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

[User] ELI5: How come full scale quad copters as big as helicopters havent been developed, considering the drone versions seem to be much more stable than the single rotor helicopter RC drones?

[Assistant] The biggest quadcopters are comparable in size to the smallest manned helicopters. A quadcopter is based on very different principles of control and stability from other helicopters. Ordinary helicopters have a set of rotors linked together to balance the forces and then change the pitch of the rotor blades for control. This is a mechanically balanced system as any variable unknowns like the rotor speed have an equal effect on all components. However a quadcopter is a mechanically unstable system that requires constant corrections by the electronics in order to stay balanced. This means that you need motors that have a very fixed speed and can change speed very fast. So quadcopters need special electric motors. You can not build a quadcopter out of any electric motor or out of a combustion engine because these can not be controlled in the same way. This creates some issues when you attempt to scale the design. If you look at bigger quadcopters you will notice that they usually have more rotors then the four classical rotors. This helps with the scale although you can not just mount a hundred motors on a helicopter without issues.


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

[User]
CMV: Diversity efforts are discriminatory in nature, therefore unconstitutional, and not the best course of action.

All current diversity efforts that I have seen are extremely discriminatory in nature. The quotas (a certain percentage of employees have to be of a minority or female) are the most obvious since they potentially require you to bypass better employees based on race to meet a quota.

I am sure there are diversity efforts that make more sense that don't discriminate but I am not finding any.

I do believe diversity of BACKGROUND matters for company success, having a wider world view can help you reach more. Again, I don't know how you can implement this without discrimination. One way I can see handling this if a team is large enough and background really would make a difference is having background specific positions. Say it's an advertisement team; hire a rural, urban, male. female and so on for team members.

[Assistant]
Depends on the constitution. Section 15 of the Candian Charter of Human Rights has an exception clause  build in:

>*15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.*

>*(2) Section (1) __does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups__ including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.*


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

[User]
How to talk to a grad student about productivity issues?

I'm paying one of my grad students for 40 hours of work per week, and I feel like I'm getting barely half of that. How do I politely approach her on this subject without sounding like I'm micromanaging? I'm fairly new to academia, so I haven't really had to deal with this before.

Most of what she's currently working on is funded from an internal pot of money, so it's not like she's missing external deadlines from sponsors. I will tell her that I want a certain model estimated by so-and-so, and when that time comes she'll tell me that she was having issues with the software, or the model was giving errors, or that it's taking longer to converge than she expected. I.e., nothing I can definitively call her out on.

This is a PhD student entering her third year, and I'm worried that she's slipping. I just don't know how to broach this respectfully.

[Assistant] Setting up tasks and keeping an eye on the progress is totally fair, just make sure that you realistically estimate the time those tasks need. Sorting out a package installation can take the whole day. Fixing convergence issues can take a week. On top of that, everything takes \*much\* longer for a student who is doing this for the first time. Maybe you should first see if she is actually putting in approximately a full time's worth of work, or if it's a motivation problem.


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

[User] Why do beards get itchy?

[Assistant]
When you shave your hair you cut it off flat. Those flat edges are sharp enough that they grab onto the skin as they grow back out. You usually also pull on the skin as you're shaving to get a "closer" shave. This can result in the hair being cut back to below the level of your skin once you stop pulling on it. When the hair grows out it has to push it's way out of the follicle again.

Both of these combined, a large cross section pushing its way through your skin, irritates the skin. It's even more apparent if the hair starts to grow sideways rather than up. You then have an ingrown hair which may get infected. That irritation itches so that you'll scratch it and remove either the hair that's causing the problem or the skin that the hair is catching on.

You also tend to have razor burn after shaving. That's where the razor shaves off some skin along with the hairs. The skin is now doubly irritated.

New hairs are like needles. They don't have a large rough cross section. They grow up and out of the follicle smoothly without irritating the skin. Even if the hair does grow sideways (ingrown) it usually isn't pulling on skin because there's no rough edge to catch at it.

I believe that waxing will cause the hair to grow back closer to naturally, so you don't get as many ingrown hairs. Anyone feel free to correct me on that one.


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

[User]
If my voice sounds different to me than it does in a recording, then how am I able to accurately match my singing voice to the key of a song?

If other people hear my voice differently than I do when I speak, shouldn't my singing sound out of key to them if it sounds in key to me?

[Assistant]
Your voice sounds different due to hearing it through your skull and bones rather than , like everyone else, solely through your mouth.

None of this, though, changes the NOTES you produce. It changes the character of the sound, but not the actual frequencies comprising the sounds. It's like if you were to put a blanket over a stereo - it sounds different, but everything would still be in the same key.


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

[User] ELI5: How and why was it decided that 18 is the age when someone becomes an adult?

[Assistant] The age of majority is actually very complicated and is different for different states and different things.  The age of majority in Alabama and Nebraska is 19 and in Puerto Rico and Mississippi it is 21.  A lot of other states use 18, but if someone is still in high school, they are still considered a minor.  The reason most places in the US think of the age of 18 as the age of majority is because of certain events in history.  When the draft in World War II was initiated, the age of majority in most of the US was 21.  FDR needed more soldiers, so he lowered the age for the draft to 18.  In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a movement to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 because the idea that someone could be drafted to go to war but not be allowed to vote was repugnant to many.  So, Richard Nixon lowered the voting age to 18 in the year 1970, and the US eventually passed the 26th amendment setting the voting age at 18.  Most states shortly afterwards changed their age of majority to 18, but some did not.


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

[User] ELI5: how does the inflation works? How come everything costs more than 50 years ago?

[Assistant]
Governments try to run monetary policy so that there is a small but consistent level of inflation, achieved through a combination of controlling interest rates at the central bank and issuing money through raising government debt.

They do this because a small level of inflation encourages investment and encourages people and companies to take out loans to invest, thus moving money around the economy.

Too high inflation starts to impact day to day lives through rapidly falling wages.

Deflation tends to be very bad - when money grows in value on its own, and when the real value of outstanding debt increases, and when goods will cost less tomorrow than they do today, then the net effect is that everyone who can stops spending money, which pulls even more money out of the system, which causes further deflation while pushing up unemployment. Its a spiral thats very hard to get out of.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does the body burn muscle before fat when starving?

This is something that just doesn't make sense to me. I've read many times that when food isnt available the body will burn muscle before burning fat. Why? Why would the body burn what you need to move and get food to make sure you dont starve over what reserves it has incase food isnt available?

[Assistant] Our bodies don't default towards having massive muscles. Big muscles means you need more food to fuel the body. So if our bodies aren't getting enough food, our bodies go "We've got to shrink down because we're in a famine. Burn some of that fat for energy, and also some of the muscle mass as well, so we reduce the amount of muscles we need to feed. We're in a famine, and need to get smaller so we use less food and thus are more likely to survive."


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is there an initiative to split California into six different states?

There is a ballot in California to split the most populous state into six different states, creatively all titled, North California, South California, West California, East California, Jefferson and Silicon Valley.

They would have varying populations ranging from 900,000 and 11,000,000. This would give them anywhere in between 1 and 16 representatives in the house, but would technically sextuple California's power in the Senate; both of which could piss off a lot of other states.

My question could be asked in a variety of ways: Why these six? What are the political and social differences between them? Economic? Moral? What benefit could California as a whole get from being sliced up like this?

[Assistant]
The law started from a proposal made by a venture capitalist who made his money in Silicon Valley. By splitting California into six separate states Silicon Valley would be it's own state with its own legislative power, and therefore would not be subject to current California law which includes protections for consumers and employees.

This would also separate Silicon Valley from north California which is much poorer, and thus the distribution of state tax revenue would significantly be altered. This would be like separating Las Vegas from Nevada.

Las Vegas is a primary source for state revenue but without having Las Vegas "subsidize" the rest of Nevada more resources (and potentially tax savings) could be seen for Las Vegas residents, but would leave the rest of the residents in the State to deal with a huge revenue shortfall which is why it is a terrible idea.

Imagine if NYC was a separate state from NY, and if Austin was a separate state from Texas. Higher income metropolitan areas typically subsidize the poorer, more rural parts of a state and Traper (the VC guy) doesn't real care about anything else except his own little bubble.


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

[User]
[ALIEN] What did the alien eat in order to grow so large?

It was nine inches tall, and a few hours later it's nine feet tall. Plus, it must have drunk a lot of water to have so much slime dripping from its mouth.

[Assistant]
In the text record of the Nostromo incident the crew discovers that the alien has raided the ship's food storage lockers soon after it burst out of Kane.

Considering how much resin, slime, acid blood and other unusual stuff the alien's body makes it may well be able to eat and process things we don't see as food as well.


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

[User] [X-Men] Generally speaking did the USSR or the United States treat their mutants better?

[Assistant] Neither of them treat mutants particularly well, but for a while Russia actually had a kill order on all mutants (which is generally farther than the US government has ever directly gone against mutants). Many slipped past that, of course, but eventually things changed, and several members of Russia's Winter Guard (their own state-sponsored super-team) have been mutants.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is it better for a rocket to go straight up at a 90 degree angle rather thanrather than a 45 degree angle, or something in between?

Is this more fuel efficient? Or what is the reason that a 90 degree takeoff is better than going into outerspace at a angle?

[Assistant]
It's not. It's better for a rocket to gradually *change* the angle.

There are multiple concerns a rocket has to achieve. As you know, it has to go sideways really really fast in order to get into orbit. That would argue for a lower angle.

But it also wants to get out of the atmosphere as soon as possible, because the atmosphere slows it down and so it has to expend far more energy to get anywhere. And that would argue for just going straight up, to get out of the atmosphere as soon as possible.

That's why rockets initially launch straight up (that's the fastest way to get out of the atmosphere), and as they ascend, and as the atmosphere gets thinner and offers less resistance, they gradually flatten their trajectory, so they go more and more sideways, and less and less *up*.


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

[User] Why do some videos on youtube load instantly while others take fucking FOREVER?

[Assistant]
The best explanation would probably have to be what's called cacheing (pronounched "cashing"). Imagine this:
***

You run a story with aisles and aisles of various doo-dads and what-nots, and customers come up to your desk and ask you to go fetch them a whatchamacallit. You go to the back of the store, look around a little while, find yourself a whatchamacallit, and return it to the customer.

But then you notice something funny -- most customers who come in are looking to get the exact same type of product -- the whatchamacallit. For a while you continue to go to the back of the store and look for it the same old way, and return it to the customer. But then suddenly you wise up.

If most customers are looking to grab a whatchamacallit it, you can reduce the amount of time it takes to find it and deliver it to the customer by moving it to the front desk. Now whenever someone comes in looking for a whatchamacallit, you just have to look under the desk and hand it over, which saves you tons of time!

If someone were to come in looking for a doo-dad, though, you will still have to go back into the rows of aisles upon aisles to find it.

***

Youtube hosts hundreds of millions of videos, and at any given time a customer (viewer) might want to see any one of them. Searching through all that material for the video you want to see could end up being quite a time-intensive process, so Google (who owns Youtube now) have used the same strategy as illustrated above. If a video is reasonably popular now, Youtube expects that it will be reasonably popular in the future too. Thus, it bumps the video 'forward' in the chain of servers in the backend. That way, when the inevitable flood of people come to watch a video of a baby panda sneezing, they don't have to scour their storage servers high and low for the content, they just have it on hand!

You notice the speed difference because 1) Youtube finds the content faster and can stream it to you quicker and 2) it skips a couple servers on the backend, where a video would get sent to server Z, then Y, then X ... C, B, A, then to you.

It's just Google's attempt at maximizing the viewing experience for most customers.

***

**Edit: One More Thing (as pointed out by Arcs_Of_A_Jar):**

The higher quality of the video you are watching, the more bytes of data it takes to describe the video. Since your connection can only handle so many bytes at one time, you run the risk of having data streaming to you faster than you can download it. In this case, the video will pause and buffer and try to 'catch itself up' on the incoming data.


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

[User] Are there Moons that have Moons themselves or any other satellites? And if yes are there Moon's Moons with additional sattelites?

[Assistant]
It is certainly possible for moons to have moons of their own. In fact, one could consider the Apollo missions' command module, which orbited the moon while the lunar landers put men on the surface, as a temporary "moon" of the moon. Theoretically, you can add smaller and smaller moons of moons until you get down to dust grains orbiting a pebble.

The reason such moons of moons don't appear in nature is that in order for a body to acquire a satellite, its gravity has to be strong enough for it to hold on to it against the pull of any other bodies in the system. As an example, Earth can hold on to the moon because its gravity is strong enough to keep it in orbit against the destabilizing pull of the sun. If the moon were farther out or if Earth's gravity were weaker, the moon would be pulled out of earth orbit by the sun's stronger gravity and start orbiting the sun instead of the earth. The moon, however, is much more strongly affected by Earth's gravity than Earth is by the sun's, and so would have a harder time holding on to a moon of its own, as that moon would tend to get perturbed out of its orbit by Earth's gravity.

Basically, it isn't impossible, just unlikely to happen.


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

[User]
[Buffy] Why didn't the Watcher's council bankroll the slayer?

Like, Xander brings up that she could start charging for her services and they all shoot him down as if that's super immoral...

But it makes so much more sense to give her a stipend or something so she's not balancing a day job and slaying.  What do they expect her to do, never sleep?

[Assistant]
Buffy and the Watchers weren't on the best terms for a few years - right before her high school graduation, she basically fired them and refused to follow their practices or accept the Watcher they'd sent (Wesley) to replace Giles.

But even once their relationship had been somewhat repaired a few years later, the Council held pretty firmly to their conviction that their job was to observe and command the Slayer, who was essentially their tool.  They didn't care much for the welfare of their tool as long as she could keep staking bad things.  By the time they'd conceded that their job should be one of support, they were destroyed by the First Evil.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do emotions feel like they're coming from the heart/chest area, instead of the brain?

[Assistant]
Strong emotions generally are accompanied by an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate, which are felt most strongly in the chest.

But that's just the European way of viewing emotions.  In Japan, for example, the emotional center of the human body is the stomach. This was why Samurai in feudal Japan who committed harakiri (ritual suicide through disemboweling) would cut open their bellies, to show they don't have a "black belly" (in European/Western terms, an evil heart).


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

[User]
CMV: Without Africans, france wouldn't have achieved its second world cup.

There have been rising tendencies in the past decade to reduce the influx of immigrants in Europe among regular populace, citing claims that immigrants are taking over employment and living off government welfare programs. There have been also fears of foreign cultures overshadowing Europe. Eastern Europeans especially the French, English and the Belgians seem quite fed up and prejudiced against immigrants especially of middle eastern & African origins, until these immigrants deliver their respective nations a glory of any sorts.

It has always been that way. Immigrants and their offspring are welcome as long as they do our work for us, achieve notable feats in various fields. Or else they are frowned upon and portrayed as leeches living off government welfare and taxpayers money.

The world cup final today made me realize this. Just look at the great number of black French players. The French team has more than 13 players of foreign origins, most of which are not white. I doubt the French nationals have any problems with immigrants being in the spotlight of glory at this time.

[Assistant]
The problem comes with tieing a player to a place his ancestors come from. Every single player in the french national team is either born in France, or (for 2-3 players, iirc) were born in Africa, but moved to France in their very early childhood, talking age 5 and under here.
For all purposes, these people are french, they never lived in Africa, they have never been Africans in a sense that any African culture shaped them. They were all raised in France, surrounded by french culture, by french people, by the french way of life.
The only thing that they have and people don't want to associate with "Europe" is a skin colour, that is all there is.

Are these people Africans? Why? Because their parents or grand-parents came from Africa? What does that have to do with them? Did they not spend their entire life (And in single cases, basically all of their life) so far in France? How far do you want to go back with this? Is two Generations enough? Three? Four? If you play that game long enough, than yes, the french victory wouldn't have been possible, because in the end, EVERYBODY traces their way back to Africa, were humans came from.


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

[User]
What causes a star to expand at the end of its life? Then what causes it to collapse after a certain point?

I understand that the fusion process triggers this expansion once the star starts fusing larger elements that don't release the same amounts of energy as hydrogen, helium, etc., but I don't understand why this translates to an expansion (e.g. a red giant).  Scientists will then say that the star "collapses on itself" leading to a supernova, dwarf, etc. but it's not intuitive to me why this happens.  Someone wanna school me?

[Assistant]
Stars have what is called hydrostatic equilibrium for much of their life. In essence, this is a balance between pressure in the star against the force of gravity.

Gravity works to compress the star at all times, and as the star is "squeezed" this heats up the interior of the star. Eventually it gets hot enough to reach the ignition point of an element (initially hydrogen). As this element burns, it generates pressure that pushes outwards against the force of gravity, and where these forces balance is the surface of the star.

In a red giant, the hydrogen burning in the core is extinguished. As the "fire" goes out, the pressure balancing gravity lessens, and the star begins to contract. As it contracts, the heat rises. The core, where it is hottest and had been be burning, is depleted of hydrogen, but the outer shell of the star is not, and eventually the contraction raises the temperature there to ignite that hydrogen. As that hydrogen ignites, the pressure again rises and pushes out against gravity, swelling the size of the star. The greater temperature leads to an increase in reaction rates, which means a greater pressure pushing out against gravity, and thus the "balance" is further out, so the star expands.

When the star has depleted all of its fuel, there is no longer at element that it can burn to release energy, and thus nothing can balance out the force of gravity, causing the star to contract. At this point, the force of gravity compresses the matter of the star, resulting in various end of life stages depending on the mass collapsing.


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

[User] ELI5: Why when recording a song in a studio do they use a screen in front of the mic?

[Assistant] It's called a pop filter, and it is used to break up "plosives" which are your Bs and Ps. When these sounds are produced they release a blast of air, and the microphone picks these up as bass rumbles under the fundamental frequency of the voice. The mesh of the pop filter diffuses the air passing through so everything useful goes through while the rumble is reduced.


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

[User] [Marvel] What does Magneto think of human Mutates like Captain America?

[Assistant]
Probably nothing good to neutral. Captain America is treated as a hero, as are most Mutates. The only one that gets really discriminated is probably just The Hulk. Plus, they developed powers because of accidents or whatever, they weren't born with it. Magneto wouldn't be able to identify with them. And they're not a race.

The closest he would sympathise with, and perhaps even ally with, are Inhumans. Maybe more so of those who were exposed to Terrigen Mists across the world. Those Inhumans are persecuted so there's that.


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

[User] ELI5: Why are torrents more popular than regular downloads when it comes to illegal material?

[Assistant]
Because a "regular download" has to be hosted by a server that somebody owns. If the copyright holder complains, it takes like five minutes to find out who owns it and go knock on their door.

With a torrent, there's no central distributor to go after. There's like a thousand or more people offering up little pieces all over the planet. Who do you go after?


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

[User]
ELI5: Where do magnets get the energy to do magnet things.

I have a reasonable understanding of why magnets are magnetic and how the poles exist. I also understand (on a basic level) that electricity and magnetism are the same thing. However, I don't understand where the energy comes from to spontaneously move objects across a distance. Why can a magnet lift a paperclip off a desk? Where does the energy to lift the clip come from?

Edit: Wow! Thanks everyone. I feel like I'm learning so much. Magnets are wild.

[Assistant]
Physics is weird. One of the things they teach you is that an object sitting on a table is applying force to the table, and the table is applying an equal force to the object, just in the opposite direction. This does not require any energy input. No work is being done.

Magnets are similar. They apply a force on each other that is similar to the force of gravity, only with a different type of field (2 poles). They'll seek the lowest energy state, which is where the opposite poles are together. It requires energy to pull them apart, just like it requires energy to lift the object off the table.


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

[User]
Do dogs recognize their own breed?

And if they do, do they have a preference for it, or are they opportunists when it comes to breeding or playing and they just take whoever is willing to engage them?

[Assistant] Dogs do not regard themselves as members of a breed.  Only human beings care what breed a dog is, and breeds of dogs exist only due to the efforts of human breeders.  Not only do different breeds of dogs happily mate (producing mongrel offspring) but even wolves and coyotes will breed and have produced a new canine variant called a coywolf.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do people blame fox/msnbc/cnn/etc for spreading misinformation, instead of the viewers for encouraging it? (more people watch when they sensationalize stories)

Channels want ratings, and they are very sophisticated entities, so it is reasonable to assume they report news in a manner that the most people find enticing.

These channels are just giving the people what they want, right?

[Assistant]
Because they have a journalistic responsibility that is supposed to trump their business interests. Yeah the shark on the New York subway might be an oddity and people will click on the link and watch the report but is that as important as international politics? No.

Yeah, they are giving people what they want, but so is reality T.V.. People have proven that they do not choose what is best for them. I's like to draw a comparison to the obesity epidemic; People choose to eat unhealthy food over healthy food in the same way people choose to watch sensational news instead of real news.


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

[User] [Star Wars] When Vader blocks blaster shots with his hand, is that a "force deflect" type power, or just his suit of armor being really tough?

[Assistant] It's both. Tutaminis/energy absorption is a staple power for Jedi, but also Vader's armor was tough enough to resist light blows from a lightsaber, particularly his gauntlets. It's also worth pointing out the Force-enhanced reaction necessary to get his hand in the way of a shot.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do I go to sleep hungry, but wake up feeling so full that I can't eat without forcing myself?

[Assistant]
Overnight your body gradually depletes it's glycogen stores in the liver and muscles. It then transfers to the ketogenic energy system, activated at low insulin levels which runs primarily off fat stores.

The difference between these energy systems is that insulin sequesters energy, pushing calories out of the blood stream into cells which can cause hunger. Whereas in a ketotic state your cells pull it in automatically.


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

[User]
[MCU] How would Killmonger and Luke Cage interact?

I haven't seen BP yet, but how would this interaction go? Assume that it happens before the events of Black Panther. Would Erik Killmonger respect Luke for what he's doing in Harlem?

And lastly, what would Killmonger's opinion be of what Cottonmouth is doing?

[Assistant]
He's angry he isn't marching up to Manhattan and taking out every white CEO and giving the power to black communities.

Killmonger basically wants to reverse the roles society has placed his people in and put them on top. Luke just wants to lay low and help his people out when he has little choice.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does the burn of putting your leg in hot water seem to come a second or so after its been pulled out?

[Assistant]
So theres two nervous systems that usually work together. This is an example of where one takes over first.

- CNS = Brain. It controls the actions you think about so it takes longer to work.
- PNS = No Brain. Controls reflex actions, ones you dont have to think about, so its faster.

The leg in hot water reaction would work something like this:
1. Leg goes into water
2. PNS realises you are in danger.
3. PNS moves leg out of the water because it knows youre in danger.
4. CNS realises leg is out of water
5. CNS realises leg is in pain and lets the brain know, meaning you only then feel pain.

I hope thats simple enough, ask any questions if you need clarification.


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

[User] [GoT] During the war of 5 Kings, why does Robb Stark alway seems outnumbered by the Lannisters? Doesn't Robb Stark command the North and the Riverlands?

[Assistant] He does, but the North is not densely populated or tightly held. Compare to the Southern kingdoms that have abundant human resources, and the Lannister wealth is legendary - certainly enough to raise and maintain a larger army than could normally be expected.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are the penalties for murder less severe than those for assassination?

Shouldn't all people be considered equally valuable to society?

[Assistant] Killing some random person has almost no affect on the masses, 150,000+ people die each day, killing a leader or important person can cause entire governments to fall apart causing billions of dollars in damage, deaths, and disruption of state and security.


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

[User] ELI5: Even if global warming/climate change is not caused by humans, why do people still get so upset over the suggestion that we work to improve the environment and limit pollution?

[Assistant] Money. It will decrease the net profit of many companies due to new regulations, and federal funding dollars will go to environmental causes and cut from others. The people complaining the most are the ones most affected.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are companies allowed to put misleading super-delicious-looking renders of their food on packaging and menus? Why aren't they required to put a realistic pic?

Isn't there a law against false advertising? Isn't the concept of getting food artists to make a fast food cheeseburger look like the best thing you'll ever eat instead of a morose processed lump legally dubious at best, if not morally questionable?

[Assistant]
There's a difference between an artistic rendering and the live product. There are no federal or state legislations that require that the image sold should look perfectly like the image displayed.

Now what the product has in it is different, it must contain all necessary items that are advertised for FDA and Dietary regulations to apply. You can't sell things to people without knowing exactly what's in them.


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

[User] ELI5:Why when going through periods of great emotional distress does ones heart sometimes physically hurt?

[Assistant] It isn't your heart, really. Well, to be more accurate, it is PROBABLY not your heart. Stress can make your heart beat faster due to the release of adrenaline (fight or flight response) which increases your heart's demand for oxygen in the cardiac muscles. But, it also causes the superficial muscles in your chest to contract along with many other areas of your body. THIS is probably what the pain is rather than your actual heart.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is there so much oil in the Middle East?

Why is that geographic region so rich in the resource? Where did it all come from? (Geohistorically)

[Assistant]
Crude oil is formed from the decayed remnants of aquatic plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Large portions of the modern day Middle East were once submerged under a large, now non-existent sea called the Tethys Sea.

This sea eventually disappeared, sealing large deposits of organic matter under a salty crust. Over the eons, this crust was in turn covered by layer upon layer of sediment. As the sediment was compressed under the increasing weight of the layers above, it hardened into limestone. About 15 million years ago, the shifting of tectonic plates of the region formed large, underground fissures. As the organic matter migrated through the layers of limestone, much of it seeped into these fissures.

These deposits of organic matter became crude oil.

**TL:DR:** The middle east was a huge ocean before that contained a lot of organic material, then it dried out and all the organic material died out and eventually became oil.


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

[User]
[MassEffect] How did the Elcor and Hanar manage to achieve Space flight?

The Elcor have only two fingers and no opposable thumb.  The Hanar are Jellyfish with *nether* finger nor thumb. How did those races ever manage to craft tools sophisticated enough to become space faring?

[Assistant] They didn't evolve and develop the same way we did so they created different tools and technologies. The Elcor and Hanar are just as smart if not smarter then humans, it makes sense they would develop tools that used their strengths and negated their weaknesses just like humans do.


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

[User]
[DragonBall] How would the other gods of destruction and universes react if Buu had killed Shin and thereby killed Beerus as well?

Speaking of which, why didn't shin seek help from any of the higher ups, beerus would probably not decline to help since his life as well were on the line.

[Assistant]
Most of them probably wouldn't have done anything at all and would probably have considered it to be Beerus' fault for sleeping through such an important event. The universes seem to be fairly insular and don't really meddle with the affairs of one another all that much.

There's a chance that Champa *may* have gone over to Universe 7 to Destroy Buu once he learned Beerus had been killed but that would be a personal revenge thing rather than something done in an official capacity as a deity.

By the time Buu attacked the Kais, Shin was nowhere near finished in his training. At the time, he may not have even known there was anyone he could have gone to (he didn't seem to know who Zeno was until Elder Kai told him) and he probably had no idea how to contact Whis or Beerus (who was asleep at the time anyway) regardless.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do fingers/toes hurt so much more when they are cold?

[Assistant] When you are cold your body sucks your blood up into your torso to keep your major organs warm. Because of this there is less blood in your extremities which make them cold. The combination of less blood and coldness reduces dexterity. The lack of warm blood in your fingers and toes cause your nerves to go off telling you they are cold which causes the pain.


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

[User]
[MCU] Why hasn't the Super-Soldier Serum, or other medical advances, been made from Cap's blood?

The make a big deal in Agent Carter about how the US Government and Howard Stark both really want to study the last existing sample of Cap's blood. Stark in particular seems confident he can make major medical advances with it.

Even without the blood, the US Military has been working on recreating the serum, most notably with Hulk and Abomination. They seem to have been doing pretty well.

So, uh ... now that Cap is back and there's plenty of blood for all, why haven't they reverse-engineered it? Are they even trying? Did Cap develop a phobia for donating blood while trapped in the ice?

[Assistant]
the Captain probably does not want to, considering the damage people without the correct mindset have caused with the Super-Soldier serium in the past.

The US millitary might simply be respecting the wishes of such an esteemed and well-respected American and member of the US millitary.


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

[User]
CMV: There is absolutely nothing insulting about being interested in someone only for sex

There is nothing wrong or insulting with wanting to have sex with  someone and only being interested in a human being for sex. There is nothing to feel bad about if someone feels this way about you either.

It seems to me that women are told to perceive this as an offense. For instance if a stranger approached me and said "hey, I find you very attractive, want to have sex?" being very insulted would seem like an appropriate reaction for me. I don't think that makes any sense at all.

This can be a problem though, depending on the circumstance, so of course context plays a role. Some main examples of when this is a problem:

a) there is a reasonable expectation that the person in question should be interested in you for something else. If your mentor in the university or your employer or your parent or your doctor is only interested in you for sex, I don't have to explain why this would be a huge problem.

b) the person interested in you for sex is being pushy about it and doesn't accept that you aren't interested. Of course you don't have to share that interest and they should then let it go.

c) the person is attempting to get closer to you by deliberately pretenting they are interested in something else, thereby creating the situation a). For instance, someone acting like they want to hire you because you are very capable and then it turns out they just wanted you to have sex with them.

d) the person expresses their interest in an obviously inappropriate time and situation. Like, on a funeral or in the middle of your date with your so.

But these don't affect my view because my view only deals with the insult coming from the fact a person is only interested in sexual part of you. similar examples can be used for any number of things and stem from some form of inappropriateness and not sex itself.

Other than that, the idea that there are some people who see you and don't care about anything more from you than the possibility of sex isn't anything to feel angry about. If they weren't physically attracted to you they would likely not be interested at all, so it isn't like their interest in sex is taking away from potentally more meaningful relationship (in fact if they would be interested in something else as well, but are also interested in sex, one doesn't take from the other.)

Once back when I was in school we watched a video in psychology where a guy approached about 20 different women asking them if they want sex with him (he was actually attractive, maybe 8) and they all declined and most of them were pretty angry. Then a woman (imo, less attractive than a guy but it doesn't matter) approached about 20 men. Not only did the most agree, but those who didn't were very polite about it "oh, Im sorry but I am married, thanks for asking" and similar answers. Very shocking difference in responses. I am not interested in the part where some declined and some accepted, but rather in the way they took it. For men it was always a compliment, for women, almost always (some did find it funny) an offense.

Also when that catcalling video was posted and on many discussions after, girls pointed out how it is offensive to know that someoen is only interested in your body and approaching you for sex. Many people defended what happened saying that sometimes you start small talk or greet a stranger without wanting sex, and that is perfectly fine, but my question is, even if someone shows interest in you only because of attraction and some hope for sex, shouldn't the only appropriate response be politely declining if you aren't interested? Or even if you just don't respond at all, like you wouldn't every time someoen is trying to sell something to you from the street, it still shouldn't warrant personal offense. I also noticed that when women tried to explain to men why catcalling botheres them so much and asked them to imagine a role reversal in the video, most men couldn't understand why they should feel bad about many women trying to chat them up.

The deeper issue with this is that I think it promotes much deeper insecurity in women. Why can most men accept the idea of being objectified and not have it be important, perhaps just a nice compliment. And when it happens to women it becomes a huge issue, it becomes about someone taking away from your very humanity, reducing you to an object etc.

Why would I think a stranger or acquaitance has such power over me that the mere fact they only care about my body reduces me to anything objectively? Why would I not feel enough basic confidence in the fact that I am a person (a very small thing to feel confident about) that this becomes only a compliment of one of my attributes?

I am not sure if i am articulating this second part well, but it is something that has been bothering me for a while. I just think it would be much healthier if a non threatening expression of purely sexual interest isn't treated like anything negative - because it isn't negative. It's neutral to positive, depending on what you take from it.

EDIT: I just want to include this part of my response from the comments because I think it is relevant to what I was trying to say in the second part.

The huge problem here for me is the assumption that somebody being interested in one specific thing from you (which let's face it is the case in most human interactions unless with people close to us, and only seen as an issue when its this specific case) actually has the power to take away your complexity. It propagates the idea that being interested in your body takes the value off other things about you in general. It promotes almost pathological and irrational insecurity and a weird need for affirmation from men. Which is ironic. **The whole time same mentality keeps telling women that we aren't doing things for male validation, especially with looks - and then it ends up saying that if the man happens to only validate your looks he is insulting you since he failed to validate the other parts.**

[Assistant]
> Why can most men accept the idea of being objectified and not have it be important, perhaps just a nice compliment. And when it happens to women it becomes a huge issue, it becomes about someone taking away from your very humanity, reducing you to an object etc.

Because historically, women have derived value from *what they where*, and men derived value from *what they did.*

Oftentimes, catcalling a woman is a reminder of a time when that's all that women were "good for."


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

[User] [MCU] From what we've seen of both Thanos and vibranium, IF they had somehow managed to physically cage and detain him entirely with things like heavy-grade vibranium cages, shackles, and anything else, could you have held Thanos indefinitely as a prisoner?

[Assistant]
Vibranium isn't indestructible in the MCU; Thanos' own sword was able to cut through Cap's shield, the Black Order had weapons that could harm the Vision's organic-vibranium weave, and Wakanda has sonic devices that nullify its properties entirely.

Add in Ebony Maw's telekinesis, and the fact that there are Sorcerers in the universe using sigil magic very similar to Kamar Taj, and the chances that *someone* would break him out is nearly 100%.

Thanos wouldn't have been able to escape vibranium shackles by himself, but Thanos himself was never the real danger: it was the cult of fanatics that were willing to destroy worlds or lay down their lives in order to help him achieve his goal.


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

[User] How is .999999999 ad infinitum exactly equal to 1?

[Assistant]
There are a number of ways you can demonstrate this.  Using fractions:

    1/3 = .333...
    1 = 1/3+1/3+1/3 = .333... + .333... + .333... = .999...

The method of extracting a fraction from a repeating decimal:

    x = .999...
    10x = 9.999...
    10x - x = 9.999... - .999...
    9x = 9
    x = 1

Using the sum of a geometric series:

`0.999...` means `9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000...`.  For a geometric series of the form a, ar, ar^2,..., the sum of the series is a/(1 - r).  In our case, a is 9/10 and r is 1/10, so we have (9/10) / (1 - 1/10) = (9/10) / (9/10) = 1.

Edit:  One more interesting way, although this one gets a bit more technical.  In the real numbers, any 2 distinct numbers have numbers between them.  This isn't exactly a rigorous proof, but think about how you would define a number that falls between 1 and 0.999... (hint: you can't).


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

[User] ELI5: How come football players cant take a drink from their water bottles on the sudeline using their own hands? Why does a waterboy need to squirt the water for him?

[Assistant]
All wrong. It's because if the bottles never leave the Waterboys hands, they will never get lost or end up empty

When you let the 50+ guys on the sideline do what they will with the bottles, they never put them back where they got them, and they never fill them back up. It's mayhem.

The Waterboys sole responsibility is to keep the bottles full and make them available to the players.


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

[User] ELI5: What exactly happens to our bodies during sleep that allow us to recover from injury and illness so effectively?

[Assistant]
Think of your body as a space ship.

When you are awake, the ship is on alert. You need to divert energy and people to activate all your sensors (all your senses) and have your engines and weapons ready to deal with anything that life throws at you. If ship sustains any injuries like a hull breach, only the immediate treatment is done (seal the injury by clotting).

When you are asleep, the ship changes to a much lower alert state. The sensors and weapons can be powered down. Energy and people are diverted to work on maintenance and repair.


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

[User]
What's the hardest thing, about being a self-employed developer?

Is it keeping skills up to date? Is it: not having a big team around you, to handle the variety of non-tech tasks?  Finding good customers? Something else?

I've been a self-employed developer for a while now with a bit of contracting and a bit of trying to make money off of my own projects, and I'm trying to figure out what challenges are universal and what's just a weak spot for me.

[Assistant]
* Discipline
* Not being able to evolve because your interaction with smarter people is limited
* Non-steady revenue
* People thinking you should give them more time during the week because you don't have a "real" job
* Not having a normal work week / no stability
* Stress from losing a big client
* People low balling you
* Dealing with SPAM MAIL.


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

[User] [Deadpool] I'm very confused, he's a stepdad with a robowoman now?

[Assistant]
No. He's an actual dad and the robot lady is his friend so she takes care of the kid for him.

The robot lady was a SHIELD agent who was killed. A magic guy felt guilty because he caused her death so he put her mind inside of Deadpool's to keep her alive. She was later transferred into a robot body.


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

[User] [Fallout 3] Why do Point Lookout Tribals do extra unresistible damage?

[Assistant]
There are two theories.  The first theory is that it's the punga fruit.  Long-term consumption of punga, starting from birth, has basically altered the physiology of the tribals and the swampfolk, and given them superhuman strength and damage.  Consequently, they can tear through power armor like it's tissue paper.

And before you ask, no, you eating punga fruit won't give you similar powers.  You're too old to receive the empowering effects of the fruit.  It has to be eaten starting from birth.

The second theory is that the island is affected by an eldritch abomination known as Ug-Qualtoth.  An aspect of Ug-Qualtoth's dark power was imbued into a book called the Krivbeknih, which was possessed by the Blackhall family for generations on the island of Point Lookout.  Centuries of influence by the Krivbeknih has given the island's inhabitants a degree of supernatural powers, including superhuman strength and endurance.


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

[User]
Why are academics so blunt (to the point of being rude)?

You don't have to (and I wouldn't want you to) sugar-coat anything, but jeez. It's really important to provide timely, constructive criticism, but many of the professors and grad students I know are really tactless. I've even seen people say something hurtful for the sake of saying something hurtful and then giggle about ("oops! Did I really say that?"). Even here on Reddit, responses in this sub and some of the others can be so soul-crushingly blunt. Is any other profession like this?

I think this is especially important for junior academics: people need to know where they stand. Instead of just being nasty to them so they "take the hint" that they shouldn't be here, be honest yet supportive. Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just too sensitive?

[Assistant]
>Is any other profession like this?

I'd be willing to bet that all other professions are like this. This sounds like a criticism of people being people, more than it is a criticism of academia in particular. Gatekeeping, rudeness (on the internet, no less), sniping, and general lack of tact are everywhere.

I believe, unfortunate as it is, that you don't necessarily know a lot of professors and grad students who are miserable shits, so much as you live in a society overflowing with miserable shits, and you happen to spend a lot of time around professors and grad students.


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

[User] Why do I get erections when I'm tired?

[Assistant]
When a male gets sexually stimulated (either physically or mentally), nerve impulses are sent to a place near the base of the spinal cord called the erection center. Nerves passing from the erection center to the penis supply a return impulse that causes the release of a substance called acetylcholine which causes the arterioles (small arteries) in the erectile structures to dilate, or widen. At the same time, muscles surrounding the veins near the base of the penis contract, restricting the amount of blood that leaves the penis. As a result, the erectile structures begin to fill with blood and expand. As they expand, the penis as a whole begins to enlarge and harden.

Even though the erection center in the spinal cord is responsible for the actual erection, the brain is definitely involved, too. The brain can send signals directly to the erection center and cause it to kick into action, which is why looking at an exciting picture can cause an erection. The brain can also inhibit erection, too. The nervous system contains two sub-systems  the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system. The sympathetic is responsible for such things as fear, the "fight or flight" reaction, and ejaculation; meanwhile, the parasympathetic is responsible for calming and getting things like the digestive muscles to operate. The parasympathetic system is also responsible for causing erections. Since these two systems operate against each other, fear  or an orgasm  can inhibit erections. This is why you tend to lose your erection after ejaculation: orgasm is a big event for the sympathetic nervous system, so when it occurs it basically knocks out the parasympathetic system for a while, causing your erection to go down. It's also why impotence (the inability to get an erection on demand) is such a problem in some men  if they get anxious that they won't be able to perform sexually, their sympathetic nervous system dominates, actually making it more difficult for them to get an erection. So, the key to getting an erection is to relax.

**TL;DR** **As you become tired, your parasympathetic nervous system (rest/recover system) kicks into gear and your spinal cord signals your penis to fill with blood**


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

[User]
ELI5: If there are more colors than the human eye can see does that mean objects reflect more than one color or things we see as one color don't reflect that color but our eyes just can't see it?

Would that mean there could be more skin colors? (This thought just popped in my head and I am now going crazy).

[Assistant]
"Color" is sort of an overloaded term that can mean one of several different related things.

There is a spectrum of light. Objects do, or don't, reflect each possible wavelength of light to different degrees. For example, an object might reflect all light below a wavelength of 500 nm, while absorbing all light above 500 nm, or maybe it reflects light close to 600 nm and absorbs more and more the further from 600 nm you get. In this sense, the "color" of an object is a curve describing how it reflects every possible wavelength of light, which takes an infinite number of numbers to describe.

Human perception, on the other hand, is dictated by how that light stimulates three types of cell in our eye (so-called "L", "M", and "S" cone cells, which are most sensitive to reddish, yellowish, and bluish light respectively but have some overlap). If you know how much the light stimulates each of those cells - that is, you know three numbers, technically called *tristimulus values* - you know what "color" it is. The "reflect all below 500 nm and absorb all above 500 nm" object above would stimulate S cells a lot, M cells a little, and L cells almost not at all - that is, it would appear a deep blue-violet. The "mostly reflects around 600 nm" would stimulate L a lot, M moderately, and S very little, and would appear orange.

Since the first definition of color (the how-much-of-each-wavelength-does-it-reflect definition) provides a much larger range of possibilities than the second one (the amount it stimulates each of our cells), there are many possible "colors" in the first sense for each "color" in the second sense. That is, there are different mixes of light that both appear the same shade of (say) blue to your eyes, because they result in the same amount of stimulation to each of your cell types.

You would see a color (second sense) for every possible combination of reflected light (first sense), but you wouldn't always be able to tell the *difference* between those colors.

Finally, not every possible combination of stimuli (color in the second sense) is actually possible. The M and L cells overlap a lot, so you can't stimulate L a lot without stimulating M a little (if you could, you'd see a color "redder than the reddest possible red"). The only way to experience these colors (second sense) is to somehow mess with the processing in your brain; people who take psychedelic drugs often report seeing new colors that are probably the result of the brain getting a scrambled "lots of L and no M" signal and trying to figure out what the hell to do with it.


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

[User] Could the US militarys powerful laser weapon be defeated using mirrors?

[Assistant]
Not really. If a laser weapon is used to shoot down something like missiles, then you'd think you could cover the missile in a mirror-like surface and have it protected. But there are at least two immediate problems. One is that mirrors are made to reflect a fairly specific range of frequencies (for regular mirrors that's the visible light spectrum of course), while directed energy weapons could use different frequencies. Make it a microwave emission and a "mirror" that reflects lasers.

And the other problem is that mirrors still absorb light. An effective mirror-like surface vs. lasers would still need to be able to absorb the energy, which it would in practice not be able to, even using a first-surface mirror to make it more effective.

It's also fun to note that something as mundane as dust would significantly hamper your efforts. Dust particles on your mirror would absorb the energy, which heats it up, which damages the actual reflective surface, which only makes it less effective and so on, until you have a superheated useless mirror.


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

[User] ELI5: How can a sample size of ~1000 people be used to make statistical data about millions of people? Wouldn't the results be way off?

[Assistant]
If you make a pot of soup do you need to taste half of it in order to know the flavor of the entire soup? Of course not, you only need a spoonful to get a general idea of what the rest tastes like. There might be a crunchy carrot or soft potato that don't quite taste the same as the rest but those are not common.

Statistic principles are the same way but there are certain conditions that need to be met for different tests. Sometimes it's appropriate to use only 30 people while in other cases you do need 1,000 or more people to accurately test the soup.


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

[User]
How did we find out electrical currents are made of negative charges, rather than positive?

As I understand it (I may have it wrong) the reason conventional current flows in the "wrong" direction is that Benjamin Franklin (and I assume other people of his time) thought electrical currents were made out of positive charges.

How and when did we realize this was not the case?

[Assistant] Which charge is negative and which is positive is purely a matter of convention, i.e. you could decide to interchange them without the physics being affected. By extension this also means that the direction of current is a matter of convention; Franklin picked a direction that corresponds to the flow of positive charges though, unbenknownst to him, the things that are actually moving are "negatively" charged electrons.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why aren't the United States and Russia allies? What are the disagreements/reasons?

If we can be amicable "friends" with communist regimes like China, etc, why are at odds with Russia? At the risk of sounding completely naive, what stands in the way of mending the relationship?

[Assistant]
America and Russia got on...neutrally most of the time. WW1 made them allies, which was nice. But in 1917 Russia overthrew its dictator and had a provisional government. America was actually pretty happy, because it was a pseudo-democracy and it looked like Russia was moving into a more open form of government. Then the Bolshevik's and workers unions fought the provisional government.

This was bad for America. The communist look of these Bolshevik's seemed counter to American interests and businesses in the area. Most importantly, they wanted to stop the war with Germany (this is during 1917 AKA WW1 remember). That's a big no no. Plus they already liked the provisional government. So America backed the provisional government, sends troops.

Well, the provisional government still lost. The new communist government was, for some reason, unhappy with the fact that american troops had fought a bunch of their troops. They also stopped fighting with Germany, which pissed off the Allies something fierce.

America + Allied Europe VS the Solviets thus are pretty unhappy with each other. Russia keeps trying to start communist parties and overthrows in Europe, which is unwelcome, and the Allies continue trying to overthrow the Russian government, which is unwelcome.

In america, businesses hold tons of political and public opinion power, and heavily denounce communism as being pretty awful for businesses. Public hates communism, communist groups do some questionable things, ideological Red Scare happens. Communism = evil in America.

Everything putters along, but in 1939 Russia backs German expansion and they sign a peace treaty for WW2. Russia invades several countries. Allies are not thrilled. Eventually Germany attacks Russia. Russia not thrilled. Allies send aid to Russia, but are still extremely mistrustful and unhappy with Russia what with the plundering and invading and flip flopping. Help the bear drive off the pack of wolves rather than be eaten, but kinda fear and hate the bear too.

Russia fights Germany almost single handedly. Gets absolutely demolished in terms of human and economic toll, but beats them back. Allies do not start up a second front for almost 3 full years. Stalin thinks that the allies delayed the second front on purpose to weaken the USSR. Really salty about it.

USSR and Allies defeat Germany. Stalin is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1945. Everyone is kind of like "Holy shit did the Russian's dominate". Russia refuses to give back territories it gained in WW2, is kind of like "we earned them". Allies are unhappy by this, and now that WW2 is over, Russia is the #1 threat. Stalin is super scary, clearly willing to do anything to achieve what he wants, and he seems to want to take over at least most of Europe. Which everyone just finished a big long war to stop someone else from doing.

So Stalin, with his freedom oppressing, military facist-communist government is extremely hostile to the allies, who they rightly feel have never helped them unless required, have tried to overthrow them, are blocking their interests in Europe, and were indirectly responsible for millions of Russian deaths by not opening up a second front earlier.

America hates Russia because it threatens its allies, it threatens European peace, their leader severely restricts rights and freedoms in their country (America is big on freedom) and communism is heavily mistrusted.

After that you get all the iron curtain, Truman deals, etc etc that start the Cold war, but really, The Allies never liked Russia and Russia never liked the Allies. Their alliance in WW2 was more "Germany is trying to kill both of us" rather than "we like each other even a little".

..

..

Today, America and Russia have about 100 years of that garbage, plus all the wars they've backed opposite sides of. If you ignore the very recent tensions with events in Ukraine, they've had increased trading, polite and friendly space program exchanges, stockpile reductions, joint anti-terrorist exercises, increased business relations, agreement on Iran etc etc. They aren't really enemies or allies, just very mistrustful acquaintances.


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

[User] [Star Wars] How is there breathable air on Mustafar?

[Assistant] Mustafar wasn't always covered in lava, so most likely the atmosphere is leftover from those days. Given the abundance of natural resources, there's also probably some light terraforming going on to prevent the planet becoming any more .... on fire.


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

[User]
ELI5:Does RPM need to increase to maintain speed on a hill if you didn't change gears?

I'm trying to understand gearing in a car. When you are on a straight path at 80km/h and you're in 4th gear on a flat road, your RPM's will be say 4000rpm's to keep that speed.

Now, when you're on a hill, to maintain that speed of 80km/h, do you have to increase the amount of gas being put into the engine to keep the same speed, thus increasing the amount of RPM's going to the engine - without changing gear?

Thank you for the understanding in explaining this.

[Assistant]
No, you do not increase RPM.

If you leave the amount of gas constant, then the RPM will reduce, and so will the speed. In order to maintain the speed *and the RPM*, you need to increase the amount of gas.

The RPM and the speed are directly proportional to each other if you don't change gear. The amount of gas is *not* proportional to the RPM. (To prove this - put the car in 4th gear, push the clutch to the floor, and rev to around 2000 rpm. Then, with the parking brake applied, slowly release the clutch, being careful to leave the gas in the same place. The RPM will decrease as the clutch places a load on the engine, despite the gas being constant. The clutch is increasing the load on the engine in exactly the same way that going up a hill increases the load on the engine - both of these have the effect of reducing RPM if the gas is constant.)


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

[User]
[Mass Effect] How many Geth do you have to kill before it becomes murder?

We all know about the Geth and how individual "platforms" (i.e. individual Geth robots) are not individually sentient.

But when multiple Geth are close together, however, they link up wirelessly in a way that expotentially improves each individual platform's intelligence up to human levels and beyond.

So how many Geth do you have to kill for it to count as murder?

[Assistant] The Alliance knows because of the events that took place on board the Heretic Station and on Rannoch that the Geth can't really be killed even when in close enough proximity to form a neural network, as the platforms they download onto do not contain the only copy of their minds. How many Geth you have to kill for it to be legally considered murder is all of them, as they have no rights, they're evil AI bogeymen who unprovokedly attacked the Quarians during the Morning War. Morally, it depends on whether you believe that losing a platform when all of the minds on board are backed up is murder. The only true act of murder that can be performed on a Geth is the destruction of their servers, normally. In the late stages of the Reaper Invasion, we do see the Geth uploaded to Prime platforms with no backups, but this is the exception, and not the norm. Overwhelmingly speaking, destroying any number of platforms will result in no loss of Geth consciousness. Don't go around destroying platforms thinking you won't get in trouble for it though, the Geth are our allies now.


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

[User] [Star Wars/DC] Can Force Choking work on Superman?

[Assistant] Yes, in theory. Manchester Black has used telekinesis to pinch blood vessels in Superman's head before, but he admitted it felt like trying to crush concrete tubes. Presumably a Force choke would work by the same principles.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Why did the Jedi think the chosen one would bring balance by destroying the Dark Side?

[Assistant]
First of all, they thought the chosen one would destroy the Sith not the dark side. There's a difference. The Sith are a religious sect of the dark side but there are other dark side organizations.

Second, they were right. Anakin killed Palpatine and renounced the ways of the Sith before his death. No more Sith.


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

[User] Why are testicles considered a gland and ovaries are organs? Or what is the difference between a gland and an organ?

[Assistant]
An organ is a bunch of tissue that's generally connected, and works together to serve a function. Doesn't all have to be the same type of tissue: eg, the heart is an organ, but there's muscle, fat, nerve, connective tissue, etc etc.

A gland is a type of organ that makes stuff (generally fluids, often hormones). Ovaries and testes both act as glands, since they make and release the 'sex hormones' (oestrogen, testosterone, and all the other related ones).


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

[User]
CMV: The argument We pay way too much money for this problem to exist is a terrible argument and just a way to justify an otherwise unjustifiable argument.

I just finished up at a large university and I would hear this ALL the time.

We pay way too much money for the WiFi to not work here/dining hall food to not be better/professors not to be the best of the best

But the same logic (or lack of logic) is applied to other situations as well, like government or private businesses.

I pay too much in taxes, they should have fixed this pothole already

To me, it feels like people who argue this think they understand these organizations finances, while they likely dont. CMV!

(And sorry for the formatting, on mobile and what not)

[Assistant]
There is nothing wrong with that argument in itself. It may be misapplied, though. There is an expectation that an organization makes sure to pay for its basic needs. Say, a restaurant has hygiene as a basic requirement. If it costs a lot to eat there, it is entirely reasonable to say that "I pay too much for the hygiene to be a problem". A modern library, and yes, university, has functioning wifi as a basic need. If it goes out once, no foul, but again and again? Or if it's outdated and can handle too few devices, or it's too slow? Not reasonable.

Outside those basic needs, things get more random. The university may not have all the newspapers, or whatever.

The argument is still basically a sound one.


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

[User]
ELI5: How did we figure out that space is "space"?

How did we know that beyond our own atmosphere there is a void of oxygen (er... anything) without trial by error?

[Assistant]
A couple of simple observations allows you to deduce that space is mostly empty.  One is that air tends to get "thin" as you move up a mountain... the air has less gas in it the higher you get.  The second one is that when you shine light through something, you can make some measurements of what it is made of.  Because the sun's light comes through space before it hits us *and* we know what the Earth's atmosphere is made of, we can tell that the sunlight is only really hitting our atmosphere -- thus, space must be more or less empty.

First try at one of these... hope it wasn't a bucket of failure.


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

[User]
What is the Grinch?

What are his origins? He seems anatomically similar to the Whos of Whoville, just with green skin with an abnormal amount of body hair. Is he a mutated Who who was born like that or is his disfigurement a result of some childhood accident?

[Assistant]
One must remember that in 'Who' society the highest virtue is conformity. While they are a generally peaceful and friendly people they produce few great artists and innovators, this is in part because their whole culture is focused on the good of the community above the individual. One could attribute this to their snowbound environment, where for much of their history any deviant behaviour could be disastrous for teh community, and this has carried on into modern times.

Now imagine a child. Mother is no-one of great import, father is unknown. Born with oddly distorted features and green skin. He goes to school, the teachers do their best to be polite but they are always a little hesitant with him. The children are less kind. He grows up with no friends, and always feels isolated in the communal events that form such a large part of Who-ish society, the most important of which is their ritual exchange of gifts at Christmas of course.

As he grows older he begins to spend more time in the wilderness, safe from the looks of the crowds. First as a woodsman, but eventually moving there permanently and establishing his own life away from the community. He brings his beloved dog Max, the only living creature that has ever shown him kindness.

Over time he becomes more isolated, more bitter and resentful of the community that would not accept him. Then at the moment of their greatest festival, in the depths of winter, something inside him snaps....


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

[User]
ELI5: What is the Background to the situation in Somalia today and the rise of Al-Shabab?

Was wondering the background history of Somalia and why groups such as Al-Shabab exist.

[Assistant]
Basically:

Somalia was in the Soviet sphere during the cold war. A strong Communist central government kept tribal conflicts in check.

End of the Cold War in 1990, without Soviet support the Communists almost immediately lose power to a rebel tribal coalition.

The country then degenerates into tribal infighting and factional conflict and pretty soon there's a full on civil war.

UN sends in peacekeepers, but you can't keep the peace when the entire country is comprised of rival armed militias. They get badly bloodied (events of Black Hawk Down) and pull out.

The Islamic Courts Union, of which Al-Shabaab was originally a junior member, emerges as the strongest faction and takes over most of the country. This was because Islam is the strongest unifying force in a country where Somali identity is secondary to tribal identities, and because political Islam has been in the ascendency all across the world since the Iranian revolution.

Post 9/11 the west realises that having Islamists controlling large amounts of territory provides the sort of safe haven for international jihadists that the whole War on Terror was about destroying.

So in 2006 America convinces Ethiopia, with the strongest army in Africa, to invade and restore the authority of the UN-recognised government, which by this point only controls a few blocks in the capital. Other African states contribute troops as well, like Kenya.

Al-Shabaab can't fight tanks with pick-up trucks so it switches tactics  to guerilla war and political terrorism, while still controlling much of the countryside. (a lot like in Afghanistan)

Which is basically where we are at the moment.


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

[User]
Why doesn't pinocytosis lead to hyperhydration?

Since cells take up fluid from outside during pinocytosis, this would eventually lead to the cell having too much fluid. But this does not happen. Why could this be? Is the explanation as simple as just saying that the cell counteracts this with exocytosis? Or maybe aquaporins play a role?

[Assistant]
Firstly, water is not what is being taken in. What is being taken in is the solute as the lipid bilayer of the cell is water permeable. The osmolarity difference between the inside and outside of a cell is what determines net water transport.

This leads to the second aspect of your question. Cells need solutes to survive (food) and needs to get rid of solute to live (waste excretion). It has specialized proteins that take up and get rid of specific molecules to keep homeostasis as Joyousdooby stated.


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

[User]
Why aren't there any orbitals after s, p, d and f?

After Element 60 I noticed that there weren't any new orbitals anymore, there were just "more of the others". Why is that? Anything to do with energylevels?

[Assistant]
There are. The orbital angular momentum quantum number can be anything from 0 to (n - 1), and n can be anything from 1 to infinity. The naming convention goes (starting from zero and increasing by 1 unit each time) like s, p, d, f, g, h, i, j, k, etc.

The problem is that we've only discovered 118 elements so far. We haven't got high enough in the ground state electron configurations to reach the g-orbital.

In nuclei, g, h, and i orbitals are easy to reach. The shell model even has a j-orbital at 168 protons or neutrons.

>Anything to do with energylevels?

Yes, it's completely to do with the energies of the orbitals. Particles fill the orbitals in order of increasing energy. Atomic electrons fill all of the lowest-energy orbitals before they ever reach a g-orbital.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does a brown paper become semi-transparent when saturated with oil but not when saturated with water?

I have some assumptions (like maybe oil fills in gaps between fiber where as water makes the fibers swell instead?) but Id like to know the answer and the details of why. Thank you!

[Assistant]
When liquids saturate paper, they fill tiny pockets of air inside of it. Those air pockets "exhaust" light quite efficiently (or more accurately, scattering occurs at the paper-air phase boundary, but that's above ELI5). Imagine cycling for 10 feet, then dismounting, walking 10 feet, mounting, cycling 10 feet, dismounting etc etc until you've travelled 100 feet. It will be much easier if you simply cycle 50 feet then walk 50 feet. The photon loses much less energy if it doesn't have to "mount" and "dismount" all the time, which is what the liquids in the paper allow by removing all those air pockets, leading to translucency when the photon makes it all the way through the paper.

As for water vs. Oil, they will both wet the paper, but only oil makes it go translucent, where water will just darken the patch. This is because oil has a similar refractive index to the paper, which means a smooth ride for the photons. Water has a refractive index quite different to paper, meaning you essentially have the same problem as the air pockets.

Furthermore, some brown papers have a waxy coating which would stop water wetting the paper, but would not stop oil from wetting it.


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

[User] ELI5: If a movie production has $5,000,000 (estimated) Budget, must some of that money go to the actors? or only movie's production quality?

[Assistant] It has to include equipment, pay for employees (all cast, crew, and extras), fees, *food* on larger productions, constryucting sets, making costume,s all of the makeup artists, set design, sound guy, camera guy, lighting guy, dozens of other specific jobs, and yes, the actors.


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

[User]
[Opinion] The fifth Harry Potter book is the best in the series. CMV

Up until recently, I hold the view that I'm pretty sure most Potter fans have; that The Order of the Phoenix is the worst book because it is so long and Harry is so angsty and unlikeable.

However, my friends presents a good argument of why OotP is the *best* book out of the seven. Here are his arguments:

1. The truth about the marauders. In the third book, we are presented with an idealized view of what James Potter and his friends were like, but now, with the Snape's Worst Memory chapter, we find out that Snape is *right* about Harry's father being arrogant. The implications of the whole "You're so much like your father" idea are completely flipped from positive to negative.

2. OotP also introduces the idea that not all characters are black/white, good/bad. Harry, with his childlike inexperience, theorizes to Sirius that Umbridge is a Death Eater, but Sirius explains to him that not all bad people are death eaters. Similarly, just because James Potter is a bully to Snape, it doesn't mean he's necessarily a bad person.

3. Harry is the villain, and this is really cool. This is the first time Harry is lashing out at Ron and Hermione, instead of Ron and Hermione bickering with each other, like in the third book. He foolishly and childishly leads Dumbledore's Army into the Department of Mysteries, forcing the Order to intervene and save them. When Sirius dies, it's *Harry's fault*. Harry is broken down as a character in OotP so that he can be rebuilt in HBP, with the tests Dumbledore gives him.

Overall, OotP is the book where previous conceptions are broken down, the kids' childlike wonder ends up biting them in the ass for the first time (in the Department of Mysteries), and the whole trope of Harry going on adventures and succeeding in the end in a climactic battle is over. OotP is the book where we find out Harry is not a kid anymore, so that HBP can turn them into adults which they need for DH.

[Assistant]
I personally think the Order of the Phoenix sets up the course of the events for the best book in the series, the Empire Strikes Back of the series, The Half Blood Prince.

Using your points (which are very good and poignant mind you) let's see how we are set up for this work.

> The truth about the marauders. In the third book, we are presented with an idealized view of what James Potter and his friends were like, but now, with the Snape's Worst Memory chapter, we find out that Snape is right about Harry's father being arrogant. The implications of the whole "You're so much like your father" idea are completely flipped from positive to negative.

Harry receives more truth in the sixth book about his life, the fact that the prophecy may not actually be about him. It might be in reference to Neville. We learn throughout the course of the books that Harry is the chosen one by chance. But, we start to question if he really is the chosen one. There are two individuals who have the same exact qualifications to be the one to defeat He Who Must Not Be Named. This is a huge deal, because if he's not the chosen one all of his sacrifices and all of what others sacrificed for him would have meant squat.

> OotP also introduces the idea that not all characters are black/white, good/bad. Harry, with his childlike inexperience, theorizes to Sirius that Umbridge is a Death Eater, but Sirius explains to him that not all bad people are death eaters. Similarly, just because James Potter is a bully to Snape, it doesn't mean he's necessarily a bad person.

It is in this book we truly get the depth of Snape's character, and close to the end of the book we're convinced, utterly convinced, that's he's a good guy. He had saved Harry time and again, he was in love with Harry's mother, the works. But, everything is turned on its head when the man we started to root for killed the person that Harry counted on the most, Dumbledore.

> Harry is the villain, and this is really cool. This is the first time Harry is lashing out at Ron and Hermione, instead of Ron and Hermione bickering with each other, like in the third book. He foolishly and childishly leads Dumbledore's Army into the Department of Mysteries, forcing the Order to intervene and save them. When Sirius dies, it's Harry's fault. Harry is broken down as a character in OotP so that he can be rebuilt in HBP, with the tests Dumbledore gives him.

Harry continues to act in a more villanous way in this book. He uses a spell that he doesn't know what it could do on another student, Draco. He nearly kills him as a result. It is here where we can see what Harry is willing to do to succeed, and that's an incredibly scary proposition.

But, there is a more important facet to book six which matters so much moreso.

- The bad guys win.


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

[User] If you are on the moon, does Earth appear to go through phases?

[Assistant]
Yes.

In fact, it will be the exact opposite of whatever phase the Moon is in as seen from Earth. So if it's a New Moon as seen from Earth, it will be a Full Earth as seen from the Moon; if the Moon is in a waxing crescent phase, Earth will be in a waning gibbous phase.


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

[User]
CMV: I think its wrong to hit someone for what they said no matter how bad it is

Ive seen multiple examples of people saying some really mean things to someone else and when the person retaliates and punches that person, people are typically on the side of the person who punched the mean guy. For example, there was a reporter who was trying to tell Buzz Aldrin that he hadnt gone to the moon so Buzz punched him and everyone Ive talked to and in the reddit comments seem to think that it was justified. There are also many examples in movies where the good guy will be sitting at a bar and a group of bullies will come over and start making fun of him and when the good guy gets offended he fights them and beats them up. I just dont think that there is any combination of words that would justify causing physical pain to someone else.

Edit:  I'm saying if there is nothing related to physical pain that they said then I don't think they deserve physical pain against them. So threats to do not count in relation to my post.

[Assistant]
Here's the thing.  In the cases that are celebrated, the bully is counting on the fact that the other person will sit there and take it.  They are subjecting their target to harassment because they think the target is powerless to stop them.

In the Aldrin video, Buzz tried to get away, but the jerk stayed in his face.

It's not "right" to hit them, perhaps, but it's more right than sitting there and being taunted by someone who believes you won't take action.

Why it's celebrated, is that we've all been in situations where we had to suck it up and be humiliated because of a power imbalance.  Take the stereotypical incompetent boss who knows he can't get fired because he's the owner's son, who berates his vastly more qualified peers.  But when the bully doesn't realize that the owner just lost his fortune and the new owner loves the target who wouldn't love to see he bully humiliated.

We like to see the underdog turn the tables on a bully - this is just another example of it.


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

[User]
[DC] How can I get someone powerful to kill me?

Today, I died in a car accident. One second I'm checking my emails on my phone, the next I'm 50 years younger, driving a fancy sports car with my old body jammed through the windshield. There was some screaming involved.

I wasn't punished for my death  apparently I walked right into traffic and I had zero chance to see me coming. But that stupid mistake revealed something amazing: I'm not just a weak old man anymore. I became the man who killed me. Young. Strong. It's intoxicating. I want so much more. I want to fly, to visit the stars, battle the titans, learn hidden secrets, all of the things the superheroes do.

So how do I get a first-rate super-person to kill me? Could be any hero, any villain, as long as their power is high. It can't be that hard, right? Ooh, I can't wait!

[Assistant]
I can't think of many Villains that are able to be easily reached out to/summoned, and most superheroes are pretty reluctant to kill...

You could probably go to Swamp Thing's swamp and start littering and screaming about how you won't stop destroying the Green until you're dead. Or similarly go to Slaughter Swamp and start yelling that "Solomon Grundy is a big stupid zombie."

Other than that, your best bet is probably to hang around Metropolis and run to the first sign of danger, or learn some rudimentary magic and sommon a demon of some sort.


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

[User]
[Elfen Lied] We discover very early on that high-power bullets can pierce Lucy's vectors. SO WHY DOES NO ONE USE THEM?

We see in the first two episodes that Lucy's vectors can stop smaller calibre bullets like pistol rounds. But when shot with a rifle they break through, or any heavy high velocity round as that mercenary bloke pointed out.

So. Why do the teams sent to eradicate her persist in using small calibre arms they know are ineffective?

[Assistant] Is not the caliber of the bullets that's actually kind of irrelevant against Lucy, the sniper rifle worked because she didn't know about it, she couldn't see the shooter so by the time she was aware of the bullet(if she even knew about it) it was too late, same method is used  by Kincaid to kill extremely powerful bad ass wizards in Dresden Files if you shoot them from far enough they cant defend against it.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does heavy rain come down in "sheets"?

Here in NC watching the rain come down from Florence (I'm safe), and I'm curious about what causes the wave-like pattern of alternating heavy and lighter rain that comes in semi-regular intervals of a few seconds or less apart. We've all seen this phenomenon, especially at night on concrete under artificial light, where they travel in very regular waves like ripples in a bathtub.

[Assistant]
The sheets of rain are following the pattern of the guessing wind.

As a gust passes through, it will move around the droplets of rain falling - blowing some ahead of it, and slowing down the fall of some by blowing them upwards into the air again. Once the first has passed the rain 'caught' by it will then all fall at once in a slightly heavier sheet.


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

[User]
[Marvel] Does Galactus have emotions?

Does Galactus have emotions? Does he/she/it feel happy? Anger? Lust for power or ambition? Or is he more of a being with simple need for sustainence?

[Assistant]
Yes, he does.

E.g., in Secret Wars, he was chosen to participate in the Secret Wars because of his great desire. What does he desire you ask? To be free of his hunger.

Another example is, when he stands there at the end of the universe, with Franklin Richards, they talk about loneliness. Galactus was always afraid to be alone in this moment. And Galactus is happy that there is another person that can be with him. It is quite touching.

Galactus regrets every single soul he devours, but he must do it, it is necessary. And because of that, he rarely shows these emotions to another being. He keeps them bottled deep inside him. It is his duty, till the end. And he will do it. No matter what.


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

[User]
ELI5: How can some buisnesses say they won't accept bills over a certain denomination?

I guess if it's your business you can do whatever the hell you want, but it's strange to think I can walk into a store and have that crisp $100 dollar bill in my wallet be completely worthless.

[Assistant]
If a company is willing to take large bills, they have to keep more cash on hand to make change, which means that they risk losing more money if there is a robbery.

Further, it's more common to see large bills being counterfeited than small bills.  By not accepting large bills, they reduce their risk of losing money to counterfeit bills.


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

[User] If humans achieve immortality, how would our brains cope with all the information over such a long lifespan.

[Assistant]
We already learn new things partially by over-riding associations between other memories/skills/information. That's one reason why we might "forget" something.

An important reason we are able to remember so much is memory consolidation. We form a network of associations between words, memories, etc. People don't store every single detail, only details that stand out, or are what neuroscientists call "salient" information. This allows us to re-create a memory from much less information than if we remembered everything in precise detail. When we try to remember, we re-create the story and make up a lot of the details based on our associations with that salient information.

There was a famous psychological experiment where participants read a story about a person driving up to an intersection. They were told that the driver saw a yield sign and stopped, looked both ways, then drove through the intersection. A while later,  participants were asked to evaluate whether statements about the story were true or false. One of them was "There there was a stop sign at the intersection." Turns out that virtually everyone "remembered" that there was a stop sign at the intersection.

If you rephrase the question and ask people "what was at the intersection?" they tend to either say they don't remember or that it was a yield sign. Simply posing the question as "There was a stop sign at the intersection" made people think of a stop sign, so when we try to remember we re-create the story with a stop sign in it.

Point being that we don't really even remember all that information to begin with, we just remember enough to make the rest of it up.


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

[User] ELI5: What exactly are the purple and green dots I see, after looking at a bright light too long? How can I still see them when I close my eyes?

[Assistant] Ophthalmic technician here. Those dots are called negative after-images. When you look at a light or image, that image is received by light sensors in the retina called rods and cones. The light sensors then pass the image to the brain. The reason you still see them is that after you have been looking at the light or image for about 60 seconds, the rods and cones begin to fatigue and when you look away or close your eyes, you are seeing the negative color or whatever object you were looking at.


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

[User]
[Marvel] Why fight Dr. Doom?

So it's been shown multiple times that Dr. Doom is what's best for humanity. Characters have seen the future and seen that only if Doom rules does humanity survive. The country he rules has no poor, no disease, no crime. So why do the heroes fight him so much?

[Assistant]
There's not much poverty, disease, or crime, but see how long you last if you say "Reed Richards did nothing wrong".

We know that Doom fully believes that about the future, but there are few absolutes in universes where the timestream is routinely played with.  The Panther God confirmed it after looking through many timelines, but 0-1 =/= 2 and all that.


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

[User]
ELI5: When your nose is congested, why does it get significantly harder to breath when sitting or laying down, but easier when standing up?

As the title says. This damn phenomenon has kept me up countless nights...

[Assistant] Most of the time when you are sick, the congestion is not from mucus and snot but instead inflamed and engorged tissue in the back of your nose. Laying flat increases the vascular pressure within these tissues, causing them to mechanically swell.