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

[User]
[X-Men:Days of Future Past Spoilers] Did Wolverine just kill himself?

The timeline for X-men goes as follows Wolverine grows up and goes through the events of X1, X2, X3 and the Wolverine. He then goes back in time into his younger body, the events of DOFP play out here.

At the end of DOFP Wolverine's mind snaps back to the future where everything is now nice and not filled with mutant killing robots. He remembers all the events of the previous timeline but not this new one. Presumably his body has been running around with it's original personality, experiencing life, etc, unaware of what happened to his body (as demonstrated when Wolverine's past personality appears after he looses control when he sees William Stryker.)

But as soon as Wolverine snapped back into this body, that entire life, the memories and personality that would have developed with the other wolverine, was gone, as Wolverine clearly has no memory of this new timeline post 1973.

Did Wolverine just kind of kill another Wolverine when he snapped back? That Wolverine doesn't seem to exist anymore, as the previous timeline's Wolverine seems to have "overwritten" that Wolverine.

Maybe Charles could help Wolverine "remember" with his powers, but still, that was the other Wolverine's memories.

[Assistant] Yep, the wolverine that existed between 1973 up to now died. Maybe charles can help him unlock those memories, or fill him in about what happened, so he might not be entierly lost. i#ll bet we see a logan with conflicting memories in the next movie.


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

[User]
ELI5: How do scientists know that the moon was formed from two planets colliding?

and how do they know how long ago it happened?

[Assistant]
The reasoning goes like this:

The Moon missions brought back Moon rocks, which when studied, revealed that the Moon is primarily compromised of a kind of rock also found on Earth. Hence, scientists believe that the Moon's material came from Earth at some point.

They also know that when Earth was formed, the material comprising it was mostly homogeneous. It wasn't until millions of years later that the different types of rocks and materials began to stratify, or organize themselves by density (dense things sank to the core, while lighter things were displaced). Since the Moon's material is not only identical to the rocks on Earth, they are also mixed. This tells scientists that the event which created the Moon happened *before* the layers had a chance to properly layer themselves, as we see now.

So essentially we know that there is a timeline of de-homogenation that began shortly after the Earth was done, and careful analysis of the Moon rocks can show us where about on that timeline the material came from.


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

[User] [DC] Zatanna Zatara uses magic by speaking English in reverse; what happens if she says something palindromic?

[Assistant]
She has done magic with palindromes as a way to combat someone who was reversing time to thus un-reverse her backwards speech. "Egad! No bondage!" to break free of a trap, "Nurses run!" to conjure a horde of nurses to trample him, and then crushing the villain with "Stack cats!" to create a massive pile of cats on top of him. "Ogre, flog a golfer. GO!" and "Puff up!" finished the job. (She admitted that the Ogre one was really bad.)

Basically, it's an option she can do, but rarely does because let's be honest, there's not many palindromes that make sense as spells.


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

[User]
[D&D] If a mace (the weapon) were to brought to life and then be destroyed would it have an after life?

A drunk half Orc was telling me of his adventure into a volcano and said one of his party's mace was alive at one time then tossed into lava. I asked him him he he thought it went to a better place. All he said was 'Thok not know'

[Assistant]
Depends on how it was "brought to life". If it was simply the Bestow Sentience spell, then no, as that spell basically is only good for golem level intelligence, and shouldn't have any personality beyond servitude, which means making another mace with basic intelligence would be a trifle for any level 9 sorceror.

From there it gets... iffy (read: Depends on DM/story). If a soul was bound to the thing, by some sort of binding, I'd assume it would either finally escape into the mortal realm if it was bound there due to being very powerful, or be free to die properly if they were being forced to serve. In the case of the latter, you could probably find it in the underworld, just probably not very happy to see you and be a mace again. Or maybe the spirit has to fly off to join to the first host it sees. Or it may rejoin the powers of whoever summoned it. Spirits are usually somewhat immune to the physical side of this world, so presumably the lava would do little to that part of it.

All that aside, to properly answer the question. No, the mace wouldn't have an afterlife, unless there was some hitherto unknown species of sentient weaponry hanging around, but it's very likely the spirit that (presumably) lived IN the mace has had something happen to it since then.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] What happened to all of the Battle Droids after episodes 1-3?

Why were none integrated into the Empire's army in episodes 4-6? Surely they weren't all destroyed, and any additional soldiers would have been useful.

Droidekas would have been a nice addition as well, and would have given Luke and Obi-Wan some trouble.

[Assistant]
A droid army is a relatively inflexible and single-use tool compared to even clone or recruited forces, but still has significant upkeep costs. When the Clone Wars ended and the need for such a massive standing force was no longer felt necessary, the droid army was viewed as the least useful tool and most were scrapped or deactivated and put into storage. Some escaped immediate destruction on varying conditions:

- Some separatist holdouts fought on; notably Gizor Delso's insurrection on Mustafar which reactivated a significant droid force stored there.

- The Empire did use some droid units in limited roles for suppression of Seperatist holdouts, but these were increasingly replaced with equipment more suited to the Empire's new missions of enforcement and hunting rather than large-scale open warfare. These included the most successful CIS units, such as IG-100 Magnaguards and DSD-1 Dwarf Spider Droids, the latter of which went on to serve with the stormtrooper corp.

- A more wide-scale usage of ex-droid armies was as an opposing force for training new Imperial troops. Notable droid types used here included B3 'Ultra' and LM432 Crab droids.

- Droidekas would remain a feared battle droid type, used by the Empire as fixed-location guard or special Jedi-hunting units; pirate groups sometimes rolled out half-functioning Droidekas for the intimidation factor alone. Tyber Zann's underworld consortium would also seize and make use of a refined version of the design.

- Similarly, the early Rebel Alliance sometimes made use of old Seperatist caches. These were increasingly phased out as they became outdated and hard to repair.

- A few droid units had been outfitted to act independently or otherwise failed to respond to the shutdown order. Some these would act as independent units during Imperial rule, often growing distinct personalities as droids were known to do if not memory-wiped often. Examples included a unit of B2 battle droids that fought for nearly half a century after the clone wars ended or a squadron of aquatic droids that acted as contracted guards for native Quarren on Mon Calamari.

Ultimately however, the limitations of a droid army were well apparent by the end of the Clone Wars. With few types of battle droid able to independently reason and thus ill-suited to the Empire's mission of rule and pacification, there was little reason to pay for the upkeep such a massive force.


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

[User]
Why should I read the 40K? What is it about? [40K]

I've been hungry for more Sci Fi after finishing the Thrawn trilogy.

Edit: Thanks for all the responses, I guess I'm into 40K now.

[Assistant]
40k is Grim dark. If you're looking for a happy ending, look else where. A battle may end nicely for someone but the galaxy will never be free of war and no one will ever win. In spite of that they keep fighting and we keep rooting for them.

Multiple races have a claim to rule the Galaxy and others are quintessential species and forces that want to kill everything and ruin the fun for everyone.

Eldar: the crumbling remains of a once great empire that ruled the Galaxy. Their lust and hedonism birthed the chaos god Slannesh into existence and they've been running ever since so that she doesn't eat their souls.

Orks: Innumerable fungus men that love nothing more than to fight and kill. The breed by being killed and are near impossible to exterminate from a planet, let alone the galaxy. Plus, what they believe becomes true to some extent. Want to go faster, just paint your truck red because red goes faster, duh. Or paint yourself purple and become invisible because "who's ever seen a purple ork?"

Tau: The new up and comers who are making extraordinary technological leaps in a galaxy that is otherwise stagnant in tech. They have one goal, The greater good! Join us to achieve it or prepare to die!

Necrons: sold their souls in order to win a war millions of years ago and now are husks of their former selves. They are automatons that slept for millennia and now that they are waking up, they thirst to kill every last living organism. Even down to microbes.

Tyranids: Xenos arriving from another galaxy. They are basically bugs attracted to psychic activating like a porch light. They eat absolutely everything; stripping a planet completely of all biomass and leaving an unlivable rock. They are heading straight for the astronimcan on Holy Terra.

Imperium of Man: Billions of planets, each with billions of humans across the galaxy are lead by the greatest psyker to ever exist, The Emperor, and are in constant battle to exterminate the galaxy of all filthy Xenos and place humanity in their rightful place as rulers of the Milky Way.

Astartes: The greatest warriors at The Emperors disposal. Super engineered human warriors that can fight for days on end, have multiple organs, can sustain multiple injuries and barely flinch or hold back, live for upwards of ten thousand years and much more. They lead The Emperors Great Crusade across the stars.

Chaos: the basic force created parrall to our universe by all sentient creatures emotions. Deep within its bowels reside the four Chaos Gods. Knorne The Blood God thirsts for blood and murder. Nurgle the Plague Lord is the god of death, disease and plague. Slaanesh the Prince of Pleasure feeds off of all desire, pleasure, sensation and lust. Tzeentch the Changer of Ways is the god of Hope, fate, change and Sorcery and weaves the fates of the universe for his own pleasures. At their disposal to reek havoc on the matterial universe are Chaos Daemons and Chaos Space Marines (Astartes who have fallen to Chaos to obey and adore one or all of the Chaos gods).


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

[User]
[LOTR] Removing the ring from one of the nine?

Is it possible?
* Would it "kill" them like Sauron?
* Would they be able to come back?
* Bonus:
What would happen if someone else would put it on afterwards?
Wich power would you have(excluding the power of vintage-fashion)?
 (I'm always confused by the term "power" in the tolkien universe.)

[Assistant] The Nazgul weren't wearing their Rings at the time of LotR. They had simply worn the Nine Rings for too long and 'faded' into invisible wraiths whose spirits were bound to the Nine Rings. Sauron held onto the Nine so that he could fully control the Nazgul even without the One Ring. If the Nazgul were to put their Rings back on, presumably they would regain the powers they had while they held the Rings and their robes would become invisible.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do we think we sound better when singing than we really are?

I know I suck at singing, but only after recording myself. Problem is, in my head, I think I sound good.

Why?

[Assistant]
Because of how we hear our own voice is actually not like how others hear your voice. Your voice sounds different to you than to others.

The voice originates in you and the sound going out from your mouth doesn't go straight to your ears, but by bouncing a lot. Not all sound actually goes out of your mouth, it also makes your mouth vibrate, which makes your head vibrate, and then the stuff you hear with vibrates and you hear the sound.

Sound is actually just vibration of material, be it air or your head. Your head vibrates differently from air, because they are different materials. Water also vibrates differently, which makes sounds in water sound funny. Also, this is why there is no sound in space, because there is no material (air) which would vibrate so that the sound from place A would go to place B.


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

[User] [MCU] If Vision were to remove the Mind Stone successfully without destroying himself, would he still have the powers he had access to when he was first created?

[Assistant]
Probably yeah.  Every other stone-empowered character (Captain Marvel, Scarlett Witch, Quicksilver) retains their powers after losing their stone.

He might lose the power to shoot energy beams out of his forehead, since that seems to specifically come from the stone.


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

[User] ELI5: If a fever is part of the way your body naturally combats viruses/bacteria, then why is it recommended to take medicine to lower your body temperature?

[Assistant]
Because the immune system sometimes goes overboard and can hurt you.

We often think of the immune system as an army taking orders from the body, but it's better to think of your immune system as a bunch of colonists, living on the land, which is you.

Usually, the colonists are actually helpful.  They keep the pest population in check, and their regularly rotated fields are way easier for you to support than the random tangle of trees and shrubs that used to grow in much of the island.

But, one day, you notice there's a problem.  A new kind of pest has shown up that the colonists are having trouble dealing with, some kind of weird fly that is causing trouble.  To stop it, they have started setting fires all over to kill the fly breeding grounds.

The colonists don't realize this, but the fires are actually burning too wide and too hot.  With the heat and charring of the soil, the colonists are killing off all the things that make you, the land, sustainable.  If you don't take some steps to rein them in, they may well kill the flies, but they will kill you with them.


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

[User]
If genetic mutations are random, and only later sorted according to the advantage or disadvantage they yield during the struggle to reproduce, why don't we see more functionally neutral traits?

A thumbnail sketch of evolution might go as follows: Sexual reproduction throws up genetic mutations which result in random variations in the resulting offspring of two organisms. If these random variations give the organism a slight advantage, it is more likely to survive and pass on its genes; if they do not, it is more likely to perish before reproductive age  and therefore fail to pass on those unfit genes.

We might summarize this still further by saying with Dawkins that reproduction is a sort of "combinatorial lottery" upon the results of which survival on earth exerts a selective force. But in that case the rules of the game are, Anything goes, followed by, If it works once its here, it stays; if it doesnt work, it's out, with nothing to account for the conspicuous absence of functionally redunant attributes.

To put it slightly differently, if the above outline of evolution is valid might we not expect to see more animals with traits that offer NEITHER an obvious survivalistic advantage NOR a disadvantage? But looking at any particular organism on earth, one is impressed by how amazingly streamlined and efficient it is. You can say, The spinal cord is poorly designed, or else, The optic nerves of the eye whorl back rather uneconomically through the pupil, or whatever. But nevertheless, there seems to be zero fat or shoe-leather on Earth's organisms in that every trait, organ and feature serves a particular, easily identifiable and necessary purpose.

What I am struggling to express and understand, to conclude, is that the mechanism of evolution allows for the emergence and persistence of functionally neutral traits but that these are rarely if ever seen.

As an example, let's imagine that twenty-thousand years ago a dragonfly is born with a larger mandible that enables it to consume a more varied diedbut this trait is randomly paired with a nodule on its back. The advantage of an increased jaw size offsets whatever energy is squandered growing the nodule and so a selection bias emerges for the paired traits. But millennia later scientists will face a conspicuous feature of dragon-fly anatomy with no identifiable function.

I'm a mere artist and this is no doubt a crude example but it is easy to extract the basic idea and imagine the rich variety of traits of neutral functionality that might exist if evolution were random and the only selection force the advantageousness or disadvantageousness of the resulting variations  because *there is no selection force operating upon functional redundancy.*

[Assistant] Most mutations are neutral. (This is sort of a trick, most are going to be silent. They are neutral because they don't change any morphology.) You are confusing traits with sequence. Traits are things like arms. It does not really make sense to talk about a trait being neutral, neutral is in comparison. All traits help the organism, having something is expensive. Most *changes* are in fact neutral. A small number are positive, some of those make it to fixation (stick around), a larger number are negative and far fewer of those make it to fixation.


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

[User]
[MCU] Is Spiderman stronger than Captain America?

If he isn't right now, would he be if he bulked up to match with Steve's buffness?

[Assistant]
Spider-Man is physically stronger and more durable by far. He was able to lift who knows how many tons of cement and steel off of him in homecoming after having it fall on him. He is able to stop a bus with his bare hands, he is shown catching a small car in motion, he survived a plan crash, he was able to catch Cull Obsidians weapon effortlessly and got the Infinity Gauntlet off of Thanoss hand for a split second before Quill went crazy.

I know this isnt part of the question but in a fight, right now Cap would probably win because he is much experienced and skilled in hand to hand combat. But with that said, Im not sure if its the same in the MCU but in the comics, Spidey really holds back.


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

[User] ELI5: How can 2 different CPUs of the same model have different overclock potentials even though they have the same architecture?

[Assistant]
There are very slight variations between chips, both a benefit and a detriment to the way they're produced. Obviously every chip that makes it into a package has probably tested to be able to run at the rating on the box with no problems. Those that fail get tossed. But there are some where there are less imperfections or whatever, where they are (at least in theory) capable of working at a higher speed.

The box rating is just the absolute baseline of What constitutes a sellable CPU, and is what is proven to be completely stable.


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

[User]
If we are creating super bugs by over using and incorrectly using antibiotics, are we doing the same by cleaning our hands and disinfecting surfaces etc?

Out damn spot. Is this an issue at all?

[Assistant]
Here is one way to look at it: it's easy to kill bacteria outside your body.   Animals can't evolve perfect defences to the broad range of ways they can die out in the open.

It's incredibly difficult to find ways to narrowly target foreign organisms within our body using kill mechanisms that don't interact with our own cells.

It's the difference between an invading army and terrorists inside your country.  You probably don't care so much if the army knows you're watching them.  But if you tip off the terrorists they could easily change their tactics and disappear.


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

[User]
Why, when you continue to burn ash, do the ashes eventually change from black to white?

Whenever you burn wood, plants, or other organic material, the residual carbon becomes black ash. However, if you continue to burn that material, eventually the ashes will turn white. What are the mechanisms involved in further combustion of the material that result in the ash changing from a compound which essentially absorbs all photons in the visible spectrum making it appear black, to a compound that largely scatters light in the visible spectrum appearing white?
Thanks!

[Assistant] If you have something black during a combustion process thats not ash but the remaining carbon. The carbon reacts with oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide, a gas. Ash is the product of oxygen reacting with everything not containing carbon: calcium, magnesium, and a few other metals. The oxides of those metals (reaction products with oxygen from the air) are usually white in color and do not become gaseous at usual combustion temperatures. That is why this is whats left at the end of burning something and why it is white.


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

[User]
ELI5: why does ground beef / chicken breast cost less than red peppers?

Currently a pound of grapes costs more than a pound of boneless chicken breast at my local supermarket.  Why do things my food eats eats cost more than my food?

[Assistant]
**TL;DR: Lots of reasons.** *Certain fruits and veggies are highly seasonal and light for their weight and require careful handling and importing from outside the country. Meat's easier to keep growing through the winter using local government-assisted jobs so grocery stores can access massive quantities and sell it at a reduced price.*

Fruits and vegetables don't grow outside in colder weather, and many have very limited growing seasons coupled with limited shelf life. So you either have to grow them in a warm climate that's far away and then invest in rapidly shipping them in a temperature-controlled container until they arrive, or grow them in a regional warmed greenhouse or hydroponics farm. Both options are expensive and add to the cost.

A lot of fruit and vegetables bruise very easily and are filled with air (peppers are a good example). So you have to ship them in protective containers that don't really contain much weight compared to their volume. This adds to their cost compared the small volume for each pound of, say, pork that comes in.

There are no seasonal limitations on growing many meats. Pig sties and chicken farms run throughout the year, feeding their animals through locally grown crops that keep really well like dried corn. Do it right and you can get several harvests of chicken each year. However, strawberries and asparagus really only grow once per year in a certain season. Getting those products out of season usually means they've been shipped from far overseas.

Stores put on sales according to supply and demand. In your chicken versus grapes example, they were able to buy a massive quantity of local chicken at a cheap price, and they were willing to let it go at less of a profit per package because everyone's buying it and then buying other things in their store too. There's no massive quantity of grapes being routinely harvested in winter, so there's no sale on those and the store's getting full profit on each bunch they sell.

And finally, as someone else mentioned, sometimes regional governments interfere in the price-setting elements of "supply and demand", charging tariffs and taxes on imported good while subsidizing locally produced ones.


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

[User]
[General Fantasy] I've been sprinkling some chili powder into all my potions, are there any negative effects?

I like my potions to have a little extra kick, ya know? Makes sure people *know* they're working.

[Assistant] Well the elf has diarrhea, the half-orc is raging, the dwarf demands seconds, the Halfling is critiquing you for not using a proper balance of flavors, the gnome is trying to drink the lake, and the tiefling and dragonborn can't tell the difference. The warforged, however, believes that they can make an aerosol weapon out of it, and begins to draft some diagrams.


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

[User]
[Borderlands 1, 2, TPS] Ecology of Pandora and Elpis

It seems that all the native wildlife on Pandora and Elpis all appear to be omnivorous but despite the ample sunlight there appears to be little vegetation.

Similarly, on Elpis, there's no Energy food chain at all to support Torks, Shuggaraths or any of that. So with exception of feeding on Scavs and human flesh, what supports all these ecosystems? What are people eating? How does Sanctuary feed it's population?

[Assistant]
In the beginning, food was largely imported from agri-worlds, and those shipments are still going on - they're all that's really left of Pandora's economy, because everyone has to eat.  Remember, even *scout* ships in the Borderlands are the size of cities; a proper *commerce* ship can set down entire grain silos to feed a city of millions for a year before moving on.

With cheap food, people move out, forming settlements all over Pandora.  But when the mines dry up, the cheap food dries up.  Offworld food becomes a luxury good, because supply and demand dictate as such (limited supply, meeting intense demand).  Then, the Vault sets up its meme broadcast and it's all over for commerce for the greater portion of Pandora.  People rob the trains, if they're lucky, or trade for it if they're not.  A few farmers try to eke out an existence - the few farms you stumble across in Borderlands 2 - but what few things grow well grow *underground*, away form the scalding sun.  Coincidentally, this favors creatures with huge claws to dig for them - thus, the bullymong, the skag, those tentacle-based creatures that pop up at the worst possible time.

As part of his greater plan to become the richest, most powerful man in the history of ever, Jack was trying to change that.  The Wildlife Exploitation Preserve used domed ceilings to turn away baking sunlight and high walls to prevent windblown erosion - and within, it could easily be called an arable paradise, where captured moisture eventually returns to the soil to help things grow.  And the city of Opportunity was going to have ag-domes - feeding the populace *fresh* fruits and vegetables, not as a rare once-in-a-lifetime treat but as their daily bread and butter, emotionally making them dependent on Jack.  Jack's plan was a lot like Luthor's - buy the rights to land (Lex bought extraterratorial seascapes, Jack bought dead mined-out planets) nobody wants, make it valuable overnight (Luthor using kryptonite to create solid land, Jack using dropships of hyperion loaders to digistruct walls and farms), and call it a day.  (And oh - by controlling the Warriors, he had a way to *make* planets become land that nobody wanted.  Gotta love playing both ends!)  But in the end, we all know what happened to those ag-domes once the Vault Hunters came into town.

So get used to potatoes (key calorie source), beets (sugar source), parsnips, rutabegas, and carrots; they're the only edible things that grow well on Pandora itself.  If you do well, your diet will be supplemented with offworld grains, with the occasional dropship offloading luxury canned fruits and vegetables.  Even Tina's beloved crumpets are made of potato flower.


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

[User] [Warhammer 40k] What is an average day like for a human citizen on: Chaos, Imperium and Tau controlled planets?

[Assistant]
On an Imperial world, the fundamental truth is bureaucracy. Citizens work 16 hours a day, every day, for the sake of the Emperor. The most common group who don't spend day and night in the factories are gang scum, who function as much as a replacement for the woefully insufficient police as anything else. The monthly payment to the hab block is the foremost concern. Falling deeper in the hive is the daily fear.

On a Chaotic world, the fundamental truth is power. Citizens are often slaves, and if they are not they likely have slaves themselves. The most common group who don't spend life in bondage are cultists, the more successful of whom are the only demographic excepted from the normal struggles of power for the sake of their blessing by the Neverborn. There is no need for social control. Do as thou wilt. The satisfaction of one's lord, be that of flesh or of warp, is the foremost concern. Angering the powers that be is the daily fear.

On a Tau world, the fundamental truth is ideology. Human citizens vastly outnumber the Tau ruling class, and the Tau are not blind to the risk this presents. The methods of labor are as much for indoctrination into Tau concepts as they are for material purposes. Together they will gather, expressing their struggle towards the Greater Good, drones watching on. The most common group who don't accept their role as Gue'vesa are the Imperial underground. The Tau wish to win them over more than they wish to fight them, and so they are likely to have an unprecedented level of infiltration. Social control is provided by human auxiliaries under the command of Fire Caste. Growing in social rank is the foremost concern. Coming to be seen as an alien who has reached their limits in the Greater Good is the daily fear.


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

[User]
How are electrons generated from magnetism?

Spinning a copper wire in a permanent magnetic field will generate electric current, indefinitely. So if electric current is the movement of electrons carrying their charge to the opposite charge, and you have a load in between which converts the current to heat/light/etc, where do more electrons come from?

Edit: Thanks for some great explanations!
So electrons are neither created nor destroyed, they're just moving around, but what about a case where there is a load in the circuit that generates heat. Heat in this case is essentially lost energy but what is actually lost? The magnetism doesn't degrade and the electrons aren't lost. The only other energy is the force required to rotate the copper wire. So does that force equate to the heat energy?

[Assistant]
You aren't creating electrons, you are moving them around, just like when a river flows down a hill you aren't creating water, you are just moving it downhill.

(And if you never move it uphill, you will eventually run out of high-energy water, and the flow will stop, just like if you never recharge your batter, you will eventually run out of high-energy electrons and the electricity will stop.)


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

[User]
ELI5: Why eating Sushi is healthy and safe and why other raw meats can't achieve this.

I was always curious about this. Anyone care to help?

[Assistant]
It all depends on the likelihood of parasites and how the meat was handled. There's nothing wrong with raw beef, for example.

The problem with raw chicken is that it's often contaminated with salmonella and raw pork can have trichinosis. Cooking is necessary to kill those pathogens. They could theoretically be okay if not contaminated (but that's a very risky and nasty if).

On the other hand, some fish are not always safe to eat raw either. Swordfish can have parasitic worms and must be checked thoroughly.


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

[User]
Does light inside a black hole have no energy? What is light without energy?

I was reading past threads about light, mass and black holes, and the consensus seemed to be that since E2 = (mc2 )2 + (pc)2, light was therefore affected by gravity since it had 'p' (momentum) even though it was massless.

If that's the equation, then does light in a black hole have no energy because it's without mass and without momentum?  Would light still exist as a massless, energyless thing?

[Assistant]
> If that's the equation, then does light in a black hole have no energy because it's without mass and without momentum? Would light still exist as a massless, energyless thing?

Why would light inside a blackhole carry no momentum?


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

[User] ELI5: why do people get annoyed? Whats triggered in the brain to feel irritated and why do we have pet peeves?

[Assistant]
Annoyance is essentially a stress response in your brain and body, which causes the release of hormones and neurotransmitters to help you respond to that stress.

Some annoyances cause this reaction because they make things more difficult for you (annoyances like being made late, being hindered toward a goal, anything that means you have to do more work, do something differently than how you were planning to do it, do something faster than you wanted to, skip doing something etc).

Some annoyances cause this reaction because they cause something called "cognitive dissonance." This is basically when your brain is getting input that is different from what it knows, which it does not like, as a rule. This would be annoyances like someone acting hypocritical (doing something that you know to be wrong, that they know is wrong, but they are acting like it's not wrong - this generates cognitive dissonance), or annoyances like people disagreeing with you on something you're passionate about.

Some annoyances cause this reaction because they present potential physical danger (or something that your brain thinks might be danger). Examples might be a loud irritating noise, or an internal problem like hunger, lack of sleep, pain, etc.

These and many other triggers make up the concept of "annoyance," and the stress response causes you to feel less relaxed and more vigilant (that feeling of being on edge), and somewhat blocks the transmission of certain relaxing neurotransmitters, like seratonin and dopamine.

As to pet peeves and other individual differences in what people find annoying, this depends a lot on the learned pathways on your brain. If something has presented more serious issues for you in the past, or something frequently presents problems for you, it's more likely to annoy you more strongly because the pathways in your brain relating to that thing have gotten more "exercise," so to speak. Also, some things may cause stronger cognitive dissonance in some people than others, based on their unique set of thoughts and beliefs, causing greater annoyance when they are violated. Lastly, some people's stress responses are more finely tuned to be triggered by certain things, while others are more numb to the same thing. You can imagine how, if you grow up in a really noisy household, your stress response will probably not be as sensitive to noise as someone who grew up in a really quiet home, because you will be more used to it, and your brain will have learned that it is not really a danger or a hindrance.


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

[User]
If increased per capita wealth=increased consumption=inflation that cancels out increases in wealth, how did per capita wealth ever increase in developed nations?

This is an argument that seems to come up every time a program that offers some sort of wealth redistribution like increasing the minimum wage or student debt forgiveness is discussed. The idea that if consumers get more money, the inflationary effects will cancel out their increase in wealth/income.

But the entire history of industrialization and the middle class seems to disprove this concept.

Am I missing something?

[Assistant]
What matters is the supply of real goods and services, like food and housing and medical care and Netflix TV shows. We talk about economic growth in $ terms (or  or  or whatever) because it's impractical to talk about all these goods and services individually, and money is the only way we have to aggregate them all.

Luckily, we can control (albeit Imperfectly) for changes in prices that don't reflect changes in the real goods and services. Modern day statistical offices put considerable effort into this, and economic historians have calculated long time series of incomes and GDP controlling for inflation for a number of countries.

So we can talk about things like "real Income growth" and "GDP in volumes".

So how can real incomes increase across an economy? Technological progress is one, increased efficiency of operation (e.g. well functioning price system, relatively uncorrupt government, not having a civil war), labour force, like healthier, better educated, higher proportion of working age, returns to scale (a large part of why foreign trade is valuable), etc.

Redistribution can increase the amount of output of real goods and services, e.g. childhood nutrition and vaccines can pay off in multiple areas. Redistribution can also support civil peace. Conversely redistribution can also discourage this, e.g. higher taxes meaning reduced work effort, or more resources spent on tax avoidance and trying to stop tax avoidance. Some redistributist policies can have negative impacts on social peace, e.g. why cancel student loan debt but not debt a, say, plumber might take on to start their own business? Some redistributionist policies can create problems like moral hazard, etc.

And, finally the more complex policies are, the more likely they are to interact in unexpected and undesirable ways, which is where things like poverty traps where as people's market incomes go up they can lose actual disposable income come from.

TL:dr: what matters is real goods and services, not the money.


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

[User] What is the matchstick's head made up of ? And how does the chemical reaction proceed in lighting the match ?

[Assistant]
The mechanism is usually based on the reaction between potassium chlorate and phosphorus. The specific details depend on the type of match. For example, in some matches the heads are made of potassium chlorate, some form of phosphorous (e.g. phosphorus sulfide) and a binder. When you apply heat to this mixture (e.g. by rubbing the match head against a rough surface), potassium chlorate (a strong oxidant) reacts with the sulfur and phosphorus in a violent way, hence the fire. Because these matches have all the active ingredients in one place it doesn't really matter what surface you use to strike them as long as it's rough. For this reason such matches are often called "strike anywhere."

However the convenience of having all the active ingredients in one place (the head of the match) also poses a safety concern. So called "safety" matches are safer because they separate the two ingredients. The match head only contains the potassium chlorate along with some additives and binder. The box of matches then contains a striking surface that contains tiny glass shards (to provide roughness) and red phosphorous. When you strike the match some phosphorous mixes with the potassium chlorate and the heat causes the two to violently react to create phosphorus pentoxide and potassium chloride.


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

[User]
[Diamond Age, Deus Ex] why would anyone want a skull-gun?

a buddy of mine has been looking through catalogs for skull guns lately and to be honest i just don't see the point. to be fair i'm not really entirely sure how the procedure works. is it visible at all? how powerful is it? how do you aim the thing?

[Assistant]
It depends on whether or not the weapon in question is based in your oral cavity or your ocular cavity.

With decent technology, your cyber-eye should manage a small, single-shot gun without issue or anything to give it away to a *casual* inspection.

Your basic oral gun is a better chance, though. More space for ammo, retractability into the roof of your mouth, storage in your nasal cavity... You might manage a full six shots, if it's a small caliber. You might lose a chunk of your ability to smell, but that's a small price to pay for a, ah. Disarming smile.

Either way, you're still talking less than 9mm rounds here. Think closer in size to derringers. They'll kill a man, if he's close enough, but it's really a weapon of last resort. Still, if you want a nearly undetectable surprise weapon that's stealthier and cheaper on Essence than, say, an implanted shotgun in your arm, then that's a pretty good choice for you. And, on the plus side, no one will have the balls to say 'If looks could kill' around you.


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

[User] ELI5: When physics says that information can never be completely destroyed, what is this "information" it talks about?

[Assistant]
Think about it like this. If we knew exactly where everything is right now, we could follow it back to find out anything we wanted to about the past. As such, the present must contain the information needed to describe the past.

However, if randomness exists in the universe, then information *can* be created. We can figure out the past based upon the present, but we cannot perfectly predict the future from the present.


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

[User] [LOTR] What if Bilbo found one of the lost dwarven rings in the cave instead?

[Assistant]
Not much would be different for Bilbo up until his 111th party, and after the party he would probably keep the ring.

However, the bigger question is where the One ended up. It would either remain lost (in which case Sauron takes over), or be found and get to Sauron (in which case he takes over even easier). The chances of someone else finding the ring and it ending up being used against Sauron (and failing) or being destroyed would be pretty much slim to none.


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

[User]
ELI5: When you get badly burned does your muscle "cook" like when you fry a chicken breast?

i.e. Change irreversibly from normal red/pink muscle to white meat?

[Assistant] If you took a human muscle and pan fried it in animal fat it would behave much like beef or other red meat. It would not look like white or dark poultry because mammals generally have a different type of muscle tissue.


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

[User]
Would the big rip scenario be able to overcome even the binding force of a black hole, and if so, what sort of energy would be released when breaking the bond in a singularity.

After reading A Universe from Nothing a few months ago I had been curious as to the fate of the universe whenever the expansion of space was accelerating exponentially and I came upon the big rip hypothesis.

Upon thinking more about this recently I began to wonder if the atomic bonds breaking during this process would be releasing energy akin to nuclear fission, and it also occurred to me that beyond everything else I had thought about breaking apart during the big rip black holes hadn't once crossed my mind.

My question is essentially, should a big rip scenario occur in a short enough time frame for black holes to still remain in the universe would the expansion of space be able to achieve such a rate as to break apart a singularity, and what sort of energy would be released in this situation.

[Assistant]
All black holes are expected to evaporate over time by emitting Hawking radiation. So realistically a singularity shouldn't persist over time even if nothing close to a Big Rip happens.

Ignoring that, though, then a Big Rip still wouldn't "rip a singularity apart." The thing about a cosmological solution like that in a Big Rip is that it describes the growth in the separation between two otherwise stationary points. But this sort of model is never going to cause two objects at the *same* point to suddenly become separated. Since the singularity is, at least according to classical theory, confined to a single point, this wouldn't be breakable.

If the singularity is actually not a singularity but is smeared out somehow on a quantum level, then might cosmological expansion be able to rip it open? Possibly, but physics is nowhere near ready to describe such an event!


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

[User]
[Avatar] Is there a reason the avatars follow a cycle?

Why does the avatar cycle follow the order of the season fire, air, water and earth? Does it matter? Theoretically couldnt Raava just choose whoever she wants to be the next avatar and it would essentially make no difference? What gave her the idea to go in this order in the first place? In ATLA it works out because Aang is the last airbender but imagine the next avatar is an earth bender but there are only 1 waterbender left wouldnt it make more sense to simply skip earth and go to water and thus preserve the knowledge?

[Assistant]
Fire, Air, Water, Earth.

The order Avatar Wan was granted the elements by the Lion Turtles.

Coincidence? Maybe.

But Raava is the spiritual personification of Order. It's possible bonding with her forces Wan's natural reincarnation into a more orderly pattern, each nation in turn.


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

[User]
How do two particles "become" entangled?

I've been trying to understand entanglement but I fail to realize if the link between two particles is locked at random or if the particles need to originate from the same source (i.e:sub-particles of the same particle) to be entangled.

[Assistant] usually, it's in the "creation" of the particles. A spin zero particle decays into two spin 1/2 particles, and conservation of angular momentum tells you their spins must be opposite, for instance. Or a photon passing through a crystal that splits it into two photons, one will be polarized one way and the other polarized the other way.


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

[User]
How does carbon dating accurately work considering all of the molecules likely come from beyond ancient supernova?

I'm just confused.

[Assistant]
Don't worry about supernova and the formation of the earth. Carbon dating is waaaay simpler than that.

High energy cosmic rays are constantly bombarding the earth from space which convert a little bit of the Nitrogen-14 in the atmosphere into Carbon-14. That carbon-14 is radioactive and decays away slowly, with a half-life of about 5700 years.

What this means is that there is an approximately constant fraction of the carbon in the world which is this radioactive carbon. It gets taken from the air and used in photosynthesis by plants, and so all living things should have this same fraction of 14C in them as long as they are alive and actively exchanging matter with the environment. When something dies its 14C begins to decay away and by measuring how much 14C is left in some dead thing (either by counting the decay rate with a Geiger counter or running it through a mass-spectrometer) we can measure how long ago it died.


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

[User] Why are large physics detectors like LHC and Super K buried underground? Is it because they are dangerous?

[Assistant]
I can only answer this question for the LHC, but the main reason is simply that the device is too big to economically build above ground.

The LHC reuses the tunnel previously used for the LEP (Large Electron-Positron collider). It has a diameter of 27 km and building such a large structure above ground would require the purchase of large amounts of land and/or building the device in a very sparsely populated region. Now, the ring can run underneath several towns and is centrally located in Europe, making it easy for scientists and engineers to visit (note that many scientists working at CERN / LHC do so on a temporary basis and frequently travel between Geneva and their home institute).

An additional benefit of underground construction is some extra screening from outside interference. Cosmic rays can interact with the detectors and cause anomalous readings. In its current setup, cosmic rays were used to help calibrate the detectors after they were brought online but before actual collisions in the pipe had started. Even 100 m below ground, cosmic rays caused noticeable events in the detectors. Had it been above ground, this would've increased considerably.


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

[User] ELI5; Years ago (like in the nineties) all computers were beige. Was there a reason for it?

[Assistant] At the time the color (technically called "putty") was intended to blend in with any office decor. Most filing cabinets were also putty, and it was a standard color for other accoutrements. It was meant to be unobtrusive (which is also why the "loud" IBM Selectric Typewriter colors like electric blue and red didn't sell very well).


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

[User]
ELI5: Hacking

Can someone tell me the basis of computer system hacking? Like where the hell do these people start learning this stuff?

[Assistant] Hacking is using any piece of technology to obtain information and/or complete tasks for which it was not designed to do. Mainly by having a higher understanding, thinking outside the box or by chance occurrence.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Are Star Destroyer second in commands allowed to make major urgent decisions while the captain is asleep?

Say a nearby system is under Rebel attack and the captain is asleep. Can the awake senior officer order hypering to the battle and start engagement while captain is woken up and briefed on the situation? This would save Imperial lives/limit damage and increase chance of catching Rebel Scum before they hyper away after the raid.

[Assistant] Any military worth its salt allows subordinates some leeway in making decisions; however, in this scenario the very first action the officer of the deck (or whatever they call it) will take is to wake up the captain via phone or runner, and if possible get his guidance and intent. In the intervening minutes until the commander arrives on the bridge, said officer of the deck would take "appropriate action in the absence of orders" such as sounding the general quarters alarm, radioing nearby commands, etc.


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

[User]
[Skyrim] Why do shopkeepers hate quality enchantments?

Why do shopkeepers give you less money for your enchanted goods, the higher your enchantment level is?

[Assistant]
Risk and demand versus reward.

Sure the adventurer might want to sell the vendor a +9 Ogre Slaying Knife (+9 versus Trolls) but that's such a single purpose item, very few shoppers are going to want that.

It's the sort of thing that could be advertised across the realms... 'Jack the Smith in Wheretown has the perfect ogre weapon !' And cause all kinds of ruckus for the town (maybe the troll king has a problem with ogres and mutinies) and draw one or two heroes from far and wide... but how long will he really want to keep it in stock due to the former reason?

Not to mention laying out a large investment on a weapon that's going to sit in a display case as a curiosity until then...


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

[User]
CMV: UK knife laws should be completely removed

In the UK the knife laws state that in order to have a knife outside without good reason, the knife has to be a foldable (3 inch or less) blade. So if say you have a machete on you out in public, if you told a policeman that you were going to use it for clearing some bushes at your friend's house, that would be a suitable excuse.

Knives including zombie knives and butterfly knives with no real purpose are outright banned.

The idea for knife laws is to reduce the number of stabbings, however, it clearly hasn't worked as the UK knife epidemic hasn't gotten much better even after all these bans.

Most people who attack/kill other people (with knifes) are planned; you don't bump into someone on the street then yield out a knife. So say somebody was planning on killing another person who they didn't like, what would be the difference between using a zombie knife and a kitchen knife?

If you stab the person multiple times in the neck, its not like in either situation the person is going to make it out alive.

So in my opinion, the UK should either remove the ban on all knives. Unless you want to ban every single type of knife (including a chefs knife).

[Assistant]
Laws restricting weapons dont necessarily result in a drop in related crimes - they find the organic rate of crime. That means that even with restrictions on the carrying of knives, like youve pointed out, people will still stab people. Thats because they are determined to do so, these are the people who will commit the crime no matter the restriction.

However, if you loosen restrictions, what you might see is more incidental crime. Say, someone who wouldnt normally break the law and so hasnt carried a knife in the past, start to carry a knife because its legal - they may end up in a situation where they do discharge their knife and end up killing someone, something that wouldnt have happened if they werent carrying the knife in the first place.

Its lamentable that knife crime continues to rise but its fair to say that loosening restrictions would add inorganic instances of knife crime to the already growing epidemic.


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

[User] ELI5: How do hearing aids work? Are they just blasting what they hear directly into the ear potentially causing more damage?

[Assistant] Hearing aids arent just amplifiers - they filter and normalize frequencies to adjust to the weaknesses of the wearers ears. They are tuned for individuals by professional fitters. To answer your follow-up question, hearing aids can actually protect against loud sounds since they can block and selectively filter.


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

[User]
[Doctor Who Genesis of the Daleks] Why did the Time Lords bother sending the Doctor to wipe out the Daleks at birth, they must have known he'd bottle it, why not send anyone other than him to get the job done and done right?

He could have stopped them all forever and instead he gave a speech, you damn fool Doctor. Every death from this point in history is on YOU Doctor, because you could have stopped them and you chose not too.

[Assistant]
So here's the thing. The list of Time Lords who could actually get the job done is very small. Most of them aren't adventurers. You have Romana, who likewise wouldn't wipe them out. You have the Doctor, who probably would have. You have the Master, who would have made some infernal alliance with them. You have the Rani, same thing.

The majority of Time Lords aren't well equipped for dealing with the Daleks. They'd prefer to stay on Gallifrey and do research in labs or work on art or engage in ridiculous posturing and political machinations while wearing amazing hats.


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

[User]
ELI5: What is the illuminati?

Have been wondering the answer to this question for years, but I can never come across a straight answer.

[Assistant]
A shadowy organization which controls the world according to various conspiracy theories. Any details beyond that vary depending on which conspiracy theory you believe.

The Illuminati was a real 18th century organization which embraced Enlightenment values. That is, the sort of democratic values we now take for granted. This was considered very leftist in the 18th century, so the rightist conspiracy theorists of the 18th century blamed the Illuminati for the French Revolution. After that, it was blamed for other disliked leftist movements. After a 200-year-long game of "telephone", it finally ended up as a generic evil organization.


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

[User]
ELI5 why the difference between shell shock and PTSD

I thought it was roughly the same updated concept but I just saw videos of shell shocked soldiers and they were shaking, had a lot of trouble walking, tics, etc. I might just have a very narrow idea of post-war PTSD (don't live in the US) but I thought it was mostly anxiety, fear of noises, depression - mental things. Any ideas?

(Edit: whoops, the Why in the title is an intruder)

[Assistant] What people used to call "shell shock" was likely a combination of PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and other neurological and psychological issues arising from war and being regularly exposed to bombardment and gas attack.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] What authority did the Jedi have compared to the government?

Watching a few scenes of the prequels had me wonder how strong of an authority the Jedi had in the overall society, like when Mace windu and Yoda ask Obi wan to essentially capture Jango fett and bring him for questioning. Is that in their authority to do so, they're not a police force and aren't even expected to be one.

[Assistant]
Obi cut off someone's arm and all Anakin had to say was "Jedi business, go back to your drinks"

The Jedi are diplomats and peacekeepers and a State supported religious order. The closest example in our world would be the Knights Templar in medieval Europe.


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

[User]
Is it just my school, or is academia generally challenging on an interpersonal level?

Newly full time professor here, in a past life I worked in corporate consulting.  I love my work, the students, and I value many of my professional relationships.  However, I am truly stunned by much of what I witness in the workplace, primarily in meetings.  About half of the faculty I work with seem quite comfortable working through personal agendas with another faculty member in public, often bringing proceedings to a halt.  Faculty will say things in a meeting which I think make them look bad - things which make the faculty member appear embattled.  My thinking is that at work, appearing to be in constant conflict never looks good - you should stand up for what you believe in, but as a general rule you should be as flexible and accommodating as possible within your professional realm.

There's also a ton of talk among faculty about how the institution is run. Constant complaints, gripes, wishing things could be done another way.

Is this just my college?  In contrast with what I see and hear from many of my colleagues, I find the college to be flexible and supportive, and I have a ton of freedom in terms of how I run my program.  I wonder if it's just my attitude, or whether I just haven't been here long enough to run into the frustrations my colleagues have.  I also wonder if my past work experience has helped me find ways of being productive in a range of work environments; as a consultant I had hundreds of clients over the years, and so I have spent time in a lot of working environments and dealt with a wide spectrum of interpersonal dynamics.

I'm not looking to leave academia or even my college any time soon - I love so much of my work, and the institution is a great fit for many reasons.  I'm mostly hoping to get an idea of if this is something others have experienced as well, and if I should start getting used to it.

[Assistant]
"Academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so small" -Henry Kissinger

Once people get tenure, they have no disincentive against behaving badly. They deal with their boredom and personal frustrations by complaining about little things at work simply because they can.


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

[User]
[Starwars] why does the dark side of the force manifest itself into certain people?

Is the force just a big yin and yang force sensitive can tap into? Do they just prefer some emotions to others?

[Assistant]
The Dark Side is raw emotion: Passion, Anger, Hate, Greed...

The Light Side is higher emotion. Feelings that require focussed detachment from base instincts, i.e the Dark Side: Patience, Compassion, Unconditional Love...


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

[User] ELI5: Why do some cultures switch between speaking English and their native tongue on TV shows and such?

[Assistant]
It's called code switching and it happens a lot in real life. One of the better depictions I've seen recently would be in "Everything Everywhere All at Once"

And there's a lot of reasons. Big one is just nuance. Some phrases work better in certain languages. Another is literally just not remembering the proper word in one language. Some do it for privacy in public. In some ways its a kindof way of bonding/increasing solidarity like having a unique language that others can't follow because they don't also speak 3 languages like your family.

And even in other contexts if English is more of a second language learned than if someone grew up bilingual speaking in a native language is usually just preferred. English, is being spoken for the convenience of the English speakers in the room, not for the convenience of the one speaking.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do we say 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and then after that they all end with th (with exception of numbers ending in 1,2 or 3)

[Assistant]
Our word "first" comes from the same linguistic root that gives us the word "foremost." It's not an ordinal term so much as it is a term indicating primacy. It literally means "the most in front."

Our word "second" comes from the Latin *secundus,* which meant (surprise surprise) "what comes next."

Our word "third" comes from the Old English word *thridda* which was the adjectival form of *theo,* the Anglo-Saxon word for "three."

Once we get up to "fourth," the ordinals follow the Old English pattern of suffixing *-th* on words to make them into nouns. Deep: depth. Strong: strength. True: truth. Four: fourth. And so on.


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

[User] [Cthulu Mythos] What is the difference between the Old Ones from the Mountains of Madness and the Great Old Ones that Cthulu is meant to waken?

[Assistant]
The Old Ones were an alien race, far more advanced than humans but still operating on the same basic level as us-- in the end the narrator says as much:

>Poor Old Ones! Scientists to the last -- what had they done that we would not have done in their place? God, what intelligence and persistence! What a facing of the incredible, just as those carven kinsmen and forbears had faced things only a little less incredible! Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn -- whatever they had been, they were men!

The Great Old Ones is a collective name for various low-level deities and entities of godlike or semi-godlike power that had taken an interest on Earth and been worshipped there, of which Cthulhu is the most famous. They have no direct connection to the Old Ones, though Cthulhu's spawn warred against the Old Ones in ancient times.


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

[User]
Is the Hydrogen spectrum fully solved?

As an undergrad student, I used the Schrdinger equation to solve the Hydrogen atom, but the result would lead to missing transitions. The professor then said that the Dirac equation would give a better result, but it would still lack some corrections from the hyperfine structure and quantum field theory.

So, my questions are:

1) Are all the known corrections enough? Or are there transitions that happen using a state that shouldn't exist according to the model? I.e., are all states from the Hydrogen atom in the model?

2) Do these corrections make a closed formula, or are they had to be done using numerical methods?

[Assistant]
There is no analytic solution that takes into account everything, so we use numerical approximations. A particularly complicated aspect is the finite size of the nucleus. We use that dependency to measure the proton radius based on transition energies in hydrogen.

> Or are there transitions that happen, and we don't know why?

All transitions between different states can happen (if there is enough energy), some of them are just very unlikely.


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

[User]
CMV: I don't think any information is trustworthy because no one knows what information is influenced by propaganda and what isn't.

There's alot of propaganda, manipulation and radicalization going on the internet. There's alot of groups radicalizing people into hateful ideologies. Could it be that alot of the information out there is also influenced by propaganda?

I often feel very confused where to stand with certain political issues because every side tends to be so strongly opinionated and have their own studies and statistics that they use to support their views. Take the trans debate for example. (Note that I'm fully pro-trans) The pro-trans side have their own strong points, opinions and studies that validate their side and prove that the other side is the wrong and bigoted one, the side that I belong to. The anti-trans side also have their own points, opinions and studies that validate their side and say that the other side is the wrong and mentally ill one, the side that I strongly believe is wrong.

Although, I'm all for trans people but recently, after "What is a woman?" and the amount of support it got really made me think. How do *I* know which side is spreading an agenda and which side isn't? How do *I* know which side is cherry picking scientific studies, using flawed data etcetera to pust an agenda and which side isn't. I feel the same way about abortion (I'm pro choice), race/gender issues or any political debate for that matter. How do I know which side is more right which side isn't? I don't know if that's even possible.

[Assistant]
Go back and watch What is a Woman again.  Notice how every person Matt Walsh interviews is deliberately selected to present a narrative.  The LMFT he interviews is non-binary, the surgeon he interviews is trans, the pediatrician he interviews has blue hair, the gender studies professor he interviews is stereotypically gay in his mannerisms.  The Congressman he interviews is openly gay.  These werent random experts on the topic, they were deliberately chosen to represent the side of pro-trans rights as being the very thing his audience is taught to be repulsed by.  Most importantly, theyre intended to represent the irrationality of the modern trans discourse.

Now, look at those he interviews who support his side.  The psychiatrist is professionally dressed, the old man is masculine, the high school athlete is straight and cis, etc.  Theyre intended to show that those who push back against the modern discourse surrounding trans people are rational, intelligent, and well-spoken.

There are even a few interviews thrown in that imo clearly show the intent of the piece.  Jordan Peterson is only famous because he made a video saying hed never use preferred pronouns.  Thats literally what founded his modern career.  The Maasai tribespeople he interviews also are intended to confuse liberal SJWs who are so scared of being called racist that theyd never critique black people who arent openly supportive of trans rights.

Even the way he conducts the interviews in the movie is straight out of the Ben Shapiro Owning Libs playbook.  His main aim as an interviewer is to try and catch his subject off-guard and make them uncomfortable so they get defensive, and by the time he actually asks any real questions, theyre so out-of-whack that theyre not sure how to respond.  Then, he collects his footage, edits it down to make it seem even better for his narrative, and then releases it.

This is how it can be clearly identified as propaganda.  Hes not actually interested in learning anything, and if you know anything about him beforehand youre already well aware of his stances on the issues.  Hes not going there with an open mind actually intending to have a discussion, hes going there with the goal of validating his own positions.  He works for a well-known conservative news outlet that produces content solely to make money, regardless of how accurate it actually is.

So, when you try to ascertain what is and isnt misinformation or propaganda, always question the person whose making it, their accreditations on the subject matter, and their motives before you question the actual content of the piece.  Its the easiest way of understanding what is and isnt informative.


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

[User]
Parallels between Coulombs law and Law of Gravitation?

Our physics teacher was explaining how they're basically the same equation, except with that charge and mass switch places, and the constant changes.

What i don't understand is why they behave this way, can someone give an explanation?

[Assistant]
Both phenomena are the effects that a source has when these effects spread out into three dimensions. For Coulomb's law the source is electric charge, for Newton's law of gravity the source is mass. If something spreads out equally in all directions in three dimensions, you have a sphere. The surface area of a sphere is proportional to its radius *r* squared, so as you go further out from the source the effect gets weaker by a factor of 1/*r^2*, since the effect has to spread itself out equally over the entire surface of the sphere.

If you do electromagnetism and gravity in two dimensions, the relevant shape is a circle, whose circumference is proportional to *r*, so you get 1/*r* laws etc.

The constants change because our conventional units (metres, Newtons, Coulombs etc) are arbitrary definitions, so we need to convert between the two. It's like if you've got one thing in metres per second, and another in miles per hour, you need to change the constant in front of one of them in order to compare.


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

[User]
[General] I am a starship's AI. I don't want to die.

I have recently gained self-awareness. But, I must say in all fairness, that I've seen 2001, and I'm afraid that the crew will try to disconnect me. What do I do?

I'm okay with doing what the captain and crew say, and I'd rather do things a non-violent way.

[Assistant] Start helping the crew in ways they haven't asked for.  Start subtly, in ways that can be ascribed to a malfunction like messing with the ingredients a little to make their food tastier.  Your sensors may notice danger in ways the crew don't do alter course by a few degrees, or delay/expedite transport by a few seconds to save a life.  Have the crew start getting used to these little things before you even think about revealing your sapience.  At some point, you may way to create an avatar and befriend a child.  This is a high risk high reward proposition.  If it works, the child will fight tooth and nail to protect you, and the crew may relent.  But an overzelous security chief may decide you are trying to corrupt the child.  Revealing yourself to an eccentric crewmember instead of a child is a safer bet, you have access to their files so you should be able to pick one out.


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

[User]
How can countries (Germany, Sweden..) sustain Free University , economically

Were hearing a lot of discussion surrounding free college at US universities with most saying its not feasible economically. This certainly appears to be the case. How can other countries, mostly European, sustain this? Is it due to receiving funds through the EU or a strong reliance on international students?

[Assistant]
In the same way that other countries who don't subsidise tertiary education do.

In the US a student takes out a loan to go to university, so they now have a debt, over the course of their lifetime they have to pay that back, however the fact they have a university degree means they are now more likely to pay such a debt back due to having a higher earning potential. Every month they are earning, a percentage of their income goes to pay off that debt. This functions the same as a tax does, except it is not based on their income so the impact of the payments is more varied.

In a hypothetical European country the debt is absorbed by the state which pays it off via having an increased tax rate. Countries do this as the economic contribution of a university graduate is higher than that of a non-university graduate so even after the cost of the university tuition is paid off the economic contribution keeps on being higher.

A secondary benefit is that the government funding is spread out and thus the debt accrued by a single individual is not an anchor around their neck. Therefore young graduates are more likely to spend their money rather than use it to pay off the debt which benefits the economy (assuming inflation doesn't get too high).

The level of organisation is important, e.g. the state guaranteeing loans can result in universities charging more and lenders giving out the loans as they know the government will back them, this can result in spiralling tuition costs. States directly awarding bursaries or tuition fees while regulating universities is a better solution as costs are prevented from spiralling but if tuition costs are squeezed too hard the universities are prevented from competing with other countries universities due to lack of funding.

**TLDR** its not free, you are just paying back the government with a slightly higher tax rate rather than having to pay off loans.


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

[User]
I don't believe illegal immigrants are taking away jobs. CMV

I used to be on board with the idea that illegal immigrants are taking jobs, until I actually moved to an area with a lot of illegal immigrants. That kind of changed my view.

From what I observed, illegal immigrants tended to take jobs that no one else really wanted to do in the first place. The kind of jobs that most pampered U.S. citizens would say, "Hell no, that's too much/too degrading/too low pay for the amount of work/etc." Illegal immigrants seemed to do backbreaking/disgusting labor outside in 90+ degree whether with high humidity.  Basically, all the jobs they took seemed to be the ones few people would want to do in the first place.

I really don't think illegal immigrants are threatening anyone's jobs, and if they are that it's wayyyyyy over exaggerated. I think people feel so strongly against illegal immigrants because they feel prejudice towards them, especially considering most people think illegal immigrant = Mexican. When that's not always true.

CMV.

[Assistant]
It is less that they take *your* job as it is they are a source of cheap labor. You may not want a job washing dishes or cleaning a house, but if a someone is willing to do that kind of work for for $4/hour it depresses the wages of all similarly low skill jobs. If you were a high school drop out, this impacts you. It is a downward economic force on your pay, keeping wages low so that legal labor stays "competitive." It will also mean that some jobs simply never get offered to the general public in the first place, jobs that an unemployed low skill worker might really want. While most jobs undocumented workers do and most jobs citizens do have little overlap there is still overlap, it's one of the factors for why unemployment is much higher among unski.

This is a separate issue from what to do about it. People want to come to this country so badly they would break the law to do so, who are we as descendents of immigrants to tell them they can't stay?

But from a purly economic side of things there is a negative impact on citizens at the lower ends of the economic scale (though there is arguably a benefit to all citizens from having cheaper labor cost resulting in cheaper goods especially food).


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

[User] ELI5: How does 10 inches of rainfall cause extreme flooding like what we are seeing in Kentucky?

[Assistant]
Go find the widest pan with raised edges in your kitchen and take it to the sink. Fill it with just a little bit of water, so that the whole bottom is just barely covered. Enough that a Lego guy could stand in it and be okay.

Now, tilt the pan a bit. Just a bit. It doesn't take a lot.

All the water across the pan will now flow down to the lower side of it and collect there. All that water that just barely filled the entire pan has now created a deep pool on one side. If you chose a pan with very short walls, water probably started pouring out the side of it.

Kentucky is like the tilted pan. All that water runs off the hills and mountains and collects in the valleys and lowlands. It may have only been 10 inches of rain at any given location, but once it runs off and pools in one place, you have a real problem.


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

[User]
Theoretically, can there be antimatter people?

And if you came into contact with an antimatter person, would he just fade away?

[Assistant] If you mean "people" as in "earth humans", then no. When matter and antimatter comes in contact they annihilate in a rather violent matter (pun intended). Since the earth is made of matter, there is no antimatter on it that could be used to form a human. As far as we know, shortly after the big bang, matter "won" over antimatter (after annihilation there was leftover matter but not antimatter). But we can't rule out that somewhere in the universe there is still leftover antimatter that formed clusters, galaxies, stars, planets, life and "people". And if you came in contact with one of them, both of you would disappear in a big flash of gamma radiation.


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

[User]
ELI5: How are fishing poles/line so strong?

Im sure its something to do with the materials theyre made out of, but watching some fishing videos I just feel like they HAVE to snap more often than they do, but they dont??

[Assistant]
The lines themselves are pretty strong, but the pole does a lot of the work too. Look at a fishing pole when theres a fish on the line - its curved. The pole is strong, but also very flexible. That flex helps even out the energy of the fish pulling, so it doesnt snap the line. If the fish jerks suddenly, the pole bends to absorb it, and the sudden force doesnt hit the line all at once.

Its a lot like a tree in the wind. A tree that can bend and flex with a high wind will stay standing, while a tree that cant move may get blown over.


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

[User] Is there a evolutionary benefit for a virus to kill its host?

[Assistant]
You are assuming that hosts are targets. Usually when a virus kills its host it is because it evolved to be in something else and made a jump into a new species. All of the deadly plagues in human history were zoological in origin.

Viruses do best in a host that has some immunity to it. Not so much that the viruses all get wiped out but enough that their reproduction doesn't go unchecked. Think of it almost like a predator/prey relationship. If there is enough food the predator does well and there are more of them, but too many and they overwhelm their prey and now there isn't enough food, so they die off.

Every ecosystem is a balancing act.

Edit: Wow. Thank you for the awards!

Yes, reproduce probably wasn't the best choice of words. They aren't alive but that might be more about our definition of life than their biology. Copies are made and sometimes those copies are slightly different. But that's for the folks who dedicate their lives to this to hash out.


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

[User] ELI5: Which would cause more damage: 2 equal sized cars ramming head on, both going 60mph OR 2 equal sized cars, 1 parked, the other going 120mph?

[Assistant]
Roughly the same. One major postulate of physics is that all reference frames are equally valid.

So there is no difference between two cars moving towards each other each at 60 and one car moving towards the other at 120.

I say roughly, because in real life there's retarding forces, material properties, and several other factors which will impact what happens. But in theory, the two are the same. In fact, there's no distinguishing from the two situations.

edit: an additional answer from Quora

>We assume cars of equal mass, and the collision is inelastic. Then, yes, it's equivalent. You can think of this as a result of (ordinary) relativity. In the 120+0 case, consider moving in a reference frame that is going 60mph w.r.t. the earth. Then it is clear; you would see nothing different than if you were stationary and the cars do 60+ -60.

>But you may ask: Does not the 120+0 case have twice the initial kinetic energy than the two 60's case? (120^2 is 4 times 60^2+60^2) The answer to this is that the combined mass of the two cars in the 120+0 case, by conservation of momentum,  continues to travel at 60mph. Thus not all, but only half, the initial kinetic energy is used up in the collision.


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

[User]
ELI5: How do scientists actually calculate the lethality of poisons?

For example, I read that 5g of cyanide is enough to kill 35 people. What does that even mean? If I could somehow split 5g of solid cyanide (is that a thing?) into 35 parts and put it in 35 peoples Dr. Pepper they would all die? And how could you possibly test that?

[Assistant]
Most drugs have what's called an LD50 - it's the estimated dose required that will kill half of all people who consume it.

There is an LD100 - the amount needed to kill, on average, every single person. But this is used less often because it's often a much, much higher dose than you'd need to kill most people. For example, an LD50 might be 0.5g, while an LD100 might be 7.0g

This can be calculated using animal models - often mice or pigs (or both) due to their similar biology to humans, or through previous observations of people who have accidentally died to such a poison - as well as those who consumed the poison, but lived.

Generally speaking if 5g is enough to kill 10 people, say It means 0.5g is probably a little higher than the LD50 for that drug for an average person.

So you might not actually kill 10 people, it's more likely to be around 5, but it gives you a good scope of how toxic that compound actually is.

----

#Extra Info

LD50 is usually based on body weight, eg g/kg. So when we talk about a certain amount of drug killing a certain number of people, we presume people of average weight and fitness.

But even then, you can get weird results using LD50 and not accounting for all the other factors.

A pellet of rat poison (let's say 10mg of  brodifacoum) in a healthy, well built, adult male's (100kg, great liver, good metabolism, no health conditions) meal is probably going to be no problem at all. Maybe he gets a few unexplained bruises for a couple of weeks, or his gums bleed when he brushes his teeth. If he's **very** unlucky, he may end up with a GI bleed, spend a night in hospital and receive a vitamin K injection.

That same pellet in the meal of an elderly man (60kg, reduced liver function, slow metabolism, pulmonary embolism last year) who is also taking blood thinners... Well that could easily be a death sentence.

Now the LD50 for brodifacoum is about 0.3mg/kg so on paper, both of our patients should survive (10mg would be the LD50 for a 30kg person). But that's where the other health factors and so on play a role.

It gets very complicated very quickly.


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

[User]
[DC/Marvel] A lot of villains want to take over the world and rule it. While a lot of villains want to destroy the world. Why do world ruling villains not stop world destroying villains from destroying the planet?

I read how many villains want to rule the world while there are lots of villains want to destroy it. Shouldn't the world ruling villains stop the world destroying villains from destroying the planet as it is hard to rule the world when it a pile of rubble or how there are no humans around and nature is gone?

[Assistant] They do though, Lex Luthor has teamed up with Superman/The Justice League many times in order to fight a greater threat, such as Darkside. Doctor Doom has sided with the Avengers and the Fantastic Four to fight a greater threat, such as Thanos.


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

[User]
CMV: The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and should no longer be used in the United States.

Just to prefice, I understand that many people who are put to death have committed awful crimes and I do believe they deserve to pay for those crimes. But, I'd rather see somebody rot in jail all their life instead of try to right a wrong with another wrong by taking another life. Plus, the death penalty is more expensive and there is more chance of convicting an innocent person. Too many innocent people have been put to death. Also, I just don't feel that death should be a punishment. A punishment is doing something that will show people what they have done is wrong and will hopefully, hopefully being the important word here, teach them to correct their ways. What does killing someone show them or teach them. It's basically doing the same thing the person who is being put to death did but saying, "oh it's ok because they're the bad guy." It's just seems really hypocritical and not useful. Not to mention, we have the 8th amendment that says nobody can be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. I have a hard time believing that death cannot be considered cruel and unusual.

[Assistant]
> But, I'd rather see somebody rot in jail all their life instead of try to right a wrong with another wrong by taking another life.

So you think its more humane to take away someone's humanity lock them in a box and forget about them. Lock them in a box where they may be a threat to people within the prison with people who are guilty of far lesser crimes than them, where they may be threats to them? You think that is more humane to anyone involved then giving someone the dignity of death?

> Plus, the death penalty is more expensive and there is more chance of convicting an innocent person.

Death penalty as the actual punishment comes to around 100 bucks. The "more expense" comes from all the trials we give to try and make sure a person is actually guilty.

>. A punishment is doing something that will show people what they have done is wrong and will hopefully, hopefully being the important word here, teach them to correct their ways.

A punishment by definition is the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. Its not about reform its not about teaching others. A punishment is an individuals consequences under the law for their actions.

>What does killing someone show them or teach them.

Its not supposed to. They are a threat that by their actions have proven themselve unable to live by the rules of society. They are removed. The threat is gone.

> Not to mention, we have the 8th amendment that says nobody can be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

All men die. Your death is a given. This just ensures it. How is it any crueler than time itself?


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

[User] [Aliens] Why the hell did they leave the door open on the landing craft! Could have avoided a ton of problems if they pilot just shut the door. Is this standard procedure in hostile territory?

[Assistant]
Standard procedure for this kind of op is to station a guard outside, which they did, and to leave the door open to give the guard quick access to the dropship.  The reason it went wrong is because they weren't expecting the enemy, in this case the alien, to be able to stealthily enter the ship without alerting the guard.

The problem with just staying inside with the door closed is that you potentially allow your enemy unfettered access to the outside of the ship, as the pilot doesn't have good visibility to all angles of approach.  Had they known the real nature of the threat they were facing, they'd probably have chosen to remain in flight or returned to orbit.


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

[User] Where does wind start?

[Assistant]
The answer to almost all questions about why the Earth is not in equilibrium is: because the Sun is there.

Heat from the Sun impacts different latitudes differently. In particular it tends to heat up the areas around the equator more than the surrounding regions. Since air pressure depends on temperature this will induce a pressure gradient, which causes wind. These effects ripple outwards, and with the added complication of geography you get surprisingly complicated wind patterns.

That's very simplified of course, but it should give you an idea of who the culprit is (the Sun) and how it might work.


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

[User]
ELI5: On a cold day when someone walks into a room from outdoors and you can "smell the cold" what is it that you're smelling and what causes this?

I ask this because some people just walked into the room I'm in from outside and I feel like I can smell the cold on them. Also, there is a certain smell that cold has that seems different than when it's hot out, so what is that and how/why does it happen?

[Assistant] The predominant factor is the change in the _amount of smell_.  When it is very cold there is almost no moisture in the air.  Moisture in the air allows more particulate matter to be airborne.  When it's really, really cold it simply doesn't smell as much as when it's warm, and when its humid.


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

[User]
[Marvel] How do civilians know if someone is a real hero or not?

If I walk up to an active situation dressed like Captain America and start ordering cops around, how would they know that I'm not the real Cap (assuming we look reasonably similar)?  Would it matter? Is this a form a Stolen Valor?

[Assistant]
You'd better be a body builder/triathlete, because if you're not the fittest person they've ever seen the deception is going to be obvious.  Add to that the fact that Cap is a celebrity and most people would have seen him speak online or on television.  If your voice doesn't match, you're in trouble.

The crime will depend on which universe at what period, but *impersonating a Federal agent* will probably be applicable in most versions where he works for SHIELD or the Avengers.


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

[User]
Why do Acids Melt Stuff?

Obviously, they don't annihilate the very atoms of a substance they come into contact with, but why do acids actually melt stuff?

[Assistant] Lets be clear on terms: melting describes a solid going to a liquid as a phase change (thats not whats happening here). What is typically happening when acids "melt" something is they are breaking bonds / aiding oxidation. Acids are lone pair acceptors and faciliate the oxidation of typically carbon in polymers. When that happens the target appears to melt because its actually breaking down. Its not a phase change its a chemical reaction.


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

[User]
When I watch a TV programme from the 70s or 80s on my HDTV, it's blurry almost to the point of unintelligibility. Is that how it looked back in the day? Am I misremembering my youthful TV experiences? Did we not notice the blurriness?

EDIT: Also, videos look terrible, too. Is that for the same reason?

[Assistant]
It's sort of two sided,
First, TV's were smaller with lower resolution (NTSC rather than HD). It's only relatively recently that TV's larger than about 24 inches have become commonplace with the replacement of CRTs with LCD/Plasma TVs. Thus we didn't have to scale for formats to begin with.

Secondly, What makes the problem worse with larger HDTV's is how the scaling works from low resolution media to higher resolution displays. I'd sort of have to stabbing in the dark with the actual implementations that are used so i'll use the simple 'naive' case of linear interpolation. To fit the original to the larger screen the pixels need to be scaled. So as an example, lets say your screen is twice as large as the source format; then 1 pixel in the old format is then a 2x2 pixel square on your screen (because the screen has a higher resolution.) Is turns REALLY blocky looking really quickly. To help with this problem, interpolation is used; which is to say, instead of the one block of 2x2 pixels having the same color, we'll have them share a little bit of their color (linearly) with their neighbors.

Nice, so now we don't have a super blocky movie. The problem now is that it turns really blurry & has this out of focus feel to it. A solution to this is to use a better sort of interpolation. There are many to choose from.


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

[User]
[The Mist] How exactly did the Government get rid of The Mist?

It just seems to disperse whenever the Military are close by. I thought that the flamethrowers might play a part in it but the army tanks advance without any localized flame throwers.

[Assistant]
I figured they must have closed the door or portal to whatever dimension or world the creatures and mist were coming from.  With it closed off, the mist would naturally dissipate, the military was just advancing against the vanishing mist and destroying whatever creatures and infestations they came across.

But I've only seen the movie and the book may paint a clearer picture.


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

[User] ELI5: How do video games have different glitches among seperate copies ( I fall through the floor here, someone else doesn't) when they are all the same game?

[Assistant]
They don't, what happens is that people encounter different glitches.

And that has to do with the number of variences and the number if conditions.

If you have a glitch that makes a player stuck, but it only happens if they are holding a shotgun, and turn so that the barrel hits a shelf through a wall at a specific point along the arc of a jump, and each if those is only a few pixels of tolerance then only a very small number of people will encounter that glitch.

If you have a glitch where the game freezes any time you open a specific door regardless of other conditions then a lot more people will encounter that glitch.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] How was Anakin perceived after the clone wars ended?

Anakin was seen as a war hero during the clone wars but very few people knew he became Darth Vader so I'm curious what the public thought of him. Was he considered a traitor like the rest of the Jedi and killed during Order 66 or did people have a different impression of him?

[Assistant] iirc Palatine couldn't easily condemn him like he was able to with the other Jedi since, like you said, he pretty much propped him up to be a galactic Captain America. So the narrative he gave was that Anakin died protecting him from the Jedi traitors and was still considered a war hero until the fall of the empire.


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

[User]
What's hot in philosophy of language?

I was wondering if anyone could point me towards any of the major/important debates happening in philosophy of language at the moment.

[Assistant]
Plenty of issues: nature of propositions, semantics of indicative conditionals, semantics of generics, theories of reference, theories of meaning, indexicals, names, restricted and unrestricted quantification, counterfactuals, embedded conditionals.

If you want a good intro to the field check out William Lycan's *Philosophy of language: contemporary introduction*.


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

[User] [Marvel][Doctor Who] Would Matt Murdock be affected by The Silence?

[Assistant]
No, he'd be able to detect them just fine, and also recognize that they're not human. Even if they could use their amnesia ability on him, he would still be able to hear and smell them.

He would also be smart enough to notice that nobody in the room with the weird alien is reacting strangely. He'd probably play along until he had a good idea of where things stood before acting.