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

[User] ELI5 Why do we have to take water with some medicines, is it just easier to swallow?

[Assistant]
It's not just the easier-to-swallow thing.

Some medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) and bisphosphonates, in particular)  can be less effective if taken without water, and if they *do* happen to get stuck, some may irritate the esophagus, and cause ulcers, heartburn and/or chest pain.

Lithium can cause dehydration, so taking it with water is important, and if a medication reaches your kidneys without being diluted, it may cause kidney stones or even damage the kidneys.  Water helps dilute the medication so that too much of it doesn't pass through the kidneys at one time.

In general, unless your doctor of pharmacist recommends otherwise, all medications should be taken with water; if the medication calls for 'plenty of water', you may need more than one glass.


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

[User]
[LOTR] What if the Balrog hadn't pulled Gandalf down with him?

I've always been curious what would've happened if the Balrog's whip was unable to reach Gandalf, allowing him to live and accompany the fellowship further.

[Assistant] This is so hard to answer.  One thing for near certain is they still would have went to Lorien. Basically anything could happen after that. Aragorn had originally planned to follow Boromir to Minas Tirith but when Gandalf died he became the leader. With Gandalf still alive he would likely have followed his original plan.  The others would then have choices to make. Go home, to Gondor, or with Frodo, Gandalf, and Sam (who would never leave Frodo).


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

[User] What exactly is a 401K, how does it work, and why is it a good idea?

[Assistant]
ELY5:

When you go to work and make money you have to share some of that money with Uncle Sam.

A 401k is a special bank where the money you put into it you don't have to share that money with Uncle Sam. But you have to wait until your 60 to spend that money. If you spend it before you turn 60 then you have to share some of what you spent with Uncle Sam. Also Uncle Sam will not let you put more than $16k per year in this special bank.

Some nice jobs will put as much money in your 401k bank as you put into it.


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

[User]
[MCU] Captain America and the Snap

So Cap had already lived through the snap when he fought Thanos originally. When he went back in the past and lived through to the present day, was he still affected when Thanos snapped?

[Assistant]
He probably didn't live through a second snap. He spent the rest of his life in an alternate time line before coming back to ours to give Sam back the shield, just not on the pad where they expected him.

He most likely just waited until Peggy passed away in 2016 or so before coming back to 2023, so he bypassed the second snap entirely.


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

[User]
ELI5: Dark matter

halp

Just cannot wrap my head around dark matter, also if anyone has the time could you explain what dark energy is as well?

[Assistant]
Dark, in this context, means "not understood," or "vague," sort of the opposite of "known."

So dark matter is unknown matter.  We know *something* with mass exists, and we know that something isn't like Planets, Stars and the matter they're made up of.  This matter accounts for most of the mass in the universe.  If it wasn't there, the Universe would behave really, really differently because we can see the effect it has on the universe (gravitational lensing, or the effect of bending lights path through the universe with mass and the gravitational effect of Galaxies both spring to mind).

Dark Energy, same applies.  Only instead of mass, it's seems to be a force that we don't understand that's feeding the expansion of the universe.  The expansion of the universe is accelerating, and without dark energy (simply an energy we don't understand the cause of) it should either be slowing down or retracting (in fact, it should still be expanding without dark energy, but slowing down).


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

[User]
ELI5: Why won't the world use rubbish as their new source of electricity?

Apparently Sweden has literally ran out of trash because of this method. So why don't other countries just follow suit?

[Assistant]
Trash is kind of a pain to burn as it's super inconsistent as a fuel.  Also, it can be quite polluting depending on what gets put in the trash; e.g.: batteries in the trash = bad news for what ends up in your air/water when you burn them.

Sweden goes to a lot of trouble to use their trash as fuel.  From what I've heard/read they do a pretty good job all things considered, but it does cost them quite a bit more to run their trash-energy program than a lot of other energy plans would.

Edit:  As a followup,  you basically have to put people into the cycle in some sort of trash-sorting role to make it work well; the automated sorting processes aren't good enough yet...  This is the main part that gets expensive.


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

[User]
CMV: When someone does something nice for someone else, their reason for doing it doesnt matter, even if its selfish.

Ive had conversations with friends and family members about this and I am unable to convince others of my viewpoint as well as unable to accept theirs, so perhaps someone can convince me of theirs.

If someone does something nice for another, such as buy a homeless person a meal, build a school for a poor community or donate to a charity, I could care less why their doing it because theres still an end benefit for the person in need. I would even encourage people to brag about doing good things and society be okay with bragging about doing good things because then others will have more reason to do these things.

Edit: to clarify, Im talking about someone or some organization doing good (actually doing good, not something that looks good, but is a deception) and uses that action for social, monetary and/or political gain. No, I do not think feeding a homeless person tainted food is a good thing.

[Assistant] What about someone who only does nice things so they can demand reciprocity later on? If you learn about "love bombing" in the context of narcissists/abusive relationships you will find that some people do "nice" things with the intent to make their target feel trapped or like they owe the person something. These acts of service may look like they benefit the target on the surface, but the cost is nowhere near worth whatever is gained.


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

[User] ELI5: When you have a computer program randomize/pick something at random, what are you actually telling the computer to do?

[Assistant]
The random function in C basically follows this algorithm:

>To get the next random number, multiply the last random number by something, add a number to it, and then take the last few digits.

If the first number every time is the same, the rest of the sequence will be the same. To overcome this, we seed this function i.e. provide it a random starting point usually by setting the initial number to the system time (in integer format).


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

[User]
Does beating addiction give evidence of free will?

A drug addicts brain has been rewired to receive dopamine from the drug they take, rather than natural methods. The drug becomes the brains top priority. So why would your subconscious decide to stop using what your neural pathways rely on for pleasure? You could argue that your brain recognizes the harm done to your body, but what about a gambling or sex addiction that has no adverse effect on the body and is purely mental? Why would your subconscious choose to randomly quit? Wouldnt the person who chooses to go against his brain function have free will?

Edit: I know I am most likely wrong and want free will to exist to appease my mind, but the discussion has been very interesting. I love reading everyones viewpoints. Thanks for the discussion!

[Assistant] Not in the slightest - from a deterministic perspective, there are many more forces at play in determining human behavior then simply tracing reward chemicals. In order to begin the process of beating addiction, the drug or addiction ceases to become "the brain's top priority" as the goal of quitting for a multitude of reasonable benefits becomes that priority. If those benefits aren't there, or the priority of quitting isn't valued enough, then the addiction would be expected to continue.


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

[User] [Marvel] If Daredevil was granted eyesight, what would happen to the rest of his abilities?

[Assistant] He got it back at least once. The Beyonder gave it to him. At first he freaks out, loses his balance and momentarily becomes completely confused. As time goes on he seems fine although he doesn't do any Daredevil stuff while he has his sight. Mostly he just looks around at stuff but there's no indication that he's powerless once he gets over the initial shock.


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

[User] ELI5 What makes gasoline so special that it can power engines and why is it so difficult to find an alternative fuel source?

[Assistant]
it's flammable, high energy output, easy to transport, and stays liquid in decently wide variety of temperatures.

lots of things can power an internal combustion engine.  diesel,  peanut oil,  alcohol to name a few.


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

[User] [Star Wars] What is the most useless Star Wars fact you know?

[Assistant]
TIE in TIE Fighter stands for Twin Ion Engine

or

The reason we hear engine noises, blaster fire, etc in space battles is because these sounds are part of every starship's sensor package. It's played through speakers on the bridge, or in the pilot's helmet, to provide additional information and keep the pilot from constantly looking at a screen.

Edit: Apparently this came from the novelization of Star Wars, back before it was Episode IV A New Hope.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] What would happen if a ship travelling at warp speed hit Earth?

Let's say the Klingons want to destroy Earth.

What's to stop them from just piloting a ship at warp speed into the planet? Warp is faster than light, and at those speeds, it ought to create enough kinetic energy to atleast glass the planet, if my calculations are right.

What would happen, do you think?

[Assistant]
Warp works by causing a Warp Bubble around the ship.  The ship's momentum is carried into the Warp Bubble, so a ship at rest leaves warp at rest.  A ship at high speed, leaves warp at high speed.

The amount of mass inside a Warp Bubble increases the amount of energy the warp bubble takes to operate.  When the Warp Bubble hits the atmosphere of the planet the ship will be forcefully ejected from warp.

The planets shields and defenses would take care of it at that point.

In short, nothing both due to the Warp Physics and some truly impressive defenses at Earth.


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

[User] ELI5: how does burning stuff produce light?

[Assistant]
Burning stuff produces energy in the form of heat, which we perceive as an increase in temperature.

The electromagnetic radiation (light) given off by something is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, which is a fancy way of saying that the color goes up as the temperature goes up.

In reality, everything gives off light all the time, because everything has temperature. You even give off light, though our eyes are not capable of seeing that light. It's called "Infrared" light. Well, at a certain temperature, we can start seeing that light, and the first color we can see is red, which is why if you heat something, that's the first color it begins to emit. Up the scale goes through orange, then yellow, white, then blue. It peaks out at blue because we can't see colors beyond that, and while it is still emitting higher energy colors (Ultra Violet, X-Ray), it's also still emitting all of the colors below that too. Blue ends up overpowering the rest, which is why it is blue and not an apparent mix of all the colors.

A little further detail as to why,

Temperature is really just the back and forth oscillations of atoms. The hotter they are, the faster they bounce back and forth. What we call color is really just the number of times an atom bounces back and forth in a given time period. Red light literally bounces back and forth slower than blue light. This is why UV light is harmful, it bounces back and forth so fast that it imparts too much energy into our skin and breaks our skin cells apart.

Light is called "Electromagnetic" radiation because it is the electrons in the atom that are oscillating, and the fabric of spacetime is what is carrying those oscillations (as radiation) from the electron to whatever it is going to hit.


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

[User]
Is there already a concept for regulating the percentage of a company's profit that must go to paying employees?

Basically title, but with the caveat that to be effective it seems there must also be some provision for the distribution of that percentage, so that the executives don't take it all and everyone else gets minimum wage. Another possible caveat could be that a truly evil/machiavellian company could simply hire more people for the purposes of lowering everyone's salary, but I'm not sure there is a clean way to prevent that without secondary effects.

From my naive perspective this idea seems different from mandating the price of labor like a minimum wage law does.

If this idea has already been tossed around, has it been tried anywhere? What were the results?

Edit: In response to UpsideVII's comment, I realize the title/question is confused since "Profit is revenue minus costs and wages are a cost. So 0% of profits go to paying employees by definition". Instead, his suggestion of "setting a fixed profits to wages ratio" seems a more workable definition. More generally, I'm wondering why there isn't a more direct solution (or if there is, please inform me of it) to this problem of somewhat "liquid inequality" where a company can just decide to dump all of their profits into whatever they want, regardless of the ratio of profits to wages. I get being too strict with this ratio (if set at a national level) would make US companies vulnerable to international competitors who have no such limit and dump everything into R&D or somesuch, but surely establishing some ratio is better than none, or am I mistaken?

[Assistant]
I'll just throw out that you should probably rephrase your question or you are going to get confused answers.

Profit is revenue minus costs and wages are a cost. So 0% of profits go to paying employees by definition.

Perhaps you mean fixing a % of revenue that must go to paying employees? Or setting a fixed profits to wages ratio?


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

[User] [Peek-a-boo] Where exactly does the large human go when she covers my eyes?

[Assistant]
As with all great horror, the monster you cannot see is the most terrifying.

When she is gone, she is not elsewhere; rather, she never was. Her existence is erased from the universe. Unfed, unguided, unprotected must you face the countless dangers of this strange and incomprehensible world.


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

[User] ELI5: How does touchscreen technology work?

[Assistant]
The majority of touch screens are compromised of a number of layers. One of those layers is a capacitive layer that's basically a grid of wires that aren't touching. When you touch the screen you close the citcuit between the wires in the grid and the device uses that information to figure out where you touched it.

There are also optical systems that use infrared light to do the same thing where instead of closing a circuit you're breaking a beam of light much like those things that chime when you enter a shop. Some systems use cameras mounted on the corners of the display to track your finger. Larger displays like the table based Microsoft Surface used a camera underneath the device that watched for infrared light released when you pushed on the display and caused the screen to bend, releasing the light. There are a few other options, but those are the Missy common.


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

[User] ELI5 How do glass and other transparent materials work on a molecular level? Do they have more space in between molecules? Does the light interact a lot less with their molecules? How does the light come through where in other materials the light is absorbed?

[Assistant]
Glass does absorb light, but not in the visible spectrum. Molecules have molecular energy levels for their electrons (and atoms also have atomic energy levels the same way). When they absorb light, the energy of the light matches the energy difference between the energy levels, and an electron is promoted to a higher energy level. It just so happens that typically, the molecules in glass (mostly SiO2) don't have a difference in energy levels corresponding to the energy of visible light. They do happen to have a difference in energy level that corresponds to light in the UV spectrum, hence UV light does not pass through normal glass very easily (unless it's pure SiO2). This also means you're unlikely to get a sunburn in your car with the windows up.

It also happens that the glass molecules are generally not the right size or shape to scatter visible light either very much. However there is some light reflected from the surface because glass has a different refractive index than air (ie. light travels slower through glass). At any boundary where there is a refractive index change, some light will usually reflect (see the Fresnel Equations). Hence if the surface of the glass is not smooth, it will reflect light in many directions, and it will effectively scatter light at the surface.

EDIT: like Mariofosheezy pointed out, also remember that most matter is not very dense, most of the volume is made up the "electron clouds" hence if the molecular orbitals of the glass don't interact much with the light, then it is basically passing though 99.9% empty space as far as it's concerned.

EDIT2: It get's more complicated than this. Many other materials have other properties that make it so that visible light can't really pass through. Some have very good absorbance in the visible spectrum, others have very densely packed molecules/atoms that attenuate light very rapidly, etc.


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

[User]
If a website is able to grade your password as youre typing it, doesnt that mean that its getting stored in plain text at some point on the server?

Whats to stop a Spectre type attack from getting your password at that time?

[Assistant]
Not necessarily.

1. It is not necessary to send your password to the server to grade it. That can be done client-side.

2. It is not necessary that a server _persistently_ stores a password in plain text, even though it may be sent to it as such.

However, if a client sends a password in plain text to a server and it is received, then it is necessarily true that _at some point_, it exists in plain text at the server. The idea is to minimise that amount of time.


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

[User]
CMV:"Brave New World" was not Dystopian Fiction, and even had a happy ending

I never exactly saw how 'Brave New World' was considered Dystopian Fiction. Sure, it has all the trappings of dystopian society, but Aldous Huxley's London 632 A.F seems to be more a parody of modern life and the fledgling dystopian fiction genre, rather than a piece of dystopian fiction itself.

John dies, but it is on the note that he didn't sacrifice his freedom, leading to a heroic ending for him akin to Cyrano de Bergerac: Cyrano didn't lose his *panache*, and John doesn't lose his freedom.

 Bernard Marx and Helmholtz Watson are both exiled to Iceland--but ironically, it is a place of complete creative freedom, unsupervised living, and more of a reward than a punishment--a paradise for non-conformists.
Marx reacts to this with displacement, satirising (in my view) those who are over-reliant on government protection and sanctioning, while Watson views it as an opportunity. Regardless, the ending was hardly sad.

I don't know, but these are just my conclusions. CMW.

[Assistant] They *broke* John. If you remember the ending, John gave into the orgy porgy and found that the society was gradually wiping away his resistance and morals despite his attempts to resist it. By killing himself, he was admitting that there was no possibility of existing inside society while being mentally separate-either you die mentally, kill yourself, or commit to self-exile.


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

[User]
[Doctor Who] How does the Psychic paper work when showing something larger than an ID card?

I can believe the psychic paper when it's showing a fake identification, since a person would expect to see something in a wallet around that size, and a quick mental nudge to sway them in to not questioning further and you're good.

It's harder to believe when the Doctor uses in to show things that one would expect to be A4 sized at least, like a pardon for a criminal, housing references, orders from local authority, etc.

Does the paper appear bigger, or just convince the pardon that the queen would write a royal pardon on a bit of paper the size of a driving licence.

[Assistant]
It's less what the thing actually looks like.  They're seeing a blank piece of paper after all.
It's more that they see a blank piece of paper, and their brain goes "Yes, that's an Imperial Pardon".  It's doing an end run around normal visual recognition processes, and just jumping straight to the end and giving the answer.


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

[User]
[MCU] How did both Red Skull and Shield use the Space stone to make so much energy?

Both Hydra in the 40's and Shield on modern times managed to use the tesseract/Space Stone to create energy to power their inventions. How is that possible from whats basically a giant teleportation machine?

[Assistant]
All six Infinity Stones have their main function and also the side function of producing a massive amount of energy due to their connection to the Big Bang. The only exception is the Power Stone, for which harnessing and releasing energy is the main point.

You can see an example of this with other Stones wgen Vision uses the Mind Stone to shoot beams of energy from his forehead and Loki uses it to emit concussive blasts from his scepter. If they used this aspect of the Stone to its maximum potential, they could potentially make bombs like Red Skull did, but the Mind Stone being arguably weaker than the Space Stone may explain why we only see relatively minor energy output from it on screen.

If you really want an explanation specific to the Stone, it's possible it harnesses zero-point energy from empty space, which sort of means it's tapping into a perpetual motion machine. Or perhaps Dark Energy, which may simply be a basic property of space rather than a separate phenomenon, is the source of its energy output.


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

[User]
PhDs/close-to-PhDs, do you feel proud/accomplished?

Weird question, I know, but it's heavy on my mind. I'm close to finishing my PhD and I have such mixed feelings about it. I don't feel proud or accomplished, I just feel... exhausted, I think. Perhaps even a little bit disappointed, or maybe ashamed is a better word. Ashamed for not doing more or being a better job candidate or having more publications.

Objectively, there are things I should be proud of - a PhD isn't exactly a walk in the park, but I'm on track to finish in a reasonable amount of time and with high marks in my classes. I designed and carried out my own research project on a topic that is very important to me and I think is an important social problem, and it went off without a hitch and produced some really great data. My parents are proud of me. My advisor is proud of me (I think - it's hard to tell sometimes, but she's excited about my project, I know that much).

I'm not sure if it's the stress of finishing up, the stress of being on a highly competitive job market, the stress of closing the door on this looooong, comfortable period of my life and launching out into the unknown, or.... whatever else, but I just feel overwhelmed and *under*accomplished.

Did/does anyone else feel this way? If you did, did it go away or lessen, and when? If you feel this way right now, how do you cope?

[Assistant]
According to the latest census figures, about 1% of the U.S. population has earned a PhD.

It's easy to feel underaccomplished when you start your first job as an assistant professor and realize that everyone in your department has the same credential and has been doing this for longer. It feels about as special as a driver's license. If you yell down the hallway, "Quick show of hands - who's got a doctorate?" it's everyone. Try this at 3am in a Wal-Mart and you'll get a very different result.

A PhD is a big accomplishment and something to be proud of - even if your mom doesn't understand what it is that you really do. Take some time to celebrate your achievement - go on a trip, splurge on a nice watch, or even a new car. If earning a PhD doesn't make you feel special, maybe seeing a reminder of your success on your wrist or in your driveway will.


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

[User] ELI5: Why can kids get tolerate being dizzy more than adults?

[Assistant]
Its nothing psychological, but physiological. Your sense of balance is based on a little bit of liquid in a chamber in your ear. It can tell your brain if you're standing up, laying down, upside down etc. when you spin around it creates a little vortex and when you stop the liquid keeps spinning for a minute, confusing your brain and making you dizzy.

When you get older that liquid becomes a little bit more viscous, thus changing how it feels to be dizzy, as well as get you dizzy faster and keeps you dizzy longer.


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

[User]
[XMEN] With professor X's knowledge in human mutation and advanced science and technology, why couldn't he just cure is disabled legs or implant something to enable movement?

The wheelchair thing is just so crude.

[Assistant] The wheelchair is psychologically disarming. Charles prefers to avoid physical confrontation, so being in the chair sets the tone of any encounter with him. Most people aren't going to be preparing for a throwdown with a disabled person, so the expectation is that he's just there to talk.


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

[User] ELI5: How do electromagnetic waves such as Bluetooth and cell tower signals pass through walls and other solid objects without any issues? And why are some wavelengths better or worse at it?

[Assistant]
What about windows? Windows are essentially solid walls. They can be quick thick, fairly sturdy, and pretty solid. Except light can go through them.

Different materials are transparent to different frequencies of light. For example, stained-glass windows give pretty coloured patters because they are transparent to some colours of light but not others (a red glass panel absorbs frequencies of light that aren't red). Similarly, glass is generally pretty good at blocking (some) ultraviolet light. We don't notice because we can't see it, but if we could see in UV windows would look solid, like walls.

The specific patterns of what frequencies are absorbed by what materials are complicated and we don't want to get into them. But walls are transparent to some frequencies of radio waves (they are also pretty good at bending around corners). Some frequencies may have issues going through walls (like light going through a frosted glass window), but that isn't as much of a problem for radio signals as we don't need to receive the full image (like we do for seeing things), just the signal from one bit.

If you could "see" radio waves anything emitting them (a wireless router, a phone, signal towers) would have a fuzzy glow, and you might be able to see that through walls (kind of like objective markers in some computer games).


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

[User]
What happens to the exhaust gases of a spaceship once in orbit?

Take for example the Soyuz.
Once in out of the atmosphere and in a stable orbit, it has to reach the ISS. It does that by firing its engines at the appropiate time. Same thing  for deorbiting.
Since it was already in orbit, where do the exhaust gases go? Do they stay in orbit, fall to the Atmosphere or float away in vacuum?

[Assistant]
Force = Mass x Acceleration.

A chemical rocket reaction will impart the same force on the spacecraft as with the exhaust gases, although the latter will have a much lower mass. Therefore, the gas particles will accelerate far faster than the rocket, meaning that they will likely either reach escape velocity or re-enter the atmosphere, depending on the direction of thrust (i.e., if you're burning to rendezvous with the ISS, then the particles will end up slower than your orbital velocity, meaning that they fall back to Earth)

Clearly, both in terms of quantity and dispersal, the actual effect of the exhaust in the atmosphere is negligible.


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

[User]
CMV: We need to see more third party voters in America.

I can accept that my candidate lost, but I resent the assertion that I should automatically give the other candidate my vote. I don't know if I can. There's several other political parties, some of whom run candidates and some who endorse candidates.

I can also write in.

Somebody will win the presidency, and it seems likely that whoever it is, they won't have my back. Why should I throw my political choice to them? To help the final count seem to overwhelmingly endorse those two?

I think I can do better, even knowing I won't get my way this time around.

[Assistant]
The election system needs a revamp before voting for third parties becomes viable.  Right now, if you support a third party, what it effectively does is take votes away from the major party that you might not perfectly align with but is the one that is closer to your stance.  This in the end has the result of making the party that you are further from more likely to win.  This is asking people to pick between the lesser of two evils, but it is the reality of how our election is structured.  Third parties have little chance at success.

I would say that moving to a Single Transferable Vote for single position elections (like President or Governor) and proportional representation for legislative bodies (like Congress or state legislatures) would make voting for a third party an actual viable strategy.  However, until we see that kind of election reform, people are best off voting for the major party candidate that is closest to their views.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are all of the Walmart employees going on strike?

I understand that it's very low paying. But then why not just quit and find another job?

[Assistant]
1. The economy doesn't work like that. There aren't a lot of jobs in a lot of places. Unemployment may be back to relatively close to pre-2007 but the jobs that have been coming back have been created have overwhelmingly been low wage jobs. Throw onto that the fact that they put many small businesses out of business since they can't compete with the prices at Walmart, and Walmart can only sell at those prices by paying poverty wages at nearly every level of their operation.

2. Why not? Somebody has to stand up to Walmart, and politicians won't. All Walmart cares about is making money, and they don't make money if workers don't work. They are using collective action to make Walmart listen and respect their right to form a union. Walmart pretty much by policy violates labor laws every day by firing pro-union workers, telling employees not to talk about how much they make, and even making people work off the clock.

3. Service work us the new bedrock of our economy. You can't outsource it. It's here to stay. We can decide to make those jobs good middle class jobs. You probably think of jobs in manufacturing as solid middle class jobs. Well, until workers in the 20s and 30s started striking in the steel mills, paper mills, etc., those jobs were the worst, most dangerous, lowest paying jobs around. But those workers fought to form unions, make their voices heaed, and made a whole new class of middle class jobs that led to the great expansion of the middle class in the 50s and 60s. We have the opportunity to make that choice now. And right now, wealth inequality is at levels we haven't seen since 1929, so it seems like as good a time as ever.


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

[User]
ELI5: What are the consequences of a large income gap?

What are the consequences of having a large gap between the highest wage earners and the lowest wage earners?

[Assistant]
Look at some of the banana republics around the world.

You eventually get to the point where a handful of families own everything  up to and including the government. They then turn the government to exclusively serving their interest to the detriment of the rest of the country. Forget that whole "a rising tide lifts all boats" shit, it doesn't work that way. What actually happens is that life for everyone except these handful of families sucks.

The second problem is that your nation as a whole is worse off: Instead of a large portion of your 300 mil people (US) working, inventing, getting educated, trying new ideas that succeed or fail those people eventually get slowly shut out. You can't do much to contribute to the country as a whole when you are a dead broke uneducated minimum wage employee with no savings to do anything with. The best idea in the world will do you no good if you're working at Micky Ds. So instead of several hundred million brains working you get a few dozen. Ask the Soviets how that tends to work out.

Finally in a consumer based economy like ours you need a pretty good spread or the whole system will eventually collapse. If everyone makes Starbucks wages, no one will be able to buy Starbucks $5 lattes. If that happens Starbucks goes out of business. Then there are even more unemployed people. If you don't pay working stiffs enough the consumer demand that every single business dries up. Those businesses go out of business. More unemployed people. Even less consumer demand. It's a feedback loop that if unchecked can wind you up in Great Depression territory.


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

[User]
ELI5: why do humans have phobias

I have noticed that there are many different phobias but some of them don't make sense to have as a survival instinct like clowns. Does anybody know why we have phobias for survival and others for random thing.

[Assistant]
If you have an experience which makes you genuinely afraid for your life then you pick up on features of the environment that serve as a trigger to that danger.  People tend to unconsciously fixate on things that are novel to them.

An easy example is that you go to a party and you eat some caviar on toast and you've never eaten caviar before.  Then you become violently ill.  You're more likely to develop an involuntary acquired nausea response when exposed to caviar (because it's unfamiliar to you) than to toast (because you've eaten this many times before and know it's benign).

Similarly if someone is raped by someone wearing a leather jacket they may acquire a phobia against any exposure to someone wearing a leather jacket.  They rationally know that leather jackets have nothing to do with them getting raped.

But we are hard wired to acquire involuntary phobias to things we associate with danger, especially if they are novel, regardless of how rational this is.

It's an evolutionary advantage to avoid anything that we associate with a threat to our life.  Again, regardless of how rational that is.


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

[User]
Why does an increase in supply reduce prices/demand?

I am reading a book on economics and it says that more supply equals less demand because people wont pay a high price for things that are plentiful: "high supply will push prices down as consumers will not pay a premium for something that is plentiful."

But this just seems kind of non-sequitur. Why would the supply of something increasing make me value a unit of that thing less? For the sake of example, lets say I am willing to pay X amount of dollars for a certain type of car. But then the company manufactures 100 more of these cars, making it more plentiful. Why would I suddenly not be willing to pay as much for the car I wanted just because the supply of them overall increased?

To illustrate my confusion, this is what the sentence "high supply will push prices down as consumers will not pay a premium for something that is plentiful" is making me imagine:

Customer: I am willing to pay $50,000 for this automobile. Is this the only one of its kind you have?

Seller: Actually, no. We have 100 of that specific model in stock.

Customer: Oh, well because there's plenty of them, I'm only willing to pay $40,000 now.

Hopefully someone sees where I'm confused and can explain what I'm missing.

[Assistant]
Let's say you go to buy a car for $50,000. Then you notice a new car dealer has popped up. Since you're the only customer (for now) the dealer has to offer a lower price in order to get you to pick them over whomever you were originally going to buy from . So they undercut the other dealer and offer you a car for $45,000.

The idea is that leaving cars unsold generates zero profit, so if producers want you to buy all of what they have then they have to cut prices. This is easier to understand with something like a fruit stand where the fruit expires at the end of the day and there are a lot of different sellers. If a new fruit stand enters the market they have to persuade people to buy from them and the easiest way to do that is by offering cheaper prices.


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

[User]
ELI5 how older movies are released in Blu Ray versions

I just don't understand how older movies (for example The Sandlot to cite a commercial I just saw) can be edited and have the quality improved to such a better version, without physically reshooting the movie with a higher quality camera.

[Assistant] the original footage was at least as good as blu ray quality.  But DVDs couldn't support the quality of the initial film.  Blu Ray is much closer to the initial footage.  This is why videos in the movie theater looked MUCH better then DVDs, they were actually more like Blu Ray quality (or better).


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

[User] [Star Trek ToS/TNG/VOY/DSN/ENT] Body snatching is so unbelievably common how in gods name is there not a protocol for "Hey the captain just out of the blue acted entirely out of character and threw our diplomatic mission out the window. We should really stop and take a close look at him."?

[Assistant] It's important to keep the missions we see on the Star Trek television shows in perspective. The ships and crews shown in them usually represent the best of the best in the Federation, with the Enterprise being the Federation's flagship that is generally only sent on the most pressing/dangerous missions. Because of this they experience unique situations at a far higher rate than your typical crew and are the ones that the protocols are written for based on their experiences. So body snatching and other wacky scenarios may seem very common from our point of view, but from the perspective of the Federation it never happens to probably 99% of their ships.


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

[User]
ELI5: Ninth Amendment

Canadian here. What is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, and what are examples of laws that would violate the Ninth Amendment.

[Assistant]
It basically allows for the possibility that the founding fathers didn't account for 100% of the rights a person has and will always have and allows for "common sense" interpretations of those rights so that they don't need to be explicitly stated in the bill of rights for them to exist and be real.

It's basically meant to ensure the government doesn't try to restrict peoples rights to the limit of a literal interpretation of the bill of rights. So even if a law was crafted that was meant to restrict all free speech except what is explicitly stated in the first amendment, the law would fail because the 9th amendment says there may be more rights that are covered but not writen in the bill of rights.

This helps keep the door open for future amendments that are meant to specify rights that weren't writen down previously.


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

[User]
what is the current dominant school in continental philosophy?

what happened after post-structuralism and deconstruction? is there a dominant school in continental philosophy (with considering its possible effects on art and literature), or is it completely eclectic and heterarchical?

[Assistant]
There is no dominant school in cotinental philosophy.
The definition of continental philosophy is only as a negative one to analytic philosophy.
Under continental philosophy you have a range of schools and philosophers that are only realated by the fact they are not analytic in their occupation: Existentialism, Phenomenology, Post-Modernism, Structuralism, Nietzche, Husserl, Levinas, Foucault and so on.
Obviously all of these react and know of each other but there is no necessary methodological connection between them. Unlike the case with analytic philosophers and schools where all have some agreed similarities (the use of predicate logic as the most baisc one).


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

[User]
ELI5:Why is evolution banned in some schools?

I been curious of this but couldn't understand why, enlighten me.

[Assistant]
Okay, so there are a sub-group of Christians called "Fundamentalists". They believe that the Bible is *literally* true. And Genesis says that the Earth was created in 6 days, along with humans and all the animals. They were literally created, in six days.

But Evolution specifically says that animals (and since humans are animals) change and evolve over time from other animals. Humans too would logically have developed from some sort of lower form of animal.

This directly contradicts the *literal* interpretation of Biblical creation, since evolution takes far longer than the 6 days + ~6000 years of human civilization.

So thats the basic idea. In some areas of America, Fundamentalists are extremely politically powerful, so they want to keep kids from learning about "dangerous" beliefs.


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

[User]
[Dark Souls]Why do Black Knights wield completely different weapons than Silver Knights?

We only ever see Silver Knights wielding Straight Swords and Spears, so where did the Black Knights get the Greatswords, Ultra Greatswords, Halberds and Greataxes? And what happened to their bows?

[Assistant] The Black Knights were the elite of the Silver Knights who followed Gwyn on his path to rekindle the fire. They are black because their armour has been burned. They carry bigger/stonger weapons becauee they are more skillful.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] How does the holodeck simulate a space larger than itself?

Are people walking on invisible treadmills? What if two people use the holodeck at the same time and want to explore different areas?

[Assistant] It uses a combination of invisible treadmills and artificial gravity, which is necessary to make it feel like you're actually accelerating. I've heard that when you use two people it messes around with lenses to make them look like they moved. But regardless it's trivial to make the illusion work with holograms.


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

[User]
[MCU, not necessarily Endgame] Would any of Tony's "Suit of Armor Around the World" initiatives have been sufficient to protect Earth?

Tony Stark's attempts at a Suit of Armor Around the World have had mixed results, to say the least.

The Iron Legion, which was his first attempt and a reaction to the Battle of New York, was destroyed during Iron Man 3, and reconstructed in time for Age of Ultron, whereafter it seems to have been dismantled.

Project Insight, which was developed in tandem with SHIELD, was co-opted by HYDRA, which resulted in the dissolution of SHIELD, reduction of its staff to a small team and a handful of vigilantes, and destruction of the Next Generation Helicarriers.

Ultron, as we were shown, went full Terminator and became an existential threat in and of itself.

Theoretically, these three programs would've worked in unison to defend the planet. Would any single, or combination of them, have been sufficient to defeat hostile forces? Namely, Thanos' invasions and attacks on Earth during Infinity War, but also, Dormammu's assault on Earth in Dr. Strange, the Wakandan  army if Killmonger's invasion had worked, and the Dark Elf attack on London.

[Assistant]
Imagine hundreds or thousands of IM suits roving around at the same time- sounds great, right?

Now remember how when Pepper had Extremis the suits saw her as an enemy because Jarvis' friend-or-foe reasoning wasn't sophisticated enough to make the distinction between an enhanced combatant and an enhanced bystander.

His Ultron project would work, but there would be lots of collateral damage and the new threat that someone could hijack one of more of the suits.

When Nick Fury recruited Stark he managed to override Jarvis, proving that there were known vulnerabilities in it that could be exploited and it would be hubris to assume there were no unknown vulnerabilities - something we know Stark is prone to.


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

[User]
ELI5: What did the CIA have to gain by being involved with the crack epidemic in the 80s? And how exactly were they involved?

Always curious about why the CIA got involved in this. I think they distributed crack(?) or were involved in its distribution but I'm not sure.

[Assistant] According to Gary Webb's reporting on the subject, they needed the money. In particular, they were under orders from Congress not to spend their own money, not to spend tax money, on helping the Nicaraguan contras, and they were under orders from the President to spend money helping the Nicaraguan contras. So accepting cocaine from the contras, flying it to Los Angeles, selling it to a wholesaler, then using the money to buy guns, loading the guns on the same plane, and flying the plane back was their way of obeying the President while pretending to obey Congress.


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

[User]
[Green Lantern] What laws do Green Lanterns uphold?

So since green lanterns are essentially space cops, what laws do they abide by? Do the guardians of the universe make universe wide laws that every single planet has to abide by?

I figured every alien species have very different laws and moralities. Do green lanterns rules supersede planetary laws?

[Assistant]
Green Lantern's recognize planetary Sovereignty and will respect requests to leave in most cases but there there are some exceptions:

- A criminal that is a galactic threat is being harbored on the planet.

- The Government of the planet is making preparations to or are actively encroaching on the Sovereignty of another planet.

- The leader of the planet's Government is a alien to that planet that has seized control by coercion or force.

- The planet has no centralized Government that is qualified to make decisions for the planet.

- People on the planet are messing with any of the emotion spectrum powers or other powers deemed threatening to the Guardians.

Mostly the Green Lanterns seem to act much like the US Coast Guard, working to protect life in property in space, intercepting smugglers and pirates, and intervening in affairs that endanger galactic stability.


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

[User]
How to spend a gap year before graduate school

Hi all,

I'm about to graduate in the spring with a BA in philosophy, and I am planning on taking a gap year before I apply to a PHD program in philosophy. I'm hoping to spend the better part of the year working, preferable in a job related to philosophy. Is anyone aware of jobs/paid programs for BA's that could potentially improve one's grad school application? Outside of philosophy, are there any gap year-type jobs that could help me prepare for a career in philosophy? Thanks for any help y'all can provide!

Edit: Just realized almost every sentence I wrote ends with "philosophy"... promise I'm better at writing than this in academic and professional contexts...

[Assistant]
I'd highly recommend *not* taking a philosophy-related job. A gap year is about taking time to plan out your life: explore alternative career paths, and maybe at the same time prepare for a philosophical career path. Exploring requires a different career, one that genuinely interests you. Preparing for grad school requires flexible hours for working on your writing sample, sending applications, campus visits, etc. It's also nice to bank some $, to use during grad school.

Most typical gap year programs (americorps, teach for america, etc.) are nice options, but also more traditional career paths are worth serious consideration. Ever wondered what it would be like to be a lawyer? Network your way into a job as a paralegal. What about a consultant? Go for it! They're expecting you to leave anyways.

*Re your edit:* Your writing is fine. Philosophers hate vocabulary changes for the sake of variety. Use the right word for the job, and if it's the same word you used before, then use it anyways.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why the moon is sometimes visible during daylight.

Why is the moon visible sometimes during daytime?

[Assistant]
Two reasons: (1) because it is so bright that it outshines the blue of the sky; (2) because it strays far enough away from the sun *and* is big enough that the brightness of the sun won't wash it out.

Here's what's going on:

* The moon and the sun chase each other around a narrow belt across the sky (called "the zodiac band") from east to west once every day.
* The sun scoots along that belt in one day (about 12 hours) and returns under the earth back to where it was in one night (about another 12 hours).
* The moon does the same thing along the same belt in the same direction, but it's a little slower than the sun and it lags behind a little bit more each night.
* Over the course of maybe 29-30 days, the moon eventually falls behind full-circle, and the cycle starts over again.
* When the moon and sun are neck-and-neck, the moon is a thin crescent right next to the sun, and you can't see the moon because the sun is so bright. It's kind of like trying to see a police officer's name badge while he is shining a flashlight in your face.
* After a couple weeks, the moon has fallen about a half-sky's-worth behind the sun, the white part gets bigger like a capital letter D. That's when you can see it with no problem, and it will be on its way up out of the east starting around lunchtime.
* Over the next couple of weeks you will be seeing it fall behind by about a half-circle, it will go full, and you will be seeing it mostly at night.
* Then as the four-week cycle of falling behind comes to a close, the moon will be getting smaller, you will only see it before dawn, the brightness of the sun will wash it out, and eventually it will let the sun overtake it again, and if you're lucky, it will slide in front of the sun and you'll have an eclipse.

Hope that gives you the bigger picture.


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

[User] [AOIAF or GoT] What is the agenda of the whitewalkers, who created them? what are some key things known about them? [spoilers are welcome]

[Assistant]
No one knows. They came 10,000 years ago and brought with them a long night. They were fought back to the land of always winter by Azor Ahai and his armies, and the wall was constructed to keep them there.

What they want, where they come from, what they are. No one knows. A large majority of the world don't even believe they exist.

But in the end does it really matter? All that matters is they're coming. The world freezes around them as they walk, their weapons shatter any steel. Their nigh invincible and with them they bring an army of undead. Every enemy they fell in battle adds to their numbers.

And yet the rich and Noble continue to fight amongst themselves. Ignorant to the threat that lingers. Even if the realm were united against them it still might not be enough to stop them. What hope does a kingdom divided by war have?

Winter is coming. A long and colder winter that may very well last forever.


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

[User]
ELI5: Could a spacecraft fly through a gas planet like Saturn?

It's all gas, right? Even if the spacecraft could not "escape" the gravity and come out the other side, could it "fly" all the way to the core? Would it hit something in the middle?

[Assistant]
Yes, it is gas, but it not all gases are equal. For example, the density of Earth's atmosphere (at sea level and 15 degrees C) is about 0.001225 g/cm^3 . By contrast, the average density of Saturn is 0.69 g/cm^3 . So while Saturn has the distinction of being the only planet less dense than water (on average) it is still about 6,000 times more dense than our atmosphere. The upper atmosphere of Saturn has pressures ranging up to almost double that of our own Atmosphere and increases to about 5 times our atmospheric pressure as you go down.

To make matters worse, there are wind speeds. Saturn's atmosphere has the second fastest wind speeds in the solar system upwards of 500 m/s.

So it's not likely that any man-made craft is going to survive entry into Saturn's atmosphere; it'll get ripped to shreds from the winds.

Assuming you can survive, it's up for debate as to wether it is simply increasingly dense gas all the way down or if there is a icy core from a result of all the pressure.


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

[User] [Lord of the Flies] Do Piggy and Ralph participate in the killing of Simon? If so, does this make Ralph as evil as Jack?

[Assistant] Piggy and Ralph were motivated by fear and instinct, so maybe they weren't as evil? But what is more important in being defined evil, motivation or results? These are very complex questions, which the book tries to raise.


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

[User]
[Mass Effect 2] How does Shepard fire the M-98 Widow Anti-Material Rifle?

I chose to pick up the M-98 Widow during THAT part of Mass Effect 2. It says in the description of the weapon that the force of firing it would shatter a regular person's arm. How does Shepard fire it since for all intents and purposes he is still a regular human?

[Assistant] Shepard *isn't* a regular human anymore. They're full of cybernetics, thanks to the Lazarus project. Hence why they can headbutt a krogan without splattering their brain all over said krogan's headplate.


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

[User] ELI5: how do browser companies make money since they are all free of charge? The money they get from ads is enough to keep company running?

[Assistant] Microsoft and Google make money with their browsers by steering you towards their other services with them. Mozilla gets shared ad revenue from Google because Firefox uses them as the default search, as does Opera, which also licenses their browser for use on phones and such.


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

[User] ELI5: As growing pains are a thing in adolescents, with bone, joint and muscle aches, why isnt that pain also constantly present for infants and toddlers who are growing at a much faster rate with their bodies subject to greater developmental stresses?

[Assistant]
Babies and toddlers have the same growing pains for both their body and their developing minds.

Their perception of the pain may be different from when they are older. In general, they will be more fussy and easily irritated, sleep and eat poorly, or just cry for no reason. For some babies and their unfortunate parents, these symptoms are not too different from the everyday experience.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] How would George RR Martin write the Goblet of Fire?

The actual tournament itself.

[Assistant]
We would get a couple of chapters from Cedric Diggory's point of view, to see his inner struggle with coming to accept Harry's sincerity. He would have the brief thought "Maybe Harry should have been in Hufflepuff" and then be ashamed at how he's wronged Harry in his thoughts.

Cedric would come to realize that loyalty isn't just about house, it goes beyond that. He would resolve to try and heal the wounds between houses, try to bring Slytherin back into the fold. We would see him set out to fix the world by adhering to his guiding principles of loyalty and perseverance. We would come to love Cedric ever so much more than whining, sullen Harry.

Cedric's death would then be told from his own point of view.


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

[User] How do big cat cubs not get hurt when their mothers carry them by their teeth?

[Assistant] All cats have a scruff of fur on the back of their neck (down to just above their shoulder blades) that is for just this purpose.  It is thick fur with few nerve endings, so there is little to no pain and unlikely to harm the cat.


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

[User] [GOTG] why can humans carry the celestial gene?

[Assistant] Celestials "tinkered" with the human genome long before they were even human. part of that tinkering included using select parts of Celestial DNA to augment early proto-humans. because of that, humans and Celestials have compatible DNS to allow cross-breeding. It's why Quill survived where the other offspring of Ego died.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do people go insane when they spend long periods of time by themselves?

[Assistant]
We have this thing called "stress". However what most people don't know is that the opposite end of stress is actually boredom. While stress is mental exhaustion due to an overabundance of problems to solve, boredom is mental exhaustion due to a lack of problems to solve. The brain doesn't get to "turn off" so it is always working, like a computer with the "idle" process. The problem is that the "idle" process is not always a good thing to do in the brain (useful sometimes, but not too much).

As with stress, every person deals with boredom differently. Some go crazy, some do not, some thrive in it. Just as stress is useful at work as a VERY temporary state to get people to super-focus, boredom is a useful tool by making someone very bored, they retrospect and turn to the stimulus of their memories and inner thoughts, thus igniting creativity.

However as we all know, too much stress is really REALLY bad for you. Exactly the same problem with boredom.


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

[User]
Why does Fire Bending push people back and never seem to burn anyone while fighting?

In Avatar: The Last Airbender, fire bending just seems to knock people back. In most cases, people hit with fire when they are not blocking don't even get burned. What's up?

[Assistant]
It has to do with simple themodynamics: heated gas expands.

Firebending doesn't create any air, it just heats and moves the air near the user (water and other substances can also be heated with firebending, but they can't be moved at all). This rapidly heating air expands quickly, creating the concussive effect. In fact, most of the older firebending forms are based around knocking down your opponent and using shock and awe to make an opponent flee or surrender (the older lightning bending forms and the newer firebending forms developed by the Fire Nation military are more lethal but hard to practice on dummies). Statistically, the majority of firebending injuries are broken ribs from being knocked around and burns from clothing catching fire.

Normally if you're outside this will just knock back your target, but if firebender bends in an enclosed space there can be an explosion. If a firebender used a technique in a sealed container the container would rupture (or become very hot and pressurized). This isn't very useful for containing firebenders, though, because an airtight container would eventually suffocate a normal person. That's why firebenders have to be imprisoned in a chilled environment (which works for unrelated reasons based on the firebender's breath and chi).


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

[User] ELI5: How did the current 5 day work week, 2 day weekend come into existence?

[Assistant]
It started with individual companies giving Saturdays off for Jewish workers, but for everyone else, it came from unions.

Before labor unions, you worked every day except Sunday (for church).  As unions became more commonplace, they started negotiating for things like 40 hour work weeks and 2 day weekends.

These were the ideas that got codified into labor laws in use in the US today.


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

[User]
ELI5: How does homelessness occur in First World countries? What are the best solutions for reducing homelessness that have worked in the past?

If I give a homeless person some money would that be detrimental to the cause?

[Assistant] You will find the vast majority of homeless people in Canada (where living on the streets is definitely never a 'choice' in winter, as opposed to Hawaii) are there because of mental health problems. There are resources for them, but they have problems using them because of mental problems, which in an essence makes the resources useless. The mental health problems can range from schizophrenia to bipolarism and just plain overaggression.


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

[User]
ELI5: Does picking scabs actually affect the scarring?

I could not find the answer I'm looking for anywhere on the web. Basically, I wanna know how picking at your scabs would leave a scar. I just don't get why.
Let's say you have two identical cuts, but one you pick at and the other you don't. Would the scar be bigger on the former one??
I know that removing scabs is like removing the protective layer your body creates, so the whole process would have to repeat again. But it still confuses me how that could affect the size of the scar.

[Assistant]
Scabs are like natural bandaids. They protect the wound so it can heal underneath.

Picking it off can make it partially "start over" in terms of healing. It heals less completely from doing that, which can lead to things like scarring.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do our nails turn white when they are no longer touching our cuticle?

[Assistant] Fingernails are actually supposed to be translucent, that's why you can see the nail bed through them. They turn white after they grow out because they're no longer receiving any moisture from your body.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do sensations like hunger, pain, etc. come in waves rather than all at once?

[Assistant]
nerves function by maintaining an electric charge, that builds up when the nerve is excited by something, and then has to recharge.

So if you say cut your hand really bad, all the nerves around the cut trigger at once, and then they have to rebuild their excitation level, and then they trigger again, and then they rebuild... The result is waves of pain that correspond to how long it takes your nerves to recharge.

Alternatively if you get something like a bruise or a not bad cut, that bruise will cause your nerves to be excited, but not enough to trigger them. Then something that pushes on your bruise, even lightly (for instance, the pressure of your heartbeat passing under the bruise), will cause the nerves to trigger. Then you get throbs of pain corresponding your heartbeat. (these are much more throbby compared to waves you get from the really bad wounds, and are common in wounds that cause swelling, especially around joints where bloodflow is more constricted.)


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

[User]
ELI5: How does A4 paper manufactures compete with each other?

From my understanding all brands are indistinguishable from each other in terms of the "product" (its just a piece of paper), and I assume that users just buy the one that's the cheapest. So how do industries compete? Is it solely about price controlling?

[Assistant]
That's a big part of it, yeah. If they can find a way to keep costs low without compromising on quality, that will tend to help them get more sales.

So, how can they keep costs down? A lot of that comes down to efficiency in terms of equipment, process, supply chain, distribution, employees, and so on.

Past that, are they producing high quality paper that customers want? Are there any other services they can provide, such as printed letterhead or watermarks? Are they able to reliably meet their commitments and stick to their contracts?

Paper is in some ways a simple product, but all of those factors matter just like they would for any business.


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

[User]
I believe assisted suicide should be legalized and that the fact it isn't is an infringement on those individuals' free choice. CMV.

Like the title says, I think assisted suicide should be legal. It's honestly a little boggling to me why it is so incredibly controversial. The arguments pro are a little self-explanatory I think (free choice, etc.) Instead, I've tried to summarize and rebut some arguments from the opposing side, which I've boiled down to this:

- Often, the request of death has a lot to do with the loss of certain bodily functions and the accompanying loss of dignity. The argument is often people are extremely despondent initially regarding a loss of limb or sense, but often come to realize they can still have a fulfilling life. Some people might choose to kill themselves in their initial despondency. To me, whether or not this is true is irrelevant, this is not the government's decision to make. There should be safeguards in place so people can't walk out the door and take a cyanide pill, but if the patient is properly informed and is forced to consider his/her decision, then it's out of the government's hands.

- Some people "choose" to do it, because of the financial burden it puts on their families, a factor outside their control. That money forces them into the decision between breaking their family's bank and killing themselves. Because of the money factor, assisted suicide might be chosen much more by poor people/people of color. I agree with this statement, but it doesn't change the sad truth of the situation. The alternative to not legalizing assisted suicide (which only costs $35-50 on average) is to legally mandate that these people do have to spend more money. Until our (the U.S.'s) health care system's high costs are somehow made affordable to everybody, this is the unfair reality of the situation, no different than the terminal illness that is "forcing" the patient to consider assisted suicide in the first place.

- It's legal in every state to refuse necessary treatment to sustain life and it's also legal to be prescribed painkillers for comfort's sake in this context. This rebuttal is a little personal, but my aunt has a severe form of ALS. In the past year and a half I've seen her go from a fully functioning, healthy adult to a wheel-chair bound mute in a neck brace, her disease being incurable at all stages. If she so chose, it would be illegal for her to end it now. To suggest that she could simply refuse all treatment to prolong her life and take painkillers/sedatives for comfort as a serious option to me shows a serious lack of empathy of her situation and many others'.

- Finally, that legalizing assisted suicide will result in the eventual expansion of the "program" such that we will soon start assisting people suffering psychological stress, perhaps even mandating a person be euthanized. Usually a finger is pointed at Holland here, so I did a little research. There is only one circumstance where euthanizing any person without his or her consent is legal is in the case of a child below the age of twelve, with the consent of his or her parents and all the expected conditions, terminal illness, extreme pain/discomfort, etc. Whether or not that is fair is irrelevant for this argument, I think; the point is that even the most liberal country in the world on this issue isn't going around deciding which elderly people to kill off, a la Palin's death panels. Even on the slipperiest slope, the mandatory euthanasia of adults is a non-issue.

tl;dr Financial hardship is a reality that people have to deal with and have the right to choose to avoid; waiting periods and proper legal safeguards can prevent people from killing themselves through their doctor before they even attempt to adjust; although it is legal to refuse treatment and receive pain meds, it is hardly a reasonable alternative to direct suicide with some conditions; there is no precedence for the "slippery slope" argument that I could find.

[Assistant] Do you think that a person suffering clinical depression should be able to commit assisted suicide?  If not, what if they're *also* suffering terminal cancer or something similarly unpleasant?  Where would you draw the line?


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

[User]
[JRPGs] So this ragtag group of adventurers with unclear goals and good hearts that everyone says are going to save the world. Why are they so... *young*?

I mean I saw them blow through town last week, shortly before the evil empire showed up and burnt all our homes down, and I swear they're all just teenagers. I'm pretty sure there were one or two actual children with them too. Okay so, I guess there was one "older guy" with them, but he's still like... 15 to 20 years my junior. Couldn't have been older than his late 20s.

Is anyone supervising these kids? Why are we trusting the fate of the world to a group of emotionally undeveloped teenagers. Does... is the king using child soldiers? How long has that been going on?

Also was that dog following them holding a gun?

[Assistant]
> Is anyone supervising these kids?

Their parents were at home when the evil empire showed up.

> Why are we trusting the fate of the world to a group of emotionally undeveloped teenagers.

I assume because you're cowards. Apparently a group of emotionally undeveloped teenagers are the only people who aren't willing to trust the fate of the world to someone else.


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

[User] [Terminator] Do Terminators have secondary programming to handle situations where they are accidentally sent back to an incorrect time period? How might one react to being thrown back decades or even centuries before their original target date?

[Assistant]
There was an interesting example in *The Sarah Connor Chronicles* - a Terminator who not only arrived several decades early, but on arrival caused a fire which killed someone essential to its long-term mission.

It knew its mission, so it simply adapted - it robbed a couple of banks for startup capital, then took the dead man's place in history, starting a construction company to build the building which the dead man had originally been going to build, in order to be able to assassinate the governor of California (no name given) inside it.

Once everything was in place for its mission to proceed as planned, the Terminator walled itself up inside the building and then entered sleep mode, waiting decades for the moment to strike.

We also got to see it arriving and noticing the tiny differences in the position of the stars which told it exactly how early it had arrived.


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

[User]
Reading recommendations: the culture industry

Hello. I've recently been reading up on Adorno and Horkheimer's diagnosis regarding the Culture Industry and I wonder if any philosophers have written about it regarding current society with technological advancements like the internet and what the implications (if any at all) could be regarding the culture industry.

Could you recommend me some articles and/or books that I could dive into regarding this subject? I'll take either critiques or defenses of Adorno and Horkheimer's theory.

Thanks in advance.

[Assistant]
Christian Fuchs, *Social Media: A Critical Introduction*

J van Dijk, *The Culture of Connectivity* (this one is much more influenced by Latour and ANT)

Mark Fisher, *Capitalist Realism*

Fredric Jameson, *Late Marxism*

Nicholas Srnicek, *Platform Capitalism*

Slavoj iek, *Plague of Fantasies*

., *The Art of the Ridiculous Sublime: On David Lynchs Lost Highway*

., Is it Possible to Traverse the Fantasy in Cyberspace?

Some of Sherry Turkles stuff comes up a lot (usually as criticized in the stuff Ive read), but Im not particularly familiar.

Also, *Aesthetics & Politics,* edited by Jameson, is a great compilation, but not contemporary.

Most of these are not direct responses to Adorno and Horkheimer (Fuchs does reference them directly and Jameson is writing on Adorno), but theyre in a similar vein.


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

[User]
Does newer re-chargeable batteries also benefit
from being completely depleted before being re-
charged each time, like old re-chargeable batteries
did?

I've kept the habit of doing that with batteries and to me it looks like my batteries, in my phones, laptops, mp3-players etc. last a lot longer than those of others. I could be biased though, but I don't think so. My old laptop which I never bothered doing that with can't even boot up before the batteries run out now, while my iPod from 2003 has about as good bettery-life as when it was new. Anyone know anything about this? Are there different types of batteries that require different care?

[Assistant]
Electrical Engineer and former certified repair technician for Sprint and AT&T here.

The older NiCad batteries used to have a problem with memory, whereby if you didn't completely discharge the battery before charging, its overall capacity would diminish much faster.

Newer LiIon and NiMH batteries do not have an issue with memory. In fact, treating a LiIon battery like a NiCad will severely damage the battery. The majority of problems with LiIon batteries are a result of undercharging it, that is, letting the battery completely diminish. It is highly advisable to not let the battery drop below 10% if you can help it. Turning it off is much better for the battery. If you are near a charger, charge it. Generally LiIon battery life is measure in "charge cycles" that is, 0 to 100% full charging cycles. Most standard style LiIon batteries have an expected rating of 300 charge cycles before overall battery life is noticably reduced.

If you let your battery die all the way every day, you now have less than a year with that battery based on a 300 cycle life span. If you use it down to 50% and then charge it every day, you've now "doubled" your expected life (we're ignoring factors like temperature, humidity, and air pressure).

Newer products with Lithium Polymer batteries (like the newer Apple notebooks and phones) have an expected life of 1000 charging cycles before usable capacity is noticeably reduced. They should be treated and charged just like LiIon batteries.

The other common cause of LiIon failure is temperature. Extreme cold and extreme heat can severely affect overall battery lifespan. Follow the manufacturer's guidelines here.


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

[User]
Is there a particular stigma to being a philosopher and having strong religious views, even if one's philosophy is distinct from them? Is medieval philosophy not taken as seriously for this reason??

Admittedly, I've only had some graduate study, but my perception is that philosophers with strong religious views are somewhat sidelined.  I don't just mean in academia either; after reading Maimonides *Guide for the Perplexed* and looking for secondary literature, I was a bit disappointed that nearly everything published was in Jewish studies rather than philosophy.   This is despite the fact that it seemed to me you could accept a lot of Maimonides' metaphysics without being committed to any of his religious views (e.g. At the end of Book I, he talks a great deal about how being able to imagine something is not relevant to whether or not that thing actually exists [which apparently is something some theologians thought at the time?], and has some interesting thoughts about ontology as to how it relates to imagination and observation of empirical fact)

Based on the philosophical education that *I* received at least, we tended to talk a great deal about Plato and Aristotle, after which philosophy was apparently dead for the next 1500 years, whereupon Descartes appaears on the scene and philosophy rises from the grave.  I can't help but notice that most philosophers during this period tended to couch their philosophy in religious allegory (e.g. Avicenna, Maimonides, Scotus, etc) even if their religious views were only one part of a larger worldview.  The professors I know who specialize in history of philosophy don't seem to know a great deal about a period of between 1,000 and 1,500 years.

So do religious philosophers get pooh-poohed?  And if so, is it justified? (e.g. I could see an argument that people who have rather strong biases should be taken rather less seriously than people who don't, but I think that might presuppose that their religious conclusions are informing their philosophy rather than the other way around)

Is there another reason that medieval philosophy is not studied nearly as much that I am just unaware of?

(I also know that Catholic philosophy and academia tends to be its own insular field of study, but I'm not sure if that's by choice)

[Assistant]
Are you asking if contemporary philosophers take religious philosophers from the past seriously? The answer is an unambiguous yes, for instance Descartes, Plato and Aristotle are taken very much taken seriously, and these Philosophers religious beliefs were not at all unconnected from their Philosophy.

I think your actual question is 'why isn't medieval philosophy very prominent?' but there is no way Avicenna is somehow 'more religious' than Kant.


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

[User]
Is a black hole the highest state of entropy that can occur? (that we know of)

I was reading *The Life of the Cosmos* by Lee Smolin, and this is how he explained Bekenstein's dicovery.

> According to the laws of thermodynamics, no process is allowed that can decrease the entropy of a system. Suppose that inside some boundary, a system exists that contains more entropy than any black hole, which fit inside the boundary, could contain. It turns out that in this case one can always add energy to the system until it is so dense that it must collapse to a black hole. But then the entropy goes *down* to that of a black hole that could be contained within the boundary. This is impossible, so there must be something wrong with the assumption of the argument, which was that a system can have more entropy than the largest black hole that fits into the same region.

What is the biggest region that one can assert?

Would the entropy of a region/system that contains the emissions of a "decayed" black hole have a higher entropy than it did while the black hole still existed?

I am not smart enough for this shit.

[Assistant]
Heh, it's funny you read this from Smolin of all people...

He's talking about the Bekenstein bound. See it like this: a black hole is the highest-entropy state *in a given radius*. You can have systems with more entropy than a given black hole but they need to be much bigger (in terms of size) than it.

If you confine your system in a radius R, it will always have less entropy than the black hole of size R.

It's not by chance that when a black hole decays to Hawking radiation the radiation spreads over a very large volume.


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

[User] ELI5: how can you go to bed perfectly fine one night and then wake up the following morning sick as all hell with a flu or cold?

[Assistant] Believe it or not, the symptoms of flu or cold are actually the body's signs that it is finally reacting to the pathogen. With a flu or cold, the disease is actually active in your body for 24 to 72 hours *before* you start feeling symptoms. Yes, this means that you were contagious then, too. And it means that when you start feeling crappy on Wednesday, it's because you caught something on that date on the previous Friday night.


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

[User]
[Pokemon] Why can't I capture a pokemon after it faints?

Seems logical that a fainted pokemon would easier to catch then a weaken pokemon.

[Assistant] Pokemon aren't caught by simply weakening them to the point they can't resist the pokeball; that's a misconception. Actually, they need to be caught by submitting to the pokeball, and this can only be done if the trainer that's fighting it earns it's respect through battling it with other pokemon they already have. So a Pokemon has to allow itself to be caught, and this can't be done if it's fainted.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do your eyelids get puffy after crying?

[Assistant]
There are a number of factors.

Tears from strong emotions are less salty than regular tears which keep your eyeball moist. Since your eyelids are "more salty" than the tears, the water from your tears goes into your eyelid tissue to balance out the amount of salt, causing the eyelid to swell.

You could also say that blood vessels around the eyelid have to expand in order to be able to deliver that much fluid for waterworks. Also, rubbing your eyes can cause it to swell, as the friction can cause irritation of the membranes around your eyes (conjunctiva).


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

[User] ELI5: Why do cats smell amazing when they're sleeping?

[Assistant] Because you've been infected with a brain parasite that attracts you to cat pheromones. *toxoplasma gondii* is mostly benign, but it does control your mind to some extent, mostly for the purpose of spreading back to its main host, cats. Don't worry, about 1/3 of humans are infected.


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

[User] If antibodies are transferred from mother to child, then shouldn't babies be immune to whatever diseases their moms were vaccinated against.

[Assistant]
Yes, and they are. An example on a medical boards question of this would be a mother being given a tetanus vaccine and the infant being covered for when the umbilical cord is cut.

The thing is, infants aren't able to generate their own immune responses for 6-9 wks after birth, so they are completely reliant on the antibodies that transfer through the placenta. Once those antibodies are all gone, the baby needs to be immunized so that they can start making their own.

Edit: Weeks not months.


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

[User]
[Marvel] Is Galactus particularly intelligent?

He has access to mind blowingly advanced technology, but any idiot can drive a car. His cosmically enhanced senses grant him access to knowledge beyond the perception of mortal men, but that's no more impressive than a normally sighted person making fun of a color blind Nobel laureate for not perceiving red. So has Galactus demonstrated that he has any kind of strategic or creative intelligence that would make him noteworthy, rather than just relying on his megatech and inherent cosmic superiority?

[Assistant]
He was an explorer before becoming Galactus, so he is at least baseline intelligent for his race.

>So has Galactus demonstrated that he has any kind of strategic or creative intelligence that would make him noteworthy, rather than just relying on his megatech and inherent cosmic superiority?

Is a measure of a humans strategic / intelligent worth measured by how he deals with ants on a sidewalk?

That's pretty much how you should judge Galactus in most of his encounters.


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

[User] [Pokemon] Could I just walk around with a brick, stun Pokemon by beating them, then capture them once weakened? And if so, how is that less ethical than the usual way of weakening them?

[Assistant] You realise that Pokmon are way stronger than humans, right? For instance, a single Spearow can comfortably lift the weight of a human. That's lea. They're operating on levels way above a human's ability. You can try stunning them with a brick but it will go *badly* for you.


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

[User]
CMV: Weddings that take place at plantations should not be considered offensive.

Recently it was announced that Pinterest and The Knot will stop promoting wedding venues and content that feature plantations. This got me thinking about why people are so offended about weddings that take place on plantations. Despite reading several articles and comments decrying these weddings, I still dont understand the offense.

Yes, atrocities took place on plantations. Atrocities also took/take place at other locations that are considered acceptable as wedding locations - anywhere where Native American land was forcibly stolen or where their tribes were intentionally wiped out, anywhere where a war battle had once taken place, anywhere that was once segregated, anywhere that was once built by, housed or otherwise used enslaved people, anywhere where people have been raped, etc. Slaves built the White House and many universities buildings, farms and other buildings that are currently used for celebrations and weddings with no objection. Why are plantations singled out? If American people refused to have a wedding anywhere where atrocities once happened, theyd basically be limited to fairly new construction in areas Native Americans have never lived - I mean, what would even be left? Foreign venues in a country where there have never been slaves or war?

Also not all plantations used enslaved people and not all of them used a lot of enslaved people. For example, a large manor in the South couldve had 15 enslaved people and a plantation couldve had 5 enslaved people and used paid labor for the rest. Obviously neither have enslaved people today and havent for many years. Yet the manor can be promoted as a wedding venue today without offense and the plantation cant just because one is a farm and the other isnt? I think thats unfair.

Do we decry all buildings for their racist or sexist pasts? Should none of us ever get married in churches, temples and other religious buildings that once refused to  condone interracial or LGBTQ marriages or segregation or used enslaved peoples labor or services (essentially ruling out any historic religious building), even if theyve changed their tunes now?

Plantations today are still working farms with  features such as historical tours, wine-tasting, pick your owl fruits and veggies, haunted hay rides, live music, etc. Clearly theyre very different than how they used to be generations ago. If the current owners acknowledge the previous owners/their ancestors use of slave labor somewhere (e.g., historical exhibit at the plantation, pamphlets, description of history on its website), I dont see why people shouldnt use it as a wedding venue without a sense of shame.

Overall, who knows what other venues once used slave labor? Basically any building built before 1865 would be disallowed (as well as any buildings currently built on former Native American land), and I dont think people should be prevented from having weddings basically anywhere in America without being called insensitive - because thats what the result would be. Also wed have to build a new White House, Capitol, Smithsonian Institute, Wall Street, Faneuil Hall, Harvard University, Georgetown University, University of Virginia, Monticello, Great Pyramid, Great Wall...where does it end?

CMV.

[Assistant]
>Plantations today are still working farms with features such as historical tours, wine-tasting, pick your owl fruits and veggies, haunted hay rides, live music, etc.

Agreed. The difference is marketing. If you market your venue as a vineyard, farm, orchard, or whatever, The Knot has no problem listing your venue.

When you *specifically* market as a plantation, you're taking advantage of the charged connotation of the word. At best, you're marketing using some kind of social or rural identity. At worst, you're dogwhistling to attract racist clientele.


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

[User]
[LOTR] How common was interracial marriage in middle-earth??

How common was it for a person to marry and have children with a person of another race?? Like what would a child between an Elf and a Dwarf look like.

[Assistant]
> How common was it for a person to marry and have children with a person of another race?

During the First Age, some Men came under the domination of Morgoth and were reduced to a feral state, in which they interbred with Orcs. This produced the half-orcs. Rape would result in much the same.

There is no mention of half-dwarves. It's not clear if unions between dwarves and other races could be fertile.

Half-elves were rare but did happen. Elves would only mate with their life-partners, and elven conception having a spiritual component would prevent rape from producing half-elves, hence only genuine unions ever resulted in half-elves. These were the marriages of Beren and Luthien, Tuor and Idril, Earendil and Elwing, and possibly (though this story is not nearly as well documented as the other three) Imrazr and Mithrellas.


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

[User]
ELI5: How does the US government contract businesses about classified projects?

Like if they want a particular company to help them on a project, but the project is classified (I.e. A not yet disclosed airplane or something to that effect), how do they approach the company and what do they tell them?
If that makes any sense, I'd love to know. Very curious about this.

[Assistant]
The initial contract bidding proposals are themselves vague and unclassified, but detail the Company clearance level (FCL) and Personnel Clearance level (PCL) requirements.

Cleared companies have network links with the Gov for when these contracts are being put out as Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

The Cleared companies then submit their RFP, which includes budgets, manpower, etc, etc, etc...  This then results in the Gov comparing and contrasting the bids, usually going with the lowest bid by the best rated company (companies get project ratings almost like an EBAY seller as they complete projects for different Gov entities).

The winning company is issued a DD-254 form (Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification) along with all the "Normal" contract stuff.

The DD-254 grants the company the ability to work that specific cleared contract, to clear personnel to work the project, and (if listed) to subcontract parts of the job to other cleared companies by issuing sub-contract DD-254's.

If that subcontract company already has a FCL (as listed in the ISFD database)it is a relatively simple process to bring them in to work.

If they are a totally uncleared company, it depends on what the subcontracted duties are...  for example, a Cleared company has the contract to maintain all services for an embassy overseas somewhere... they handle electrical work, plumbing, HV/AC, etc inside, along with maintaining exterior beautification.  All the people working inside the building will have PCL's and be part of a cleared company, but the company can hire a local uncleared company to handle Lawn services outside the embassy, simply assigning one or two cleared people to overwatch them when at work.

Now, if, for example, The Gov starts a project to train combat small drone operators... they decide they need to hire a company with a team of skilled maintenance techs to maintain the drones, and there isn't any such company out there, but there is a local company who does that exact work for a local Drone racing circuit...  The Gov or a Cleared company would approach them with the idea of becoming a cleared company or forming a LLC sub-company that could then be sponsored for a FCL to work classified contracts and then get it's workers clearances to work the project.  It's a rather complex process, but it how almost every cleared company got its start sometime in the past.


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

[User]
What happens when our stomachs grumble?

Im sitting at home and my gut is trying its best whale impersonation and it got me thinking, what exactly is happening?

[Assistant] Its usually associated with the beginning of the gastric phases.   Before we even eat, the thoughts and smells of food cause our vagus nerve to begin sending signals to our digestive tract.  Its essentially Priming the tract to get ready fo food.  Muscle contractions begin and so does the secretion of lots of mucous and other stuff to help us digest.


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

[User]
[Spider-Man: No Way Home] If Happy decides to check his surveillance cameras again..

Will evidence of Peter being in his house still exist, or will he just see Goblin, Doc Ock, Electro, and Sandman in his house with no explanation?

[Assistant] I think hed just see Spidey with his mask on. Id assume Happy already has gone over them a few times when we last see him due to grief or such, and everything indicates all records surrounding Peter Parker have been erased. We dont know if the spell works that people will now find any *other* explanation when they connect the dots between Peter Parker and Spider-Man as it was in the comics, or if his identity can still be deduced.


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

[User]
How come multiple viruses/pathogens dont interfere with one another when in the human body?

I know that having multiple diseases can never be good for us, but is there precedent for multiple pathogens fighting each other inside our body?

[Assistant] Before antibiotics, syphilis could sometimes be treated by infecting the patient with malaria. The high fever of the malaria infection could kill the syphilis bacteria; it was called pyrotherapy. Problematic because sometimes the malaria accidentally killed the patient... but people would take that bet because the alternative was terminal neurosyphilis.