be affected by their environment and can even be distinguished. This is what the entire fields of MRI and NMR are based upon.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [The Sandman] What if Roderick Burgess had captured Death, rather than Dream, like he originally intended? Or one of the other Endless?

[Assistant]
If he captured Death? The dying would live on in agony, no matter how terrible their injuries. Heaven and Hell would be starved of new souls, and would soon send their agents to investigate. The rules of the cosmos would probably prevent them from directly freeing Death, but Burgess would find himself plagued by angels and demons offering bargains and threatening torments (in roughly equal proportion from both sides). Since his ultimate goal seems to have been power, he would probably have found one of their offers tempting, and take it in exchange for freeing Death.

The bargain would have a loophole in it, of course. These things always do, and whatever immortality and power he thought he had attained would end in due time. His enemies would be waking.

\*\*\*

If he captured Destiny, Destiny would have known it was going to happen. Destiny's book would continue; Destiny would wait patiently for the freedom he knows is coming - or rather, not freedom; Destiny would remain in his chains. Burgess's prison would be a mere waystation to him. Holding him would be even more frustrating than holding Dream.

\*\*\*

If he captured Despair, or Desire, the world might actually become a slightly better place, at first. Then the knock-on effects would begin to accumulate. People would sleepwalk through their lives, stripped of the desires that might drive them onwards; or they would stumble on in misery, lacking even the comfort of absolute despair.

The twins care for each other, in their way. Burgess would find himself suffering in ways that are hard to imagine.

\*\*\*

Delirium wouldn't even notice. There's a good chance that she would just walk out of his cage whenever she got bored, then wander back when she remembered that she was meant to be a prisoner.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Star Wars] what if Anakin died before revenge of the sith

So as the title reads, with all the dangerous situations Anakin gets into he ends up not being so lucky, Now Sidious no longer has his desired Sith Lord, and the republic and the Jedi no longer have Anakin to worry about, what happens to all the characters? How is Anakin not being involved change things? Would the heroes be better off or worse off?

[Assistant] Palpatine relied on Vader a lot to snuff out Jedi and other dissidents. Before the Death Star he was one of the best ways of instilling fear into people. Without Vader he'd have a much harder time snuffing out Jedi meaning there'd be more Jedi available to pose a threat to Palpatine.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] Clouds (in the sky): a) why are they vapour? It's -45C up there, they should be ice! and b) why do they stick together? What force is making them do that?

[Assistant] They aren't vapour. They are actually small water droplets condenced on dust, charged particles, ion's etc.. They condence because of the cold up there. You usually cannot see vapur, and the steam rising from pot is visible for the same reason, condensation as water vapour cools down.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: What does "patent pending" mean, practically? If the patent has still not gone through couldn't someone still copy the invention?

[Assistant] I believe that patents can provide legal protection from the date they were *filed*, meaning any infringement could be sued retroactively. It's like saying, "We can't sue you now, but will be able to in the near future."


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
What color is Protein?

Proteins are very small, but can be pretty large in molecular terms (I'm looking at you Pyruvate Dehydrogenase complex). But whenever I isolate protein my solution is clear and the lyophilized product is just a white solid (may have to do with solvents we use for purification).

To me it seems like proteins should have some innate color, or colors maybe changing on size etc. All I could find online really was that conjugated pi orbitals may lead to color changes but I'm still not sure what the means when looking at isolated protein. For example, if we could see protein under a microscope without doing imaging stuff what would the inside of a cell look like?

[Assistant] On an individual basis, all of the amino acids are colorless compounds, so it should be no surprise that the proteins made from them are also colorless.  However, there are certain circumstances where combinations of amino acids can interact to give rise to color.  Green fluorescent protein is a good example (although, technically, that only glows green when UV light is shined on it).


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: why do tire treads lead to more traction when there is less surface area touching the road?

[Assistant]
They don't. That's why car racing often uses "racing slicks".

The problem is that if you get even a little bit of something between the tire and the road (e.g. rain water) that there isn't anywhere for it to go, and it forms a film between the tire and the road that prevents the tire from getting any traction.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Punisher] Why doesn't the punisher go after corrupt dictators, or anyone with actual power?

Wouldn't going after bad people who are in positions of power, like corrupt congressmen, or dictators, just anyone who controls a significant amount of people like that? And I don't just mean doing it once or twice when the situation is really convenient for him, like just happening to be around someone like that. What about planning out an attack like this? He only seems to murder mafia, or small time criminals.

[Assistant]
Simple. They'd kill him.

He's tough and smart, but he is ultimately just a tough man with guns. He can't fight an *army. S*omeone with the authority to call in marine squads and drone strikes (never mind whatever superpowers a comicbook government could call in) would wipe him out in an instant, and he knows it.

He wants to, and he has opportunistically, but he knows those kind of people are simply above his paygrade. He's just a crazy man with a machine gun. He can't storm the White House, and he's not quite suicidal enough to go down in that blaze of glory.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
How effective are water pipes/hookahs/bongs at filtering out carcinogens from tobacco and marijuana?

Furthermore, does cold or hot water change the efficacy of the device?

[Assistant]
Unfortunately, there is no single physical process that could sort out plethora of compounds that are carcinogens from those that are not.

Water is certainly not going to be able to do any sorting of carcinogens which happen to be handed.  Suppose one is a carcinogen, while the other is not.  As water is a completely symmetric molecule, it won't be able to tell apart left-handed molecules from right-handed ones when it interacts with them.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Independence Day] What "language" or symbols was the helicopter trying to communicate use?

Specifically the modified copter with big flashing lights that was destroyed.

[Assistant]
a common notion for communication to aliens that we are intelligent is to use patterns of prime numbers, this gets across the point that we at least have a basic grasp of maths and aren't just dumb apes and it doesn't require a common language.
I know that those lights were specifically prime numbers, but we didn't see that much of them.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [Superman/The Boys] Superman finds himself trapped in Vought heroes universe and unable to return home. How long does it take for him to realise the true nature of many of the so-called "Heroes" and what does he do about it once he knows?

[Assistant]
It would take maybe a day or two for Superman to come into conflict with the Seven.  He'd fly around helping with crises, and start stepping on their toes as soon as a single big one came up.  Superman can tolerate gloryhounds (there are a few in the league!) But wouldn't back down when Homelander does his creepy intimidation thing.

Homelander being Homelander, this would escalate to attempted murder, followed by a feigned apology when it turns out Superman is actually a match for the leader of the seven.   Vought would try to offer him a place in the seven and convince him to play ball with the fake superhero racket, but a combination of super-senses and his background as an investigative reporter means Superman would figure out the slimy underbelly exists shortly thereafter.

Vought are bush league amateurs compared to Lexcorp, so they'd crack like an egg.  Supes delivers evidence of what Vought has been doing to the FBI, and If that doesnt work he leaks it to the press.  Classified information be damned.  At some point there's a big *real* fight with Homelander, but supes wins that one by a mile, the only real concern is making sure it doesnt turn into a Man of Steel style catastrophe with thousands of people killed as collateral damage.

The rest of the Seven either aren't even a challenge, or outright defect once they have a truly heroic leader they can rally behind.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Alien] Is the discovery of an alien species rare, or a (relatively) common occurrence?

Hudson makes it seem like no big deal when he hears that E. Ripley has encountered an alien lifeform. Has human civilization found plenty of alien life elsewhere to make it such a non-surprising statement, or is he making fun of her?

[Assistant] It gets very murky but generally speaking alien encounters are exceedingly rare. The galaxy that is known is largely made up of uninhabitable rocks and only a rare handful of items have been found to be indicators of intelligence that isn't from earth.  There's also the arcturians that are near human like in appearance but it's unknown if they had been discovered prior to the events of aliens or alien. Beyond that everyone was chasing old data signals from busted probes or damaged ships that made them appear alien in origin until a closer analysis was operated.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Jumanji] Can the Hunter be bargained, presuaded, threatened, or otherwise reasoned with?

Intitially given that he is just a creation of the board game he might simply be a force or murderous intent given human flesh, but he does have a personality. Even the other animals act like animals so whe should he act any less of a human, though a crazy muderous one.

He even has the forethought to give the players "any last words" and lowers his guard and asks them to repeat what they said.

[Assistant] The hunter looks just like Robin Williams' character's dad, which  would suggest he's not "fixed" in the game in the same way that a hippo or an elephant would be - rather, he manifests differently depending on the player and what their childhood traumas are (the card that summons him said something about him chasing you down like a child). He's there to impart a lesson on the player - in this case it was teaching Robin Williams to face up to his fears - so I'd say that no, he *can't* be bargained with (unless the player suffered from some chronic phobia of bartering). It would go against the spirit of the game if he could be.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: How come sometimes when yawning you get a crackle in your ears?

[Assistant] Yawning can open your Eustachian tube, which allows pressure to equalize inside your ear. If the pressure isn't equal, it can pull your eardrum taut. The 'crackle' is the eardrum moving, which as you may know, is part of the mechanism that signals your brain about sounds.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] Why are graves dug 6' deep?

[Assistant]
it is the approximate depth that prevents wildlife from digging it up. both as a matter of moving 6 feet of earth and because the gasses from the body will not filter up quickly enough to be detected by scavengers.

it's also the approximate height of a human being. a digger could easily assess his depth and also get out of the hole under his own power were it necessary.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] We shouldn't donate to Wounded Warrios etc. It's the government's job to take care of them.

[Assistant]
>Either the government needs to improve its service, or people should stop joining the military.

Or....  People who donate to charities want to provide services to those soldiers to a level beyond that of which is required of the government.

E.G.  Just because children's hospital charities exist does not mean that childrens hospitals are doing a bad job.  It means it is nice to give toys to sick kids.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
Why do a lot of little kids have freckles, but not that many adults?

Also, why are they more common with red headed people?

[Assistant]
Two theories about the prominence of freckles in children are as follows:

1. Freckles, being triggered by exposure to sunlight, are more common due to more frequent exposure to the sun and outdoors play, coupled with less care for sunscreen.

2. Freckles, being clusters of melanin, are more easily visible through the thinner skin of a child.  On adults their presence becomes more subdued.

As for redheads, there is likely a genetic correlation to freckling; the amount of freckles is genetic and is related to the presence of the melanocortin-1 receptor MC1R gene variant.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
If LIGO did find gravitational waves, what does that imply about unifying gravity with the current standard model?

I have always had the impression that either general relativity is wrong or our current standard model is wrong.

If our standard model seems to be holding up to all of our experiments and then we find strong evidence of gravitational waves, where would we go from there?

[Assistant]
Nothing. Gravitational waves are just a feature of General Relativity, which is a classical field theory, and so these would be another important piece of evidence for GR. The discovery would also open up the road to gravitational wave astronomy and the study of black hole mergers and similar events.

However nothing of this is affected by the quantization of gravity and the details of a theory of everything. GWs are well into the classical limit.

Think of the people who discovered EM waves; did that tell them anything about quantum electrodynamics, or even quantum mechanics?


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: Why does AM radio cut out, even when driving under an underpass, and FM radio plays clearly, even through a tunnel?

[Assistant] AM waves are big and heavy, like a bowling ball. If you launch it (transmit) it travels for a long distance but doesnt bounce around that much when it hits something. FM waves are like small rubber balls. They bounce around a lot and so look like they can go around/through obstacles like buildings and tunnels. But they run out of energy quickly so have a shorter range.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Star Wars] Has there ever been a Force trained gunslinger?

I don't mean people who may have some small degree of force sensitivity, I mean a full Jedi/Sith level trained Force user who uses blasters as their main weapon. Hell, lightsabers come in many forms, like the lightsaber whips, so kyber crystal blasters seem well within the realms of possibility.

I would think that the variety of abilities that skilled Force users have would make them godlike marksmen, if maybe not as effective in a fight with another Jedi/Sith.

[Assistant] In Coruscant Nights novels, one of supporting characters was a so-called "Grey Paladin", member of a small sect that broke off the Jedi Order over their reluctance to rely on the Force and Lightsaber. As a result they largely use their Force powers to enhance their marksmanship and are pretty much Force Gunslingers.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
How did Bruce Banner suddenly get control of the Hulk in the Avengers?

On the aircraft carrier thing, he had 0 control and just smashed everything to shit. Then the next time we see him, he's in complete control. How did that happen?

[Assistant]
At the end of The Incredible Hulk it's strongly implied that he is able to change whenever he wants.

There are basically two Hulks. The one we saw when Loki's manipulation caused Banner to lose control and the one Banner deliberately became during the fight with the Chitauri.

The first Hulk is based on pure, uncontrollable rage. The second has Banner in the back of his head, making sure his anger is directed at the right people.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Star Wars] is Stormtrooper armour actually protective at all?

Hey there! I'm from Jedha City and life's been good, even despite the Imperial occupation. I got a new girlfriend, finally finished paying the mortgage on my shack and tomorrow I'm starting my new job as a Young Living Essential Bactha salesman. Can't wait!

But I just witnessed something strange. Apparently some people don't take kindly to the boys in white patrolling our streets and some people were fighting with them. But what I just saw makes me think them Stormies need some better gear.

A bunch of them started fighting some dude with a stick and he whooped their asses. He kicked one in the head and the trooper just went down. Then he kicked up some sand at another Stormtrooper who put his hand in front of his face and was totally distracted.

Shouldn't their armour protect them against melee combat like that? And especially the sand in the face. Dude, you've got a helmet. Don't tell me you got that stuff in your eyes. What happened there?

Anyway, hope you guys can shed some light on this and maybe tomorrow after work I can head over to the local garrison and give them some tips.

[Assistant] Storm Trooper Armor is similar to today's body armor, it will help protect against shrapnel and low power weapons but a direct shot from a high power weapon will still penetrate. Furthermore is serves as a uniform and is instantly recognizable across the Galaxy. When you see that armor, you know you may be able to piece it but that the armies and fleets that back it up are an overwhelming force. As far as melee combat, it is not designed for melee combat, it will protect against slash wounds but not matter how hard the helmet, the brain is still easily rattled and TBIs from close explosions are still lethal at worst and debilitating at best. Finally, the ingrained reaction of protecting your face is nearly impossible to train out. In a split second decision in combat, a line trooper is still likely to flinch when something is thrown at their face. Even just sand.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
How did Einstein figure out relativity in the first place? What problem was he trying to solve? How did he get there?

One thing I never understood is how Einstein got from A to B.

Science is all about experiment and then creating the framework to understand the math behind it, sure, but it's not like we're capable of near-lightspeed travel yet, nor do we have tons of huge gravity wells to play with, nor did we have GPS satellites to verify things like time dilation with at the time.

All we ever hear about are his _gedanken_ thought experiments, and so there's this general impression that Einstein was just some really smart dude spitballing some intelligent ideas and then made some math to describe it, and then suddenly we find that it consistently explains so much.

How can he do this without experiment? Or were there experiments he used to derive his equations?

[Assistant]
In his own words, he was "saving classical electromagnetism" when he came up with relativity. There are two constants in electromagnetism that set the strength of the electromagnetic interactions in a vaccuum: the permittivity (0) of free space and the permeability of free space (0). When the theory of electromagnetic waves came out, it was found that you can calculate the speed of light from these constants, i.e.:

c = (1/00)^1/2 = 3.0x10^8 m/s

But now you have a problem; what happens if you are in a moving vehicle at constant velocity in a straight line and you do electromagnetic experiments? If the speed of light changes in that reference frame it would also mean the *constants* of electromagnetism would change and therefore the whole theory of electromagnetism would break down (the equations would all become velocity dependent whereas the formulation of say, the electric field, isn't normally).

This problem can be solved by assuming that the speed of light is constant. If this is so then the free space constants are also invariant and the laws of electromagnetism will still work properly in any inertial reference frame.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [The Lobster]What the hell happened to mankind in this movie to cause people to be emotionless monsters who always speak their minds? What happened to cause mankind to criminalize being single?

[Assistant]
> What the hell happened to mankind in this movie to cause people to be emotionless monsters who always speak their minds?

Unreliable narrator. The whole film is told to us by the Shortsighted Woman, who may personally misunderstand emotion (and is therefore misunderstanding the situations she's describing) or is possibly glossing over the finer details of what actually occurred.

> What happened to cause manking to criminalize being single?

From an outsider's perspective on the universe, we don't necessarily know that something "happened" to make the world that way. It's very possible that that particular universe has *always* operated that way. That said, presuming that it hasn't always been that way? Since the whole thing appears to be endorsed by the government, I'd guess that the laws were put in place to combat a moral panic against alleged societal decay.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5 What creates freezing rain conditions vs. snow?

Hello from Central TX! A few weeks ago, we got tons of pillowy, perfect snow for the 1st time in my life.

This weekend, we are getting dangerous freezing rain. What conditions create freezing rain instead of wonderful snow?

[Assistant] Freezing rain is caused when snow falls through a large pocket of warm air on the way down. This melts the ice crystals a bit, but when they return to colder air they'll freeze up again. Sleet is caused the same way, just with a smaller pocket of warm air.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] If a human were to have a blood transfusion with a blood type that was not their own, what would happen?

[Assistant]
Because of the way the body recognizes the proteins on the erythrocytes (red blood cells), it depends. A simplified way of looking at it is purely using blood types.

Let's say person 1 has type AB blood. That means their blood cells have protein A and protein B on them. If you were to give them blood without those proteins in it, person 1's body wouldn't see anything amiss, as there are no recognizable foreign pathogens.

Person 2, on the other hand, has type O blood. that means their blood cells lack proteins A and B. If we give them blood that is their own type, nothing happens. But if we give them blood with proteins A, B, or both A and B, their body raises its defenses, because it sees these strange new contaminants that it has never dealt with before. So the body attacks anything with these new proteins A and B, "rejecting" the transfusion and causing some serious medical problems.

A similar thing happens with Rh- people receiving Rh+ blood.

That is why people with blood type AB+ are known as universal receivers, and people with O- blood are called universal donors.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
ELI5: what are the different versions of Linux and why do they exist?

there are so many versions, such as Ubuntu, Mint, Unity, Gnome etc.

why do they all exist? why are there so many and not just one?

[Assistant]
Unity and Gnome aren't version of Linux, they're desktop environments for Linux. Ubuntu uses Unity, and numerous distributions of Linux use Gnome by default.

Different ones exist to fit different preferences of the creators and to fit different use-cases.

Ubuntu is a corporate-backed desktop Linux meant for workstations and adapted also for home-use. Mint is very Ubuntu like but the Mint devs fix some of what they see as faults in Ubuntu.

Redhat is a corporate-backed server Linux that, while it can be used on workstations, is focused on the server market. Fedora is a community project led by the Redhat folks to test new features and softwares they may put into the much more change-averse Redhat distributions.

CentOS is a rebuild of Redhat with all the copyrighted materials of Redhat removed so it can be redistributed for free.

Damn Small Linux aims to never exceed a 50MB core. CoreOS is meant to act as a sort of hypervisor to many docker instances. DD-WRT is meant to be a firmware/OS for router hardware. Many more aim to do many other things.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: Why is adding acid to water safer than adding water to acid? Thinking of the rhyme "acid to water just like you oughtta, water to acid you might get blasted".

[Assistant]
When you dilute a strong acid, a lot of heat is released very quickly. If you are steadily adding the acid to a container of water instead, then the heat will be dissipated much more effectively throughout the water.

Edit: as others have noted, it's also a safety precaution to help prevent strong acids from splashing out of the container.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Citizen Kane] So why didn't Kane buy or build a ski resort?

I'm just saying, It's not childhood sledding, but it's close.

[Assistant]
It wasn't just the sled.  He missed the carefree days of his youth.  That was the last time he was truly happy.  The sled was just representative of that time period.

Buying a ski resort would just bring adult problems and concerns into his childhood pastime.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] Eli5: How does a Zamboni work?

[Assistant]
Moving front to back on modern resurfacers: Spray water on ice to loosen dirt. Large blade scrapes up top layer of ice using mostly the weight of the device to scrape. The scraped up ice is then mechanically delivered to an internal container (which is why modern resurfacers look so big.) Some resurfacers can also vacuum up some the excess water that was sprayed earlier and recycle it.

Spray clean water a second time, often hot water, which will melt the top of the ice a bit and refreeze. Sometimes there is a wet towel like thing that is dragged over the warm water to make sure it is smooth.

Also, modern resurfacers usually have spinning brushes at their corners to pick up ice bits that gets stuck against the boards that surround the rink.

And after doing a run, the resurfacer is driven outside and the ice in the internal container is dumped on a pile where the sun should melt it (though during the winter the ice pile always seems to grow bigger and bigger. :) )


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
The most important function of government is stewardship, and Libertarianism is bankrupt because it doesn't account for this. CMV

It's often stated that the most important function of government is security, but I disagree with this - it's actually *stewardship* that is the most important function. After all, what good is keeping the current generation safe if we use up all of our resources doing so, leaving nothing for the next generation?

Conservation of our natural (and intellectual, industrial, etc.) resources is a task the government is uniquely suited for.  In a free market environment such as the one coveted by Libertarians and AnCaps, everyone is essentially out for themselves, and are encouraged to consume as much of our resources as they can if they feel it can give them some sort of advantage.  No one is tasked with watching out for future generations - no one has the power to make people stop burning oil and burning the rain forests because it doesn't necessarily cause harm to this generation, even though it could devastate our future generations.

The only incentive, ecologically, for stewardship in a market environment is watching out for your direct descendants, but if everyone is only watching out for themself and theirs, there's still a massive incentive to slash and burn the environment, etc. if it provides wealth.  After all, if your descendants are only paying one ten-billionth of the cost but reaping the entire benefit, you are still incentivized to consume and not conserve.

Governments, because they (at least are intended to) last many generations, have skin in the game on preserving natural, intellectual, industrial, etc. resources for the future.  Additionally, by virtue of being composed of the whole population, they don't have the same "privatized profit, socialized loss" mechanism that individuals have, because they instead balance socialized profit vs. socialized loss.

I can't claim that government always does a perfect job of stewardship, but at least "big government" HAS A MECHANISM IN PLACE that **can** rationally practice stewardship.  Libertarianism, by its very nature, **does not** preserve stewardship and thus cannot form a solid long-term basis for a high-functioning society.

**UPDATE:** Thanks everyone for the great discussion!  Unfortunately, I did not see any posters give any concrete answers for how a libertarian society can protect future generations, so I cannot yet award a delta.  The closest that I came to being swayed is the suggestion that class-action lawsuits could be taken against offenders, HOWEVER, with no proposed way that class-action lawsuits could be taken on behalf of future persons, even this solution fails the test of stewardship.

I feel that the most common response to my post was "current states don't do a good job of stewardship either." While this may be true, it doesn't alter my claim that a libertarian society **cannot** do a good job of stewardship, whereas a state with a relatively forward-thinking leadership could do an effective job. The fact that most current states do a poor job doesn't excuse the fact that a Libertarian government would institutionalize a complete lack of stewardship *as part of its fundamental mechanism, the free market.*  FURTHERMORE, I believe that environmental conservation laws, when they have been passed, have been extremely effective at reducing pollution of rivers, reducing smog, improving efficiency standards, and preserving our natural landscape.  My conclusion is that IF the political will exists, a strong state can do an excellent job of stewardship, so the fundamental problem comes not from the functioning of the state, but from the mobilization of political public sentiment.  Thus, while market-based solutions cannot possibly protect future generations (and I'm still open to being swayed on that claim,) a strong government has a clear way to provide the necessary stewardship, and further efforts should be made at the level of education, organization, and mobilization of citizens concerned with stewardship and sustainability, rather than requiring any sort of overhaul of government.

[Assistant] Devil's advocate: governments are made up of politicians, who do not have skin in the game long term as they are most concerned with the next election. A President has a significant incentive to exploit resources unsustainably to improve the economy, as they won't be eligible for reelection by the time it becomes a problem.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] How does one measure the thickness of gold foil?

[Assistant] Ellipsometry can do it! Throw in some polarised light, look at the reflection and see how the polarisation has changed - gold is slightly birefringent (it changes the polarisation of the light on transmission), and so by looking at the net change of polarisation you can work out the thickness!


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] [Music] What kind of evolutionary pressures could create the Rock Lobster?

[Assistant] Rock lobsters are already a real thing (specifically, there's about 60 species of crustacean that all get classified as part of the Palinuridae family, colloquially called "spiny lobsters" and "rock lobsters", among other names).  Presumably, the one in the song had a carapace that looked close enough like a rock that (if it was partially buried in the sand) you could easily mistake it for one while under a dock.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[Cabin in the Woods] Does this movie encourage the idea that all/most horror movies happen in the same reality as appeasement for the old gods?

At least the relatively generic horror movies involving Woods and a cabin of whatever potential outcome the simulation allows.

It would certainly explain consistently stupid behavior in most horror films.

[Assistant] That's the basic idea, but it's not just cabin stories.  The Japanese sacrifice (which failed) involved kids in a school and a creepy long-haired ghost.  Presumably the other ritual sites had things inspired by (or the inspiration for) the horror tropes of their own cultures.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
CMV: Every doctrine unique to Catholicism is wrong.

I would mostly like to see responses from Catholics, but Lutherans could probably chime in as well. From what I know of Lutherans, they are very close to Catholics.

In this particular post, I am not looking to argue about the existence of God. I'm expecting that to be the positive assumption of anyone replying.

To give a little background on myself and where my views are coming from, my beliefs fall under the broad umbrella of protestant doctrines, I attend a baptist church, and I believe the Bible to be God's intentional finished revelation to mankind.

I am going to list, one by one, some of the most commonly known Catholic doctrines, and compare them to what we are taught in scripture. The objective in this CMV will be to either correct me if I have misrepresented a Catholic teaching, or convince me that my interpretation of scripture is incorrect in respects to anything listed.

The Catholic Church is heavily built around traditions which have been invented and passed down over the course of the last 2,000 years. When studying the history of the Catholic Church, it becomes obvious that their doctrine evolves over time. It has changed so much in fact that it is now barely recognizable when compared to the teachings of the 1st century apostles. The scriptures are the Holy Word of God and cannot be put aside for the traditions of men. Mark 7:7-8

**The Pope**

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus appointed the Apostle Peter to be the founder and head of the church. They believe that Jesus instilled the property of infallibility in Peter so that he could lead the church without error. Peter would then eventually need to appoint a new leader in his place to whom he would pass on his infallibility so that the church could continue through time and always have a leader in place who could perfectly maintain and direct the church.

Matthew 16:17-19 records a conversation between Jesus and Peter. In these verses Jesus says that it is by Peter that his church will be established. This does seem to imply that Peter would be responsible for getting the church started, but does this text imply that Peter was given divine authority and primacy over all other church heads across the world? Or does this text simply record Jesus giving Peter recognition for his future importance in spreading the Gospel? No other text in scripture suggests that Peter had more authority than any other church leader. Ephesians 2:19-20 suggests that the church is built on all the apostles.

Nowhere does scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained. The practice of electing new popes, each able to lead the church without error, is a man made idea that is contrary to scripture. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul writes that NO ONE not even angels of Heaven should be trusted if they give a gospel message that is different from what has been originally preached. It does not matter WHO is teaching, it matters WHAT is being taught. 1Timothy 5:19 predicts that from time to time false teaching will arise from church leadership. The Bible would suggest that no infallible Pope is necessary to keep the church from error because scripture itself is the key to separating truth from error. *"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of God will stand forever."* Isaiah 40:8

*"The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the Heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once and for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever."*  - Hebrews 7:23-28

Those verses from the Book of Hebrews is referring to Jesus, not the Pope. Jesus is our High Priest. We have no need for another.

**The Eucharist**

Catholics believe in a ritual called transubstantiation, where bread and wine are literally transformed into the blood and body of Christ for the purpose of re-sacrificing him every Sunday.

Luke, Matthew, and 1Corinthians all record the words of Jesus when he is talking to his apostles at the last supper. Jesus takes bread, breaks it, and gives it to his disciples saying, "This is my body that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." The breaking of the bread is symbolic for how Jesus' body would later be broken and bloodied. He tells us to break the bread in remembrance of him. I'm not sure how the Catholic tradition was ever interpreted from this.

In John 19:30, right before Christ died, he said "it is finished." Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, and Hebrews 10:10-12 each emphasize that Christ's sacrifice was a one time thing. Thinking that Jesus' death on the cross was not enough, and that his sacrifice must be repeated every week, cheapens what he did for us.

Partaking in this symbolic eating and drinking is very important. Not only is it a direct command from our Lord to do so, but it is for our good that each time we do it, we deeply consider Christ's sacrifice, what he went through, and where we'd be without it. Such thinking will produce a reverence of God and bring glory to his name. We do not partake in "communion" as if it is a good work that somehow earns us favor from God. That idea is taught nowhere in scripture.

**Mary and the Saints**

The Bible is absolutely clear that we are to worship God alone. All followers of the Lord refuse worship. In Acts 10:25-26, Peter tells a man not to worship him because he is only a man. In Revelation 22:9, even Angels rebuke those who worship them, and rather point their worship towards God.

Catholics attempt to bypass Scripture by claiming they do not "worship" Mary or saints, but rather that they only "venerate" them. Changing the word does not change what is being done. Even the concept of veneration is not supported by Scripture.

Some Catholics will claim that they worship God through Mary, by praising the wonderful creation that God has made. Mary in their minds is a beautiful and wonderful creation of God, and by praising her, they are praising her Creator. The problem with this is that God explicitly commands against worshipping Him through created things. We are not to bow down and worship the form of anything in Heaven or Earth. Exodus 20:4-5. Romans 1:25 addresses the matter very specifically. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised." Yes, God has created wonderful and amazing things, but we are absolutely not to worship God vicariously by praising things or people He created. Doing so is blatant idolatry.

The major way Catholics venerate Mary and the saints is by praying to them, but prayer to anyone other than God alone is anti-biblical. 1 Timothy 2:5  Prayer is an act of worship. When we pray to God, we are admitting that we need his help. Directing our prayers to anyone other than God is robbing Him of the glory that is His alone. Jesus and the Holy Spirit can hear our prayers and petition the Father on our behalf, but scripture does not teach us that such a job belongs to any other being. Praying to a dead saint is idolatry.
(On a side note, repeating prayers in the form of chanted verses is condemned by Jesus. Matthew 6:7 Jesus compares those who pray this way with pagans. Such practice can be seen in repeating "Hail Mary's" and "The Lord's Prayer." Prayer should be thoughtful and heart-felt, not thoughtless recitation of memorized words.)

Another way Catholics venerate Mary and the saints is by creating statues and images of them. Many Catholics use images of Mary or the saints as good luck charms. This is blatant idolatry. (another side note, rubbing rosary beads is also idolatry.)

Terminology is not the issue. Whether the practice is described as worship or veneration, the problem is the same. Any time we ascribe something that belongs to God to someone else, it is idolatry. The Bible nowhere instructs us to revere, pray to, rely on, or idolize anyone other than God. God alone is worthy to receive praise and worship.

The Catholic Church also teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, implying that Jesus was her only child. Not only is this false, but the idea that remaining a virgin would somehow make her more righteous is anti-biblical. Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Matthew 12:46 & 13:55-56, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31, John 7:3, Acts 1:14, Galatians 1:19
All of these verses talk about Jesus' siblings.

Returning one last time to the subject of the saints. The Catholic Church gives the title of "saint" to only selected individuals who's works have deemed them worthy. There is nothing in scripture that teaches this. Instead, anytime you read the word "saint" in scripture, it is used to describe any believer who has faith in Christ.

**Salvation**

*"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one can boast."* Ephesians 2:8-9

*"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."* John 5:24

*"...and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil, or fade - kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time."* 1Peter 1:4-5

*"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."* Romans 3:28

*"For all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."* Romans 10:13

*"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."* Romans 5:1

*"So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith."* Galatians 3:24

God mentions this so many times because he does not want this to be misunderstood. There is no question more important than, "how is a person saved?" Catholics believe that faith in Jesus is only the beginning of salvation, and that further meritorious works are required to be right with God. The whole purpose of Jesus' sacrifice was that it would atone for our sins in a way that good works simply could never do. Isaiah 46:6 tells us that our righteous works are like filthy rags. They could never earn us anything from God. In John 19:30, Jesus says "It is finished." just before he takes his last breath. The Greek word translated as "It is finished" is tetelestai, which is an accounting term usually used to mean "paid in full." Jesus was declaring the debt owed to his Father as wiped away completely and forever. After he removed the debt of our sins, what is left for works to accomplish?

What purpose then do works have in the life of a Christian? James 2:14-26 does a great job of explaining it. Faith alone saves us from judgement. Our faith is evident by our works. If we claim to have faith yet no works can be found in us, James suggests we actually do not have faith at all. If we love Christ, we will do good works even though it is not a requirement of salvation, but if we do not do good works, where can our love for Christ be seen? Do we have love for Christ if we do not do good works?

**Baptism**

Catholics will teach that we cannot be receivers of God's salvation unless we are baptized. They will say that it is necessary for the removal of original sin and therefore they will baptize infants. This teaching goes against very important and clearly explained biblical truths. Salvation comes at the moment someone places faith in the sacrifice of Jesus, not at the moment of baptism. Ephesians 1:13 says that God sealed our salvation when we heard the gospel and believed.

Baptism does nothing to remove the curse of original sin. This should be obvious by the fact that after being baptized, we continue to sin.

Following God's command to be baptized is something that could be called a "good work." Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that salvation has nothing to do with good works. If salvation could be earned by completing tasks, we would not have needed Christ. A belief in salvation earned by works disregards the purpose of Christ's sacrifice.

We know salvation does not require baptism because we are given the example of the thief on the cross next to Jesus who repents and places his faith in Jesus. This man did not have a chance to be baptized.

If we know that the Bible teaches salvation by faith, then we cannot baptize infants who are too young to understand the Gospel. Each person is saved according to their own faith. God will not save a child just because someone else forcibly baptized them.

So what is baptism then? It is a public declaration of faith. Baptism is a person of faith declaring to the world that they are identifying with the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is always why baptism is meant to be full immersion in water. Going all the way under the water is a picture of Christ's death and burial. Coming back up out of the water is symbolic of his resurrection from the dead. You do not get this illustration from the sprinkling of water, or the pouring of water over the head.

Baptism is always a matter of identity. It is how a saved person identifies with Christ's sacrifice. It is that same reason why Jesus was baptized. Did Jesus need to be baptized to remove his sins? Of course not, he was sinless, but he needed to be baptized so he could identify with all of us. He needed to be our perfect substitute, and that sacrifice meant he needed to identify with us through baptism.

**Personal Notes**

As a child, I was made to attend Catholic mass every Sunday. I've also attended a couple masses in more recent years. It's been my experience that Catholic mass really does not offer anything spiritually to those who attend. The service consists of 2 or 3 scripture readings which many times are read out of context or with no context at all. The sermon is short, many times not relating to or explaining the meaning of previously read passages. The sermon will almost never do anything to stir you spiritually or to develop you into a mature Christian that is always growing in faith. The whole service is mostly composed of the ceremonial recitation of memorized responses to familiar prompts.

I can recall my classes I took as a young teenager that were meant to prepare me for Catholic confirmation. During these classes we never once opened a Bible or learned about scripture.

Studying Catholic Church history should be alarming for those who support Catholic leadership. In past centuries, commoners were not even given access to Bibles. Scripture was translated into the dead language of Latin for the purpose of restricting readers. People were burned as punishment for attempting to translate scripture into the common language. It was completely normal for priests and monks to be appointed before they had even fully read a Bible. Such was the case for Martin Luther the reformer, who upon actually studying scripture realized its teachings were absent from the church.

[Assistant]
You misunderstand the Catholic concept of prayer to/veneration of saints.

When you're going through a tough time in your life, it is pretty common for other (living) people to pray for you. And it is also common to ask others to pray for you in this way. This idea of an *intercessory* prayer is also found in the Bible (1 Timothy 2:1-2). So asking other living Christians to pray for you is certainly not wrong.

Why, then, should it be wrong to ask other Christians who are dead to pray for you? Physically, they may be dead, but spiritually they are alive in Christ. It would be a poor eternal life indeed if we could not pray to God in Heaven! Furthermore, over centuries the Catholic Church has recorded countless miracles that occurred after a prayer for intercession from a saint: if God actually disapproved of these prayers, why would He grant these miracles?

Similarly, we honor those living Christians we believe are worthy of honor.  We even regularly honor people who are meritorious in non-spiritual capacities, such as political figures, doctors, etc.
Why then, should it be wrong to also honor dead Christians, who are alive in Christ? This is all that veneration of the saints is. Note that this is distinct from the type of adoration that is due to God alone, and which we give neither to living people nor saints.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
Why are good conductors of electricity also good conductors of heat?

I understand that good electrical conductors are such because of their free electrons. But why is this correlated with heat conductance?

[Assistant]
The microscopic property leading to both is a highly regular atomic lattice. For electrical conductors, electrons can move freely between the atoms through the lattice as you said, and for heat conductors, sound can propagate better through a regular atomic lattice, which improves heat transfer.

There are exceptions, such as diamond which is an excellent heat conductor but an electrical insulator.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] Eli5 how did early empires such as the Mongols or the Roman Empire keep track of all there land when there was no king supervising and enforcing the laws?

[Assistant]
The short version is that local powers enforced it for them.

Being "Roman" didn't mean the same thing to all people at all points in time. For example, for some people life as a Roman wasn't any different to life before Rome. The only difference was that occasionally a bunch of people who spoke a funny foreign language would turn up and demand you give stuff to them, and if you said 'no' then they'd send an army to take your stuff instead.

For the same reason, many places stopped being 'Roman' by accident - the strange foreign people stopped showing up, and eventually either someone local decided to declare himself king, or a completely different group of foreigners turned up demanding stuff.

As for how you keep track of which land is yours... well, geography does some of that for you. If you come to a big set of mountains or a really wide river and it's a pain in the backside to get across, you just decide that's where your Empire ends and hope nobody tells you otherwise.

The other thing that helps decide your borders is large groups of people with pointy sticks. If you're stood around and nobody is trying to stab you, then you probably own the place. So you can keep walking forwards until someone points a sharp stick at you and yells "get lost!", at which point you declare that to be a border.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: Why do men have adam's apples and women don't?

[Assistant] Men and Women both have Adam's Apples. You just don't tend to see women's because it is smaller. The Adam's Apple is designed to protect the Larynx and vocal chords. Men tend to have a larger Larynx (and a deeper voice, so larger vocal chords) than women, so their Adam's Apple must be larger to protect it.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[The Martian] What are some conspiracy theories that arose from the Ares 3 mission, and Watney's marooning and later rescue?

We already have tons of conspiracy theories today about earth, space, and the voyages to and from. What do you think are some popular conspiracy theories in the Martian universe?

[Assistant] The whole thing was staged for funding.  Watney was never in any real danger.  He had extra supplies and a rocket conveniently ready to go.  NASA was afraid of a lull in public support after the reality of martian exploration set in as being extremely expensive and of little actual value similar to setbacks faced by the lunar program.  By creating a human drama they were able to captivate the public interest and ensure a steady stream of funding for years to come.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5:Why do we blur someone's eyes on pictures/videos to keep them anonymous but can wear full-face ski masks with a cutout for eyes to hide our identities in person?

[Assistant]
people who wear ski masks are trying to hide hide their identity in real life. you can't blur eyes in real life and you need your eyes to see so you can't cover them. eg, robbing a bank. how's a bank robber going to blur to hide their identity from people?

when eyes are blurred in pics and video, the identity is being hidden for the viewers. it's a lot easier to throw a blur over the eyes than it is to put some sort of filter to cover a face. not to mention is more aesthetically appealing to view that on tv or computer.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User] ELI5: How does raising millions of dollars during a political campaign directly correlate to that candidate getting elected?

[Assistant] The more money you raise, the more money you can invest in putting (high quality) political ads on TV, the more you can invest in other media appearances, the more you can invest in contacting people by telephone to get them to vote, basically, all ways of getting your name and message out there. And that is what gets you elected. Most people decide who they are going to vote for based on what they see on TV. They don't actively try and hunt down every political candidate's viewpoints and compare them. They let the media feed them some stuff and decide based on that.


[System] Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:

[User]
[V for Vendetta, 1984, Brave New World, 2,000 A.D.] How would V, as the archetypical ultimate opponent of dystopian oppression, act and fare in these other famous dystopias?

1984: *Obviously* he would actively and violently oppose this *monstrous* regime, which I consider to collectively be *the* single most despicable antagonist in *any* medium, but could he actually get a revolution off the ground considering the extreme lengths to which Ingsoc goes to control not only its people, but the perception of reality itself? V stands for the concept that "ideas are bulletproof", but Big Brother is the most prominent fictional demonstration of effectively succeeding in *murdering* ideas.

Brave New World: Being an ostensible utopia that is considered a dystopia due to having abandoned values that we consider moral imperatives in our current mindset, I'm not sure quite how a figure like V would react here, but given how stable Huxley's narrative stresses this world state to be, it seems unlikely he'd get far in trying to topple any aspect of it

2,000 A.D.: Considering how nightmarish this world is regardless of who has the power and the general portrayal that things would be even *worse* without the Judges, I'd easily imagine that a setting like Mega-City One would showcase the uglier side of V, creating a situation where he would openly rebel, and be in the *wrong*, not to mention without question on the losing side, in doing so.

[Assistant] Same thing happens in each instance. V only succeeds in his reality because the government is already only barely in power. The citizens are already ready to rebel, and the government control is not only tenuous, but incompetent. In each of the examples in the prompt, the government control is leaps and bounds greater, and the governments are much more entrenched and competent than in his reality. In each reality he would fail for the same reasons. He wouldn't be able to convince the citizens to rebel, the government would more easily crush and erase any few citizens he did turn, and he would be killed much more quickly than in his reality. Ideas can be hard to kill, but only if a large number of people want the idea to survive. His reality needed only a little push, but these realities would need a bulldozer, and these realities push back much harder than he can handle.