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

[User]
[Star Trek] How do captains pick a warp speed?

How does Picard, or anyone for that matter, decide at what warp speed to travel? Obviously there are times when they need to get somewhere in a hurry and he says, warp 9 or maximum warp, but the rest of the time he just seems to pick a number at random.

He rolls a warp 6.5

Is there some guide as to recommended speeds that he's following? Is there a speed that is the most efficient?

*Edit*

I did not ask this myself, but it was taken from elsewhere.

[Assistant]
It was always weird to me that the captain was deciding the speed.  Seems like that's the navigator's job.

"Lt. Smith, Starfleet wants us at Starbase 12 in two days. Set a course."
"Aye aye, sir." *does a bunch of math* "Helm, come about to 185 mark 3, warp 6."


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

[User]
[Chess] Why is there such a massive disparity of fighting ability between Queens and Kings?

If the answer is simply, "he's too busy thinking" then please answer "why are bishops so much better at fighting than pawns, who are often dipicted as foot soldiers."

Thank you.

I'd write more, but I need to step aside to dodge a castle, which is currently traversing the country-side at an alarming speed.

[Assistant] The queens and bishops move through social means to achieve their goals. Castles project power. Knights have some social power, and some military might, so they can be unpredictable. Kings' power comes from those around him. He can move as he likes, but his strength is in his people, not his own arm. And pawns are weak individually, only posing a threat in numbers.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] On the subject of the Kobayashi Maru... why do they still give the test when literally everyone knows it's a no win situation?

Logic dictates that if this is a character building assessment, meant to have a palpable sense of urgency, danger and responsibility, it shouldn't work if everyone, literally everyone, knows it is unbeatable and that ultimately their choice doesn't matter.

Any choice you make, any chain of reasoning you have, is going to be both unoriginal and probably insincere no matter what you actually do.

[Assistant]
Nobody tells the cadets details about the Maru test before they take it.

The cadets know it's daunting, maybe even unbeatable, they don't know why.

In fact the strategic choice in the scenario is simple. There's only one right choice- to fight, and there's only one endgame, to live long enough for the civilians to escape, and likely be destroyed in the process.

The cadet must make that choice quickly, and commit to the idea that they just doomed themselves and their crew to die, and that their only real tactical decision is how to keep themselves between the aggressor and the civilians.

Then they must watch their assigned bridge crew die, one at a time, and in the process remain fighting as their resources and options dwindle, and still maintain their composure and make good choices.

In the end, the point isn't to win. It's to comport themselves well while losing. They don't have to be original or sincere, they just have to make the most amount of correct moves that they can to save the most lives before the scenario ends.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it hard to make a fist when you first wake up?

[Assistant] When you go to sleep, in a simplified sense, your brain deactivates your muscles. When you just wake up, your muscles are also beginning to "wake up" so it would be hard for you to have total control of them right off the bat.


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

[User] ELI5: Why society accepts women wearing trousers, while men can not wear skirts (unless they are traditional clothing) (Also, no pun intended, I really would like to know the logic)

[Assistant]
There is no special reason why men couldn't wear "skirts" or "dresses" - a kilt is basically a skirt, the traditional gear many ancient peoples wore into battle was basically a skirt, what we call "robes" are basically dresses.  (And in some languages, a woman's dress is still called a "robe".) Men's kilts/robes would, of course, be in a different fashion, as men's fashions and women's fashions invariably are.

The ultimate reason why *women* wear trousers goes back to a deeper question: why do all *men* wear trousers? The answer is that trousers are a vast improvement over robes/skirts for two things. The first is riding horses.  The second is heavy manual work in which a robe would likely get muddy or stuck on tools/machinery.  To simplify a long story, you had a surprising alliance of enemies.  Aristocrats wore pants, first, because they actually were riding a lot, either for hunting or war; second, because they had gotten used to it; third, because even if they weren't actually hunters or soldiers, they wanted to *imply* that they were.  And rich people who wished they were aristocrats adopted their fashions.  But at the same time, middle-class merchants who disliked aristocrats and hated vanity made a point of wearing simple, decent clothes, the same kind a workman would be able to afford.  And that meant - even for a merchant who did not do much manual labor - wearing pants.  (It also meant dark colors that don't stain, which we still wear to this day.)  So if you wanted to be an aristocrat, you had to dress in pants; and if you wanted to be a proud member of the middle class, you had to dress in pants; and so soon enough, all men were wearing pants and it just became the normal thing for men.

Later, at the time of the first suffragettes, part of what people found funny about the idea that men and women were equal was the crazy image of women doing the things men do in some sort of dress.  That would, in fact, be impractical; but some of the suffragettes came back with the idea that they could wear a sort of pants, too.  So some women started wearing pants as a political/fashion statement. Then, with more gender equality, they started wearing pants for jobs that required pants. It started to seem practical to dress little children in pants sometimes (whereas before, both boys and girls were often kept in dresses at a very young age).  The next step was for pants-wearing to become increasingly common and casual.

So what happened wasn't the emergence of a special ban on men wearing skirts/dresses; rather, after an earlier period in which trousers became a particularly male form of dress, women started wearing them too, without there ever being any mirror-process which encouraged men to wear dresses (unless we count crossdressers, perhaps?).


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] Why wouldnt Dumbledore ask for a magical time turning device to see who/what the whole Heir of Slytherin was?

I can understand after a single student is petrified; they probably thought they were dealing with a controllable issue but after the second and third?

I know, I know But magical time travel can be dangerous business.. and shouldnt be used wantonly

The ministry makes exceptions and trusts a 13 year girl with this wicked powerful magical device, just so she can take a muggle studies and potions at the same hour of school, but someone with the wisdom and maturity of Dumbledore cant use one to see whos attacking his students?

He knows roughly the day, the location and roughly the time that the attack/petrifaction/graffiti happens, why not just conceal himself, allow the attack to happen again and just solve the whole mystery quick and tidy?

I mean with only one student, I can maybe understand the apprehension of going back in time to be a casual observer but by the 4th student? Im starting to think Mr. Malfoy was onto something when claiming Dumbledore was unfit to lead the school.

[Assistant] Time-Turners are strictly controlled by the Ministry, and the Ministry kind of hates Dumbledore. The Ministry is okay with students using Time-Turners to be in two places at once, but they're already scared of one Dumbledore; no way they trust him enough to allow him to make two or more of himself exist at the same time. They think he's power hungry and looking to take over as Minister of Magic, so they're not about to give him any tools that would let him do that. It seems like they even went through McGonagal to get the Time-Turner to Hermione instead of Dumbledore...


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

[User]
[Warhammer 40.000] What if the Emperor actually has a text to speach device?

We all know the series 'If-the-emperor-had-a-text-to-speech-device'. But what would most likely happen if the Mechanicus installed a tts device on the Golden Throne in the canon 40k universe?

[Assistant]
Step one is probably instructing the Mechanicum to repair the Golden Throne. Step two is ears-only for the Chief Custodes: kill the Emperor so that He may be reborn/reincarnated/regenerated.

Step Three: step off the Golden Throne and start cleaning house.


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

[User]
[Avatar] Why do benders only live in their respective nations?

If I was a waterbender, I'd learn to heal, move to another nation, and then charge through the nose to save people's lives. But they're not doing that. They all stay in the water tribes where their skills are basically worthless. The same goes for earthbenders who seem like they could make a killing in the fire nation. And fire- and airbenders could probably do something cool with their powers too that will be worth more when they're rare. But this doesn't seem to have happened. There is maybe one airbender left in the world just because this didn't happen. Why?

[Assistant]
For what we saw from Wan's backstory, the world of Avatar has been in conflict since Vaatu was released and the humans started roaming by themselves (maybe even before that, and that's how they ended up in the back of the turtle lions), first with the spirits, then with each other.
The following era might be a series of war not between nations, but between tribes, with warlords regularly emerging to try to unify all the benders of one element or all those living on a territory.

Smaller nations would start to form, and benders would start to seek for terrains that gave them terrain advantage over possible enemies. Firebenders took boats and traveled to an archipelago full of volcanoes. Waterbenders did the same but went north and south, with some staying on the swamp. Airbenders keept being nomads but build temples on the tallest mountains. Earthbenders remained in the continent, that had enough earth to protect themselves. Most non benders remained too, but those who were friends or family or were members of a small nation of mostly benders were took with their respective groups.

Wars of unification and fights for the power were still happening, until the big four nations were formed and some kind of balance between them was obtained. As each nation remained to themselves, leaving their hometown was not well saw, so travelers were few, but i'm mostly sure there was at least a water tribe doctor on the fire nation at some point, it just didn't happen in the time we saw.

Then the war broke up, and any fire bender that was living on the earth nation or outside the fire one was probably chased out or worse, even if they weren't fire nation loyalist.

It is only after the end of the war and the creation of republic city that the people are motivated by the avatar to leave their home places and live among different people, and we start seeing marriage between benders of different nations like something is common.
And again, i'm sure the daughter of Zuko has a water tribe doctor on her court.


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

[User]
[Fairly Oddparents] How were Cosmo and Wanda able to grant Timmy's wishes after (s)he was turned into a girl, even though he now had a different voice?

In another episode, they couldn't grant his wish when he had a different voice than his own.

[Assistant]
I think you're talking about the episode where he swapped voices with Chip Skylark and they had to get Chip to make the wish instead. The difference is that when he became a girl that was still 'his' voice. It belonged to him, his body just changed. He was gunna have Cosmo and Wanda until later into his teenage years, so if his voice couldn't change with his body they wouldn't have been able to grant him wishes after a couple of years, which presumably didn't happen.

When he swapped voices with Chip it wasn't just that his voice changed, his actual voice still existed but was just somewhere else and the voice he was using belonged to someone different.


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

[User] What is dandruff and how does it form?

[Assistant]
Sebum is the oily stuff your skin releases, and more of it is released on your scalp than most other places on the body.

There is a fungus that every human has that feeds on sebum.

The dandruff comes from your body having an inflammation response to the fungus, which leads to a faster pace in skin cells being grown.

Thus with more skin growing than usual more of it flakes off, which is the dandruff.

Some people have a greater inflammation response to the fungus than others do, thus why some people have lots of dandruff, and others seemingly have none.


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

[User]
Eli5 How do newborn babies expel all the fluid in their lungs after they are born?

The inside of a womb is full of fluid. As the fetus matures within the womb, its lungs should not have any air inside of them right? So, when the baby is born, how does the baby expel all of the fluid from its lungs in order to breathe air?

[Assistant]
To start, when a mother is pushing, the birth canal compresses the lungs and fluid can be expelled out.

After, when a baby is born, it coughs and breathes! Over a couple hours, all the fluid is cleared out either by coughing the fluid out forcefully, air replacing the fluid in the lungs, or by the baby's body re-absorbing the fluid.


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

[User]
Can a government reasonably run a never-ending deficit?

Got into a bit of a tussle about this but the alleged economist refused to explain, so Im here because this has genuinely got me thinking.

Is it genuinely feasible to do this? To just continue running a deficit without worrying about running a surplus at any point (&therefore cuts)? What effects might the level of deficit have on the potential consequences beyond just postponing them?

I understand the soapboxing rules so please do just answer the above question. However, Id like to state my prior assumptions to see if I was wrong or not, or if there is nuance missed in specific places etc. My assumptions are that a government cannot reasonably expect to run a never-ending deficit (I.e. never plan to or attempt to run a surplus) without dire consequences. I had assumed that there would eventually be problems around paying back debts, including potential debt interest hikes, inflation & interest rate increases, and potentially recession from any defaulting or currency devaluation. However, the more I think about this the more I wonder if it necessarily true.

[Assistant]
Say a road costs $1 million to build, but is expected to generate economic activity worth $5 million in tax revenue over its 30 year lifespan. Take out a 30 year loan, build the road, pay the installments and then do it again when the road has reached the end of its service life and needs to be rebuilt. Do this for many concurrent projects in our city/nation, and there you have an example of "eternal" deficit which will never be a problem \*in principle.\*

Reality is messier than this, of course. People make bad bets, or pursue values other than financial prudence, or the road is destroyed in a war, or or or. You can still run into a situation where growth is too slow and debt is too large. There is no reason failure is guaranteed to happen, though.


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

[User] [MUC/Infinity War] If Tony's Ultron project went as planned, how would it have fared against Thanos. (NO ENDGAME SPOILERS)

[Assistant]
Tony's "suit of armor around the world" would have almost certainly stopped Thanos with four Stones. Tony by himself was more or less holding his own, and if you added a few dozen robots with nanotech-suit level capabilities, Thanos would have been in real trouble.

Giving Thanos the Time Stone makes this more difficult. Thanos wasn't shown using the Stone to its full capabilities (like, say Strange or the Ancient One), but he was still skilled enough to use it to undo setbacks, reverse damage, and basically retry plans that failed. If you can't get the Time Stone away from him, he can basically just retry until he wins.

With all six Stones, there's still the slim possibility of one-shotting him (Thor almost pulled that off in *Infinity War*), but basically, once Thanos has the full Gauntlet, it's game over.

Basically, Tony's plan was a very solid one. The issue was that he didn't really understand the Mind Stone, or the capabilities of the AI he was building. If he had been more reserved, or if he had simply given control of the Iron Legion to people he trusted, like Rhodey, Rogers, Natasha, and Clint, Earth would have been very well defended.


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

[User] [Lord of the Rings] Did Gandalf always looks like a wizened old man or was he a dark-haired babe a few centuries back?

[Assistant]
He's always (at least since entering the world) appeared to be a wizened old man. That was the form the Istari (wizards) took in order to convey their wisdom and humility for the purposes of guiding the kingdoms of Men.

Remember that the wizards are not mortal Men but immortal Maiar, angelic beings in the direct service of the Creator.


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

[User] Eli5: why can't metal be clear?

[Assistant]
Typically, the same properties that make metals conductive (the way they move electrons) makes them opaque. Color and transparency relate to how photons (light) interacts with a material. So something is transparent when photons can pass through roughly without distortion. In metals, however, there's a cloud of very mobile electrons, and these usually absorb and reflect incoming photons at random. This is why most metals have a silver/gray shiny appearance. They reflect light in a number of random directions, and they reflect all wavelengths roughly equally.

That being said, there are materials like aluminum oxynitride that are transparent. Google it for cool pics.


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

[User]
[Hobbit] After the events of the book Hobbit, was there a event of mass inflation?

After the events of the Hobbit, incredible amount of gold is brought back into the economy, did this cause a huge amount of inflation, did the price of gold decrease very fast like in the case of Mansa Musa and Egypt? Also was there a huge deflation after Smaug took over Erebor?

[Assistant]
No. Dwarves are not fools when it comes to economics, and the Lonely Mountain represented only one Dwarven city. There are others.

It likely stayed in the hands of a few choice Dwarves, granting them immense wealth (Bilbo being one of the recipients, of course), and they likely leaked enough to keep the economy stable, while using their newfound fortunes to fund other projects, such as the recolonization of Moria.

The War of the Ring took place only seventy years after the Battle of Five Armies. Proof enough that either that amount of gold wasn't as much when compared to the entire economy of that area or that the people in charge were smart enough to avoid total economic collapse.


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

[User]
CMV: The Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag as said in public schools is meaningless and a waste of time

Let me first say that I myself am a conservative-libertarian person who really appreciates it when elected officials, military members, judges and law enforcement officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I like listening to the national anthem and other patriotic songs at sports games and so on. I understand why military members might want to say the pledge of allegiance as a group.

However, I see no purpose in having elementary, middle and high school students being obligated to say the pledge of allegiance. What benefit does it have to them?  What's the benefit of pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth rather than a set of ideals, goals and laws as written in the Declaration of Independence? It just becomes a going through the motions thing. How many students ACTUALLY believe that the US is a republic that is indivisible and perscribes liberty and justice for all? Probably very few if at all.

Now, I can see pledging allegiance to the republic of the United States and its values, goals and laws to be good IF it is more than just a checklist of things for the teacher to have the students do like turning in their homework and such. It has to be discussed and debated and such. As a student teacher, I am strongly considering having my students make their own choice in not saying the pledge or saying the pledge if they want to.

[Assistant]
I always felt like requiring students to do this five days a week every single week for the majority of their adolescence was a little cultish.

I think its even weirder that when you mention how its creepy some Americans talk about how youre like anti-nationalist or something lol.

Theres nothing wrong with knowing the national anthem or even saying it, but every day? Does the average American adult even say the national anthem every day?


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

[User]
Hypothetically, if cell division in a human body suddenly stopped all at once, how long would that human live?

Or perhaps it's easier to ask how quickly he might die. Obviously there are potentially too many variables at play to accurately predict a realistic scenario, but assuming no injuries or disease, how long would he last?

Follow up question: if somehow telomeres were suddenly completely eradicated in a person's DNA, would cell division would immediately halt?

Thank you!

Edit: Spelling. Also, more thanks to all of you who are responding. This is a fascinating topic to me - the fragility of our condition and how fine the line between life and death really is, scientifically speaking.

[Assistant]
All of your granulocytes would be gone within 3 days. You would be extremely prone to infection after this point. Your stomach lining would disappear within three days, your sperm too. Within a week, you would be unable to digest nutrients because the epithelia of the intestines would be gone.

Assume you make it this long (highly unlikely). A bit over a week your platelets would be gone and wounds would no longer clot. A simple paper cut would cause you to bleed out eventually.  Within a month all your skin would be dead, though you may still be alive as your dead skin would still be there to contain your internals.

Within a month, all your lymphocytes would be gone. You would be extremely prone to infection and it would be like having end-stage aids. Your own internal bacteria would probably kill you.

If you make it this long... and that is a big big if. In about two months you would have too few red blood-cells to properly oxygenate yourself and you would asphyxiate. They would all be gone within 4 months... there is no way to survive past this point even if you were on heavy life support.


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

[User] ELI5: In regards to the James Webb telescope(congrats, NASA!): How does the solar shield NOT act like a solar wind sail, which would cause the telescope to be steadily pushed away from us and require frequent re-alignment?

[Assistant]
Good question. You gotta see which force is acting against that pressure. The telescope is not at the L2 exactly, but slightly "before" so it has the ever slightest tendency to get pulled towards the sun. This gravitational force is bigger than the solar wind pressure, so you need fuel to ever stay as close to L2 as possible, not overshot.

 The aft momentum flap is to counteract rotation caused by the wind pressure, and not to act against the outward force of the wind pressure: the shield is rarely perpendicular to the sun rays, which causes a rotation as the sun beam is reflected off.


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

[User]
If I were able to stand next to Voyager I where it is now in interstellar space, would I be able to see it?

I was wondering if there would be enough light (photons) out there to bounce off the spacecraft and hit our retina or if it would appear to be a silhouette against a starry sky? Or dimly lit.

I got to thinking about this after watching Star Trek recently and wondering if there was enough light in deep space to make the ships look so shiny.

[Assistant] You can easily estimate how well is voyeger 1 illuminated. Direct sunlight is about 50,000 lux. Illuminance falls with distace squared. Voyeger is 125 AU far. So illuminance is roughly 50,000/125**2 = 3.2 lux. So Voyager is better lit than open terain in the light of the full moon, which is about 0.5 lux. Even in the deep interstellar space lets say 1 ly away Voyager would be still visible, thou just barely.


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

[User]
[General Sci-Fi/Time-Travel] Is it really so bad to change the past?

So our civilization has just discovered time travel, and it allows you to make changes in the past that effect the future/present. Is it wrong to change the past in ways that will effectively re-write history, even if it causes some people to never exist?
I mean, can a person who never existed be a victim?

What if it's done in a way that saves lives, and so causes people to be born who wouldn't otherwise have been?

[Assistant]
Congratulations! You just discovered it isn't so bad to change the past!

How?

Well, the second time travel is invented, then - on a long enough timeline - someone will have traveled into the past. From your perspective in the present, it already happened.

Since you are still here, in a non-erased realty/non-ripped-space-time-continuum, it would seem that this travel has not had any ill effects (not that you'd notice anyway). So it seems that you are lucky enough to:

* - Exist in a world that has some built-in physical protection against paradoxes;
* - Live in a branching-time universe;
* - Live in a world where time travel into the past is impossible, making the question irrelevant.


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

[User]
Why does covering the eyes of a person impede our ability to identify them so much?

Like when they put a black bar over a person's eyes in a photo to conceal their identity. Most of the face is left untouched and yet it is hard for the human brain to identify the person. Why?

[Assistant] There are a *lot* of variable features about eyes. They can be different colors, wildly different shapes of the overall socket, the eyebrows are distinct, single-lid/double-lid, how deep the indentation is, the relation of the forehead to the eye opening, the shape of the actual opening of the lids, the expressions the person typically makes using their eyes... there's just a lot more variation in the eyes and surrounding area than other areas of the face.


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

[User] [ATLA] What would have happened if Azulon ordered Ozai to kill Azula instead of Zuko?

[Assistant]
Effectively the same thing. Ozai would prepare to kill Azula out of obedience to his father and ruler, Ursa would make the same bargain to save her child, Ozai would take it and have Azulon assassinated and Ursa would be exiled for her part.

The real change would be Azula's reaction - she either feels betrayed at her father's willingness to kill her, or becomes even more loyal due to her father's willingness to kill his own father to save her life.


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

[User]
ELI5: Can animals become feral?

So when humans are raised by other animals (and are removed from human contact), they become "feral" as in they can't properly / have a hard time communicating with other people and generally have a tough time learning a human language.

That being said, can animals become feral? Suppose a puppy is taken from his mother as soon as it's born, or a chinchilla and don't communicate with others of their kind... are they still able to properly communicate with other dogs/chinchillas or do they exhibit traits to humans who are feral.

[Assistant] Pigs revert.  When domesticated pink pigs escape barnyards and get into the woods, their hair grows thick and bristly and they grow tusks.  It doesn't take them generations to do this, the actual pig who escaped gets wild again.


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

[User]
Are a butterfly and a caterpillar the same animal genetically?

How can an organism achieve such a drastic transformation using the same genome? Does a caterpillar's DNA undergo a rewrite when it metamorphoses? Is there some sort of inherent gene editing going on?

[Assistant] They have the same genome yes. And it shouldn't be that surprising, the same genome that produces your eye is the same genome which produces your kidneys, two very different organs. One of the biggest discoveries from the human genome project was that the absolute number of genes is not that high, it's the regulation of expression and splicing which allows for the huge amount of diversity in tissues.


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

[User]
ELI5 - Why do older movies/shows/news/recordings have a much different "tone" of voice and feel to them? Like if you watch old movies like "It's a Wonderful Life" or hear any of Kennedy/FDR's speeches, it sounds so different than the voices on tv today?

Sorry for the awful explanation...

Edit: Thank you everyone for the detailed and thorough explanations!

[Assistant]
The Mid-Atlantic accent, or Transatlantic accent, is a purposefully-cultivated accent of English that blends together the most prestigious features of American and British English (specifically Received Pronunciation for the latter). Adopted in the early 20th century mostly by American aristocrats and Hollywood actors, it is not a native or regional accent; instead, according to voice and drama professor Dudley Knight, it is an affected set of speech patterns "whose chief quality was that no Americans actually spoke it unless educated to do so".

Primarily fashionable in the first half of the 20th century, the accent was embraced in private independent preparatory schools, especially by members of the Northeastern upper class, as well as in schools for film and stage acting.

The accent's overall use sharply declined following the Second World War.

It was popularly used in movies, television, etc. as a "non-accent," meaning something in any English-speaking country could readily understand but not tie directly to a specific place.


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

[User]
Do we have satellites around other celestial bodies?

Ive always wondered. We do fly-bys with probes, but why not just park an imaging satalite above, say, Jupiter so we can monitor it and its moons for years? Or do we already have something like that?

[Assistant]
Yes, several planets in the Solar System do. The oldest of which, the 2001 Mars Oddessey orbiter, has been in orbit around another planet longer than any other satellite.

**Mercury**

* MESSENGER - the First Mercury orbiter was deliberately crashed in 2015 after 4 years in orbit. The orbiter achieved 100% mapping of Mercury by 2013. MESSENGER is credited with the characterisation of Mercury's magnetic field, and the discovery of water ice at the planets North Pole.

**Venus**

* Akatsuki - the 8th orbiter around Venus entered orbit in late 2015. Its main mission is cloud and surface imaging from orbit around Venus to investigate is meteorology.

**Mars**

* 2001 Mars Odyssey - The longest extra-terrestrial orbiter, 2001 Mars Odyssey provided information about the existence of hydrogen and mapped the distribution of water below the shallow surface, amongst other experiments. It also served as the primary means of communications to various Mars surface explorers.

* Mars Express - the first ESA orbiter for Mars, its primary mission is the orbital study of the interior, sub-surface, surface and atmosphere, and environment of the planet.

* Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter - Its primary goal being to map the Martian landscape with high-resolution cameras in order to choose landing sites for future surface missions, the orbiter also provided navigational data during EDL and acts as a communications relay for the Phoenix lander and MSL. The orbiter is also using its onboard equipment to study the Martian climate, weather, atmosphere and geology, and to search for signs of liquid water. The orbiter has also searched for the lost landers Beagle 2 and Mars Polar Lander, the former of which it found in 2015.

* MAVEN - another NASA orbiter, its four primary missions consist of determining the role that loss of volatiles to space from the Martian atmosphere has played through time, the current state of the upper atmosphere, ionosphere, and interactions with the solar wind, the current rates of escape of neutral gases and ions to space and the processes controlling them and the ratios of stable isotopes in the Martian atmosphere.

* Mars Orbiter Mission - The first orbiter and interplanetary mission for the ISRO, its main objectives are to develop the technologies required for designing planning and managing of interplanetary missions. The scientific objectives include the study of the morphology, topography and mineralogy of Mars' surface, studying the constituents of Mars' atmosphere and studying the dynamics of the upper atmosphere.

* ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter - Initially tasked with providing telemetry for the Schiaparelli demonstration lander for 8 sols after landing, the orbiter then moved into a more circular orbit to carry out its scientific objectives which include; mapping Hydrogen levels to a depth of 1m below the surface, and the characterisation of spatial, temporal variation, and localisation sources of atmospheric trace gases.

**Jupiter**

* Juno - Juno carries a host of science equipment to do various experiments, such as measure the abundance of water in Jupiter, obtain better estimates of its core mass, map its gravitational and magnetic fields, amongst other things.

**Saturn**

* Cassini - The first and only orbiter of Saturn, which had a Grand Finale take place last year after 13 years in orbit. The orbiter was tasked with various missions, such as studying Saturn's rings, the composition of the surfaces of the natural satellites of Saturn, measuring the three dimensional structure and dynamic behaviour of the magnetosphere amongst other things.

**Minor planets, asteroids, and comets**

* NEAR Shoemaker, 433 Eros - NEAR Shoemaker was tasked with studying the near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros, the data from the asteroid may have been used to establish a connection between Eros and other S-type asteroids and meteorites found on Earth.

* Dawn, 4 Vesta - Dawn estimated the size of Vesta's core as well as having observed gullies that are believed to have been formed by transiently flowing liquid water.

* Dawn, Ceres - At Ceres, Dawn captured a full topographic map of Ceres and continued further surveying of the dwarf-planet

* Rosetta, 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko - It's main objective was to map 67P to find a landing site for it's lander Philae.


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

[User] [Batman] Is Bruce Wayne or Alfred good at plumbing or home electrical? Wayne Manor is old, a plumber or electrician would eventually need to work on that house and surely see some plumbing or wiring leading to the Batcave.

[Assistant]
The irony is, even if a plumber did find out bruce wayne was batman? That wouldn't actually be a problem. Ok, Bruce Wayne is batman. The last house had a meeting with the mafia in it. The one before that had a serial killer dungeon. You don't get far as a plumber or electrician in gotham if you go to the paper when you find a rich, powerful man's secret. You don't get far as a *living person* if you do that.

It's ironic- in any other city, this would be a serious problem. But gotham's wretchedness protects it. If a handyman finds something strange, they ignore it. And if they find bruce walking out of his clock in a batsuit? They'll pretend they didn't see and make sure that they do nothing that might make anyone else they worked for worry if *their* secrets might end up headlines next.


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

[User]
[Marvel] What are Tony Stark's arms doing in the Hulkbuster armor?

The iron man suit is fascinating technology, and although it's never entirely clear how it functions, it seems reasonable to assume that Mr. Stark's extremities fit within the suit, thus dictating it's humanoid shape.

however, the Hulkbuster suit is different. It's barely in a human shape, and certainly not to human proportions. The shoulders are too broad and the arms are too long. Even if you assume that the arms just don't reach all the way to the end, the shoulder joints are in the wrong place. So, how does it get piloted? Is the main body just all inside of the chest cavity?

[Assistant]
Ever hear of something called a Waldo?

it's a puppetry interface. You move your hand, and the movement is read by a small computer, turned into precise movement data (joint moves 32 degrees, 2nd joint moves 22 degrees, etc), and transmitted to a motor to move whatever it's connected to.

Stark operates the hands by waldo controls. Chances are, the entire suit's run that way. Since Stark implanted all those microsensors under his skin, technically, his body IS the waldo controller.

Technically, for the hulkbuster, he doesn't even have to be IN the suit.


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

[User] Eli5: What is understeer and oversteer?

[Assistant]
Understeer- the car doesnt turn enough

Oversteer - the car turns too much

Thats the basic way to remember it. In practice it looks like the car plowing straight forward when it understeers, and spinning out when it oversteers. You can also remember which is which by the fact that drifting is just controlled oversteer while looking cool.  The reason for which is going to occur is down to the amount of grip the front and rear wheel have. If the front wheels lose grip before the rears do, you get understeer. If the rear wheels slide while the fronts grip, you get oversteer.


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

[User] ELI5: Historically speaking, what's the connection between Canada and France?

[Assistant]
In the game of exploration and claiming the European countries with sailing ships started exploring the Americas. The Spanish claimed any land they sighted and touched ignoring all natives on the lands. The other countries followed suit.

The French discovered the Mississippi River and claimed all the lands drained by it. They sailed up the St. Lawrence and claimed that land. Everyone went around claiming land, ignoring the natives, and started the next step, establishing posts, forts, and settlements.

The French started a fur trade with the natives. They built trading stations along the rivers they discovered. The French started settlements and plantations along the rivers they discovered. French fur traders covered great distances. But fur trading is not being farmers. French farmers settled in Quebec. Eventually France and England fought a war and France surrendered their claims in Canada but the French speaking settlers stayed in Quebec.


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

[User]
ELI5: how come airplanes only have a seatbelt across the lap?

Why dont they have a cross body belt like cars do?

[Assistant] car accident means you're likely to fly forward; crossbody seatbelt keeps you from moving horizontally. plane turbulence means you're likely to fly up as it falls; crosslap seatbelt keeps you from moving vertically.


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

[User] Can molten iron rust? What about gaseous/plasma iron?

[Assistant]
Yes, it can, and does.  Converting molten crude iron into molten iron oxide is one of the steps in iron refining; oxygen gas is pumped into a furnace containing molten iron and other impurities.  The iron oxide can be converted back into elemental iron by adding CO gas or elemental carbon (coke) to make CO2.

Gaseous iron atoms will also react with oxygen.  Iron ions in the plasma phase are unlikely to react with oxygen if they got to that state through pure heating.  By the time something is that hot, there is too much energy around for chemical bonds to exist.


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

[User] If neutrons have no charge, what force causes them to stay in the nucleus of an atom? And do electrons ever come into contact with nuclei?

[Assistant]
There is a nuclear force that bounds protons and neutrons together in a nucleus. You may have heard of the strong nuclear force that holds quarks together inside of protons and neutrons, and the nuclear force is a manifestation of that. It's similar to how van der Walls forces that keep atoms near each other are a manifestation of electrostatic forces that keep electrons bound to atoms.

Electrons sometimes come into contact with the nucleus, which can induce radioactive decay. This is called electron capture.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do the spouses of celebrities get so much money in the case of divorce when it's clear they wouldn't make near so much money had the relationship never happened?

[Assistant]
In the eyes of the court, a marriage means two people becoming one person.

Imagine a blue crayon marries a red crayon. The law no longer sees them as two separately colored crayons but as one purple crayon. A divorce would be like breaking the crayon in half. It doesn't turn back into a red and blue crayon but, instead, is two broken halves of a purple crayon.

I could explain it much more precisely, but you did come to ELI5.


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

[User]
ELI5 Why Thailand has such a high proportion of male-to-female transgendered people.

I've noticed that Thailand has a large number of male-to-female transgenders, commonly called kathoeys or ladyboys. Why is this? Is it a cultural thing?

[Assistant]
Its because there are fewer cultural niches for gender expression. In our culture we have a defined group for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, and many many subgroups for other sexual expressions. In Thailand, if you are born male and do not conform to sexual norms, you are kathoey, whether you are transgender, homosexual, bisexual or whatever. In western culture we have a clearly defined "drag queen" culture, but in Thailand a drag queen and a trans woman are not distinct groups. If you are a cis man (cis being opposite of trans) in Thailand and have even the slightest amount of effeminate behavior, the culture expects you to go full-out female with your gender presentation. There is no room for effeminate gay males in Thailand.

But there is another side to this coin. In the USA, for example, trans women are encouraged to "pass" - meaning they are not detectably trans, and therefore it is easy for trans women in America to become invisible. Trans women face some of the harshest discrimination in the US, and there is more violence towards trans women than any other sexual minority. Hundreds of women in America are killed each year because of their trans status. There is a LOT of pressure to "pass", based on personal safety alone.

In Thailand, they have the kathoey niche, where it is much more acceptable to be a trans woman, and therefore they are much more visible. Famous women are often trans in Thailand, and are celebrated as such. I'd be hard pressed to name even one venerated and famous trans woman in America.

So its not that there are more trans women in Thailand, its the combination that their definition of what constitutes a trans woman is very wide, and those women are generally accepted by society as normal and therefore are much more visible than in other, more hostile cultures.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it that we are told to unplug modem/router for 30 seconds when we are having issues with our internet? Why is 30 better than 1 second?

[Assistant]
A lot of modern technology contains capacitors! These are like energy buckets, little batteries that fill up when you put a current through them, and discharge otherwise.10 seconds is the time it takes most capacitors to discharge enough for the electronics theyre powering to stop working. Thats why when you turn your PC off at the wall, things like an LED on your motherboard take a few seconds to disappear. You probably could wait a different time, but 10 seconds is the shortest time you can be sure everythings discharged.

30 seconds is better since most people don't realize just how long seconds are, and so if they tried waiting ten seconds they might find they actually end up waiting much less than ten seconds.


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

[User] Suppose we shoot a charged particle down the axis of a solenoid with a magnetic field. It will spiral around the lines of the field, therefore generating its own co-axial magnetic field. Is the new field directed against the solenoid field or along it?

[Assistant]
The particle will rotate in a direction such that the magnetic field that it produces will point **against** the field of the solenoid. (Assuming an ideal solenoid, the momentum of the particle can't be *exactly* in the longitudinal direction. It must have some transverse component, or it won't spiral.)

The magnetic moment created by the gryomotion of the particle will be **m** = -W*_T_***B**/B^(2), where W*_T_* is the kinetic energy in the transverse direction. Notice how the magnetic moment points in the direction opposite of the solenoid magnetic field.


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

[User] ELI5 What are black holes?

[Assistant] It's a point of infinite density. It's essentially a point at which matter has become so compressed and squashed down that it has a ridiculously strong gravitational field around it which consumes everything, even light.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is no mouth CPR what everyone is told to do now?

Is it because an untrained person will do it wrong, or are the breaths simply not worth doing? When I was trained to do CPR it was with breaths so should i just not do them now?

[Assistant] The breaths aren't worth doing. Keeping the heart pumping (doing the compressions) is far more important. This is because while people will lose consciousness from carbon dioxide build up in a couple of minutes, the average person actually has enough oxygen in their blood to stay alive for for a while (nearly 20 minutes) if the heart is pumping. There's really a caveat that after about ten minutes you need to start doing rescue breaths if they're not breathing. But the idea is that in most "man on the street" rescue efforts professionals show up and take over before the person would actually die of lack of oxygen. So for an amateur trying to operate in a high stress situation they probably aren't super practiced in, keep it as simple as possible to have the best effect. Add to that rescue breathes don't have much oxygen in them anyways, since your lungs filtered it out when you inhaled.


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

[User]
[Warhammer 40k] What's the best place in the galaxy to end up at?

So, I fucked up a wish on a cursed monkey's paw and I'm about to be sucked into the warhammer 40k verse.

Yeah. Sucks.

But! I do at least get to choose where in the setting I end up. I've been looking through some of the fluff and I've got several places down as *oh sweet jesus no,* but not so many down as recommended.

So, guys! Based on my desire to be alive, happy and free (in roughly that order), what's the best place in the galaxy for me to decide on? Or at least the least bad?

[Assistant]
There are paradise worlds in the Imperium that enjoy luxury and comfort that is all but indescribable. Granted, you usually have to have the combined wealth of several systems to bankroll a life on such an extravagant world, but the option is still there.

Likewise, there are many more planets that have levels of security and comfort identical to 21st century Terra (and some several centuries before/after), with just the tiny alteration of paying regular tithes to the Emperor. So you could absolutely disappear into one of those countless mundane worlds and totally ignore the fact that the rest of the galaxy is a slaughterhouse.


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

[User]
CMV: English is an objectively hard language to learn, especially its spelling.

Disclaimer: my native language is Dutch, and the only other language I speak fluently is English. I know some Spanish, French and German to but not anywhere close to fluency.

I want to discuss this topic because this is quite hard to get perspectives on, and since I am not a linguist I am not aware if there is any science to back this intuition up.

The first reason why I think English is hard is its spelling. While there are always exceptions, most languages have rather consistent rules to put letters into sounds. But English is just a mess. The cliche example is ghoti (fish), but besides all examples of inconsistent spelling I found that (anecdotally) native English speakers (who learn from hearing) make more spelling mistakes than non-native speakers (who more often learn from reading) because there is not a very strict relationship between sound and letters. Conversely, this means that as a non-native speaker you are going to mispronounce a lot of words at first. This issue gets even worse when you consider the large number of homophones, words spelled the same but with different pronumciation and meaning.

Then there is the grammar. The meaning of a word depends mainly on its place in a sentence. For me personally, since Dutch works similarly, this was not as hard to learn, but I can imagine that if you are not used to it it must be quite difficult. I also saw people who were learning Dutch really struggle with this. In my opinion languages where the role of a word in a sentence is also denoted with a prefix or suffix  are easier to learn.

So CMV: while the difficulty of learning a language is for a large part subjective, English has some unique features that make it harder than most other languages (which is ironic considering its current lingua franca status).

Since "most" is a bit of a weasel word, this is mainly about other European languages, but examples of exotic languages that are even more terrible to learn are also welcome.

[Assistant]
English isn't gendered.

In most other languages, you have to worry about whether the word for boat is masculine or feminine, you have to worry if the word for mailbox is male or female.

Not so with English. Non-people are just genderless.

This makes English much easier to learn, since you don't have to memorize a gender and definition for each word, only a definition.


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

[User]
CMV: Children should be taught psychology/basics of human behaviour right from a young age in school.

I don't mean Psychology as a subject per se, but we should be taught how to understand our own behaviour from a very young age in schools itself. It should be taught and given as much importance as any other academics.

Imagine how many stable adults we would have if they were taught all this from their childhoods. They would know how to navigate friendships, relationships, and would probably be significantly less fucked up than a lot of us are today.

And I don't mean having a school guidance counsellor or something. That doesn't always work for several reasons. What I am suggesting, aims at **normalising** all this for kids from a young age so that it doesn't become a taboo when they grow up.

Of course, this is subject to many external factors, too. Would love to hear your opinions.

[Assistant]
Psychology is an ever changing field and it is changing relatively quickly now. Unlike math.

The issue is that whatever they learn will be obsolete and quite probably wrong by the time they reach adulthood, and that would only retard their lives and careers.


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

[User]
Why do russian RD-180 engines run oxygen rich?

As far as I know, every other rocket engine in existence favours fuel-rich operation. I know efficiency is inversely proportional to molar mass, and oxygen is lighter than RP-1, so is that the main reason why ther RD-180 is such a good engine? If so, what made it possible to run it oxygen rich and what prevented the US from developing the same engine?

[Assistant]
The fuel mix for the preburner needs to be oxygen-rich, because a fuel-rich mix with RP-1 could generate soot and clog stuff up.

In a hydrogen-oxygen engine that's not a concern, so for example the SSME uses a fuel-rich mix in its preburner. That's also the easier thing to build, because an oxygen-rich preburner means you're piping a hot mix of oxygen and combustion products around, and that's really, really aggressively corrosive. The Americans didn't actually believe the Russians had achieved that until the Soviet Union collapsed and they got to see it for themselves.


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

[User]
Why shouldn't we be a 'happy pig'?

'It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.'
The quote is from John Stuart Mill, but why? Why is that better? Why should we be a dissatisfied human? Who do you think should be a dissatisfied human?
Im not questioning whether some happiness is inferior to others, but thinking about to be a person. Why should we struggle for knowledge, for education, for a better future, rather than happily enjoying our lives?

[Assistant]
>The quote is from John Stuart Mill, but why? Why is that better?

His argument is that people who have tried both prefer the "higher" pleasures to the lower pleasures.

>Why should we struggle for knowledge, for education, for a better future, rather than happily enjoying our lives?

Mill thinks that struggling for knowledge, education, and a better future makes us happy. It makes us happy in a different way from enjoying more animalistic pleasures, but that kind of happiness, he argues, is superior, because people who have tried both prefer the intellectual sort of happiness.


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

[User]
What are Ph.D. qualifying exams like at your university?

I'm a Ph.D. student getting ready to take my qualifying exams next month in mechanical engineering and I'm wondering what the exams are like at your university and in your department?

For example: I will take 3 exams (both written and oral) in which I must demonstrate a graduate level understanding of courses taught at the undergraduate level.

[Assistant]
We (in a theology department) are given year to read four lists of books (a common "paradigmatic" list, a "major" and "minor" list, and one on the planned dissertation topic), and then we do a 12-hour written exam with one question from each of the lists, followed by a two hour oral defense with the four-person committee.

Basically, the sort of thing you stress out about outlining a book a day for a year, and then get hit with a wave of relief once you see that the questions are nowhere near as bad as you imagined they could be.


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

[User]
How do I argue FOR something in philosophy?

This may seem a very stupid question, but it's something fundamental I am struggling with. I've never had a real problem arguing my theses in a literary sense, as in for an English class. Yet, when it comes to philosophy, I have a hard time figuring out how to form any meaningful argument FOR an idea of a philosopher.

For example, take Nietzsche's "Illusion of Moral Judgement." I agree with what he writes on the matter, but if I was asked to argue FOR it, I wouldn't really know what to say beyond "Yes, I read that, and I agree with it, it seems accurate to me." These philosophers are able to argue their points because they have decades of philosophical study and engagement under their belts, whereas I have at most maybe 2 years. It seems like, as an undergrad, I'm not really up to the task of arguing FOR Nietzsche's position in any meaningful way. I guess what I'm really saying is that anything I posit as an argument for a serious philosophy as an undergrad seems like it'd be bullshit...

So, does anyone have any tips in terms of arguing for something in a philosophical context?

[Assistant] Think about how philosophy is done. Somebody argues a point, then somebody else produces a counter-argument to show why they think the first was wrong. Maybe it's best to find a counter-argument to something you believe in, and then say why you don't think it's valid. That way, you'll find yourself defending (and thus arguing for) a philosophy.


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

[User]
How does my computer differentiate between different programming languages? How does a computer treat different file extensions?

If I write code in a text editor, and save it under a certain file extension, how does my computer know what type of code should be running? How exactly does a computer differentiate between, say, Java code, JS code, CPP code, etc.?

Does it compare the code to a database? Is the computer programmed to know based on the file extension?

Moreover, how do file extensions work? How does my computer recognize file extensions and format the file accordingly?

EDIT: thanks to everyone for the answers! I will read them as soon as I can.

[Assistant]
A file extension is just part of the file name. It doesn't actually enforce anything. You can have your OS try to open any file with any program. On Mac, it's right click -> open with -> enable all programs -> select whatever. Go ahead, open an image in a text editor and see the binary data interpreted as text. You can also rename a file with whatever extension you want--a modern OS will warn you that you're doing something stupid, but it won't stop you.

The OS has a mapping of file extensions to programs. It has a ton of common ones built in, and when you install a program with its own file type, it can register that with the OS. When you tell your OS to open a file with an extension, it assumes the extension is right, it opens whatever program is associated to open that type of file, and that program deals with it. A well-written program will attempt to read the file but do so safely, so that if something's fucked it fails gracefully. Presumably, source code files are set up to be opened with a text editor or IDE.


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

[User]
are black holes super cold?

My thought was black holes are so powerful that nothing escapes so they must be very cold.

Secondly if some heat escapes does  escape does that mean the area around a black hole is Super hot?

Thank you for your answers.

[Assistant] The temperature of a black hole (due to Hawking radiation) depends on its mass: the more massive it is, the colder it appears to be. Astrophysical black holes are quite cold; a black hole with 5 times the mass of the Sun is about 10^-8 K, meaning that radiation is entirely undetectable. Tiny black holes that could conceivably be created by high energy cosmic ray collisions would be much hotter and evaporate very quickly.


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

[User] In Star Trek If the Federation did not have/need currency how did they barter with other species?

[Assistant]
The UFP as a whole does not have currency/credit per se - but many people have different mass/energy allocations due to either their socio-economic status or responsibilities.

While this is not money - every living being is allocated, at a minimum, enough mass/energy (power and raw materials for replicators/transporter uses, etc) to live a comfortable and satisfactory life, if you contribute to society as a whole, you receive additional allocations commensurate with your contribution to society.  As well, those who choose to engage in private enterprises can receive compensation equivalent to a portion of someone else's current mass/energy accumulation.

A certain portion of this mass/energy, in common parlance, is called a credit, or Federation credit.  Any person and/or government who is not a member of the federation of planets can redeem these credits in goods and/or services at any time.  Member planets and/or local governments can choose to handle their individual economies under the concept of local autonomy, with the caveat that participation in that local economy is voluntary, and anyone can 'vote with their feet' if they choose not to participate.

Mass/Energy is used due to the way that the post-scarcity society of Replicator technology works.  Replicators can create virtually any known substance, except for whose with strange properties like dilithium crystals and latinum, but it is cheaper, in terms of energy cost, to take existing particles and assemble them in the replicator, versus creating those particular particles from pure energy. (Mass/Energy equations/E=mc^2 stuff)


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

[User]
I don't think "truth" is all that important. CMV

What's so great about having a great, deep, profound understanding of the universe and its workings? Animals have no idea about religion, science, art, philosophy, modern medicine, technology, etc, and yet they live and die just fine. They each accomplish what they need to to keep the natural order going for another generation.

I mean, even if they didn't, what would it really matter?

Everyone from Carl Sagan to Mr Rogers tells us how great it is to be curious and want to learn as much as possible about as much as possible. Well, why? What's so terrible about not knowing stuff? Jellyfish don't know stuff and they live alright and pass on genes alright and have been floating around for millions and millions of years alright.

Humans, on the other hand, know all kinds of stuff and it doesn't seem to be helping get off this "Oh no, we're going to destroy ourselves" ledge.

What's so bad about having a simple, jellyfish-like understanding of the world? Seems to work alright for the jellyfish. In fact, it seems ignorance has worked out a whole lot better for them than knowledge has for us.

So what good is it?

[Assistant] I'll definitely agree with you that animals do a great job of dying, as you've pointed out.  Is that our goal though?  To "die just fine on our own"?  If you were in cardiac arrest, would you rather the doctor use the defibrillator that our search for truth has allowed us to create, or would you prefer to die just fine on your own?  Similarly, if we hadn't ever cared about truth, you wouldn't be sitting there simultaneously asking people from all over the world for their thoughts on it instantaneously...do you really see no value in that?  Because considering that you took advantage of that ability and decided to do it, it appears that you've already accepted the value of such an ability.


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

[User] Why does spicy food make us sweat? Are our bodies actually increasing in heat?

[Assistant]
The way capsaicin works is that it stimulates the receptors for heat. So while your body heat isn't increasing, it feels to your nerve endings like it is.

Very intensely spicy food can also cause pain, irritation, and discomfort, which can trigger stress responses including sweating.


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

[User] ELI5: Computers. How could people make a pile of metal "understand" bits of code and do an action according to that?

[Assistant]
It starts with a transistor. A transistor is basically a piece of electronic that has 2 states, on or off - think of a light switch. If its on, electricity passes. If its off, electricity doesnt pass. So, with one transistor, you can represent 2 values - on or off, true or false, 0 or 1. It can be whatever you call it. This is called a bit.

So, we add more transistors. With 2 transistors, you can represent 4 values (00,10,01,11), with 3 transistors you can represent 8 (000,100,010,001,011,111,101,110) and so on. As you can see, more transistors you have, more data you can store. We can also do calculations with transistors, using logic gates. Dont forget that there are two possible values, 0 or 1, and it just so happens we have a perfect way to do math with them- it is called boolean algebra, and it was invented about 100 years before the first computer.

Ok, now you have a pile of silicone and metal that can hold data and do calculations. The first computers were entirely hardware based and they used levers or punchcards for input. Back then, programming was organizing the transistors in correct positions to do calculations. The input you make was represented with zeroes and ones, this is called the machine language. Years and years later, after some serious technological advances, this was deemed too hard and time consuming. So what they did is basically bind long and complicated inputs into smaller, more understandable (relatively) words. For example,

    0100101010 01110101010101 010101

became

    MOV AL, 1h
    MOV CL, 2h
    MOV DL, 3h

This went on for years, then one day someone decided to go one step further and created the first modern programming language. Now, the subject of which language is the first programming language is up for debate. To put it simply though,

    MOV AL, 1h
    MOV CL, 2h
    MOV DL, 3h

became

    test1 = some_function();
    if (test1 > 0)
         test2 = 0;
    else
    test2 = other_function();
    return test2;

And this is where we are today, more or less. See how much easier it is to read, compared to the others? It actually has english words in it. Nowadays, we have smart compilers and IDEs, and programming is easier than ever. Back in the day, you would write your code, compile and pray.


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

[User]
ELI5: If someone has a limb amputated, what causes them to feel like it's still there after it's gone? ie. ghost limbs?

If the doctor cut the nerve endings off (which I assume what would happen), why would they still feel the limb that is no longer there? My grandmother (who is 80 years old currently), allegedly had her mother experience this. She told me that her mother's amputated limbs (due to complication with diabetes) had the doctor "curl up all of the nerve endings that were in the leg into one area (I'm guessing like a ball of nerves at the stub?), and then closed it up". This happened to both legs, and both legs felt pain randomly and she felt the sensation to rub them. Is this even true/possible or is she remembering incorrectly because she is so old?

[Assistant]
The pathways in your brain are strengthened with use. That's why toddlers fall down so much: it's not just that their legs are tiny, it's that they've never done it before. After a year or two they can walk all the time. The neural connections for the muscles and nerves in their legs are reinforced.

Now imagine all the things you can do with your arm. Eat food, catch a ball, shake hands, drive, type. A million little things you don't even have to think about anymore, because you've done them your whole life. That experience, that "muscle memory" and object permanence and fine motor control, none of that is actually your arm. It's all in your brain. Those neural connections are strong because they're constantly used.

Now imagine you lose your arm. All those memories of everything that you do with your arm, all the sensations and experiences you normally don't even think about, are still there. They're all right there in your brain, even after your arm is gone. You reach out to pick up a glass of water and the pathways for reaching and grabbing activate, even if there's nothing for them to connect to. If you don't think about it, or even sometimes if you do, the motor and sensory pathways that you're expecting to use will fire, and your brain fills in the blanks of what it's expecting to experience.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does a piece of bread placed in the same container as stale or hard cookies make them soft again?

Saw this trick somewhere on the interwebs, tried it on some overdone cookies of mine and it worked like a charm. No idea why.

[Assistant] Staleness is just a lack of moisture.  A piece of bread contains just a bit of moisture, which can evaporate and soak into the other items, making them no longer stale. Nothing special about the bread, you can use any slightly damp object that's food-safe.


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

[User]
[The Boys] How would Homelander react if Blindspot had moved out of the way?

>!So Homelander wasn't impressed with Blindspot. But what if he had "seen" the attack coming and had backflipped out of the way or something? Would Homelander be more impressed with him, or would he just laser him or something?!<

[Assistant]
No, it wasn't about Blindspots qualifications, it was about Homelander having control over the 7's recruitment.

Homelander would've probably took a few more swings, then nail him with laser vision, because Homelander is that much of a d-bag.


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

[User] ELI5: If I'm holding a stick that is light years long but has weight of just a gram. If I move my hand slighty, would the end of the stick also move at the same time?

[Assistant] No. Your hand imparts a pressure on the end of the stick and it must propagate to the end of the stick through the material of the stick. This pressure wave moves at a characteristic speed depending on the material, also called the "speed of sound" within that material. It will be well below light speed in all cases.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does mathematics work to describe reality (physics)?

[Assistant]
Cheating really. Its not a coincidence that mathematics happens to describe reality. We intentionally developed mathematics based on reality. It was quite literally tailored to do just that.

We looked at reality and found relationships , describing those relationships is what math/physics is.


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

[User]
ELI5: What do people mean when they say "...because of the economy"?

What exactly are they referring to?

As far as I can tell, the economy isn't doing anything to me that affects my spending decisions/job opportunities, so either I'm totally missing something, or it doesn't apply to me (incredibly unlikely - I'm probably just ignorant).

[Assistant]
An economist in the 1700s, Adam Smith coined the term 'The Invisible Hand' to describe the small effects that changes to the economy can have that may not seem to affect you directly.

For example if interest rates go up your company may not be able to borrow money for a new factory this year. If there's no factory you might not get a promotion. With no promotion you don't buy a new car this year. Since you're driving your old car, you might have to bring it to your mechanic more often. With more business from people in that situation, your mechanic hires more staff and builds a second location.


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

[User]
If I were to live my life dictated by Sren Kierkegaard, what would he tell me?

Im making a d&d character who lives like how Kierkegaard lived (or at least how he philosophized). What are key things I need to know about his philosophies to make this work?

[Assistant]
He wouldn't tell you anything directly about how you ought to live: to do so would deprive you of authenticity. He'd tell you to pursue a relationship with someone really hard and then, after it fails, be totally soured on love forever. He'd say lots of things are ironic and absurd. He'd be a very good rule follower (in terms of morality) for the most part, but be totally cool with a 'telelogical suspension of the ethical' when there's a mission from God.

Feels to me like a cross between a paladin and a rogue-like character. Very duty driven with a high regard for religious experience. But strikes his own path away from the establishment to the extent that the religious elites aren't getting it right.


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

[User]
[Dark Souls 3] Ok, what is actually going on with the sun?

From down here it looks like a black hole and is literally bleeding sun material down to the Earth. I understand the flame is dying so thats it but surely it would just become dimmer and dimmer without doing all that freaky stuff?

[Assistant]
In the first age of fire, Gwyn created a number of seals aimed at preventing the age of dark from ever coming to pass.  The bonfires, the darksign on humans that causes them to become undead, the time stasis through fillianore, and lastly himself linking the first flame.  By the time of DS3, the age of dark is pressing so hard against those seals that it is leaking through, turning the sun black and causing oozing darkness to seep through into the world.

In past cycles like DS1 and DS2, the age of fire was slowly fading, but it hadn't gotten this bad yet.  Few people truly understood the cycle, so it was just a matter of time before some undead champion successfully linked it.  In DS3, prince Lothric has been actively preventing the first flame from being linked.  He *wants* the age of fire to end, so this ending of the cycle has gone on much longer than any previous one.  The Ashen one is a truly last ditch effort from Gwyn's long-dead magic attempting to "fix" things.


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

[User]
If Nitrogen is so unreactive, then why is it used in explosives and fuels?

For an example, nitromethane(CH3NO2) and Hydrazine(N2H4) are both used as fuels, and when they are mixed together they produce an explosive salt. Why does this happen?

[Assistant]
The nitrogen *molecule* (N2) is unreactive. Nitrogen compounds can be as reactive as their weakest bonds. A molecule is highly reactive if its bonds can be easily broken and recombined to a more stable molecule. When this happens, this generally liberates energy (heat in most cases). For example, when you burn methane, it combines with oxygen (a highly reactive compound) from air to form water and carbon dioxide.

CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 H2O + CO2 + heat

Both products are very stable in normal conditions. In specific conditions, however, you may be able to turn carbon dioxide and water back into methane and oxygen, if you provide sufficient energy.

Molecular nitrogen is an extremely stable molecule and you need to spend a considerable amount of energy to break it.


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

[User] Why does a word sound weird after saying it over and over?

[Assistant]
It's called semantic satiation, and neuroimaging results suggest that it has to do with how people process semantics rather than sensory satiation / adaptation (Kounios, Kotz, & Holcomb, 2000).

**References**

Kounios, J., Kotz, S. A., & Holcomb, P. J. (2000). On the locus of the semantic satiation effect: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. *Memory & Cognition*, 28(8), 1366-1377.


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

[User] [Marvel] Is galactus a celestial? If not what's the difference between him and celestials?

[Assistant] Galactus is the last survivor of the universe that existed before this one, and gained cosmic power as part of the process of doing so. The origin of the Celestials is uncertain, but they're native to our own universe. Galactus is far more powerful than any individual Celestial.


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

[User]
[BSG] If the skinjob Cylons are supposed to be nearly biologically identical to real humans, why do their spines glow when they have sex?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think this was ever explained.  Seems like this would be quite the dead giveaway of a Cylon detector if the colonials could just go ahead and sexually torture the Cylons to orgasm, and it seemed like a good portion of the fleet didn't have any qualms about torturing Cylons.

[Assistant]
The Spine glows due to the fluorescing nerves that were originally engineered into the skin jobs (sj), as a way of debugging their nervous systems.  Most of the acitivating genes have been disabled, but under intense stimulation, parts of the sj Cyolns can be induced to fluoresce.  The fluorescing materials, being limited to the nervous system is hard to biopsy, and can be considered undetectable in the colonial fleet with they lack the available technology test without fully removing the spine or brain.

Since they were able to test fully organs.  It was established that Cylon bones are different from Human bones.  One can assume the difficulty the creation of a Cylon detector was not the lack of physiological differences, but the lack of the necessary advanced detection technologies on Galactica and within the fleet.   The original Battlestars were old dumb ships, with limited computers and a large compliment of analog systems.  In the pilot we learn that Adama is very much against technology the Cylons could use, and Galatica is about to be a museum, so they wouldn't be expected to have a state of the art lab.  The SJ were never detected before because no-one knew to look for them.   After they were discovered the remaining humans had to look for them with what they had, which was almost nothing.

The fluorescing genes were not present in the final five, just within the 7 SJ they created. All SJ are aware that this happens, and the stress of being uncovered by and the general hatred of humans was enough to keep the pro-active agents from enjoying themselves so much they got discovered.   The sleeper agents, were given mental issues to prevent them from orgasming.   The Six with Baltar let her self go (along with all the others) once the plan had moved to the point of no return and the need for secrecy of the SJ was removed.

I figured, if you are going to design a biological robot, with a conciseness that is transferable, odds are you are going to need a way to debug them, and to program the bodies. The reason that you have some glow is that fully disabling the fluoresces, would make it impossible for OMT (Organic Memory Transfer, ie Download) to write the mind of a dead Cylon into a new body. The difference between the 7 and the 5. Is that the 7 have it in there whole nervous system, and the 5 only in their brain. This being the case of having different design teams coming up with slightly different solutions to the same problem.

Edit:  Flow, spelling and more from below.


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

[User] [Scooby-Doo] Has There Ever Been A Mystery The Gang Couldn't Solve? Do They Have Any Cold Cases?

[Assistant]
I believe the film *The Thirteenth Ghost of Scooby Doo* deals with Fred and Velma joining the others in (a few years later, in-universe time) tracking down the ghost that was never actually found during the series *The 13 Ghosts of Scooby Doo*.

With the series being one of the magic and ghosts are real, and Velma being a magic isnt real, and Ill prove it, in the movie Velma was trying to use logic and reasoning to explain everything away.


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

[User]
Is the weight of a line distributed throughout the line, or is it "felt" at every point along the line?

Imagine a length of monofilament fishing line (which for these purposes we'll assume is uniform and undamaged in any way) that is suspended vertically.  Now let's assume that it's a reallllllly long length, long enough that the total weight of the length surpasses the line's rated breaking strength.  This would be hundreds of thousands of feet in practice, I don't know if it factors into the question or not.

Say the line is 100,000 feet long and it is expected to break with 10 lbs of (force? load? tension?), and the whole 100,000 foot length weighs 20 lbs.

My primary question is: **will the line break?**

More generally what I'm wondering is how the 10 lbs is distributed along the line.  Will the line break at the point where the weight of the line below exceeds 10 pounds?  Will it break at a random spot?  Will it not break at all because the 20 lbs is distributed evenly along the entire length of the line?

Is the answer different if there's a significant weight tied to the end of the line, say a 1 lbs weight or a 9 lbs weight or a 11 lbs weight.

I don't even know the vocabulary to go search for info on this.  By the way, this is not a practical problem, this is just idle curiosity.

[Assistant]
At a theoretical steady-state, the tension in the line at any location is equal to the weight of all the line below that location. So, the entire upper half of the line is overloaded, and liable to break at any location in that half. In other words, it can't actually reach that theoretical steady-state, it's an impossible condition.

Where would it actually break? Because we can't be in steady-state, let's say we did the experiment by laying the line out horizontally, clamping it between two 100,000 foot long flat surfaces, then turned the clamps upright and released them at t=0. The line would sag slightly as it stretched under the effects of gravity, the tension increasing everywhere. It wouldn't increase linearly with time, nor would it increase linearly with position on the line, but what is true is that the tension would always be higher at any point in the line than every point below it. So the tension would be highest at the top, and that's where it would break, once it had sagged enough to exceed 10 lbs of tension at the very top.


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

[User]
[Spiderman] Since Spiderman's fingertips have those tiny barbs that allow him to latch on to things, wouldn't it be more effective for him to slap his foes rather than punch?

Doesn't he have those little hooks protrusions coming out of his palm, that allow him to climb stuff? So I was thinking, why not smack foes across the face rather than punch them?

Plus, assuming those hooks can hold his body weight when hanging from stuff, it must mean they're pretty strongly rooted in his hands. Imagine those ripping across your face if you get slapped by spidey. I almost think it'd tear their skin or something, maybe even metal.

I guess it's not something spiderman would do, but you'd think against stronger foes he'd try to slash them with his open hands than just punch.

[Assistant]
Have you ever heard of the mark of Cain?

Look it up. Spider-Man literally uses what you describe to rip skin off of his foes and leave deadly or potentially fatal scars in their faces.

Ben Riley and and Cain are two Spider-Man clones who are more lethal that regular peter Parker so they tend to use they method more so than the original.

Havent seen it performed in a while though, but what youve described is not only possible but in some way is already feasible to the character.


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

[User] ELI5: How much sleep do I really need?

[Assistant] That question is completely impossible to answer without knowing you. Sleep requirements depend of the person, age (generally, the younger you are the more sleep you need), and time of year (you need less sleep in the summer, and more in the winter).


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

[User] ELI5: Why do people enjoy carbonated drinks, but dislike them when have gone flat?

[Assistant] Carbonation makes the drink acidic by producing carbonic acid, so sodas are usually extra-sweet to counter that. But after the drink has gone flat, it has all the sweetness with none of the acidic tang, which doesn't taste as good.


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

[User]
Is it canon that Batman and Scooby Doo exist in the same universe?

I was thinking about the old crossover specials and got to wondering.

[Assistant]
Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated [S1E25] confirms canonically that Scooby Doo and Jonny Quest have a shared universe. Venture Brothers [S1E07] confirms that Venture Brothers and Jonny Quest have a shared universe- it's also briefly alluded to (by Jonny Quest, in Venture Brothers [S04E07]) that Scooby Doo and Venture Brothers share a universe. So it can be understood that all three are in a common universe.

While Hank Venture is a fan of Batman and has Batman comics, toys, etc. it's alluded to when he's living with Captain Sunshine [S4E02] that Batman does actually exist in his universe. He asks Captain Sunshine, completely in earnest, if Sunshine would introduce him to Batman.

A=B=C=D, therefore A=D

Scooby Doo and Batman coexist in at least one common universe.


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

[User]
ELI5: In html, what is the difference between a div id and a class

And how and when would you use one over the other?

I cannot wrap my head around this concept.

Thanks!

[Assistant]
An id is a unique thing - an identifier for a specific object. A class is a name for multiple similar/identical objects.

Imagine you create a long list of <person id="x" class="y"> tags. Values for id are social security numbers - values for class are "student", "assistant", "professor". Obviously you can have multiple persons that are students, but only one person should have a specific social security number.


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

[User] ELI5: Despite every other form of technology has improved rapidly, why has the sound quality of a telephone remained poor, even when someone calls on a radio station?

[Assistant]
This gets asked often and you have a slight misconception. Telephone quality has remained the same, because what's called Plain Old Telephone Service (or POTS) *is* pretty much the same because it's ubiquitous and it works.

But the technology that's used for what telephones are used for *has* improved - we have *other* technologies that far eclipse POTS and *are* available. ISDN, for example, has been available for decades - ISDN calls are so crystal-clear that many phone companies *add artificial noise* to the line because people were assuming the line was dead! But if you wanted ISDN, you had to pay a *lot* more, whereas POTS was already running to your apartment and mandated to be cheap!

Nowadays you can also get phone services through your cable company, or use a cellphone, etc. Many people are switching away from POTS.


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

[User]
[Batman] How come supervillains never go after Bruce Wayne?

He might as well be the king of Gotham, can you imagine the leverage even the average criminal would have if they got their hands on him? Not only that, but they would pretty much be catching Batman with his pants around his ankles.

[Assistant]
They do now and again. Harley and Ivy kidnapped him in one of the Christmas episodes of BTAS. The Joker attacked his party in The Dark Knight. The Penguin felt a personal sense of rivalry with him in Batman Returns; ditto the Riddler in Batman Forever; ditto Black Mask and Hush in the comics.

The thing is... Bruce Wayne seems to catch a lot of lucky breaks and make a lot of uncanny escapes. And when he does, often the Batman isn't far behind.


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

[User]
ELI5: What is electricity?

ELI5
What is electricity exactly and how is it caused? I hear multiple things like it's the movement of electrons, but that doesn't make sense to me cause electrons are always moving. Isn't it wave energy that travels by means of electrons?
I also don't understand Voltage visually. I understand it's the amount of joules in a Coulomb, but what would the difference be on a small level? What would be the difference physically and visually at 1volt to 1000volts on the atomic level?

[Assistant]
Electricity is a relative phenomenon. Charge is a static property of some particles, like the electron and the proton.  These are not the same thing.

If you have an object with lots of unbalanced change (more electrons than protons or vice verse) it produces a static electric field in the region around it, even if that region is a vacuum.  From any point outside the charged object, the strength of that static field can be measured, in volts.   1 volt is a small gang of extra electrons and 1000 volts is huge crowd of extra electrons.  This is not the absolute voltage, it's the differential voltage between the object with the crowd and the point in space.

Electrons can move through things that are "conductive".  Lots of things are poor conductors, like air, and a few things are good conductors, like things made of copper or gold.  Electricity is "net movement" of the electrons.  It's not the electrons circling around and around their atom's nucleus, only when they travel from atom to atom across the object.  This travel is powered by the fact that electrons repel each other, if you put a free electron in a static electric field it moves away from the object with net electric charge.

This movement of many electrons, called a current, creates a magnetic field and heats the object being traveled through (unless it is a superconductor).  Good conductors are heated less, allowing the electrons to get where they are going faster, leading to a rule of electrons taking "the path of least resistance".

Electricity can travel through things that are poor conductors, if the crowd of excess electric charge is large enough.  Lightning is an example of electrons flowing through air (a poor conductor) at such a high current that they ionize the gas molecules (making them a better conductor) allowing a huge current to travel to ground.


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

[User]
[General] what happens if someone with super strength gets indigestion?

 Someone asked about superman eating, but what about literally explosive diarrhea? Feel free to make jokes,  but I'm challenging someone to consider the ramifications and physics of super muscles contracting uncontrollably.

[Assistant] Batman would allot a small sum of $75,000 to Wayne Enterprises r&d department for an undisclosed "humanitarian project".  Soon, the fortress of solitude is fitted with The Batcan, a state of the art toilet made of Nth metal, infused with low grade green kryptonite.  Not enough to harm a kryptonian, but enough to dampen their abilities.  When superman gorges himself on Queen Family Chili, and sits onto the batcan, the kryptonite infusion will dampen his muscle power to levels that Nth metal can easily contain.


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

[User]
[MCU] Spoilers - Connections between Iron Man 3 and Captain America 2

So after watching The Winter Soldier today, I was struck by a thought. Was Aldrich Killian's A.I.M. funded by Hydra?

I feel like Hydra would have been extremely interested in Extremis as a potential replacement for the super soldier serum. Additionally, Killian's plan to install a puppet president seems like something that would fall directly under Hydra's overall plan for "control". In the Winter Soldier, President Ellis was an Insight target, so it makes sense that this may not be the first time they've tried to take him out.

[Assistant]
In agents of shield the clairvoyant continues research on the super soldier formula from Ironman 3 (the centipede project). It's later revealed that the clairvoyant is actually a shield agent who works for hydra. This would seem to imply that hydra was funding it from the start.
Tl;Dr Yes.


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

[User]
I think raising the minimum wage is a bad thing. CMV

I head Joe Biden's address today regarding the plans to increase minimum wage, and I find his arguments weak, rationally inconsistent, or outright wrong. For example,

*Theres clear data that shows fair wages generate loyalty of workers to their employers, which has the benefit of increasing productivity and leading to less turn over. Its really good for the economy as a whole because raising the minimum wage would generate an additional $19 billion in additional income for people who need it the most.*

Loyalty to an employer will only happen as a result of a higher wage if *other* wages remain low. If all employers must offer the same minimum wage, this will do nothing to increase employee loyalty -- an employee could just as easily go anywhere else and earn the same amount of money.

edit: It was pointed out that I did not substantiate why I disagree with raising the minimum wage, I merely objected to a single point in Biden's argument. Here are some points that concern me:

One: I believe that if the government legislates a minimum wage, then it coerces employers into accepting a condition for a contract that they may not agree to otherwise. There is no corresponding force on the other side of the contract, no one is forcing people to take employment at a certain wage, and I absolutely don't think there should be such a thing. It is the same line of reasoning that brings me to the point of not wanting to force employers into something that they may not see as beneficial for them.

Two: I believe increasing the minimum wage will reduce the number of available jobs, and small businesses aren't exactly thriving.

Three: This one is a bit more abstract. The dollar isn't exactly a constant measure of value, nor is any other currency. In economics, we adjust for inflation, we adjust for prices of fuel, we adjust for any number of factors. If I compare the cost of a banana today to the cost of a banana 50 years ago, I can't make an immediate conclusion whether the value of the dollar has changed more, or that of the banana. In the same sense, an hour's worth of unskilled labor can be considered a similar commodity, but it is a commodity with behavior that is closer to oil than it is to bananas. If we raise the minimum wage, the price of *everything* will go up.

Four: Let's say I'm wrong about number three, and say I want to earn better than minimum wage. Is it worth it for me to try to gain education or a certification of some sort if I can gain a job at $12/hr? Maybe, if minimum wage is $7.50, and maybe not if it's $10.10. It depends on the cost incurred to acquire the skill or education. But there definitely is a group of people out there at the point of this decision who will conclude that improving their skills simply isn't worth the time, effort, or investment.

[Assistant]
You want spenders to have cash to further the economy. Man with 30 million gets another million, that money is getting invested, not moving the economy.

1000 people making living by the paycheck get an extra 1,000, that money is immediately getting pumped into the economy.

Also, you want to encourage people to work, not live off government subsidies.


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

[User]
ELI5: How has the previous generation ruined the housing market for millennials?

ELI5: As a millennial, I keep hearing people blaming the baby boomers for ruining the housing market. Can someone explain how exactly they did this?

[Assistant]
The short answer, we dont make as much money as they did.
Slightly longer answer: US household median income in 1970 was $9,780 which has a buying power of $64,700 in todays money. The current median US wage is 61,800, about $3,000 less or effectively 5% less money available per year than they did.
Next, median home sale price in 1970 was $23,600 or $155k in todays dollars. The median sale price in Jan 2018 was $330k; double what they were paying back in the day.
So, you have to spend on average 25-50% more money to get a home with 5-10% less money.
This is all due to wage stagnation relative to productivity and inflation. Or otherwise said, wages did not keep up with the cost of goods and your dollar just doesnt go as far.