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

[User] ELI5: What would happen if we sent a satellite into a black hole?

[Assistant]
The gravity of a black whole is so strong that past a certain point (called the event horizon) nothing, not even information or light, can escape it's pull. If we shot a satellite into a black hole, once it passed over the event horizon we wouldn't not be able to gather any information from it.

However, there are theories about what it would be like to descend into a black hole. As you fell towards the event horizon, the black hole would expand in your field of vision until if covered half of your field of vision. Photons orbit a black hole near the event horizon, so it is theoretically possible that you would be able to look parallel to the horizon and see the back of your head.

To someone watching you fall, you would approach the event horizon, and then slow down, until you seemed to stop just at the event horizon. This is due to the fact that the gravity of a black hole is so great that time is slowed in its vicinity. The frozen image of you that they see is the last light that you reflected before you crossed the event horizon. This image will redshift overtime, until it becomes impossible to distinguish.

After you crossed the event horizon, things would be fairly calm, at least to start. The black space around you would continue to expand to fill your entire field of vision. You would continue to fall as you approach the center of the black hole, called the singularity.

As you came closer to the center, the force of gravity would become so strong that it would pull your feet with much more force than your head, causing your body to stretch. This process is called spaghettification. This continues until gravity even pulls your body, and then individual atoms apart.

Then, aren't entirely sure. The singularity of a black hole is theorized to be a one-dimensional point with infinite gravity. At this point, the rules of General Relativity no longer apply, and the laws of physics begin to break down. We don't have a way to describe what happens because we have never observed it and mathematics is unable to describe what happens here.


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

[User] [Marvel] Are there any universes in which the roles of Professor X and Magneto are reversed?

[Assistant] The original team of Exiles, Blink, Nocturne, Mimic, et al, had their first adventure in just this type of universe. They got in a lot of trouble because they assumed Xaiver was good and Magneto was a homicidal nut. When it was reversed.


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

[User]
[Batman] What is Batman's greatest strength?

Probably the most badass superhero ever ... a human one with no superpowers and with good reason because he is able to fight against people who behave like gods. Instead of having powers by accident or pure luck, he worked his ass off  to be where he wanted to be (obviously, his parents' death were the trigger)

And not to mention the deep philosophies (politically, socially, morally, psychologically, legally) and complexities of being a superhero and doing the right thing

When we look at comic books ... we like to see how visually appealing they look like seeing Superman's red laser eyes or seeing the Flash running with lightning coming from his own body or seeing Captain Marvel (the Marvel version) shooting concussive blasts from her hands - things that like to make us go **"COOOLL!!"**

But what is Batman's greatest strength since he has no superpowers?

His pure indomitable iron will? His endless amount of money and gadgets to use? His super-brilliant mind that will make every genius, scientist, intellectual whatsoever jealous?

Personally, I think it is his brain. True, his will is one thing and his enormous amount of gadgets is another

But without knowing how to use them, without going for a mission or an incident without a plan, solving crimes and mysteries without the knowledge of the arts and sciences, or fighting without knowing everything there is to know about the enemy and how to counter them, even fighting requires plenty of brains like knowledge of techniques, tactics, strategies, training programs and so on .... Without these, Batman would not be Batman

*(not to mention he manages to deceive people into thinking that he actually is a vampire-like demonic bat. That takes plenty of thinking, planning, careful observation on how to deceive people and use the dark to his advantage and also plenty of knowledge in criminal and human psychology and how to use to his advantage)*

A prime example where brains always defeat brawn

Batman may be someone without superpowers. But his mind IS his super power (and he worked his ass off for it .. by studying and using logical and critical thinking, of course. And also, he has to train a lot)

I mean, he is known as the world's greatest detective and the world's greatest tactician for a reason *(though some would argue that Deathstroke is a much better tactician than him)*

[Assistant]
*Surprise!*

Surprise and fear.  His two greatest weapons are surprise and fear, and ruthless efficiency.  Three greatest weapons:  surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, and a fanatical devotion to justice.  Four greatest weapons.


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

[User] ELI5: How do lights with multiple light switches work? How is it that flipping one switch on when the light is already on turns it off?

[Assistant]
The 2 light switches are connected via 2 wires. Call them wires A and B.

If switch 1 is on wire A and switch 2 is on A, the light is on.

If switch 1 is on wire B and switch 2 is on B, the light is on.

If switch 1 is on wire A and switch 2 is on B, the light is off.

If switch 1 is on wire B and switch 2 is on A, the light is off.

Having both switches set to the same wire completes the circuit.


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

[User]
How do our hairs know when to stop growing?

How come my eyebrows for example stop at a certain length, yet if I cut them in half they'll grow back to that same size? How do they know their own length?

[Assistant]
Hair does not know how long they have to grow.

But they have a finite lifetime. After that they stop growing and they fall out. Also new hair is allways growing. The equilibrium is the terminal length where you think hair is no longer growing.

Bodyhair has a much lower liftetime than head hair, thats why eyebrowns are shorter.

If you don't cut your hair it will also reach a terminal length and it will look like its not growing anymore.


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

[User]
[Chemistry] If Hydrogen bonds to Chlorine, is there any way this can be ionic?

I know HCl is covalently bonded but is there the possibility it can be ionically bonded?

[Assistant]
Every bond can be described as having some degree of covalent and ionic character.  That 1.7 difference in electronegativity cutoff is just something we tell freshman students because they need something to memorize and regurgitate on exams.  The greater the difference in electronegativity, the greater the percentage of ionic character in the bond.

HCl has a large degree of covalency to its interaction, but there is a significant amount of ionic character in there, too.


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

[User]
[Marvel/DC] Do you think that Marvel Comics exist in the DC Universe and Vice-Versa?

Do you think that in the DC/Marvel World, the Marvel/DC Comics do exist although with minimal differences?

[Assistant]
In the Marvel universe DC exists just as it does here. Marvel Comics also exist in the Marvel universe, doing biographical comics based on real superheroes.

In the DC universe they have Major Comics which publishes series like The Retaliators.


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

[User] ELI5: What are the major costs in producing a movie?

[Assistant]
The biggest expense in a Hollywood movie are people expenses.  The stars get a big part of the price of the film, usually at least half the budget between top stars, co-stars and the rest of the cast.  The screenwriter(s), director, and producers get a big chunk.  Everyone who works on the set is paid a union-scale wage; the gaffers, cinematographers, makeup, riggers, etc.

A big special-effects film will pay an army of people who do modeling, art, animation, motion capture, and building customized tools.  Sit through the credits of one of these films and you'll see and endless list of people who do this work.  These are pretty good paying jobs, and the work can last six months or more.

Then there are rentals for equipment, payments to use exterior and interior locations, royalties for licenses, food service, travel and lodging, and overhead for lawyers, accountants, security, "personal assistants", etc.


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

[User] [Star Wars] I am an Upper middle Class Human Male living in Coruscant. What is my life like during the time period between 0-25 BBY?

[Assistant]
25 BBY is before the Clone Wars. Tensions were rising, but most things weren't too bad. From 22-19 BBY your lifestyle really isn't too impaired, but you do see an increase in security patrols when you're out in public. From Empire Day to Yavin, your life probably is pretty good, mostly unchanged except maybe some new taxes and higher security measures.

This is, of course, assuming you're not speaking out against the Empire, if you know of the atrocities its forces commit. Then life gets hard, and maybe you end up being disappeared in a public trial (probably a sham, false charges to get rid of you) or taken quietly in the night.


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

[User]
[Superheroes] Would costumed heroes gain a tactical advantage by dressing as generic as possible? e.g. ski mask and street clothes disguise

I know, I know, the costumes are meant to give the public something to cheer for, to intimidate their enemies and let law enforcement and other superheroes know whos who, as well as providing additional protection, gadgets and enhancements to abilities.

But surely theres something to be gained for (at least some) heroes to adopt a costume that obscures their superhero identity as much as possible? If their costume does special things, and if its feasible, they could wear it under ordinary looking clothes, no?

For example, Superman and the Martian Manhunter both have easily identifiable weaknesses (kryptonite and fire) and a broadly similar power set. What if they switched up their costumes on the regular to confuse their opponents? I mean, yeah, smart opponents would be able to figure whos who after a couple seconds, but that little bit of uncertainty would be worth it, right? And even if they want to inspire hope in the population or whatever, they could have press conferences afterwards to tell people what went down - its not like individual firemen and doctors have their own gimmicks and costumes so people can cheer them on while they save lives.

Its like how high ranking officers in wartime try to dress and move as generically as possible so that snipers and air strikes and ambushes are less likely to take them out. With good intelligence gathering and guesswork, you could figure out which one the general is, but the effort your opponents need to do so grants you a tactical advantage.

Or the Bat family, for example - instead of wearing colorful costumes, they could wear their armor and gadgets hidden underneath regular looking clothes, and either wear some Mission Impossible style face disguise, or just a full head mask. They would have the physical protections and advantages of the bat costumes, with the added benefit of an extra layer of anonymity.

That way, they can sneak up on their enemies way easier without having to do a cumbersome costume change, blend into crowds, switch disguises on the fly (etc. changing into a green sweater instead of blue jacket), blend into crowds etc. it would also hinder their enemies attempts to track their movements. By having clear identifiers, its possible to easily track their actions in the city (e.g. Robin is busy uptown, Batgirl is fighting Clayface near the power plant, Batman is occupied with the Joker doing a bank robbery. That leaves us free to kidnap the mayor!) if, instead, they adopted a variety of generic looking disguises, it would throw doubt as to just how many Batmen vigilantes there are out there.

And they can still retain the Bat motif as a symbol of fear/hope, by leaving a graffiti calling card or something. It would also make criminals doubly paranoid of Batman/Batmen - they now know that literally anyone on the street (old man, young kid, teenage girl etc.) might suddenly pull on a bat mask or ski mask or whatever and open up a can of martial arts spy gadget whoop ass on them.

Same goes for supervillains - though I can understand why supervillains would want to stoke their egos in such a way.

Theres probably an argument to be made for having costumes vigilantes be easily identifiable for the interest of public accountability - kind of like how policemen have to have name tags and serial numbers so people can (in theory) prosecute them if they abuse their power.

But supervillains love using that against their opponents - I dont know how many times Spider-Man and Daredevil have been framed by their enemies getting someone to dress as them and do bad things.

And the comic The Boys has a neat explanation for this kinda silly practice - the colorful costumes are nothing more than a tacky corporate marketing campaign.

And I remember there was this one time Batman was busy, so he let Superman dress as him for a day - which gave Superman a huge advantage over Batmans rogues gallery because of how unprepared they were, and left them terrified and confused as to whether or not Batman has always been bulletproof and super strong.

The Netflix Daredevil also had decent success with a simple pull a hat over your face disguise. It would also help with plausible deniability. When someone stumbles across your costume, instead of having to go oh no, I just like dressing up as (Random Superhero) on Halloween or Oh its a fetish thing, dont ask you could just go oh my face gets really cold sometimes, I like keeping it warm

So yeah, would having a generic costumes disguise be a boon or a hindrance? Or would it depend on the modus operandi of the hero?

[Assistant]
You cant be a symbol of hope (or terror to your enemies) if people cant recognize you.

In some cases costumes are functional. Iron man is an extreme example but Spider-Man doesnt wear armor because it slows him down.

Worm has an interesting take on costumes and powers. Most heroes and villains keep the exact nature of their power a secret. Or even present their powers different from the truth. Partially to make sure others cant use their weaknesses partially to make it harder to defend to them.
Theres an example of heroes switching costumes to throw the bad guys off balance. Its explicitly stated thats its very dangerous to fight someone whose powers you dont fully understand.


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

[User]
Why is the Hunger Games so popular?

I read the series, found the first one semi interesting, then read the two just because I have a thing about finishing series. It seemed to me to be a bit predictable, a bit too much action with no real plot development.

[Assistant] Remember that this is a series directed at children, especially middle and high school students. So it may not be the best series ever, but it is a great series *compared to others in the same genre.* The mix of action, love story, and government conspiracy means that it can appeal to people who typically like different genres. The somewhat simple writing style means that it can be enjoyed by children or people with less reading comprehension, but the plot is complex enough that it can also be enjoyed by most adults.


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

[User]
Can Dr. Manhattan create a being with Superpowers

Since we know that he can create matter and it's strongly hinted that he can create life, could he create something close to or as powerful as himself. We know that he can reconstruct himself, so given some time and a little practice could he create something similar to himself. I'm also not referring to his ability to be in multiple places at the same time, this would need to be a new sentient life form.

[Assistant]
In a sense we have already seen him do that every time he creates a duplicate of himself. It would be a small matter to create a new version of himself with a truly seperate mond.

Why doesn't he? two reasons-

1-He's encouraged not to. The humans he deals with day-to-day are terrified of him and expend huge resources to keep him happy and on side. Two of him means more cost & a huge increase in the danger.

2-He doesn't care. From the moment he returned to life Ostrander has become more and more distant from humanity. He has very little interest in any kind of social interaction and only the discovery of "procreating" would be of interest. Maybe one day he will consider it.


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

[User]
I believe the 2nd amendment as applied today isn't what the founders wanted. CMV

It seems the  founders believed the right to bear arms is necessary to prevent encroachment of personal freedom by the government.

Today this is clearly not being served by the 2nd amendment (ability to prevent oppressive regimes). In one corner someone with 5,000 AR-15s and in another a tank, or alternatively a predator drone or F-35). If this was the objective then clearly gun rights ought to be expanded to include rocket launchers, anti-tank mines, hollow points  etc. If you say that the military would side with the populace it is oppressing, then why the need to heavily arm the populace?

I just don't see how the current gun laws are what the founding fathers intended with respect to leveling the playing field between oppressive regimes and its citizens.

So from my point of view either you go full bore and say we really need rocket launchers and tanks etc. OR you say maybe the founding fathers were wrong about arms, like they were about women's suffrage etc.

EDIT: JimMarch mentioned the potential for assassination which I think is a reasonable argument. Sure the president etc. wouldn't be vulnerable, but it's a credible threat to people near the top/not at the top. Assassinations would be much harder without guns.

If you didn't see already, I'm largely arguing that the main deterrent against the government oppressing its own people is that it really doesn't make sense period. I was arguing that guns aren't the only thing preventing obama from being like "Screw it, let's just make elementary schools slave workshops!". I still think guns do nothing in terms of fighting the military, but I now see that they do pose some threat in terms of preventing dictators etc (or another country deciding to occupy USA) by making the individual (not the whole) feel like they could be threatened.

**However I still believe the fetish over guns is based on the (incorrect) idea that american citizens could beat the american military (tanks, drones, aircraft carriers and all) in a fight. Oddly enough if you wanted to actually ensure greater parity campaigning for gun rights should probably be replaced with campaigns to reduce the size of the military industrial complex...my 2 cents.**

[Assistant]
> In one corner someone with 5,000 AR-15s and in another a tank, or alternatively a predator drone or F-35). If this was the objective then clearly gun rights ought to be expanded to include rocket launchers, anti-tank mines, hollow points etc.

Tanks and predator drones can't stand on the corner and issue no-assembly edicts, nor break down your door at 3AM to search for contraband/weapons/anti-establishment propaganda. Tanks and predator drones can't enforce a police state. You need police to do that. Police are people. Small arms are effective against people.

> If you say that the military would side with the populace it is oppressing, then why the need to heavily arm the populace?

The military would side with the populace *specifically because* the populace is heavily armed. There's a lot less incentive to fire on your fellow countrymen if you know they can fire back. If you disarm the people, then suddenly there's no reason for the military *not* to side with the government. Because hey, we have AR-15s and the populace just has sticks and rocks. Easy day.


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

[User] [Batman] If Two-Face tosses his coin but accidentally drops it on the floor, does he go with what the coin on the floor says?

[Assistant] Yep. The coin is basically a way for Harvey Dent to completely surrender his agency, to leave all decisions to "chance" as represented by the coin. If Harvey drops the coin and it lands heads up, that's just the universe deciding on an outcome.


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

[User] [Marvel] Does aunt May know Peter is spider-man in the comics?

[Assistant]
For the majority of Spider-Man's career, Aunt May did not know, and Peter Parker had to work very very hard to keep it a secret from her, out of a fear that the shock would be too much for her frail, elderly heart.

There was a time when Aunt May did know the secret, finding out after a battered Peter Parker stumbled home after a battle, passing out while in costume. Peter would then, at Tony Stark's recommendation, reveal his identity to the world during the superhero Civil War. This would lead to Aunt May being shot and ending up at the brink of death. This drove Peter Parker down a dark path that resulted in Mary Jane making a deal with Mephisto that erased everyone else's memory of their marriage, and shortly afterward, Doctor Strange collaborating with Tony Stark and Reed Richards to wipe Peter Parker's identity from everyone's memory.


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

[User] [ Star Wars ] How much does Obi-Won know about Anakin's marriage?

[Assistant]
He doesn't really know anything. He suspects something is going on between them, but doesn't get confirmation until after Anakin's gone off the deep end.

Besides, he's not going to call Anakin out. With Satine, he said himself he'd leave the Jedi to be with her if she asked. That's just asking for trouble if that comes out.


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

[User]
Why am I sleepier when I sleep more?

Why am I sleepier when I sleep like 7-10 hours as opposed to when I sleep 1-4 hours?  When I have 1-4 hours of sleep and then wake up I usually wake pretty quickly and will last through the day but when I get 7-10+ hours and don't wake up by myself (meaning just can't sleep anymore) I feel really groggy the whole day and start zoning out and getting really sleepy.

[Assistant]
Chances are that when you slept for the lesser amount of time, that although you were sleeping less, you woke up at the *correct* time. There are these things called sleep cycles which last 1 1/2 hours at a time. If you wake up after a sleep cycle you feel less groggy and more likely to feel well rested.

If you sleep more, provided you wake up in the middle of a sleep cycle, you tend to feel unrested and tired. This is the explanation for why people feel awful just sleeping an extra 15 minutes after waking up feeling great.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are exoskeletons on small creatures and not large ones like elephants?

Thinking why I don't see ants the size of dogs or vice versa.

[Assistant] It has to do with breathing. Arthropods breath through spiricles or book lungs. They don't actually breath, air diffuses into these tubes. This limits their size. Structure function. Love that bio/zoo!


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do most of us forget our dreams? And some remember every minute of it?

EXPLAINED!

[Assistant] You remember your dreams vividly as soon as you wake up, but you begin forgetting immediately. Keep a journal next to your bed and the second you wake up, start writing down what you just dreamt about. Eventually you will remember your dreams in full detail and even begin to dream lucidly...which is pretty damn awesome.


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

[User] I've read mention in particle physics that the spin of elementary particles is more abstract than actual "spin." Can someone explain this to me?

[Assistant]
The "spin" of a big, classical object like the earth is the angular momentum from its *rotation*, as opposed to its *revolving* around the sun (i.e. the orbital angular momentum). The total angular momentum of any classical body is the sum of its spin and its orbital angular momentum.

Point particles act like they can have spin angular momentum, even though they are to be regarded as points with no size. If particles have no size, then *what* exactly is rotating or spinning?

The better way to think about this, therefore, is that the spin angular momentum of a particle is not to be interpreted as *something* spinning, but rather an intrinsic property of the particle, similar to its mass or charge.


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

[User]
CMV: Public eating areas should have hand-washing sinks in the public space, not just in restrooms.

I live in the USA and am constantly frustrated by how public establishments only provide hand-washing sinks inside of restrooms. This makes it very inconvenient to wash hands on a regular basis, such as before eating a meal in a restaurant. I can recall a single restaurant that had a sink in the back hallway (in addition to sinks in the restroom), and I remember it being a great relief not having to use the restroom. This should be the norm in all public establishments, including restaurants, shopping malls and airports.

By limiting sinks to the restrooms, these establishments make hand-washing inconvenient and most people skip it before eating. Not only do the patrons need to leave their party to wash their hands (one at a time), but they often need to wait in line for others to finish using the toilet. To top it all off, after washing their hands, they need to deal with the fact that other people using the toilet may not have washed their hands before touching the faucet or the door handle, leaving the chance that using the restroom sink actually makes your hands dirtier than they were before.

[Assistant] even if there was a sink in the corner, you would still have to get up and leave your party and potentially wait in line. also, gross people could still touch that sink. the only way to remedy all of the issues your talking about is to literally have a personal sink at each table.


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

[User]
ELI5 : Does a rainbow have a geographic position ?

Since a rainbow is sunlight diffracted through rain, is it seen at the same place for everyone or do we see it somewhere depending on our current position ?

[Assistant] No, the position of a rainbow depends on your current position. All observers will see it as a 'circle' with its centre opposite the sun. Run 100m in any direction and the rainbow will still appear at the same angle to you.


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

[User]
[Galaxy Quest] Why were there giant, crushy metal things in the hallway in the original show?

Why did the Protector ship have random crushy metal things in the hallway?

[Assistant]
The real reason is that they realized that the episode wasn't exciting enough if the crew could just safely walk there, so the writer added some drama by having the giant crushy metal things. Back then, it was more about getting an episode finished on time than it was about having it make sense to a legion of fans with too much time on their hands.

Um. You know. (looks around sheepishly)

The current leading theories proposed at Galaxy Quest fan conventions are that they're a venting system for the plasma chambers connected to the ship's engines, or gravity stabilizers that need to highly regulate the ship's artificial gravity, or a malfunctioning security protocol.


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

[User] [King of the Hill] Does Hank ever consider that he and his parenting style or lack of it may well be the reason why his boy ain't right?

[Assistant]
No. Hank Hill is actually a phenomenally good parent, especially considering his background. In his own parenting to Bobby hes breaking the cycle of abuse and not passing on the torment that Cotton put him through. Hes showing Bobby how to do all the masculine things he wished Cotton would have taught him. Hank is the dad he wished Cotton had been to him, it rarely crosses his mind that hes why that boy aint right.

It also helps that what aint right about Bobby isnt anything major. Bobby doesnt have any psychological issues or trauma. Hes just got eccentric and slightly feminine (in Hanks view) interests that conflict with what Hank likes. But Bobby is a confident, kind, funny young man who is the product of loving parents and his own unique interests. Theres nothing really wrong with Bobby, Hank just wishes they had more shared interests. The series in fact ends shortly after Bobby and Hank find a mutual love in meat and their relationship is at an all time high.


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

[User]
[Inception] Mal's incepted idea led her to question whether anything was real - what are the potential downstream consequences of Robert's inception to dissolve his father's company?

Could this end up being an equally damaging obsession, like it was for Mal?

[Assistant]
Potentially, but unlike the "this is a dream" idea Mal got incepted with, "dismantle the company" has some sort of end game. Cobb miscalculated badly when he chose the idea to incept, since there was no way (short of performing another inception) to get Mal to stop questioning her observed reality. With Robert, his father's company is a defined legal entity, with concrete borders, ensuring that it is a goal that can be accomplished; eventually, there will be none of his father's assets left under his direct control, and nothing left to break down.

The danger would be if someone else started gathering enough of the former company assets to make Robert feel that someone is effectively trying to rebuild it. The inception he was given would incline him to declare that person an enemy, and turn his resources against them. In doing so, there's a risk that he could go too far.


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

[User]
How do chemists check their work?

For example when new pharmaceuticals are developed, how do they go about to make sure that the end result is of the exact nature and purity they were aiming for?

[Assistant] They do various analyses, like nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), mass spectrometry, chromatography. They can tell you both what substance(s) you have and how pure they are. Or did you want to know exactly how each works? That's probably too much to tell in a comment.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why on a computer screen does the cursor disappear when moved to the right/bottom edges, but not at the left/top edges?

Note: I'm using Windows 7. Not sure if it does this on other operating systems, or even if it's dependent on the OS rather than my monitor, or something else. I've always noticed this, but I never really gave it any thought until now.

[Assistant] The cursors 'point' is the very tip of the arrow and this cant leave the boundary of the working area (so your screen).  When moved to the bottom right of the screen, the cursor is still on screen just the rest of the white arrow is not.


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

[User] ELI5: Why specifically does the Northern part of Africa have desert land? Im assuming its on the same geographical level as other countries that have no desert at all?

[Assistant]
Climate is much more than just latitude
Things like altitude, geography, air currents, water currents, all of that factors in.

England for example is at the same latitude as parts of Canada that are covered in snow much of the year, yet England has a much milder climate. This is because the north Atlantic ocean current drives warm water and subsequently warm air right to the British isles.

As for the Sahara it is believed that northern Africa regularly went through periods of humidity where it rained a lot and there were lakes and rivers and forests full of life, and periods where the air was dry and all the water dried up and everything died. This was caused by small changes in the planets tilt on its axis. Then at some point some factor changed in this sensitive balance that threw the whole system out of whack.

Current thinking is that this coincides with the spread of humans and agriculture across africa. As northern africa was transitioning from a humid period to a dry period humans transitioned from hunter-gatherer to domesticated animals and farming in order to survive which could have lead to over grazing, over farming and destruction of vegetation. This vegetation would have been needed to provide the moisture in the air to trigger a new humid phase when the time came. Without it the next humid phase was never triggered and the system spiralled out of control leading to the eventual creation of the Sahara desert.


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

[User] [Gundam] why don't the pilots die when the mechas make sharp turns that would inflict hundreds of Gs on them?

[Assistant] Some of the suits may work life modern flight-suits to counteract such things. Many series also have them being LITERALLY genetically modified to be pilots/just be superior "Newtypes" that could handle that kind of thing.


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

[User]
Why are pro lifers generally not vegetarians?

I saw a post on here about pro life arguments. It prompted me to think about the supposed parallels between pro life arguments and pro animal rights arguments. Both seem to entail that personhood and capacity for rational agency are not necessary conditions of being a moral subject.

Personally I'm pro choice & pro animal rights. I just fail to see how pro lifers can be meat eaters and pro hunting, while simultaneously arguing that killing a fetus is murder.
Fetuses aren't even sentient until 24 weeks and literally annot survive by themselves; they are entirely biologically dependent on the mother.

On the other hand, animals are biologically independent and are fully sentient.
Surely if you believe that killing the former is murder, it necessarily follows that you think killing the latter is murder too?
Especially as there is really no distinction between humans and non human animals that isn't entirely arbitrary nor exclusive of marginal humans.

Is there something I'm missing?

[Assistant] I think youre trying too hard to make their argument seem alien. Its pretty obvious to me. They care about humans and not animals. Its the same reason most otherwise kind, loving people give for not being vegan.


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

[User] ELI5 Do cats and dogs catch colds? If so, why don't they ever seem to have the same kind of symptoms we do?

[Assistant]
the symptoms of an illness is not the bacteria/virus destroying your body but your body fighting back.

humans show this fight very clearly because we want others (our group/tribe/family) to know that we are weak and need help.

animals can't rely on help from others so their body fights in less obvious ways. the cat (a wild cat) still has to give 100 % to catch the mouse.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Is getting hit with a blaster shot a one-hit kill?

[Assistant] No. The reason most people (storm troopers) seem to die instantly from getting hit by a blaster is because their armour spreads the shock of the blast throughout the body, rather than it being localised and potentially fatal, which can cause them to faint.


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

[User]
Why isn't there a solar panel of sorts, for gamma radiation?

I know scientists are making great progress in increasing efficiency for solar panels absorbing the suns radiation here on earth, is there not a way to absorb radiation from a nuclear reaction? Or even nuclear decay? I know I'm not the first to have this idea so whats stopping us?

[Assistant]
Gamma rays penetrate very deep into materials, so a thin layer will not to work.

>  is there not a way to absorb radiation from a nuclear reaction? Or even nuclear decay?

Have you heard of nuclear reactors?

They have material around the reactor which absorb the neutrons and gamma rays. The material heats up and heats water, etc.

Obviously that does not work exactly like a solar panel.

Gamma rays have too much energy per photon to be easily used to directly drive electrons as in regular solar panels.


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

[User]
ELI5: How a dyno determines how much horsepower a car has from the tires spinning.

Is it how fast the drum takes to get up to speed? I'm sure there is alot more to it like gearing, but this has always boggled me.

[Assistant] The simplest type uses a(very large)  weighted wheel of a known weight, and the engine's ability to accelerate that weight to determine power. That's how a "mustang dyno works. Other dynos use a known load, either an amount of water pumped, or an amount of electricity generated to find out the amount of power created. The mechanisms behind both methods are much more complicated, but are generally accepted as better, and more useful results, since they can be applied "steady state". Meaning an engineer can find out how much power is produced at any given rpm continuously.


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

[User] ELI5: Where does the body get the electricity it uses in the brain and nervous system?

[Assistant] The energy you get from food is spent (in the form of ATP) to push sodium and potassium ions through pumps in the membrane of your nerve cells. Since the ions have an electric charge, they cause a voltage across the cell when the concentration is different between the inside and outside. When a nerve is activated, the flood gates in the cell membrane open and let the ions move back, which sends the electric current down the nerve. It then takes some time (a few milliseconds) to recharge the nerve, moving the ions back into place before it can fire again.


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

[User] ELI5: what is primordial soup?

[Assistant]
It's an idea that, once, many many years ago - before there was life - there were pools and lakes and maybe oceans of water that were full of minerals and salts and rich in complex chemicals. The idea is that, through various means, these chemicals, in a soup, interacted with each other to create proto-life. We THINK something like thins MIGHT have been involved in the beginning of life as we know it (abiogenesis) but it's just one idea among many.

(or did you want an actual breakdown of ingredients?)


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

[User]
If Plato's republic is not the best form of government, which of his contemporaries has a "better" option or a valid criticism?

I'll preface this by saying that this IS for school work, but it's actually a question that I'm genuinely interested in. I'm meant to discuss whether or not I believe that Plato's Republic is the greatest form of government.

I disagree, mainly on the basis that unchecked rule by a Philosopher King is the purist form of aristocracy and would lead to the issues that Plato is attempting to "fix".

I'm meant to cite from the following to aid in my argument: **Aristotle; Polybius; Cicero; Epicurus; Any**
**relevant Federalist Paper ; any work of John Adams; any work of Thomas Jefferson.**

So, I guess, the purist form of my question is the following: Which of the above listed writers/philosophers has an argument against Plato's Republic and where can it be found?

Thank you in advance for your help!

[Assistant] This is a bold but perhaps under-motivated use of the word "contemporaries!" In any case, this is not a question with a right answer. Your job is just to make an argument about these things as they seem to you. Do any of those people have arguments against Plato? They do if you think you can articulate one! Where can it be found? That's up to you! All of those writers had quite a bit to say about government in many of their works, and so you can pick pretty much any of their political philosophical texts and find things relevant to Plato.


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

[User] ELI5: Whats the difference between breathing in through your nose and mouth? And why its recommended to do it through the nose?

[Assistant] Your nose airways have special structures that heat up and moisturize the incoming air before it hits the lungs. The walls of the airways are also covered in mucus to which bacteria, dust etc. tend to stick, and they also have specialized cells with structures that make kinda sweeping motions to get those stuck bacteria and dust particles back out the way they came. So when breathing through your nose your lungs are overall better protected from the dangers of the outside air.


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

[User]
[MCU] Do the accords affect Dr.Strange?

The accords are the terms for the avengers for them to be controlled by the government. Now as of now Stephen isn't a avenger but will most likely be joining them. Now Dr.Strange fights more interdeminsional then the normal mcu do- gooder. The government prob doesn't know of the sorcerers on earth but would/does Dr.Strange fall into the accords?

[Assistant] If the gov learns of Strange at all, it will most likely learn about his political/metaphysical role in the magical world. For all means and purposes, Strange is now a dual citizen and an Ambassador of Kamar -Taj, so off limits, unless they want to start a diplomatic shitstorm.


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

[User] ELI5: How are there so many videos, etc. of people interacting with bears peacefully even though they aren't domesticated?

[Assistant]
Bears will only kill you if they're crabby or hungry or you're messing with their children.

Other than that, they're usually peaceful.

*Most* animals are fine to interact with 90% of the time. It's just that you can't tell if they'll suddenly change their mind without knowing a lot of the body language of that animal.


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

[User] ELI5: How is it possible that Bitcoin, created out of thin air, has market cap of over $4 billion?

[Assistant]
Ultimately, all value is tied to how much people want a thing.  No different for bitcoins than for dollars or for cheeseburgers or for gold bricks.

Bitcoin---as a relatively popular, relatively secure, relatively easy to understand cryptocurrency has attracted a large number of people who either find it useful, or expect that other people will one day want to buy it.  Given that, it's value is no more or less surprising than that of a successful song that was written out of thin air.


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

[User]
[Marvel] How does Odin know that Thor is the God of Thunder?

Did Thor manifest abilities with lightning as a child?

[Assistant] He's the god of wisdom, He gave up his eye for it.  How could the god of wisdom miss what type of god his natural born son is?  (Loki, being adopted and the god of trickery, on the other hand, can blindside the old man)


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

[User] ELI5: Can flies be blinded by sitting on a lightsource with the many eyes they have?

[Assistant]
It won't blind them, our lights aren't bright enough for that.

However!  Stobe lights completely break their brains.  They just can't deal with them, and so they go from being flies to being walks.  And as long as they're walks you can walk right up to them and swat or capture them, you don't even need to move quickly.


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

[User]
[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness] (SPOILERS) Question about Wanda

In what the film refers to as the 616 universe (not the one we know of as 616 but I digress), Wanda had two kids with Vision, but both the kids and Vision were fake, they were just things she created with her magic. However, she's able to find a universe (Earth 838) where the kids are real, and they're basically the exact same kids that she fabricated with magic.

Who the hell is their father? Is it Vision and he's just a real boy in this universe?

[Assistant]
We don't know. That said, since she created her children with her mind, there is an easy explanation as to why our Wand's children looked the same: she dreamed of them.

We know that dreams are a gateway into other universes, so she would have seen what her children should have been. So, when she was instinctually creating her "perfect world", she shaped her children in the image of her dreams/other universes.


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

[User] ELI5: What would it look like from the human perspective if the Earth was split down the middle and fell into two pieces?

[Assistant]
Overall, gravity would keep the Earth together, as that is what it wants to do.  Unless some other force is going to actively push/pull them apart, generally, it'll just keep together.  Gravity for the most part.

However, the seam upon which the earth was split asunder would immediately start spewing lava, as the crust is no longer cohesive enough to contain the pressure of itself pressing on the lava, nor the heat pushing the lava out.

Volcanoes.  LOTS of volcanoes.  And plenty of immediate death and destruction.

But let's backtrack.  Something caused the split.  Whether it's a big beam, or a ginormous blade, or just *poof*, magic... that is going to cause local destruction as the blade/beam/? passes through the Earth.

Then earthquakes, on a scale that hasn't been seen in human history.  Massive amounts of now-destressed and restressed crust and mantle that are going to shift and push and pull and subduct and what not.

And then the volcanoes.

It would go on long enough, and spew enough stuff into the atmosphere, that it's not the ground anyone would be worried about after about, oh, maybe 2 months or so... but the air.  It'd be causing a volcanic winter.  The Earth would grow colder due to the sun not getting through.

---

The second version is that there IS something that is going to push the Earth into it's two big halves.  Be interesting to see.  Some sort of forcefield, or just enough of a pressure wave to do it.  It is then turned off, and...

Ok, so... you have an edge where things are going to fall over.  Water from the oceans, and gigantic, amazing landslides, all over the edge, towards the center where the core's middle used to be.

You have this problem of the two halves still wanting to attract each other, but something started their journeys apart enough.  Fine.  Remember, the Earth is still spinning at a little over thousand miles an hour.  So what happens is that the core halves, both inner and outer, would get spun out of their center, and 'slosh' a little, as the uneven pressures and centripital or centrifugal forces cause some interesting results.  And yeah, they'll want to re-homogenize into one big lump of stuff, so they'd also start reaching for each other.

And so what happens to the mantle/crust shell is that it no longer has support.  The forces involved therefore start to rip the mantle/crust to shreds.

Basically, at this point, you've just reset the Earth to the point where the moon formed, when the smaller planet bashed into what was Earth Mark I.  So now we're making Earth Mark II.  Only there'll be no new moon.

The various bits and pieces eventually reset and reform, including the oceans and continents and whatnot.  Whether life somehow finds its way back on board or not is going to be a question best left to someone else.

Depending on how far apart, the moon doesn't do anything, by the way, except 'watch' as it's gravimetric center doesn't change... so it just keeps orbiting the mess.  It might get hit by a stray rock or two from the resetting of the Earth, but that's about it.

Unless the halves are pushed really far apart, in which case, yeah, the moon can do some wacky orbits... and who knows?  Maybe even bash into the mess and make the earth even bigger than it is now.

---

All in all, though.. it'd be bad.  Humans wouldn't like it.  At.  All.


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

[User] Is Deleuze a post-structuralist, if so, how does his concept of difference differ from the structuralist concept of difference?

[Assistant]
Oh boy this is a hard one, because Deleuze's relationship to structuralism is not stable through the course of his works, and even where - as with 'early Deleuze' - his takeaways from structuralism are unambiguously positive, they are always filtered through a Deleuzian vocabulary that makes his structuralism incredibly idiosyncratic. So, for instance, there's an early essay of Deleuze's, "How Do We Recognize Structuralism?", where he lays out six 'criteria' by which we can 'recognize structuralism'. What's fascinating about it is that if you read it along with his major works published soon after (*Difference and Repetition* and the *Logic of Sense*), that essay contains, in embryo, almost the entirety of what would become those works. In other words, if those 'criteria' are 'how we recognize structuralism', then we cannot help but 'recognize' Deleuze's early solo works as not only meeting those criteria, but elaborating and expanding upon them, in new and creative ways.

What's tough about it is that even while Deleuze self-identifies some of his major concepts as structuralist in this period, it's kinda hard to recognize them *as* structuralist from any 'orthodox structuralist' perspective. So for example, when Deleuze identifies one of his most important concepts from that period ('the virtual') as being nothing other than structure itself ("the reality of the virtual is structure" *DR*209), and then when he further goes on to identify the virtual with what he calls 'the problematic' and the 'Idea' (which have their own provenance in Plato, Kant, and Maimon), this chain of identifications is almost entirely original to Deleuze, even as it can be said to 'translate' the notion of 'structure' in a way more or less consistent with structuralism proper. So one might cautiously say that Deleuze is transcribing sturcturalist ideas into a 'non-strucutralist' vocabulary. Does this make him a 'post-structuralist'? Or is he rather elaborating and expanding the richness of structuralist concepts? Hard to say.

In his later works, Deleuze becomes positively hostile to, at the very least, the nomenclature of structure. In fact, a great deal of his conceptual vocabulary in the later period is defined by being engineered *explicitly* to be counterposed against any notion of structure: in *Anti-Oedipus*, 'Oedipus' is pretty much another name for structure ("Oedipus-as-structure" *AO*107), which means the book may as well be called 'Anti-Structuralism'. Elsewhere, 'machines', 'the rhizome', 'schizoanalysis' and 'the event' are all deliberately theorized as being alternative ways of thinking about things than in terms of structure (to quote the Deleuze scholar Daniel Smith, who himself is quoting Deleuze's biographer, Francois Dosse: "Machine is a veritable catchphrase that was meant to dethrone another catchphrase of the time: the notion of structure.'" In contrast to the idea of "structure," which seems to suggest something fixed or static, activity seems to be built into the very notion of a 'machine'". Smith, "What Is the Body Without Organs?").

Bringing the question of 'difference' into it makes the problem yet more complicated. One way to think about what early Deleuze is doing with structuralism is as 'purifying' the notion of structure so as to expel any trace of either 'identity' or 'the negative' associated with the concept ("the difference between differences relate difference to itself without any other intermediary"). This in contrast to 'the structuralists' proper who are a little ambiguous about this. It's possible that, in Deleuze's later work (where the 'virtual' and 'the Idea' also recede in importance, if not disappear entirely), 'structure' itself become a constraint on thinking about difference that had to be sloughed off. Especially if one takes Deleuze at his word when he (and Guattari) simply identity Oedipus with structure (in which case *Anti-Oedipus* more or less details point by point why structure is no good). And even then, in a 'late' work like *A Thousand Plateaus -* written after *AO* \- perhaps the most important conceptual distinction that runs through the entire book (one of the few distinctions that remains stable throughout that sprawling, disjointed work - that between 'content' and 'expression') is drawn from noneother than the structural linguist, Louis Hjelmslev.

So is Deleuze post-structuralist? Er, it's complicated.


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

[User]
[The Dark Knight] Why does Bruce Wayne save Kyle Reese and not Batman?

I'm curious as to why Bruce made the decision to save Kyle Reese as "himself" rather than Batman. For starters his plan seemed to be to tail Reese and intervene in some way to save him, but there are so many situations in which his intervention would cast immediate suspicion on Bruce and be dangerous without his gear. It would make sense in the situation that Bruce has helped create that Batman should be the one to save Reese, perhaps he didn't want to set some sort of precedent?

Alfred mentions being less conspicuous as to not using the batpod but that doesn't seem worth the trade-off?

[Assistant]
To save Sarah Connor!

But seriously, it's played off as a joke by Alfred, but Bruce Wayne in a Lamborghini *is* the more subtle option. Bruce circles the Television studio a couple times before intervening directly. If he'd showed up as Batman in broad daylight, it would have only exacerbated an already explosive situation. By staying "incognito" as Bruce Wayne he can get the information he needs (Which of the cops have friends/family in a hospital) and only get directly involved as a final option.


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

[User]
Has there recently been more volcanic activity than usual?

Is it just me or does there seem to be an increased number of eruptions lately? If so, is it a sign of something potentially bigger such as the big California quake or even perhaps a Yellowstone eruption?

[Assistant]
No,  there's no uptick,  and no,  that's not how relationships work.  The magma plumbing underneath individual volcanoes often operates on timescales of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and they're not linked to one another.

The press go through cycles of being interested but there's always 10-20 volcanoes erupting.


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

[User]
ELI5: Wages are supposed to rise with inflation. Does that mean wages will just rise infinitely?

So we all know the cost of living has gone up a ton. I'm in my 20s and I feel like all I've know is inflation. I did some googling, and found out that deflation isn't ideal and instead wages should rise to meet the cost of living.

So that got me wondering - are wages just supposed to rise infinitely? For example (with made up numbers), let's say the average monthly food shop was 500 in 2000 and that was 20% of the average monthly pay. In 2020 the food shop is 1000 but wages haven't risen by much, so it's now 30%. Less money all round.

So it seems to be better for said food shop to go back to being 20% of pay rather than going back to costing 500. But what would be the limit? The food shop being 5000 but still 20%?

[Assistant]
Numbers get bigger over time. In 1960, nominal prices were about 10x lower than today. There's no limit and no real reason to care.

To be a little more clear, for your standard of living it matters how many goods and services you can purchase with an hour of work, not how big or small the numbers on your paycheck or the grocery store bill are.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does water taste better when youre thirsty?

Why once weve exercised/ are thirsty and we drink water does it taste so good? Are specific neurotransmitters being released in the brain? Why does it not taste so good when were not so thirsty?

[Assistant] Your body is simply trying to give you positive feedback to do the thing it needs. You're dehydrated and so when you have a little water your brain goes 'oh yeah, keep doing that right now' in the best way it knows how: make the thing more pleasurable.


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

[User] [General RPG] I'm a young boy living in a small village in the middle of nowhere. Last night, we found out that the Evil Empire is coming to destroy our town and this morning when I woke up, everyone was just standing around repeating the same phrases over and over again. What's going on?

[Assistant]
Don't worry, everything's fine.

Today would be an excellent day to go picking mushrooms on the other side of the hill. You should leave before dawn and stay out all day. Oh, and you might as well take your father's sword with you, just in case.


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

[User] [It's Always Sunny] What would have happened if Cricket never walked into Paddy's Pub to investigate the Virgin Mary stain?

[Assistant] Cricket would have encountered the gang in some other way, around the same time.  Cricket is a key figure in the gangs existence, and the gang in his.  Cricket must be Cricket.  "Father Mara" was always a temporary state for Rickity Cricket.


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

[User]
CMV: When arguing about the certainty of anything, including politics, it is important to use logic.

Logic is basically the rules of valid cognition; we think using our words, and say what we think. Truth is the identity of logic. Propositional logic consists of tautological axioms that basically define truth, and truth conversely defines logic. So if you believe in logic, you believe in truth. If you believe that logic is absolute, you believe that truth is absolute.

On the other hand, if you want to argue with logic and say you it's 'fuzzy' or you really can't get to the bottom of it, then you undermine your own position because it stops you from proving or verifying anything. You might as well not speak, because nothing you say is identifiable; it can't be distinguished from it's logical negation or complement.

[Assistant]
I would argue that that really depends on what your goal is.  If your goal is to try to come to the best possible solution to a problem, then logic is a great tool to use to get there.

However, if your goal is to convince others that you are right and to go with what you say (like, say, a political debate prior to an election) then you should use whatever is most effective at convincing your audience that you are right.  Often, that is _not_ logic because we are not always logical beings.  Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Authority may be bad logical arguments, but the are **super effective** at getting people to believe your stance is the right one.


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

[User]
[WH40K] The Imperium discovers inter-dimensional travel and when they look for Holy Terra, instead they find us - plain old Earth, 2014. What is their reaction? (More in comments)

Do they help us? Offer protection? I think conquer and purge is most likely but they would want to preserve the planet itself ,- precursor to Holy Terra and all, which means ground forces. How many space marines would it take to purge modern day Earth of all human life?

[Assistant] They look for the Emperor, find him, and - using the technology they brought with them - begin the Golden Age of Man many millennia sooner. Knowledgeable of the power and danger of the Warp, everybody works to fulfill Mankind's destiny without falling to the taint of the Immaterium.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do suction cups stick better when wet?

[Assistant]
Suction cups work by removing air from one side of the cup so that the air pressure on the other side of the cup pushes the cup against the wall (or other surface) without anything pushing back. Its the air pressure in the room pushing against the suction cup that holds it in place.

They lose suction when air has a chance to get back in-between the suction cup and the wall. If the suction cup is dry, its easier for air to slowly push its way under the suction cup, and in-between it and the wall, reducing the difference in air pressure and causing it to release its grip. By wetting the suction cup, youre putting a layer of water between the cup and the wall, which blocks the air from traveling through to the inside of the cup.


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

[User]
CMV: Abolishing the electoral college would set a very bad precedent

There has been a lot of pushback against the electoral college recently, mostly because its how Trump won, but a lot of critics seem to be missing the bigger picture. The electoral college is a very significant part of our system, created as a compromise to balance the interests of people in more populous states against those in less populous states. Regardless of its merits, its a pretty big deal, and getting rid of it would set a precedent that its ok to tamper with the very basics of how our country functions. If its fine to get rid of the electoral college because we dont like the results (and lets be honest about that), whats to keep people in the future from deciding that other aspects of our nation are inconvenient, be it term limits, separation of powers, or freedom of speech?

Edit: View mostly changed. I am not necessarily against abolishing the electoral college, I just think we should be careful about it. A possible compromise would be to keep the electoral college but abolish the winner takes all system. Thats my current preference. Maybe electoral college could be a next step, although I think that its unlikely to be successful and we have bigger priorities.

[Assistant]
The pushback against the EC has been going since they very start of the country. Its not just because it cause Trump wonits because the entire idea of the EC is a fundamental violation of the democratic principle. This has become a lot more of a problem as the President has accumulated more and more powers over time.

We are now in the position of having a very powerful and nearly singular figure in politics elected by a no proportional and fairly no representative process that is *regularly* resulting in the will of the people being ignored and the less popular candidate being elected.

Its not specifically because Trump was elected, its because its regularly producing an outcome where the less popular candidate is getting elected. How is that democracy?

And as to your precedent argumentgetting rid of the EC would hardly be the first tine the US has tinkered with the basic structure of the government.  Consider the 17th amendment, which made Senators directly elected by the people of a state rather than appointed by state legislatures. That was a huge change in the fundamental structure of the government, but most people today view that as a good thing.


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

[User]
"Why" does a two-photon system have mass?

I've asked a few of my professors (I'm a physics grad student), and while they aren't completely blown away by the idea (nor am I), they can't really give a good reason for why a two photon system has mass:

Take the equation (with c=1): m^2 = E^2 - P^2

For one photon, |E| = |P| so m = 0.

However, for two (identical) photons travelling in opposite directions, the sum of P is zero, yet E is the sum of the two energies, so the mass of that system is nonzero.  Does this have any real significance?  Does it "mean" anything?

[Assistant]
This has a *ton* of significance. Hugely significant. Consider an atom. electrons are about 1/2000 the mass of the proton. So nearly all the atom's mass is in the protons and neutrons that make it up, no?

A proton or neutron has about 940 MeV/c^2 in mass, and they're made up of 3 valence quarks. But the valence quarks aren't ~300 MeV/c^2 in mass... they're closer to 3 MeV/c^2 ! So where does all the mass of the proton come from? It comes from... the gluons. Massless particles, like the photon is massless, acting as a whole system of particles that impart mass to the proton. By extension, most of the mass of the nucleus, the atom, molecules, every bit of normal matter in the universe... All gluons. All massless particles in a system that has a mass.


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

[User]
CMV: Pushing the "Racism = Prejudice + Power" definition hurts any conversation on racism thus has no conversational utiltiy and should be dropped.

A major talking point in some leftwing social circles is the social redefinition of racism. Growing up racism was always "discrimination based on race" with "systemic racism" and "institutional racism" being greater tiers that only the group in power could wield. It allowed for a simple distinction between "I HATE WHITE PEOPLE" and "We are going to prevent black people from opening businesses" while keeping the racial factor in the open.

I remember my little sister trying to explain to me the concept of racism only being a power thing back in 2005 or 2006 (when she was in college) and while she was initially convinced to a degree my protestations helped change her mind to the uselessness of such a distinction...and then I went about 8 years before I began noticing it creeping into everyday discourse.

But now every conversation I see (online mostly but also a couple times in my personal experiences) has at least one person bring up "well black people can't be racist because..." which instead of enlightening everyone and opening eyes it just closes the entire conversation, or worse it derails it into a debate on what "Racism" is.

It is also often used as a gotcha or a conversation terminating weapon so the wielder can walk away with their heads up high while getting pats on the back from their cohorts and advancing nothing.

I've decided back in the day and I feel it more strongly now that "racism = prejudice + power" has no conversational utility for one and secondly it isn't even an internally consistent distinction as many who try and wield that definition will, in the next sentence, talk about how racist Asian and Latino communities are towards black people in the USA.

Ignoring the contradictions I've seen, I have concluded that even IF you personally strongly believe "racism = prejudice + power" it has ZERO conversational utility and is a poor tool to use in any discussion on race and racism.

Edit: apologies for the typos and grammatical errors.

[Assistant]
> Pushing the "Racism = Prejudice + Power" definition hurts any conversation on racism thus has no conversational utiltiy and should be dropped.

What if people were to explicitly acknowledge that there is both a professional/scientific use (power + prejudice) and a non-professional/colloquial use (any racial prejudice) of the term racism, and use both terms in different contexts/situations?


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

[User]
[Mad Max:The Game] What happened to the ocean?!?

The Great White is explicitly stated to be the ocean floor, with the Outer Graves as the lowest point. Even though most of the Great White is probably only 40 or 50 feet deep(looking at the lighthouses) how can all that much seawater just "go away?"

[Assistant] Nuclear weapons were set off at major fault lines in an attempt to spark off earthquakes as even larger weapons of mass destruction. It worked. However, the changes to the Earth's crust opened up previously unknown subterranean hollows, and the oceans started draining into these crevices. By the time humanity realized what they had done, it was too late. The oceans are still there, it's just that they are vast, sunless, underground seas now.


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

[User]
Why don't the fusion chain reactions powering the sun get out of control, causing it to supernova?

Why do stars "burn steadily" over billions of years without the chain reactions exponentially increasing in magnitude causing a supernova? I understand fusion is a very different process to fission, but nuclear reactors require control rods to control the reaction. Also if the reaction rate doesn't increase, how come the reactions don't decrease to the point stars just burn out?

[Assistant]
Reactions - chemical or nuclear, fission or fusion - produce heat, and heat produces pressure. Increasing the pressure causes the gas to expand. If you've doing this in a reactor, this can be a bad thing: if things get too hot, you have too much pressure, and the whole thing can burst. So we have all sorts of measures to stop this from happening.

But in space, there are no walls to hold the pressure in. So the gas is free to expand. As it expands, the gas gets cooler and less dense, and this naturally reduces the reaction rate, which reduces the amount of heat you're producing.

The star's gravity stops it from continuing to expand forever. You end up with an *equilibrium* where gravity balances out the pressure produced by the nuclear reactions. If the reactions are a little too fast, the star expands, which reduces the reaction rate. If the reactions are too slow, the star shrinks, which increases the reaction rate. So there's a "feedback" loop that keeps the star nicely settled at a roughly constant size for most of its life.

>Also if the reaction rate doesn't increase, how come the reactions don't decrease to the point stars just burn out?

Some stars basically do something like that. Stellar evolution is really very complicated, and what happens to a star depends strongly on how massive it is. But essentially, a supernova is when a star runs out of fuel and collapses dramatically, because even shrinking and increasing its pressure and density doesn't help you speed up the reaction if there's nothing left to burn. It shrinks until things are dense and hot enough to start new types of reaction, which produce a huge amount of energy in a short amount of time. If you add little bits of energy at a time then the star can expand and reach a nice equilibrium. But if you add a huge amount at once, you just blow the whole thing apart.


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

[User] ELI5: What happens if someone claims they are guilty of a crime, after been found not guilty?

[Assistant]
In the case of a US case.
They remain free, though if they had not been sued in Civil Court they could be out a lot of money.
Basically once a not-guilty verdict has been passed in criminal court, then they are out. The 5th amendment to the Constitution guarantees them the right not to be put in jeopardy again (this is what it means to forbid 'Double jeopardy'). This was meant to prevent someone from being repeatedly tried over and over till a conviction was made.
This also means that any evidence acquired after the trial has completed (up to and including an outright confession) may not be used.
But this only applies to re-opening a criminal case, there is still the Civil court which is treated as a separate thing entirely. Even if you are acquitted in criminal court, you can still be sued in civil court, and lose there. The most famous case is the O.J. Simpson trial, where he won in criminal court, but lost in civil court.
That being said, if you win in both civil and criminal court, you cannot be taken to trial again for that particular incident.


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

[User]
[Thor: The Dark World] - Why did Kurse leave Loki in his cell?

Loki smiles at Kurse as he approaches the cell. This is obviously to show that Loki isn't intimidated or as he says in Avengers "I don't threaten".
I find it hard to believe that Kurse was afraid of releasing Loki.
Does anyone know why he didnt break open his cell?

[Assistant]
Because Kurse isn't an idiot, and recognized that Loki was a gamble he didn't especially need to take..

Everyone else he released was a brainless thug, essentially. Kurse wanted mayhem, and the prisoners gave that to him in spades. Loki was collected, smiling, and apparently Asgardian. He was also in a cell all by himself. That sounds exactly like the kind of person who could make an awful lot of trouble, but not necessarily the kind you want. Kurse didn't have time to conduct an exit interview, but probably figured that the potential damage one more rampaging prisoner could do wasn't worth the risk of letting this anomaly free.


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

[User]
Why does chickenpox spare the bottom of your feet and your palms ?

I am taking care of my currently spotted nephew, and learned in passing that you can have spots all over your body except those two places. I am grateful for that, but was wondering why.

Edit : Thank you all for your answers ! I didnt have the time to participate, but Ive read everything so far, and it was very interesting. Thank you !

[Assistant]
It's down to the fact that there's a different type of skin on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. They have "thick" (AKA glabrous) skin. The epidermis (as well as the dermis) is thicker, and especially one layer called stratum lucidum is noticeable here while it's almost absent from other areas of skin. There are no hair follicles in this skin.

The thick skin is simply tougher to form blisters in.


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

[User]
Why is the mortality rate of liver cancer so high in spite of the liver having such a great regenerative potential?

Edit: Even if detected early, cancer has a high mortality rate, which I find especially unintuitive. My thought was that, if detected before metastases form, the tumor could be removed with most of the liver without loss of function of the organ, drastically minimizing surgical risks (as comparison: lung cancer has to be carefully removed without damaging the lung, while the liver could be operated out almost completely with the tumor if necessary).

[Assistant] The liver produces a version of a protein called Methionine adenosyl transferase (MAT) different from all other tissues which has a higher capacity for synthesis of a molecule called S- adenosylmethionine (SAMe). SAMe is the precursor for a number of other molecules involved in growth and repair hence why the liver has such a high regenerative capacity. In most liver cancers the Liver specific protein (MAT1) is switched to the ubiquitous MAT2 protein hence it's ability to regenerate is impaired. Interestingly this switch is also induced directly by a protein in hepatitis B explaining why patients with hepB tend to develop cirrhosis and then liver cancer.


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

[User]
[DC] what was the meteor that Vandal Savage touched?

Granted i dont know a lot about the character but the origin i do know of him comes from the justice league: Doom movie and Young Justice.

Has there ever been an in universe explanation for the meteor he touched and became immortal or is it just left up to the imagination?

[Assistant]
We'll never know for sure, given the timeframe involved, but it's speculated to have contained dionesium in mineral form- that is, the active ingredient in Lazarus Pits.

The alternate hypothesis is that he's literally the Biblical character Cain, the inventor of murder, and that meteorite was God's way of bestowing his Mark (though if true we'll have to see what that guy in the House of Mystery thinks of it).


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

[User]
Why do we use four or more rotors on drones, but only maximum two on regular helicopters? Why are we not making full size quadrocopters?

Is one more efficient for the size than another? More powerful? "We just alyways did it this way"?

[Assistant] The most difficult part of making a helicopter is transmitting power from the engine to the rotor. For small quadcopters, the rotors are driven directly by electric motors. This works well enough for short flights and small payloads. But battery density is not to a point where an electrically powered full-sized helicopter would be competitive with petroleum powered helicopters. And since internal combustion engines and associated transmissions are quite heavy, it does not make sense to put four of them on a helicopter.


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

[User]
[WH40K] A pacifist Xeno civilisation establishes contact with the Imperium, giving their unconditional surrender and begging not to be immediately annihilated - instead offering to verifiably sterilise their entire species and let their people live out the remainder of their lives to extinction.

In this scenario we assume that the xeno species in question have an almost religious adherence to pacifism and in the face of a power as mighty as the Imperium would prefer to surrender and beg for whatever mercy they can get, if at all. How would the IoM respond to such a request and under what circumstances might they be willing to consider granting it?

[Assistant]
In practice, such a civilization is unlikely to have to make such an offer. The Imperium is *incredibly* busy, and the administrative and military forces required to purge such a world would serve the Emperor better along the spinward front. Sometimes whole worlds or subsectors are abandoned because they simply aren't worth the resources to hold, and to move a fleet through the warp even capable of delivering exterminatus would be in extremely low priority for a target that can be safely quarantined.

There are many such 'Sanctioned Xenos' species in contact with the Imperium. While officially quarantined, such species often trade with the Imperium through specially licensed Rogue Traders. This system is collectively referred to as the 'Cold Trade', and has involved even small groups of Orks being temporarily sanctioned for mercenary work.

This is as shocking to members of the Imperium as sex trafficking of minors, blood diamonds, and organ markets were to the people of the ancient past. Imperial citizens are taught that they should not suffer the Xenos to live, and that any and all interactions with them are fundamentally wrong and unclean. But, the grim reality of the 41st millennium is that whatever these Xenos have planned would probably be ignored unless they became a nuisance. There are just too many orks, tyrannids, and traitors to kill to bother with pacifists unless they have promethium or something.


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

[User]
How can I easily differentiate between Java, C++, and C#?

How can I tell just by looking at them? What makes them different and what is it about these differences that makes them good for different tasks?

[Assistant]
Look at the top of the file.  Typically you'll see:

* **Java:** `import ____;`
* **C/C++:** `#include<____>`
* **C#:** `using ____;`

If you don't see these, look for a `main()`/`Main()` method:

* **Java:** Takes a `String[]` or `String ...` argument
* **C/C++:** Takes a `char*[]`, `char**`, or `void` argument
* **C#:** Takes a `string[]` argument

The first difference you'll find in languages is where they can run.  Java can run on operating systems that have the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) installed.  Java compiles into "bytecode" that is interpreted during run-time by the JVM.  C/C++ can run on any operating system for which there exists a C/C++ compiler.  Most operating systems have a C/C++ compiler for them, but you have to compile separate binaries for each OS.  C# is the same way, but C# is most often run on Windows only (there is a project called Mono that is trying to change this).

Other differences include the amount of control you get (how close the language is to the hardware versus how abstract various things are).  C is pretty low-level.  C++ is a bit more abstract.  Java and C# are even more abstract than that, probably with Java being the most abstract of the two.

You might also find that speed is a determining factor, depending on the operating system and compiler.  Typically, it is believed that C/C++ is fastest with Java and C# trailing behind, but you'll find others argue that Java and C# are just as fast.

The different languages offer lots of different features.  C# has LINQ, lambdas, async/await, etc.  Java also has lambdas, but not until recently.  It also has global imports.  C++ has pointers.  There are a ton of differences.  Further, each language comes with a standard library.  The standard libraries for Java and C# are more built out than the standard library for C.  The standard library for C++ is much closer to that of C# or Java, but it still has a way to go.


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

[User]
[WH40K] So... what's the point of Daemon Primearchs?

From what I read on wiki, after achieving daemonhood they pretty much retired to warp to do daemon things for the rest of the eternity. No fighting, no leading armies, no plotting, no nothing. Wouldn't these guys be more useful on battlefield or something?

[Assistant]
Mortarion was out and about not to long ago, he was wounded in battle against a Grey Knight recently and have been healing ever since though.

But anyway, remember that once someone ascends to Daemonhood and becomes a Daemon Prince they are no longer bound to the mortal realm and is no longer capable of being ordered around by those who may care "where they would be useful", but they are still bound to the Chaos gods who may very likely find what they are currently doing "in their retirement" to be incredibly useful, like Fulgrim, especially as those activities often involve doing things that increase the power of the god itself directly. Others are just moody and don't care in the slightest about the Long War, like Lorgar, that is something that concerns mortals only to them.


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

[User] If I drop a penny off the top of the Empire State building, what will happen to the penny once it hits the ground?

[Assistant]
The terminal velocity of a penny is about 40-50 mph.

Take a penny and throw it at the ground as hard as you can. That is about what would happen. It would hurt to get hit by one, but it would hardly cleave your skull, or the sidewalk, in twain.


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

[User] ELI5: How does a medicine, like one to help quit smoking, develop into side effects like suicidal thoughts?

[Assistant]
Because it changes the chemical composition of your body, specifically your brain chemistry.

Think of it like this: Medicine A works by causing your brain to produce lots of chemical A.  Chemical A being present in your system helps to curb your desire to smoke, which is great.  But chemical A does lots of things besides that... maybe it regulates your heart rate in some way, maybe it affects your mood, maybe it affects your memory.  One of those many side effects could increase suicidal thoughts.


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

[User] ELI5: We produce enough food to feed everyone. Why do ~25,000 people die of hunger each day?

[Assistant] Hunger problems are mostly problems with food *distribution.* Specifically, most starving people live in countries with poor transportation systems, or countries suffering from civil war or other internal problems that disrupt food distribution.


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

[User]
[Hellraiser] What are Pinhead's powers?

Could a tough guy like Brock Lesnar just beat up Pinhead if he was getting bothered by him?

[Assistant]
It's difficult to address since there are many works of fiction covering *Hellraiser* and some introduce things that aren't present in books/movies. Some things Pinhead was known of:

- telekinesis
- creating illusions
- opening portals to hell and Earth
- pain immunity
- probably being immortal (he spits bullets shot at him) or at least "come back from pieces"
- shapeshifting
- creating of lesser Cennobites

Now about the question:

> Could a tough guy like Brock Lesnar just beat up Pinhead if he was getting bothered by him?

I believe it would be like fighting a zombie. You can punch him, kick him, Powerplex him to the ground but it wouldn't make him more than laugh. Eventually you'd run out of juice, or him - out of patience and there would be a few chainhooks emerging seemingly from nowhere piercing your body and tearing it apart.

tl;dr: no human poses a threat to Cennobites.


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

[User]
Could humans live on a planet with gravity 2.4x (potentially Kepler 22b) Earth's?

What are the real biological limits of the human body with regards to gravity?

[Assistant]
Where's everyone getting this 2.4x gravity statistic?  It has 2.4x the RADIUS, which does not mean 2.4x the gravity.  Gravity goes as
m/r^2 so what we have to worry about is the m/r^2 ratio, not just the radius.  Only if the planets density is very similar to Earth's does that mean it will have 2.4x the gravity.  It is possible that the planet is not made up of exactly the same materials as Earth, so it is possible that it will have less, or more, than 2.4x the gravity.


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

[User]
Not getting depressed by failure?

I'm in the last year of my PhD and have been applying for postdoctoral Fellowships for research proposals I was really proud of. I've been rejected from all of them. I know these Fellowships are ridiculously competitive, and that I'm competing against loads of extremely highly qualified people who have also put their heart and soul into their proposals. I know all of that, but I still feel like shit. Particularly since the odds are so stacked against ECRs that it feels like if you're not off to a flying start, you're never going to make it in academia. I really don't want to go into industry because I absolutely love what I do. I'm guessing this is the kind of thing that you just get used to, but does anyone have any things they do that help them keep up morale despite failure?

[Assistant]
Just generally learning to separate your self-worth from how well your research is going. Rejection/failure is a gigantic part of science. You know this you've experienced it. Even Nobel Laureates have failed many things.

Being "used to it" is unlikely, learning how to not take it personally (or at least less so) is very beneficial though.


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

[User] Can laws of physics in the Universe change over time?

[Assistant]
This is actually somewhat unclear, but the answer seems to be no.

I recently read a chapter in The Constants of Nature by John Barrow that discusses evidence for this. In astronomy, we see events that are taking place near the beginning of time. Those events, like galaxy and star formation, seem to follow all the same rules as we see today. We see the same spectral emission lines from familiar atoms, for instance. Closer to home, we can look at radioactive elements and ancient naturally occurring fission reactors in Earth's crust to see how nuclear activity took place millions to billions of years ago, and it puts very tight limits on how much the laws of physics could have changed in that time. Subtle changes in physical constants are still not ruled out entirely, and such changes might be useful to explain some observations, but so far it seems like physics has been a constant at least since the very early universe.


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

[User]
What stops grains of salt with combining with eachother?

I know that an Na and Cl atom are extremely attracted to eachother, so why isn't salt essentially bigger? What stops the table salt from combing?

[Assistant]
Not enough energy. Imagine there were two big crowds of people, the people in each crowd are linking arms with each other. Now, combine them.
That won't be easy. Who needs to unlock their arms to link up with the other crowd? How are you going to combine so that people don't get squished somewhere along the boundary? Lots of energy to expend rearranging people as necessary. If one crowd wasn't linked up (ie they're liquid) it would be much easier for people to walk up to the second crowd and find a good spot to link their arms (a nucleation site).


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

[User]
Will the Universe last long enough for light to travel all the way across it?

The Universe began ~14 billion years ago, and in that time it has expanded. It's constantly getting bigger (as far as I know, this will stop eventually, right?). Currently, the observable portion of the Universe has a diameter of 93 billion light years. So the Universe itself must have a much larger diameter. My question is this: Could a light source shine at one end of the Universe, and have that light get to the other side, before the Universe snuffs itself out?

[Assistant]
We have no way of knowing how big the Universe "actually" is (defined in some suitable way) or if it's even finite in size at all. The expansion of the Universe is separate from its size. The expansion just means that stationary points are getting further apart from each other (more specifically, the *way* we measure distances is changing over time), as if you took a rubber sheet and stretched it out. The stretching of the sheet is independent of how big the sheet is - it can just as well work whether the sheet is a 4' x 4' square or infinite in size.

The answer to the more general question of "can light go from point A to point B before the end of the Universe" (i.e., in finite time) depends intricately on the nature of the expansion. For most (although not all) conceivable types of expansion, it comes down to whether the expansion is accelerating or decelerating. Light can travel between any two points, eventually, in a decelerating universe, while in an accelerating universe there will always be places that light cannot reach. What's the answer in real life? Our Universe is believed to have gone through at least three different types of expansion: one dominated by the energy from electromagnetic radiation, one dominated by the gravity from dark matter, and at least one dominated by a cosmological constant or "dark energy." The first two (radiation- and matter-dominated) are decelerating universes, while dark energy causes the Universe to accelerate. So it seems that our future, which as far as we know holds little other than further acceleration, will be of the type in which light *can't* be sent between any two points. Light can go infinitely far, of course - it's always travelling at the speed of light - but there will always be places which are, in a sense, expanding away "too quickly" for the light to reach it.


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

[User] ELI5: Why Is The NFL Draft So Popular Compared To The NBA/MLB/NHL Drafts?

[Assistant]
There are a number of reasons.

* It's the most popular professional league in the US by a longshot.
* It has a sweet spot for the number of rounds--7. Hockey has this as well but it's less popular than the other three in the US.  The NBA has two and the MLB has *forty*
*  There is a lot of uncertainty.  Given the number of positions in football, teams will have a lot of needs or weaknesses to address. It's interesting to see how they prioritize these needs.  Further, it's tough to predict much outside of the top 5 picks.
* The NFL does an excellent job of promoting and building excitement around the draft.
* It involves college football, the most popular college sport in the US.  Many of the players in the draft are already well known to even a casual sports fan.


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

[User] ELI5: How do the Scribblenauts series games create all those things?

[Assistant]
It was a ton of work.

The development team created a library of more than 20,000 objects, and gave each one unique artwork and a bunch of characteristics.

They didn't have to program every behavior of every object. Rather, they created lots of properties that objects could have, and then carefully assigned properties to each object. Every property needed to be programmed, but adding a new object was just a question of drawing the artwork and then figuring out what properties it would have.

For the most part, though, there was no "trick" - they really did go through every word they could come up with and add it to the game, it was a massive effort for a relatively small development team, and the result was pretty magical, which is why the game won so many awards.


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

[User] ELI5: How can geologists really know that there is a miniscule chance that the Yellowstone super volcano will erupt in the next few thousand years?

[Assistant] To explode the rock under the ground needs to be more lava. Currently all of the rock is actually rock. We would begin to see more activity and magma prior to an explosion. This change would take a long time. Therefore we know its not happening anytime soon.


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

[User]
If in an AC circuit, current goes both ways, why are the switch and fuse connected to the live wire?

From my understanding, there should also be current flowing from the neutral wire (correct me on this if necessary). If so, why is the live wire so special that the fuse and switch are connected to it?

[Assistant]
The same current flows through both the live and neutral wires when the circuit is closed (turned on) and functioning correctly.

The difference between live and neutral is when the circuit is open (switch is off); then *only the live wire* is connected to the electrical grid. If you were to connect a wire from live to the ground, current would flow, but neutral to ground would not. This makes the live wire the dangerous one; if the switch is between the device and neutral instead of device and live, the whole device is still getting voltage applied to it, and is therefore dangerous if short circuits happen. If the switch is between live and the device, there's no voltage at all past the switch and the device is safe.

This is also why the fuse must be there---otherwise a short circuit to ground would bypass the fuse entirely.


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

[User]
Repeated multiplication is raising a number to a power. Repeated addition is multiplication. Is there anything which repeats in a similar way to form addition?

A clarification, what I was asking for is along the lines of the following: When you add 3+(3+(3+(3+3))), you get 3\*5. When you take 4\*(4\*4), it is the same as 4\^3. This can be extended using Knuth up-arrow notation such that 8\^(8\^(8\^8)) is the same as 8\^\^4, 5\^\^(5\^\^5) is the same as 5 \^^3 3, etc. In this manner, multiplication is similar to zero up arrows, and addition is similar to -1 up arrows. Is there any function which is defined in such a way that 4$(4$4) = 4+3, where $ is the function... that is, a function which is similar to -2 up arrows? And furthermore, is there any function such that 5%(5%(5%5)) = 5$4... that is, -3 up arrows? And so on...

[Assistant] Addition is repeating incrementing. You can define 2 as the number after 1, 3 as the number after 2, etc, and 5+4 is the same as saying the number after the number after the number after the number after 5.