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

[User]
Why did the ISS crew wear breathing masks when entering the SpaceX module?

One of the astronauts wore a simple face mask, while the other one wore a proper respirator.

[Assistant]
A precautionary measure in case there was any dust, dirt, or other detritus floating in the air inside Dragon.  No matter how clean you try to keep the interior of a spacecraft, the activity associated with loading it with a bunch of assorted cargo inevitably leads to some foreign matter coming along for a ride.  Then, the shaking of launch and subsequent free-fall provide an environment where that dust/dirt/roach legs/whatever gets disturbed and floats free.

  The masks were a precaution in case this had occurred so the crew didn't breath in any contaminants. Fortunately, the air was quite clean.

  If you watched any video of the Space Shuttle cargo bay during the first day after a launch, you'd have seen this in action.  After the payload bay doors opened, there was always a lot of visible particles floating out, sometimes for days into the mission.


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

[User]
ELI5: How did Detroit become the undesirable city that it is now?

I heard it was like any other large cities back in early history. Why is it the only large city that turned out with the most crimes and negative stereotypes?

[Assistant]
The city was built and supported by the growing auto industry. In the 70's and 80's a lot of external factors (rising prices, competition, new labor laws etc) forced most of the car companies to change their business models/move somewhere else. This means a lot of the manufacturing plants in Detroit were shut down and all of a sudden you had a large percentage of the population unemployed with nowhere to go. The cities economy started to suffer and has never fully recovered back to the state it was in in it's glory days.

There's a lot more to it than that, people have written entire books on the decline of Detroit. There's a lot of socioeconomic analysis that can be put into it, but that's the basics.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why can the U.S.A. sustain such a large national dept/high percentage of deficit spending?

Yes, I understand that, unlike countries such as Greece and Spain, the U.S.A. economy is a force the whole world depends on. Even still, why do people place so much trust in the dollar even as such a large percent of our national budget is deficit spending?

[Assistant]
It's pretty simple - people trust that the USA will pay them back.  If people trust you'll pay them back, you can borrow basically anything you want.  In a small way, this is reflected by your own personal borrowing - the higher your credit score, the more people will let you borrow and at lower interest rates.  You can think of it like the US Government has a credit score of infinity.  It is considered pretty much *the* safest place to lend.  You can see evidence of this back when S&P lowered the "rating" of the US debt (lowered its credit score, basically).  People worldwide were scared, but that same day they loaned even MORE money to the US, simply because no matter what S&P said, it was still the safest place to put cash.

Now, yes, this means that the US has to exercise good stewardship of the money, and responsibly pay it back.  Because people will stop trusting it, if it doesn't pay, and then it won't be able to borrow as much.  The reality of the situation is that the US could, if it wanted, inflate its currency and thus reduce the amount it has to pay back.  So it's very unlikely to go entirely bankrupt.  But if it pulls this little trick, people will lose trust and the same effect will happen.

It's not going to last forever.  Countries like China are already pushing for an "international reserve currency" that's not dollars, so they don't have to trust the US.  We'll see what happens.


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

[User] [Filthy Frank] What is Pink Guy, is he human, is that pink layer skin, or a shell perhaps?

[Assistant]
There are two main theories as to his origins.

The first is that he is a member of a race known as "lycra people", who inhabit many of the realms frquented by frank. Members of this race would include red dick, the negis, and possibly chin chin.

The second is that Pink guy was originally a tumor on Frank that fell off and gained it's own agency.


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

[User]
ELI5: what's the point of Secret Service code names if they're released to the public?

It's common knowledge that Renegade is the president's code name. So, if you were to see a man talking about "Renegade" into an earpiece, you'd probably be able to figure out who they're talking about. Given that the names are released to the public, what's the point in using them, instead of just using the actual name, or an abbreviation like POTUS?

[Assistant]
A little bit security, but mostly brevity and clarity. In case of an emergency, if you're the Secret Service, you need to be able to refer to the protected individual clearly, unambiguously, and *quickly*. "POTUS" wouldn't always work, because they won't always be POTUS, even if it's POTUS you're assigned to (ex-POTUS will sometimes have Secret Service escorts as well). "Barack Obama" is too long. "Obama" is ambiguous; what if the sniper (or whatever) is targeting Michelle, who is also under Secret Service protection? "Barack" would work in this particular example, since there aren't currently a lot of Baracks hanging around, but "George" and "Bill" would have been too ambiguous when those guys were president; because *most* first names are reasonably common, they aren't in the habit of using that.

Calling him "Renegade" gives a quick, easy name that uniquely identifies him.


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

[User]
CMV: We should stop saying "Russia" and start saying "Putin."

"Russia says it is liberating Ukraine"
"Russia threatens nuclear war"
"Russia destroyed peace efforts"

I am seeing a lot about what Russia is doing lately, for fairly obvious reasons. However, as I understand it, the majority of Russians are not in favor of the current direction of the country. Moreover, none of them have the power to make, or halt, these decisions.

When people say "Russia" they really mean "Putin." Putin invaded Ukraine. Putin threatened nuclear war. Putin destroyed peace efforts. It's one dude with the power, and allowing him to hide behind "Russia" is shifting where the responsibility for these acts lie. We should be titling our posts and our news leaks with Putin because he specifically made the decisions, not the general public of Russia.

Pointing out that Putin was elected and therefore represents the will of the people is not going to change my  mind. He is still and individual giving individual orders, presidents are responsible for the effects of their decisions. We have no problem saying "Trump allowed Covid to get out of hand" or "Biden caused inflation" instead of "the US caused inflation."

[Assistant]
>He is still an individual giving individual orders

And there are still a lot of individual Russian soldiers following those orders. If it were truly Putin and only Putin, pretty sure the Ukrainians could shut down that one-crazy-man invasion very quickly.


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

[User]
Most people would rather have 1 dollar bill than 100 pennies. Shouldn't that mean that 1 dollar bill is more valuable than 100 pennies?

Title, honest question.

[Assistant] You're right. Because of this you could actually make revenue by gathering spare change that people don't care about by offering to convert their $1.05 into a $1.00 bill. In that instance they would be paying $.05 to you for convenience. Wouldn't be very profitable relative to your time though..


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

[User]
[Marvel/DC] Hulk with a Red Lantern ring

What would be the outcome if the Hulk somehow was to be chosen to wear a Red Lantern ring?  What would his power rating be?

[Assistant]
hard to say, the hulk form itself draws a great deal of power from mental rage, rage which is necessary to power the red ring.  Use of hulk strength could depower ring constructs and vice versa.

Either that or neither would detract from the power of the other, in which case you now have a flying energy blasting intergalactic problem instead of an earth based jumping punching one.


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

[User]
[Spider Man] Why the hell does Spiderman always hang upside down ?

I'm no doctor but the ammounts of blood rush he can get from that is kinda dangerous right ?

[Assistant]
Side effect of the spider DNA- that's how spiders hang from their web. A minor instinct that passed over as detritus along  with the strength and speed and so forth.

Luckily, Spiderman is superhumanly tough. He can cope  with the blood rush better then us.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is there a difference between when a screen is off and when it's showing a completely black screen? Logically you'd think they'd be the same, but obviously a black screen with the monitor on is slightly brighter.

[Assistant]
A typical LCD screen has a backlight. This is why the screen seems slighly illuminated, even though the actual pixels are black. Pixels just define the color and the backlight makes them visible. If your backlight was broken, you could hardly see anything on the screen.

The great difference comes with LED screen. In LED screens each pixel is an individual LED - a small lamp - which defines the color, but also the brightness and there is no separate backlight. This makes black appear much darker.


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

[User] Eli5: Why is it easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled?

[Assistant] Generally speaking it's because it's usually embarrassing to be fooled by someone and (usually) makes you feel like you're stupid. Most people aren't going to enjoy that and will deny they've been totally fooled.


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

[User] Does the saliva you swallow get "recycled"?

[Assistant]
It doesn't go right back to the salivary glands, if that's what you mean.

It does enter the digestive system where it's used for "components".  For example, the water content is absorbed as water, the mineral components can be absorbed as needed.  Essentially, swallowed saliva gets treated as food and is processed and digested.


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

[User]
CMV:People should feel free to brag about being altruistic, and we should encourage that behavior.

I often hear people complain that someone did something good just to make themselves look good. They claim they should do it and not tell anyone or it makes them a bad person. I object to this reasoning. People should be lauded for good deeds, regardless of their reasons. If you do something good for someone, it deserves to be bragged about. Imagine a world where everyone competed for who could do the best for others. I think that would make for a better world.

There are many examples of this. Bill Gates is an example. I've heard people complain that he is only trying to prevent malaria for his own glory. I think any reason he does that is a good reason.

I've heard people complain about the youtubers that give away cars and money to people in need. "If they want to be good, they shouldn't do it in front of the camera", is what I hear. They should be complaining about the people that waste money on themselves. There's nothing wrong with that either, but spending money on others is nicer than spending it on yourself.

If I help someone, I want everyone to know it. If I can't tell anyone, I'm less likely to put in effort to help others. I don't think that makes me a bad person.

[Assistant]
Socially and biologicaly humans tend to dislike those we find disingenuous. When a guy walks up to a homeless man with his camera already prerecording to "do a good deed", it strikes us as a vain attempt for attention as opposed to anything wholesome. Good people don't have to try and publicize their "goodness". People who genuinely care don't do it for the media attention.

When we see this we perceive it as a person pretending to care, which comes across as them trying to trick us, which causes distaste. Regardless of the overall outcome, until you solve that feeling of "fakeness", people can and will be justified in their dislike of a bad person pretending to be good.


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

[User] If I have two identical rare earth magnets and put them together, is the power of the combined magnets doubled? What about 3 or 4 magnets (tripled? quadrupled?)?

[Assistant]
yep : magnetic field oriented in the same direction adds their individual effects. it appears clearly if you think about permanent magnet as an arrow: axis of the arrow show you the direction of the field and imagine its lenght represents the strenght.
Arrows in same direction sum their own effect, and arrows in opposite direction will nullify the magnetic field.

keep in mind permanent magnets have a max strenght (related To their composition and production process) and magnetic effect lowers very quickly with the distance.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does someone get more attractive the more we like them?

[Assistant] Because attraction is based on a multitude of factors, not just initial visual appraisal.  Scent, touch, taste, the sound of their voice, the way they interact with you, their thoughts and beliefs..   these are just some of the things that contribute to perceived attractiveness.


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

[User]
[40K] Is there still any native wild life on Terra?

As side from incredibly hardy insects is there any wildlife on most Holy Terra?

[Assistant] I think we can safely assume that all complex lifeforms besides some insects and maybe rats are extinct. Even if some wildlife survived all the technowars.. Terra is covered in one super-city. Even for humans it's almost unbearable. Tho there are probably still a lot of cats and dogs on human-colonized worlds.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is the South Pole so much colder than the North Pole?

So, Antarctica is basically a horrific wasteland where it regularly reaches minus 70 degrees Celsius and where nothing can live except some penguins on the northern sealine. In contrast, the Arctic is pretty cold, at around minus 40. But 30 degrees is a massive difference, and they both get the same amount of sunlight.

So why is the coldest part of Antarctica so much colder than the coldest part of the Arctic?

[Assistant]
Being near water, even cold-ass water, moderates your temperature a bit.  Cities next to the ocean usually don't get ultra-hot summers or ultra-cold winters.  In the desert, with no water to smooth things out, you broil all day and freeze all night.

The north pole is actually over the Arctic Ocean; when you're standing there you're standing on ice with 0^(o)C water underneath.  But the south pole is in the middle of a continent, a couple thousand miles from water.  Makes a difference.


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

[User]
Why does holding ice over salt on your skin cause a burn?

I remember doing this as a child out of curiosity, but what causes the burn?

[Assistant] Salt lowers the freezing point of water.  Normally when you put ice on your skin, it stays at 32F, since when something is changing state it stays at the temp until all of it has changed.  When you put salt on it, the water can get way colder than 32F, meaning you can get a "burn" though when you say burn you really mean damage from the cold.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] What would happen if a regular guy lived, trained and meditated in a Force Nexus?

Let's say that a non force-sensitive guy lived since childhood, in what is basically a very strong Force Nexus (either Light or Dark). This guy also have an interest in the "old legends" of his home, and out of curiosity practices all the rituals, trainings and techniques of the ancient order of people that lived there (unknowingly practicing either Jedi or Sith training). He trains, meditates and study right in the middle of a Force Nexus, which is a place where the force is incredibly strong.

If this guy was born without a particularly strong connection to the force (being a non-sensitive), would he gain anything by training in such a place?

[Assistant] Nothing. At best, he'd turn into something like Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen's character) - he still can't use the Force, but with intense effort of will and belief, he can feel it in glimpses, like grains of sand blowing across his palm.


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

[User]
Why did my paper get reviewed by five reviewers?

The usual number of reviewers in my field is 1-3. However, my latest submission got five reviewers. I only received the comments of four reviewers so I guess one of the reviews was of unacceptable quality but four reviewers is still a lot.

The outcome was a major revision with all four reviewers stating that it's a good paper but lacking measurements of type [fancy method for which I don't have equipment].

Any guesses why the editor would like to have so many reviews that essentially all say the same?

[Assistant]
Could be that the review you didn't see was number three, and when the editor got it they panicked and contacted several people for emergency reviews, and ended up with two extra.

Or they were drunk. Could be anything really.


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

[User]
CMV: Trump saying that certain countries Haiti, El Salvador and some parts of Africa as Shithole is not wrong.

I am from a third world country which maybe a bit better in terms of development compared Haiti and some African nations. If Trump had mentioned my country instead of Haiti I would genuinely not be pissed. I would know it is a fact, because my country is a shithole. Why would a president of a country want to welcome immigrants with red carpet from my country which is a shithole is something i cannot understand. Trump did not make a formal statement, he has made it as a internal comment which is not completely inaccurate observation.

I am posting this with no intent to trigger or troll anyone, I feel the outrage seems to be unwarranted.

[Assistant] The statement can be correct *and* it could still be wrong for him to say it because he's The President. He should have conveyed his sentiments with different language. It could have been said a number of other ways that wouldn't have changed his opinion but that would also not hurt the way our allies view us.


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

[User]
If I want to study the syntax and semantics of programming languages like how linguists study the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which textbooks should I read?

If I want to study the syntax and semantics of programming languages like how linguists study the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which textbooks should I read?

[Assistant]
- Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Michael Sipser

This contains the basics of theory about computability, which is directly tied to the syntax of languages. It's necessary to understand at least the different types of grammars before moving on to semantics.

- Types and Programming Languages by Benjamin C. Pierce
- Semantics With Applications: An Appetizer by Nielson and Nielson.

These are both good introductory books to the theory behind programming language semantics and types.


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

[User]
LI5: Why does the pubic region have darker skin than the rest of the body when it is the most shielded skin area from the Sun?

Is it just because of heat?

[Assistant] Because Long ago before we wore clothing the sun was hitting all parts of our body. And considering that the skin on the genitals is thinner And because of it's importance to mating "You can have a child with skin cancer on your arm but probably not if it's on your genitals" It needs more protection.


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

[User] ELI5: why does the Lockheed C-130 Hercules still use propellers instead of jet engines?

[Assistant]
There's a number of factors that lead to the decision to use a turboprop engine over a turbofan engine (your typical jet engine).

-Shorter take-offs. Turboprops perform better at short take-off and landings, which increases the versatility of the vehicle. Turboprops can handle lower air speeds better, thus the plane doesn't have as great a risk of stalling when taking off at lower speeds. The Hercules is a military transport so landing in sub-optimal airstrips is a very likely possibility.

-Fuel Efficiency. At sub-sonic speeds, turboprops have a higher fuel efficiency compared to turbofans. A comparison between similarly sized passenger aircrafts found that the turboprop burned about 2/3 the fueld per passenger compared to the turbofan. The Hercules is required to fly long distances so fuel-efficiency is key.

-Operating conditions. Turbofans offer two major features over turboprops - supersonic speeds, and a high operating ceiling. Turbofans (jet engines) can potentially fly faster and higher than a turboprop plane can. These two features, however, are not necessary for the Hercules. It cannot fly at super-sonic speeds with heavy payloads, and it can already achieve a 33,000ft operating ceiling.


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

[User] ELI5:Why has Raspberry Pi become so successful? Is it useful for everyone or just tech freaks?

[Assistant] The Raspberry Pi is cheap and comes with all its parts already assembled. It's an amazing thing to teach with because you don't risk bricking anything else, and it's great for small projects because you don't have to run them on a computer or laptop. You can just have a Pi sitting in the corner, running the project.


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

[User] Eli5: Caffeine has almost no calories, but seems to give us a burst of energy on its own. Where does the body get this energy from? Is caffeine forcing the body to use stored fat?

[Assistant]
Caffeine works in two ways to make you feel that way.

First it prevents the brain from telling you that you are tired. You can think of your brain as a bunch of locked boxes with different things inside of them. Some of these boxes have things that make you happy, others make you sad. Some have things that tell you it is time to go to sleep. Caffeine jams itself into the lock on the sleepy time box so that your brain can't open it. That keeps you from feeling tired.

Caffeine also can help open the box that tells your body to go into extra energy mode. Things like your heart can work faster or slower depending on what you need. If you are sitting on the couch watching TV it's going to go slower, if you are outside working it's going to speed up. Caffeine tricks the body into thinking it needs to go into extra energy mode. Caffine doesn't create this energy, the body is just using what it has stored more quickly. Not really any different from you step on the gas in a car. You are telling it to burn more fuel and go faster.


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

[User]
CMV: High school should prepare students to become responsible adults, rather than focusing on college prep

I realize this has probably been done to death, but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Also, a couple of disclaimers. I'm coming from a US perspective, so I apologize if any terms or concepts don't correlate to other cultures. And, I graduated from high school ten years ago, so it could be that high school curriculum has changed since then.

I understand why schools focus so much on college prep. In the US, college is treated as a requirement, despite the fact that a huge number of people never get a college degree. So many jobs that pay a living wage have the luxury to require a bachelor's degree due to the sheer number of applicants, even when the position really doesn't require any advanced education. They can afford to be picky, if only to reduce the applicants to a manageable number. So parents know that for their child to achieve a financially comfortable life, they need to get a college degree. Parents vote for educational leaders who will implement policies aligned with that goal.

And when I say college prep, I'm talking about the more specialized classes we take in high school, like chemistry, biology, college algebra, and basically all the AP courses. Of course all of those teach valuable skills that apply to multiple areas in life; I'm not trying to say that these classes aren't valuable. Consider biology for example. There are many aspects of biology that are relevant to the average citizen, things like overall health awareness, understanding common medical procedures like vaccines, how diseases work and how they spread. The only reason I remember dissecting frogs is because I hated it, and I didn't really learn anything meaningful from it other than the haunting image of what a dissected frog looks like. I suppose you could say it helped me understand how life forms in general work, like how things have organs and blood vessels and system and such. I just find myself questioning the importance of knowledge like that, when there are other things I needed to know that were not taught to me.

When I think back to when I graduated high school ten years ago, I realize that I knew basically nothing about how to be a functioning member of society. School taught me about all of these advanced, college-level topics, but I didn't know a single goddamn thing about the following:

* That I had to pay taxes. I'm serious. I didn't pay my 2012 taxes because I didn't know I was supposed to. (I was part time minimum wage so don't worry, I don't think the IRS cares. It would have been a refund anyway, so technically I saved the government money)
* How to calculate my tax bracket. I had to learn this myself when I was self employed in 2016, and I ended up miscalculating and was $3k short in my self-withheld tax savings. I also didn't know that self employment tax had to be paid quarterly rather than annually, so I had to pay a nice fee for that.
* How to send a letter. My first landlord actually taught me because that's how he wanted me to send rent checks.
* How to budget effectively. I spent my first few years of employment paycheck to paycheck, sometimes being completely out of money days before my next paycheck, when I could have been saving money if I had a budget.
* How to maximize my savings, things like tax-advantaged accounts, investing, stocks
* How to build and maintain good credit
* How to build a resume. I actually learned this in my last year of college, everyone in the class had no idea.
* How to apply for jobs effectively, tailoring the resume and application to the position, nailing the interview, etc.
* How to get involved with the local community, townhall meetings, council meetings, boards and commissions, nextdoor, local news, etc.
* The importance of being politically involved and voting in both local and federal elections. I voted for the first time in 2018, before that I just never cared about politics because I didn't keep up with the news at all.
* Almost anything related to the law other than really simple things like don't attack people, or driving laws (which I didn't learn in school, technically). I didn't know anything about labor laws, local codes and ordinances, residential laws, my rights when interacting with the police, etc.
* How the government works, which branches are responsible for what, which elected official have the power to make what changes, etc.
* Almost everything related to the home. Maintaining the systems and foundation, utilities, how and when to buy a house, etc.

I don't think I'm the only one who graduated high school without the above knowledge. But now, as a 28 year old adult, I don't know how I could function without knowing those things. How could we expect any 18 year old to become a productive member of society without this knowledge? The only reason I made it is because I had a lot of privilege. Between my supportive parents, friends, other mentors, and the internet, I managed to learn everything I needed to know, but I often had to endure hardships because I didn't know these things when I needed to. In fact, if not for my somewhat natural talent with computers, I don't think I would have been able to learn what I needed to know before it became a very big problem.

Many people who support the current curriculum believe that it is the parents' responsibility to teach what I listed above. I will say my parents taught me a lot of important things that allowed me to learn what I needed to learn. For example, how to use computers and the Internet effectively, that was hugely important for me. But I guess for me, I just don't think it's right to expect certain things like paying taxes and being politically involved without making sure that the federal education curriculum teaches those skills. Just look at how many young adults end up in prison or homeless because they just don't know how to do basic things like maintain a budget, get a job, communicate effectively, and so on. These people end up being a drain on society whereas they could be meaningful contributors. I felt cheated when I got out of high school and realized I didn't know any of the things I was expected to know. Again, I don't think things like biology aren't important, but what does it say about my education when I remember that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, but I don't know anything about paying taxes? It just feels like we've got the priorities reversed.

There are other things I think high school should teach based on what seem to be many shortcomings of current adults. The most important one, in my opinion, is how to research and evaluate sources effectively. I learned a little bit of this in high school, mainly that wikipedia doesn't count as a proper source for research papers, but college taught me so much more. Things like how to identify bias, how to evaluate research methods, red flags like spotting whether or not an article lists any sources, or if those sources are credible, diversifying information sources, being aware of my own biases and not only agreeing with titles that agree with my preconceived notion.

Literally just think about that for a second. How many people read a title that agrees with their bias and just assume it's true? How many people read or hear something very charismatically delivered and assume that they must be telling the truth? This is why there's such a prevalence of conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and so on. If we all understood the basics of fact checking and how to evaluate credible sources, these things would almost certainly disappear. We would immediately have a better educated society. We would start to see presidential candidates based on merit rather than popularity. This is one of those things that I genuinely think could solve a tremendous number of problems all by itself.

High school is supposed to prepare children to become responsible adults. I think rather than hoping that parents should teach life skills and government mandated responsibilities, the school system that our taxes pay for should give us at least the bare minimum of knowledge to do everything an adult is expected to do. Ideally other life skills like finances and job preparedness should also be taught, and for those who intend to pursue a career that requires higher education, they should have the option to include college prep courses. I don't think someone should be allowed to graduate high school without being taught how to do what is expected of them in adulthood.

Edit: Many have made the point that the aforementioned content would likely add at most a semester of material, but probably even less than that. As such, I no longer think this content should *replace* college prep, but rather it should simply be included. I do still believe that some of the more specialized courses such as higher level math, sciences, and so on should be electives for those who intend to pursue relevant fields, especially if the additions I'm proposing could not be added seamlessly.

Edit 2: Here's what I have learned or changed my view on so far:

* I should have clarified that I spend all of my grade school years in private school rather than public school. It's entirely possible that private schools may not be held to the same expectations about their curriculum as public schools, so my experience may not match what those who went to public school experienced.
* Some of these things I did learn in school, such as the structure of government. I honestly just misspoke there, because what I meant to describe was that I didn't really understand how I was supposed to interact with the government. Same thing with taxes, of course I understood the overall idea of taxes, but I didn't understand what I needed to do specifically. I knew that a portion of my income had to go to the government, but I wasn't taught that I needed to report it. So when my first job explained that my taxes were automatically withheld, I assumed I didn't have to worry about it. It wasn't until the next year that someone explained to me that I needed to file. As for interacting with the government, I knew about the branches of government, but I didn't understand that we voted for more than just the president.
* I agree with many who have said that this information in total would likely not require a substantial change to the curriculum, maybe just some added courses at the most. As such, if I could I would revise the title such that these concepts were taught *in addition* to college prep rather than *replacing* college prep.
* I would concede that perhaps rather than even a single course, with the prevalence of technology and the Internet, it may be optimal to impart this information in a concise, easily digestible collection of digital resources. Maybe just brief documents or infographics reminding upcoming graduates of what tasks they will be expected to perform as adults, and other information they can refer to rather than just being tossed in the pool and told to swim. With the Internet, they could easily look up the details when needed.

Edit 3: Some final reflections. I originally intended to reply to every comment, but there are far too many responses at this point for me to even try that.

In retrospect, I regret using "rather than" in the title. I think it created an unnecessary focus on defending specialized subjects. The reality is that I enjoyed nearly all of the advanced courses I took. I should have been more careful with my wording, because honestly the true feeling I had was that these life skills should be considered more of a requirement than they are.

Many people brought up courses like civics and home economics, which my school didn't offer, not even as electives. However, I seem to be in the minority with that experience. Even so, it doesn't change my belief that those courses should be required, not electives.

Despite what some have assumed/implied about me in this thread, I'm actually a pretty smart person. I was very successful in both high school and college, and now in my career. I had a 3.9 in high school IIRC. Somewhat embarrassingly a 3.1 in college, but that was mainly because I figured out what career I wanted to pursue, and it didn't require higher education, so I lost the motivation to keep my grades up in the last two years. I was one of the only people to make an A in calculus II, for whatever that's worth.

I should have been more clear in the original post about my understanding of taxes and writing letters. Many people thought that I didn't have any awareness of taxes at all, and of course that's not the case. I feel like this became a point many people dwelled on rather than spending time on other points. And many pointed out that letters were taught in elementary school, but I genuinely don't remember learning it, and I just never needed to send any letters growing up. I set up my first email account in 1999 when I was 7 years old, so I sent most of my messages via email rather than sending letters.

To be fair, some of the issues like sending letters are really not that big of a deal. It was honestly a bad example, I was just trying to be thorough and got carried away. And I definitely did learn about the structure of the federal government in school, maybe also state government, but I don't recall learning anything about county or local governments.

There seemed to be a fundamental debate underneath all of this in the form of what schools and parents ought to teach respectively. I didn't expect how divided many of the opinions would be on this issue, but I feel that the arguments were very instructive and meaningful.

I think many people oversimplified the issue by saying that all of these things could be figured out in a google search or youtube video. Of course that's true, but if you don't know it's required of you, you won't know to look it up until you're already in trouble. Some brought up that these moments of messing up and then doing the research are part of learning in the real world, and I suppose I can't really dispute that. I just don't think it's unreasonable to give students some easily digestible information for the common things they'll likely need to know as adults, and if I had been given that information, it would have saved me a lot of trouble.

Many brought up that high school students won't care or listen anyway. I mean sure, but those students aren't paying attention in other classes either, yet we still require those. We can't force students to pay attention, but we can at least make sure the information is made available to them.

Overall, this thread has been very interesting. I've got a lot to think about for sure.

[Assistant] I was personally taught many of the things you list but it's not very effective. You're teaching a child the rote steps to a procedure in the hopes that will use it multiple years later and remember how to do it. The likelihood is that they won't and will just google "how to address a letter" when they need to use it. The goal of teaching more abstract concepts, like biology, is so that students develop an intuition about the underlying systems. They don't need to remember the specific facts about the parts of a cell to remember that the human body has a highly advanced system for filtering and removing waste so that expensive juice cleanse that "removes the toxins from the body" is likely bullshit.


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

[User]
Depictions of atomic nuclei often show distinct and individual protons and neutrons, is this accurate?

The model Ive seen most often shows protons and neutrons packed together in the nucleus like marbles. Is it correct to say that while in a nucleus, protons and neutrons maintain their distinct properties (size, shape, mass, etc.)? Or would a better model be akin to smushing/mixing together balls of Play-Doh?

Or put another way, do subatomic particles experience collision/volume like mass at a macroscopic scale (or does another force provide a similar property)? My understanding is that collision as we experience it is a result of electromagnetic forces.

[Assistant]
> Is it correct to say that while in a nucleus, protons and neutrons maintain their distinct properties (size, shape, mass, etc.)?

That is a good approximation. You can describe nuclei as collection of protons and neutrons occupying states in potential wells which are given by the overall distribution itself. This leads to a volume that's roughly proportional to the number of nucleons.


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

[User]
ELI5 Wall Street Crash of 1929

So, while doing some personal research on the Great Depression, I realized that I can't wrap my head about the Wall Street crash. Especially since I don't know a think about economics, stocks and such. So explain to me like I am 5 the Crash fo 1929?

Thanks.

EDIT: Thank you all so much for explaining!

[Assistant]
You have money. And you want to invest them in stocks. You do, and stocks do well, so you sell them to get your money back plus some more.

Rise and repeat.

Now what happens when you take a bank loan. And use that money to invest in stocks. Because you think that you can invest money you don't really have, do well, make a profit and pay the bank back while keeping the extra for yourself.

What happens when hundreds of thousands of people do that?

The market gets flooded with money that doesn't exist. There was no actual backing to it. And what happens when stocks don't do well. People couldn't pay the banks back.

How do banks do loans? Well they borrow other people's money to give to one person. When that person pays back the bank, that money goes back to the original owners. Because at one time, people just have their money sit in the bank. And so the bank makes a profit by lending out other people's money because they know they'll get it back. (Either by having people pay back the loan or foreclosing on their houses and selling the house...and stuff like that) And it becomes a cycle of borrowing.

So, now the bank has given out too many loans to people who invested their non-existent money to make a profit that didn't happen.

And you think "why doesn't the bank foreclose on houses and repossess those people's things."
They could but it would have been pointless.
Houses and cars had to be repossessed by the companies that had sold them on credit. Except the companies did not want them because there warehouses were already full with brand new appliances and cars ready to be sold. The loan agencies did not want the houses because they had no one to sell them to.

People tried to take their money out of the bank when the stock market crashed but found that there was barely any money in there. It was all loaned out. And those loans were sucked up by bad investments.

So everyone ended up poor. And poor people can't buy new or used things. So the cycle continued as factories and stores shut down because nobody was buying their products. Nobody was investing in them.


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

[User]
[Indiana Jones] Can you steal the fake Holy Grails?

Is it possible to steal the fake golden cups from the cave to sell? Im aware that the Holy Grail is priceless, but there are tons of other golden cups with embedded jewels which I doubt are cheap. Could you take all the other cups besides the Holy Grail and sell for lots of money?

[Assistant] It's entirely possible that the same trap that activates if the real grail is taken would activate if any of the fake grails are taken. Alternatively, it's also possible that the other grails are just brass or copper with pieces of glass embedded in them. It would fit with the theme of the fancy, extravagant grails being fake.


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

[User]
Eli5 Why can't we have transparent metal?

I'm guessing that the crystalline structure scatters the light. Polymers are semi crystalline and also scatter light, but we have amorphous polymers that are transparent. Why can't we have something similar with metals?

[Assistant] Metals are full of free electrons which have electric fields that reflect the incoming photons/electromagnetic radiation. So metals are not transparent to light for the same reason they are conductive to electricity and heat.


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

[User]
Do plants "sleep" at night when there's no sunlight to fuel their activities?

I know they store fuel and nutrition within them, but if they are still "active" at night using those, what kinds of activities do they do? Are daytimes and summers significantly more active for plants than nighttime and winters?

[Assistant]
Kind of. Obviously they don't sleep, since sleeping is a neurological process. However, plants do have circadian rhythms and photoperiodic processes that are synchronized to light/dark cycles and temperature cycles.

One major classification of plants is based on their photorespiration cycles. There are three types of plants based on their photorespiration processesC3,C4,CAM. CAM plants (cacti,succulents etc) separate their photosynthesis and respiration processes in a light dependent manner. During the day, CAM plants don't respirate. They close their stomatas (little openings that allow air in and out) and only use CO2 that is stored in the leaves. During the night, they open their stomatas and allow gas transfer for respiration and CO2 fixation.

C3 and C4 plants also have day/night processes, though less extreme. Some plants will open and close their leaves along this cycle, others fruit and produce flowers along this cycle.  Disturbing the cycle (turning lights on at night, randomizing light cycles etc) can cause plants to not flower and not fruit (depending on the plant).

So: Sleep? no.. photoperiodic processes? Yes.


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

[User]
[General SciFi] Aquatic aliens

So I have been thinking and it seems reasonable to say that an aquatic or semi-aquatic species would have an easier time traveling in space and such because they can just pressurize water in their ships. Also they're used to not really having an up.
What do you guys think?

[Assistant]
Aquatic species have a massive number of hurdles to overcome before they can even try to build a spaceship.

Living underwater means no fire, this means...

- No ability to keep yourself warm in cold environments, this means that their expansion on their own planet would be limited to warm environments. This would limit population growth and access to raw materials.

- Being unable to cook food limits your potential food sources. We rely on a massive number of foods that are toxic or inedible in their uncooked state (e.g. potatoes). Cooking breaks down complex chemicals into a more digestible form. The ability to cook food allows greater expansion into areas where your traditional food sources are not available. Not being able to cook food restricts the food supply, in turn limiting population growth, and geographic growth into areas where raw edible food cannot be grown, again limiting access to raw materials.

If the human race did not have fire, most of Europe, Canada, the Northern States of America, Russia, Siberia, Alaska and Northern China would all be uninhabitable and our diet would be restricted to fruits, fresh meat, lettuce and whatever other vegetables you can eat raw. Without foods like potatoes or corn, agriculture, and in turn, our population density would be limited, preventing the formation of large cities, required to form the kind of society that creates scientific knowledge.

No fire also means...

- No ability to smelt metal. Some metals like Gold can be found in their raw form, but most require smelting from ore. The inability to smelt means no Bronze Age, no Iron Age. The best tools they'd be able to make would be stone, they'd literally be stuck in the Stone Age forever.

Should they somehow get past that, living underwater poses a number of other problems when trying to develop "science".

- Most early chemistry was learned by mixing liquids together, or placing a solid in a liquid and measuring the results. That's simply impossible to do underwater. Trying to perform a chemical reaction when the entire environment is a solvent will produce no worthwhile results.

- Trying to learn about electricity while underwater would be equally pointless. Before you can start building batteries and transistors, you need to understand what electric charge is, what a conductor is, what an insulator is. Water conducts electricity, any charge that is built up will be instantly dissipated, making it near impossible to study. Even if you could somehow build a battery underwater (see above about trying to make sulfuric acid and lead plates) the charge would be conducted by the environment, causing it go flat incredibly quickly. No electricity means no electronics, no computers..

Should they somehow overcome all these problems and develop a society on a par with 20th Century humans, a spaceship full of water weighs massively more than a spaceship mostly filled with air. The Apollo Lunar Ascent module weighed 4,500 kg. Filling it with water would add another 7000 kg to that (plus additional fuel to carry the extra weight, additional weight for reinforced structure).

Manned spaceflight, even just orbital flights, would be unattainable for them using rocket technology.

TL:DR An aquatic species would have a hard time ever making it past the stone age.


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

[User] How can receipt paper be able to leave a "pencil like mark" when you score it with your nail?

[Assistant] A lot of receipt printers use thermal paper, which show marks with heat. The heat from friction between your nail and the paper could be doing it. Try putting a lighter near the receipt sometimeif its using thermal paper, it will leave a mark from the heat.


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

[User]
[Wheel of Time] Why don't the Whitecloaks use the most foolproof way to ferret out their prey?

In episode 2 of the Wheel of Time show, a "Questioner" stopped Moiraine and (ostensibly) suspected that a woman and an armed man could possibly be Aes Sedai. Why don't they just demand that every woman/man combination they meet simply lie?

"Just one thing before you proceed. Please state, directly, 'my clothing is yellow'. Just that sentence and you're free to go."

An Aes Sedai would not be able to repeat a blatant falsehood, would they?

[Assistant]
>"Just one thing before you proceed. Please state, directly, 'my clothing is yellow'. Just that sentence and you're free to go."

If Moiraine complies, is she lying?  She's not necessarily saying that his clothing is actually yellow, she's following a command.  If she can convince herself that she's following a command and not telling her own view, she maybe can say it.  Also, what IS yellow?  Is it a color?  White is all colors, so in a way, his clothing IS yellow, it's just every other color too.

Aes Sedai have millennia of experience saying one thing but meaning another.  White Cloaks know this, so they wouldn't trust any simple test.


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

[User]
"Stop trying!"

So I'm looking for this Philosophy. I've heard about it on several occasions. I even have experienced this in my life. But I don't know what this idea or Philosophy is called.

The idea behind this is this: we might think that the more effort we put in, the more we get out of life. Like as in productivity, discipline or getting stuffs done. But this is mostly wrong. Great things happens when we actually quit trying.

Do you have any insights on this one? I'm looking for resources where I can read more about this Philosophy.

[Assistant] In Taoism there's a concept called *Wu Wei*, which literally translates to something like "non-action" or "actionless action". The basic idea is that, as the universe is flowing ever onwards, trying to carve out your own path by determined force (going against the flow, as it were) is a futile endeavour; rather, you'll have more success going with the flow of things, and thus harnessing the full power of that flow behind your actions. On a metaphorical level, it's the difference between rowing yourself to exhaustion and sailing effortlessly on the wind.


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

[User] [LoZ Majora's Mask] Why does the moon have a face, and why is it so terrifying?

[Assistant]
It wasn't the real moon, judging by the fact that one of the circus folk mentions "a really scary red-eyed moon" as if it weren't what the moon is supposed to look like. It was actually moon-like monster being summoned by the mask.

As for why it's so terrifying, that's because the mask frequently goes out of its way to inspire panic and despair. Naturally it would summon the scariest looking moon it could muster.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it that not wearing a seat belt is unsafe and illegal, yet most (U.S.) school buses aren't even equipped with them?

[Assistant]
School busses are designed in a compartmentalized fashion, that is the seats are close together with high backs, which keeps passengers relatively restrained in a crash, even without seatbelts. The NHTSA has spent a fortune studying this, and has found that adding seatbelts doesn't increase the safety of school busses enough to warrant a full refurbishment or re-design of busses.

School busses also have a much lower center of gravity, so in a crash with a normal vehicle, the passengers are much higher up, and less likely to be affected by any damage. Of course, this doesn't take into account rollovers of busses, which is thankfully pretty rare, also because of the design.

You also have to take into account to the young age of children who are on the bus. Enforcing the seatbelts would be impractical, but even worse, many younger children may struggle to get themselves out of the belt in the rare event of a serious crash, meaning they are unable to escape through an emergency exit without additional help.

There is only an average of 6-10 deaths of school children in school busses each year, and while that's tragic, it would be impossible to get that number to 0, even with seat belts. Statistically, school busses are 70% safer than a car in terms of getting your child to/from school, and full-size busses are literally the safest vehicles on the road.

It should be mentioned that smaller busses do have, and are supposed to require, seatbelt use in most places in the US.


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

[User] If a person dies in the Matrix, their bodies as power sources shut down, right? Why wasn't Smith able to complete shut it down through his cloning?

[Assistant]
Smith's aspirations extended far beyond shutting the Matrix down. His primary goal was oddly similar to most of the humans he was fighting: freedom from the vicious cycle and life he had been forced to lead. He hated being an agent because it forced him to come into contact with humans, which disgusted him. But he also hated his fellow machines because they couldn't see the world the way he did and they would never allow him to break free.

He wanted to destroy them both and he wanted to prove he was superior to all of them. But most of all, he wanted to prove he was **right**. The destruction of everything, human and machine, was inevitable. The sins of the past HAD to catch up to both of them eventually, and he was going to do it. There was no such thing as free will and the ability to choose, just cold inevitability. Overtaking the Matrix was the first part, and would indeed lead to the death of every human connected. His other plans involved the real world, like destroying almost every ship in Zion's fleet so they'd be mostly defenseless against the machines. I'd argue his plans with all the clones was to eventually shut them down and kill every connected human at the same time. He was probably ignorant of the fact the machines would survive such a thing (as the architect said, "there are levels of survival"), but he wanted to wait a bit longer until the time was right, like after defeating Neo and proving his point about the folly of choice.


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

[User] [MCU] Would the people of asgard use the bifrost to go on holidays or visit other realms or was it only reserved for the royals and warriors for wars and political dealings?

[Assistant]
The latter. We never see it used recreationally.

However, if you're on good terms with Heimdal, you could *probably* convince him to let you use it. His job is to protect Asgard, not prevent anyone from using the Bifrost.


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

[User] ELI5: If a musical note is a certain frequency. Then Why does the same note sound different on different instruments?

[Assistant] Overtones. Every note is made up of multiple related frequencies. Different instruments playing an A4 would be playing the same frequency A, but each would have slightly different overtones that make them sound different.


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

[User]
Why is the Congo River so deep?

I just read that the Congo River is, like, 220m deep. The Nile apparently is only about 8 to 11 m deep on average. And it is double the Amazon's 100m.

I mean 220m is basically the depth of Lake Huron. Motherfucker is *DEEP*.

But ... why?

[Assistant]
Well the short answer from the quoted paper where that measurement came from

 "The channel is more like a high-gradient mountain stream with a very
large discharge; which is consistent with the theory that a short mountain river eroded
through the divide and reached Malebo Pool, forming the present Lower Congo
River. "

This is the location where that measurement came from.

However reading the rest of it, this is an anomalous depth and the majority of the river co forms to more normal standards and is around 10 to 80m on average.


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

[User]
How do astronauts keep their helmets from fogging up?

I remember my dad asking that when Apollo 11 came out when I was a kid, and now I still don't have a definite answer.

[Assistant] The box on the back of the suit isn't just air supply. It's called the personal life support system and it constantly circulates air through the suit, regulating gas content, temperature and humidity. It's essentially a portable HVAC system. The constant circulation removes excess humidity that could cause fogging.


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

[User] When and why did a 5 day work week become the norm?

[Assistant]
It stems from the 8 hour work day campaigns in the middle of the 1800s. 8 hours of rest, 8 hours of work, 8 hours of relaxation. These were fought for by the unions. The when and why also depends on the country in question.

May Day or international workers day celebrates the fight for the 8 hour work day, it is also the martyrs of Haymarket in Chicago that were fighting for the 8 hour work day.

The why is cause workers were working 10-16 hour work days 6 days a week, never having the time that their bosses had to enjoy time with family and have fun. Most of the 8 hour day enforcement came from the laws passed during the great depression and rise of labor unions at the same time to demand it and enforce it. Even though the US never enjoyed anything higher than 36% of the workforce being unionized, they unions had a powerful seat at the table from the 1940s to the 1960s instituting the 8 hour day nearly across the board, with exceptions of industries they did not have legal protection organize, i.e. agriculture and domestic workers.

Sources for the above information
Murolo, P. (2001). From the folks who brought you the weekend: a short, illustrated history of labor in the United States. New York: New Press ;Distributed by W.W. Norton.

Lichtenstein, N. (2003). State of the union: a century of American labor. Princeton, N.J.; Woodstock: Princeton University Press.

Yates, M. (1998). Why Unions Matter. New York: Monthly Review Press.


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

[User]
ELI5: If our heart muscles never "get tired" even if they're working hard, why aren't the rest of our muscles the same way?

I would imagine it would be a pretty good thing if we never tired out, even if it meant we weren't quite as strong, or had to compromise elsewhere.

So why aren't ALL our muscles the same way as the ones in our heart, where they'll just keep working without aches, power loss or even all-out cramps and failure when they're working hard?

Also, I do understand that even heart muscles can break down, e.g. in a heart attack, but we never get "heart cramps" even if we exercise all our other muscles to their limits and our heart is still working normally.

[Assistant]
Your heart muscle cells have sacrificed everything else to be good at this one task.  They can work tirelessly day after day because theyre completely gutted, removing any sort of repair or nutrition storage capacity in exchange for huge concentrations of mitochondria to drive them.  They dont replicate themselves at any useful rate and may only divide once in your lifetime.

For a cell thats planning to be literally in your heart and first in line for all nutrition delivery and encased in a bony armored shell this is fine.

For skeletal muscle far from the heart and more exposed to injury its not so good.  Storage and repair capabilities are necessary out there on the front lines, as is the ability to instantaneously apply enormous peak power rather than a more continuous pulse.


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

[User] [Star Trek] Tell me more about this "post-atomic horror" society that Q re-enacted.

[Assistant]
It was apparently localized to only certain areas of the world that were slower in redeveloping after WWIII. For instance, Q's society was based on one from the year 2079, whereas First Contact had already happened by 2063.

Montana seemed like a fine place after the war and during First Contact (in 2063). Wherever Q's court was, it was in a part of the world that was very isolated and possibly didn't receive news of First Contact until many years later. Given the nature of the court and it's appearance, it was possible the court was in the far east (The Eastern Coalition) and that they had purposely isolated themselves from the rest of the world (like North Korea.)


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

[User]
Why is the Local Interstellar Cloud (still) so hot?

According to Wikipedia "[...] The cloud has a temperature of about 6,000 K,[2] about the same temperature as the surface of the Sun. However, its specific heat capacity is very low as it is not very dense, with 0.3 atoms per cubic centimeter [...]

1. How come it's so hot?
2. How does it stay that hot considering the small density and the matter being surrounded by cold vacuum?
3. Is our solar system "swimming like an ice cube" through the cloud?

[Assistant]
1.  Don't confuse heat with energy.  Heat is simply the speed at which molecules are moving - the gas molecules are zipping around in the cloud at a pretty good clip, thus it is hot - but the actual energy density is very small.

2.  It's not despite the vacuum, but rather because of it.  There is no convective cooling in a vacuum, leaving emissive cooling as the only method in play.  There's simply nowhere for the energy to go.

3.  Swimming like an ice cube...I haven't heard that one before.  Our solar system is a mostly empty vacuum and what does not exist is not interacting with the cloud.  Large masses (planets, stars, etc) will collect the matter that becomes trapped in their gravity wells a bit like a cosmic vacuum cleaner (there's a pun in there somewhere) but other than that, the intersections of the cloud's matter and the solar system's matter are relatively minimal.


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

[User] [MCU] How was the time stone in Agamotto's hands in the first place?

[Assistant] We see at the end of GotG2 that there is at least one alien who uses the same magic as Doctor Strange. Presumably, Agamatto used his sling ring to travel to different planets and teach magic to various different species and societies. After all, three Sanctums on Earth hardly seem like they'd be able to protect the whole universe by themselves; they're probably just vital parts of a larger network of Sanctums spanning the universe. Agamotto probably found the Time Stone during these travels.


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

[User]
[General Fantasy] If forced to pick one, what is the best magic school to learn and why?

Pyromancy? Telekinesis? Biomancy? when given the choice between all the schools of magic which would be the best to pick and for what reason?

[Assistant]
generally white magic. transmogrification and restoration.

if you are looking to put a hole in someone then a gun is faster, cheaper and easier. every aspiring wizard grows up wanting to throw fireballs and lightning about. being able to pick up the pieces after is something that few people bother to learn but when you need it done for you can't live without.

even rule 23 of the rules of acquisition states that "nothing is more important then your health... except your money"

also no one fucks with the white mage. i can't tell you how many dungeons, museums, tombs, dragon dens and bandit camps i've just strolled through while battle starved murder hobo's ran around hacking anything that so much as looked at me funny, and after they haul it back to town for me give me first dibs on the spellcasty goodies.


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

[User] ELI5: Where are all the "B" batteries?

[Assistant]
There was...it was about as long as a D-cell, and a little bit fatter than a AA.

There weren't different enough to find a niche, and didn't catch on like other batteries.  They became hard to find because there weren't a lot of devices that took them, and they stopped making device that took them because their were hard to find.

They were briefly popular in Europe for use in bicycle lamps.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why in Australia is Liberal deemed right-wing, when in America it means the opposite?

It makes watching American politics on youtube that tiny bit harder.

[Assistant]
To understand this a brief history of liberalism and conservatism is needed.

Liberals emerged in opposition to the European monarchies and favored individual liberty. As liberalism evolved, they became divided on how to best pursue liberty. Initially, liberals generally sought freedom from government coercion. Other liberals argued that the least well-off needed to be helped by the state to truly obtain liberty. The division is basically between how much the government should intervene into the economy with classical liberals on the more free market side and social liberals on the more state-welfare side.

Due to this history, a lot of European "liberal" parties are rather centrist. The US is strange because the libertarians and conservatives (pre-Trump) were actually pretty close to classical liberals. The social liberals are more like the moderate Democrats.

Plus, the far left parties in Europe have strong communist and socialist influences that are absent in the US. Also, the conservative parties were the "Church and State" people that defended the monarchies. The US also didn't have that same dynamic. And of course, the US always has to be unique so we call anyone on the left "liberals" and those on the right are conservative. So the Aussies probably have things labeled correctly and it's the US that's making things difficult.

Related - The right and the left is not the same in every country. For instance a labor party might be center-right in country A, but center-left in another country B even if they have the same positions because country A and B are ideologically different as a whole.


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

[User] ELI5: How was 8 hours/day determined to be a regular work day?

[Assistant]
It was actually fought for. The amount of time spent at work was one of the major themes of labour/union movement struggles in europe and NA, starting in the early 1800's. The industrial revolution brought with it 12 and 16 hour days in factories, and once people started organizing, this was challenged.

One of the most successful movements was the "Eight Hour" and "Nine Hour" Movements in the mid 1800's to early 1900's, and the results of their successes helped grow a new standard of 8 hours. Strikes and riots were originally the tools used to make change (for example, the Haymarket massacre in Chicago and general strike on Philadelphia), but laws enforcing hours were either ineffective or non-existent. The normalizing of the 8-hour day (at least in NA) increased over the late 1800's to early 1900's in the form of various legislation, political campaign promises and some industries taking the lead (most notably Ford).  Arguably the standard was near universal by the time of the US depression in the 1930's, when the "New Deal" was implemented to provide more regulation of labour and a safety net for workers.

Although the 8 hour standard continued ever since, there are still problems to overcome, and efforts to improve to even lower hours. A significant problem is that, since the late 1970's, there has been a rise of precarious and part time work. Often workers in these jobs must work more than one job to earn a living, and as a result can often find themselves working more than 8 hours a day.

There have also been efforts to reduce the workweek, most notably in Europe, to 35 or 30 hours per week. Although these experiments have surely been a goal of labour movements, there has also been interest form a policy perspective and some employers have experimented with the idea (Sweden in particular).


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

[User]
Why can't we create a machine that converts CO2 into O2?

 Or is there already one (how does it work)??

So plants are able to convert CO2 into O2. So why can't we mimic this process in a synthetic manner. Create some machine / device that is capable of doing the same thing. If we had something like this that was efficient enough, wouldn't colonizing a moon or planet be feasible from the breathing aspect?? Or is the process too complicated like the functioning of the human brain to the extent where we don't fully understand it or are capable of replicating?

[Assistant]
> So plants are able to convert CO2 into O2. So why can't we mimic this process in a synthetic manner.

Well, first, we should clarify that O2 is not ripped apart from CO2 when plants do photosynthesis. The O2 comes from water splitting.

Getting CO2 to react is a hot topic in catalysis right now. The short story is that CO2 is exceptionally difficult to activate. You have to pump a lot of energy into the CO2 molecule just to get it to start reacting with anything.

We know that photosynthetic plants do something very similar to your CO2 to O2 idea. Plants have no problem with using sunlight, water, and CO2 to make oxygen and carbon-containing molecules such as carbohydrates.

We don't understand fully how plants successfully use CO2 as a chemical feedstock under rather *mild* reaction conditions. In an industrial setting, reactions under very pressures and temperatures are the norm. So all sorts of ideas inspired by photosynthesis are being explored precisely because we know it can be done "better" in nature. We are discovering surprises everyday -- nature is very clever about how it harnesses energy from sunlight to make photosynthesis work.


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

[User]
[Breaking Bad] When did Gus learn about Heisenberg

Saul introduced them but it can be assumed Gus would take note of a new producer selling high quality product on his territory. When is Heisenbergs existence first brought to his attention.

[Assistant] To hazard a guess, during Walt's dealings with Tuco. Gus had a prior relationship with the Salamancas, so when Tuco's crew started showing up on the scene with higher quality meth than usual, Gus knew something was up. From there he'd probably have Mike do some investigating to discover the source.


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

[User] ELI5: What is happening in the brain when I just 'zone out' of a conversation with someone and get a glazed look over my face?

[Assistant]
I am not a specialist on this topic, but there may be a reason behind in a form of brain focus. Your brain never perceives everything in once, otherwise it would get overwhelmed and would not be able to process either signal properly (i.e. not being able to make sense out of anything seen, heard, felt, etc.). This means it has to filter some elements out, those which the brain deems "not important".

This is particularly useful when, for example, walking on a street. You don't pay such an attention to that small fresh bubble-gum on the sidewalk, you notice small text much less often, etc.

As it seems your brain just sometimes feels the conversation is not that important and indulges your mind into thinking about something else. Imagine talking to someone about his car, suddenly your brain shifts your mind into thinking about your car insurance, which is going to expire soon ... and bam! You have zoned out.

Either that would explain it, or you may have a problem with concentration (maybe a mild form of ADHD, that is).


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

[User] Why does ice crack when added to warmer liquids?

[Assistant]
It is brittle.

The outside expands / contracts more than the inside.

Often, ice has areas of gas / impurities trapped in the middle of a cube / chunk.  This would weaken the structure, making it more fragile.


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

[User] ELI5:How do films and shows make people appear on fire without causing injury?

[Assistant]
If you ever visit one of the Universal Studios parks, they demonstrate this technique as part of their special effects/stunt shows.  It's a little surreal watching a guy literally on fire 10 feet in front of you, but they explain a lot of the methods used to make it safe.

Basically, the stuntpeople are wearing as much heavy, fire-resistant clothing as possible for the scene and cover every bit of exposed skin in a protective jelly.  They use a fuel with a very low burn point so that they can burn at a temperature that won't hurt them, and they hold their breath during the stunt so that they aren't inhaling any fire.  And there's a team of assistants with fire extinguishers on standby, keeping an eye on everything.

Once all that is covered, a trained stuntperson can handle 10-20 seconds of burning without any ill effects.  They'll have a safety signal (like a raised hand or something) that means "extinguish me RIGHT NOW," but otherwise, they'll just do the few seconds of action needed for the scene and be immediately extinguished as soon as the director yells "cut."  It's a very realistic effect and is often way cheaper than paying a team of digital artists to render a good-looking flaming person.


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

[User]
[The Truman Show] why didn;t they have several unknowing actors in Seahaven?

multiple people were put up for adoption, and it seems like they'd be running a lower risk of escape, while allowing several programs to run simultaneously for about the same mount of money.

[Assistant]
A couple of reasons:

1. The Truman Show didn't start out in Seahaven. Obviously in the modern era we think of it as being set there, but in the early years it was entirely within one house, with video camera technology that by modern standards is quite crude. It was only after The Truman Show had been running for a few years and proven a hit that the Seahaven "set" was built.

2. Running several programs simultaneously would dilute the brand and reflect poorly on the property. The Truman Show is funded through advertisement, and it's on 24 hours a day. Making a spin-off of some kind would split the viewers and make advertising dollars slow down.

3. Having the whole town be exclusive to Truman allows for a lot of localized effects that simply wouldn't be possible to do with multiple people at once. With just Truman, the sun can be positioned to frame him just right, it can rain for dramatic effect, etc. But with two or more people in play, this would get cumbersome. Furthermore, it would be difficult to control simultaneous story beats.


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

[User] ELI5: What is the difference between the United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and how do they relate to each other?

[Assistant]
As you may know, Congress is the legislative branch of government, and passes laws, in the form of acts of Congress. The executive branch is charged with carrying out those laws. To carry out a law, it must be interpreted; executive agencies publish their interpretation of the law, and what people must do to to follow the law to that agency's satisfaction, in the form of regulations. The power of federal law is limited by the Constitution, but the power of regulations is normally limited to the statute that the agency claims authority under, so the latter is much narrower.

The United States Code was compiled as a way to more easily understand the current state of federal law. Before codification, if you wanted to know the law, you had to look up the specific act of Congress *and* every later act that amended the original. The U.S. Code is ordered by subject and amendments are incorporated into the text, so it's much easier to use.

The Code of Federal Regulations follows the same concept, but for federal regulations instead of law. Instead of going to the *Federal Register* to see what every agency has officially announced on a subject, and then trying to determine the current state of regulations, you can more easily look it up in the CFR.


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

[User]
How do you measure humidity?

I always hear on the news that today has 75% humidity or whatever, but I have no idea how it is calculated. First thing that came to my mind was that the percentage represented the percentage of H2O relative to air, but that doesn't seem right. I imagine that if something is by volume 75% H2O(g), and the other 25% is air, it would be a lot worse than what I feel outside. Anyone care to enlighten me? Thanks :).

[Assistant]
Typically the "humidity" reported is a type of humidity referred to as relative humidity - this is a measure of how much water vapour is present in the air compared to what the air could hold before it became saturated (100% humidity). When air saturates you get cloud or fog (its a little more complicated than that, but essentially).

Hot air can hold a lot more moisture than cold air, so 98% humidity in say 30C/86F feels much more uncomfortable than 98% humidity in 10C/66F. Above 36C/97F the air is almost impossible to saturate...

Another type of humidity is called absolute humidity, which is the amount of water present compared with the volume of dry air (dry air is made up of a number of things, mainly nitrogen, and oxygen, and a small amount of carbon dioxide, argon and other trace gases), but I've never really seen this used.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does everyone hate New Jersey?

[Assistant]
People tend to think New Jersey is essentially all South New York, East Philadelphia, and Jersey Shore. All of these places have a reputation for harboring obnoxious assholes.

Driving in New Jersey is quite a bit more aggressive than in other parts of the country- passing on the right and on the shoulder, using the horn liberally, driving 90 mph on the turnpike. If you live there, it's normal, but to visitors it's intimidating.

Newark is disgusting. It's a fact. Camden is also one of the worst cities in the country.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do spam ads bother allowing you to close them?

No matter how annoying, they always have an "X" to allow you to close them.

Since they are spamming anyway, why not go all the way and not allow you to close them at all?

Is there some kind of law they are following?

[Assistant]
By giving you an X to find they ensure that you engage with them on some level, hopefully ramming some aspect of their content into your consciousness.

Another issue is that by giving you a method of avoiding them they hopefully keep you from searching out a way to get rid of them entirely such as ad blocking software.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Since Yoda stated that if he used the dark side he would be unstoppable, does this mean the light side is weaker than the dark side?

[Assistant]
The light side is not weaker per se... but it is more restricted to how it's used.

When you dont live by any rules or guidelines, the limits to what you allow yourself to do are expanded.

\-

Give someone a gun, and only allow them to shoot at paper targets with it.

Give someone else the exact same gun, but dont give them any restrictions what they can shoot.   Same gun, same power... but it can all of a sudden do a lot more damage when the person using it doesnt need to hold back.


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

[User] ELI5: What is actually going on in the brain to make people feel bad in uncomfortable social situations and how do these responses develop?

[Assistant]
We have a part of our brain which is designed to keep us safe. This automatically makes us want to run away if we might get hurt in a dangerous situation, or to stand up for yourself if you can fight. This is very helpful to keep us alive, however there can be some social situations (when we are around other people) where this part of the brain gets a little bit activated, making us want to get away, or we get nervous jitters or we want to lash out in defence. The brain is getting you ready to run or fight, if needed. That happens often when we interpret the situation to be very uncomfortable or awkward, as well as when we think the other person(s) are very important compared to your self-worth or there is something the other person(s) are doing that is dominating, aggressive or sexually undesirable.

These reactions develop based on the way the situation "occurs" to you. There are some people who it mentally occurs for them that they are in a threatening situation in most social situations (so the fight or flight reaction activates) yet with other people the exact same social situation occurs as something they can easily handle, so the reaction does not activate in the brain.

The idea of "feeling bad" which OP asked about is our interpretation of what we are experiencing in the nervous system as well as mental judgements about our own value/social status/self-worth.


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

[User]
ELI5 how does burning a cd/dvd work?

So I know that sounds like Im gen z and just dont know what Im doing but no Ive done it before I just dont understand how it works like how does the content get on to the disk and how is that played?

[Assistant]
Music is stored digitally, meaning it is represented as long sequence of 0's and 1's.

DVD has shiny surface, and a laser literally burns non-shiny dots onto it, in very specific spots. Dot is 1, spot without a dot is 0 (or maybe it's the other way around).

For playback, a a single-pixel camera reads 0's and 1's, then software turns them into music. camera needs light, and that comes from a weaker laser.

Dots are arranged in circles around the disk, and disk spins while camera stays still. Or rather camera moves between the center of the disk and its edge, so it can read different circles. This requires a very high precision, but computers are good at it.


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

[User] [Jumanji] When Alan Parrish came out of Jumanji after 26 years, why is he dressed in plants and other crude materials? As we see later in the sequel, there are Jumanji inhabitants with normal clothing.

[Assistant] The curse of Jumanji updates itself with the times in order to lure in players. In the 70's, the African wild in pop culture would be massive jungles with zero civilization presence. In the 90's, video game Africa would always have a civilization hub where players can receive missions/quests.


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

[User]
I sometimes see a chicken egg with two yolks inside. If the egg were to be fertilized, would the two yolks result in twin baby chicks?

Exactly what the title says! I know commercial chicken eggs are not fertilized (at least not on purpose!) so the yolks could never become chicks. Would double yolks even appear in a fertilized chicken egg?

[Assistant] Chicken farmer here. Even if the egg could produce two chicks it's likely one or both would be born with problems. Just raising normal chicks I've seen that if they are positioned wrong within the egg while developing they have trouble walking and standing and sometimes just can't get off their back if they were positioned wrong during development. This is why we need to rotate the eggs during incubation.


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

[User] ELI5: How do night vision goggles work?

[Assistant]
There are several ways:

* Infrared: There are electronics that can see "color" lower than red. As things and beings radiate those colors as heat, you can use it to see in the dark. Also, as infrared is invisible to the human eye those night vision devices can be enhanced with a "infrared flashlight". It works like with normal light, just in an invisible part of the spectrum that then is shown to you in a visible one. Heat vision and "infrared just below the red" are actually two different beasts, but for this scope here saying "light below your visibility" is sufficeient.

* Enhancement of the existing light. For example electronics that are more sensible than your eyes and that light is then enhanced. But what you usually mean is expalined by mainman879, photons hit a place in a vacuum tube, those cause a shower of electrons which fall on a plate that gets flourescent in those places and that you can see.


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

[User]
ELI5: What's happening when I "sing" in my head?

I find that I can play songs in my head, and that it feels like I can hear music (or even my voice singing along) even though I know there's not really sound.

[Assistant]
Ok like your 5.....

Your brain is made up of lots of different parts, one that sees things, one that listens to things, one that feels things and all sorts of other things.

All these parts have memory, when you hear something its remembered in the same part, and when you remember something it plays with the same bits that heard it in the first place. Since the process of remembering and hearing use the same parts of the brain. It feels the same to you.

-------------------------------------------------
ELI25

Memory is in the synapses (the strength of the connection between neurons). When one neuron fires it may or may-not cause another to fire (depending on the strength of your memory). The synapses that hold memory are the same synapses that were used in the first place to hear the music. If your memory of a song is good enough then something could trigger a small pattern of neurons which could propagate across the synapses with strong memory causing a sensation of hearing music.

The reason this dosent sound exactly like real music (you can tell the difference between actual sounds and the stuff in your head) is because many more neurons will be involved in the process of listening to sounds than the remembering of sounds.


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

[User]
ELI5: What were Japan's motives in WW2

What were Japan's ultimate goals had they won WW2?

[Assistant] Japan wanted to conquer massive areas in Asia and create a Japanese empire. This was partially due to Japan's need of resources as it lacks them in mainland Japan (due to their geography). The other reason is Japanese imperialism as they always wanted to create a massive Japanese empire. Mind you that this is a very basic explanation for a topic that comes from the history of Japan and its conflicts.


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

[User] ELI5: When looking at a flame, what exactly is the orange part? How does flame work?

[Assistant] Everyday combustion, like burning a candle, involves carbon and other chemicals in the combustible material reacting with oxygen in the air. This reaction is exothermic, meaning that it gives off thermal energy, or heat. Given enough heat, electrons in the atoms off the gas start to become excited, ie they reach a higher energy level. This arrangement is unstable, and the electrons will collapse back to their previous energy level, and in doing so they will release their excess energy as electromagnetic radiation. The wavelength of this radiation is determined by what you're burning and how much energy the combustion released, but for everyday materials like wood and candlewax, the wavelengths will be long enough to produce visible yellow, orange and red light as well as infrared light, which you can feel as heat when you get close to the flame.


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

[User]
How exactly is God an explanation for contingent things?

I cannot make any sense of the idea that God (a purely actual, necessary being) is the ultimate cause of all contingent things.  People who say this will hold to some PSR where any state of affairs that obtains must have a sufficient reason and (if we go down the chain of contingency far enough) that reason is ultimately always God.

But contingent things change and God doesnt. So Im left wondering how is God an explanation for the change of these things? God is currently just being God and I am alive. Sometime in the future, God will continue being God in exactly the same way yet I will be dead. So what ultimately happened that caused my contingent state of affair to change? This sort of causality where God causes one state of affairs at one point and then a different state of affairs at a different point, while being literally exactly the same in all ways at both points, makes no sense to me at all. And I certainly dont see how it could count as a sufficient reason for the change that takes place.

[Assistant]
> This sort of causality where God causes one state of affairs at one point and then a different state of affairs at a different point, while being literally exactly the same in all ways at both points, makes no sense to me at all.

If you think this, then you're in good company with lots of theists who think that God is the explanatory cause but also think that God is *timeless*.  That is, it's not quite right to say God is doing something at time [x] and then something at time [y].  This makes it sound like time is passing for God, but if God is timeless, then this is all wrong.


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

[User] Why does tilt shift make things look like models?

[Assistant]
This is because when viewing things from a very close distance the depth of field (the part of the scene that is in focus) is very narrow.

When you use a tilt-shift lens one of the effects you can produce is a very narrow depth of field even if the scene is very large. This tricks your brain into thinking that what you are looking at is actually very small and close to your eyes.


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

[User]
[WH40k] Could Imperial vessels travel unhindered in the warp after leaving the Milky Way due to the absence of emotional disturbance?

The warp is said to be as chaotic and demon filled as it is as the manifestation of sentient emotions. Doesn't it seem that due to this the space between galaxies would be an area of relatively calm warp activity? Would Imperial vessels be able to warp relatively efficiently between the fringes of galaxies on probing missions?

[Assistant]
The deepest depths of the Warp don't work that way. The Realm of Chaos, the deepest pit of the Warp, is absolutely everything and everywhere. It is entirely a-spatial and a-temporal. All time and space exists within a single point, so all the manifestations of emotion, from everywhere in the universe, for all of time, exist together. Spatial and temporal relevance increases as you get closer to real-space, but in the Realm of Chaos there is no empty space. In all likleyhood, psychic manifestations from other galaxies coexist there alongside the Chaos Gods of the Milky Way, but are imperceptible to mortals from our own galaxy.

Now... if you're operating closer to the 'surface' then yes, it is technically possible. The lack of surface activity makes it harder for daemons and other warp-entities to manifest in low-population areas, of which intergalactic space would be a grand example. The problem is, this psychic activity is a core part of navigating Warp-Space. Navigators and other psykers are able to sense the psychic echo of living things and use it to create a frame of reference for their current location. For the Imperium, the massive beacon of the Astronicon serves as a constant point of reference around which the minor echoes of other worlds can be charted.

Without that, they would have no idea where they were, if they had gone 100 light years or a 1000. Navigating the intergalactic void would be like letting a blind man steer your ship.


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

[User]
Why are planets treated as if they have all of their mass at the center?

I've read why g is constant, partly because r in the law of universal gravitation is constant, and I think I remember it is constant because you use the radius from the earth's center. I was wondering, why is it true that you think of all of their mass being at the center?

[Assistant]
It's a mathematical consequence of Gauss's Law. If the planet is assumed perfectly spherical (i.e., has a mass density that depends only on the distance from the center), then the gravitational field is entirely radial. That is, the gravitational field always points in a radial direction (either inward or outward) and depends only on the distance from the center of the mass.

The field strength at some distance *r* is dependent only on the mass enclosed by a sphere of radius *r* with the same center as the mass. So for a perfectly spherical mass, the gravitational field *outside* the mass behaves as if it were the field of a point particle with the same mass, but located at the center of the planet.

The field *inside* the planet is not simply the field of a point particle, and depends crucially on the interior radial density. For instance, if the planet has some hollow core (possibly the entire planet is just a hollow shell), then the field is 0 inside the hollow core. If the planet has a uniform density, then the field inside points radially outward and the field strength grows linearly from 0 at the center to its max value at the surface.


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

[User]
[DC] I'm a moderately powerful super villain hanging out at the same bar as the Joker. I could easily kill him before he had any chance to react. What if any consequences would I realistically face?

Say I'm a telekinetic who could rip his head off from across the room. Afterwards I would put a barrier around his body in case he was rigged to explode or release Joker gas. Would he have contingencies for this?

I'm not trying to make a name for myself, it's not a power grab, and I don't want to be seen as a hero. I just know he's a danger to anyone at any time and I don't think he should be allowed to exist. How would others react to this?

[Assistant] That's not Joker. That's your best friend, disguised as Joker and brainwashed, put there on purpose so that you'll murder him, go crazy from the guilt and embark upon a psychotic telekinetic murder spree.


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

[User]
(WH40k) Where do you think mankind would be if the emperor never existed?

If the earths human psykers hadn't gotten together and been reborn as the emperor where do you think humanity how do you think things would have gone for humanity?  Obviously they wouldn't be the power they are now but would they be a smaller but still fairly prominent faction like the Tau or a small all but forgotten faction that was long ago wiped out?

[Assistant] Humanity would have fallen to chaos, and the remains of the empire of the dark age of technology would be just a smaller, weaker version of the eldar, probably with inferior technology to the current imperium.