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

[User]
[Batman/DC Comics] Would The Joker find crime less fun and ultimately stop doing it altogether if Batman died?

Canonically, the reason for the Joker's actions is kind of all over the place. However, I think it's kind of clear that at least one reason for the Joker's madness is Batman. Is the Caped Crusader the main reason? If he died/just stopped crime fighting for whatever reason, would the Joker still find crime funny?

Side question: I can think of at least one comic where Batman is presumed dead (Batman RIP). Is there any other examples of situations like this, and does it ever show the Joker's reaction?

[Assistant]
In Dark Knight Returns Batman has been gone for years during which Joker has been institutionalized as nearly catatonic. Only after hearing that Batman came back he started actually speaking and moving (although he remained strangely ripped, the most buff joker in comics probably, despite not really doing anything lol :D) and his mancrush for Batman drove him out for one final fight.

So if Batman died, there would be no reason for Joker to do stuff anymore. Pretty much all portrayals of him had been like this. Batman is like his "best friend". The most he'd probably do in case someone else became Batman would be to actually try to kill him for being an impostor, as opposed to his fights with Bruce Wayne Batman whom he's not actually trying to kill for real. In some stories Joker is fully aware who Batman is under the mask and although he doesn't particularly care about blackmailing Batman or exposing him, he'd most likely wouldn't be entirely ok with someone else basically cosplaying the one real Batman.


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

[User]
[Marvel] In the comics, who does Thanos hate the most between Thor, Iron Man and Captain America?

Or do they just not interact in the comics?

[Assistant] Not that often. Thanos has dealt with Thor on far more occasions than he has Iron Man or Captain America. While Cap got a good speech when he confronted Thanos during the Infinity Gauntlet saga, he hasn't really been a major Thanos opponent.


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

[User] [LoTR] Who were the guys on the giant elephants and how did the orcs recruit them?

[Assistant]
The War of the Ring was not really a war between the orcs on one side and everyone else on the other. Sauron ruled only Mordor personally, but had a great many allies in the south and east who were intimidated, bribed with promises of power and wealth, or who simply had old feuds with Gondor; some of them may have genuinely believed Sauron's claims to divine status as well. While we don't know the exact numbers, it's likely that there were more humans fighting *for* Sauron at Minas Tirith than against him. This is in addition to the Corsair invasion of southern Gondor and the Easterling siege of Erebor that happened around the same time. Sauron was considered unstoppable not because of his personal power or the power of Mordor alone, but because he had managed to consolidate the sizable majority of Middle-earth into a single coalition intent on destroying Gondor and the elves.

Specifically, the Oliphaunts/mumakil were used by some of the Haradrim from the far south. The Haradrim had a long history of wars and border disputes with Gondor going back to the time of Numenorean hegemony during the Second Age. The Haradrim were also frequent allies of Corsairs of Umbar, who had been hostile towards Gondor ever since Umbar broke off from Gondor during the Kin-strife midway through the Third Age. So it wouldn't have been too difficult for an experienced manipulator like Sauron to convince the Haradrim to take up their old feuds again and invade Gondor alongside powerful allies from Umbar, Mordor, Khand, and Rhun.


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

[User] [DC]Could the flash go into super speed if he ran upside down with his hands???

[Assistant] Yes. His power is less "running fast" and more that he's forming a bubble around himself in which he can control the speed at which his actions happen. Usually, that amounts to running fast, since that's intuitive. But once he's in Flash mode he can move any part of his body at super speed, even if he's standing perfectly still.


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

[User] ELI5: What causes the moon to occasionally appear yellow?

[Assistant]
Think of white light being made up of all the colors of the rainbow equally. Since light from our Sun is essentially white, and our moon is dark grey (ie: no color), it reflects light back to us without any colors of light "lost". So it looks white. (To prove this to yourself, try shining a white-light flashlight on a black piece of construction paper in a dark room... the paper will look white).

However, the light must pass through our atmosphere before it reaches our eyes. As the white light passes through our atmosphere, some of it is scattered in different directions, but not equally across all the colors of the rainbow (spectrum). In fact, colors that are on the "blue" side of the rainbow get scattered much more easily than the "red" side. So by the time the light has made it to your eye, some of the blue light has been scattered away. Now the light has more "red" light than "blue" light left over, so it appears more reddish. You may be asking yourself "where did the blue light go?" -- well it got scattered in all directions and makes the sky look blue.

Ok, now to your question. The more air that white light passes through, the more blue light is scattered away, so it looks redder and redder. When you look at the Sun or Moon directly above your head, you are essentially looking through 1 "atmosphere" of air. However, since we live on a sphere, the closer they are to the horizon, the more "atmospheres" we are looking through. For example, when the Sun or Moon is just above our horizon, it is passing though nearly 30 "atmospheres" of air. That is a lot of blue light scattered away, which makes them both look much more red.

This effect is increased by other particulate matter in the air. So areas of heavy smog like cities or after volcanic eruptions, the Sun and Moon can look "redder" than usual.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Why does the bartender in the Mos Eisley cantina tell the droids that they won't be served there?

They can't drink anything (all they could need is power) so they wouldn't even have to be served and almost all droids don't/can't socialize so I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be allowed inside.

[Assistant] Well while what everybody else said about the Clone Wars is very possible. Another point could be just that, just like you said, they aren't going to buy anything. But they are taking up space, people might have animosity towards them, and if illegal things are happening it's easy for a droid to keep a record of it.


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

[User] ELI5: Where do you get the seeds to grow seedless watermelons?

[Assistant]
In a lot of seedless plants, you don't use seeds. You can propagate plants lots of other ways. Cuttings for instance.

However, in seedless watermelons, seeds actually are used. The seedless variety is a 'triploid' plant (3 sets of chromosomes), which can't produce viable seeds. It is produced by hybridizing diploid and tetraploid varieties of watermelon.


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

[User] ELI5: What a producer/executive producer/director/etc. role is in a movie.

[Assistant]
Executive Producer is usually the person who is investing the money in a film. Because they have the money, ultimately they are the "big boss." However - they may may not have much involvement with the day-to-day decision making in a film.

Producer is usually the person who CONTROLS the money, and is in charger of the business side of a film.  They are the boss who is involved on a daily basis running the film. They make hiring decisions, firing decisions, and may also have a significant amount of creative control.

The director is in charge of the creative side of a film. They have very limited control over any money - they ask for what they need and the producer and executive producer decide if the budget will allow that. The director tells both the people behind the camera (cinematographer, set designer, costume designer, musicians, etc) and those in front of the camera (actors) what to do on a minute-by-minute basis.  Everything you see on the screen, the director made a decision to put it there (within the limitations of the budget).

Generally, if a movie isn't any good, the blame falls squarely on the director - even though the director's decisions are guided - and often messed with - by the producer and executive producer, who remember: provide and control the money.

EDIT: Spelling and typos.


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

[User] ELI5: How come flies and other bugs can so easily get into my house through a small crack in the window but then freak the fuck out and aimlessly fly at the glass trying to get out?

[Assistant]
Flies and other insects are attracted to the carbon dioxide your body gives off, along with the smells of food and other household byproducts. This mixture of gasses flows out of the cracks in your house and gives the insects something to track down.

When they're trying to leave, there's nothing attracting them out, so they're just trying to follow the light and nothing else. Insects aren't intelligent enough to understand windows, so they stupidly bounce off over and over.


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

[User]
ELI5: If most cells in your body are recycled and replaced approximately every 7-10 years, why is there permanent damage from things like smoking?

I know that some cells are never replaced, but from what I am aware of, the time frame I stated is generally accurate.

[Assistant]
1) The replacements are not airdropped in by the Cell Fairy, any cell you have is produced by another cell dividing. And division working as it does, DNA damage is inherited by the child cell if the progenitor is damaged itself.

2) There's more than just cells in your body. For instance, the reason skin sags with age is due to damage to the extracellular proteins of the dermis that normally support the actual cells, or things like arteries clogging. A lot of these cannot be helped by replacing cells, but may be damaged by external factors.


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

[User] [Marvel's The Punisher] Why do Frank's coworkers talk shit to him? He's a huge angry man swinging a hammer, seems like a poor choice to try to pick on.

[Assistant]
Cuz he doesn't do or say anything back to them.

Contrary to the advice that some mothers give their kids, ignoring bullies doesn't work. It just means that bullies know you're good to insult in order to get a laugh from their friends.

In the case of Frank, it might have started with a little jab here and there from the bullies, and when Frank didn't answer back, they would have realized this guy was ripe to pick on and make fun of. He's 1 weird guy and they're a pack of guys. What's he gonna do?


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

[User]
How respected is Dennett as a philosopher?

He's a leading figure in the "new atheism" movement, the "brights" movement, and also said he has "come out of the closet as a verificationist," implying verificationism is a taboo of some sorts. (logical positivism I believe).

[Assistant] He is very well respected by philosophers. You can find him discussed in academic introductions to philosophy of mind, there are articles by major philosophers responding to his work, he speaks at philosophy conferences, etc.


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

[User] ELI5: If water expands when it freezes, why do my icecubes shrink in the tray?

[Assistant] Your ice cubes are suffering from "freezer burn" because of the extremely dry cold air in the freezer. Water can actually evaporate at all temperatures, even from the surface of solid ice. This is called sublimation.


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

[User]
ELI5: What is 'fitness'? As in, why is working out easier the more you work out?

Let's assume you have two twins. One gets regular exercise and hits the gym every day. The other is a couch potato. Let's also assume that the fitter twin eats more calories and does only cardio, so they more or less have similar weight and muscle mass. Still, the one who gets regular exercise is able to run for longer, will break less of a sweat and have a lower heart rate.

What are the physiological differences when someone is 'fit' versus 'out of shape'?

[Assistant]
When we do cardio, blood is more directed towards the muscles you are working out (and away from places that arent doing a whole lot at that time).

The blood flow is increased. The volume of blood is also increased when it is returning to the heart.

Over time, the left ventricle enlarges to adapt to the larger blood flow. Now this ventricle can hold more blood and eject more blood per beat (even when resting). This decreases the heart rate over time.

There is also evidence that exercise stimulates the production of new blood vessels. This creates more efficient circulation.

Also, there is evidence that at the same time that cardio increases the number of blood vessels, resistance training increases the size of those blood vessels. This allows for fewer blockages and more efficient blood flow.

The new blood flow (with fresh oxygenated blood) helps keep your other body parts healthy (like your organs).


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

[User]
ELI5: When we say that solar power is not (yet) efficient, what exactly do we mean?

Does this imply that the amount of energy used to produce a single panel is greater than the total amount of energy that panel will be able to generate in its lifetime? This is the only way I can see it being inefficient.

[Assistant]
Typically when using the word "efficiency" in a comparative fashion for energy production the measurement refers to the source-energy relative to the converted usable energy.  E.G. if gasoline has X amount of energy in it, the combustion engine can only create about X*.3 of that to its usable energy (movement, in this case).

A solar panel converts about 20ish percent of the suns energy.  If we compare that to other forms of _electricity_ production (the most reasonable analogue for your not-well-defined statement) then we'd be saying that "compared to the efficiency of capture of energy from coal and conversion to electricity, solar panels are significantly less efficient".

The REASON we might emphasize this statement however is that increasing efficiency of the panel in this dimension is correlated with requiring less physical space, likely high return on investment of actual purchase of the panels and so on.  Its perceived that improved efficiency - amongst other things - is the path towards more economic viability for widespread solar.


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

[User] ELI5: What happens to surplus political funds if a campaign ends prematurely?

[Assistant]
Assuming you're taking about the U.S.:

There are a number of options. These apply to both candidates for office who drop out before the election, lose the election, or retire, and still have funds left over.

1. The campaign can save the money in case the candidate chooses to run again.
2. The campaign can donate the money to PACs and SuperPACs
3. The campaign can donate the money to national, state, and local party committees
4. The campaign donate directly to other candidates election campaigns
5. The campaign can donate to funds to charities
6. The campaign can return the funds to the donors

The one thing that's *not* allowed is for the candidate to keep the money for personal use.

Edit: Since people keep bringing it up, candidates can't *directly* transfer money from a campaign account to a personal bank account, but if they want that money, obviously there are some loopholes and unethical yet legal (or at least not illegal) ways to get it.


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

[User]
In regards to projectile motions, why can the initial velocity of the object found at one angle be used to solve for variables at different?

What I mean by that is if we have the initial velocity for an object being thrust outward at a specified angle, what proof do we have to say that we can use that initial velocity to theoretically solve for say, the distance the object will travel at a different launch angle or the time the object will be in the air for a different angle?

[Assistant]
Newton's second law is a second-order differential equation because the highest derivative that occurs is the second. (Acceleration is the second derivative of position.) Generally, the order of the differential equation tells you how many arbitrary constants appear in the most general solution. Newton's second law is really a vector equation, which gives you three equations total (one each for the *x*-, *y*-, and *z*- directions). Since 3 x 2 = 6, the general solution has 6 arbitrary constants, 2 for each of the 3 directions.

This means that the motion of the projectile is completely determined by:

* *The form of Newton's second law.* In this case, we simply have **a** = -g**z** since the only force is gravity, which points down.
* *The initial velocity.* You are given **v***_0_* which is really 3 separate numbers (the components in each of the three directions).
* *The initial position.* You are given **r***_0_* which is really 3 separate numbers (the components in each of the three directions).

For projectile motion under uniform gravity, we usually confine the motion to two dimensions, the horizontal and vertical directions. (In other words, we assume that projectile moves only in the *x*- and *z*-directions.) So we really only need 4 total numbers, 2 numbers from the initial velocity and 2 numbers from the initial position. The initial position we usually just say is (0,0). That is, we put the origin wherever the projectile starts. So all that we need to fully describe the motion are the *x*- and *z*- components of the initial velocity. But those components can also be written as:

> v*_x_* = v cos()

> v*_z_* = v sin()

That is, giving the initial velocity is equivalent to giving the speed *v* and the launch angle . Hence the motion is completely determined by the speed and the launch angle.


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

[User]
What are the arguments against giving free things to cover basic necessities for everyone?

The 7 basic things that every human being requires to prosper are Food, water, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and protection. What happens if we give all the 7 things for free to everyone, like basic rudimentary food like bread and butter or a liquid diet like soylent, basic ultra-cheap clothes that you can buy in Walmart like the 3.67$ Hanes shirts.

We are already providing police protection, fire protection to everyone. Why can't we do it for the rest of the needs? Since this morning I have been thinking about all the free stuff that I receive in any country. The first thing that came to my mind is Police protection. Even if I was a homeless person, I could pretty much approach the police to seek protection. Even if I had absolutely no money and I was in a burning building, the fireman would still show up and save me for free. They wouldn't check my Fico score before deciding if I deserve to be pulled out of the burning building or not right? Similarly, why can't we do the same to other basic things that people need?

I tried to think of a few reasons why people who say this could be bad:

1. If abuse of this free stuff is the concern, then the first thing that comes to my mind is that if you frequently call 911 without an actual emergency, they will come and arrest you. Similarly, if you frequently request free clothes or food, you could be denied these services. There are ways to prevent abuse.
2. Just because a 3.67$ basic shirt is available for free, it wouldn't prevent people from buying more expensive shirts, like a 12$ shirt. I wouldn't wear the 3.67$ shirt to the office as it makes me look cheap. But if I was homeless and that is all I had, I would happily use that. Similarly just because there is a police force available, most organizations don't exclusively rely on them. They hire private securities for their buildings and such.
3. Producing these free things cannot be such a horrendous task. We train police officers and firemen all the time and they are actually paid to receive the training. Training a human being to fight crime/fire cannot be more challenging than producing the 3.67$ Hanes shirts for the masses.
4. People won't become lazy just because they are given a free 3.67$ shirt to wear. In fact, some of us would see this as a prestige issue and work harder to buy a 12$ shirt to prove that they are successful. In fact, I think more people would be able to work harder if they are not scared of becoming homeless. If you take care of the basic needs, more people would be emboldened to go down the entrepreneurial route. I personally would quit my job and try to start a company that would benefit people, animals, and the environment if I wasn't scared of becoming homeless. The fact that I have to work to survive is what is keeping me tethered to my job.
5. Some may ask, who would manufacture these if everyone is guaranteed these basic things. Well, like I said in point 2. Some of us will not be happy with a 3.67$ shirt, eating only bread and butter every day and living in the most basic house imaginable. Some of us have the drive to excel in life and accomplish things that would differentiate us from the rest of the people. Human pride would propel a certain group of people to seek employment in warehouses where they produce these goods.
6. There will be a population explosion. Sure, we are 7.5 billion people currently, we will become a trillion people. At least 1000 of these trillion would be smart enough to figure out how to terraform Mars. The way I see it, the more the births, the more is a chance of a genetic miracle. Who knows 10,000 years from now, humans will evolve to have an extra lobe in their brains thanks to the extreme population growth!

Surely I must not be the first person to have thought of these things. Can someone tell me why providing basic things for free is a bad idea? On the contrary imagine there is a guy somewhere in the world right now, whose only goal for today is to find food. Who knows this one particular guy has the potential to cure cancer or solve global warming or do something to benefit everyone. But! He is currently busy looking for food or shelter. Imagine what he would accomplish if we solve his problem!

[Assistant]
Many countries provide a lot of these things for "free" to those that need it. They have government programs for homeless shelters, unemployment assistance, provision of food, clothing, etc.

It's perfectly possible and really more a question of how a government decides to use their resources.

As for why not everything and not for everyone, well that gets expensive and likely inefficient. People that are well off enough to supply their own clothing can just buy their own clothes instead of government provided ones they might not even like.

You're also looking at pretty vast amounts of central planning to provide for example homes for everyone. Not only would that mean high taxes, it's also exceptionally difficult to know what people want and how to allocate resources efficiently.
 *Generally*, market forces do a pretty decent job at that, because people (in a very simplified sense) basically govern their own needs and their supply. If people want red shirts, demand for red shirts goes up, which eventually leads to a higher supply of red shirts. Doing this "by hand" efficiently is a very high hurdle and it's not very realistic that you could actually implement a system that does this as well as it happens now.


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

[User]
Prisons don't work - CMV

So basically my belief is that criminals should not be sent to prison except if they are an active danger to society, like if they are a paedophile or a serial killer.

In school we learned that there are 4 "reasons" we might send someone to prison. Retribution, Isolation, Rehabilitation, Deterrance. I think Isolation is the only valid reason.

* Retribution because obviously wrongdoers deserve to be punished, yes? I don't buy this because I think the justice system can't sink to the level of a criminal. It's hypocritical if sentencing laws sanction wrong action to be taken against a criminal because they've done wrong. Two wrongs making a right in the justice system undermines the whole idea of right and wrong and it would be better on principle if the justice system led by example. It's a justice system, not a revenge system.
* Deterrence because obviously, people who would become criminals might not want to be sent to prison, and so might modify their behaviour so that they are not sent to prison. This argument, while it makes sense, is not empirically true. States in the US with the death penalty have just as high murder rates as States without it. This is because a lot of crimes are committed opportunistically or in the heat of the moment: the majority of people don't think rationally through the consequences before they commit a crime.
* Rehabilitation - because in prison a criminal learns discipline and can learn from his mistakes. This is also not empirically true. Prisons can form "colleges of crime" where minor offenders come out of prison worse than when they went in because they learn from more serious offenders how best to commit crime. Reoffending rates of prison sentences are much higher than that of community service orders and a lot of criminals even prefer the routine of prison compared to the instability that exists in many of their home lives on the outside.

Lastly, prison is extremely costly and overcrowded. In the UK, it costs nearly 40,000 pounds (more than a whole year's salary for a lot of people) to incarcerate them. In addition, the prisons are overcrowded, but when you consider that 66% of the prison population is only there for 6 months or less for minor offences, it makes more sense to use alternatives to prison such as community service. They are cheaper, and reduce re offending more. CMV

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**EDIT:** So in the course of debate a number of things have come up. The first point is that without prison, because of the lack of a deterrent/retributive punishment two things will happen. Crime will increase because people don't mind getting caught and that the families of victims, unhappy with a lack of righteous punishment, will take the law into their own hands and dish out their own brand of less righteous punishment. So that everyone is up to speed, my answers have been that there is no excuse for vigilanteism and people must respect the rule of law. If they can't abide by this and they break the law they pose a threat to society and should therefore be jailed to isolate them. This isn't by any means the only solution, but is the first one I thought of.

The second point is that Community service is a "cop-out" punishment that will breed resentment towards the judicial system. I need to clarify a few things here. Community service is by no means the only alternative to a custodial sentence. Probation, a suspended sentence, tagging, curfews, generalised restrictions of liberty and "restorative justice" (a sentence that is used especially in cases of young offenders where they have to talk to their victims and in so doing learn the true consequences of their actions) are all available to the courts. I am assuming that the courts would choose an appropriate variety of these for the same length of time as the comparable prison sentence, just as they current choose an appropriate sentence under the current system.

[Assistant] The retribution argument may seem problematic for the reasons you state, however, your alternative could cause an increase in violence.  People who have violent crimes committed against them and their families often feel the need for retribution.  When a government incarcerates someone for a period of years, people can feel like the government has taken care of the problem, even if all they're doing is locking the problem away.  If on the other hand, you have a murderer or rapist walking free and simply doing community service, people will not feel like that person got what was deserved.  Their family was hurt, and all that happened was the criminal simply had to work off the crime.  Their desire for retribution unfulfilled, they may then take matters into their own hands.  Why not kill someone who murdered your child if you know that all that will happen to you is more community service?  As problematic as the government punishing people is, its better than having punishment handled by the people who were harmed directly.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do houses in Tornado Alley rarely have basements?

I live in Minnesota, and we rarely get tornados (compared to OK or KS at least), but we pretty much all have basements. Why don't all houses/apartments have interior basements instead of exterior shelters?

[Assistant]
The type of ground in the area is red clay, which is extremely hard to dig through. This makes it very very costly to dig basements, especially for large buildings like apartments and schools.

Sad as it is, the cost is so high as to be prohibitive when it comes to tornado emergency shelters. Tornadoes are rare, short-lived, and almost never as destructive as the one from yesterday. Most large buildings are built to withstand up to an EF3, which protects against most tornadoes.


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

[User]
CMV: The U.S. presidential debates should be formatted more like longer form, intellectual debates held at universities.

Most of you probably watched the disastrous debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. In my opinion, the only way in which you could consider it a debate is that it features two participants who were against each other regarding their politics, or fighting to win over the viewers to their party. Other than that, it really cant be considered a debate. It was extremely informal, there were not many solid arguments being given, they only had two minutes to speak, the moderator was incredibly active (which isnt bad, its just not *usual*), there wasnt a clearly structured cross-examination of the opponents, and there werent any questions taken from the audience (again, not bad considering the circumstances, just not usual).
This wasnt the only problem with the debate, however. The main problem is that it was not intellectually stimulating. It was banter. Unorganized, talking-point-oriented banter.
*What needs to happen*
The citizens of this country deserve a real, intellectual debate. Here is a rough idea:
Side 1: 10 minutes of uninterrupted introduction (the contestant must lay out their arguments)
Side 2: 10 minutes of uninterrupted introduction (same as above)
Side 1: 5 minutes of response time
Side 2: 5 minutes of response time
1: 2 minutes
2: 2 minutes
1: Question for 2, 2 gets 2 minutes to answer
2: Question for 1, 1 gets 2 minutes to answer
Maybe repeat questioning?
Audience questions (this would look more like the presidential debates we have seen).
Dont grill me on my knowledge of debate construction, I know its not perfect. My main point is that, in order to really be able to decide who is educated, and who will perform better as president, we need an intellectual debate, not banter.
Change my view!!!

[Assistant]
The issue is that your main critique is of the substantive offerings of each debater (talking points, ad hominem attacks, lack of real cross-examination, etc) and that isnt really a feature of the structure of the debate. What you proposed wouldnt change that.

The problem is that the candidates arent really trying to win a debate in the traditional sense. They are trying to create favorable media clips for themselves, generate enthusiasm for their side, embarrass their opponent, etc.... but never to convince some unbiased judge theyve made the strongest case.


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

[User] ELI5: If hand sanitizer kills 99.9% of germs, what stops us from using that all of the time instead of hand washing?

[Assistant]
TLDR: Hand sanitizer kills bacteria and viruses but it doesn't wash it away, so it leaves the dead and living ones on your skin.

Soap and water are actually scientifically proven to be better at killing bacteria and viruses than hand sanitizer.

In addition to killing bacteria and viruses soap traps dirt and fragments of the destroyed virus in tiny bubbles called micelles, which wash away in water. In tandem, some soap molecules disrupt the chemical bonds that allow bacteria, viruses and grime to stick to surfaces, lifting them off the skin.

So while alcohol based hand sanitizers do kill bacteria by breaking down their exteriors, they don't do nearly as good a job at washing them away from your skin.

Hand sanitizer was invented to be used only when hand washing wasn't available. But due to it's popularity and convenience people make the mistake of assuming that it's better than washing your hands, which it's not.


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

[User] ELI5: How does counting cards work?

[Assistant]
In blackjack, you are much more likely to beat the dealer using a deck that has more "big" cards (aces, face cards and 10's) and less "small" cards (2's, 3's, and 4's). One of the reasons for this is that the dealer *must* take another card when he has a hand of 16 or less, so the more high cards there are left in the deck, the better his chances of going over 21 and losing, while a lot of low cards means he has a good chance of getting a very strong hand, like a 19 or a 20. Another reason is that a lot of aces and 10's mean more blackjacks (two-card 21's) for players, which pay out more money than just winning the hand. Because of this, if you know there are a lot of high cards in the deck, you should bet more, and if you know there are a lot of low cards in the deck, you should bet less.

The easiest way to count cards is to just keep one number in your head. When a new deck is used, start at the number 0, and watch every card as it is played. Every time you see an ace, a face card or a 10 played, subtract one from your count. Every time you see a 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 played, add one. That way you keep a pretty good idea of what kind of cards are left in the deck. If your count is at -6, for example, you know that there are more small cards left in the deck than big cards, so you should make a small bet. If your count is +8, you know there are many more big cards left than small cards, so you should make a very large bet.


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

[User] [MCU] How did Tony Stark survive getting elbowed in the face & punched in the chest by Bucky Barnes, a Super Soldier?

[Assistant]
The same way anybody survives getting punched by anybody?

Bucky could have killed him if he tried to snap his neck or something, but he didn't, he went for an elbow and a punch, both of which are easily survivable, albeit with damages.

Tony may have needed a doctor and or surgeon later (I hear this guy named Stephen is a miracle worker) but he had the money to pay for it, and would have been fine.


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

[User] [DC Comics] What was the occasion that made Superman most consider taking a life without actually going through with it?

[Assistant]
Kingdom Come, already mentioned, is a good answer, but as it's set in a possible future where Superman has been through quite a lot of emotional duress...

In the mainstream continuity (or what passes for it) it was probably Mongul using the Black Mercy on him. He got so righteously pissed that he blasted the bastard full force with heat vision, and heat vision is something he normally reserves as a utility/tool not an outright weapon.


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

[User]
[MCU] What wouldve happened if big tech companies managed to get their hands on the chitari tech leftover from the first Avengers movie?

Considering how advance the Vulture suit is, what wouldve happened if companies like Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, Sony, etc. were able to get most of the remains out of there before Damage Control cleaned those areas/struck a deal with crooked workers from Damage Control to gain access to the remaining chitari tech? How far more advance would the MCUs technology be compared to our earths?

[Assistant]
Most movies and TV series since the first Avengers movie at some point feature Chitauri tech being used by third parties, usually villains. If leftover Hydra bases or small time crooks like the Vulture can can their hands on that stuff, then big corporations definitely can as well.

Whatever they've got, they're probably doing similar stuff Hydra did, though probably for less nefarious purposes: research, then slowly incorporate their findings into their products, without too big leaps to not raise suspicion.


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

[User] [Harry Potter] I've created two horcruxes. Does each have a third of my soul, or does the first one have half while the second one has a quarter?

[Assistant]
This assumes that every time you make a horcrux, the division is somehow based on halving something. There's actually no source for that, though.

It may very well be that both horcruxes have 5% of your soul, leaving you with 90%. Or maybe one ends up "heavy" and has a whopping 37%, whereas the second is lighter and only has 3%, leaving you with 60%

Hell, you might even end up the minority: do it strongly, and some of your horcrux might end up with vastly more of your soul than you have.


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

[User] [General Fantasy] Why can people usually only wear 1 or 2 magic rings, and never more than 1 enchanted necklace?

[Assistant]
Magic works by creating powerful emanations in the fabric of reality. Keeping too many such items too close to each other for too long invites all manner of mishaps and danger, as the Weave twists beyond its natural limit.

On the upside, this provides a useful shorthand for detecting phony mages. If a magician has lots of rings on their fingers, or dozens of bangles and necklaces, and claims more than a few of them are enchanted, then they are clearly lying to bolster the appearance of their (most likely non-existent) powers.


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

[User]
[DC] What opinion did the average Metropolis citizen have of Lex Luthor?

I know he's been involved in some shady stuff, and he always seems to be beefing with Superman, but is Lex really that bad? I mean, I've worked for LexCorp since I graduated. LexCorp benefits paid for my kid's braces. Seems like a good guy to me.

[Assistant]
The average Metropolis citizen likes him.  He's a successful businessman who's constantly pushing the boundaries of science, he's accepted as one of the most brilliant minds in both science and business.  Think Jeff Bezos if he was handsome and also one of the world's top scientists.

Sure, Lex beefs with Superman, but he gives a pretty good reason for it.  Reliance on Superman is making humanity unable to stand on its own.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does a sphere have the lowest surface area out of all 3D shapes for a given volume?

[Assistant] Think of it this way. If you start with a sphere and then poke any portion in or out, you create an irregularity which needs more material. The bit of material right at the corner or edge holds little volume and is wasteful. Eliminating all the corners and edges leaves no wasteful bits to remove.


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

[User]
Does earth's magnetic field affect electronics?

I know that if you put a magnet near a flash drive it can erase memory, also near CRT moniters it can distort the picture but how does earth's magnetic field affect things?

[Assistant]
Static magnetic fields don't affect flash drives, which store data as charge on floating gates. They can affect hard disk drives however, as these store data in the magnetic orientation of bits. The magnetic fields in question are much stronger than Earth's, so it wouldn't have any appreciable effect.

In general you need very sensitive electronics for Earth's magnetic field to have any effect. This is used e.g. in Hall probes, which are designed specifically for measuring magnetic fields.

Non-static (i.e., quickly varying) magnetic fields can affect electronics though, because varying magnetic fields induce voltages in circuits. This isn't relevant in the case of Earth's field (which only varies over very long time scales). An exception could be if your device is spinning around sufficiently fast, as it would then "see" a rotating (and thus varying) mangetic field in its frame of reference.


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

[User] ELI5: what are Canker sores and why do they hurt so bad?

[Assistant] Canker sores are small sores (which is like a cut or opening) on the inside of your mouth, interestingly we are not quite sure why they appear although they seem to come more when people are stressed, with a certain ingredient in some toothpastes, and seem to run in family's (but are luckily not contagious). They hurt so much because the area becomes inflamed which means puffed up with blood so your body can heal it, sometimes your nerves which are what make you feel pain confuse the puffiness and pressure with more damage to the area.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] Why is the Federation so Human-centric?

At that time of the Federation's creation the founding species all seem to have fairly distinctive ship designs, and most of the species are more advanced than humans in multiple areas.  Yet if we look at essentially any TNG era vessel, it's pretty obvious that the designs draw more inspiration from NX-01 than from any of the non-human vessels.

Additionally, humans seem to dominate Starfleet.  NCC-1701D does seem to have a pretty good mix of alien species, but I'd still estimate that over 80+% of the crew is human.  I know there are some Vulcan crewed ships, as well as Vulcan captains and admirals, but where are all the other races in the upper command structure of the Federation?

[Assistant]
Starfleet was an Earth organization before the Federation was founded. Humans were the key to uniting the other founding races of the Federation. Andorians, Tellarites and Vulcans all had a strong dislike of each other, for example.

Because Humans were the uniting force, it makes sense that the Federation would be founded on Earth (neutral ground) and that Starfleet (a neutral organization) would evolve to include members from all Federation worlds, rather than say, the Vulcans or Andorians becoming the primary space fleet of the Federation.

I would imagine that Federation member worlds still maintain their own fleets of ships. Your average Andorian could choose to join the Imperial Guard, or decide to join Starfleet. Humans, on the other hand, would have to join Starfleet if they wanted to do anything more glamorous than work on a merchant ship, which accounts for their higher numbers on Starfleet ships.


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

[User]
ELI5: how is light made

My 4 year old asked about the sun and light bulbs. Describing the mechanisms (hydrogen or electricity) and why they, as opposed to other chemicals, make brightness totally threw me for a loop.

[Assistant] All objects emit electromagnetic radiation according to their temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter the wavelength of that radiation. Warm human bodies emit infrared radiation, which is longer waves than visible light. A hot iron emits red visible light. The lightbulb wire and the Sun emit yellow-white light.


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

[User]
[Despicable me] What even are minions

Do they grow old cuz ive never seen an old minion like ever

Does gru give them dental care?? Cuz some of them have braces in rise of gru

AND if they have braces, do they have the same type of teeth as humans? Do they have minion dentists??!!

[Assistant]
They seem eternal- they've existed as long as life has, having sprung fully formed from the micobiological soup of early earth, and seem to be fully unkillable by any means.

Bizarrely, they're honestly closer to eldritch abominations then any other fictional archetype. Just really stupid and asinine eldritch abominations that the Necronomicon doesn't deign to comment on.


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

[User]
ELI5: In German we have a saying: "Wein und bier das rat ich dir, bier und wein da sag ich nein." Translates to "Wine and beer I'd recommend, beer and wine I must say no". Basically, why does it matter what type of alcohol you drink before another type of alcohol?

The saying is absolutely true for me. If I drink even one glass of wine after a beer, I pretty much always have to puke.

Similarly, the same problem exists for me between alcohol and weed. If I smoke and then drink, I'm good (really good). But if I drink and THEN smoke, my brain starts spinning.

What exactly is happening?

[Assistant]
In English we say "Beer before liquor, never sicker. Liquor before beer, never fear."

The fact is, though, that there's no scientific evidence to support the idea that the order of your drinks makes any difference in how you feel after.

For people who think they notice a trend, it probably has to do with what other behaviors they engage in depending on what kind of alcohol they're starting with.  Whether or not they're eating food, or drinking water, how active they are, etc.


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

[User] [Marvel/DC] What low-level comic relief villains have the potential to become serious threats if they take themselves seriously?

[Assistant] Considering the resources at his disposal, the Riddler could be the world's most dangerous cybercriminal if he could just break out of his obsession with outsmarting Batman. Of course, he could also become a capable hero as well.


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

[User] ELI5 Why do we still have allergies if humans have lived around plants for a long time?

[Assistant]
So many things. So many, many things.

For example: You can be allergic to plants that are not native to where you spent most of your life. There are people who are allergic to pineapple. Bananas.

If it doesn't remove you from life, and you have kids, they might inherit the same allergies.

Emergency medical care often saves people from anaphylactic shock.

We have allergies to different things. To different plants. That's why many are seasonal.

It's a cruel world.


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

[User]
[Event Horizon] Does the ending mean anything?

When the door closes after Starck's hallucination, does that mean the ship is still possessed or is a just a convenient way to roll credits?

[Assistant] You don't need eyes to see the ship is still alive. You can't destroy the ship with something as petty as seperation or explosives - it's been to places you can't imagine, defied space and time. The dimensional gateway means that every inch of it is alive. Do you see how the evil can't be slain without every inch of it being annihilated? Even with the gate closed, half the ship went to hell - and the other half waited, like a trapdoor spider. It can probably take them all back with it even without the drive now.


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

[User]
[Edge Of Tomorrow] What did Cages fellow soldiers make of him in the latter timelines?

In the latter timelines, Cage is a courageous, heroic, badass soldier.

However, his fellow soldiers would have heard that he was a cowardly deserter (or at least Bill Paxton did).

How did they reconcile the difference? A misunderstanding of some sort?

[Assistant]
While Cage did become more heroic and well let's  face it, a better person, he was always a bit brash and arrogant. In the latter stages his fellow soldiers would probably have thought that he pissed off the wrong person, said the wrong thing, and was busted down to the front lines. Honestly not much different than what happened at the beginning. The only difference is that now Cage could prove that he was at least capable on the battlefield

In the end, to the soldiers, it was just a case of social politics.


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

[User] What is that keeps the carbonation from escaping sodas? Most gasses escape liquids almost immediately but it seems like soda doesnt get flat until you shake it or leave it open for a day or two.

[Assistant]
All the others answers seem to have missed the point of the question. Obviously while the soda can is closed the gas won't escape it, but the question seems to address the fact that it may take hours before all the gas is released from the liquid phase when the soda can is opened.

The slow diffusion rate is explained by the existence of a acid-base equilibrium in the liquid phase parallel with the vapour-liquid equilibrium. The fact that carbon dioxide reacts in aqueous solution to form carbonic acid means its effective liquid solubility is much higher than those of inert gases. That results in a more balanced relation between the absorption rate (gas into liquid) and the stripping rate (liquid to gas). That will keep your soda carbonated for a longer period!


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

[User] ELI5: Why does sunrise look so much different than sunset?

[Assistant] At sunrise the air is often calm and still and cold while at sundown the wind is blowing and the air is heated after a days worth of sun. This means that at sundown there are often more particles in the atmosphere which contributes to the light scattering. These differences make for different appearences in sunrise and sunset.


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

[User] I sincerely believe that gay couples cannot be as effective of parents as straight couples because kids need a healthy dose of both male and female guidance in their lives. CMV.

[Assistant]
Barack Obama was raised by a single mother with help from his Grandparents. Millions of single parents raise healthy and loving children and many heterosexual couples fuck up their children by being horrible people to each other.

Kids need love and guidance, not gender bias.


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

[User] ELI5: How do magnetics remove tape footage?

[Assistant] Imagine pencils arranged in a certain way to say something- like a big letter A. That letter A represents the data on the tape. When you run a magnet over the tape, its like swiping your hand through that letter A of pencils. The pencils go every which way, and you won't know what it was by looking at it.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Say I'm regular guy who want to be an X-wing fighter in the rebellion. How do I get there?

*Either Canon/Legends is fine.*

I'm a galactic citizen, who saw through the Empire's propaganda and decided to join up with the rebellion. I know a guy how knows a Sullustan who knows a guy to get me in contact with the Rebels.

I want to be a pilot. I'm reasonably well educated. Not really a top expensive education, like those spoiled Moff's brats get, but I got a decent basic schooling.

How do I go about becoming a pilot? Can I get an flight education in the rebellion, or should I prepare myself in an other way? Will I get training missions before flying into a swarm of TIE-fighters, or is it more of a "natural selection".

I've heard that even moisture farmers with zero spaceflight hours get a crack at it in a cockpit and I figure I can do that as well.

[Assistant]
Fighter pilot is one of the most desired, and most difficult, jobs in any military.

A state-supported military, like the one fielded by the Empire, can be very selective about who they put in a cockpit, because they have an abundance of volunteers. In fact, the Empire has so many people volunteering for their military that you'd almost think they were being forced at gunpoint. And these volunteers are so excited about their mission that they're willing to go into battle without shield generators, because that sissy-boy "protection" would just slow them down.

The Rebellion has to be more careful. Both X-Wings and pilots are hard to come by, and represent a massive expense for the poorly-funded, rag-tag bunch of rebels.

Anyone can apply to be a fighter pilot, sure, but expect to demonstrate your skills before they toss you in the driver's seat of a multi-million credit war machine. This can involve flying through simulations, completing training missions, or having experience flying your own vehicle in combat. Of course, this can be sidestepped if you have a Princess to vouch for your abilities.

Once you're selected for the squad, you're put under the command of the Lead wingman, who will see to your training. You'll be assigned an X-Wing and an astromech, unless you happened to pick one up on a desert planet or something, and you'll have to train regularly to keep your skills sharp.

But don't worry. The targeting computers do most of the hard work. It's not like you can just switch that off or anything ...


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

[User] ELI5: How do tails on animals help their balance?

[Assistant]
Stand on one foot and keep your arms at your sides. How hard is it to balance?

Now stick your arms out. How easy is it to balance now?

If you had a tail to stick out too, can you see why this might help you balance?

It allows finer control over your center of balance.


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

[User]
I believe that all drugs should be legal, CMV.

I believe that until we are free to do what we want to with our own bodies and our own lives we do not have true personal freedom. This belief extends into gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion, and a lot of other things for me but for the sake of this argument I'm just focusing on drugs. I don't see how it's the government's business to pass laws on what chemicals we put into our own bodies, period. I think if America erased the drug laws, stopped incarcerating people for nonviolent drug offenses, and instituted a focus on a world-class drug rehabilitation system we would see a revolution in people's attitudes and habits regarding them. I think what's happening in America with people voting on marijuana decriminalization is a sign that the culture is starting to realize that we need to deal with drug use in a more responsible, educated, and mature way. If you think you can change my views on this I'd love to hear your argument.

(Ninja grammar edit)

[Assistant]
What happens if there's a substance which, if ingested, makes you dangerous and unstable to be around? You certainly have a responsibility not to harm others needlessly. By extension, do you not have a responsibility to prevent yourself from being in a state or opportunity in which you know you are likely to harm others?

Consider laws against such drugs analogous to laws against drunk driving. If drinking alcohol always incurred the risks to other people that drunk driving does, wouldn't it be a good idea to make such a thing illegal? Even if it turns out not to be the case, and that such laws would do more harm than good, the wrong here is *not* in wanting to ban such a drug- it's that the ban is ineffective. There may exist drugs for which no possible use is responsible.


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

[User]
[X-Men] If Cyclops Powers Never Shut Off, Does Everyone Around Him Just Hear Constant Noise?

If his beams are only being blocked by his visor, does everyone around him hear constant crackling of energy?

[Assistant] His eyebeams are pure kinetic energy and so are silent, except where they interact with matter.  The visor keeps them contained so they don't interact with enough matter to create much sound.  At most, you might hear a faint humming from his visor or glasses.


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

[User]
Would so-called generation ships be unethical under various sorts of ethics?

A generation ship is a sci-fi concept where, in order to travel incredibly large distances, a spaceship is loaded with volunteers who will die before arriving at the destination. The idea is that the volunteers will have and educate children who in turn will do the same until the destination is reached.

My gut reaction is that this is an unethical thing to do. It seems wrong to knowingly create a situation where humans will be forced to man a ship their whole lives, never to see Earth.

I was wondering how it changed under different ethical theories. First, I think it would be unethical according to Kantian ethicists, as the yet-to-be-born children are being used as a means to an end, whether that end be simple exploration or not keeping all of humanities eggs in one basket.

Would answering the question of whether such a ship were ethical under a utilitarian ethical theory require answering questions about the likelihood of success, the imminence of Earth's demise, or the likelihood that other means of travel could be developed later? I don't really know where to start with this one, but it seems as though it could be ethical under certain circumstances.

I'd love to get some feedback on which sorts of ethical theories forbid, permit, or require generation ships.

[Assistant]
>It seems wrong to knowingly create a situation where humans will be forced to man a ship their whole lives, never to see Earth.

How is this significantly different than our creating political situations where we will be forcing our offspring to 'man' society their whole lives, likely never living themselves in the ideal and peaceful future state we are trying to reach?


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

[User] ELI5: Why do bug bites create these weird bumps?

[Assistant] The bug generally injects you with something - anticoagulant so that it can get the blood out, numbing agent so that you don't feel the bite and slap it - different things.  Those things contain foreign proteins which trigger a histamine reaction exactly like hives, and that floods the area with extra fluid, making a hard bump.


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

[User]
In a Feynman diagram, as two particles get to close together a force carrier gets sent from one particle to another, they interact and bounce apart. How do the particles know when to send off the force carrier? Is it some sort of quantum effect?

Let's take 2 electrons for instance. They come close to each other and a photon is then sent from one electron to another. Electrons can't possibly be constantly spewing out photons because they will eventually vaporize. So then how does the electron know when it's in close proximity of another electron to send out a photon?

[Assistant]
Feynman diagrams are merely a mathematical tool, nothing more. In order to get a good description, you need to sum up all possible Feynman diagrams for a process, containing all sorts of complicated loops.

In reality, there is no such thing as a virtual particle. Really, an electron just carries an electromagnetic field (since it has electric charge), and that em. field also has to obey the laws of quantum field theory.


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

[User] [Sci-fi General] When Starships make long journeys, do they travel in short hops to avoid collisions with large objects, or can the ship bank up/down/left/right to a limited extent while at warp/hyperspace in order to avoid things?

[Assistant] You might be under the misapprehension that there's enough matter hanging around in space for this to be a problem.  Space is big.  Real big.  For the vast majority of any journey there's a whole lot of nothing.  Large objects are vanishingly rare.


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

[User]
CMV: I want to get a vasectomy at 24.

Hey! My parents are super duper confused why I want this, and are worried I havent heard enough opinions disagreeing with me.

I have talked to probably three dozen people of a variety of ages, backgrounds, and child status. So far Im still very certain, but want to do my due diligence seeking alternative views.

My reasoning:

1.	I do not enjoy being around kids for more than half an hour. I have great nieces and nephews, and I have been a small group leader, camp counselor, etc. This is not due to lack of familiarity.

2.	I havent ever wanted kids, and as I get older I am only more certain of this. I exclusively date those who dont want them as well to avoid that conflict.

3.	I do not want to take on the responsibility of raising kids.

4.	I value my time, money, freedom, and waking up whenever on weekends/traveling on a whim.

5.	No partner of mine will have to deal with BC and the various negative effects they can have on women.

6.	No more fumbling for a condom when things get hot and heavy.

Id love to hear your thoughts on these and in general why I should hold off on this procedure.

Edit: So many excellent comments! Ill be trying to respond to all yall as soon as I can! Thank you!
Ill be sleeping on this before I start giving out deltas but I will do so.

[Assistant]
1) Lots of people (myself included) feel exactly how you do when they are single in their early 20s but completely flip their opinion after meeting their spouse and reaching their 30s.

2) Doesn't matter what you want. You are going to have a hard time finding a doctor to snip you at your age.


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

[User]
[The Ring] What happens if you don't answer the phone?

Say you just watched the film, but then you don't answer the phone. Hell, say you threw it out and never took another call again, would you still be fucked?

Taking it a step further, if you never used electronics again, living a life of solitude in the middle of the desert, could she still get you?

[Assistant]
It's a courtesy call.

If you don't pick it up, a voice message will be left. Over the next couple of hours, you'll also receive notification via email and text, and over the next few days, a letter win the post and a package delivered by courier, both with the same dated message.

If you manage to avoid all them, for the sake of due diligence anything up to and including a gorillagram may be arranged to ensure you receive proper notification, but ultimately a more than reasonable attempt to notify has been made and she is free to kill you.

Celestial bureaucracy is weird.


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

[User]
CMV: Tax incentives offered to companies are unethical and pit cities against each other. They should be outlawed across the country and businesses should compete based on the free market.

We see cities lure businesses away from other cities all the time using tax incentive programs.  I understand why cities/states would do this, but in the long run they end up hurting everyone (except the business).  If no one gave incentives the businesses would still grow and/or move based on market needs and not external factors like incentives.

No one should give tax incentives and let the market decide where businesses will locate.

What will not change my view is something along the lines of, "If they didn't move here we wouldn't get ANY additional tax revenue." That may be so, but tax incentives should not be used as loss-leaders for a community.  If no one offered incentives the business would still need to exist and give 100% of their taxes to the government, thus putting everyone in a better position.

[Assistant]
> **They should be outlawed across the country and businesses should compete based on the free market.**

But offering those tax incentives is the free market at work.  This is what allows for competition among states.  In fact it is the most democratic type of free market there is.  The people elected the officials who are creating those tax incentives.


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

[User] ELI5: How does it take over 600 gallons of water to make a single hamburger?

[Assistant] Most of the water is used to raise crops like alfalfa, which are then used to feed the cattle all their lives, which are then killed to make meat. (The cattle drink every day too.) So it's a very indirect, wasteful process.


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

[User]
CMV: Climate change is serious, damaging, but not apocalyptic.

EDIT 3: Alright my opinion is somewhat changed. Coming into this I really didn't see how climate change could end the world, but I can see while there is no hard evidence to say it will, the chance is much higher than I had realized. Thanks I guess lol (*sad human noises*)

So I will admit I used to be a climate change denier. Not anymore, I'd like to think im less naive than I used to be. That said, even according to NASA's climate change page, basically what I pick up on is the weather will get more severe, coast lines will come in significantly, etc.

Perhaps the worst I've heard is that it will likely have a serious effect on our ability to grow crops, especially to the degree we do now. This will lead to a significant rise in starvation and we may well face famine.

Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely see the severity of that, and it is infuriating how avoidable it is. But people act like the human species is about to die out. I just don't see that happening. Frankly it seems more likely to force humanity to adjust its course than to outright stop it.

That's not to say some environmental damage we do isn't potentially extremely serious, for instance, letting major parts of the Amazon burn has long reaching effects beyond climate change.

But as far as climate change itself, I really don't see it destroying humanity. A lot of people might die and that is obviously horrible and should be prevented, but humanity isn't going to go extinct and probably won't be the most devastating thing we've faced as a species.

For instance, the plague killed 60% of everyone in Europe. I might be missing something, but I don't think 60% of the world is going to die from this. And chances are, when consequences start coming in, we will probably figure something out as we always have as a species. EDIT: to be very clear, I dont think anywhere near 60% of the population will die from climate change as far as we know it right now. I'd be surprised by 10-15%, but thats mostly conjecture.

I very well might be misinformed or missing some important part of this, but it just doesn't seem world ending to me. CMV?

EDIT 2: I'm not at all saying climate change isn't serious and should be avoided. It is a very very bad thing. All I'm saying is people say it will bring humanity to extinction and that is not my understanding based on what I've seen.

[Assistant]
So, the issue with climate change is that there is still a lot we do not know. There is also the very scary concept of the *runaway greenhouse effect*. As our planet warms, there are a variety of tipping points that we may reach which will cause a cascade effect of further warming.

For example, lets look at the melting of the ice caps. Why is it such a big deal? Well, its not simply because of rising ocean levels - its also because the ice caps melting will result in an influx of meltwater which will seriously mess with our ocean currents, which are essential to distributing warm water throughout the planet.

Another tipping point is the melting of permafrost and the desiccation of forests - these will result in an increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Forests would normally play a role in absorbing carbon dioxide - theyre essential. Permafrost melting will release stored gases, and theres also the potential of releasing previously unseen types of viruses/bacteria which could seriously effect us.

The goal is to not trigger these cascade effects. It is important to stop these dominoes from falling, do you understand? And the words more severe weather do not really capture the danger - when we say more severe weather we are talking about devastating hurricanes, cold snaps, wild fires, etc. Our infrastructure simply cannot cope with such things (demonstrated by the recent Texas fiasco).

And thats only in first world countries - other areas will feel the effects of climate change in a much more morbid way. Look at cape town, for instance - an area running out of water to the point that people are dying of thirst. Look at areas of India, undergoing phases in which entire cities become blanketed in deadly gases. In the United States, we are somewhat shielded from the worst of things.


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

[User] Why do we unplug electrical devices during a lightning storm?

[Assistant]
Power Surges:

>When lightning strikes near a power line, whether it's underground, in a building or running along poles, the electrical energy can boost electrical pressure by millions of volts. This causes an extremely large power surge that will overpower almost any surge protector. In a lightning storm, you should never rely on your surge protector to save your computer. The best protection is to unplug your computer.

Overpowering electronics can cause irreparable damage.


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

[User] How does Cancer cross the blood brain barrier?

[Assistant]
The blood brain barrier prevents chemicals from crossing from the blood stream into neurons. Circulating Cancer cells will just edge themselves in a capillary and start driving there forming a ball of tissue .

It is like you putting a fence to prevent rabbits from entering your backyard and eating your plants, but then you get a bunch of squatters sitting up camp on the fence, eventually braking it.


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

[User]
[Superman] How much does the Man of Steel pull his punches?

We're talking about a guy who I think can reliably move planets in some incarnations, so how much does he have to pull his punches to not just splatter Average Bad Guy across Metropolis with a single slam? I know it's something he does, but I'm curious to what degree.

[Assistant]
There's only a small handful of people he doesn't pull his punches with. Darkseid, Mongul, the Eradicator, Zod, Hank Henshaw, people of that tier. Pretty much everyone else he restricts his strength by several orders of magnitude.

A top strength capacity is unlikely to ever be stated, and as such, any actual degree of strength restriction he uses is also unlikely to be stated.


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

[User]
ELI5:Why Humans in general are so scared of Arachnids

 Why are Arachnids so terrifying to such a wide audience of people? There are many other similarly sized/ potentially similarly shaped creatures, why aren't they as feared as arachnids?

[Assistant] Fear is an evolutionary tool given to us in order to avoid potential threats that may harm us or cause death. the fear of Arachnids, vermins, snakes and heights for that matter are instincts rooted in (most) of us to help us survive and pass our genes. those who lacked these instincts usually had slimmer chances to pass their genes before an untimely death caused by a fascinating poisonous spider. and so the slightly more fearful and cautious has survived and passed their genes to us.


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

[User]
[LOTR] Why didn't the Mouth of Sauron ask for unconditional surrender at the Black Gate?

Why give Men the right to self govern west of the Anduin if Sauron has overwhelming military superiority? Why not take the land west of the Misty Mountains as well?

"'These are the terms,' said the Messenger, and smiled as he eyed them one by one. 'The rabble of Gondor and its deluded allies shall withdraw at once beyond the Anduin, first taking oaths never again to assail Sauron the Great in arms, open or secret. All lands east of Anduin shall be Sauron's for ever, solely. West of the Anduin as far as the Misty Mountains and the Gap of Rohan shall be tributary to Mordor, and men there shall bear no weapons, but shall have leave to govern their own affairs. But they shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron's, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust.' "

[Assistant]
Nothing tell us that the Mouth of Sauron was telling the Truth, indeed Sauron is the Master of Deceit.

I would say actually that there is one thing that Sauron wanted to know before unleashing the entirety of Mordor on the Men of the West, does Aragorn really have the Ring? He claimed so and Sauron knows that a man with the Ring will always reject such terms.


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

[User] ELI5: I've read that the simulation hypothesis is extremely unlikely because of something called Lorentz Invariance, but I don't know enough about physics to understand why.

[Assistant] LmOver isn't quite right. You've got it right, though! Lorentz invariance is a symmetry (think - something you can do to an experiment without changing the results) of spacetime that can be easily understood as rotations (plus "boosts" - think rotations between space and time). If the universe was a simulation, then the most practical way to compute anything in it would be to have a grid defining every point in space. However, the moment you have a well-defined grid on your spacetime, you break Lorentz invariance - you can't rotate by any tiny angle you want - only specific intervals of angles would maintain the symmetry (think a square can only be rotated 90 degrees at a time). But, Lorentz invariance is a fundamental symmetry of the laws of physics that we think the universe obeys. If it didn't obey this symmetry, we certainly would have noticed it by now. In fact, there are very strong experimental bounds on the maximal size of the grid before we would notice it - and it would be way smaller than anything we could measure, if it exists.


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

[User] ELI5: In the song "Taxman" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?

[Assistant]
Why were taxes so high?  World War II.

All the military equipment, all the soldiers' pay, all the medical expenses, all the expenses had to be paid, somehow.

That somehow was with debt. Debt that had to be paid off by the government over the next 20-30 years.

So, during WWII, the British government (and ALL governments, actually), sold massive amounts of debt (war bonds) to everybody and anybody.

Years later, that debt had to be paid off. With interest.  To raise the amount of money needed to pay off that debt, the tax rates had to be ridiculously high, especially on high earners.

Remember, England was VERY hard hit by the war.  Rationing did not end until the mid 1950's.

Even the US had tax rates around 90% on top earners, in order to pay off the US war debt, pay for the rebuilding of Europe, and maintain the military at war footing for the first couple decades of the Cold War.

And, during that time, the US (and the UK) paid DOWN their massive deficits to more sustainable levels.

So, the whole debt crisis thing we keep talking about today, we KNOW how to reduce the debt.

We just don't wanna.

Were taxes that high sustainable?  Short term,yes. Long term, there wasn't a NEED to maintain the tax rates that high, once the hump of paying down the War Debt was gone.


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

[User]
Does a steel bar resist bending until a certain amount of force is applied, or does all force bend it, however slightly?

Imagine a thick steel bar 2 meters long, suspended at its ends, and that you hang a dress shirt on a hanger in the middle. Mathematically, even such a slight mass/force would yield some bend in the bar. But just like a force needs to overcome static friction before it can move an object across the floor, is there a certain amount of force that is required to start bending the bar? Assume here that we can measure even the slightest bend in the bar, and that it's perfectly straight to begin with.

[Assistant]
Yes.  All solids undergo small elastic deformations due to even small applied forces.  The ratio of applied force to displacement (normalized by the area and length) is called the elastic modulus, or simply modulus.  The elastic modulus for steel is around 200 GPa.  Interestingly, this extends to even tiny displacements that we don't normally see - this is how sound propagates in solids.

What you are likely used to is observing permanent, or plastic deformation.  This only occurs when we exceed a certain inherent stress - the yield stress.  The yield stress of many common steels can be quite high, around 1 GPa.  It therefore takes a lot of force to deform a piece of steel by a large amount, with the force scaling with the area of the piece.  So it seems like the steel is unmoving, just because we cannot bend it as much as we are used to.

In this specific scenario, you would need to take the geometry into consideration by calculating the bending moment of the beam (wikipedia "Bending").


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

[User] ELI5 what causes trees to split? Do they just decide at 5 feet to say fuck it Imma head out?

[Assistant]
It's because trees want to take a shape that works for them.

Basically trees have five main things in mind.

Keep anchored (which is the job of the roots), suck up water and fertilizer (also the roots), don't fall over (the roots plus the trunk), reach more sunlight (the branches and the leaves) and suck up sun for energy (the leaves).

There's a lot of different ways that a tree can do all five, but it really can't do the fifth one very well unless it spreads out sideways a little (yes, there are exceptions like palm trees). The reason for this is the leaves get in each others way, blocking the sun.

So as it grows, it splits, and this lets more leaves be in more sun because the tree starts getting more sideways as it gets taller. Now the tree COULD just keep trying to keep all its leaves and grow taller and taller without branching... but this starts making "don't fall over" a lot tougher at some point.

So the tree branches to get more light once it gets to a certain size, and keeps branching after that to collect even more.


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

[User]
[High Fantasy] What are people's mental health like in a world of magic and monsters?

On the minus side there are things out there that can easily kill you without warning, things that love to hurt you and even need to murder you to survive - your pain and fear is their meat and drink.

On the plus side you get repeated examples of people getting the most outrageous desires fulfilled through luck or skill or simply just believing hard enough that it will happen. In some cases just being crazy enough to hallucinate that it's already happened is enough to make it happen, or at least enough to enjoy it.

 So the minus is mind-breakingly depressing, while the plus is mind-warpingly encouraging. Is there a sane and healthy balance that most people manage, or is the average peasant completely off their rocker?

{On a completely unrelated note, currently listening to Warren Zevon's "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner". I mean, of course when Roland aimed his Thompson gun he didn't say a word, after all he didn't have a head.}

[Assistant]
It largely depends on the fictional setting in question.

In H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos (which isn't technically High Fantasy, but worth considering here), characters who become aware of the supernatural tend to go insane or become unhinged. The awareness of entities with such immense power is a world changing revelation that leads to nihilism and madness, as people realize that humanity doesn't matter and could be wiped away in an instant.

In contrast, in The Lord of the Rings, the defining example of High Fantasy, it's entirely possible to have normal mental health. Hobbits hold birthday parties, grow crops, and smoke a pipe by the fire after a hard day's work. The Elves are aware of the powers at work in the world, but are wise enough and experienced enough to know how to deal with it. Even the men of Gondor and Rohan largely experience supernatural danger in the form of Orcs, and those can be killed with a bow or a spear. When they do face truly magical opponents like the Ringwraiths, they take comfort in knowing that they are protected by Gandalf, a supernatural force of their own.

In The Stormlight Archive series, colossal magical windstorms regularly shred the land. These storms would be horrifying in a more mundane setting, but because people have had generations to get used to them, they're just a part of life. Buildings are constructed to be storm resistant, people learn how to tell when a storm is coming, and the plants and animals have all evolved to be durable and hardy in such adverse conditions.

In The Malazan Book of the Fallen series, gods, mages, and supernatural beings are a dime a dozen, but the average footsoldier is largely unconcerned. They focus on fighting the enemy infantry, and leave the magic to their unit's mages. They're certainly wary of magic on the battlefield, but it's more like the fear a modern soldier would feel when fighting a tank than a supernatural dread.

Really, it all comes down to acclimatization. If you've been around magic your entire life, then it's just something that happens, like an earthquake or a disease. In most cases, it would be no more difficult to maintain a healthy mental state living in the Malazan Empire or the world of Shannara than if you lived in a town that was prone to non-magical earthquakes. The fear of a griffon in the woods wouldn't be all that different to the fear of tigers or bears. Generally, you'd expect the average fantasy citizen to somebody in a roughly equivalent but non-magical situation.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does poop turn brown no matter what color food I eat?

[Assistant]
Drink a litre of Powerade, it will change.

Brownis the normal color ofpoo. There is a pigment called bilirubin that is formed when the red blood cells in the liver and bone marrow break down. This ends up (by a complicated process) in the intestines where bacteria begins to form and eat which turns thepoo brown.


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

[User]
Would you suffocate if a snorkel was too long?

On the atomic level CO2 is heavier than just O2, so there might be enough to reason that if you had a thirty foot long snorkel above water, while you're beneath, the CO2 would pool. But is that really how it would work, I mean there's more in air than just those two gasses. Help me out?

EDIT: Since a lot of this is about water pressure, let's say you're above ground, encapsulated in some kind of solid, with lungs fully expanded, with a hole leading to the chest to allow air in. Would you still suffocate?

[Assistant]
You would survive as long as you were very careful to abide by the following rules:

1)Go close to the surface of the water. You won't be able to breather  30ft under due to pressure, but you will be able to breather at 1ft under with a 30ft snorkel.

2)**Do not breathe out into your snorkel**. This is the solution to the second biggest problem, that breathing CO2 out into the bottom of the tube would hinder the rate at which oxygen reaches you.

All you would need to do to survive is breathe out through your nose and you would be able to live.


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

[User]
Do consumers or producers mainly drive the market?

I heard, somewhere, that a main difference between liberal and conservatives is that the former believes that it's spending power that drives the market, so you want a majority of the population to be buying, and the latter believes that innovation drives the market, that is you want to give it to "innovators." So I guess the idea is that being able to spend drives innovation? And the opposite idea is that a smaller group of people are better at innovating things that are of any significant value? I'm aware that economists agree that tax cuts increase spending, but is there any information as to whether it is better to make sure the majority of the population is spending the most? I hope this makes sense. I did my best. To be open about my bias, I really want to know if any of my convictions about quickly and vastly increasing spending for social safety nets or if I need to think and vote differently about this.

[Assistant]
>liberal and conservatives is that the former believes that it's spending power that drives the market, so you want a majority of the population to be buying and the latter believes that innovation drives the market, that is you want to give it to "innovators."

I've heard a lot more liberals argue for education subsidies, R&D subsidies, and infrastructure investment than conservatives. Those are all supply side policies which are mostly about increasing investment.

I've heard a lot more conservatives defend Trump's exploding fiscal deficits and calls for easier monetary policy than liberals. Those are all demand side policies mostly about increasing nominal expenditures.

The liberal - conservative dichotomy is absolutely useless here.


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

[User] ELI5 why i can read a sentence several times but i do not know what tge sentence is saying.  I recognize the words but its like they have no meaning.  This happens when ive been studying for a while.

[Assistant]
So you have 3 types of memory: sensory, short-term, and long-term.  Most people are familiar with short-term (10-15 seconds, 5-9 items) and long-term (indefinite time, indefinite capacity) memory, but what you're experiencing is only sensory memory.

Information comes in through your sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc.) and is held in your sensory register, which is pretty much a temporary storage bin.  If you pay attention to the information, it goes into short-term memory and (potentially) long-term memory, but if you don't pay attention to it, it gets dumped. The purpose of sensory memory is to hold little pieces of information long enough for you to receive the rest of it.  You use sensory memory to remember the beginning of a word while you read or hear the rest of it. It's more efficient for your brain to store whole words than individual letters, so you don't save it until you have the whole thing.

So if you pay attention to information coming in, it can survive longer, but there's a lot of information that comes in through your senses that you don't pay attention to.  Do you remember hearing that bird chirp outside?  You heard it, but you didn't pay attention to it, so it made it to sensory memory and got dumped.  What about when you look at your watch to see what time it is then have to look again 5 seconds later when someone asks you what time it is?  You may have processed it enough to know that it's not time for you to leave, but you don't actually remember what time it is.  When you're trying really hard to pay attention in class, but it feels like the words are going in one ear and out the other or when you read the same sentence over and over again but don't actually comprehend any of it?  Sensory memory.

The issue is that you have limited attention.  If you've been reading for a long time, if you're tired, or if what you're reading is really difficult, you can't process the information as well.  Take a break, drink some cold water, or walk around for a bit.  It may also help to read a couple sentences out loud.  This makes you process what you're reading enough to say it out loud, which could jump-start the movement into short-term memory.


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

[User]
I believe the composer/producer of a song deserves more credit for a song than the singer. CMV

My reasons:

Even though vocals are an incredibly important (maybe the most important) part of a song, they are not entirely the production of the singer. The melody the singer sings is written by the composer. I think that this melody is more important than how good the person's voice sounds

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a song that you love listening to: would you rather here that same singer sing "happy birthday", or a different (totally average) singer sing the song that you like so much.

[Assistant]
I agree that songwriters probably do deserve more credit than they get. However, the song would be nothing without someone to sing it.

Look at cheesy pop songs, the lyrics are often crap, nonsense but the singer is what makes the song. Without the singer these songs are useless therefore the singer/musician gets the credit for making them into something people want to hear.


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

[User]
[X-men] Are there mutant animals?

I'm just wondering whether some animals may have mutant abilities. If not, then why is it a purely human phenomena?

[Assistant] Only humans have the ability to develop mutant abilities.  The reason why lies in an ancient race known as the Celestials.  Over 1 million years ago, the Celestials came to the Earth apparently with the purpose of determining the adaptability of the human genome.  This lead to two offshoot races (the Eternals and the Deviants), as well as providing humanity with the latent ability to develop superpowers.


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

[User] [King of the Hill] Instead of propane and propane accessories, Hank Hill decides to go into politics. What would a Hill presidency look like?

[Assistant]
Hank seems like he would be a pragmatic, moderate conservative.  He'd resemble older Republicans like McCain more than he would tea partiers or trumpets.  He'd overall lean to the right but on some issues like the environment it seems like he'd take a more centrist position.   As far as policies go, he seems like he'd push for increased defense spending and propane subsidies.

When it comes to behavior, he wouldn't be a tweeter-in-chief like the US's current president.  He also wouldn't be hip or cool.  But he'd put the work in and give hard decisions their due consideration.  He'd probably come into office very naive about how things work, but with help he'd eventually get enough of a handle on things to get things done.

I imagine he'd leave office sickened by the whole experience.  Washtington just doesn't seem like a good fit for an upright, old-fashioned guy like Hank Hill.


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

[User]
ELI5: How does hugging a bomb to one's body significantly reduce the bombs damage potential?

It seems like if a bomb or grenade had the power to significantly damage a large number of bodies originally, then having one of those bodies wrapped around it when it exploded wouldn't make such a big difference in the force it generated. How do the physics of this work?

[Assistant]
It's about potential energy. Think of a pool table. Hit the cue ball down the table as hard as you can and it'll bounce back and forth a few times.
Hit the same ball as hard as you can but put another ball in front of it and your ball will slow down quick after transferring the majority of its energy into the other ball. However it takes some energy to get it going from a stand still so that ball might bounce of two cushions if your lucky but no where near as far as the first time you hit the cue ball.

Wrapped in technically 2 bodies, all of the  concussive wave first has to go through them, liqifying their organs but having a lesser effect on the other bystanders as it has less potential energy.
Shrapnel also individually has fairly low energy so most will be stopped by their bodies. However the explosion would have disintegrated their bodies, effectively creating an organic Shrapnel but much less of it and traveling with less energy.


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

[User] ELI5: what ever  happened to the Kony invisible children thing.

[Assistant]
Kony really hasn't been relevant  in a while and may already be dead.
Invisible children was actually making profits of those packs they sold.
The money that they did donate went to the equally corrupt Ugandan government.
...And that public masturbation thing.


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

[User]
CMV: Rings of Power is unwatchable. (potential spoilers)

EDIT: I WATCHED MORE AND I LIKE IT NOW, I WAS WRONG THANKS EVERYONE

I watched 30 minutes of the new Lord of the Rings, Rings of Power and thought it was horrible. It was so boring I just turned it off and went to sleep.

I am a huge fantasy nerd. When I was a kid I did Warhammer, DnD, everything. Read LotR in the 5th grade and the movies came out when I was in high school and it ruled! Loved em.

Hobbit movies were not great but I wrote off as maybe they are for kids or something?

Fast forward to last night and I'm pretty stoked for the new TV series. Put it on and it's beautiful but so empty. The writing and character development were really bad. I turned it off. Going side by side with the great writing so far on House of the Dragon just makes it look even worse.

Go to look on youtube to see what people are saying and see plenty of videos about how bad they are. But a lot of these videos are from same type of angry nerds were were *really mad* that Star Wars had women and non-white people, seem like the kind of people who had strong opinions about Gamer Gate. Use the term Mary Sue constantly. They have barely contained glee that a show that cast black hobbits (sorry harfoots) is bad so they can "prove" that "woke" stuff is bad.

So I'm open to having my view changed for two reasons:

1) Rings of Power is actually good and I should continue watching. (I don't care if you spoil it to make your point)

2) Rings of Power is actually bad and I shouldn't let the fact that some of the people who don't like it are idiots affect my judgement.

[Assistant] You're free to not like something, but should you really be this confident on your read of a series based on watching half the first episode? Especially when your complaint is that it's empty and lacks character development, the latter of which being something that very rarely actually happens this early in a show?