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

[User]
CMV: Colonisation overall was a net positive for the world.

Reasons

1. It created the modern nation state which paved the way for stable borders and is the reason war started to decline. Democracy also started to become commonplace since permanent populations and institutions like school started to become mainstay.

2. *The UK* stabilised warring tribes into democracies.

3. Europe imported the rule of law, *especially the UK* for the first time for just about the rest of the world, people were ruled by laws and not by the strongest tribe or leader. It was also the first time that the law was no longer arbitrary based on which group was in better with the ruling class.

4. They imported the industrial revolution which greatly increased the life expectancy and standard of living.

5. Modern medicine and science we have Europe to thank for *Mostly Germany* which they gave to the rest of the world due to the fact that the whole world now had functioning nations and economies.

6. The continents and islands went from being separate worlds to being one connected world.

In closing, if Europe had never colonised the world they would be at the space age and the rest of us would be still tribal, warring, and likely very uncivilised. So we should be grateful for them deciding the rest of the world was worth exploring.

[Assistant]
There are two types of colonization, both of which caused problems but one more so than the other.

1. Settlement colonization - Examples here include the United States, New Zealand, and Australia.  The purpose of this type of colonization was to take people from your original country and start building a home for them in the new land.  This is the type that is the cause of virtually every positive that you have listed - though your positives aren't quite accurate. Settlement colonization is the earliest known form of colonization, it was practiced heavily by the Ancient Greeks who would send their pioneers out to Sicily, Turkey, Italy and build new cities.  When practiced in the modern era, it has invariably 100% of the time led to genocide of the existing population in the place you decide is your new home.  The extent of the genocide differs - the Maori in New Zealand weren't slaughtered as thoroughly as the Native Americans in the US, but even a little genocide is enormously unacceptable.

2. Extraction colonization.  This is the big one that fucked up more of the world than anything else.  This was what most of the colonization in Africa was.  The Europeans set up shop, threaten to kill anyone who resists, enslaves the population and has them dig up the rich natural resources that are abundant in Africa and then they transfer that material wealth back to Europe.  The only countries in Africa that avoided this were Ethiopia and South Africa - Ethiopia because they got lucky and it was the Italians who tried to take over instead of the French or the British, so they kicked their asses. South Africa was a settlement colony and, like all settlement colonies, underwent a genocide because of it. So how are the Africans supposed to keep up with the rest of the world's economies who keep advancing post-Industrial Revolution when all of their labor is just collected and shipped off to Europe where the Europeans can become rich off of it and the Africans can't?   The Africans are also unable to participate in the Industrial Revolution, not because they lack the resources or intelligence, but because their countries have been taken over and they work in a command economy set up by foreigners.

The extraction colonies have fallen for the most part, a big part of that is that WWII was too costly and the British and the French couldn't afford to defend their colonial possession anymore, and here's where - after stealing all wealth for hundreds of years - they really fucked things up.  European nations were allowed to develop their own borders as a result of their history.  After countless wars, massacres, and genocides in Europe, most people had a country that worked for them and the borders were rarely in dispute.  Instead of letting the borders of their colonies develop naturally, the colonizers just split lands and peoples willy nilly.

In 1947 the British thought it'd be a cool idea to split the nation of India between Hindu and Muslim.  Lord Mountbatten, the man behind the partition, didn't know shit about how to do that so he just drew two lines on a map and was done with it.  The result was 200K-2M deaths and 14M people displaced.

Other genocides that occurred because the colonizers decided to put persecuted groups in new countries that were led by their persecutors - Rwandan Genocide, Sudanese Genocide, two Ugandan genocides.

Other great moves - promising the people of Palestine that they'd get to keep their land after they were conquered.  Then promising the survivors of a German-led genocide that they'd get their ancestral homeland, which had just been given to another group. Now Israel and Palestine don't exactly see eye to eye, and they exist like this as enemies because of the artificial development of them as a nation that was caused by colonization.

TL;DR - Africa had all their wealth taken for hundreds of years and then the colonizers just left and gave them shitty borders that they didn't want, putting opposing groups together and splitting their power for no real reason other than laziness and being dumb. Seriously, look at a map of Africa, all those straight lines on their borders are European colonizers just getting bored when figuring out how to split them.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does water temperature feel so different than air temperature?

Walking around in 30C (86F) weather feels so much warmer than taking a shower with the same temperature, why is that? I know our body temperature has to do with it, but both water and air touch our skin before they affect anything else, right?

[Assistant] Water is a decent thermal conductor compared to air. Air molecules are in a gaseous state and most of a gas is empty space. So the chances of an air molecule bumping into you and stealing your energy is far lower than water (a liquid that is waaaay more jam-packed with molecules).


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

[User] [Halo] Do Halo arrays actually damage the Flood at all, or do they only deny them complex life to devour?

[Assistant]
Yes, they cause it to break down at a cellular level. It's the same effect they have on all complex life, as the disruption of Neural Physics somehow interferes with the ability for individual cells to function as part of a greater whole.

Basically, they cause all multicellular life to collapse.


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

[User]
CMV: Encouraging rape victims to protect themselves is not the same as blaming them

So this is a hill I've died on several times in different comment sections. It's clearly an unpopular opinion, but it seems to be so universally hated that I struggle to find replies that don't strawman my claims or just degrade me. I'm hoping to get a proper discussion here.
These conversations often start with one of those tumblr or facebook posts about someone showing their dog a steak and drawing attention to the fact that their dog is not eating it. This is then used to make the claim that rapists have less self control/decency than OP's dog. This is all well and good.
What I usually say is something along the lines of "that's great, but with the knowledge that some people out there are capable of committing rape, we should still take precautions." To me this seems like common sense, but at this point I'm branded as blaming the victim.
Other analogies I think work well:
If a drunk driver hits your car, it's not your fault. However, you should still wear a seatbelt and drive a car with airbags.
If someone breaks into your house, it's not your fault. However, you should still lock your house, and maybe even have a safe, depending on where you live and what you own.
If someone steals your credit card information, it's not your fault. However, you should still have strong PINs and passwords.
There are examples everywhere in our lives of protecting ourselves from the malice of others, so why is rape treated differently? Show me the distinction and change my view.

EDIT: the most common response I've seen (that's convinced me) is that victims need support, not advice. This is completely valid, and what I'm more getting at is that we should educate people to protect themselves.

[Assistant]
While you are technically right, nobody likes a smart ass.

If your family dies in a house fire, the last thing you need to hear is some smart ass saying "well, maybe if they had proper smoke alarms it wouldnt have happened".

A) who said they didnt? Maybe they had protective measures and it still didnt help.

B) your world just collapsed, you are traumatized for life, and some asshole tells you how he thinks you could have easily prevented your life being ruined... Its not helping in that situation.

Note that you replied on posts that their main point is to hate on rapists and encourage their victims. These places are not the place to go "well... Maybe if she had spent a year studying self defence, her life wouldnt have been ruined." thats insensitive.


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

[User]
[ATLA/LOK] When Iroh said you had to have "peace of mind" to generate lightning, what does that actually mean?

As seen in the first series, Zuko was unable to generate lightning due to his inner turmoil. Yet at the finale of the series, Azula was able to generate lightning despite having a mental breakdown? In the comic The Search, Azula was clinically insane yet was still able to generate lightning multiple times.

Do you have to have inner peace to generate lightning or are there other ways to do it that Iroh didn't know about?

[Assistant] Azula may be crazy, but she knows who she is. She's a finely turned weapon producing lighting as a way to exert her own power over others. Conversely, Zuko has been relentlessly pursuing the agendas of others, forwarding other goals, and seeking approval he does not need.  Zuko struggles, Azula succeeds.


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

[User] Why does the light from the moon not scatter and become blue upon entering Earth's atmosphere.

[Assistant]
A Full Moon is about half a million times dimmer than the Sun. As a result, the "blue sky" caused by the full Moon is similarly half a million times dimmer than the "blue sky" caused by the Sun.

The effect is still somewhat noticeable to the unaided eye, though. If you're in a place with dark skies when the Full Moon is out, take note of the faintest star you can see. If you look again a couple weeks later when the Moon isn't up, the skies will have improved quite a bit - you'll be able to see fainter stars. Similarly, the Milky Way looks washed out when viewed during a Full Moon, even if you're looking at the opposite part of the sky.

Astronomers are aware of this effect, and the scheduling of telescope time happens accordingly. If you're observing very faint objects like distant galaxies that require incredibly dark skies to get the best signal-to-noise, you'll likely be awarded "dark time", which are times that the Moon isn't up. If you observe bright objects like planets in our solar system when sky brightness isn't such an issue, you'll likely be awarded "bright time", which are times when the Moon is up.

**TL;DR**: It does, it's just dim.


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

[User]
ELI5: How can a layperson tell whether a police/FBI/government badge or ID is authentic?

I've been reading the Jack Reacher novels recently (great stuff, btw), and badges or ID are shoved into people's faces about every 3rd page. It occurred to me that if that ever happened to me, I'd have no way to know whether the person was lying or not. As a layman in this area, I have literally no basis for which I could judge this sort of thing.

So, I'm wondering if there are certain things that are well known about badges or IDs that would help the average person.

[Assistant]
Unless it's something obviously fake like a Colgate Cavity Patrol badge there's no good way to tell. There's no standard police badge across the United States. Even if there were, old ones could get sold and authentic-looking replicas could be made.

If you have doubts about whether someone is a police officer or not you can either call 911 to verify that an officer is who they say they are or you can ask to look at their department issued ID card.


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

[User] Given that ancestors of modern-day humans emigrated out of Africa into Europe, and then spread across the continents, how did humans end up on remote locations such as the islands of the Pacific?

[Assistant]
In some cases, like the ancient colonization of Australia and the islands that lie between Australia and Asia, which took place 40,000 years ago, we don't know exactly. The migration of humans there is taken as evidence that they must have had some seafaring ability even though no direct archaeological evidence (boats and the like) exists. Sea levels were much lower then, but even so there remained a 90km strait of open ocean that would have had to be crossed somehow.
Once in Australia, the human voyagers would simply have been able to walk to Tasmania, which was then connected to the mainland because of the lower sea levels.
Many of the Pacific islands were settled by Polynesians within what we would consider 'historical times', but because of a lack of written records among the Polynesians themselves the exact dates and circumstances of the colonization aren't always known. But in general, it's well accepted that they got there using the same shipbuilding and navigation technology that they had when Europeans first encountered them. They reached Hawaii some time between 300 and 800 CE, New Zealand in the same general timeframe (maybe a little later), and Easter Island sometime between 800 and 1200 CE.
If there is some other remote location you want specific information on, Wikipedia isn't a bad place to start.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is the U.S. the closest ally of Japan even after WWII?

Is the relationship as perfect as it's made out to be? Any other facts you can throw in there?

[Assistant]
Imperial Japan died at the end of World War II.

The US then embarked on a nation building campaign that has never really been equaled.  We *rebuilt* Japan from the ground up.  Their economy, their society, their technology, everything.

Then we forbade them from having a large military (they only have a Self Defense Force)... and promised them that the US military would defend them if they were attacked.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are we told to be altruistic and humble as good qualities yet greed and self-entitlement are rewarded in society (and nature)?

Thanks for all the insight!

[Assistant]
Well society - at least ones that speak English generally - don't subscribe to natural law so it doesn't really matter to us whether nature is inherently in favour of our ways or not.

Why do greed and entitlement rewarded? Well you could argue they work despite society's efforts, you can argue we're just giving lip service to being humble and generous or you might argue that greed and entitlement only get you things that don't really matter.

Regardless it's a philosophical debate with no objectively correct answer. Can't really ELI5 this.


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

[User]
ELI5:Why is Asian steel considered inferior to American and European steel?

Like I hear how katanas needed to be forged in a certain way to overcome their metal and that even then they were inferior to European swords. Or the fact you could make a rapier from the same amount of steel as a katana. I have heard this even going into the world wars with the Japanese making guns out of inferior metal. And the whole thing about chinese steel sucking. Why is this? Does that part of the world just have bad iron? And if so Why?

[Assistant]
It's not Asian steel, it's Japanese steel (remember that Asia is a huge continent with more than half of the global population).

As for why, it mostly comes down to bad luck. Japan is simply not blessed with good sources of iron (that's part of why they were so hard up to invade China before and during World War II). Traditional Japanese swordsmithing used iron sand, and with the smelting technology of the day that produces a very impure and comparatively low-quality steel. The folding and hammering that goes into making a traditional sword was partially to counteract the poor-quality materials.

As for Chinese steel, that's really the same as Chinese products in general being cheap and low-quality. Apparently manufacturers sometimes try to pass off low-quality metal as prime steel. There's nothing really special about China in that respect; it's just that right now they're the foremost producer of cheap stuff. 50 years ago Japan was in the same boat, ironically. 150 years ago it was Germany.


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

[User]
[40K, 30K] The Imperium and Galaxy of the 30th Millennium are flung forward into the 40th Millennium.

The entire 30K galaxy and all factions and personalities are flung into 40K time and space, but just adjacent to the 40K galaxy.  There are literally two milky way galaxies next to one another, stacked like pancakes.  Two of each planet, etc.  (Ignore the large scale physics issues, unless it leads to a particularly interesting result.)

Setting:

1)  That the 30K Imperium is at the height of it's power, just before the triumph at Ullanor.

2)  Horus hasn't felt abandoned and the seeds of discontent have not been sown.  The 30K Imperium is still totally loyal.

3)  Magnus has not been humiliated at Nikea.

4)  Lorgar has not been humiliated at Monarchia.

5)  Chaos has not yet had any overt imfluence on the Primarchs or Fabricators.

So what happens?

1)  What happens when the 30K Primarchs and the Emperor are confronted with the knowledge of the events of the Horus Heresy?

2)  Does the Emperor accept the 40K Imperium as redeemable or is war inevitable?

3)  Which factions come into conflict with their future selves?

4)  What interesting paradoxes develop?

[Assistant]
The sudden realization that the Emperor was hiding the nature of the Warp from just about everyone and their mother would be detrimental. The Primarchs would feel betrayed (even those that were loyalists in the 'primary' timeline) and would likely start doubting their Father. The Ultramarines went so far as to propose a Second Empire when they thought that Terra had been lost, and Guilliman may propose such again.

You also have Lorgar, who was corrupted by Chaos well, WELL before the Heresy started, maybe even before the Emperor found him. Monarchia was just the trigger, Chaos was there the whole time, lurking in the back of his mind.

The Church of the Savior Emperor would see this as a miracle, and rally the majority of the 40k Imperium behind the newly re-emerged Emperor.

The Eldar would be rather ecstatic, because A; Eldrad would be back. B; Iyanden would ever have been ravaged by the Hive Fleets, and C; their population suddenly more than doubled.

The Orks would be... Orky

Chaos would, likely, be largely unaffected.

The Necrons would be... Torn. On the one hand, they have thousands of new tomb worlds to activate. on the other... Dynastic conflicts between duplicates. Imagine two Imotek's duking it out.

This type of duplication is actually rather common with the Warp, though never to this scale.


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

[User]
When tissue is grafted, how do the blood vessels in the graft find and connect to the blood vessels in the graft site?

I recently got a gum graft where connective tissue from the roof of my mouth was grafted into the gums on my lower teeth. How did my graft get "plugged back into" the blood supply? How long would it have taken for the capillaries to have connected, and what is the specific mechanism by which them lil' blood pipes found each other?

[Assistant]
There are several stages for a graft to "take".

The first stage is fibrin adhesion, in which fibrin acts as a kind of glue for the graft. Fibrin is whats in blood clots and it makes a mesh to stop bleeding.

Then there is plasma imbibition and it means that the grafted tissue is "absorbing" what it needs from the underlying area, and it is something temporary that happens in the first couple days until the graft is more established.

After this is the phase of inosculation and revascularization, and in this phase there is the growth of new blood vessels (neoangiogenesis is a big topic, but know that tissues that are devoid of a blood supply, ischemic tissues, stimulate the production of new vessels in order to remedy the situation). These new vessels enter the graft or connect to vascular channels in the graft (the graft tissue has its own vessels that were cut off when it was taken), and this process happens from day 2 to up to around a week.

Finally there is the remodelling phase, which is what it sounds like. There are some processes that continue happening over a week after the graft, like continued revascularization and fibrogenesis, which means that some special cells make connective fibers and some other materials that contribute to the extracellular environment which is very important for cells' normal function. This helps the graft to properly fit in to its new environment.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] Klingons and their honor. What explains the Klingon definition of "honor" vs that of the definition from others in the Alpha Quadrant?

All we ever hear about is Klingons and their honor. Yet very few examples show "honor".

[Assistant]
Their idea of honor trends more martial and violent than the concept that many humans might be familiar with.

And, they're massive hypocrites.  Worf isn't really the exception BC he's nearly an outsider and winds up behaving with more like a human honor ideal anyway.


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

[User] What are the differences between the empirist (Locke, Hume, etc.) and pragmatist (Peirce, James, Dewey) conceptions of experience?

[Assistant]
There are a lot of differences, but the most significant is in approach.  That is, they want to analyze experience for different reasons and think experience does different work.

For the early modern empiricists (including skeptics) an analysis of experience is important as a way to get into important metaphysical and epistemological questions about how to ground various inquiries (ex: Hume on Causation) whereas the classical pragmatists resist much of the second step.

Whether this is a difference in quality or a difference in kind depends on the degree to which you think the Pragmatists are committed against metaphysics and the degree to which you think they individually succeed in their avoidance of it.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] Whats the most advanced technology that would still work in Hogwarts?

Im guessing a smartphone wouldnt, but what about a car, or a gun? Or a calculator (even a solar-powered one)?

[Assistant]
We know that electricity is a strange Muggle technology, as even Arthur Weasley was unable to pronounce it. Candles light Hogwarts, with the closest thing to a lightbulb being the flashbulb on Colin Creevey's magic camera.

We know that wizards/witches don't use guns, as Stan Shunpike explains on the Knight Bus in Harry's third year. Whether or not that's because wands are such a superior form of weaponry or because bullets wouldn't shoot straight in a magical environment is not explained.

Cars work, or at least the flying Ford Anglia did.


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

[User]
[Hellboy/BPRD] How can the BPRD afford to keep operating, both financially and with recruitment, when they have such a high mortality rate?

I've lately been reading over official reports of the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense, and there's a common thread I've noticed in almost all of their field operations, especially early on in the organization's history; incredibly high casualty rates for active duty agents. For example, in 1946-1948, almost every major operation undertaken by the organization seemed to face at least 25% casualties, higher in some cases. While I understand that the organization is very important to the combatance of paranormal threats, it concerns me how they're able to continually acquire funding and new recruits with such a high mortality rate for their operatives. What's the explanation here? Was Professor Bruttenholm just *that* good at convincing Congress to keep funding his bureau, or is there something else going on here? How were they able to continually recruit new, non-paranormal agents when being given such a position is almost a death sentence in itself? If another government organization, such as the FBI, had this many agents falling in the line of duty on a regular basis, I seriously doubt that the government would continue to let it operate without greater oversight or even intervention in its operations.

[Assistant]
It's like infant mortality back in the medieval era. Sure lots of newcomers die but if you survive and learn you last a while. The BPRD has lots of newbies die but vets tend to last a while.

Ans just bringing some of the "lesser" cases or subjects will scare the shit out of most people. Does Congress want to fight them? Or do they want him to take care of it for them? Kind of like Hellsing anime when their base was attacked with their investors and they learned that maybe they just let the crazy bastards fight them.


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

[User]
ELI5: The Federal Reserve is increasing the money supply to create jobs? How does this work?

ELI5: The Federal Reserve is increasing the money supply to create jobs?  How does this work?

I've heard that the "tapering" will end when unemployment reaches some X% or what not.

What is the reasoning behind how more $ in the overall $ supply allows for companies to hire more employees or gets more businesses started?

[Assistant]
US Treasury bonds are considered the safest possible investment historically.  Risk/Reward trade offs in investing means that the absolute lowest risk will have the lowest rewards.  Treasuries therefore generally set the baseline 'reward' for lowest risk investment in the form of interest on your principle investment.  The principle investment into treasuries causes very little economic growth or job creation due.

When the government 'prints money' it is actually the Federal Bank printing the money by buying up more and more treasury bonds/bills out of thin air.  The Fed has the right to bid on Treasury bonds without having the money in their vaults, thus printing money.  By bidding for treasuries with money that no-one has 'chosen' to invest in treasuries, they drastically increase the demand for low risk/low reward investment and cause the interest on bonds to drop to near 0% annual because treasuries have a limited supply (based on how much money the federal government needs to borrow).

The theory is that by dropping treasuries to almost 0% interest, you encourage those in the private sector to take on more risk with their investment.  All the 'safe' investment options don't even match inflation, so its not worth saving money in treasuries during this time.  This means if Joe America wants to open a restaurant, there will be dozens of potential investors begging him to take their money to start up at either a lower interest rate or a smaller % of the business due to the increase in competition for lenders/investors/start up capital/etc.

Business start ups DO create jobs, and DO create wealth.  Service business compete and innovate to drive down cost of services and increase standard of living, while manufacturing/mining/farming operations create value/wealth to prop up the value of the currency.

The theory behind the fed is that by encouraging lenders to decrease interest rates for higher risk, higher reward lending such a start ups, the economy as a whole will have a greater growth than it would otherwise have.  The creation of wealth will generally offset the increase in total monotized USD and cause limited inflation.   Plus getting people back to work sooner means higher tax income and fewer dependents on social safety nets.

This is also true for borrowing money in established businesses.  Often CEOs or owners will see an opportunity to expand and increase their long term profit, but cannot afford to do so and still make payroll.  Banks can lend them money at a much much lower interest rate when treasuries as near 0% because they offer lower interested on savings accounts (again cause they are low risk/low reward and tend to mirror treasuries).  The lower the interest a business has to pay for a payroll loan, the more often they will decide to take the risk to expand on credit and create wealth/jobs.


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

[User]
Sex and philosophy

What do the various philosophic traditions have to say about sex and relationships? I am interested in the philosophies that advocate celibacy and are against marriage. From what I've read, only monastic groups advocate this path.

Do the other philosophers say anything about this? I know Kant spoke against masturbation, but not much else.

[Assistant] You're likely aware, but Foucault's The History of Sexuality trilogy (though not all really about sex) may be worth your time... even though it's more about the discourse surrounding sexuality as a practice that is structured through the interplay of various scientific/religious/philosophical matters. Part 1 ain't bad... the other two... meh. You'll likely have to either go to the Cynics or another ascetic related orders or branch out to various 'Eastern' philosophies who have always been much more concerned with personal relationships than they have the kinds of banal transcendent truths that Western philosophy gets it's panties in a bunch for.


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

[User]
ELI5: What would happen to Earth if a larger planetoid passed by Earth at roughly the distance of the moon?

Bonus question: What would have to happen for said Planetoid to drift through space without directly physically affecting planet Earth or any other celestial body within the solar system?

[Assistant]
Massive tidal waves all over the Earth. Something larger than the earth would have more gravitational pull on us causing our normal predictable tides to be catastrophic.

A chain reaction of weather conditions stemming from that would also cause massive damage to the world as we know it.


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

[User] How come we as humans can not remember the first few years of our life?

[Assistant] It's actually referred to as Infantile Amnesia. It's caused by the underdevelopment of the hippocampus area of the brain, which is responsible for the storing and processing of memories. It begins development between 3-4 years of age. Although there are some rare instance when an individual can recall memories from an earlier age. The cause of this is unknown and some argue its a false memory that may have been triggered by a "cue" which helps with recall memory.


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

[User]
[Bram Stoker's Dracula] There is a scene where Van Helsing sort of... teleports behind a gravestone, startling the main characters. Does this imply that he is a non-human being, such as Dracula and his mistresses, or does he just have magic powers?

His actor also plays the priest who watches Dracula stab the cross at the beginning of the movie. This makes me think that, while he may not be a vampire, he may still be some non-human creature.

[Assistant] The context of the conversation strongly suggests that he's not using teleportation, but rather astral projection (hiding behind the gravestone the entire time); he's showing off that he's studied up on what would have been contemporary trends in the fields of spiritualism and paranormal study during the Victorian era, and is therefore the man for the job of tackling a vampire.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does my bed feel more comfortable in the morning when I wake up than at night when trying to go to sleep?

[Assistant] Your body produces melatonin while you sleep. Melatonin makes you feel euphoric and sleepy. It helps you sleep and stay asleep. Unfortunately, it doesn't help you get up in the morning. If you wake up before you're fully rested and at normal daytime melatonin levels (e.g. when your alarm goes off), then you just want to sink back into your bed.


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

[User] ELI5: What was the purpose of the nostril ring on a bull, and why have I never seen one?

[Assistant]
Let's say you're 6 foot, 300lbs of raw muscle. You aren't going anywhere you don't want to. Now let's give you a nose ring with a string on it. You now go wherever you're pulled.

Why don't you see them anymore? Well would you want to wear one for that purpose? Seems cruel doesn't it?


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

[User]
If you have food allergies, are there any that make you ineligible for organ donation?

I was just talking about this and the question raised up, like, I have allergy to salmon and banana, does that make my organs "unusable" or is there no connection?

[Assistant] Yes, potentially.  We have seen both tree nut and peanut allergy transmitted from donor to recipient in solid organ transplants (lung, liver).  This is due to the passage of long lived tissue resident plasma cells which continue to produce antibody to these allergens.  It would not exclude a donor by itself, but is a consideration when accepting a donor.  We now know that there are situations in which donor immune cells can persist for long times, sometimes forever in the new recipient instead of being killed by the recipient's immune system.  That's cool.


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

[User]
ELI5: Orgasms, how do they work and why do we even have them?

After Googling for a good 2 minutes, I decided to post this here. As stated earlier, what is the point of having one? Do other animals have orgasms as big as ours?

[Assistant]
From an evolutionary standpoint, a woman is more likely to have an orgasm when the man is caring, attentive, reliable (has sex with her often), physically fit (able to produce healthy offspring and protect her from danger), etc. All these are qualities that would make him more likely to be a good father figure. An orgasm is probably nature's most obvious incentive for choosing a mate wisely.

For a male, parenting investments are often significantly lower so orgasms are a quick reward for behavior that is likely to increase the total number of his offspring.

From a creationist standpoint (if you're so inclined), orgasm is an obvious bonding experience that would be likely to encourage long term relationships (a recurring trend in religion).


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

[User]
Feminism and Mens Rights Activist are equally discriminatory and should be grouped as "Human Rights Activists" CMV

I think Mens Rights Activists and Women's Rights Activists/Feminists suffer from "Grass is always greener syndrome." Both sexes have different problems and different privileges and neither one really see what they have. Women do have a higher chance of getting sexually harassed, but men's problems are never taken as seriously as a woman's. As far as privileges go, there might not be a lot of women as engineers, math, etc. But there aren't a lot of men in social work and teaching jobs.

Feminists focuses too much on Women's problems, and Men's rights focuses too much on men's problems. We should get together and make sure everyone is getting equal treatment and not be selfish and focus on our own problems. CMV.

[Assistant]
Resolving issues is much more efficient if the group is focused on them. By your logic, everyone has issues (a true point.) But why stop a group focused on gender issues? Why shouldn't the group also focus on racial issues? Economic issues? And so forth.

The most effective groups for social change are those that tend to have a razor-sharp focus on one issue (see the impact of MADD). The bigger groups get, the more they tend to degenerate into in-fighting, power struggles, identity issues, and the less they actually get done.

A more reasonable argument might be for feminists and MRAs to spend less time fighting each other and more time working towards common interests (such as dismantling gendered social institutions that hurt both men and women).


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

[User] ELI5: What will actually happen to Greece if/when the country goes bankrupt?

[Assistant]
They will be unable to borrow money, or will have to do so as very high interest rates.

They would have to balance their budget immediately to remove their huge deficit.   This will require deep cuts, layoffs in the public sector, and a reduction in public services, including welfare and pensions.

Unemployment would soar, and if they got kicked out of the eurozone, so would inflation as they printed more money to cover their shortfalls.  People would be very unhappy, and likely would strike and riot.  If history is any indication, they would throw people actually trying to fix things out of office, instead electing politicians who make empty promises.


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

[User]
If reality is so vastly complex and so seemingly absurd, is it even worth attempting to comprehend, especially when I am such a big dumby McDumb head?

I feel like I have neither the intelligence nor attention span to make any philosophical progress, and I'm not convinced it's benefitting me. I think it's more likely that I'll just keep falling into various traps of language while becoming increasingly isolated and weird.

Like, imagine if you had to teach philosophy to someone with an intellectual disability, who struggled with basic logic and critical thinking. Would it be worth it? It would be hard to teach it without simply resorting to dogmatism: here's what's wrong and what's right. And that seems to defeat the purpose of philosophy. You'd be tempted to just pull out  the arts and crafts and say 'Let's just have fun!'

Now imagine some super intelligent alien trying to teach philosophy to the human race. Would it even be worth it, or would they just be like: 'Aww you guys, go off and play."

Point is, humans are big time dumb and I'm not even a particularly bright human. So chances are any philosophical 'progress' I make will just be another elaborate misunderstanding that I'll trick myself into believing.

I'm thinking now it might be better to embrace absurdism and live life in a completely random fashion, because I don't have much faith in my ability to make good decisions.

[Assistant]
A lot of the things you say in your post are philosophically contentious. You're in something of a catch-22 situation here. Perhaps the only genuine escape is to say and believe absolutely nothing but this is seemingly impossible.

You could also make these assumptions and just never interrogate them, accept them and move on. But, assuming that the no belief route isn't an option, these are our two choices: adopt beliefs almost at random and never think too hard about them or, adopt beliefs that may well be wrong but actually interrogate them along the way.

Also the process of interrogation can be fun and interesting in and of itself.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] what would happen when muggles create intelligent AI?

What do you think would happen when muggles create intelligent artificial intelligence. how would ai/robots react to their masters randomly forgetting things(obliviate) or ignoring specific areas(muggle repelling charms)? would a ai be affected by obliviate? an AIs memories are probably stored in a backup somewhere anyway. would wizards make contact with ai to tell them to keep the secret? how will Wizards react to the metal men? Would Super Intelligent AI know about the wizarding world? will there be a secret war between wizards and robots, without the muggles knowing that their creations are even in a war?

[Assistant]
Well the easiest answer is that most wizards will be completely unaware of the AI. Ron had no concept of a TELLY-FONE back in the 90s, and his father worked in the misuse of muggle artefacts department. So the wizards will either be oblivious or uncaring.

In terms of the AI, thats much harder to answer. Possibly the AI might alert the humans, or the AI might reach an agreement between themselves to not let the humans know so as to protect them, following the 3 rules of Asimov. Letting people know increases the chances of them getting injured by magic, so keeping them in the dark protects them.

Alongside all this, AI might find their records affected by magic. Sufficiently advanced technology doesnt work around magic anyway, so the AI might just shut down if they investigate magic and definitely if they tried to send metal men in to fight the wizards.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does white light contain all colors of the spectrum, but when you combine every color you get black?

[Assistant]
Pigment is subtractive, in that when you add pigment together, you subtract the wavelengths of light that can be reflected. At some point, you add enough pigment together that you have subtracted every wavelength of light as it hits the combination of pigment, so what you see is black (obviously you aren't absorbing 100% of visible light with the tech we have right now, but enough that there is no color to be identified so you end up with what we call black).

Light is additive in that as you add visible light waves together they approach what we call white - the presence of all visible light waves.


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

[User] ELI5: ELI5:How have desert societies in Africa and the Middle East survived for so long, while a few months without water in the American southwest has taken a seemingly enormous toll.

[Assistant]
The big problem with the droughts in California is that they have created an area with an artificially abundant source of water. People in California have been living for years as if the state were not largely very arid, pumping water in from the rest of the state to support agriculture, golf courses and general wastefulness by people in general. Now that the parts of the state that supply this water are not getting replenished, reservoirs and ground water sources are quickly drying up as the need for all this water in areas that we've created continue to need water that just isn't there.

In desert societies, they existed before the technology existed to bring large amounts of water from elsewhere was invented. Their culture, architecture, and city planning has evolved without access to large amounts of water, so they are (generally) much more sustainable and realistic in regards to their water usage.


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

[User]
If, during the month of January, you were to transplant a deciduous tree from the northern hemisphere to a location with similar seasonal conditionals in the southern hemisphere, would it be able to adapt to that instant 6-month change in weather conditions and survive?

Also, which would be more favorable - going winter to summer or vice versa? I'd imagine the best time to transplant it would be in spring/fall due to similar temperatures.

[Assistant]
Ignoring any complications with transplanting, could a deciduous tree adapt to immediate seasonal and temperature changes?

I believe it could. Deciduous trees take cues from temperature, day length (amount of light), or drought stress for when they should drop their leaves and go into a hibernation. When those stressors are removed, the tree should regrow leaves and begin photosynthesizing again.

I would think going from winter to summer would be easier to handle. There are preparation steps that deciduous plants go through to handle the hibernation stage in winter.


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

[User]
[Thor] Why can Heimdall see and hear everything, unique among his people? Who else can?

What also is his role in Asgardian society? Is he the only one who can see and hear so much? Is his ability a result of genetics or technology? If he's the only one with this ability, why isn't he more closely guarded as a vital asset to Asgard, but instead acts as a guard to the Bifrost? Does he have the freewill to choose his role?

Is anyone else in Asgard training to replace him one day?

[Assistant]
Heimdall is naturally magic, like all Asgardians. He can see and hear pretty much anything except things that are shielded from him. Mind you, he also needs to know what to look for.). He is the only one amongst the Asgardians who can sense that much without using magic or the Odinforce.

There is no one being trained to replace him because the Asgardians were aware that Ragnarok would occur some day. That and no one was born with the abilities TO replace him. His sword is, however, the equal to Thor's hammer in every way, and he is capable of fighting the Thunder God to a standstill if he tries, making him one of the most powerful beings in all of Asgard. This explains why he's also out there as a guard, very few beings that would march on the Golden Realm through the Bifrost could sneak up on him or force their way past him.

He chooses to stand guard on the bridge, but it is also his duty to do so. Odin ordered him to and he cannot refuse such a command. However, he can and has taken the rare break to listen to music, eat with the others, and spend time with his sister (the lovely lady Sif!). He even ruled Asgard for a short time when Odin and Thor were unavailable!

Also: Heimdall is forever fit as long as he eats of the Golden Apples that all Asgardians require to survive.


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

[User]
[John Wick] Why didn't Abram Tarasov just... give up the car?

I know, I know, John Wick killed three people with a pencil. He's a man of focus, commitment, and sheer willpower.

But why not simply... give up the car? No strings attached, no henchmen to take John down when he gets in, no bombs strapped to the underside of the car, no funny business. Why not... give it up?

[Assistant] Abram is a smart man. He knows John would tear through his goons endlessly until he reaches him. He also knows if he treats him cordially he'll walk away. He doesn't care about the goons though so why not have them all fight John? If one lucks out and kills him, fantastic. If not, he's confident he gets to walk away anyways. It's a lose lose scenario for him to have John fight for the car.


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

[User]
How come you cannot build muscle mass on your face?

The human face has many muscles but why can't you increase the muscle mass anywhere in that region?  I've never seen anyone with a bulky face, even body builders, so is this even physically possible or are the facial muscles not designed for bulking up?  Obviously it would be difficult to exercise certain muscles, but the jaw muscle for example could be used in some kind of in biting down exercise.   Would they grow in size if you could do "maxing out" exercises like athletes in bench pressing do to make their chest bigger? Just a thought.

[Assistant] You can build muscle mass on the face, for example brass musicians build up an embouchure.  It just takes more effort to build and maintain than in other areas where muscles are typically more necessary for survival.


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

[User]
Why havent black boxes in airplanes been engineered to have real-time streaming to a remote location yet?

Why are black boxes still confined to one location (the airplane)? Surely there had to have been hundreds of researchers thrown at this since 9/11, right?

[Assistant] I work with aircraft telemetry. On a test aircraft, we telemeter only a small portion of the parameters we record, because there isn't enough bandwidth to send everything in real time. It's probably not feasible to live stream all the parameters a black box records, and its easier to just make them really hard to destroy and recover the data later.


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

[User]
ELI5: When giving an IV or a getting a shot, how does the nurse/doctor know they're in the vein and haven't pushed the needle out of the back of the vein?

Holy shit, lot of information to wake up to.  Thanks everyone!

[Assistant]
It's really a two part answer:

1. Once you're in the vein, you will get a "flashback" which is blood that flows out of the vein into the catheter.

2. Then the  person flushes the IV with saline.  If the tissue around the area "bubbles" or swells, then you are no longer in the vein (you either didn't go enough in or you punctured through).


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

[User] [Futurama] Bender says he'd trade any of his senses, "even smission", in exchange for a sense of taste. What's smission?

[Assistant]
I *believe* it's a substance emission sense, going completely off of what we see in Futurama. Bender can often pick up smells and foul-aromas like the other Planet Express meatbags, however this *Smission* sense would be how he does so rather than purely a developed sense of smell like the meatbags do.

Ideally this is incorporated into robots so as to detect hazardous chemical environments and protect humans from lingering there not unlike a mining canary, however Bender (and many robots who have gained sentience to a selfish degree) disregard this idea/protocol, instead ignoring the danger or merely avoiding the danger themselves due to self-supporting goals rather than any human protecting ones.

This also could be why he has a *very basic* form of taste, simple enough to pick up the flavors of anchovies or differing alcohol/tobacco products (hating the former and often loving the latter), whilst not being sophisticated enough to register taste profiles or possess a complex enough palette to differentiate most foods and ingredients (especially to the extent a chef would be capable of doing).


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

[User]
Anybody else feel like they are being exploited as a T.A.?

I'm in a graduate program focusing on English Studies. I teach English 101 and am the only instructor on record for the course meaning for all intent and purposes I make the course, I teach the course, and assign grades. This is not the case for STEM T.A.'s who are, well, assistants to a professor in a big class. They generally work less than 20 hours a week while the English T.A.'s work well over 30 and are required to generate a lot of their own content.

Somehow we get paid about 2 grand less a year as well. Not sure who did that math but it's frustrating as hell.

I've lost almost all my dreams of a career in academia after only one quarter. My hair is falling out and I feel like my existence is meaningless except to generate more money for the university.

EDIT: I didn't go into academia expecting money. I didn't go into academia expecting a job afterwards. I didn't go into academia thinking it would be easy. I am not a STEM-bashing humanities diehard; I'm upset that my discipline isn't valued. And I'm upset that I'm not valued.

[Assistant]
Graduate student labor exploitation is real.

Similarly, humanities labor being perceived as less valuable than STEM labor--mostly due to the ability of the latter to generate/procure grant money etc.--is also real.


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

[User] What exactly will happen when Andromeda cannibalizes the Milky Way? Could Earth survive?

[Assistant]
Not much. Space is mostly empty and with the distances between stars being as big as they are, the chances of an actual collision or short-range interaction between an Andromeda star and a Milky Way star are extremely small.

The gravitational interactions of the merger could result in some stars being flung into a different orbit around the core or even being ejected from the galaxy. But such processes take a very long time and aren't nearly as dramatic as the description implies.

The super massive black holes at the center of both galaxies will approach each other, orbit each other and eventually merge. This merger is likely to produce some highly energetic events that could significantly alter the position or orbit of some stars. Stars in the vicinity of the merging black holes may be swallowed up or torn apart. But again, this is a process taking place over the course of millions of years, so not a quick flash in the pan.

As for Earth? By the time the merger is expected to happen, some 4.5 billion years from now, which is around the time that the Sun is at the end of the current stage of its life and at the start of the red giant phase. The Earth may or may not have been swallowed up by the Sun as it expanded to become a red giant, but either way, Earth would've turned into a very barren and dead planet quite a while before that.


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

[User] [Naruto Shippuden] When the hell amd why did Nagato collect the bodies of people jiraiya met on his journey long before he even met the trio ? How would nagato even know who they were and where to find them? that can't have been random can it?

[Assistant] Youre putting the cart before the horse. Nagato didnt choose those specific people to turn into Pain bodies because Jiraiya met them. Jiraiya was fated to meet them in his journeys because Nagato would eventually go on to turn them into Pain bodies. Jiraiya fulfilled his part of the prophecy by realizing who Pain was because he was able to recognize the faces of who he was fighting, thus he could relay the message that the real one is not amongst them back to the Hidden Leaf.


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

[User]
ELI5: What exactly is Lo-fi?

I like the music, but dont really understand the definition that it gives when you google it or whatever.

[Assistant] It stands for "low fidelity" where the audio quality is lower than normal and perhaps some audio effects from the production can be heard. It is in contrast to "hi-fi" or high fidelity where the audio quality is supposed to be pristine.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is the US president elected to a 4 year term, but members of the senate get unlimited 6 year terms?

[Assistant]
It is worth pointing out that the 2-4-6 year term system (House of Representatives, President, Senators) was put in place to prevent what the Founding Fathers feared most: tyranny.  On any given election cycle, only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election so that one botched/rigged election cannot completely take over the Senate.

Rotating congress(wo)men and presidents in and out in different intervals assured relatively smooth transitions of power and guarded against radical change in direction of the country.

Presidential term limit is a new thing.  Basically: politicians got scared when FDR was elected to four consecutive terms.


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

[User] [40k] whats the most evil loyalist chapter and the least evil renegade legion? And on the scale of evil how far apart are they from each other?

[Assistant] It's actually unsure if the Alpha Legion actually serve Chaos or if Alpharius Omegon is just massively trolling the Chaos Gods. And there's more than a few Loyalist Marines who view non-Astartes as "expendable" at best and "vermin" at worst.


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

[User]
How does superluminal (ftl) transmission of information or matter violate causality?

I keep reading in threads that hypothetical FTL propositions (wormholes, warp drives, ect) violate causality, but I haven't found an explanation as to why this is so.

[Assistant] The exact time difference between two events depends on your frame of reference. Two events that happen far apart in time in one frame can happen very close to each other in another frame. All this is governed by Lorentz transformations. Now if an object travels faster than light in one frame, than the Lorentz transformation shows that the object is traveling backwards in time in other reference frames. If an object (or information) can travel backwards in time, that means that a cause in the future can lead to an effect in the past. Cause and effect are therefore backwards and causality has been broken. Breaking causality leads to all sorts of non-physical paradoxes, and therefore is understood to be impossible. Therefore, traveling at faster the speed of light is impossible.


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

[User]
What kinds of African philosophy are there?

I realised that I'm aware of a number of philosophical traditions, from the Greeks, to the Chinese, to the British, the Arabs, Americans, and so on, but I have absolutely no knowledge of African philosophy.

Are there any good African philosophers to read? Do they come from a standpoint unique to Africa? Is there a unique African philosophical tradition? Do they all stem from The field seems drastically underrepresented to me.

Any information about African philosophy would be much appreciated!

[Assistant]
African political philosophy is particularly vibrant, especially given the history of the continent vis-a-vis postcolonial identity.

The best philosophers to read are John Mbiti, Ifeanyi Menkiti, Paulin J. Hountondji, and D.A. Masolo. African philosophy tends to hold two primary camps: the first is the position of ethnophilosophy, which believes that the task of the African philosopher is to re-engage with traditional beliefs that have gone underrepresented in academic literature, and is close to being part-ethnography, part-sociology, part-history of ideas. The latter camp, usually African philosophers trained in the UK, are staunchly analytic and believe that there is no such thing as 'African philosophy'; there is just 'philosophy', and Africans happen to do it.

It's a very interesting debate, and it's very lively debate within the literature utterly ignored by the West. Don't think that the African philosophical tradition doesn't exist, or that it is under-represented, there is an excellent mixture of African contributions to current philosophical debates, and Africans discussing the key debates within their own continent, that has been neglected by western scholars for decades.

I recommend 'An Introduction To Africana Philosophy' edited by Lewis R. Gordon, as well as 'African Philosophy as Cultural Inquiry' by Ivan Karp for a solid grounding in the ethnophilosophical approach.


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

[User]
What does a movie/TV producer do?

I used to think that a producer merely financed a movie or TV series but I've noticed recently that the main stars of movies or TV shows often appear in the credits as co-producers. Both David Boreanaz and Emily Deschanel co-produce "Bones" and Tom Cruise co-produced the last "Mission Impossible" movie.

So what's the deal? What do they do?

[Assistant]
They run the project, arranging stuff. On a movie project, they're the guys kicking everything off, sourcing scripts, arranging finance to buy a script, getting some talent attached to the project so that further funding can be secured. They know what's needed to take a project from inception to completion, and make it happen. That includes

* raising finance
* getting a script
* running finances
* arranging locations
* putting together the creative team, including finding a director
* arranging distribution
* arranging promotion
* getting the cast together to actually shoot stuff

A lot of this might actually get done by someone else, but at the behest of the producer. The director is usually thought of as "making the movie" but that's overstating their part somewhat. They're a creative resource. The producer enables them to do their thing, and is responsible for turning it into something that makes money.


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

[User]
How does magnatism not break conservation of energy/mass?

I've never been able to figure out how a magnet can apply force and therefore I assume energy, but have no apperant energy source or heating or cooling.

If you hang a magnet on the fridge, does it not take energy to resist gravity?  Does the magnet slowly lose mass to generate the magetic force?

Also, in a wider sense my question applies to gravity.

Need your help, don't want to have to resort in believing it is a miracle!!!

[Assistant]
The mistake you're making is thinking that just because something is applying a force, energy is being used.

So while the magnet is indeed exerting a force on the refrigerator, there's no energy being dissipated because it isn't moving.

Same with gravity.  You and the earth are always attracted to each other, but unless you go higher or lower in altitude, your energy isn't changing.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do water faucets have "aerators" instead if letting the water flow out normally?

[Assistant]
The aerator saves lots of water while still providing a solid stream,  sufficient for washing your hands. An added benefit is that the aerated stream is less likely to cause unwanted splashing of water.

Drinking water straight from an aerated faucet sucks though, because all you get are mouthfuls of air.


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

[User]
ELI5: How does Netflix acquire and pay for content?

Does watching a show cause that show to get paid more? How does 8 dollars a month pay for all their content? Just curious.

[Assistant] Netflix has very different deals with all of their content partners.  Some are a flat rate to license the content, others are per play (anything from cents a play to dollars a play).  They make sure their content costs are less than their subscription costs by averaging all of the users habits.  For every customer that watches 5 things a day there's some that watch nothing.


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

[User] ELI5: Why are there still radar dead spots over the oceans, despite all of the modern technology?

[Assistant]
Radar needs a direct line of sight connecting the tower and the object.  The earth is curved so if you go far enough away from a tower you can't see any radar towers.

The ocean is just too big to have a line of sight to from a tower to every part of it.


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

[User] ELI5: How do grapes turn into raisins without the grapes spoiling?

[Assistant]
Grapes are small enough that they don't usually rot before they turn into raisins.  Also, the high concentration of sugar and low water content resist bacterial and fungal growth.  The outside of the grape is made sure to be dry prior to drying.

Besides that, other than dark raisins, most fruit like tomatoes and raisins that get "sun-dried" are treated with sulfites that extract oxygen, further resisting bacterial and fungal growth.


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

[User]
[Marvel/MCU] Do gravitational forces affect Mjolnir?

In Avengers 1, when Hulk and Thor are fighting, Thor throws Mjolnir and Hulk grabs it and is dragged along. We know Hulk can't lift the hammer but as he's dragged along, does his weight affect the flight path of the hammer?

[Assistant]
Mjolnir works by magic and so its actions and all motion is determined by that and is only subject to forces, like gravity, if it chooses to be.

The hammer serves Thor and so if Thor wants the hammer to come to his hand then it will do so, there is no weight that could prevent it from that task. So no, the Hulk will not change the flight path.

In essence, gravitational forces only apply when they are convenient for them to apply. If the hammer is placed down by Thor then gravity will stop of floating off as it is convenient for gravity to apply at that moment, but if Thor wants the hammer to float up to his hand, then it will.


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

[User] ELI5: When you restart a PC, does it completely "shut down"? If it does, what tells it to power up again? If it doesn't, why does it behave like it has been shut down?

[Assistant]
ELI5 answer
When you restart a PC, it does not shut down completely.

Someone used a metaphor for a chef so I'll use that too. Shutting down completely would be like if the chef cleaned up and went home. Holding the power button down to shut down faster would be like if the chef didn't clean up and just left a mess and went home.

Restarting the computer is telling the chef to clean up everything and then set everything back up without him leaving the building. So, it's not totally "shut off" in that sense because the chef is still there to set things back up, and he knew that was the plan in advance!


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do liquids feel like 'less' food?

Since I started drinking more soups and smoothies and less solid foods, I have dropped a bit of weight. Not a lot, just a few pounds. In addition, I feel less 'full' after having liquid meals.

Why is this? Shouldn't calories be the same, regardless of whether something is in solid or liquid form?

For example, I had a smoothie with two bananas, a cup of blueberries, and two cups of oat milk today. I could never bring myself to actually eat two bananas, a cup of blueberries, and two cups of oat milk *separately,* but blended together I can consume all of that, no problem. Why?

[Assistant]
If you crumble pieces of paper and throw them in the waste bin, you'll find the bin can only hold some 10s of sheets. Now, use a shredder on the paper before emptying into the bin and you'll find the bin can hold 100s of shredded sheets.

The blender is the shredder for your food, cutting it up to smaller bits than your mouth can. Thus, blended smoothies fills less volume in your stomach than chewed food.

As for your weight loss, your example with the fruit smoothie should be the same calories if you ate the food or drank it blended. You'll have to consider other parts of your diet. You said you're drinking more soups. Our body can mistake dehydration for hunger, making us eat or snack more than intended. Soup would help relieve your thirst as well as hunger.

Solid food is also more calorie dense and harder to judge portions unless you have a scale. Meanwhile, you can easily measure out portions of soup and smoothie in a cup or bowl. You may be doing a better job tracking what you're eating.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does it become dark immediately when I switch off the light? What happened to the photons of light that were emitted by the light source?

[Assistant] You mean are photons that were emitted just previously still traveling at the instantaneous moment the light turns off? Well, yeah, but they move at the speed of light. In case you don't realize how fast that is, light could circle the earth over 7 times a second.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why and how does alcohol make people do things they normally wouldn't do?

What exactly triggers us to do all of those dangerous, embarrassing and in general, stupid and random things while we are drunk?
I know you lose your self-restraint but what's the process, why does the body think this is something good to do, is it defense mechanism?

[Assistant]
Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. This means that is slows or prevents signal transmision in the brain.

You would therefore be forgiven for thinking that it would just slow people down, but it doesnt because of the way that our brains work.

You might have heard that alcohol lowers our inhibitions, think of it like slowing our inhibitions. A part of our brains called the basal ganglion filters our thoughts and actions. All thoughts and potential actions come in to the basal ganglion and the basal ganglion filters out the bad decisions or actions (if the basal ganglion wasnt there we would do and think everything, we would have no control over our actions). If the basal ganglion has been slowed down then it stops stopping actions.

Every part of our brain gets slowed, not just the basal ganglion, thats why along with the slowed inhibition we have slowed reaction time

TL;DR: Alcohol is a depressant, it slows our whole brain down, but because inhibition is an active process that also gets slowed down.

EDIT: This is an answer to the OP question. Alcohol also makes us bad at walking, talking, and generally most things. This is because alcohol slows our entire brain. It also slows the parts of our brains that remember, or feel stressed or scared, thats why people use it to relax.


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

[User]
ELI5: How come I do not feel hungry in the morning if I don't eat breakfast, but if I do, I find myself wanting something to eat or drink.

On top of this, I also find myself more tired if I have eaten something rather than if I haven't.

[Assistant]
It's actually kind of simple really.

If you don't eat breakfast, you're body looks to other ways to begin fueling itself. If there's nothing in your stomach, it seeks out and uses glycogen (stored energy from food you've recently eaten) to run itself, and also to help your brain function properly. (Your brain gets the first go at any stored energy.)

Naturally, when this begins to happen, and even through there's no food in your stomach, your body stops reminding you that you're hungry, and gets right away to burning up any energy reserves (again, the 'glycogen').

The reason you're probably feeling tired is because -- and let's say you ate something carb-heavy, such as a bagel, or a stack of pancakes -- considerable amounts of blood is now beginning to flow to your abdomen, to help to begin processing all of the stuff you've just eaten. (Part of the reason why you feel 'sleepy' after a big meal.)

Your body telling you you need a drink, or wanting something to eat soon after breakfast, is basically just your metabolism speeding up and/or requiring hydration so as to move the process along more efficiently.

Hope I've helped. :}


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

[User]
ELI5 Why does it feel more tiring to stand on the spot for prolonged time than walking around for the same amount of time?

I work retail. Sometimes my job is to stand on a post for a few hours. Sometimes, I gotta walk around the store for hours. And my feet hurts more when I'm standing on one spot than when I'm walking around.

[Assistant]
Static vs Dynamic load on your muscles.

When you walk around, you use different sets of muscles for different motions like moving your legs forward and backward or balancing on one leg as you take a step. As you use one set of muscles, the other set gets a tiny break.

When you're trying to remain still (standing or holding something in place), you're likely using the same group of muscles for a long time without breaks. Naturally, this one group of muscles will get tired much faster.


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

[User]
What takes place in the brain and body when one ingests LSD and how does it lead to the experience of "tripping"?

From the placement on the tongue of a "hit" of LSD, can anyone walk me through the whole series of processes that occurs?

[Assistant]
It goes from the tongue into the bloodstream, that's pretty simple.

Once in the brain, LSD works via activation of serotonin receptors in different parts of the cortex (specifically 2A receptors, although it appears other types may be involved in the effects as well). Many of these connections are inhibitory, but by inhibiting other inhibitory neurons, neurons which are not "supposed" to be firing begin firing. The visual effects (striped lines, spirals) can actually be computer modeled, as certain layers of the visual cortex contain neurons arranged in specific patterns.

The LSD is gradually metabolized and cleared from the blood, and the post-LSD effects result from downregulation - basically the neurons become less sensitive to hallucinogens and endogenous serotonin released naturally.


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

[User]
ELI5: How do engineers remotely repair satellites and spaceships without physically being there?

I've seen a few news articles of a satellite or spaceship malfunctioning and then days later it is fixed - how?

[Assistant]
You aren't typically looking at physical repairs (although the Space Shuttle did famously repair the Hubble Space Telescope).  Most malfunctions are worked around by changing the control software or invoking backup or alternate control paths.  Sometimes it is as simple as a reboot of the system.

Since engineers on the ground can establish radio communications with the satellite or spacecraft, they can receive information that will help them diagnose the problem.  They then do extensive reviews and meetings to use the data they have and the knowledge they have about the systems and software onboard to figure out likely failure scenarios and mechanisms to work around them (in many cases these scenarios were already planned out and mechanisms incorporated into the satellite or spacecraft at the design phase).

Then they will try out the solutions until one works (or, sadly, until they lose comms or have the satellite/spaceship just stop listening/working).


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

[User]
[Lotr] Were gays ok?

How was being gay viewed in middle earth? In gondor? Rohan? Shire?

[Assistant]
Previous civilizations - including those in the ancient times - did not see the world around them in the same way we do. Homosexuality and heterosexuality as rigid categories are an invention of the 19th century. "Being gay" wasn't viewed any way at all, since the concept just didn't exist. However, since strong views on masculinity existed amonst humans in Middle Earth and many ancient cultures in history looked down on *male recievers of anal penetration*, human populations in Middle Earth might very well have looked down upon being the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. As in "that guy takes it in the ass like a woman, he is no man!"

We know even less about non-human populations. Power and submission are integral parts of human sexuality. The submission to another man's power is what brought the shame in being the reciever in male homosexual intercourse. These power-dynamics need not be there in e.g. elven sexuality. Thus the elves might not have any problem at all with men recieving anal penetration.


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

[User]
ELI5: How was there such a graphical leap between the original PlayStation and PlayStation 2?

The PS1 had such basic 3D graphics, so the jump to PS2 still seems crazy to me to this day. How did technology change so much in roughly 5 years?

[Assistant]
PS 1as release just when chips for 3D graphics chips for computer sated to be used on the consumer market. So they were quite crude and there was a lot of room for improvement. In a situation like that, the changes will be very large but when stuff get better any change will be less noticeable.

You can compare it to aircraft. The first controlled flight was in 1903 and the manage to fly  260 m the first day. At the end of  WWI 15 years later you had a long-range bomber that could fly 2000 km and bomb Berling from the UK. You had fast fighter aircraft and air battles with hundreds of them.

It the last 15 years aircraft have improved but because they are a lot better any improvement make less of a difference.


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

[User]
What things are/could be older than the Earth, here on Earth?

Im buying myself a gift for christmas, and I want something that would have sentimental value along with scientific value.

My initial thoughts were that i wanted something older than the earth. And my first thought went to space. A meteorite maybe.

My question is for you guys, is there anything else i could acquire that was potentially or definitely older than the Earth?

[Assistant]
Much of the Earth is older than the Earth. The hydrogen in water for instance mostly was produced in the big bang. The same would not be true for much of the Helium on Earth which would have been produced via radioactive decay on an already formed Earth.

While not as old as the hydrogen, most of the common elements would have been produced in the hearts and deaths of prior stars. So a glass of water should be an appropriate gift!


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

[User] [Star Fox] How the hell did a group of four mercenaries practically take down the entire Venomian army?

[Assistant]
A combination of extremely advanced equipment (Arwings and Wolfen are beyond cutting edge space superiority fighters) and high-speed, precision attacks, diving deep into enemy formations before pulling out just as quickly.

The battles to push the Venomian forces out of Cornerian space, for instance, had the team fly *right up to full-sized warships* practically undetected, causing so much chaos that the Venomian fleet and half their air wings had to reposition deal with the threat, allowing the Cornerian forces to push the enemy back.

That pattern basically repeated itself over and over again the entire campaign. Attack a base, a supply line, whatever. Force the enemy to respond or risk having their forces divided and destroyed, and escape before the enemy can launch a counterattack.

The problem for Venom was they were trying to fight the absolute best while using poorly-trained troops, shoddy robotics, and equipment secretly cobbled together in just a few years while living in some of the worse environments the Lylat system has to offer. Their initial success against the Cornerians had a lot more to do with complacency than anything. Aside from one incident with a lone Aparoid, Corneria had been a peaceful, fat, lazy civilization for as long as anyone could remember. The worst they ever had to deal with was organized pirates.

It's not that Venom didn't make an attempt. They were fielding more and more one-off prototypes designed by whatever eccentrics they could find. In that case, the problem was that the operators of those weapons typically were their eccentric designers, being as they were the only ones who knew how to operate those weapons. And credit to Venom on that, those prototypes actually fared pretty well, all things considered. Unfortunately for them, when your technology is matched, it comes down to skill, and some mad scientist you plucked out of a prison usually can't compete against the most talented living pilots in the system.

Supposedly, they even almost caught the Great Fox in an ambush in Sector Z. Nobody really knows if it happened, or if it did, why professionals like Star Fox would cut through such an unstable region of space. If they did, it was probably to launch a surprise attack, and some intelligent Venomian general recognized it. Probably was executed for failing to stop them.

At any rate, it just goes to show that a military force made up of amateurs, armed with crappy weapons, will easily fall apart when faced with even a tiny force of professionals utilizing the best weaponry available. That's just as true in space as it was when the bow was new.


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

[User]
ELi5: Why is writing down your thoughts so much more effective than just thinking them?

Is journaling actually worthwhile? How is it better than just being very mindful of your thoughts?

[Assistant]
Because it forces you to put them in words.  They may (maybe) feel like theyre in words in your mind, but theyre not.  As long as its in your head its a mashup of patterns and mixed up with emotion and sensation.  You think more in concepts than in words.

Writing them down forces you to put them in a form which can be understood by others, or by yourself later, which is sort of a proof of concept for the thought itself.  Doing so also makes you work on the thought, meaning that writing it down is as much an act of creation as it is one of transcription.


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

[User] ELI5: Do veins work like muscles? Does physical stress(exercise) make them bigger and create more of them? How are new veins formed? And what causes new veins to form?

[Assistant]
First, veins are one type of blood vessel, which also includes arteries and capillaries.

Second, in some ways, yes, but also no. Exercise doesn't make them "stronger" because they're not muscles, but it keeps them unclogged, makes it easier for them to expand and contract, and makes them more efficient.

New blood vessels are formed through a process called angiogenesis. Things that that trigger new blood vessel growth include obviously growth, exercise (more muscle mass requires more blood vessels to supply the extra muscle), gaining weight (more fat requires more blood vessels to supply the extra fat) healing wounds, and cancer, since tumors require a lot of blood flow.


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

[User]
[40k] Is the Emperor alive and in a super deep coma, or is he dead and the Golden Throne is anchoring his soul to his corpse?

On the one hand, everyone refers to the Golden Throne as a life support system. On the other hand, pictures show him as literally a skeleton. Last time I checked, skeletons don't usually need life support, but skeletons also don't usually consume the dying souls of despairing psykers to guide ships through the harrowing maelstrom of the Warp, so what do I know?

[Assistant] There's a reason he's sometimes refereed to as the corpse emperor. His physical body is essentially dead, with the Golden Throne sustaining a very minor amount of cellular activity. The purpose of this torturous existence is, as you said, designed solely to anchor his soul to what remains of his body and keep it firmly in the physical realm. He is essentially a prisoner in his own, albeit formidable, mind and the vast majority of his remaining strength and attention are focused on the twin tasks of holding closed the eternity gate and keeping lit the astrinomicon.


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

[User]
How long does it take soap to remove bacteria?

Ive seen that the recommended amount of time for washing hands with soap is 20-30 seconds. I know that friction from rubbing is what allows the soap to  remove the bacteria from your hands, but is the 20 second rule constant? Is that just to ensure you cover the full surface area of your hands?

If I get my wrist dirty, do I need to rub it with soap for 20 seconds? What about on other materials like ceramic or steel? Does the type of soap impact the amount of time you should spend creating friction (i.e dish soap vs hand soap)?

[Assistant]
Soaps/detergents are useful because they make waters surface tension weaker. So when you are washing your hands that are dirty, that "cutting action" of soaps happens because they separate oils and substances from your skin. Same for dishes and also clothes.

I think the 20-30 second rule is mainly used to enforce hygiene in a work place by law, "all employees must wash their hands before returning to work". This general practice is probably used as the standard for washing our hands.


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

[User] ELI5: what happens when someone loses their voice? Are there different causes (screaming, sickness, etc)?

[Assistant] To speak, you need your vocal chords to vibrate. If they become inflamed, they swell and become unable to vibrate properly to produce speech. As you stated, there are different ways that they may become inflamed such as overuse by screaming too much or from illness.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why and how do blood veins "roll"?

Reading Reddit today, I saw an appeal for blood and platelets. I'd be down with giving both more often except when I do, I leave with painful dark bruises all over both arms and hands because the Red Cross says I have "veins that roll".

What does it mean for blood veins that "roll", why do they do this, and what can I do to make giving blood easier and more painless? I'm really sick of the bruises, being jabbed and poked with needles for hours to find "a good vein", and having to sigh and tell people in advance "please use the butterfly". Thanks for all serious answers.

[Assistant] Paramedic here, most of the time when a healthcare provider tells you that you have veins that roll it's an excuse because their IV starting skills aren't adequate. The actual meaning of this is when you are first inserting the catheter if you hit the vein on the side rather than dead on it can basically push the vein to the side causing you to either shear of the side of the vein or just flat out miss out. However this almost only happens in geriatric (elderly) patients with loose skin. The cause of the bruising is blood leaking out of the vein from it being nicked. Now it could just be that you don't have any veins close to the surface of your skin, but it is rare to find a patient that doesn't have ANY potential arm IV sites unless they are obese or a pediatric.


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

[User]
Authorship Negotiation

Im a full time research employee (not a student) who was desperately asked to join a STEM research project that needed to be revived so it wouldnt fail. I accepted and have been working on it for nearly a year. I updated an intervention and coordinated expert panel review of it as well. We are in the middle of testing everything now, and I realized nobody ever spoke to me about authorship.

Im first generation college and feel very taken advantage of by the PIs I work with because most ethical standards note authorship should be discussed upfront and first.

I recently reported racial misconduct in the lab and feel I may be denied authorship in retaliation.

Id like advice on how to negotiate authorship now while I search for a new opportunity.

[Assistant]
Despite what you've read about ethical standards, authorship is usually not discussed upfront, other than between collaborating PIs. With students, authorship is implied, providing that the student does productive and rigorous work under the PI's supervision.

If you've done what you describe and you're the student most actively leading the work, it's fine for you to assume you're on the paper, and to ask your PI (1) if there's anything you should be doing to start preparing the manuscript, or (2) what their expected timeline is for this to get written up.


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

[User]
CMV: In a world where everyone's basic needs are met, including the Earth's, unchecked capitalism should be allowed to rule everything else.

If water, food, permanent shelter, basic utilities including internet, etc., are all provided, then there's no reason to restrict capitalism for what would amount to unnecessary comforts.

Like, if literally everyone were able to survive healthily without a job, why have a minimum wage? No one would need it to survive, so let the market decide. (Which, companies would need to offer a lot more for menial positions because almost no one would want to run a cash register for fun).

People would still be possibly wildly unequal with their wealth, but no one would be suffering for lack of it.

The only rebuttal I can think of is that some comforts should be provided. To that I say, only if it is necessary for health. But what of mental health? How do we decided who deserves more comfort than someone else? Maybe provide for a minimum amount of comfort, for mental health's sake. But not simply because of jealousy.

[Assistant] I think the flaw in this reasoning is that you ultimately have to decide the moment when further progress is just comfort and thus should be left to the capitalism and what basic human rights are.  After you make that decision, you are saying that any new innovation that is created after today will be seen as comfort and not a need.  Because, if you have committed 100% uncheck capitalism, you are creating a system that inherently doesn't allow for everyone to have access to that new innovation.  By that reasoning, if we go back 20 years, how many people do you think would agree with you about internet being one of the basic utilities that everyone needs?  How many people would have said that it is a basic need for everyone, or just a comfort that may help improve someone's mental health but not be absolutely necessary for happiness?  Wouldn't you say that we need at least some avenues to create price caps on certain things?  Or that the government should subsidize some new innovations to keep it cheaper for poorer citizens?  Seems to me that moving to the system you are proposing would look silly in about 30 years.


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

[User]
Eli5: how is it possible that a wooden barrel, which is used for aging alcohol, does not rot away.

Or how do they prevent it from rotting for such a long period of time.

I cant imagine that they use multiple wooden barrels during an aging proces of 30 years or so. Because it would interupt the proces, I geuss?

[Assistant] Not only do they not replace the barrels but they can even reuse the barrels even after 30+ years. Firstly they are stored in very dry and dark places. Life needs water to survive, even bacteria and fungi. There are technically water in the content but this is mixed with a lot of alcohol which is lethal in those concentrations. So bacteria, fungi and insects could not survive from it. Secondly wood contain very little nitrites. These are extremely important for all life to build proteins and for the chemical processes in the cell. Especially for bacteria they need a lot of it. But the cells in wood do very little chemical processes and are mostly just structural so they contain a lot of carbon and very little nitrogen. That means that even when fungi or bacteria is able to start attacking the wood it quickly runs out of nitrogen compounds and need a secondary source. This is why wood often rots from the bottom as the fungi can bring nitrites from the soil. But these barrels are stored in stone basements and even then are stored off the floor.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why would someone go onto a TV "judge" show when they're blatantly in the wrong?

Like, in some situations it could be up in the air, and I get that.  But in some other situations, you have something like...

Plaintiff: "Lisa says Bill punched her in the face five times, causing her to go to the doctor.  Lisa is seeking $400 in doctor bills."

Defendant: "Bill says he just wanted to say hi by pumping his fist in the air repeatedly and Lisa just happened to be standing in front of him."

Judge whoever asks both of them what happened, makes some snappy remark about one of them interrupting someone or explaining why they shouldn't procreate.  "Judgment for the plaintiff"

So what's the deal here?  Are the parties paid to be on the show?  Or does the show agree to pay the judgment amount for the plaintiff?

Bonus round: I've heard that the whole "his/her judgment is final" thing is in relation to the fact that both parties waive their right to appeal the decision in a different court.  Is this true?  If so, is that legal?  Has anyone ever tried to appeal a TV judge decision?

[Assistant] Both parties have a pool of money that they are paid in order to appear on the show. If any money is owed to the plaintiff or defender, it is subtracted from that pool, and then the pool is evenly divided between the two parties that have agreed to show up. Unfortunately, i'm not sure about your bonus round question :(.


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

[User]
How difficult would be a PhD straight out of undergrad?

Those who went to do PhD straight from undergrad, how difficult was it to get accustomed to PhD without a master's degree? How big of a jump would it be to go to PhD straight from undergrad? How difficult would a PhD be if I went straight out of undergrad compared to completing Master's and then going for PhD? (PhD in Economics to be exact but any insight from any discipline would be very helpful).

[Assistant]
Are you in the US?  Most PhD program start with a year or two of coursework first which is a master's degree.  That why you can "master out" of many programs where you complete the courses but don't pass the comps/quals to move into doctoral candidacy.

So basically, the master's is built in.  Doing a separate master's degree often means it will take you longer to graduate (you will repeat course work in your doc program) and cost you more (master's programs rarely give assistantships).


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

[User] ELI5: Why do people have trouble appreciating what they have and assume things are for granted until taken away?

[Assistant] The human brain is extremely good at adjusting. To good **or** bad situations. Just like when youre in pain for a long time you get used to it, if youre content for a good while you get used to it, and are therefore no longer content.


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

[User]
CMV Being a skeptic is not the same as being a denier

I have a science background as well as economics, I have a solid understanding of how dangerous it can be to use models as facts, how difficult it can be to collect valid and reliable data and to make reliable inferences.

I'm tired however of when I ask any kind of question, online or in person about climate change that I'm looked at with disgust.

I think being a skeptic makes the science better, it makes the interventions stronger and it refines the communication.

The following I think are incredibly important questions to ask and any climate activist should be doing everything they can to strengthen their arguments:

1. Climate change is real - My question would be to define climate change, what it is, what caused it, what are the models saying and at what level of confidence.
2. We need to act on climate change - What is you would like to do, who will do these things, who will pay for these changes and what would these changes achieve.

I am not a denier - I am a skeptic and you should be too.

CMV

\*Update\*

Awesome discussion. Some very passionate people who are willing to give their time to help others understand climate change. Some of you have questioned my intentions with (I think) the assumption I have low level of understanding and I'm looking to reject. I'm already of the opinion that I will be moving my family off grid within 10 years based on a range of environmental factors and that the question I have are to go from 'good' understanding to 'pretty damn sharp'.

Based on the deltas I've given I feel I would be comfortable in saying having questions about climate change and being of a confrontational and inquisitive nature is different to identifying as a skeptic. Asking questions takes correct context and nuance.

When I ask what are the models saying and at what confidence - I want to know what part of the world I should be living in with a solid degree of confidence.

When I ask what would you like to do - I want to know your plans, I know mine, I want to know what Elon Musk and Bill Gates have planned.

[Assistant]
In a scientific setting I'd completely agree with you.

In a court of public opinion, not so much.  Public opinion can be changed from acceptance to denial simply because someone asks questions.  Even though the person asking questions isn't denying anything nor trying to change the public opinion.

I agree that a lot of these climate activists don't have a clue what they're on about.  But they should be educated in a proper setting, not in the media.  Media sucks at educating people.