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

[User]
ELI5: How come there are often some very obvious and jarring plot holes in big budget movies with hundreds of people working on them?

And most of the time they're easily fixable.

Didn't anyone notice? Is everyone afraid of the few guys in charge and won't say anything? Do they notice, but believe that most viewers are too dumb to care? Any other explanations left?

[Assistant]
Some if not most is editing related. There might be a scene that further explains that reference or why that character said what they said but it gets edited out before the release.

Usually this is studio pressure to shorten a movie or the editor never talked with the director (Also an issue on very large sets, director gets paid and peaces out).


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

[User]
What makes a person "good" at philosophy, and what peoplewho are currently workingare really good?

I've been studying philosophy on my own time over the last couple of years, and have come across many different people with different ideas. I just wanted to know how one considers another "good" at philosophy? Also, can you name some good philosophers? People who are considered good from multiple fields? Cheers and thanks for the info.

[Assistant]
Being a good philosopher requires a few different aspects but at a bare minimum a philosopher needs to be able to read, understand, and critically analyze dense philosophical texts and papers.  An undergraduate degree in philosophy really focuses on this aspect of the education.  To go further in philosophy you need to integrate into a problem context.  Essentially what this means is that you have thought about a philosophical problem long enough that you have a novel idea that adds to the relevant discourse.  Being a good writer is generally ancillary to being a good philosopher and it is possible to be a good philosopher and a bad writer.  That said, as a philosopher you should try to be as clear and concise in your writing as possible because if people have to difficult a time understanding what you are trying to say then they will not consider your work worth their time.

There is a whole history of philosophy full of good philosophers but a few of the more recent ones that have gained a lot of attention in the past 50 years or so are people like, Saul Kripke, Philippa Foot, Michael Thompson, Hilary Putnam, Peter Singer, John Rawls, Thomas Nagel, David Lewis, Derek Parfit, and Gregory Vlastos.  This list is by no means exhaustive but names a good amount of philosophers who worked in the second half of the twentieth century and are generally regarded within their fields as having made a major contribution.


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

[User] [Biology] How do antibodies work and why has there never been a case of bacterial resistance to such antibodies?

[Assistant]
Antibodies, also called Immunoglobulins, are proteins that are secreted in response to an antigen, which is most commonly a protein of the pathogen, but can also be against a toxin.
After an immune cell of the Innate Immune System (the first responders), a Macrophage for example, engulfs and destroys the invader, it then presents a piece of it on the cell-surface via a molecule called the Major Histocompatibility  Complex (MHC).
In the case of Antibody production this is then presented to a B-Cell which turns into a Plasma Cell to produce antibodies specific to this antigen.
Antibodies can then work in two ways; They can neutralize the target directly by blocking important proteins on the surface, or they can prime the target for easier attack by the immune cells - The latter is called Opsonization.
Bacteria does not become directly "resistant" to antibodies, but there are several ways to avoid it:
*Mycobacterium tuberculosis*, causative agent of tuberculosis, can survive and even replicate inside phagocytes like macrophages, by disrupting the fusion of the Phagosome with the Lysosome, which is a "digestive" mechanism of the cell. The Lysosome contains various hydrolytic enzymes to break down the pathogen.

Sometimes members of the same bacterial species have different serotypes, which means that 2 strains cause 2 different antibody responses and are not affected by the response to the other.
Other pathogens, like the parasites that cause Malaria, can change their surface proteins when they replicate to avoid circulating antibodies.


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

[User] [X-Men] Where does Prof. Xavier get the funding to run his various projects?

[Assistant]
He was born with wealth, and his abilities make multiplying that wealth pretty easy.

His school has also hosted several wealthy alumni, who are likely making considerable donations each year.  Staff like Dr. McCoy are likely holding onto several very valuable patents, giving the school additional funding.


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

[User]
My TI-84 can perform a variety of mathematical operations, but cannot find the intersection points of two polar curves. Why?

This was an issue that was brought up in my AP Calculus class, and my teacher was hard-pressed to find an answer to the *why*.  She hazarded a guess that it had something to do with the (r, theta) = (r, theta + 2kpi) and (r, theta) = (-r, theta + pi + 2kpi) conditions when solving for intersection points, but we never really got to the bottom of it.

So, how/why is a calculator limited in this respect, and what other similar limitations do they have?

[Assistant]
It's not "a calculator" limitation.

Polar coordinates are implemented as raw parametrics with one variable being modular with period 2 Pi. That's tricky to solve. You have to solve (ignoring that you can't do % on floats)

    cos(theta1)*radius(theta1) = cos(theta2)*radius(theta2)

and

    sin(theta1)*radius(theta1) = sin(theta2)*radius(theta2)

For instance, you can't just solve for theta1=theta2, because the intersection could be at Pi/4, 5 Pi/4 with r1 = - r2.

Basically, the TI 84 solves xy equations through newton's method. You're asking it to solve something not solvable by that.

Remember that with polars where you have r(theta), you actually just have

x = r(theta) * cos(theta)

y = r(theta) * sin(theta)

However, "calculators" are not limited by that, just certain calculators.

You want a CAS = computer aided solver, such as the TI 89, or hell, Mathematica (Wolfram Alpha's math engine)

TL;DR: Solving intersection of y1 = f(x) and y2 = g(x) can be numerically solved over one variable via newton's method. Polar equations are really just parametric equations, which require solving over two variables.


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

[User]
Why does the Collatz Conjecture (and problems like it) matter?

I was watching a video from one of the 3628468 youtube channels that the bearded englishman has and it mentioned this problem and I started to think, why does such a thing matter? Seems like just a funny maths thing for a child to play with but in the video the host mentioned that people have "ruined" their careers trying to solve the problem.

What would happen if the problem was proved false/true? Is this a check on if maths as a whole work or something?

If there is a simple and obvious answer, I do apologize. I'm just a lowly car mechanic and a bass player on top of that.

[Assistant]
The problem is hard because it digs into how multiplication and addition interact with each other. We have lots of number theory that focuses on multiplication - this is where a lot of the importance of primes comes from and there are lots of methods that help us solve equations - and we have slightly less number theory that explores how numbers add together. It's not that addition doesn't happen in multiplicative number theory, or that multiplication doesn't happen in additive number theory, it's just that the kinds of questions you ask and methods you use are unique to each type.

There are a few questions that cross the boundary, however. For instance, Goldbach's Conjecture says that every even number can be written as a sum of two primes. Primes are necessarily multiplicative, but asking what numbers you get from sums is additive and so this question crosses the boundary and is therefore very hard. The ABC-Conjecture is another such question that remains unsolved (despite insistence by some otherwise), and it basically asks how information about primes persist through addition; if A+B=C, then how do the prime properties of A and B determine (or not) the prime properties of C?

Collatz Conjecture is another in this family. It mixes properties of 2,3 and addition in this dynamic kind of thing. Plus, heuristically, adding one is, in ways, the most destructive to multiplicative information, so the Collatz Conjecture has a lot of difficulties to overcome. (For instance, to get brand new primes, multiply all primes that you know together, add one, and every prime that you get from this new number is a new prime. Or, there are lots of primes like 2^(p)-1 whereas 2^(p) has the highest power an integer of that size can have.)

Solving the Collatz Conjecture will not really do anything on its own. But, because it is this kind of problem that crosses the boundaries between multiplication and addition, a solution should help us navigate that realm better. As with almost all unsolved math problems, we don't really care about the actual solution or answer, what we're really interested in are the new methods that will almost surely need to be invented to solve them. We can use those methods elsewhere and to ask new questions. And that's really what matters.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why we don't dump rubbish in volcanoes?

Note: Could be any type of geothermal or place where we could harness earths heat.

IDK why but I always thought this would be a fairly efficient way of despising rubbish. Also i know that if you burn something at a hot enough temperature the pollution produced is lesser because of the more efficient combustion.

[Assistant]
That would be the equivalent of incinerating it, which is often done despite being devastating to the atmosphere. If we incinerated all of our rubbish, we'd be in trouble.

Besides, what if some explosive shit got dropped in, causing the volcano to erupt? Not good. Blasting it into space, on the other hand...


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

[User]
Can acceleration accelerate?

What I mean is, can you write down how fast you're getting from, let's say, 1m/s/s to 2m/s/s. Using that example, and saying that you did that in one second, that would be 1m/s/s/s. If not, why not? And if so, would it go on *ad infintum*?

[Assistant]
The third derivative of position (velocity is the first derivative, acceleration is the second) is called "jerk"- which is appropriately named. If you think of someone jerking something, it starts off with no acceleration, and until they are pulling on it with full force, the acceleration will increase. Jerk is very important in mechanical engineering, since a lot of materials will have structural damage under high jerks.

After "jerk" there are three more commonly known ones- snap, crackle and pop. In theory, this can go on forever. In practice, most people will evaluate up to "jerk" and stop.


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

[User]
ELI5: Clock Speeds and/vs Cores in computers

Clock speed as in 2.0GHz and cores as in dual core, quad core, etc.

What do they mean? What is better? Why?

Ex. What's better, an i3 2.3GHz or i7 1.6GHz? Or a Dual core 3.4GHz or i7 1.6GHz? Feel free to use analogies, they help.

Bonus question: What does "multi-thread" or "threading" mean?

ELI5, please and thank you!

[Assistant]
Not exactly for a 5-year old but simplified anyway:

Imagine a "core" as a workbench full of tools, plus a guy working. A cpu is a "team" of guys, the number of cores decides how big each team is. Now, each guy needs some tools to work. Every "core" has a full workbench, but each guy might not use all the tools at the same time. So, Intel came up with the idea to put two guys at one workbench. They call that "hyperthreading".

AMD invented something different. They figure that most guys will use a drill, hammer and screwdriver most of the time (so if you have only one of those the guys will have to sit idle quite often due to the other guy using it) but they only use a router and circular saw occasionally, so they made a "module" with two guys and nearly two full workbenches, but with the really expensive tools only once. So it's a bit like Intels idea, but they have nearly the full workbench doubled up.

So, to get a few examples:

- A server with two new i7-3960 has two teams of twelve guys, where each team has 6 work benches full of tools.
- A workstation with a i7-2700k has one team with eight guys, working with four workbenches full of tools.
- A computer with a FX8150 has one team with eight guys and four workbenches, but with eight full sets of basic tools.
- A computer with a i3-2100 has one team with two guys and two workbenches.

Now, not all guys are created equal. For each "generation" there's a design that decides how much they do per time unit, called an "architecture". Intel's newest architecture is a generation of the "core" architecture, called Sandy Bridge. AMD has recently introduced a new architecture called "bulldozer" with each processor being of the "zambezi" generation. For each generation of each architecture, you can't really compare clock speeds directly - to put into analogy, a Zambezi guy will be quick at working with a drill but will be slower with a hammer, where a Sandy Bridge guy might be faster with a hammer and circular saw but slower with a drill. You can compare Sandy Bridge guys directly though.

So now we can see through the "marketing" part - the names "FX", "i7", "i5" and so on. They are just a rough indication of speed but don't actually mean anything about the processor's actual qualifications.

You can directly compare an i3-2100, i5-2500 and i7-2700 though. They are all Sandy Bridge. If you take an i7-2700 and disable cores / hyperthreading so only two cores remain, and then clock it identical to an i3-2100 it should perform exactly the same. You can't compare the i7-2700 to an i7-965 though - the first of them is of the Sandy Bridge generation and the second is of the Nehalem generation.

Then there's the actual subjective "how fast is it then". That depends on a lot of things for each application:

- How many guys can work in parallel
- How much they need their drills
- How much they need the circular saws
- In how far they need to cooperate closely
- How fast each guy works (and they can work at different speeds despite being in one team!)
- How hot the room is - they slow down during the very hot days to not break down.
- What kind of work they're doing exactly and in what order they do it

So to find out, you essentially have to benchmark each program separately. There are some limits:

- Some applications are not multithreaded enough so some guys will just be sitting without work to do.
- Some applications use circular saws very much and will work badly on Bulldozers (the "circular saw" is the floating-point calculation thingy in the analogy)
- Some applications use drills a lot and will be slow on Sandy Bridges when compared to Bulldozers (heavy integer calculations, for example, should be a lot faster on the AMD series)
- Some applications will try to do multiple things in parallel but don't tell the guys to work together very well, so they occasionally drop tools on each others feet or "lose" bits of work in trying to pass it to each other. This results in games crashing on multi-core machines but running fine on single-core machines - a single guy does not fail to cooperate with himself.
- Some applications will be slower when running on a processor with hyperthreading. They share a toolbench so if they need to use the same tools and the bench all the time, they'll spend more time waiting for each other and swapping than one of them would just doing it all by himself.


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

[User] Eli5: why do lips get chapped in cold weather compared to hot? Doesnt the hot air absorb the moisture more?

[Assistant]
Hot air does make moisture move more, but that also includes nearby water sources, making the air more humid.

The higher water content of the warm air doesn't suck from your lips as much as the very dry cold air.

Plus, when it's warmer, you're sweating more, applying moisture more directly.


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

[User] ELI5 How do civil engineers determine if a building is structurally sound after an earthquake?

[Assistant]
They would assess the structural components for signs of failure or serviceability issues.

If they were looking at steel they could check and see if members or connections had yielded or worse. This might be evident through several different methods such as bolt holes being larger than they should be or members having localized sections with a reduced cross-sectional area and elongation.

If they were looking at concrete they could check for unusual cracks, spalling, exposed rebar, or again a multitude of other things.

They could also check member deflection. Typical floor members are generally limited to a serviceability deflection of L/240 under dead + live load. For example, if a floor beam was 20 feet long (240 inches) that beam would be limited to 1" of deflection over the span length under this condition. If the beam is sagging 6 inches something is probably off.


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

[User] ELI5:How were scientists able to discover the atom and its parts without being able to directly observe them?

[Assistant]
Atoms as a concept were theorized by ancient Greeks, and the name literally means "indivisible." While the name was proven to be somewhat incorrect, the reasoning behind everything being discrete particles instead of continuous matter is old.

It wasn't until the 1800s until their existence was actually proven. A guy named John Dalton figured out that many chemical reactions always react in ratios of small whole numbers. Water, for example, consists of oxygen and hydrogen with exactly a 1:2 ratio, which suggested that the base reaction consists of one unit (or atom) of oxygen reacting with two hydrogen atoms.

Later on we devised more accurate ways of detecting them, like measuring minuscule changes in weight, shooting electrons at them or just crashing them into each other hard enough to produce interesting results.


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

[User]
[Everything everywhere all at once] How did the alpha verse people got the earpieces/Bluetooth thingy in the main universe ?

In the 2nd part every alpha verse counterpart in the main universe had that. They could only mind jump if i recall. How did they get physical things transferred ?

[Assistant] Some physical things seem transferable in verse jumping. For example, Jobu Topaki can transfer clothes and weapons, Evelyn was able to transfer her hotdog hands, Deirdre could transfer her physique, etc. The rule seems to be that if it's "on you" then it's transferable, so the earpieces count.


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

[User] How exactly does an EMP damage electronics?

[Assistant]
An EMP is a large, short lived, magnetic field.  A collapsing magnetic field induces a current in metal within that field, so any wires or traces in an unprotected circuit would now have induced current flowing through them.  If those induced currents are more than what the circuit was designed for, it fries.

More complex electronics (like integrated circuits) use lower voltages and currents, so they are easier to knock out with an EMP.  Beefier, simpler high voltage cicuits, like a simple lightswitch and bulb, would require a much larger EMP to damage.  This is why an EMP might fry a computer, but leave a 1956 Chevy unharmed.

If you want to read how to protect against an EMP, read up on Faraday cages.


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

[User]
So human babies are woefully underdeveloped at birth compared to other mammals. How would, theoretically, a much longer pregnancy affect human development?

So our pelvis is now made for walking on two legs and our craniums are large, explaining *why* this is necessary. However, would this be possible, and what would the implications be?

Would a longer pregnancy have any positive effects whatsoever? What would be the effect of the deprivation of sensory input? Any other implications? Would things such as in utero sound stimuli have a greater effect after, say, 12 months or longer?

[Assistant]
There aren't many animals hunting our babies.

Most predators have offspring that are pretty helpless at birth, while prey animals, antelope, deer, gazelles, are generally ready to run shortly after being born.  This seems like it would be the selective pressure going on.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] Why doesn't Starfleet and the Federation simply use ballistic weaponry to defeat the Borg?

Since the Borg are vulnerable to ballistic weaponry (as seen in Star Trek: First Contact) then why doesn't Starfleet and the Federation simply outfit their ships and personnel with ballistic-based weaponry, as opposed to energy-based weaponry? If Starfleet/the Federation used weapons more akin to those used in Battlestar Galactica or by the UNSC in Halo, then the Borg wouldn't be able to adapt to their weaponry, and Starfleet/the Federation would fare much better in the fight against the Borg. I could be wrong, but I think a single MAC round from a UNSC frigate could rip a Borg sphere in half, and a volley of several MAC rounds from several UNSC vessels could tear a Borg cube to shreds.

[Assistant]
Remember that the primary tactical advantage that the Borg possess is their ability to adapt. The shields they use on their ships and by their drones aren't just physical barriers like the traditional force fields used by Starfleet and other species, but rather they are sub-space fields designed to *absorb* different types of energy and direct it harmlessly into subspace.

This is why we often see those who fight against the Borg trying to come up with new weapons frequencies to use against them, because once they've adapted to one energy frequency they can adapt to protect against that frequency extremely quickly faster and faster, so even if you change frequency and go back again, they've already adapted.

This is also why when during the Enterprise's assault on the Borg cube using their deflector array (TNG: Best of Both Worlds part 2) it is ineffective because the Borg assimilated Picard and he knew the deflector frequency. The Enterprise channeled a *massive* amount of power into that blast (virtually all the energy from their warp core), any conventional shielding system would have been overwhelmed, but it didn't matter how much power they put behind it because the Borg had already adapted to the energy frequency. They could have fired all day long and it wouldn't have made a difference.

So let us consider projectile weapons such as the gun used by Picard during First Contact. The reason it worked was because in a galaxy where seemingly all space-faring civilizations are using energy-based weapons it makes sense that the Borg would pre-configure their adaptations to be against energy based weapons. Picard's sudden use of a projectile weapon caught them off guard. If the crew of the Enterprise suddenly re-equipped themselves with tommy guns, the Borg would reconfigure and adapt to protect against kinetic energy, and that would be that, because kinetic energy only has one frequency; you cannot "re-modulate" a bullet.

**TL;DR:** The Borg can adapt to different energy types and frequencies. Projectile weapons only have one kinetic energy frequency. Once the Borg adapt to it that's it, you cannot re-modulate a bullet. Picard was able to kill the drones in First Contact because caught them off guard; they were pre-configured towards protecting against energy weapons.


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

[User]
[DC]What is Wonder Woman's job? Is she even doing it?

So what is the official, "legal" basis of Wonder Woman's excursion to man's world?

Sometimes she's called an ambassador and a diplomat, but surely even in a crazy world with superhumans, an ambassador doesn't go around beating up criminals while wearing the flag of the host country as panties. Or have a secret identity, which is kind of the opposite of diplomacy.

If she's supposed to be displaying advanced Amazonian wisdom as a shining example to be followed, she'd be doing a lot better if it weren't for all those times she fought other Amazons, not to mention her own gods. Her people aren't exactly role models of peace and harmony.

Is she amorally pursuing Amazon interests? Maybe sometimes, but then sometimes I'm clearly supposed to think she comes with a noble purpose, a calling to shield the weak. But considering all the Amazons can do, sending one more crimefighter to DC Earth is pretty far down on the list of ways they could help.

What is her actual *job?*

[Assistant]
Well, she is royalty, it's up to her.

Minimising the impact of Amazon supervillains has to help with PR, as does taking down threats with the League. And Themyscara is part of the world too, so it needs saving, right?

I know her secret identity *is* the ambassador to the US in some continuities, and the panties thing is a coincidence.

Still, the honest answer is no. The Amazons just let her do whatever she wants as the most powerful and the Heir. They don't really care much about the outside world.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] What would a competent Wizarding World look like?

Let's assume for a moment that the Wizarding community was much more open to outside ideas while still remaining hidden with good cause. And while cautious they do not look down on muggles as well as being more cautious when dealing with dangerous magic.

[Assistant]
They'd probably use unbreakable vows to keep some of the more dangerous possibilities in check. They'll make people vow not to attempt to transfigure antimatter or nuclear weapons, so they'll die before they take anyone with them. Maybe even add stuff like vowing not to murder.

Goblins have some kind of waterfall that can break all enchantments including imperious. You can bet they'd have one of those on every entrance to the ministry.

Nicholas Flamel figured out a cure for every disease. It should be put to use.

Ghosts would be given prosthetics to the extent that it's possible, and would be allowed to continue being part of society. They're not dead. They're just disabled.

Food can't be conjured, but it can be duplicated and transfigured. And humans are made of meat. Nobody ever has to go hungry.

Most people would probably prefer to eat something other than human, but it's not hard to get a first loaf of bread to duplicate for everyone. But hags and acromantulas do enjoy human, and they should get as much duplicated human as they want. Aragog has shown that acromantulas can be reasonable.

Time turners are insanely OP. They use a single timeline, which means you can't do things like test something and go back and stop yourself if it doesn't work. But you would still be able to prevent things from happening just by precommitting to causing a paradox if they do.

Dementors would open amusement parks. They can directly tell how happy the guests are, and have incentive to make sure they feel as many happy thoughts as possible.

The resurrection stone would be used more. You could ask Merlin for help with magic. Or Nicholas Flamel for how to make new philosopher's stones. Or Cadmus Peverell how to make another resurrection stone.

The ability to make things bigger on the inside is awesome. Why bother packing luggage for school when you can just live in it?

If they can also make things smaller on the inside, they could make the circumference of a cylinder shrink to nothing to make a wormhole, then they can warp space to move the two ends. Also, there's ways to use it for time travel, but they already have that.

Communication by owls is terribly slow. They could use two-way mirrors if they're not too expensive. At the very least they could use protean charms. Or just use cell phones.

They could use typewriters. Sure they have magic quills that will make it easier to write, but can you imagine being one of the teachers having to read all that handwriting?

Computers. They're just so awesome. If they're lucky they can build magical ones. If not, they probably work okay as long as they stay out of Hogwarts.


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

[User]
ELI5:What is Spaghettification?

It has come up in a book I have been reading and the Wikipedia article has been less than helpful in explaining.

[Assistant] So you're falling into a black hole feet first. At some point, the gravity pulling the lower half of your body is so much greater than the gravity pulling on the upper half, that you are torn apart. Then the same thing happens to each of the halves of your body. The parts keep getting torn into smaller parts until the molecules themselves are torn apart, and you're nothing but a stream of atoms falling into the black hole.


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

[User] What is the process of "turning on" a nuclear reactor?

[Assistant]
Starting up a reactor from a shutdown state is a very precarious and difficult procedure for something that seems rather simple.

If the fuel rods aren't new, starting up a reactor involves raising the control rods and turning on the coolant pumps, albeit in a very controlled manner. Reactor control rods act as neutron absorbers, absorbing neutrons emitting from the decaying fissile material, and since neutron collisions are what catalyze the fission of atoms, the control rods effectively slow down or stop nuclear fission. By releasing the control rods, the plant operators decrease the number of neutrons that are absorbed and increase the total number and energies of the propagating neutrons, more formally referred to as neutron flux. As neutron flux increases, more atoms of the fissile material go through fission, increasing temperature, neutron flux, and pushing the reactor towards criticality, or the point where a sustained fission reaction takes place (every fission event causes one or more fission events to occur). The reactor pumps are also turned on to increase decay heat in the reactor vessel, bringing it to operational temperature.

As the control rods are released and the reactor approaches criticality, then comes the most dangerous part of reactor startup. The exact position of the control rods at which criticality occurs must be carefully calculated and approached. At this point, the rods must be raised very, very slowly, otherwise a sudden increase in temperature or prompt neutron flux may occur, resulting in prompt criticality. The moderator-temperature coefficient must also be considered, which shows how the increasing temperature, and therefore decreasing density, of the neutron moderator causes decrease in the production of thermal neutrons, slowing down the reaction. Once criticality (or, more accurately, delayed criticality, a reaction sustained by delayed neutrons) is achieved, the reactor finally achieves a fission chain reaction, and is in a state of "minimum load." From here, especially if it is a graphite-moderated reactor, the reactor must quickly increase its temperature not only to ensure criticality is sustained, but also to eliminate energy built up in the moderator due to the Wigner effect.

If the fuel rods are fresh, an extra step is added. In the first part of the process, when the control rods are raised and the pumps started to cycle heat, a startup neutron source must be added. These are radioactive elements that provide a sufficient source of neutrons to achieve minimal neutron flux for the fuel rods to begin the reaction. Such elements may include californium-252, or Plutonium-238. These startup neutron sources are necessary because fresh fuel rods do not have a decay rate high enough to produce a sufficient neutron flux, as they have not yet begun creating more shorter-liver, energetic fission products.


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

[User]
Being an ethical person, would you take an unethical action with unknown consequences or would you take an inaction with known bad consequences?

Ill rephrase my question in the form of a trolley problem: say theres five people tied to a trolley track. You have a lever that you can pull to redirect the trolley onto another track. However, the second track is hidden from your view, and it either has zero people, five, ten, or twenty, in even chances. If you remain inactive and dont pull the lever, five people will die. If you do pull the lever, there is a small chance that nobody dies, but a good chance that more people die overall.

Does the chance of a better outcome through action outweigh the probable chance of a worse outcome?

[Assistant] This formulation begs the question. The very issue with these cases is which action(s), if any, are morally permitted/forbidden/required. To call one of them "unethical" loads the dice, and does so contentiously. It's also a little leading to suggest that the other option is "inaction"; we could easily describe the other option as choosing to not pull the lever.


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

[User]
CMV: Voting isn't a civic duty; *informed* voting is. The US (and democracies in general) would be better off destygmatizing not voting.

People often call voting a responsibility, carrying the implication that being a citizen and not voting is bad. I think this misses the point; to me, if voting is a responsibility, it is in the sense that it should only be done responsibly. Sure, the ideal democracy might be one in which every citizen took the time to inform themselves and voted based on their opinions and knowledge. But that seems unrealistic (though maybe that is some inner cynicism). So I take as an assumption that there is a portion of the population which I dont think can be reasonably expected to inform themselves because they just don't really care. On that assumption, I think the world is better off with those who don't inform themselves just not voting than being pressured into voting by the whole 'civic duty' rhetoric.

Let me clarify a few things here. I don't support limiting voting access with testing or anything like that, which is a common thing with people who think similar to how I do about this. I don't think there is really a way to implement any sort of barrier that wouldn't add some bias to the system, and I don't think there's a reasonable way to test 'informedness', because I don't think there's really a quantitative way to define it. I'm arguing for a change in social rhetoric from "everyone go out and VOTE" to "everyone who cares enough to inform yourself go out and VOTE". With that social change, I think trusting people to judge their own level of informedness would at least be a lot closer to ideal than the current situation in which those who really dont care are basically slandered. Particularly in light of the fact that voting required a non-negligible amount of effort on the part of a citizen (registering, showing up, waiting in line, etc), it seems reasonable to assume that in a world where citizens aren't made out as civic failures for not voting those who dont care enough to inform themselves won't go through the effort.

I totally understand where the other side here too--that democracy is supposed to be a society where political power is held by the people. I have two responses to this.

First, how can we justify forcing people to vote? Not being interested in voicing a political will is a political opinion, and there are people who have it. Maybe its because there is no candidate that motivates them, or maybe its because they dont care about politics at all. I personally disagree with both of those reasons, but it seems to me that telling those people to vote anyway seems like an attempted suppression of their political will. I know its not illegal, but still, the social pressure to vote seems pretty undemocratic to me here--isn't one of the whole points that people can express their political opinions their own way?

And second, if someone doesn't care enough to inform themself, their vote won't be cast based on their political ideals--it will be cast based on name recognition of candidates, or the ballot lines their friends like the most, or some other external factor. This seems like it could lead to a situation in which the winning party is the one which successfully badgers the most people who dont care to vote, as opposed to the one who captures the majority of the peoples will. So an uninformed vote isn't just not democratically ideal--it seems explicitly undemocratic, in the sense that it could potentially affect an elected outcome that isn't a true representation of the majority democratic opinion.

I also know that voter turnout is pretty dismal, at least in the US. I agree that civic engagement is a huge problem, but I disagree vehemently that the solution is to verbally batter people for choosing not to vote for the reasons outlined above. I think a better solution would be to figure out ways to get people to care more about being an active part of their community, in which case it seems like voter turnout would follow. This seems like a very separate topic to me, and its not really a part of my CMV; I'm including it as a rebuttal to the counterargument that my CMV opinion is a slippery slope to an oligarchy, or at least an enabling of a problem. I think there is a way to destygmatize not voting while simultaneously increasing civic engagement, because I think that they are separate. Besides, theres a mountain of evidence in education that negative consequences (like shaming) for failing to complete an act (like homework) serve only to drive students further from educational institutions; while I havent seen this principle applied directly to voting, it seems pretty darn analogous. And besides, as much of a problem as voter turnout is, trying to fix it by shaming uninformed voters into casting votes they don't believe in seems like an even further perversion of democracy to me.

To sum it up, I agree with Teddy Roosevelt: "A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends on the character of the user." By destygmatizing not voting, we can remove noise from the electoral system and achieve election results which better represent the will of the people.

[Assistant]
>Not being interested in voicing a political will is a political opinion, and there are people who have it. Maybe its because there is no candidate that motivates them, or maybe its because they dont care about politics at all. I

I would say that a third, much more common, reason is that people are informed and have an opinion, but don't think their vote matters (or matters enough to jump through the hoops required to vote.)

Asking people to vote is the same thing as saying that their vote matters. If someone genuinely doesn't care, they also won't care, aside from perhaps minor annoyance, at being asked to vote.

That said, it's understandable that people think their vote doesn't matter, because in a lot of cases it doesn't. Voter turnout is low because of voter suppression, gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc. It has very little to do with people not caring, and everything to do with elections in the US being awful.


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

[User]
Why can water undergo electrolysis despite being covalently bonded?

Ask my chemistry teacher, she had no clue.

[Assistant]
With two hydrogens on one side and one oxygen on the other, water is a polar molecule. This makes it a great solvent and also allows you to divert a running tap using a statically charged rod. By applying charge across the water, you pull apart the molecule.

The ions then travel through the water to the electrodes and donate/acquire an electron, bonding to similar atoms in their elemental form and bubbling out as a gas.

TL;DR there is a charge differential across the water molecule.


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

[User]
CMV: People identify too much with being either an introvert or an extrovert

I think most people are sometimes one and sometimes the other. Identifying too strongly as an introvert means that you miss out on things. Identifying too strongly as an extrovert makes you loud and obnoxious.

The issue partially stems from people confusing being socially anxious or lacking social confidence with being an introvert. An introvert has no problem talking to people and can be a likeable person but likes to spend time on their own often. A socially anxious person is afraid of social interaction and feels panicked during social situations. The former is not a problem but the latter is.

[Assistant] How does *identifying* as an introvert or extrovert actually affect your behavior? Don't people define themselves as introverts/extroverts *based on* their behavior? Or are you saying people arbitrarily pick a label and then act accordingly?


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

[User] ELI5: how do they decide the name and generic name of medications?

[Assistant] When chemists name chemicals it is not as much a name as a description of it using Greek words. This is also why some chemicals can have multiple names as there are multiple ways of describing a chemical. The problem with these names is that they can not be trademarked because it is just a description of the chemical. They might also not be as easy to market. So drug companies go to their marketing department and ask them to come up with a better name. It may sometimes be similar to the chemical name but does not have to be. The designers in the marketing department need to come up with a name which sound good and distinctive to the group of people they try to market towards.


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

[User]
ELI5: If I take a whole bunch of solid foods and I blend them to liquid form, do I pee them out? If so, why?

If I wanted to blend a apple, banana, and milk together for a smoothie and I drink it, would I pee it out or poop it out and why? As well, would the body still absorb all nutrients the same way?

[Assistant]
Pee comes from filtered blood out of your kidneys, into your bladder...

Poop actually comes from your intestines connected to your stomach and your mouth.

Humans are basically poop tubes.

So basically, youll poop out undigested solids and waste, youll pee out both stuff that was removed from your blood and water soluble vitamins. Pee will sometimes smell like what you ate, but make no mistake, theres no direct path from your mouth to your pee.

Blending it will give increased absorption as if you chewed it all really really well.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is there a debate whether Google Cars should be allowed to drive on the streets if they have already proven to be much safer than human drivers?

From what I have heard, they not only never get tired / drunk / bored, etc., but also have capabilities that humans can never have (like seeing pedestrians behind obstacles thanks to infrared light).

If anything, shouldn't the debate be the other way around? Should we (in the future) allow human drivers at all since we will be able to have only self-driving cars that cause no accidents?

[Assistant] Also, they are shown to be much safer than human drivers in a very constrained set of conditions. They need clear weather and very detailed maps of the roads they drive on. There's still no beating human for handling unexpected/complex situations.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do people hate "Atlas Shrugged"?

I've never read the book myself, yet it seems to polarize many people. I have a general idea of what it's about, I can use Google and Wikipedia, but in general the idea of "every man keeps the fruit of his work" sounds pretty good to me. What's the problem with it?

[Assistant]
Imagine you're at a party. Your friends are there, and all of your parents are there.

The adults sit down to play Monopoly. Your friend Johnny's parents start to win. Your friend Suzy's parents complain that they should get some free money from the bank because they're losing.

Everyone laughs at Suzy's parents because they're being stupid. Everyone knows that in Monopoly what's important is that you follow the rules--that's what's fair.

Eventually your friend Johnny's parents win.

Now the kids sit down to have a game. But Johnny's parents hand him all the property that they owned in the previous game. So he starts out owning everything.

Obviously, that's not a fair game--Johnny is going to win no matter what.

But Johnny keeps insisting that it *is* a fair game, and that you're just being sore losers like Suzy's parents. He insists that all he wants to do is play by the rules like everyone else, and let the best player win. He somehow doesn't see--weirdly, it doesn't seem like he *can* see--that if you all play by the rules, he's going to win. Really, he's *already* won, before the game has started.

Then Johnny gets even more annoying: he starts slowly *explaining why it's good to play by the rules,* like you're all idiots. What he's really doing is showing that he is too stupid to see how a game where one player starts off with a huge advantage is no game at all. But somehow, even though he's being very stupid, he's strangely smug about it.

So: The economy is like a Monopoly game. But it's been a long time since we all started out even (like the parents' game). Nowadays, many people start out *already having won,* and these people, like Johnny, insist that they just want to play by the rules like everyone else, and that if they *happen* to win, it's because they're better players.

And like Johnny, although these people are actually being very stupid, they're very smug. One reason they're so smug is a book called Atlas Shrugged, which gives many clever-sounding explanations for why it's good to play by the rules, until the simple fact that some people start the game already having won, while many others start out already having lost, gets clouded over.

So people either love or hate Atlas Shrugged: People who started out winning the game--who really *couldn't* lose--love a book that tells them that they win because they play better. Other people hate the book because they see that a) it's actually a very stupid book, and b) reading it makes coddled rich kids even more smug than they already were.


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

[User]
ELI5:How did engineers know how to design a suit that would protect astronauts on the moon?

Did they just design them to protect from everything they could think of or were they somehow able to determine exactly what the suits would be up against?

[Assistant]
The suit was based on a deep sea diving suit and air craft suit combined.  Then it was modified for temperature and all sorts of things.  They still use the deep tanks for acclamating astronauts to their suits.

The whole design aspect is worth reading and learning more about.


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

[User]
ELI5: why doesn't the Ukrainian president want to join the EU?

Bonus points for also being able to tell me why Ukraine should join the EU.

[Assistant]
Any state that joins the EU eliminates all economic barriers between itself and all other member states, and these states are allowed to trade freely with one another.

Since Ukraine's economy is weak and its industries are underdeveloped, elimination of tariff duties would result in Ukraine's infant markets being strangled by the unrestricted flow of European products - Ukrainian industries would not be able to handle the competition. It is thus not in Ukraine's best interests to join the organization.

Many young Ukrainians think that once their country joins the EU, the standards of living will automatically increase to match those of more developed Western European countries (which joined the EU once their economies were already developed enough to handle foreign competition).

The "core" EU states (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany) want Ukraine to join because it would provide more tariff-free markets for their own goods.


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

[User]
[Terminator] Did Kyle Reese know that going inside the time displacement equipment was a suicide?

Lets forget that he even reached L.A back in the past. Wouldn't he be afraid if that time machine is even functional? I mean, how confident was he or the other resistance fighters that Kyle would even survive the journey? He couldn't have a tracker on him or anything, so what proof or assurance did anyone have that he would survive the time travel.

[Assistant]
He lived his whole life in a war of extermination by the machines, facing death daily and watching friends die on a regular basis.  The time-travel mission was probably one of the more attractive assignments he went on.  Success would mean real victory, not just staving off destruction for another hour.

A lot of soldiers would risk their lives to end the war and save everyone they knew, not to mention all of humanity, no matter the risk.


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

[User]
[Marvel] If Thanos gets the Infinity Gauntlet could he kill himself?

From what I know about Thanos (next to nothing) he's been cursed so that he can never die, and it's his one aim in life to find a worthy enough opponent who can kill him. But the IG lets you rewrite reality itself (I think), so could he choke himself out with it or something?

[Assistant] Absolutely. He could do it with just the reality gem. If used correctly the power gem could do it too. The Soul gem could probably do it. If he is using the Time gem at full potential he would gain omniscience and would be able to figure out a way to break the curse (if one exists).


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

[User]
Why is inflation higher in developing countries?

Inflation right now is very high in a lot of developed countries, that isnt the norm.

But for developing countries, it is the norm, Why developing countries have chronically higher inflation than developed countries?

[Assistant]
Big part of inflation control is due to central bank and confidence of the country government (and their fiscal / monetary policies).

Developed countries have central bank who are better / more effective in controlling money supply / circulation.

Also, confidence in the government helps with stable currency and inflation.


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

[User] ELI5:How can a company like Amazon that loses money have a stock that continually rises?

[Assistant] Amazon only loses money in the sense it doesn't show a profit.  It reinvests money back into itself making it more valuable they just don't take money out.  Its like if you had a business making cakes and had $1000 of sales of which it cost you $800 in supplies, rent and paying staff, so you have an extra $200.  You could just take that $200 and put it in your pocket and say your business earned $200, or you could use that $200 and buy a fancier mixer that makes your business better and next month you can make twice as many cakes.  So you didn't take any profit you reinvested that money back into the company.


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

[User]
CMV: Altered Carbon S2 was good on its own, just not as a continuation of S1. It would have had better reviews if it had been presented as a separate, tangential show. SPOILER

The main issue with the second season of Altered Carbon was the fact that the majority of the main cast were gone, and or had less screen time, and were played by different actors (riding different sleeves). The one constant was Poe, as hes an AI, and had no physical embodiment, and was beloved by many, he had significantly more screen time.

The reason Takeshi Kovacs was in a different sleeve was actually explained, at the end of the last episode, he had cleared Ryker of the charges he was framed for and Ryker would be spun back up and want his sleeve back which Takeshi was riding.

People had become attached to Joel Kinnaman and his performance of Takeshi Kovacs, and didnt like the sudden change to him being portrayed by a totally different actor. Anthony Mackie did a good job, and the second series was good in its own right, people just didnt like the change from season one.

However, the nature of the show, the ability to avoid real death by having your consciousness (DHF) stored in a stack and resleeved into a new body kind of made this aspect unique and predictable.

CMV.

[Assistant] It wasn't good because of Anthony Mackie. He has that wholesome quality and is excellent at playing the hero character.  However, Takeshi Kovacs is supposed to be an anti-hero, a person who is very morally compromised and comfortable committing horrific acts of violence, a lost soul who has been damaged by his experiences, and is looking to find his way in the world.  The actor who played him in S1 captured the essence of the Kovacs character pretty well.  It also helped that S1 was closer to the source material, S2 diverged pretty wildly from it.  It tried to combine elements of the second and third novels in a way that was confusing and didn't work.


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

[User]
Is there really a real us?

People often say that the real us shows when we are alone or with a certain group of people. Is this true? Is there a real us? Or are we more complex and have various versions of ourselves based on who we are around?

[Assistant]
Sociological social psychology (by way of Symbolic Interactionism - Charon, 2007 & Blumer, 1986) would argue that to say any person has an "true," "core" identity is a misnomer at least in some degree. Every person is a collection of different identities and traits that get used in particular moments of time. Burke & Stets' "Identity Theory" (don't have year on me) argues this as well. That type of analysis would indicate your last statement is true.

Goffman (1959) would argue it slightly differently, through his discussion of frames. In terms of "Front Stage" and "Back Stage" encounters, we could argue that an individual is able to act more "loosely" in a back stage encounter, and so we would like to assume immediately that such a person is doing less of a performance. An extension of this would be that a waiter/waitress at a restaurant acts one way in the "front of the house" with a customer, but then can curse them behind closed doors in the kitchen, in "the back." Does that mean that the person is "real" in the back? The problem is that they are aware of the reflexive nature of their situation - they want others to know what type of "real" person they are and push forward a particular impression of that (called impression management). The thing is, if we're perfectly alone in a physical sense, we are still social in our minds. Why would a teenager put up posters of their favorite rock bands in their rooms if they don't expect company? They're playing up a personal representation of self FOR THEMSELVES - so that they are better prepared when encountering people in later situations.


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

[User]
[MCU]Why didn't the people snapped by Thanos end up in an afterlife, while they were dead?

Considering that various afterlives exist in the Marvel Universe and that they were killed by their bodies turning to dust and not made to never having existed, shouldn't they have memories from being in heaven, hell or wherever they were, when they came back to life?

[Assistant]
I suppose it depends on what happened to them as a result of the snap. There was a WIRED Tech Support video with the Russos where someone asked them a question about a hypothetical baby who was born a few seconds before the snap. The question was whether the baby, after returning in Endgame, is technically five years old.

Their response is that people who got snapped away miss those five years. It was also added that people stopped existing during the Infinity War snap but then begin existing again after the Endgame snap.

If you subscribe to that, then the answer would be that they didn't go to any sort of afterlife because they didn't just "die", they got completely erased from existence until they got brought back in Endgame.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do dogs always sniff my crotch?

They just stick their nose in there for a bit then get their fix and are out. It's always subtly weird because it's always someone's dog at someone else's house. What's the deal with that?

[Assistant] Dogs smell each other's crotches as a way of getting familiar with their scent. Your crotch works the same (also dogs are short, so your crotch is always typically right about where their head is going to be)


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

[User]
[General] Why are spaceships generally streamlined and not spherical?

In space, there is no air/water resistance, so why are so many of them designed this way?

Wouldn't something more spherical be much better in combat? Like a mini death star with weapons facing in every direction? A speherical design would also lend to more cargo space overall.

In universes like Star Trek, where ships are built in space, the shape of the ship have no bearing on whether it can leave the earth's gravity.

In universes like Star Wars a non-streamlined ship like the Millenium Falcon can easily break atmosphere.

Why aren't spaceships spherical?

[Assistant]
A sphere is the most efficient shape, yes, if what you are holding in it can conform to a sphere.

If you are humanoid in shape and have a penchant for using cylinders, cubes, and various types of prisms for cargo contains, a sphere stops being sufficient and leads to wasted space.

This can be a disadvantage in combat as well, since the surface area you are presenting to the enemy can't change. If you are non-spherical, there are facings that you can present to the enemy that reduce their odds of hitting you.

Some spaceships are also designed to work in atmospheric conditions, where a spherical design is not necessarily optimal.


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

[User] ELI5:[Worldcup] With the high amount of referee errors why don't they just use video replay to determine the judgement?

[Assistant]
The governing bodies don't want the game to be stop-start. They want to keep the fluidity of the game.

This does, however, mean games can be quite controversial (take the penalty last night for example).

The goal line technology is starting to be phased in around the world, but then it's hard to implement that into lower level football.

It would be better if at the more important competitions they had it, but FIFA is a stubborn old mule.


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

[User]
[Rick and Morty] How does Rick...SPOILERS S:3

How does Rick keep track of Morty's free adventure card when he erases his memories?  Morty gets to choose the adventure every 10th time they go out.  Rick punches the card so Morty can redeem it.

Does it come up with another card or does he just let it slide?

[Assistant] It doesn't look to me like Rick erases many full adventures. Like, the squirrels probably didn't involve a card punch; neither did the ones where Rick is embarrassed. He probably would change the card if he had to, but it might not come up all that much.


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

[User]
[Marvel] Professor X tries to read through Daredevils memories. How does he perceive them?

Would Xavier just be confused by the non-visual input, or would he see it the same way Daredevil does?

[Assistant] Xavier's met blind and interact with people before (and assorted X-men have been temporarily blinded, like Cyclops), so he's not like completely oblivious to what it's like. He would likely sense the memories the way Daredevil sensed them, but it is worth noting that Daredevil's other senses are so inhumanly powerful that, aside from things like colors, the memories would be far clearer and distinct than they are with most people.


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

[User]
[W40K] Are Space Marines weaker in game for balance reasons? Or are they just overhyped in the lore?

Now I know the following questions may be heretical but...

The lore makes out the Space Marines to be almost demi-gods. Super humans hulking over most humans/xenos who possess extraordinary strength, stamina, and battle prowess.

Yet, in the board and video games, the Space Marines are just slightly above average troops, getting wrecked pretty often by seemingly inferior forces.

So the question is, are the Adeptus Astartes weaker in their game form for balance reasons? Or is it because everything else in the W40K is ridiculously strong as well? Or does the lore simply overhype their abilities?

[Assistant]
It's a bit of both.

The Space Marines are made out to be ultimate badasses, it's true, but so are pretty much all the other factions. Orks are super strong and violent monsters. Necrons are unkillable machines. Tau have powerful battle suits and exceptional technology. Even the Imperial Guard, while no Space Marines, are well trained, well equipped, and second only to the Astartes as far as human military forces go. All the jokes about the Imperial Guard being terrible are rooted in the same issue of perception: They only *seem* bad because we see them fight extraordinarily powerful alien monstrosities. Compared to PDFs or various other militia forces the Imperial Guard are an elite fighting machine.

That said, there is still a definite discrepancy between the power of a space marine in the games and in the fluff. One way to reconcile this is assume that figures to combatants isn't a 1:1 ratio. Perhaps a space marine model represents 1 space marine, but an Imperial Guardsman model represents 3 or 5 or 10 guys.


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

[User]
ELI5: In US sports, why is it that there aren't tens of teams per state/city...like in European football?

I'm just wondering why in sports like basketball and football, which seem so popular, there aren't so many teams like they do in the UK, or perhaps? Is there some kind of law that prohibits this? Thanks for your answers.

Edit: Thanks a lot guys! Really some wonderful answers here. I am a football (soccer) fan myself, never really enjoyed watching any other sport. I mean, in football... when i was a kid, i found it very creative and interesting how 11 players have to go against another 11 players and figure out to put the ball inside each other's net...and using mainly their feet. It takes skil, a lot of timing,l and A LOT of teamwork to pull that off.

Until...i watched this rerun of some NHL game on TV the other day. I just couldn't stop watching. I just think it's impressive how you have to put that little black puck (as opposed to a ball) inside that little goal (Google tells me football is almost 24 feet wide, NHL is only 6 feet wide)...all the while SKATING ON ICE?! I mean....shiieeat!! And the speed at which everything seems to happen is too much. Oh yeah, since you're on skates...i'm guessing you don't get to ever stand still either? I've noticed everyone just keeps moving to just keep the momentum going (but that's just an observation from one game).

Which brings us to why i started googling furiously about this sport. Which is when i got to things like "minor leagues", "franchises", "drafts". I said screw it. I need someone to explain this to me like i'm five.

And btw, I appreciate the fact that they have salary caps in American sports. I wish they had that in European football.

You guys have been great! Thanks!!

[Assistant]
Put simply, its because we have different approaches to organizing sports leagues.

In the US, most major sports only have one major league (NFL,NBA,MLB and so on) which can only have a certain amount of teams. When you consider the vast distance between most US cities, it makes sense to spread them out a bit so that more people will have one within a reasonable distance.

In the UK (in football at least) we have a multi-tiered league system with literally hundreds of teams. Unlike the US leagues which are run as businesses with a franchise model, any group of people in any town or city can start a team and enter it into the football league system if they wish. With this openness, it can hardly be surprising that a place like London has more than one team (heck, even if they just had one team for each borough, they could fill out the premier league on their own).

**TLDR;** The (English) football league is mush more open to new teams, thus more teams.


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

[User]
[Planetary Sciences] Why is it that sometimes lightnings have no sound? And why does this seem to happen only when there is no rain?

I'm just watching some really cool 'dry lightning' storm out of my place right now. In the midst of the coolness of the show, I started thinking about this! Thanks in advance!

[Assistant]
Thunder is *always* produced by lightning.  When you observe a flash or bolt of lightning, high amplitude (loud) sound waves of many frequencies have begun travelling in all directions (at the speed of sound) from the superheated air turned plasma through which tremendous electric current briefly flowed.

The delay between observing the flash and hearing the thunder is due to the distance from the lightning, and the slow speed of sound in air (relative to light).

During its travel from the bolt to your ears, this sounds energy is subject to *acoustic attenuation*.    When sound propagates through a viscous media, such as water or air, there is always thermal consumption of energy caused by this viscosity.  Forinhomogeneous  media (e.g. sheets of rainfall in air), acousticscatteringis another main mechanism for removal of acoustic energy.

The farther you are from the lightning source, the greater the amount acoustic energy is that is lost to thermal consumption and scattering. Ultimately, somewhere, the remaining energy must fall below the threshold of detection.

Thunder is typically absent when observing relatively distant thunderstorms.  This may account for a correlation between lack of thunder and lack of nearby rain.

Edit:  As has been ably pointed out by  subsequent responses, acoustic refraction plays a major role in audibility of thunder at distance.  Be sure to read those replies for this key information.


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

[User] Is obesity a genetic problem that can run in families, or is it more likely that children pick up the poor eating habits of parents?

[Assistant] Yes and Yes. There have been some genetic associations to obesity that are inherited (associations that are not necessarily causal), but familial factors like learning poor eating habits are seen in most, if not all, obese patients, and will compound the problem in patients who could have a genetic susceptibility to obesity.


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

[User]
Are there any theories regarding why agriculture (or civilization) emerged independantly multiple times recently?

As I understand things, the human species has existed in its modern state for more than 100k years, and for almost all of our history, we've been hunter-gatherers and then suddenly, like a cambrian explosion, settlement and farming emerged a few times almost at once. Is it simply that there hasn't been an epoch more conducive to the prerequisite series of events for these developments than the holocene?

[Assistant]
David Christian of Big History suggests that it was a result of Earth coming out of the last ice age about 10.000 years ago. Humans for a large part appears to have had all the technologies necessary for agriculture, but simply didn't need to. Increasing in population put pressure on humans to increase the amount of energy extracted from the same area of land.  In fact it appears things like living standards and life expectancy went *down*. But those who did go into agriculture started to simply out compete surrounding hunter gathers in shear numbers. When your population density is more than an order of magnitude higher, war becomes almost trivial.

The rest is, as we say, history.


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

[User]
CMV: Whether people are born male or female, they should be free to dress and act absolutely however they want. Changing your pronoun to be "in line" with these actions, however, is ultimately harmful to society.

The implication that dressing or acting differently than is typical for your "gender" requires a different pronoun is simply adding more stereotypes to the labels "male" and "female." As a queer woman, I have spent much of my life feeling like I didn't necessarily dress or act the same as the other girls around me. I have many of what are typically considered very masculine characteristics. I never wanted to or allowed myself to feel like my pronoun somehow defined who I had to be or what I had to act like. I figured women can do or be anything. I think it would ultimately be more beneficial to youth growing up to create a society in which your pronoun is not associated with a way to act or even feel. For me, watching those who were born men put on makeup and feminine clothing and say they now "identify as women" is now associating those attributes to the female persona, though they are attributes I do not hold. Am I less of a woman for lacking them?  What does that even mean - identifying as a woman? Will people think differently of me because of my pronoun? If so, stop. My "she" doesn't define me and I don't think others' pronouns should define them as we let them do. I really wish that when people called  me "she" it really only referred to my sex and didn't put all these other implications on me.

I want to be clear I am completely open to people dressing, acting, and thinking outside of what society has defined as normative for you (as evidence by my own life). What I think needs to change, though, is society's associations with our gender pronouns as opposed to people changing their own and thereby reaffirming all of the stereotypes we've associated with them.

Edit: My view has changed! I realized that while I dont feel it, some people have a very strong sense of gender identity which is why their pronouns are so important to them. Does this strong sense of identity create more of a divide between the genders? How much of it is socialized? Like though there are tons of questions to be asked - asking people to not change their pronouns if they do feel so passionately about it is just not really effective. After all of the discussion, I think more of what I wanted was simply lowered expectations of what it means to be male or female (no matter cis or trans)

Thanks to everyone who gave really articulate arguments without bashing me for my views. I would love to keep discussing the questions I posed in my edit if anyone wants.

[Assistant]
You're reversing cause and effect.

You see trans women acting feminine and assume that they've decided to identify as woman because of that. But the truth is that they internally identify as women, and want to act feminine for the same reason many cisgender women do.

And also because they'll be harassed, discriminated against, and even murdered unless they make the effort to become indistinguishable from cis women.


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

[User]
ELi5: Can plants be overweight if they produce too much food in the similar fashion to how animals gain weight if they eat too much food?

When animals eat too much food, they gain weight. What happens to a plant that produces too much food via photosynthesis? Can plants be overweight?

[Assistant]
Plants can get overloaded with fruits. In a year with plenty of water and sunshine, they can produce so many fruits that weigh itself down, which end up bending or snapping their branches.

Other plants can grow too big for their environments. A side branch growing towards sunshine may overextend and can break when stressed in wind or when covered with snow.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] So, me and my fellow stormtrooper squadmates just smoked a whole ounce of Alderaanian Kush and, long story short, there's a Diagona rampaging through the Death Star. Lord Vader is currently investigating the situation. Is there any way we survive?

We were gonna offer him a hit, but we don't know if he can handle the smoke what with the asthma and everything. Is there anything we can do?

[Assistant] just one?  isn't there one in like every other trash compactor, diagona are really prolific vermin, how the hell did vader get on this case?  Frankly with the size of the station i wouldn't be surprised if there was never less than three rampaging starvermin wrecking havoc somewhere on the station at any given time.


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

[User] [Alien] What exactly does Ash mean when he describes the Xenomorph as a "perfect organism"?

[Assistant]
It's extremely effective at killing, breeding, surviving, and adapting to the point that the DNA of its offspring can rapidly change in a single generation.

That last one is the main thing. If suddenly teleported to a new universe, one xenomorph could inseminate the local wildlife once, and suddenly perfectly fit inside that ecosystem.

Thus, if the goal of life is to propogate your species, in a scientific sense, they beat anything else in the known universe, except maybe some things on the molecular level.


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

[User] [Stargate][40k] Could a device similar to the Earth gate's Iris protect a Webway gate?

[Assistant]
No? The Stargate works by de constructing the organism into separate molecules and then transporting the molecules trough the wormhole to the other side where the gate reconstructs it. The iris works by preventing that process, no reconstruction happens so you're dead.

The webway is just another pocket universe that happens to have some scaling factor towards real travel. for example 1 meter in the webway is 10 meter in real world (probably a lot more).

Now the iris would prevent you from directly entering in the other universe, but you could just build a battering ram and pounce your way true.


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

[User]
What do divestments in Russian assets acheive?

Norway's sov wealth fund now says it will also divest of Russian assets. But does this do anything to harm Russia at all economically? Doesn't it just mean potential Russian buyers could buy shares for a lot less than their original value, while at the same time giving them more control over their own nation's organisations? And in any case, is it even possible to offload such a large amount of assets?
 Who can afford to buy multiple billions of dollars worth of shares right now?

[Assistant]
It affects their ability to raise capital in future. Imagine theres the total supply of Russian assets and total demand for Russian assets. If one group of investors divests and no longer demands Russian assets, that has to be absorbed by the remaining pool of investors.

As with any demand shift, youd expect a price reduction and a quantity reduction. As the existing assets cant cease to exist, the reduced quantity comes via crowding out new investment.


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

[User]
How can one resolve electron capture with nucleon quark composition?

So, electron capture says that:

proton + electron --> neutron + electron neutrino

In terms of elementary particles, that would be

u+u+d+electron --> u+d+d+neutrino

So, by conservation, would it not be true that:

up + electron --> down + electron neutrino   ?

That doesn't make sense to me.  It implies that these aren't elementary particles, and the mass doesn't add up.  Did I go wrong somewhere?

[Assistant]
>It implies that these aren't elementary particles

No it doesn't.

>and the mass doesn't add up.

It doesn't have to, the *energy* has to add up. If the mass of the products is greater, then the components on the left side need kinetic energy or the process won't occur.

Is energy conserved? Yes, if the up and electron collide with enough energy.

Is angular momentum conserved? Yes, you have two spin 1/2 and two spin 1/2 on each side.

Is lepton number conserved? Yes, you have an +1 on both sides.

Quark flavour is not conserved, but weak interactions do not conserve this.


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

[User]
ELI5: What is a tensor?

Is it something like a vector with more dimensions??? If possible, whats a concrete example?

[Assistant]
The word tensor is used in two ways.

One way is just the structure of fields of numbers:

Write the ages of everyone in your house in ascending order.  Thats a vector of scalars (a list of numbers).

Collect the age vectors of every house on your street, in ascending house number order.  You now have a tensor, a list of lists.

A more strict way to use tensor is:

The life insurance premiums on your street will be determined by combining the characteristic age tensor and some other tensor that represents income or known health problems on your street.

Here, tensor is a mathematical object that must have a certain shape or follow rules so it can be properly combined with other tensors.


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

[User]
What is the rate of energy transfer through tidal friction?

The Moon 'drags' the oceans around the Earth which transfers kinetic energy from the moon to the earth in the form of heat through the friction. What is the power (energy per unit time) associated with this effect?

[Assistant]
>The Moon 'drags' the oceans around the Earth which transfers kinetic energy from the moon to the earth

Actually, it's the other way. Because of tidal forces energy is effectively transferred from the Earth's rotational energy into the moon's kinetic energy. It is for this reason that the moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. However only a fraction of the energy lost by the Earth through tidal effects is transferred to the moon. Most of the rotational energy is simply lost as heat (~3TW) and "only" (~0.1TW) goes to the moon.

I should point out that these numbers are not small, at least not on a human scale. For example, 3TW is about a sixth of the total power consumption on Earth (~18TW) and even the 0.1TW transferred to the moon would be enough to satisfy the electricity demand of a country like France. But still on astronomical scales these numbers are rather puny. When you consider that the moon has a whopping mass of 7\*10^(22) kg, it's easy to see why even with all the power it draws from the Earth it is barely able to inch away from us at a rate of 40mm per year.


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

[User] ELI5: why is it that estrogen is the female hormone that makes us develop feminine features, but birth control is just more estrogen that prevents pregnancy?

[Assistant] The pill mimics the hormonal message that you're pregnant. You get pregnant, your body sends a message to stop releasing eggs until the pregnancy is ended, so you don't have two fertilized eggs at the same time.


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

[User]
[Star Trek TNG] Why does the Enterprise have wall-to-wall carpeting?

There's pervasive carpeting on the Enterprise, on the bridge and in all of the halls. I'm sure there is in other areas as well. This strikes me as odd - carpet is hard to keep clean, and with all the away teams coming back from dirty, hazardous missions, I'm sure it gets its share of filth. Not to mention wear and tear - surely it would go threadbare with all the crewmen walking the halls every hour of every day. I'm sure they could replicate new carpet, but it just seems like a hassle.

So what's with all the carpet?

[Assistant]
This is why only the bridge crew is shown to do anything, the rest of the crew are busy with carpet maintenance.

Not really. The ship is self cleaning and will repair the carpet when necessary. Carpets are comfy, that the ship is overall bare and has an odd, and unchanging, color scheme is the strange part.


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

[User]
CMV: Andrew Yang's plan to give all Americans $1,000 per month would do little more than dramatically increase rent prices and other prices as well.

It seems like a universal and equal influx of cash like that without a change in supply will only lead to higher prices. Especially in areas like housing, etc. Most people it seems, who are renters, given an extra $1k/mo would want to move to a nicer apartment. Given a much higher demand for nicer apartments, landlords will be able to increase prices and maintain full occupancy. Similarly, cheaper housing could see an increase in price, because people would have the ability to pay and no other option. This extra money flooding the market does not come from an increase in supply or labor, so I don't see anything to keep market forces from doing their thing. I don't really see the upside.

I understand the arguments for UBI IFF automation and AI take away enough jobs to tank the economy. But right now, unemployment is extremely low, and implementing his plan would just effectively lead to inflation.

You can change my view by demonstrating that areas that have seen extensive UNIVERSAL basic income have not seen price increases. Also, I could be convinced by a logical, coherent argument showing that there's a flaw in my reasoning.

[Assistant]
Another benefit of UBI would be to raise wages and perhaps get more people off of welfare to work even if that is counter-intuitive.

For people making near minimum wage the thousand bucks a month would be practically as much as they are making now. If they are content with things they could just stay home. That will force employers to raise wages. You will also see economic growth from the fact that people would have a safety net if they want to find a better job or a job more suited to their talents and passions. Right now any interruption in work could mean eviction. With a UBI you will have people seeking out jobs they are better suited for and that should increase economic growth.

Lastly, some people who rely on the current kinds of government assistance that exist have to prove they are poor enough to "deserve" it. That means if you get a job, even a minimum wage job, you could lose your healthcare/housing assistance/etc. So people will not take a job because the added wages don't offset what they lose. With UBI as your safety net you are always free to try and better your situation, apply for jobs, take on work just to see if it's a good fit, etc. That makes everyone more mobile and should contribute to economic growth.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] What happens if you do use an Unforgivable Spell?

Harry uses both Imperius and Crucio in Deathly Hallows and everybody took it quite lightly. Is it just a cultural/legal thing that you shouldn't do; so basically nothing happens if nobody reports it?

[Assistant]
No, the punishment for using one is life in prison in Azkaban, that's made quite clear.

But by the time of Deathly Hallows, Harry was already an outlaw an "public enemy #1," so him using them or not didn't matter, he was already wanted. Also the ministry at that time was controlled by Death Eaters and was quite happy to allow them to use the curses freely.

Also not many people witnessed him using the curses... And anyway, when Voldemort is defeated and the Ministry of Magic is restored, the new government seems to be quite favorable to Harry, so even if they knew, he'd be forgiven given the circumstances.


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

[User] Why dont the rings of Saturn and other big planets get pulled into the core by their massive gravitational force?

[Assistant] The ring materials are in orbit around the planet. It's the same reason Earth doesn't fall into the Sun, even though the Sun's gravity considerably dwarfs that of Saturn. Some material *is* lost over time - to various ends - but outgassing from the geologically active moons provides a steady supply of new ring material.


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

[User] Why is NASA's James Webb telescope built out of hexagonal panels for its mirror? Why is the mirror not a curved surface, and why were hexagons chosen over triangles or octagons etc.? Why does the Hubble telescope (seem to) not require this geometry?

[Assistant]
The mirrors are much larger than the hubbles and we didn't have the manufacturing technology to make them in one piece. The hexagons were chosen as they are the simplest shape you can make, requiring the least amount of precise cuts that will not create a continuous line while retaining symmetry in two axises.

If they used a square you'd have noticeable lines in the image being produced, if they used any odd sided shape you would have an image that is brighter or darker on one of it's four sides. The hexagon is the simplest shape that does not create optical flaws.


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

[User] Why must two quantum mechanical observables have their commutator equal zero if they are to be simultaneously observable?

[Assistant]
If the operators commute, they can be simultaneously diagonalized (assuming they have non-degenerate spectra for simplicity). That means that they share a basis of eigenstates. If you have two operators A and B with [A,B] = 0, then you can express any state in your Hilbert space as a linear combination of states of the form |a,b>, where A|a,b> = a|a,b>, and B|a,b> = b|a,b>.

If you start with the state |a,b> and measure the value of observable B, you get b, and the system remains in the state |a,b>. Then if you subsequently measure A, you will get a, and the system will still stay in the state |a,b>. So you have simultaneously measured A and B; the state of the system never changed, and you know the value of both of these observables.


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

[User]
[Independence Day] How do the ships reach their target cities so quickly?

Throughout the movie, the City Destroyers are shown to be traveling very slow, yet in some instances, they are shown to arrive in a a city only a short time after they were said to be very far away.

One instance of this is when the President and his staff are watching coverage of a fireball (which contain the ships) near Novosibirsk, Russia, and the female news reporter says that the fireball is headed right for Moscow, around 2,000 miles away.

When David briefly watches some coverage of the ships over cities across the world, Moscow is shown with a ship. This was not long after the aforementioned scene above, probably not even an hour. If this was the same ship that was spotted in Novosibirsk, then it had to have traveled the 2,000 miles in the span of around 30-45 minutes.

[Assistant]
They look like they're moving slowly when seen from the ground, but in fact they're moving very quickly, possibly at near-sonic speeds, or even supersonic.

Ever looked up at the sky while a plane flies past?  The plane looks like it's pretty slow too, doesn't it?  You can visually track the movement of the plane without any problems.  And yet airplanes fly fast enough to traverse continents in a matter of hours.  Similarly, the alien ships appear to move slowly to observers at ground level because they're high up and far away.  In actuality, they're moving fast enough to rival the fastest airplanes.


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

[User]
(DC) Lantern Power rings

Can someone explain to me how the yellow rings work?i get that the other rings channel the power of a specific emotion, the power of fear always stuck out for me, i doubt any sinestro corps member is a fearful person, does that mean the rings feed off the of those who fear the ring user?

[Assistant]
Sort of. The yellow rings of the Sinestro Corp. Are powered by the ability to invoke fear in others. So people who have a strong grasp on the concept of fear itself and have can make others feel it get chosen for the Sinestro Corp.

Prime earth candidates are Batman (who didn't take it because he had already worn a green lantern ring very briefly so it kinda left him) and Jonathan Crane (scarecrow) as a 2nd choice.


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

[User] [Elden Ring] I noticed that when General Radahn does his gravity magic, electricity comes out of this effect. Is there any possible correlation between Gravity and Electricity?

[Assistant]
The electricity might just be because of the power of his magic/energy in the spell, rather than anything specific to electricity itself.

Radahn is not a weak mage, and gravity spells like his are far from subtle.


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

[User]
[DC/Marvel] Why aren't magic-users the "Ace-in-the-hole" against strong bad guys like Thanos, Darkseid, Doomsday?

If Superman is getting his face bashed in by Darkseid, can't Zatanna just say "Nrut dieskrad otni ynnub" and Darkseid is instantly immobilized as a furry bunny?

[Assistant]
Sometimes they are ex: Wanda almost murked Thanos in End Game. Took an orbital bombardment to stop her.

But, these guys aren't at the top of their food chain for nothing. Firstly, they're often backed by armies, if not planets full of loyal people, quite often employing magic users of their own.

Secondly, many of them *are* magic users themselves or at least are resistant or have learned enough to deal with the odd ball mage.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] What would Palpatine have done had Anakin refused to kill Dooku?

What if after cornering Dooku and cutting off his hand, Anakin punches him in the face, knocks him out, and detains him? How would Palpatine try to turn Anakin to the Dark Side from there?

[Assistant]
I know this isn't really the answer you're looking for, but what made Palpatine so great was that his foresight and planning was uncanny. He's been corrupting anakin for over a decade at this point. The chances of it not going down the way it did are nearly 1:infinity against.

That said, if Anakin weren't to do it, Papa Palpatine probably effortlessly offs the Jedi himself and has to engineer a new way to ~~escape~~ be rescued, of which im sure there are several. The point of this exercise wasn't to kill Dooku, it was to push Anakin over the edge and make him a thrall to Palpatine. It wasn't ultimately successful, but it was a yuge step.


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

[User]
CMV: Hate Speech Should Be Legal

I know that this topic has been covered before, but I've found myself lacking the answers I seek. I apologize in advance if anyone finds this topic redundant.

Hate speech is defined as "speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

1. I find this definition to be far too vague. By this definition, criticizing scientologists for stealing people's money could be considered hate speech. As could discussing biological differences between men and women.
2.  Banning hate speech would only entrench hateful people in their views. As soon as someone is silenced or targeted for their views, they are now the victims, which gives their views legitimacy. If a white supremacist is punished for speaking his mind, then he would see this as evidence of minorities taking away the white's rightful place as superior in society and further incite them to champion the white supremacy movement. If the goal is to create safe spaces, then banning hate speech is not the way to do it.

[Assistant]
>I find this definition to be far too vague.

Which is why the definition is extended and interpreted through specific legislation, precedent, and established legal principles.

>As soon as someone is silenced or targeted for their views, they are now the victims,

They may perceive themselves to be victims, but if what's being silenced is "Bring back lynching N-words", they're definitely not the actual victims.

>which gives their views legitimacy.

In what way does telling someone not to say something make that view more legitimate? Doesn't social censure generally correlate with ideas that are stupid and hateful?

>If a white supremacist is punished for speaking his mind, then he would see this as evidence of minorities taking away the white's rightful place as superior in society

Who cares what happens to someone's feeling that their superior position in society is owed to them?

>If the goal is to create safe spaces, then banning hate speech is not the way to do it.

The goal is to create spaces safe enough that people feel they can live their lives and advocate for their interests. It seems like taking harsher measures against racially-based threats could easily be part of achieving that.


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

[User] ELI5: What makes genetically modified foods so harmful to humans?

[Assistant]
**Nothing.** People are concerned they might be harmful to humans but there's been nothing showing they are.

We've been genetically modifying food for millenia through crossbreeding. Now science has gotten where we can genetically modify food by changing the genes directly and it's freaking people out.


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

[User]
How is Adlerian psychology regarded professionally? How common is its practice versus Freuds theories in therapy?

Im reading The Courage to be Disliked and it preaches the value of Adlers ideas, often in opposition to Freuds theories. I definitely see the value and have been convinced by many of the arguments, but Id love to know in academia and professional therapies, how do experts and practitioners actually value these theories? Is there evidence for or against its legitimacy? Just wanting to have some more perspective on it. Thanks!

[Assistant]
The vast majority of the things that both Adler and Freud thought are rejected by professionals in the field. In fact the vast majority of all original psychoanalytic thought is not considered science at all.

Karl Popper offered a definitive critique of both Adler and Freud in
SCIENCE: CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS. The main argument is that these theories are unfalsifiable -- that is, there is no way to test whether they are true.  Thus, while they may have intuitive appeal, so do horoscopes.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does time go "faster" as we grow older?

I realize it's most likely our perception of time that makes it seem to go faster. Or maybe time actually accelerates, but how would we know? Anyway, I recall being a first grader and thinking that being a senior was 12 years away and how it would take forever to get there. It seemed like it did. But at some point time began to fly by. Now at age 41 the weeks just seem to blink by and it seems to just get faster with age. Everyone I speak to has the same view. Why does this phenomenon happen?

[Assistant] When you were six, a year was 1/6 of your life.  The difference between you and an 18 year old was two times your entire life span, let alone how much of it you remembered.  Now, time seems to fly in comparison because you have more time under your belt.  A year is only 1/41 of your life, not 1/6.


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

[User]
[Injustice] Why did Superman do what he did?

Not sure if this sub covers games, or just shows/movies, but I've been wondering this for a while.  At the beginning of Injustice: Gods Among Us, Joker destroys the place and Superman goes insane and becomes a tyrant.  I'm just wondering why he didn't do the thing where he flies around the earth a ton of times to reverse time?  As far as I know, that was something he can do, is that no longer the case?

[Assistant]
Because Superman: The Motion Picture was working by Silver Age rules. In the Silver Age, Superman  traveled in time by breaking the speed of light. Now, he's not quite that fast, and can just barely push the speed of light. Even if he can break it, he's still not fast enough to shatter the time barrier by himself.

As it stands, only the Flash can do that anymore. And he does so very, very sparingly.