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

[User]
If the "common" understanding of Schrdinger's Cat is incorrect, what is the correct way to think about the experiment and its results?

I understand the whole "the cat is both dead and alive" thing, but I've also been told that that interpretation isn't actually correct, and that I wouldn't understand it until I learn more about quantum physics. Does anyone have any insight on the "correct" interpretation of this experiment?

[Assistant]
I view it as a *reductio ad absurdum* showing the pitfalls of the non-rigorous nature of the textbook postulates of quantum mechanics.

A living cat at room temperature is a manifestly classical object. If there are two doorways into a room, the cat does not exist in a superposition of states moving through each door, and the cat does not interfere with itself.

The problem with textbook quantum mechanics is that it does not provide guidance other than common sense on which objects may be described as quantum objects (atoms, electrons, molecules) which may exist in a superposition of interfering states, and which objects should be treated as classical "detectors" (geiger counters, phosphorescent screens, scientists).

If there is a cat in the box, and a unstable atom that sets off a poison trap if it beta decays, then the sensible way to set up the problem is to treat the atom as a quantum system, and the poison trap as a "detector" which collapses the atomic wavefunction into a state of having decayed or not having decayed.

The absurd way to treat the problem is to look at the atom, the poison trap, and the cat as a quantum system that exists in some superposition of decay (and death of the cat) and no decay (and a living cat) until some other object acts as the "detector" and collapses the wavefunction.

This gets at the heart of the measurement problem: what qualifies something as a detector, and what is the physical process of wavefunction collapse?

I think that recent nanoscale experiments and theoretical work such as the notion of decoherence are making progress towards rigorously understanding wavefunction collapse.


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

[User]
ELI5: How does wind chill work?

I live in Florida, where it rarely goes below 70 degrees Fahrenheit. That being said, looking at the weather across the country, I realize that I have no idea how wind chill works. Weather forecasts have reported a temperature of 3 degrees, but with the windchill it feels like -17 degrees, or more recently in Chicago, the temperature was -11 degrees but -40 with the wind chill.

In Florida, I've experienced hurricane force winds, but that has never given us drastic changes in temperature, so this concept of the wind making it feel sometimes 30 degrees colder baffles me.

[Assistant]
The effect is partially due to evaporation of water. When water evaporates it takes heat with it. When the wind is blowing, cold dry air displaces the warmer moist air around you/the thermometer facilitating a faster rate of evaporation.

Wind chill is normally measured by a wet bulb thermometer.

Source: A distant memory of primary school.


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

[User]
ELI5: How does sleep deprivation lead to other bodily issues such as an upset stomach?

Ive read that not getting enough sleep can cause a myriad of issues such as upset stomachs or pain at times.  How does missing a bit of sleep cause such seemingly far flung bodily issues?

[Assistant]
Your body is supposed to work like a fine-tuned machine.

However, even fine-tuned machines get out of tune when put under too much stress.  Sleep deprivation causes your body to change how it distributes things that help your body function.

Three main things (hormones) your body alters are cortisol, ghrelin, and leptin levels.

Ghrelin tells you when you're supposed to be hungry.

Leptin tells you when you're full.

Cortisol fixes sugar levels in your blood, and is created when your body is under stress.

These three things combined change not only your hunger levels when you're sleep deprived, but they can also change what foods you're hungry for.  They can change how your body stores fat, they know what times of day you normally eat.

Sleep deprivation throws all of these things out of balance, and those things are tied to your digestive system, your immune system, and more.  Extended sleep deprivation is tied to diseases like diabetes and heart disease.

In short, get some sleep!


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

[User] If you received a full blood transfusion would you lose your immunity to infections you had previously been vaccinated against?

[Assistant]
You mean: if you lost all your own blood and had all of it replaced by other people's blood.

The answer is no, because immune cells do not only live in the blood. They are also in your spleen, in your bone marrow and in lymph nodes. Some of the cells that make antibodies and that remember previous infections or vaccinations will thus stay in your body, even if all blood was exchanged.


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

[User]
Why are flies so attracted to feces? What attracts them to it? Is it... nutritious?

I've always wanted to know why you'd see dozens of flies on a pile of dog shit as if it was steak or something.  What gives?

[Assistant]
Yes, and no! First of all, feces contain large amounts of dead and alive bacteria, fats, proteins, indigestible carbohydrates (like cellulose - fiber!), minerals, and trace amounts of other nutritious goodies. Although what gets excreted is simply waste to a human, many organisms have different needs. If you or another mammal were to consume feces, there would be little to no benefit, and great risk of making yourself sick with toxic byproducts and infectious bacteria being put in the wrong place. However, many of these things that are infectious to, or not digested by, humans are safe and nutritious for other organisms. With such a nutrient dense media available, flies and other insects (including beetles and even butterflies) flock to deposit their eggs so that when they hatch their babies will have everything they need to grow.
**TL;DR** Feces are nutritious safe-havens for insects to lay their eggs.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is human feces so dangerous but animals can go anywhere in nature and it feeds the environment?

[Assistant] It's dangerous to us because other humans can excrete human-hungry pathogens in theirs and make other people sick. Our microfauna also varies from person to person, so being exposed to others' feces can mess with one's microbiome.


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

[User]
Does the change in an electrons wave function and probability density function happen instantaneously when it changes energy state?

Edit: Specifically for the hydrogen atom for simplicitys sake.

Wondering if this change happens at the speed of light or instantaneously and if instantaneously how does it not violate causality. Does it work like wave function collapse?

[Assistant]
No, it doesnt happen instantaneously. For example if you have a particle in an excited state with one lower-energy state (the ground state), the time-dependence of the wavefunction is something like exp[iEt/~~h~~], where E is a complex-valued energy

E = E*_0_* - i/2.

E*_0_* is the actual energy of the excited state, and  is the energy width.

If you calculate a probability density for a wavefunction of this form, you get something proportional to

exp[-t/~~h~~].

Notice that this is not an imaginary exponential, which is an oscillating function. This is a **real** exponential function, and it decays with time. This is the exact same exponential decay that you see in radioactivity.

So the probability density for finding the particle in the excited state decays exponentially in time; it doesnt instantaneously change.


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

[User] ELI5: In TV-Show 'Silicon Valley' they talk about "Scaling" the software, to commercialise it. What do they mean by "Scaling" in this sense?

[Assistant]
I haven't watched the show, but usually we software developers talk about scaling in the sense of moving from small amounts of usage to much larger amounts of usage.  For example, your app might start with 5 users/day and work great at that scale.  But once you start thinking about 5,000 users/day, you need to plan for a much larger database, more server bandwidth, higher uptime, more support requests, hackers who suddenly take an interest in your app, etc.

This is all what is meant by "scaling", and it's not always about just adding more hardware - frequently the software has to be completely redesigned as well.  For example think about the process you use to cook dinner in your kitchen as the software.  It works for 5 "users" (your family).  Now imagine you have to feed 5000 people.  You can upgrade your kitchen to a huge galley, but your cooking process better change as well, or else it'll never work.


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

[User]
How can we see photons from distant Galaxies?

OK, I know "why" but to me it doesn't make much sense or perhaps I am not thinking properly.

Photons travel in a basically (putting gravity aside for a minute) straight line. Yes?  If so then every photon we can see would have to have an origination point. That point would have to be exactly lined up with our telescope, our eyes etc.. if not that particular photon could not be registered?  Yes? (Like if a flash light was pointed away from us)

If I think of a big ball (a star) and I draw a straight line from each conceivable point on that ball outward (where the photon originated and started travelling), *eventually* the trajectory of every line would move farther and farther away from each other (think of a V")

I can see what we are able to see our Sun, as the distance is not great enough to angle all the trajectories completely away, but something hundreds of light years away?

How do those photons get to us? Is it that there is just an almost infinite resource flying out at every trajectory?

[Assistant]
Everything you've described is correct. It's not an "infinite" resource of photons, but for a star like the sun it's roughly 10^45 per second.

Galaxies emit a **lot** of photons, so many of them arrive at the Earth even though we make up a tiny fraction of the total solid angle. When we start looking at far enough sources, or in parts of the spectrum that are dimmer, we start to see photons arriving one at a time instead of as a continuum.


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

[User]
CMV: Under convincing circumstances, attempted murder should be punished the same as actual murder.

So, I believe that the point of incarceration in the legal system is to protect us civilians against potentially dangerous individuals, and to act as a deterrent to discourage people from doing illegal things. I am an atheist and do not believe in things such as sins and repentance in a spiritual manner.

As an example, I saw the CCTV footage of a man who stabbed another man in the head with a knife. The man supposedly survived, which can clearly be seen as lucky. The assailant could just as well have killed the man, and the intent was there, why else would you stab a man IN THE HEAD? In my country, the legal system differentiates between attempted murder and actual murder. But as far as I can see, the man escaped a much harder sentence due to a sheer luck. Why should not attempted murder, under convincing circumstances, yield the exact same punishment? Change my view!

(English is not my first language, some words might be out of place etc etc.)

[Assistant] Our justice system is built on incentives for compliance, and part of what makes that work is the possibility of de-escalation. The idea is that until you've actually committed murder, there's still an opportunity to back down and face a lesser charge. If attempted murder carries the same penalty as murder, then trying again comes at no extra cost.


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

[User]
[FMA] Human Transmutation

I know making a living human with alchemy is a forbidden art and carries a huge risk, but what about just building a non living human body? You know just a corpse more or less but a complete body all organs and bones included. Would it carry the same risks? Would it be still be a forbidden art?

[Assistant]
The actual risks with human transmutation seem to revolve entirely around the soul, not the body. Otherwise, as you say, the body is just natural ingredients arranged in a specific amount and shape. Ed even rambles off the actual percentages of each one in one of the earlier episodes, implying that an alchemical breakdown of a human body has been done before.

The reason most people don't seem to bother is that there doesn't seem to be much point. Anything you make is effectively useless because medicine in the FMA-verse doesn't seem good enough to do transplants and alchemy doesn't seem to have any (known) surgical application. Or else you'd think a master like Izumi could help herself. Plus the general ban on Human Alchemy seems to extend to all aspects of it, rather than just trying to raise the dead. Shou Tucker was making Human Chimeras but he still had to keep his research secret.


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

[User]
[Toy Story 4] How can Bo Peep move as well as she does.

So its been kind of the law that a toy can only move using its own articulation, with some slight leeway allowing for Toys with no articulation to hobble.

Bo Peep is a porcelain figure. How is it she have fully fluid human movement when only loose toys have been able to accomplish that?

-
Edit: okay so I think Ive been Mandela Effecting how some of the movements worked in previous films. Looking back it seems that the Army men can move freely apart from their feet are a plastic stand, and Hamm can waddle about dispute being a piggy bank.

I think what is happening is Toys can move the way they are imagined too by the child. So in absence toy articulation limits their movement because thats his the child sees them move in their head. Where as with a more rigid toy a child can sometimes picture more movement in their head.

[Assistant]
Bo Peep, being unowned by a child for a length of time, has become her own "imaginator" if you will.  Instead of a child imagining her moving, she's imagining herself - and thus her actual movement is more athletic and fluid.

(trying to come up with a "canon" line of reasoning)


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

[User]
ELI5: How come the US doesn't add taxes into the prices you see on the shelf?

When I was in the UK, it was SO much easier to shop for stuff, when you knew exactly what the total was gonna be (especially since I was just travelling, and had a limited budget).

[Assistant]
Because taxes can vary on store items on the state, county, and city level.

Having to make one set of tags for everywhere and say "+tax" is far more economically efficient then having to make hundreds of tags for items with different prices.


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

[User] Approximately how fast is Sol traveling relative to the center of the Milky Way galaxy?

[Assistant] Others have answered this pretty well, but as a heads up nobody in the planetary/stellar scientific community uses Sol, thats pretty much the realm of sci-fi. The IAU designations are the Sun and the Moon, emphasis on the and the capitalization.


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

[User] ELI5: How are animals able to drink water from puddles from the road, dirty ponds, etc. etc. But if we were to do it, we'd fall terribly sick?

[Assistant]
In part it's immunity gained by getting ill once, or a few times and surviving it. The immune system remembers what foreign organisms it encountered before and fights them a lot faster and efficiently when an infection happens again (with exceptions from the rule, not all pathogens produce a lasting immunity).

In part it's evolution at work. The wolf that couldn't handle half-rotten meat simply didn't live long enough to reproduce. Disadvantages like that get culled very quickly in nature. Most people living today have a genetic immunity to illnesses that were devastating a few generations earlier. The Spanish Flu wouldn't be as bad today as it was 1918 because we're the descendants of the survivors.

If there are few water sources, then those have an advantage who can use even the dirtiest puddle without major consequences.

But, you also only see the animals drinking, not hiding in the undergrowth puking their souls out, or dying prematurely from infections and poison. Just because they drink something doesn't mean it's automatically ok for them to do so. If there's nothing better to be had, they'll go for it and hope for the best, not like they can go to the next convenience store and buy a bottle of water instead.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] Why are Humans one of, if not the, only species with many diverse cultures?

The vast majority of species shown have a single unifying culture or belief. Fluctuations are mostly on an individual scale. Whenever beliefs or cultures are discussed, it is said that "Species X believes this, Species Y considers this rude, Human culture X believes this". Especially when discussing the afterlife, people tend to bring up 3 human belief systems, as well as 2 alien ones, each representing an entire species.

[Assistant] Humans were quick to develop warp drive. Most species take a lot longer, so there's a lengthy period in their history where they've got extremely good telecommunications technology while still being confined to just one solar system. This has a homogenizing effect on culture. Humans developed warp drive unexpectedly (they'd just come out of a massive global war, they were quite fragmented and backward at the time) which allowed them to radiate out to remote star systems before they'd been able to homogenize quite so much.


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

[User]
is there a correlation between the Sun's activity and Global Warming?

The temperature where I live (Ontario, Canada) rose 16 deg. C higher than average for this time of year.  This corresponds directly with the solar flare activity reaching earth. Can this be coincidence and can it explain why global warming is occurring?

Edit: Thank you all for your answers.

[Assistant]
There are several effects that solar activity might have on Earth's climate.

First, of course, is direct luminosity changes. If the Sun's energy output varies by even a fraction of a percent then that could still have a significant impact on the Earth. In general the long term average of solar energy output is fairly stable (other than the regular variations of solar cycles) though it does fluctuate a little over longer time periods and the difference between normal sunspot activity and "maunder minimum" periods appears to be significant.

Second, solar activity specifically in regards to the solar wind will impact the cosmic ray flux at Earth, which will affect cloud formation. The effect of cloud cover on climate is still poorly understood but definitely significant.

Overall we can discount short-term effects such as what you have observed as merely random correlations, there's no plausible mechanism for significant temperature changes due to solar flare activity.

Over long time periods there is some evidence that the Sun's activity has an effect on climate, but ultimately we just don't know. We don't have good records of Earth's weather and the Sun's activity to make any firm conclusions. What evidence we do have seems to indicate a correlation between "maunder minimum" sunspot lulls and climatic cooling, but even that is rather tenuous.


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

[User]
I feel that Islam is, on the whole evil, and that many Muslims in Britain should be deported. Please CMV

Brought up to hate racism and xenophobia I am struggling with my own views on Islam and specifically muslims in the uk. Outside the uk, i daily read horrific stories of religiously motivated violence in muslim countrys, i hear about barbaric sharia law applied to young men and women, I have seen videos of religiously sanctioned executions, and i worry about what seems to be a widely held desire to impose Islamic law across the world. Having studied ancient history I read with horror as ancient and wonderful cultures were destroyed by the spread of islam. I have read many opinions pieces comparing Islam to medieval christianity, and many people have told me that christians commited similar atrocities in the middle ages, but I cannot help thinking that i would be as appaled and disgusted with that as i am Islam.
It just seems that for every atrocity commited in the name of this "religion of peace" we have to excuse them, like naughty children, as they rape and kill the innocent. So when I hear of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims entering the UK each year, of areas in which the majority are asian, of muslim gangs raping english girls and applying islamic law, I have to admit I get angry, and I guess racist. When i read about and talk to asian women who have lived in the UK for 30 years and speak no English yet claim benefits, feel angry, and again racist.
Many times i've told myself that im wrong and just reducing complex issues to headlines in my head, but each time something else will emerge so alien to my values that im plunged straight back into my anti islamic thoughts. When recently i've read about anonymous surveys concluding that shocking numbers of muslims in the uk see the white British people as people to be hated and killed, and when a recent undercover panorama documentary found extremist sermons in supposed moderate mosques preaching for holy war and suicide bombings, its only reinforced my convictions. I hear that Mohammed is supposed to be a prophet and a man of huge wisdom, and then I read that he gave captured women to his men to be raped. Having said all of this, I don't want to become blinded with hate. I have met muslims that I really like, and respect. But i cannot help feeling that they are wonderful people despite their religion not because of it. All these views and feelings make me profoundly uneasy with myself, but everytime I try and change my opinion, some other fact or point will surface, and I can't help feeling that i'm right. Please, if you can, change my mind. I dont want to be right about this.

Edit: So far there have been many excellent viewpoints put forth- thankyou all so much for your time

Edit- thankyou to everyone that took the time to respond. I still think on the whole that Islam cannot be a force for good, but I know understand more fully what i suspected- Muslims themselves are just as good or evil as anybody else and should not be lumped in together.  I cant write the little triangle thingie, but yeah, my view is changed :)

[Assistant]
It's as prone to being corrupted, co-opted by awful people, and developing into fucked up local sects as every other major religion.

It's worth considering that for every time there's a headline of "ten muslims gang-rape and stone to death dishonored woman," you're not hearing the story of "nine thousand, nine hundred muslims have a pleasant day with their family."


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

[User]
What types of Economist jobs are the most prevalent in the private sector? What do people do in these jobs? For instance what does a corporate economist do?

Non-native English speaker here.

It seems that virtually all the occupations of an Economist is in the government. There does not seem to be that many Economist jobs in the private sector.

I am referring to Economist occupations here and I am not talking about people with a background in Economics who goes on to be a Financial Analyst within a business or do any other job other than that of Economics regardless of their occupational title.

My question is:

\- What percentage of Economist jobs are in the private sector?

\- What are the *types* of these jobs?

\- What do people in these jobs do on a daily basis? For instance what does a corporate economist do?

PS: I know these are basic questions, but I couldn't find any information on this topic even after weeks of searching. Maybe I am using the incorrect search terms in Google because English is not my native language. If anyone can guide me to a PDF or link online where I can get the information in my questions that would be great as well.

Thanks in advance.

[Assistant]
In the banking industry there is a demand for PhD economists. Typically from the best schools and usually with a focus on Financial Econometrics.

Also real estate companies need economic analyst to study the housing market. But typically a BA/BS is enough.


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

[User]
[MCU] Would Infinity War have gone better had Gamora and Quill gone with Thor, while Groot and Rocket went to Knowhere?

So instead of trying to beat Thanos to the Reality Stone herself, Gamora decides her knowledge of Vormir is too important to risk so blatantly. After some bickering, Gamora convinces Rocket that he will lead the group to Knowhere to try and steal the Reality Stone with Groot, Mantis and Drax, while Gamora and Quill will go with Thor to try and forge a new weapon for Thor to fight Thanos with.

Would events have gone smoother this way? Or had Gamora told the Guardians she knows the location of the Soul Stone and must be kept away from Thanos (possibly having the Guardians all going to Nidavellir with Thor before joining the Battle of Wakanda) would Thanos have a harder time getting Gamora and thus the Soul Stone? I imagine that Thanos would struggle getting Gamora in the middle of a warzone where he's the main target (and she and Vision are the most protected of the heroes), but I also recognise that the Avengers would be splitting their efforts to protect two VIPs instead of one. I *also* recognise that Thanos would be down at least the Soul Stone by this point (and also Reality if Rocket succeeded), so I don't know.

TLDR Would things have gone better (or drastically worse) had Gamora and Quill swapped missions with Rocket and Groot?

[Assistant]
Thor would have died because Groot made Stormbreaker's handle. If Eitri was able to find the handle, then he may have survived, but he didn't find it quick enough.

The Titan fight probably would have went the same, if not better due to Quill not being there.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Did any of the Seperarists systems join the Rebel Alliance after Sidious betrayed them?

[Assistant]
Of course not. Openly resisting the Empire would have been suicide. Besides, they were quite war-weary, too.

A lot of Seperatist millitary materiel did end up in rebel hands, though. Wonder where that came from...


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

[User] ELI5: Are there any real studies showing that things like ginger, turmeric, capsaicin, propolis... help preventing/curing diseases?

[Assistant]
There are a LOT of studies. Almost no proper clinical trials though. Certainly no clear benefit. Turmeric is almost certainly ineffective as it decomposes quickly. If there is no clinical use after such long research then there probably is no significant activity.
Good paper in Science about turmeric recently.


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

[User] [Breaking Bad] Why has Gus set himself up to be working in a public location filled with civilians all day? Isn't he worried his enemies can easily assassinate him there?

[Assistant]
Gus has no true enemies who want to assassinate him (aside from lalo for a brief period during the BCS era). The only people who know his true identity are people who work for him, and the cartel. He works for the cartel and handles their north-of-the-border distribution, they largely don't want to *actually* kill him. We see this demonstrated when the cartel sniper attacks the distribution plant - Gus walks out of cover, arms spread, and challenges the sniper to take the shot. He doesn't.

Gus orchestrates the demise of several cartel assets to look like he wasn't involved, then takes down the rest of the leadership in one swift strike later with their guard down. By the time they figure out he is killing them, they are already poisoned.


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

[User]
Eli5: How does a computer know how long 1 sec is?

Do they perform a series of calculations that take exactly 1s? Or am i looking at it completely wrong?

[Assistant]
Computer Engineer here,

Timekeeping on computers (indeed, most electronic devices) is performed using two methods.

1.) A small quartz crystal that, when energised, oscillates at exactly 32,768 hz, is fed through an amplifier and bistable oscillating circuit. This assembly is often embedded within a real-time-clock circuit, which in some products can track the date and time down to the millisecond. 32,768 is exactly 2^15 which is extremely easy to count in logic. One second elapses every 32,768 oscillations.

Crystals that oscillate at other frequencies, such as 50Mhz, and 100Mhz are available as well. As long as the oscillating frequency is known and oscillation is reliable, a counting circuit can be constructed around it.

2.) Most operating systems include support for the Network Time Protocol. There are a large number of NTP servers on the internet, computers simply query these to periodically update their system clocks in the event that the RTC wanders a bit; timezone and DST can also be updated if sufficient information is known.


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

[User] [Game of Thrones] After Hardhome, Why did Lord Commander Snow march the Wildlings north of the Wall and through Castle Blacks gate instead of landing at the port at Eastwatch-by-the-sea and walking down the south wall road?

[Assistant] Eastwatch is smaller than Castle Black and is garrisoned by fewer brothers. Jon isnt stupid and doesnt fully trust all of the wildlings. Even if a few of the wildlings betrayed him it would be easier to defend Castle Black than it would Eastwatch.


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

[User] Eli5 why is it when youre drunk, closing one eye helps you see straight?

[Assistant] Alcohol messes with eye movements and sometimes involuntary eye movements, often it messes with each eye unequally. Because humans need input from both eyes for binocular vision, if they are not in sync, the brain can't fit the two puzzle pieces together. So if you close one eye, yes you lose half your visual field, but on the bright side, that single eye can move around all it wants and the brain won't confuse it with whatever is happening with the left eye.


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

[User]
[star wars] Did a Sith Lord ever take a second to relax? Would they ever kick back, crack a cold one and smoke a death stick with a pal?

I've always wondered, Darth Sideous can't be sitting on a over valued rolly chair all day... Could he?

[Assistant]
"The night before the election, [Plagueis] made his first public appearance in years, and a rare appearance with Senator Palpatine: they attended the premiere of an experimental Mon Calamari piece at the Galaxies Opera House together. After the performance, the two Sith Lords retired to [Plagueis'] penthouse in the Kaldani Spires building to celebrate Palpatine's upcoming success. There, Sidious plied Plagueis with wine while rehearsing the acceptance speech he would soon deliver before the Senate."

Granted, Palpatine killed him while he was intoxicated, but Plagueis didn't see anything unusual about it.


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

[User]
[Jurassic Park] what happened to the indigenous animals on the island(s)?

The island is large enough with sufficient biodiversity to support plenty of birds, animals, and insects. What happened to them with the influx of dinosaurs?

[Assistant]
Isla Nublar is a sea mount, and was known among Costa Rican fishermen and the government for being almost nothing but rocks, jungle, and rain. Its native fauna population was relatively small and isolated to the heavier forest to the island's north. Mostly small birds, rats, snakes, possums, leeches, and cicadas.

When InGen bought the island, they cleared and developed the central and eastern part of the island mostly, and left the animals in the north alone as best they could. The dinosaur population was supposed to be kept separate and tightly contained for ease of public view. But when they started getting out, the small animals most likely became part of the new violent food chain for a brief time.

(In the novel) following the evacuation of Doctor Grant and the other survivors of the incident, the Costa Rican air force firebombed the island and killed most everything still living there.

(In the movies) Following the evacuation of Doctor Grant and the other survivors of the incident, a few return trips to the island were made and it was noted that the dinosaurs that had escaped were developing into a semi-natural ecosystem. Which included a few species eating the native fauna.


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

[User]
Arguments for ethics in the face of logical positivism?

I am a student of philosophy and often encounter people(often of a scientific mindset) who make use of arguments based in logical positivism to reject ethics overall. Although I do not agree with the logical positivist view that only empirical answers are worthwhile I cannot find a argument completely capable of combating this view which remains free from criticism that shows it to be less reasonable than the positivist view. If you have any insight here please share it. I must confess that this is an incredibly distressing issue for me and I honestly don't know what to do if I cannot find a logical response.

[Assistant]
Historically, the logical positivists didn't necessarily "reject ethics overall". For example, AJ Ayer argued for a non-cognitivist metaethics. Many members of the Vienna Circle were politically active and were Marxists. And having known many people "of a scientific mindset" (I take it that you mean science fans or students of various kinds), most do not know what logical positivism is, and do not espouse, i.e., a verification theory of meaning.

It would be helpful if you could tell us a bit more about what you have in mind.


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

[User] ELI5: Can alcohol really effect individuals differently at higher elevations? What about THC in marijuana?

[Assistant]
Alcohol yes, if you are not used to the elevation. Alcohol does lower blood oxygen saturation, which means that less oxygen is being carried to tissues throughout the body. High elevation does the same thing because there is less oxygen in the atmosphere. Drinking at high elevations would combine both of these effects. This would only occur within the first couple days of being at a higher elevation since the body will recognize that there is less oxygen available in the atmosphere and generate more red blood cells in order to compensate. People who live at high elevations will not be affected by this, but may have the opposite effect when going to lower elevations.

THC no, because its affects have nothing to do with the cardiovascular or respiratory system, beyond the actual smoking of it. The change in atmospheric pressure is not likely to have much of any effect on the absorption of THC in the lungs.


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

[User] [Marvel] Does Captain America enjoy food the same way we do? Or does his body metabolize it so quickly that its instantly converted to energy and he gets no satisfying feeling of being satiated?

[Assistant]
Food enjoyment comes from the taste.
Everybody with the sense of taste and smell can enjoy food.

Superman for example doesnt need it but he enjoys it a lot.

Basically cap is like those people that can eat whatever and dont get fat.


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

[User] [Batman] The Waynes are British instead of American. What city in Britain would they settle in? What would be the Gotham City of the UK?

[Assistant] Definitely London, or a fictional analogue thereof, the Waynes got stabbed to death by a mugger after coming out of a theatre in the west end and as such batman has a hatred of bladed weapons, instead of batarangs his primary weapon is a gun that fires non-lethal batletts.


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

[User]
Are emotions really at odds with logic?

This is this popular media concept that emotions are inherently illogical but I disagree.

I think a truly logical person can still have emotions. You don't need to be a Vulcan to be logical. Logic doesn't need to dictate every decision we make, only the ones that require logic.

There is a time and place for either and sometimes there's even a time for both. Deciding on what you want to eat for dinner? Logic isn't important here.

A logical person should be capable of recognizing when emotions interferes in a job for example, and remove themselves in that event. If a doctor just lost a family member, the logical course of action is to take a leave of absence and take time to process.

What are your thoughts?

Do you think emotions are inherently illogical?

[Assistant]
If you look at this from a neuroscience perspective then you get a very interesting answer.

Basically there are three areas of the brain, the brain stem which controls what your body does, the limbic system which does emotion, and the cortex which does logic.

BUT, they're actually layered, cortex on top of limbic on top of brain stem. Meaning that any form of logic that a person can experience actually HAS to be at least partially processed by the limbic system and emotions before it becomes a response. So it's impossible as a human to experience only logic, and depending on how you think about it, this may redefine what logic means from a human perspective.


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

[User] It is estimated that there are between 1-10 quadrillion ants on Earth. How did we come to that number?

[Assistant]
Count/ estimate the number of ants in individual colonies of particular species.

Count/ estimate density of colonies of each species in different environments and ecosystems.

Multiply everything out by the measured area of those different environments and ecosystems on the planet.


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

[User]
Can a human gain calories from eating common leaves?

I assume it wouldn't taste good, but if I was in a survival scenario would eating leaves from trees help? Could I get calories from them in any meaningful way? If not, is there something special about spinach and other leaf vegetables that makes them particularly healthy?

[Assistant]
The calories that are available to humans even in the leafy greens we eat like spinach aren't much. It would take like 10-15 pounds of spinach per day for you to get enough calories to survive and at that point the amount oxalate you'd be getting would be a serious problem.

What makes leafy greens healthy to eat is not the calories, but the vitamins and minerals they contain. Particularly vitamins A, C, and K, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. All leaves will have these since they're indispensable parts of photosynthesis and cellular function for the plant.

The greens we eat have been bred for generations to have thinner cell walls, which means a higher nutrient-to-weight ratio, and also less of things like oxalates, tannins, and other metabolites that make them unpalatable, toxic, or even lock up the nutrients so that we can't digest them.

This would be the main problem, particularly with trees, which often have thickened leaves and a lot of secondary metabolites. They produce these things precisely to prevent animals from eating them. You'd be better off eating the leaves of herbaceous (non-woody) plants. In fact many like dandelion, lamb's quarters, lactuca (wild lettuce), plantago, etc. are perfectly edible and lots of people collect and eat them even outside of "survival scenarios".

tl;dr : You can get nutrition from any leaf that doesn't make you sick, but it might not be much. Definitely not much calories. You should look for the most tender, green leaves without nasty flavors.


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

[User] ELI5: Why the current president (assuming they still have eligibility) automatically gets the nomination from their associated party...

[Assistant] They don't.  For example, in 1980, Jimmy Carter, the incumbent president, was challenged for the Democratic nomination by both Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown.  He ended up winning the nomination, but it definitely wasn't automatic.


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

[User] Why does water flow out in a twister when I drain the bathtub?

[Assistant]
You can visualize this with a thought experiment.

Imagine that the water in the tub is not 100.00000% still before you open the drain.

Now sit atop a microscopic skin flake that is moving with this not-still water, in a random direction, not straight to the drain. Say you are moving to the right of the drain originally.

Now you open the drain and at first there is no twister. It just starts sucking water towards it.

You were moving to the right of the drain, but now the drain is sucking water, so there's a force pulling you towards the drain.

You already had a velocity, to another direction, but now you start accelerating towards the drain. You won't immediately stop going where you were going, make a sharp turn, and start moving straight to the drain (only cartoons behave like this). Instead, there will be a gradually increasing velocity component vector towards the drain, which is added to your original velocity vector which was to the right of the drain.

Your original velocity to the right is decreasing (unless you are rowing) naturally, and the velocity towards the drain is increasing. What's the result? You start curving towards the drain.

If you are imagining this right, you now see that you'll describe a gentle spiral towards the drain, right? And you can see that your speed will increase as you spiral to the center (like when you close your arms while spinning on an office chair).

But you're not alone in the bathtub. All "particles" of water will be subject to this sort of effect, and also interfere with other particles' movements (the magic of fluid dynamics).

If the overall average random movements were more clockwise, they will add up and the resulting twister will be clockwise and vice-versa (forget the folklore about south/north of the equator; that effect is too minuscule to make a difference; you can force the direction by stirring the water around the drain by hand before or after opening the drain).

Even a small average direction tendency grows into a well defined twister, because once the rotation starts and it's accelerated ultimately fed by gravity, the rotating stream drags water around it to the same direction (positive feedback).

You can also picture this imagining you're driving a car in a straight line and suddently you see your arch-enemy you must run over already at your left. You yank the steering wheel to the left, but you can't make a sharp 90 degree turn in real life; you describe an arc, and drift around the guy, spiraling towards him.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are bigger sizes of the same item of clothing the same price?

Seems like you should pay more for more material?

[Assistant] The materials cost (especially the difference in materials cost between two sizes) is an insignificantly small portion of the cost to design, manufacture, transport, distribute, advertise, store and ultimately sell you the product.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] My Padawan wants to wear black robes like a Sith, is this a problem?

I'm a Jedi Knight who just got his first Padawan assign by the Council, the training progresses good.

He learns from me, I learn by teaching him, everything is nice in balance, but lately my Padawan has started to wear black robes. They are still in the traditional cut of our order, but they seem a bit too reminiscent of the Siths to me, when we talked about it he said that Master Anakin Skywalker wears his Jedi robes ether black or even black leather, so I don't feel in the position to directly forbid it but should I be worried?

And since we are on the topic why IS a prominent Jedi wearing black robes like a Sith?

[Assistant] Why would it be a problem? This isn't some fantasy series where the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black so the audience doesn't have to think too much. Black is just a colour, maybe he likes it for camouflage purposes or out of respect for a deceased relative. Or maybe he thinks he looks silly dressing in white robes that never stay clean. Black hides dust and dirt much better than "traditional" robes. Maybe he is a strict adherent to the no whites after galactic labour day rule. Quit acting like the fashion police, if he was turning to the dark side he's not likely to announce it by changing his wardrobe and growing an emo hair style.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does a high speed fan appear as if it is rotating in some distinct frames to human eye?

[Assistant] This is because almost all lights we use have some flicker. The lights are powered by 50 or 60 Hz mains, and so will often flash (or at least change brightness and olor) with each half-wave, so at 100 or 120 Hz. High quality LED or compact fluorescent use switch mode power supplies, which filter out the mains flicker, but they run at some thousands of hertz, and so flicker at that rate.


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

[User]
Why cant elements with atomic numbers above 94 be found in nature?

I thought it had to do with the half life of those elements but Curium 248 has a relatively long half life. Longer than Neptunium isotopes which can be found in trace amounts so why?

[Assistant]
There's no law of physics that says they *can't* be found in nature. What is and isn't found in nature is set by two things:

1. What natural processes are available to produce it?

2. If it decays, what is its half-life?

For nuclides with half-lives significantly less than the Earth, even if they were produced in large amounts when the solar system formed, they will have mostly decayed away by now, and therefore won't be common in nature (some nuclides are continually produced by natural processes, and so they do exist in some amount naturally despite having short half-lives).

In the example you give of curium-248 (and actually curium-247 is a better example, because it's got a longer half-life), the half-life is "long" in human terms. But the Earth is a little under 5 billion years old, and the half-life in this case is on the order of 10^(5) years (or 10^(7) years for curium-247). That's still very small compared to the age of the Earth, which is on the order of 10^(9) years. So whatever amount of curium that was produced in the same astrophysical event(s) as the rest of our solar system will have decayed away by now. And there apparently aren't any ongoing natural processes which produce it in at least "trace" amounts (for whatever definition of "trace" you're assuming in the question).


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does water sometimes make things slipperier (e.g. hydroplaning) and other times make things "stickier" (e.g. putting socks on wet feet)?

Hopefully the question is clear: basically, why is it that water on roads decreases friction, and water on a floor can make it easier to slip, but water droplets on feet make putting on socks harder?

[Assistant]
It's a battle between the properties of fluids.

If you have lots of water, then the more influential property is the friction reduction *(Such as rain on roads)*, however, if you only have a few droplets as you mentioned with the sock, then the more influential properties are the cohesion between the water molecules. This means that the droplets on your sock and skin are trying to stick together.

Fun fact: Water is the most cohesive non-metallic liquid!


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do we swing our arms when we walk?

Does it keep balance or is it just a habit?

[Assistant]
it's a counterbalance.

Your body in fact is constantly fine-tuning your gait for maximum caloric efficiency. Now, you can help it by walking properly with a straight back, but if there's one thing the human body does extremely well it's maximise our efficiency when moving.

Swinging our arms means we can keep going without having to stop every so often to sort out our momentum. It means we're not burning valuable calories using our core muscles to stay upright against the momentum of our own legs.

Pretty neat, huh?


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

[User]
eli5 why do we use "s" at the end of words with 0 quantity?

0 elephants

1 elephant

2 elephants

100 elephants

I understand the "s" for quantities larger than 1 because it's plural (more than 1) -- but why for 0, which is less than 1? Why does it just "feel more comfortable" (including for me)? Is there a logical reason behind it?

[Assistant]
Grammatically every numeral that is not 1 uses the plural. At least in english.

You would say there are 0.9 elephants instead of there is 0.9 elephant as well.

The reason it feels more comfortable to you is that learning the english language has trained you think that way. Other languages do it differently. And in casual english you could easily say something like there is no elephant at all. But if you use a numerical value it is just stuck in language and culture. Just a matter of being used to it.


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

[User] [Sunshine] According to Danny Boyle, the reason the sun is going out is that its being eaten by a Q-ball. What is a Q-Ball?

[Assistant]
Physicist here.  You know how a cup of water will freeze, but not all at once?  It'll freeze at the top and the sides then the ice will work its way downward and inward.

That's effectively how a Q-ball works.  The sun is 'freezing' into something like a solid, but a Q-ball doesn't care about the temperature of the object it's 'freezing'.  It'll start at one side of the sun and slowly creep throughout the rest of it.  When its finished the sun will look something like a crystal sphere, and it will not be very useful as an energy source.

(It's fiction; there is zero chance this can happen in real life.)


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

[User] [Halo] If the Jackal home-world's parent planet is known to us now, and is with in the forty light-year expanse of human colonies, does that mean that the UNSC would've of sent a colony ship to the planet, if so do we ever hear about such a ship?

[Assistant]
The Jackal home system contains no planets which are near the Earth in size, only gas giants. The Jackal homeworld is a moon of one of these gas giants, which would make it much harder to detect by usual exoplanet detection methods than a lone planet of that size on its own.

The UNSC may not have known it was there, or may have been more interested in colonizing planets, and so not sent an expedition. Prior to the Human-Covenant war, slipspace travel was pretty slow and slispace-capable ships were very expensive. It would be unlikely for a ship to be sent on a multiple-week journey to a system that isn't thought to contain anything useful.

European nations didn't explore every landmass in the Atlantic before setting up colonies in the Americas, there were islands that weren't explored until centuries later. Similarly, although this system isn't too far from Earth, that doesn't mean it would be explored immediately.


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

[User]
[General] I have just gained the power to teleport. How do I test my abilities?

I was thinking of teleporting just one centimetre to the side to see how my powers work and feel, but I'm afraid that the orbit of the Earth will cause me to be left a few million miles away from it, since I'll be teleporting to where the Earth once was. I was also thinking of doing the maths to compensate for this, so I'll calculate my teleport to be where the Earth will end up in the split second it takes to teleport. However, I haven't tested my teleportation (because of the above-mentioned fear) and as such do not know how long the teleportation takes, making such maths impossible. In addition to this, if I'm wrong and it turns out my teleportation is relative to the Earth after all, I've just done a lot of maths to teleport myself into deep space.

What is a safe way to test my powers?

[Assistant] Fun fact: you are on Earth, you are moving at the same velocity it is.  Theoretically speaking, even if your teleportation is not relative to the Earth, you should be safe.  That is of course assuming your teleport doesn't mess with your momentum.  You might have trouble if you teleport large distances, but a centimeter hop should be safe.


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

[User]
Can plants get cancer from the sun?

Can plants get cancer from the sun?

[Assistant]
Basically, plants don't really get cancer as we think of it.  They can get uncontrolled growths, but they are more like our benign tumors, like warts. They don't kill the plant, generally. There are several big reasons for this:

1. Every plant cell is basically glued to its neighbors.  They have cell walls that provide structural integrity and hold the cell in place.  What that means is that you don't get cells moving around in a circulatory system like humans have.  So cancer can't really spread in plants.  With a few exceptions (brain tumors, other inoperable locations), cancer in humans that doesn't spread to distant sites isn't really that dangerous.  It's very rarely the primary tumor that kills people, it's the spread of the tumor to distant sites that kills.

2.  The cells that get hit by the sun in a plant are usually non-growing cells.  Their dividing cells, meristem cells, are hidden away from the sun pretty well.  So by the time plant cells are getting bombarded by UV, they have already stopped dividing and are glued in place.  That makes it a lot harder for them to re-enter the cell cycle and start causing problems.


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

[User]
What causes mosquitos to be super attracted to some people, and completely ignore others?

Mosquitos attack me with a vengeance, but they won't touch my sister.

I am 25.  My sister is 23.  If we both go outdoors and play a sport for 2 hours and wait until dark, mosquitos still do not touch her.  It doesn't matter what I've done, mosquitos are on me like hummingbirds to nectar.  I can even wear bug repellant, doesn't help much.

I've heard similar stories from friends and acquaintances.

[Assistant]
There are various physiological factors that determine your likelihood of getting bitten.

* Blood type: Several studies have found that individuals with blood type O are at a greater risk, much more so than individuals with type A, B, or AB^1,2.

* Higher production of carbon dioxide will also attract a higher number of mosquitoes. In fact, traps are often equipped with CO2 tanks to be more effective^3,5.

* Production of certain acids on the skin such as lactic acid will contribute to one's attractiveness^4

**Citations**

1) Wood, Corrine Shear, and Dore, Caroline. 1972. Selective Feeding of Anopheles gambiae according to ABO Blood Group Status. Nature 239: 165.

2) Yoshikazu Shiraia, et al. 2004. "Landing Preference of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) on Human Skin Among ABO Blood Groups, Secretors or Nonsecretors, and ABH Antigens." Journal of Medical Entomology 41(4):796-799.

3) Dekker , T. and Takken, W. 1998. "Differential responses of mosquito sibling species Anopheles arabiensis and An. quadriannulatusto carbon dioxide, a man or a calf." Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 12: 136140

4) Steib, Birgit M., Geier, Martin, and Boeckh, Jurgen. 2001. "The Effect of Lactic Acid on Odour-Related Host Preference of Yellow Fever Mosquitoes" Chemical Senses 26: 523-538.

5) Geier, Martin, et al. "Odour-guided Host Finding of Mosquitoes: Identification of New Attractants on Human Skin." 4th International Conference on Urban pests. (Oral Presentation).


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

[User]
CMV: Money absolutely can buy happiness

I often hear the phrase "money can't buy happiness". I think this is complete nonsense.

Let's compare two people, person A and person B. Person A is a billionaire, person B works long hours for minimum wage. Person A, because of his riches, does not need to work. Because of this, he is free to pursue any manner of hobbies and interests. If person A has always wanted to be a painter, or a guitarist, or a pilot, he can afford to go to the best schools or hire the best tutors. He can spend as much time as he wants practicing and learning. Let's say person B has the same aspirations. He needs to pay for rent and food, how could he possibly find the time, let alone afford, the lessons? Whenever person A gets bored of something, he can just move on to something else. I suppose the argument against this is that he wouldn't be enjoying it as much because he takes it for granted, he wouldn't savor the small amount of time he gets to play the guitar or paint a picture. While this is true, don't you think person B would rather get an unlimited amount of time to pursue his interests? Between the two, person A must be happier.

But love must be the one thing that cannot be purchased. I have to disagree. There are a litany of dating sites and match-makers that cater to the wealthy. An episode of Morgan Spurlock's documentary series *Inside Man* explores this business, where people pay large amounts of money to someone who will attempt to set them up with a perfect match. This isn't a dating site where you simply create a profile and hope to meet someone you like. Person A is *considerably* more likely to find someone than person B, who can either hope to run into someone in person or can attempt to find someone on a free dating site. You could, I suppose, argue that person A would be in danger of attracting people who don't really love him, but are only with him because of his money. While this is a fair point, I think person A could easily defend against this by being wary of many of the people he is interested in. I suppose an argument is that person B wouldn't have to worry about this, and that's true, but person B is much more likely to settle for someone decent, but not ideal, than person A. Person A has a basically inexhaustible amount of time and money to find a good match.

But happiness is quite subjective. What makes me happy might make you miserable, and vice versa. The TL;DR of my argument is that, because of the society we live in and the way goods and services are acquired, the more money you have the more likely you are to be happy. A way to change my view would be to present me with some quality of life that is intrinsically outside of the bounds of capitalism, a quality that cannot be reached with money.

[Assistant]
There exists at least one depressed millionaire. That person is not able to buy happiness with money. There exists at least one poor person that is happy. They have a job that they love, like a games store clerk, they have a wife and kids, and they have cheap hobbies that they love.

Money does not buy happiness. You have identified correctly, though, that money can prevent many of the things that cause misery. Medical bills, shitty jobs, being driven out of your favorite hobbies, hunger - money might not be able to buy happiness, but poverty sure can buy misery.

The saying 'money can't buy happiness' isn't supposed to mean 'so throw away all your money and you'll be happy'. It's a warning for the depressed millionaire that they can't cure their depression with miserliness and greed. Some problems cannot be solved with money, and for those problems, you need to seek a cure from within - a new outlook.


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

[User] How was the first software and compiler made?

[Assistant]
The first program generators were assemblers, that translate assembly language into machine code. Those were written in machine code.

The first higher-level programming languages were written using assemblers.

Edit: the first *software* was written in machine code. It took a while before assemblers were developed and became common, because an assembler is not an entirely trivial program.
Machine code was entered via switches, or using things like punched paper tape.


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

[User]
I've read and re-read why time slows down when traveling the speed of light, I still don't understand it.

So, I kind of get that when something speeds up-- the mass of that object increases. Is that why? Because the object is going so fast that the increased mass means more gravity, and then that increased gravitational pull bends space-time?

Or am I completely off? Do I understand it at all?

Edit: Thanks everyone. I've never really been to this subreddit before, wow! Everyone is so friggin smart.

[Assistant] Essentially, everything is moving at the same speed through four-dimensional spacetime (the speed of light, to be exact). When you are stationary, you are only moving through time. The faster you move through the three spacial dimensions, the more it borrows from your speed through time.


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

[User] ELI5:Why humans newborns/children seem so helpless when compared to other species?

[Assistant] Because we have a large brain and stand upright (on two limbs rather than four).  Those two needs mean that women's hips need to be large enough to allow a baby's head to pass through, but narrow enough that she can walk.  The only way to reach both limits is to birth babies that are very undeveloped compared with other mammals, and let them do relatively more of their development after birth.


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

[User] ELI5: Why are clouds white?

[Assistant]
Hello! Clouds are white because of something called MIE scattering. As you may know, light is both a particle and a wave. The color spectrum is basically different frequencies of waves, that give off a certain color. The light that comes from the sun is known as white light ( which is a combination of every color of the light spectrum) and when this white light goes through our atmosphere and scatters with the molecules of clouds, the clouds reflect every single color and turns out white.

An easier example is an apple. When light hits an apple it absorbs the colors orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. The only color that it doesnt absorb, is red, thats why we see that the apple is red. This is due to the size of the apple molecules, they are around the same size of the red wavelength and in effect, they reflect.

Hope this helps!


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

[User]
Is it possible for an environment to be so cold, an existing fire would be extinguished?

Assuming there was an infinite supply of oxygen and a fuel source.

[Assistant]
Absolutely.  The fire needs to be hot enough to be self-sustaining.  Each reaction has to give off enough energy to trigger the next reaction.  If the surrounding environment absorbs this energy then it is not available to trigger the next reaction.

Just for a simple example, if you've ever tried to put out a fire in a fireplace, you know that the simplest way to do this is to move the burning logs away from each other.  Once they are no longer absorbing heat from each other, the fire will dwindle and eventually die without consuming the logs.


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

[User]
ELI5: How is searching the internet, infinitely faster than searching through computer files?

How is it that you can search the internet and get millions of results in seconds, but when searching for a specific file on a windows computer, it takes what feels like forever in comparison ?

I understand a little bit of SEO, and how common searches get grouped together, but even with that, how is it still nearly impossible for my Windows computer to find a file when I give it the exact name, but google could find me millions of files with a search that is \~related\~ to the name of the website / file?

[Assistant] Because the internet is constantly being indexed all the time. That means, essentially, whenever you are searching for something, someone else has already found it before you, and so they just relay to you the results of their previous search rather than searching for it anew. Your hard drive, however, isn't indexed until you actually search for something meaning you actually have to go look for it.


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

[User]
[the Hulk] Progression from thor ragnarok to avengers movie

Wasnt he supposed to be world breaker hulk after/during being in sakaar?  He seems so underpowered for the avenger movies.  Is there some event in between that I missed or did they not want to go to deep into his story line?

[Assistant]
No. The MCU didn't do the World Breaker Hulk storyline, it just used some elements from it.

While it's possible he got stronger, or at least more developed as an identity having been transformed for so many years, none of WBH's defining events happened to him.


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

[User] [Wanted] At what point did Sloan start fabricating his own targets? Where any of the targets in the film actually sent from the Loom of Fate? Towards the end when all the members of The Fraternity were targets, was that from Sloan or the Loom?

[Assistant] It happened when his name came out of the loom. He chose to ignore the loom rather than kill himself and in doing so perverted the brotherhood to his own selfish goals. Im sure a handful of targets were legitimate but by the time Wesley joins every assassin's name had come up. This means in at least a significant way each was killing people to make Sloan's agenda rather than fate's a reality. Without knowing every target's details it's safe to assume everyone killed not by Wesley was illegitimate otherwise Wesley's name would have turned up.


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

[User]
ELI5: what is Eid, the Muslim holiday?

Is it like Christmas for Christians?

[Assistant] Eid al-Fitr marks the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. During Ramadan, observant Muslims are required to abstain from food and drink during daylight hours, and the celebration of Eid al-Fitr marks the end of the month and is marked by both prayer and celebration to Allah.


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

[User]
What is the difference between atomic, nuclear and hydrogen bombs?

Most sites are giving me mixed answers. I know some of it does overlap, but I can't find a clear answer. Moreover, is hydrogen bomb more powerful and destructive than a nuclear bomb? I'd like to learn more clear distinctions between these weapons and how destructive they can be as a comparison in terms of, say, size/weight/amount of material in the bomb vs size/area covered/extent of explosion, if that makes sense. Thanks in advance!

[Assistant]
"Atomic bomb" and "hydrogen bomb" are not really modern terminology, but they're both subsets of nuclear weapons.

But generally speaking, "atomic bomb" refers to nuclear weapon designs which are either fission-only, or boosted fission.

And then "hydrogen bomb" (also known as *thermonuclear*) refers to weapons which derive a significant amount of their yield from fusion reactions, in addition to fission.

>Moreover, is hydrogen bomb more powerful and destructive than a nuclear bomb?

"Hydrogen bombs" *are* a type of nuclear weapon. And generally higher yields can be achieved with them than with "atomic bombs" (fission-only or boosted fission), for a given mass of fuel.


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

[User]
ELI5:Are electric blankets bad for your health in any way?

Not sure if this is the best subreddit to ask this question but fuck it. My roommates have an electric blanket that they turn on before they get into bed and back off when they get in bed because they say the electromagnetic field it emits is bad for your health in a number of ways and can lead to various side effects. Does this have any truth to it or are they just paranoid hippies?

[Assistant]
No, the electromagnetic field emitted by the current running through the blanket will not harm you in any way. With regards to overheating, you'd be unable to stand the heat before any damage occurs , unless you're an idiot and try to overheat yourself using one, you're going to get uncomfortable and take it off/turn it off long before the heat does any damage.

The only real risk for an electric blanket is electrocution and fire risk. Both can be mitigated if you're sensible.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Is number of midichloreans or density of midichloreans more important? In other words, did Vader lose force power due to the loss of the midichloreans in his arms and legs when they were chopped off?

[Assistant] Neither.  Midichlorians are micro-organisms that are attracted to force users, not the source of force powers.  There is a corelation between high midichlorian count and force prowess, but it's not an exact science.  That said, Vader did become less powerful, partly because some of his power was devoted to keeping himself alive and partly because of the somatic components of some force powers that he was no longer able to do.  For example, force lightning requires channeling the energy through your own body.  Something he could no longer do due to being encased in sensitive medical equipment that conducts electricity.


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

[User]
ELI5:How do people learn to hack? Serious-level hacking. Does it come from being around computers and learning how they operate as they read code from a site? Or do they use programs that they direct to a site?

EDIT: Thanks for all the great responses guys. I didn't respond to all of them, but I definitely read them.

EDIT2: Thanks for the massive response everyone! Looks like my Saturday is planned!

[Assistant]
Hacking is the second side of a coin.

To find exploits, you need to understand how something works.

For example, to do sql exploits, you need to know the syntax and all the common mistakes that developers make during development. Such as adding unsanitized user input to their queries.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] Why did Voldemort not just throw baby Harry out of a window?

Harry was a baby with no way to defend himself, Voldemort could have just thrown him out the window and Harry would have fallen to his death.

[Assistant] He had no reason to believe that the Arvada kedavra spell would backfire. At that time literally nobody had ever survived the killing curse and the magic through which Harry survived had long since been lost.


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

[User]
[Citizen Kane] Would Charles Kane have ended up any happier and better of a person if he had gone into the sled-making business instead of the newspaper-making business?

After all, >!His last words were the name of his childhood sled!<

[Assistant]
It's not necessarily that Kane was happiest around sleds; it was that specific sled that was a symbol of the childhood that he lost.  That childhood was replaced by his ambition and his desire to earn enough money, or power, or influence to fill the hole that was left behind.  What he missed was a happy childhood with a loving mother.

If he was making sleds, he might have earned himself a bit of comfort providing that bit of fun to kids, but he'd still be chasing the one thing he couldn't have: one more day of innocence with a family that didn't send him away to chase dreams and aspirations that he was too young to care about.


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

[User]
Eli5: How do photo restoration artists know the supposed colors of greyscale images?

Are the colors based purely on their assumptions/imagination, or do the greyscale images retain some sort of data that tells what color on what part?

[Assistant]
I often color old black-and-white photographs as a hobby and, most of the time, you just have to guess when you colorize an image.

Sometimes, for famous people, you can do historical research to find out the color of their hair and eyes or even their homes' furnishings (for instance, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna had reddish gold hair and blue eyes and her mauve boudoir was all lavender with pistachio green carpets). You can also do research to get a general idea of the kinds of colors that were popular, say, in the Victorian or Edwardian eras... but that's pretty much it.


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

[User]
ELI5:water is h20 , hydrogen peroxide is h202, how can one extra oxygen molecule turn into something that can kill you

title.

[Assistant]
Short answer: because changing even one element in a compound will drastically change how it interacts with other chemicals.

Long answer: H2O is remarkable stable and wants to stay that way. H2O2 is still stable, but it will give the extra oxygen atom to any compound that it can, so it can be more stable. Unlucky for living things, cell membranes will end up taking this extra oxygen and they will no longer be able to hold their form. Once the cell membrane falls apart the cell will die.


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

[User] [Culture Series] just how powerful are The Culture?

[Assistant]
The Culture are on of the few Level 8 civilizations currently "in Play".  Generally there are 4-9 Level 8 Optimae around at any given time.  In general any level 8 will trounce a level 7 civilization, and so on down the line.

Their are more powerful forces than the Level 8 civs.  The Sublimed for example are civilizations that have moved on from the physical realm and transcended to another plane.  They are thought to be incredibly powerful, but also uncaring of what happens in the Real.

Elder Civilisations are ones that have moved on from normal galactic politics and want to be left alone, wherever that may be (home planet, other places, artifacts, whatever).  Best not to trifle with them.

As to how powerful the Culture is, they are normal or above average for a level 8.  Casual planet busting is a good description.  Any old GCU (General Contact Unit, an exploration and scientific ship) can waste a solar system.  Actual OU (offensive Units, or later called Picket Ships) are much more deadly.  GSV (General Systems Vehicles) could take on millions of ships from less advanced civilizations, a war prepped GSV would be a match to fleets of equivitech opponents.


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

[User]
How hard is it to learn Dresdenverse magic without being taught?

Assuming that you don't have any books or knowledge of magic in general.  You just realize at some point that you can do inexplicable things.

[Assistant]
no really that hard, sadly. The magic in the dresdenuniverse is basically changing and effecting your surrounding with energy provided by your emotions. So if you will it hard enough and your emotions are strong enough it will just happen. But here lies the risk of doing magic untrained if teached correctly a wizard chooses a dead language to trigger his spells, why? Because it gives an isolating barrier between your mind and the forces of live and universe you are manipulating at that moment so an untrained natural is at heavy risk to trigger a spell by excitement and to fry his brain out in the process. Secondly a professionally trained wizard has one attitude drilled in to him- discipline of mind to control the forces you conjure and steer. Imagine you are a teenager who because he just thought it is cold started a fire out of nothing in his room. You are scared you don't know what is happening - that is strong emotions and a lack of strong will also known as magic going wacko.
*So short yes you can "learn" magic but the training is more for the sake of your survival and protection of others because without 90% of young wizard and up burning down a house before the forces of magic fry out there brain changing them in to vegetables for the rest of there life.


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

[User] ELI5: How does Nair hair removal work?

[Assistant]
It eats away at the keratin in the hair (the chemical that does this is potassium thioglycolate). That makes the hair really weak and not able to stand up or hold its structure. Then another chemical (calcium hydroxide) destroys the hair at the root. This makes the hair easy to simply wipe away as it is no longer connected inside your skin as it was.
Think of it like stripping the bark away from a young tree then allowing for the roots to die. This will make the tree easy to pull up if it doesn't simply fall over first on its own. Then it's just a matter of cleaning away what has fallen.  In this example the tree, but on our skin, the hair.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Why is Palpatine so strong with the dark side?

The dark side typically entices those going through emotional turmoil, twisting their intentions into something they would normally never hope for, eventually infecting their psyche, overwhelming them with thoughts of loss, attachment, and fear. These sorts of emotions also fuel one's dark side power, resulting in something of a feedback loop. Vader over his loss and self-hatred of losing Padme, Maul with his rage and obsession over killing Obi Wan, Dooku with his distrust of the Jedi Order; all had their fixations.

Given all this, why is Palpatine so damn strong with the dark side? We really don't see him go through any emotional turmoil; in fact, he doesn't seem to take anything seriously and almost seems to be having fun being evil. This is in such a stark contrast to the self-loathing nature of the other Sith. Did something happen in his past to set him off? Was he just always a selfish sociopath? Is he just so good that he doesn't even need the emotional connection anymore?

[Assistant]
Arguably, Palpatines pure sith motives might be why hes such a powerful dark side user. He is like greed incarnate, craving power over all things and stopping at nothing to gain it. His greed is virtually bottomless, and the more power he gets the more he craves.

He also may be privy to ancient Sith teachings that enhance his power, that he never intended on passing down to his apprentices so as to avoid the fate of Plagueis.


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

[User]
[Man of Steel] Why did Zod want to terraform Earth?

Earth's natural environment is clearly better for Kryptonians, giving them god like powers. The movie also makes it clear that with enough concentration, they'd be able to overcome the side effects of its atmosphere in a couple of days at most. What was the point of committing mass genocide? They probably would have been successful in taking over Earth if they hadn't tried to terraform. There's no way Superman could have stopped all of them on his own if it came down to a pure fight.

[Assistant]
Zod wants to recreate Krypton exactly as it was - minus a few 'troublesome' bloodlines that ended up endangering it to begin with - or as close as he can manage. A world where everyone are basically physical gods that can punch through mountains, fly into space at supersonic speeds, shoot lasers from their eyes, etc. is not going to be the Krypton he wants and, as a society, may very well be inherently self-destructive. To do anything less than his utmost to bring back Krypton as close to its original state as he can manage is anathema to Zod. It's literally part of his DNA.

On top of that, Zod and Faora were able to adjust so quickly because they were bred soldiers, trained over their entire lifetimes to have total control of themselves. The average Kryptonian is probably going to have a much tougher time. Clark is mentioned as having severe breathing difficulties as a baby. It's not unreasonable to assume that it's a very real possibility that he, and by extension other Kryptonian children, could have died in Earth's atmosphere.


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

[User] ELI5: If it's illegal to deface US currency, what's with those penny squashers?

[Assistant]
This is covered in 18 USC 331. It says that whoever *fraudulently* alters coins is guilty of a crime. The key word there is "fraudulently." If you alter a coin with the intent of defrauding somebody, you're guilty of a crime. If you alter or destroy a coin you own for reasons other than committing fraud, then you're just wasting money.

The origin of this statute goes back to the days when coins were made of precious metals, and their value was proportional to their metal content. In those days, you could shave some of the metal off a bunch of coins and melt it down to get an ingot that you could sell, while still passing the coins off as legal tender. The law exists to deter people from doing that. Today, coins have no intrinsic value so the practice of shaving them for their metal is extinct.


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

[User]
What experiment shows that gravity travels at the speed of light?

I've seen it mentioned on this forum that gravity travels at c, but I'm not sure how anyone could set up an experiment to confirm that. Do we have experimental evidence, or is it more of a "well, according to our theories, it should behave this way" kind of thing?

[Assistant] Gravitational waves have yet to be experimentally observed, but the purpose of experiments that are attempting to do so (such as LIGO) is to use these waves as telescopes, not as confirmations of General Relativity.  General Relativity has been confirmed in many other ways by many other experiments, and also happens to predict gravitational waves propagating at speed c.  Given its extraordinary previous predictive success, there is not reason to believe that it is wrong in this instance.


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

[User]
[Cats] What does Jellicle mean?

I'm a cat, and I just moved to a new neighborhood. It seems like a fun place. Everyone is constantly singing and dancing. But, there's something I don't understand. The other cats keep using the word "Jellicle".

I have never heard this word, and I have no idea what it means. I don't want to look dumb in front of the other cats. Can someone please explain this word to me?

[Assistant] It's the name of their gang. They are the Jellicle cats. They organize the Jellicle ball each year, on the night of the Jellicle moon, which is when the full moon lines up with the sky light in their base, the Russell Hotel.


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

[User]
Why haven't species developed more eyes?

It may sound like a stupid question but it seems odd to me that so many animals have only two eyes. I know a lot of herbivores have developed eyes on the side of their head to allow them to see predators from behind them, why haven't they just developed eyes on the back of their heads, so as not to have decreased visibility in front of them?

[Assistant] Species don't develop new traits specifically to accommodate some need.  Mutations are entirely random and only "stick" if it increases survivability long enough to become homogeneous among the population.


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

[User] ELI5: how does the NES light gun Zapper work?

[Assistant] When you press the trigger, the whole screen goes black for 1 frame.  Then in the next frame, the target area lights up white.  The Zapper has a detector that tells the NES whether it has detected a black to white transition.  The NES then knows that the Zapper was pointed at a target.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] Why do wizard paintings talk but wizard photos don't?

You can interact with both (like when Moody made people in a photo move), but only the paintings can have a conversation with you? What kind of magic goes on in the actual painting of a person to make their image talk?

[Assistant]
I suspect the paintings don't have the memories of the persons they are of; they are more like eternal actors.

Photos may be similar to a pensieve. They capture the emotion of the subjects, preserving it in one perfect moment. However, they aren't nearly as powerful of magic as the pensieve, and can't have genuine interactions with the viewer.


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

[User]
How different would the Earth be today if the Permian-Triassic extinction event did not occur?

I know this is an oddly specific question, and I couldn't find anything using the search bar. I'm just curious how this would have effected Earth and biodiversity as a whole.

[Assistant]
It is impossible to answer precisely what current biodiversity and faunal composition would look like in that hypothetical never-never land of "what ifs".

The most we can say is that natural selection would have continued to operate, but with a greater number of lineages to choose fromthan those who were cut off by the Great Dying. And the relative importance of surviving lineages would (probably) not have been the same either, but life is a lottery and a hypothetical outcome is quasi-impossible to predict.

But lets have a look at some of the lineages which might have survived in later times, some to die out, but later (perhaps cut-off by the K-T event?), others perhaps making it to our days:

* Trilobites;

* Eurypterids;

* Orthid and productid brachiopods;

* Several orders of insects (caloneurodeans, monurans, paleodictyopteroids, protelytropterans, and protodonates);

And that's just by focussing on a very coarse taxonomic level, the survival of individual genera and species within lineages has the potential to completely upset future faunal assemblages. Ninety-something (depending on source) of marine species are believed to have croaked in the Great Dying. Had the dice fallen differently, a quasi-infinite number of potentially differently populated worlds could have emerged on the other side.

So who can say?


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

[User]
[Tolkien][The Lord of the Rings]How long did Frodo carry the ring?

I know Hobbits age slower than humans. It always seemed to me that the journey took years, if not decades. How close am i?

[Assistant]
He inherits the Ring on his thirty-third birthday 23rd of September TA 3001, but he then just stashes it away with Bilbo's other belongings.

He then starts actively carrying it once Gandalf returns and warns him that it is in fact the One Ring once he decides to transport it to Rivendell.

23rd of September TA 3018 on his fiftieth birthday he starts the journey. Now actively being a ring bearer.

The One Ring was destroyed on the 25th of March TA 3019. So this gives us a time window of **26 weeks to the day.**

As for the entire journey, Frodo returns to the Shire where in The Scouring of the Shire they finally defeat Saruman on the 3rd of November 3019 ending their adventure. So the entire journey took 1 year and 9 days.


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

[User]
CMV: Acts of God should not be legally allowed as an excuse to not pay out insurance claims.

Acts of God events are exactly the moments people need their insurance pay outs the most, thats the whole point of spreading the financial risk across large chunks of population.All of those acts are predictable events that we just happen to not have a good model for yet. Even things like global pandemics actually already have yearly projection models ( they were telling us one is imminent for years). Insurance companies have good enough actuaries to do a pretty good estimation on what the premium should be to account for them, they just choose not to because it is more profitable for them to be able to deny people's claims.Additionally is there is an industry out there that can afford to invest billions into better seismic, weather and other other models - its Insurance industry.

Insurance industry should not be able to be risks free for itself where they always make money regardless of what happens, because with big enough events they claim Act of God and government has to bail people out. Classic privatize the gains, socialize the losses.

Edit: Due to this conversation i realized that my issue is not Acts of God, but unethical behavior by insurance industry.

[Assistant]
You can find an insurance company that'll insure you for basically anything, including the acts (of God or otherwise) that you mention. And if you can't find a company that will, what's your suggestion? They're forced to, somehow?

It's not like insurance companies get out of paying for hurricane damage if the policy includes hurricane damage. "Acts of God" is simply a term (that's not really used much any more) to describe a bunch of things that aren't covered by a policy. The resulting lack of pay-out is because you bought an insurance policy that didn't cover you for the thing that caused your loss - that's all there is to it.


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

[User] ELI5: what is the crust in your eyes when you wake up? Do some people get more or less? Why?

[Assistant] It's mostly salt and other parts of the tear liquid. Your body constantly covers your eyes with tears to keep them moist. Normally we blink to disperse that liquid. When you sleep you might produce more tears than you need to keep the eyes moist and some leaks out from underneath your eyelids. What is called sleep is what remains on your skin after the leaked tears dry out.


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

[User] [Marvel/DC] What DC heroes would J. Jonah Jameson be okay with? Which heroes would he have a problem with?

[Assistant]
Jameson hates masks and vigilantes. He would like Superman, Shazam and maybe Wonder Woman as both are basically themselves when they fight.

Heroes like Batman, Green Arrow, Hawkman and Flash are no good because of the masks and vigilantism. The Green Lanterns and Aquaman have outside allegiances, Martian Manhunter is a Martian and so on.

If Jameson existed in the DC Universe, Batman would likely be his obsession instead of Spider-Man. He's everything Jameson hates about superheroes.


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

[User]
[Rick and Morty] Why is Rick so adamantly against Beth and Jerry's relationship, when his survival depends on a person produced by that relationship?

It's clearly not just a new thing, either. Like, he doesn't just not want them to be together. It seems as if he regrets them ever being together, and doesn't want them to have anything to do with each other.

However, it's well established that he's dependent on Morty for camouflaging himself from his enemies. So, shouldn't he support the relationship that produces Morty in the first place?

Related side-question: In Rixty Minutes, we're introduced to many timelines in which Beth and Jerry never met, and they have much happier lives. Where is Rick in those? Did he ever return to Beth? Was he killed? Shouldn't Beth be in deep shit with aliens after they find her and Rick with no Jerry or Morty waves to hide them (given that we know she's smart like him with similar tendencies), or at the very least involved in his space adventures?

[Assistant]
Mainly he regrets them being together because of the fact that Jerry ruined Beth who,as Ricks daughter,had a lot of potential for greatness.Add on the fact that Jerry sabotages himself and you have a relationship Rick does not support.

As for Morty being essential for his survival you are right.However deep down he doesnt want to survive as Rick believes and knows that his life is not special and is meaningless.And he technically doesnt need Morty as he can easily kill anyone who comes after him.

As for Alternate Beth and Rick,its likely that he developed some alternative type of defense from trackers or they just simply kill whoever comes after them etc


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

[User]
How to actually learn philosophy?

I believe this is an underrated question: When trying to learn about new topics within philosophy, how do self-taught learners and graduate students go about finding resources on the subject they want to learn? I am tired of just typing x subject books into the google search bar because the books that google recommend are not at all what my philosophy professors recommend. Is there a method you follow if you want to learn a new subject? I am already aware of the SEP but that can not be all that graduate students or self-taught learners use.

Also do most people choose to read books or papers? I was told books is common for intro level or beginners but papers are key as you get upper level.

[Assistant] I would search for syllabi, which can often be easily found online. If you want to know more about metaphysics, google metaphysics class syllabus and they usually have the university listed so you know its reputable.


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

[User]
[General Time Travel] Why does nobody ever suggest preventing WWII and the Holocaust by saving Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

The most common suggestion is to kill Adolf Hitler. Some people prefer the somewhat more ethical approach of encouraging him to be a painter or kidnapping him as a child and raising him differently. Why does nobody think of preventing WWII by preventing WWI by preventing an assassination? There's nothing unethical about that and you can prevent two world wars for the price of one. It's also less likely to end up with Germany declaring war anyway but with a more competent leader.

[Assistant] Most people believe WWI was inevitable. The combination of militarism, interlocking alliances, imperialism, and nationalism was a powder keg, and the assassination the spark. A huge world war was *going* to happen; you save the archduke, and the next day another cause prompts it.


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

[User] What makes kosher dill pickles sour if they explicitly do not have added vinegar?

[Assistant] Traditional pickles are made by bacterial fermentation of natural sugars to produce organic acids such as the acetic acid of vinegar.  The low pH of the resulting pickles acts as a preservative to prevent further spoilage.  Many modern 'pickles' are simply fruit or vegetables soaked in vinegar and as such are not authentically pickled.


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

[User]
How do a bunch of small noises combine to make a very loud noise?

So I was watching Game of Thrones last night. The soldiers started to slam their spears into the ground. One spear doesn't make much noise, but a lot of spears makes a lot of noise. Why is it that when a bunch of people do the same thing at the same time it suddenly seems like all of their noises are added to each other?

I guess in my head I have the thought that it would just be the same level of noise but coming from all around, this is obviously not true.

What's the science behind this?

I'm not exactly sure what to tag this as but I'll put physics because it seems to be the closest.

[Assistant] Read up on constructive/destructive interference in waves. Basically when sounds are the same frequency and phase the peaks lines up and the troughs line up and then add making the amplitude (volume) bigger.