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

[User] [Harry Potter] If magic suddenly ceased to work in the world where would that leave the wizarding community and how might they adjust to the new paradigm?

[Assistant]
Grief Counseling Services Contractor here!

What you're suggesting here would be tantamount to us muggles losing electricity. Their entire civilization is founded on the principles of magic. Many fundamental services and goods are rooted in magic (think transportation, communication, construction, protection, banking). On top of that, wizards that are not directly connected to the muggle world tend to have very little knowledge of it. With that in mind, we would basically see the wizarding world split into two primary factions: those who can integrate and those who cannot.

The people who can integrate comfortably with muggle society will be mostly fine. Many of them already hold muggle jobs, or are at least educated enough to survive. Expat wizards higher up in muggle society (government officials and the like) will be able help their family, friends, and close acquaintances with the integration process, minimizing the impact on their lives as much as possible. It would take a number of years, but by the second or third generation, these folks will be fully integrated and will not feel the sting of loss.

The other side will have a much, much harder time. They've lost their way of life. Some will suicide at the prospect of having such a radical shift in their lifestyle. Some will actually go insane. Some will try to cling to their old lives and die. Some are in dangerous places that were otherwise protected by magic, or that they could easily magic themselves away from, and they will also die. There will be riots, and others will be killed or hurt.

Those who survive the initial hellstorm have a difficult prospect in front of them. Try to merge with a society they never had any interest in being a part of (and may hold in contempt), or cling desperately to the old ways. Again, many of these wizards have no marketable skills outside of wizarding society. What does the world need with a Floo Network inspector? Or a wandmaker? Or even a seamstress?

The most hardcore base will struggle to find and fix the missing magic. Your question seems to preclude that possibility, so we assume they spend years and years, become a secret society as membership dwindles from people losing faith, and eventually most of the old ways will be lost as their knowledge turns into legend.


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

[User]
CMV: Writing is more persuasive when we vocalise it (say it out loud) first.

A curse on business and academic writing is the Myth of Professionalism.This is the belief that to sound like we know what were talking about we have to use formal, abstract, high-register language, ie long, fancy words derived from Latin and Greek (think construct instead of build, depart vs leave, request vs ask). High-register language is solemn, emotionless and soulless. I think it makes writing sound more drone than human; it alienates readers and kills personality.

Instead, I think any piece of persuasive writing has more impact (ie clearer, more readable and livelier) when you vocalise what youre trying to say and use that as your first draft.

There are three reasons I think vocalisation works:

1.  Because we use normal, mid-register language (aka plain English) when we vocalise, as opposed to formal, fancy language, it makes us sound more human and more approachable. So it helps tone of voice.

2.  For the same reason, it helps us clarify our message; we immediately know when something sounds clear and when it doesnt. It makes our writing clearer.

3.  Mid-register language has more emotional energy than high-register language. It gives our writing more energy.

Change my view.

[Assistant]
Interesting topic. A couple of clarifying questions, if you will?

1) How about a non-native speaker, who has learned most of their vocabulary and diction from books and movies (rendering it vastly different from what you refer to as "mid-register language")? Can they not be as persuasive, even if their writing is clear and concise?

2) Why do you think vocalization would be the solution, and not something different, e.g. a diagram of interconnected ideas, a list of bullet-points?

3) Why would "more (emotional) energy" make the text more persuasive? Wouldn't the text then constitute an appeal to emotion more than an appeal to logic? What if the concepts being communicated rely on logic more than emotion? Should you not make the text fit the idea, rather than the other way around?


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

[User]
ELI5: The Boltzmann Brain

I've read a bit about it but I still don't quite understand. Is a Boltzmann brain a consciousness that just randomly forms in the vacuum of the universe? This question stems from a Wikipedia page, about the timeline of future events, and trillions of years from now is around the estimated time that a Boltzmann brain will form.

[Assistant]
The "Boltzmann brain" isn't really *anything.* It's a thought experiment in thermodynamics created to explore an interesting and complex question.

Thermodynamics is basically the study of heat and the flow of heat. Heat is a property of matter it's got to do with energy on very small scales but it *behaves* like it's a kind of fluid, moving from place to place across gradients the way water flows downhill. Since literally *all work in the universe* is a function of the flow of heat, a lot of work's been done on the subject of thermodynamics to better understand just how heat behaves.

One of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics is the idea of *equilibrium.* This is the notion that *differences* in heat will, over time, tend to "even out." When you drop an ice cube into a glass of water, you create a thermodynamic system with a significant heat gradient in it. Heat will flow out of the water and into the ice cube, melting it, and eventually the entire glass will reach a uniform temperature.

One of the interesting conclusions of the idea of thermodynamic equilibrium is that while it's *possible* for a system in equilibrium to move into a non-equilibrium state, it's so *vastly improbable* that you can safely assume it'll never happen. There's no physical law that says one spot in your glass of water can't spontaneously get cold and freeze into an ice cube. But it's so incredibly unlikely that you could watch a glass of water for infinite time and never see an ice cube form.

And yet we exist. We, hugely complicated and structured collections of matter, exist in nature. We're *here,* when the laws of thermodynamics seem to imply that we shouldn't be here. Our emergence would seem, at first glance, to be even more improbable than an ice cube spontaneously forming in a glass of tap water.

Ludwig Boltzmann was one of the great thermodynamicists. But even he was perplexed by the existence of seemingly thermodynamically impossible things like human beings. He proposed an idea to get around the apparent impossibility of our existence: Maybe we *are* just ice cubes that formed spontaneously. After all, as we said before, there's no physical law that says ice cubes can't form in glasses of water. It's just *really improbable* that they should. But in an infinite universe, isn't it possible for the vastly improbable to happen? Since there's nothing *preventing it,* then it in fact *can* occur, and the fact that it did isn't itself a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. We're only surprised to find that we exist because, well, *we're the ones who are noticing we exist.* If "we" were somehow disembodied minds observing the cosmos at a larger scale, the fact that there's a tiny, completely insignificant thermal fluctuation in this one invisibly small spot doesn't seem all that surprising, or even particularly interesting.

There's a problem with that idea, though. If it's possible for *us* to have emerged in the universe in the way that we did as complex biological organisms that evolved greater complexity in a steady process taking place over millions of years  then it's also possible for a conscious, thinking being to just emerge *spontaneously* out of, for instance, a glass of water. Boltzmann advanced the idea that, thermodynamically speaking, in fact it's *vastly more probable* that a thinking being should emerge spontaneously out of thermodynamic equilibrium than what happened with us. So if we exist, then the universe should, mathematically speaking, be *packed wall to wall* with these spontaneously emerging "brains."

Except it isn't. And that, to Boltzmann, looked like a paradox. If a vastly improbable thing happened once, then why didn't a *much more probable* thing happen proportionally more frequently?

Boltzmann never resolved that problem to his own satisfaction. But he also died more than a century ago, before the advancement of biological science gave us the insight we have today into how natural selection works. The short version is that natural selection *amplifies the improbable.* Because organisms reproduce, and pass on their traits as they do, an improbable thing only has to happen *once* for it to be amplified and distributed through an environment. Over a long enough timeline, *tiny* changes give rise to vast complexity. It ends up *looking like* something hugely improbable happened, but in fact what happened is that over a very long span of time, a long series of only *slightly* improbable things happened. Those many slightly improbable things added up to what appears to be a highly ordered system, but which in fact is just the product of a gradual process of emergence over time.

Basically, it's like the idea of flipping a quarter and getting ten heads in a row. The odds of that happening are quite small just one in a thousand but anybody who's spent time flipping a coin knows that that kind of "run" happens really often. In fact, it's far more probable that the tosses of a coin should present series of heads or tails than it is to get heads-tail-heads-tail-heads-tail for a long time. That's because the coin itself has no memory. It doesn't "know" that it came up heads three times in a row, and therefore coming up heads one more time in a row is unlikely. The coin has no natural tendency to "balance itself out" by giving you a tails after you've gotten a heads. Every flip of the coin is a whole new proposition, one with a 50/50 chance of going either way.

So the ultimate resolution to the "Boltzmann brain" thing is that we human beings aren't so vastly improbable after all. Our existence doesn't flagrantly violate the laws of thermodynamics, like the spontaneous formation of an ice cube in a glass of water would, or indeed the spontaneous formation of something that can think. Our existence is cumulative, the product of a great many things which weren't really that improbable at all.


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

[User]
[Avatar: TLA] Why doesn't Long Feng point the Gaang to the Generals?

Long Feng more or less explains to the gaang that the Earth King is a figurehead and is not concerned with the war. The gaang puts all their energy getting through to the Earth King in order to mobilize an invasion force.

The Earth King doesn't even know of the war. But there *is* an Earth Army fighting the Fire Nation, so the Council of Five knows of the war, and are evidently directing miliitary action without the knowledge or consent of the Earth King. So why didn't Long Feng say *"I am Long Feng, chief advisor to the King and head of the Dai Li. The King does not deal with matters of war, only domestic policy. I'll arrange for you to meet with General How, on condition that you do not bother the Earth King with any of this."*

[Assistant] The generals are nominally acting under the authority of the Earth King, but they may not know that Long Feng is controlling the Earth King. If the Gaang got too involved with the generals, the generals could realize that, or the king could find out about the war through them. Either way, Long Fengs grip on power would be threatened, which is why he tried to keep them away from anyone with authority.


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

[User]
Are psychosomatic symptoms cultural? Regional?

Somatization and psychosomatic symptoms (such as headaches, back pains, diarrhoea, stomach cramps, respiratory distress, chest tightenings, etc) are prevalent in most populations.
But do those symptoms tend to be more prevalent in specific cultures? Does one group of people exhibit primarily psychosomatic gastrointestinal symptoms, whereas a different group of people will have mainly musculoskeletal symptoms? Do people in Japan somatize mostly in headaches whereas people of a middle upper-class income exhibit mainly backpain?
Are these differences of a cultural or regional nature? Do they evolve over time?

[Assistant]
Yes they are.

People from collectivistic cultures (China) are more likely to report somatic symptoms as a result of depression - things like sleep problems or difficulty concentrating. Meanwhile people from individualistic cultures (U.S.A) are more likely to endorse the typical depression symptoms Americans are familiar with - depressed mood, suicidal ideation, feelings of guilt or worthlessness.

Schizophrenia also has a different presentation depending on culture. Some cultures experience catatonic behaviour whereas some cultures tend to psychologize with delusions and hallucinations.

Meanwhile, some psychosomatic disorders are culture-bound. For example, frigophobia involves intense sensations and fears of cold and it's seen almost exlusively in Taiwan and Sri Lanka.

There are a variety of proposed reasons for these different presentations. For example, people from collectivistic cultures may experience greater percieved stigma as a result of mental illness for fear of burdening their very close and valued relationships. Therefore they will report physical symptoms (for which they can't reasonably be held accountable) like muscle pains and sleep disturbances.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Solo: A Star Wars Story Megathread (Solo questions go here ONLY!)

Y'all know the drill.

[Assistant] So, sorry if this is a stupid question, but does this movie confirm that the Imperial Infantry is mostly made up of the basic imperial troopers and the stormtroopers are more like elite forces like in the EU?


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

[User]
ELI5: Monsanto Protection Act

I've read other ELI5 regarding why Monsanto is bad, but I don't get the Monsanto Protection Act. What is it? All the articles I read are saying it's bad but don't explain what it is in an understandable way.

[Assistant]
Genetically engineered crops are regulated.  Once they get approved, farmers can grow them.  However, if someone screws something up (like the environmental assessment), the approval can be revoked.  This means farmers might be in the position of having crops that were legal when the planted them but illegal now.  The thing everyone is up in arms about right now allows farmers to request that the USDA, if they deem it fit, to allow the planted crops to be grown as normal that season and not be destroyed until the GE crop in question can be officially cleared for cultivation again.

td;dr This thing isn't to protect Monsanto, that's just sensationalist nonsense, it is to protect farmers.


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

[User]
[ASoI&F] Do the old gods have individual identities?

Is there a list of the actual gods worshipped by those who follow the old faith anywhere? Is the drowned god an 'old god'? How about the various gods worshipped across the narrow sea? Or is it just a vague belief in a vast number of indistinguishable nature spirits?

[Assistant]
> Or is it just a vague belief in a vast number of indistinguishable nature spirits?

This is it. The term "Old Gods" came from followers of the Seven. The "old gods" are actually nameless spirits of a religious system closer to animalism than modern theism. It was a type of religion worshiped by children of the forest and later adopted by by the First Men.


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

[User]
[DC] Have there ever been times DC heroes have killed without becoming horrible monsters?

It seems that in nearly every single timeline, whenever a DC hero kills for any reason, they end up becoming bloodthirsty and often tyrannical shells of their former selves who mercilessly slaughter everybody for the smallest offenses, or for even so much as whispering unkind words about them, and it seems like the League treats this is an absolute guarantee, without negotiation and compromise.

With that, has there been a time where the heroes have killed without this happening to them?

[Assistant]
Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord. The rest of the Justice League wasn't exactly thrilled about this, but they eventually accepted that she was right and at no point did she become a bloodthirsty tyrant as a result.

Green Arrow has killed in several timelines, either as a last resort or by accident.

Superman executed General Zod, Quex-Ul and Zaora by exposing them to kryptonite. He doesn't talk about it and he's not happy about it, but they were genocidal.


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

[User]
[The Matrix]when people in the matrix breed are the kids they "have" actually related to them?

Like suppose a man & woman in the Matrix have sex with the aim of having a baby.
Will  the machines actually go the trouble of finding the two of their sleeping bodies, extracting sperm and egg, combining them, so they can provide them with a kid that's actually theirs?

[Assistant]
Tech is a bit more advanced.

They can probably extract a cell from each parent, splice it into a single offspring, and then it would gestate in an artificial womb. No  need for it to specifically be egg and sperm.


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

[User] Why are rotary engines considered unreliable, or "bad" when compared to piston engines?

[Assistant]
One of the main problems are the rotor tips. In a piston engine, the cylinder and piston have a rather large contact surface which is constantly lubricated and seals the combustion chamber against the crank case. In a rotary engine, the tips of the triangular rotor drive along the chamber walls to seperate the chambers. This means they have to be very precisely positioned and bear a lot of load, compared to a regular cylinder lining.
The tips have to be extremely abrasion resistant and hard, but function as tight seals as well. That's a difficult trick to pull of and makes the whole system somewhat less reliable.


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

[User]
[Star Gate] Why does it take a "source" chevron to activate the gate?

Wouldn't it limit the number of destinations, by requiring all gates to have one chevron that is specifically associated with it? Or is it a sort of "vector" marker that delineates the direction of the wormhole?

[Assistant]
The point of origin symbol is unique to the DHD for every Stargate and it's always in the same place. This means we don't have to waste time finding out what the symbol is as Daniel did on Abydos.

As Daniel explains in the movie, the first six chevrons refer to specific points in space. Where those points intersect refers to the destination. The point of origin gives you, as you suggest, a fixed reference point.


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

[User]
What prevents a normal, healthy heart from going into cardiac arrest during very, very intense exercise?

During really high intensity anaerobic activity your heart rate can get to very high rates, close to 100 % of your theoretical maximum.  Assuming a normal, healthy heart what prevents the heart from going 'too fast' and going into an aberrant rhythm, and cardiac arrest?

I asked this question to an electro-physiologist and he basically said, you'd pass out, or be too fatigued, it really can't happen and that evolution would have sorted that issue out, if it ever existed, very rapidly.  This answer made sense to me.  I'm just curious as to what mechanisms exist to prevent it from occurring.  It seems as though the human body has contingencies in place for a lot of things and I assume there would be a few for this.

[Assistant]
The heart adapts to higher rates. For instance heart rate is normally controlled by the sino-atrial node by a balance of sympathetic (+) and vagal (-) inputs. But the heart also gets sympathetic inputs to other parts of the muscle which alter the action potentials and conduction (e.g. shortening it), so that the fast rate doesn't cause problems. The atrio-ventricular node in a healthy heart won't conduct rates higher than 150-200. Arrest rhythms can be 300 beats per minute because they are generated in the ventricle itself or down an abnormal pathway.

There is also probably regulation upstream of this, i.e. in the hormones and nerves. Some states and drugs can cause arrhythmias through abnormal stimulation so intense exercise must not cause as much.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are protein bars so dense?

They are always so firm and heavy, like bricks. Whereas a normal candy bar is kinda light and fluffy. Why cant protein bars be like that?

[Assistant]
Because the ingredients that make up protein bars, which are high in proteins, are different that the ingredients that make up a candy bar, which is high in sugar.

So it isn't super simple to just do the same thing, because youre starting with two different things.

There is also the function of marketing, Protein bars market themselves to have XYZ GRAMS OF PROTEIN to appeal to those who want a lot of protein, to get that number bigger they pack the bar as densely as possible.  A light fluffy protein bar wouldn't have as much protein in it.


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

[User]
Why are the seatbelts on cars, buses, and airplanes different?

More specifically, why does a bus use the fiddly two point seatbelt that takes forever to adjust? Its not as secure as the three point car seatbelt, and its not as easily adjustable and removable as a airplane seatbelt.

[Assistant]
Airliner seatbelts are different because airliners are vastly different from buses and cars.

Airliner seatbelts are there primarily to move your body down as the plane goes down. If there's a patch of turbulence which causes a rapid descent, your body continues moving the way it's been going, and the airliner smacks into it, hitting you on the head and killing you.

Airline seatbelts are designed to be easily removable via a clawing motion, because people are panicked and instinctive when there's an airplane crash, and the occupants likely only have minutes if not seconds to evacuate before the whole plane catches on fire. On the other hand, airliners are so comparatively safe that the airline industry has effectively lobbied the FAA to not have to install 3-point seatbelts, because the fuel/retrofit cost isn't worth it for the handful of people who might be saved per year (zero people died from an accident on an airliner in 2017, for instance, and only two people have died from an accident in the last decade on a plane operated by an American airline).

Airliner crashes are essentially binary events: either everyone dies on an airliner, or nobody does. A three-point seatbelt wasn't going to save anyone in the 737 Max crashes, or UIA flight 752, or Malaysian Air 370.


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

[User] [The Mummy] When Imhotep takes Mr. Burns' eyes (and his tongue) how was he able to see clearly as Mr. Burns' needed glasses and was pretty blind without them?

[Assistant]
The eyes Imhotep had after the regeneration were Imhotep's actual eyes. He just had to use Burns' eyes as the catalyst and raw material. Also helped that the regenerated eyes were in Imhotep's ocular cavities, not Burns'.

Similar to how his internal organs weren't desiccated dust after he assimilated them, even though they'd been exactly that in the canopic jars for thousands of years.


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

[User]
Where does light go?

If I have an electric light switched on in a room it gives off light. Photons I presume. When I switch it off what happens to them? Where does that energy actually go?

The previous question may answer this but why doesn't light bounce around in the room forever?

[Assistant]
When your light is switched on, electrons are being pushed along a Copper wire into a thin Tungsten wire, which is very resistive. The electrons in the resistor bump into the atoms as they flow around, which causes the material to heat up. When a material is hot enough (around 3000K) it emits a lot of light, through a process called blackbody radiation. Tungsten happens to have a melting temperature around 3700K, so it is a great material for light bulbs. There are many other types of light sources, but this is the simplest to understand. As long as the Tungsten wire is hot, it will give off light. When you turn off the light switch, the electricity stops flowing, and the Tungsten wire cools down.

The light emitted by the bulb travels in every direction, and hits the various objects in your room. The whiter the objects, the higher percentage of the original light is re-emitted each time they are hit by photons. The blacker the objects are, the higher percentage of light is absorbed and makes the object hotter.

If the room was filled with very smooth conductive surfaces like mirrors, the light would bounce around many times. Very clean mirrors are around 99.9% efficient, which means that 1 in 1000 photons are absorbed as heat and the remainder are reflected. Because photons travel at the speed of light, they will bounce around in the room a few thousand times at most and eventually all be absorbed. Light travels around 30cm per nano-second, so in a 6m wide room it would take 20ns to cross once and around 50-100us for almost all to be absorbed.

TL;dr : The light is all absorbed as heat by objects in the room less than a milisecond after it is emitted.


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

[User]
Is a book from 2015 too old to learn from?

Hello all. I have in my possession a book on JavaScript coding, but it's from 2015. Could I learn from this book, or should I seek something more up to date? Thanks for any help.

[Assistant]
IMO - you can definitely learn the basics from it, but be sure to UPDATE your knowledge with current developments.

ES6 was a major milestone \~ mid June 2015. If your book (u mentioned 2015) has included ES6 thats great, if not, make sure you follow the releases post 2015 especially ES6 (being the biggest one), with subsequent releases adding on new features.


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

[User]
[One punch man/Marvel] Could Mumen rider wield Mjolnir?

I don't know too much in-depth knowledge of one punch man I've read most of what's out and watched the anime. But the reoccurring character Mumen rider reminded me of Captain America before the experiment.

The most prominent example was when he used his own body to occupy the deep sea king for at least a minute or too to try to save civilians. Another one was when he went to help the survivors of the attack by Boros and stared at the ship in the distance which made me think he wished he could do more.

I know a big requirements for wielding Mjolnir is that you have to be willing to kill and that's one of the only thing I think might disqualify him from using it.

What do you guys think would Mumen rider be able to wield Mjolnir?

[Assistant] The Unlicensed Rider is the only character in the OPM universe who might be worthy. There is a fair argument to be made that he lacks the lust for battle of a Thor, but so did Jane and she was chosen. Lest we forget, Mjolnir is sentient, even if it rarely shows this. It chooses it's wielder. Mumen Rider is the most selfless, bravest, and fiercest hero. If anyone could wield the hammer with honor, it's him.


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

[User] ELI5: What makes medical grade skin adhesive patches so sticky, and how are they able to stay in place for weeks at a time?

[Assistant]
Really strong glue chemically bonds to the surfaces it's applied to.  Scientists found a glue that chemically mixes with the skin permanently.

But it only reacts with the top layer of skin.  As your skin cells die off and shed, the chemically bonded cells are shed too.

So when the patch comes off, it's not really the glue that wore off, but the skin it bonded to.


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

[User]
I believe children born with severe illnesses that have no cure should be euthanized. CMV.

Hear me out.
If you speak with people that have been clinically dead, or even if you have been under anesthesia or even just a deep sleep, you don't realize you were under until you're out of it. It happens suddenly, it's painless and most people recall to be at peace. Even if you look at dead bodies, they look very peaceful.
In some cultures, death is a gift and is the greatest gift there is. Even here we have a saying "he/she is in a better place now". So why do we let these kids live on and why do we test them and try and try even though we know the end result. I'm not talking about down syndrome or any manageable disorders, I'm talking about those that are painful and greatly reduce the life expectancy of the kids.

**I should rephrase the "should" in the title. What I mean is that euthanasia should be be allowed, sometimes encouraged at the discretion of the parents and health care professionals. I do not mean mandatory euthanasia.**

EDIT: Some clarification on my view. I'm also talking about severe birth defects, if you Google that you'll understand what I mean. Although reconstructive surgery has made some impressive breakthroughs, that only deals with a minor percentage of birth defects. What about the cost? The average parents can't afford to pay to keep these kids alive, especially knowing that it might not end well.

EDIT 2: There are some really good arguments here mainly the fact that a lot of the diseases that can be cured were at some point incurable. Also we can't decide who deserves to live or die and the child or loved ones might actually cherish every moment the child is alive. However research is leaning towards being able to detect the defects early in the pregnancy to avoid this situation entirely. My view still stands but I do understand the other arguments.

Great discussion guys! Just when I slowly start to think about changing my view, someone brings up a great argument that re-enforces it.

[Assistant]
The problem with your position is that it requires someone other than the person with the severe illness to assess whether their life is on balance worth living. An individual can assess the entirety of their experience and determine whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa, and they can make an informed decision on whether life is worth living. The problem arises when you say that *others* should be given the power to decide to euthanize those with birth defects -- are those others in a position to assess the whole of the child's internal  life? What if the child, despite being in pain or having some disability, also greatly enjoys living such that despite their pain they very much want to remain alive?

I have known people who had severe chronic pain but still found great joy in life. How would we know that the child does not in fact derive pleasure on balance from living? We can't ask the child unless they are old enough to speak and understand such weighty questions. And if we did ask the child and they wanted to die, that would not be euthanasia, it would be humane assisted suicide.

Surely there are cases where it would be merciful to euthanize children whose lives are constant agony, but how do we tell these children from the ones who enjoy life despite their disabilities? Both types of child may cry, both may *seem* unhappy, but we cannot be anything close to certain regarding their subjective, internal lives.

I think the situation is similar to the reason we require such a high standard of evidence for capital punishment. Surely some guilty people go free because of it, but we find that it is better to let a few guilty people go free than to execute someone who is innocent. In the case you are presenting, isn't it better to err on the side of caution to avoid killing children who would very much want to go on living?


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] I just heard that the Dark Lord is back. What's in it for me if join his side?

This morning's Daily Prophet said that You-Know-Who is back and attacked the Ministry, Harry Potter is some kind of Chosen One, and Sirus Black is dead.

At this point, the war could go either way and I'm thinking about becoming a Death Eater. I've heard Dumbledore talk about how wizards should be nice to muggles but what's in it for me if I become a Death Eater? Do I get muggle peasants/slaves to work for me in our new world order? Is the pay good? When do I get my sweet ass tattoo? Tell me what a Death Eater recruiter would tell me.

A little bit about me. I graduated Hogwarts with decent grades, I got Exceeds Expectations in all my O.W.L.s. I'm not political and I don't particularly like Dumbledore and muggles but I don't have a grudge against them either. Both my parents were half-bloods so I do have some muggle genes in the family but no one has to know that.

[Assistant]
Not being murdered by You-Know-Who as a blood traitor as quickly. Maybe a place in the Ministry of Magic once he takes it over and if he likes you enough.

Though seriously, I've got a wand pointed at your face, two giants behind me and a pack of dementors off hunting Muggles ready to be called at a moments notice. What's your pick?


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

[User] Why does my breath smell so bad in the mornings?

[Assistant]
You're dehydrated, and mouth bacteria thrive in dryness. When you go to sleep, your salivary glands stop moistening your mouth, and these drier conditions allow bacteria to multiply, and in turn, start crapping everywhere.

This is also why Mouthwash will make your breath smell nice at first, but make it smell like ass later: (nearly) all common types of mouthwash uses Alcohol to bind the its chemicals together, which will rapidly dry out your mouth on contact. Sure, it kills the germs, but it also sets the stage for them to make a whopping comeback.


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

[User]
Why is water immersion so effective at temporary burn pain relief?

Say you burn your hand on the stove. It hurts a lot, but nothing serious enough to seek medical attention for.

You can tough out the pain until it eventually goes away, or you can put your hand in cool water, which makes the pain disappear until the water warms up. If you take your hand out of the water, the pain is worse than you felt before starting the water, and it seems to last longer.

Is the cool water numbing nerve receptors? Or is it pulling the heat out of the burn to prevent further damage? Why does the effect wear off so quickly when you remove your hand from the water?

[Assistant]
When you get a burn, the skin damage is just the surface of what is changing in your body; most of the damage is occurring internally under the skin as thermal damage. Running cold water does two things, it bombards your sensory nerves to distract it (same as distracting a child from getting a needle by rubbing the arm at a different site), but more importantly, cold water helps stop the spread if thermal burn beneath the skin which the naked eye cannot see.

Edit on iPhone:  in anesthesia for example, if u get a spinal for surgery, the doc has to test for pain before surgeon makes incision.  You can do this two ways, one is with a blunt needle, the other is with ice. Pain and temperature and fine touch are carried by the same fibers. This is why you can run water to "numb" the feeling of a burn, the same nerve once depolorized needs time to repolarize before firing again and since the two sensations share the same nerve fibers, you only feel the cold and no longer the painful burn. If you stop the water, the nerves repolarize and fire again but this time with pain.


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

[User]
How does one read information from qubits?

When the qubits are being read by the outside world, they would collapse - how do we make sure they collapse so that the information is accurate?

[Assistant]
This is the entire challenge of creating quantum algorithms, and there's no set method. The way that you manipulate your qubits will vary depending on what sort of problem you're solving. The basic idea, though, is that since quantum states can interfere with each other, you arrange it so that states corresponding to correct answers constructively interfere, while states corresponding to incorrect answers destructively interfere.

The simplest quantum algorithm is probably the Deutsch-Josza algorithm, which solves the following problem: Given a function that takes as its argument a string of 1s and 0s of length n and outputs either a 1 or a 0, and given that this function is either a) constant, meaning it gives the same result for all inputs, or b) balanced, meaning it returns a 1 for exactly half the possible inputs and 0 for the others, how can you tell which of a) or b) is correct?

The solution is essentially to take n qubits, in a superposition of all possible states, and manipulate them so that any state that returns a 1 picks up a negative phase shift, while any state that returns a 0 is unchanged. If the function is balanced, then the half of the states with a negative phase shift will exactly cancel out with the other half that are unchanged, whereas if it's constant, all states have the same phase and so all reinforce, and this is set up to be linked to the probability of measuring a particular state, where all the qubits are 0, in the output. So you measure the output, and if you get all 0s, then you know it's constant, and if you get anything else, you know it's balanced.

This is a simplification, but it should give at least a sense of how it works.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does ball skin move on it's own and if I hover my finger over it, why does it all seem to rush towards the heat? What is going on there?

[Assistant]
Your scrotum is a genius little bit of biology, that keeps your testes (and the sperm inside them) safe and at the right temperature even while your body has to get much hotter. Because the inside of your body is too warm for sperm to be made there, the whole thing has to hang outside, and respond very quickly and carefully to changes in temperature to keep the sperm and sperm-producing cells safe and healthy.

The most common movement you'll see -- where the balls seem to move up or down, sometimes one at a time -- are caused by the cremaster muscle. This expands and contracts to either hang your balls lower (to keep them cool) or pull them up inside you (if it's too cold outside). This is why men "shrink" in cold water -- the body is protecting the testes from the cold.

Another common change is caused by arousal and sexual activity, although many people never notice because it usually happens right before orgasm -- your testicles (usually your right one first, for unknown reasons) will actually raise up a bit into your body to help allow more sperm and ejaculate to make its way to the penis. This is actually really important to having healthy orgasms (or at least ejaculations) and older men often encounter problems when their muscles lose the strength to carry out this sort of precise reaction.

Finally, your nuts can get congested. Yeah, congested. Actually, vasocongested. Basically, they swell with sperm and extra blood flowing into the pelvis to help your erection -- sometimes up to 50% larger than their normal size. In some cases of intense, long term arousal, testicles have been recorded as more than doubling in size. Regardless of the scale of the change, the scrotum almost always goes back to normal within a few minutes of orgasm.

So basically: Your cremaster muscle can pull your scrotum up into you or let it hang loose to cope with temperature changes; your testicles rise up slightly before orgasm to help you come more efficiently, and blood can swell the scrotum during arousal and make it larger.

I never thought I'd learn so much about balls while trying to help answer a stranger's question on the internet at 3 in the morning...


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

[User] [DCU] Can someone drown in the Lazarus Pit?

[Assistant]
No. People don't drown in water because there is a fluid in their lungs, they drown because the water is in the way of oxygen reaching their blood vessels.

Sufficiently oxygenated fluorocarbon liquids are breathable, and the Lazarus Pit has them as part of its makeup.


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

[User] ELI5: How can you pinpoint your location with GPS on your phone without service on the ground, but cant do the same on an airplane?

[Assistant]
It works in plane too....if you have an unobstructed view of the sky with at least 4 satellites.

Given cramped space and metal ceilinge of typical airliner body this is 50/50 chance of working if you're in window seat.   But if you do it on a private small plane with a big plastic window, it works just fine.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are you always told to widen the crack before fixing it?

When you go to fix drywall or tarmac, the first instruction is to widen the crack. Why is that?

[Assistant] You widen the crack to remove loose materials and be sure to get the filler all the way in the crack. Nit widening could leave loose broken pieces that will inhibit the effective fix. Also, if the crack is narrow, it would be more difficult to get the filler all the way into the crack.


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

[User] What evolutionary advantage is there to internal organs feeling pain when without modern medicine, there's nothing a person or animal can do to fix what's causing the pain anyway?

[Assistant] Pain can be an indication of something you can change or be careful of. You could change your diet. You could exert yourself less. You could protect that part of your body. These types of changes could prevent further disability, allow for better healing, etc.


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

[User] ELI5 how seedless fruits keep being grown? Like if you have a seedless clementine, or grape, what is used to plant the next generation of that fruit?

[Assistant]
There are two ways to get seedless fruits.  For clementines, grapes, and other things that grow on long-lived trees or vines, the plants are propagated by cuttings.  This is true even for the ordinary varieties of most of these plants. All grapes of a particular variety are descended from one original grape plant, which had cuttings taken and rooted to form new grape plants, and then cuttings of those taken to form new plants, and so on.  The same goes for most fruit tree varieties.

So if you find a mutant grape without seeds, you just cut off a shoot, plant it in the ground (or more likely graft it to some rootstock but that's not really important for this discussion) and grow more seedless grapes.

There are exceptions though, for single-season plants like watermelons, seedless plants are usually produced through hybridization.  It's similar to how horses + donkeys produce sterile mules...people figured out that if you hybridize certain varieties of watermelon with certain other varieties of watermelon (in this case diploid with tetraploid varieties) you get sterile offspring.  The seeds of this hybridization grow into plants which can't make developed seeds themselves.

EDIT: forgot one method.  Some seedless fruits are grown by simply preventing the flower from being pollinated.  Not all plants will do this, but some will still form fruit even if there's no fertile seed inside.  Pineapples for example will grow seeds if pollinated, but can't usually pollinate others of the same variety.  So farmers grow a bunch of the same variety and avoid getting seeds in the fruit (although you occasionally still find one).  Pineapples are pollinated by hummingbirds and some bats, so in Hawaii they banned the import of hummingbirds to avoid having their pineapples pollinated.


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

[User] Why do investors buy bonds with real negative interest rates? Are they irrationally incurring a real loss?

[Assistant]
TL:DR, the profit maximizing risk adjusted payoff can be (minimizing) a loss, if all your options suck.

You have to consider their other options. By making the distinction of "real negative interest rates" you say you believe that inflation is going to be higher than those bonds' rates, therefore they would be worse off if they held cash. Then there is a real possibility of stocks falling nominally given a recession which plenty of people think have a higher than normal chance in the next year or two, so given that might happen people could end up worse off if they buy stocks. So, for some people given risk tolerances and timelines, bonds it is.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is it tough to sleep at night even when you're tired, but easy to fall back asleep in the morning when you've just had a good night's sleep?

It seems like it should be really easy to fall asleep after going 16 hours without sleep, but often people just lie in bed for an hour or more, and then after 8 hours of sleep, they have trouble staying awake enough to get out of bed.  How does this work?

Edit: Thanks to node_of_ranvier for the explanation!

[Assistant] It has to do with your heart-rate. When you're going to bed after 16hrs without sleep your heart is probably still pumping blood around pretty quick. Especially if you've had coffee, an energy drink or some other form of caffeine to keep you awake. However when you wake up after having been asleep for a solid night of rest, your heart is beating at a much lower pace and until you raise your heart-rate back up (by doing some physical activity such as standing up out of bed or masturbating) you'll find it's very easy to go back to sleep.


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

[User] ELI5: Air weighs 14 pounds per square inch, yet we don't feel it crushing us. The notion that internal pressure somehow acts as a counterbalance just seems to mean that we're being crushed in both directions. Shouldn't we feel this massive weight on us?

[Assistant]
If it helps, we're already "crushed." Our species evolved on this planet; we evolved "resistance to crushing of 14.7 psi_a" as part of the process, because otherwise our ancestors would've died.

With regard to the physics, most of our body is water, which is relatively incompressible, so that's not a hazard. What the barometric/atmosphere pressure *does* push on is the pockets of air in our lungs. Coincidentally, those pockets of air are *also* at about 14.7 psi_a (except we're actively breathing in/out), so the net force of the atmosphere on our lungs is basically zero. This means that there's no crushing at all; both sides being pushed the same means no net force to collapse our lungs. And our bodily structures, as mentioned above, evolved to survive that pressure, so they won't be damaged. Hence, we are crushed into a ball by outside pressure because we have internal pressure to resist it, and our individual cells/parts don't get crushed because they are individually strong enough to resist this pressure.


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

[User]
[Kenobi] Question about Vader *spoilers*

Why did Vader absolve Obi-wan of his guilt? After their duel, when Obi-wan apologizes, Vader says:

Im not your failure Obi-wan. You didnt kill Anakin Skywalker. *I* did

If he hates Obi-wan so much, why did he absolve Obi-wan of his guilt?

[Assistant]
Because by claiming it for himself, he cements his identity as Darth Vader, rather than as Anakin. He *needs* that, because he could never survive facing the things he has done through Anakin's eyes.

He can't hate Obi-Wan for turning him into Vader if he *wants* to be Vader, and he is desperate to believe that he does. He *has* to believe that he does. If being Darth Vader isn't what he wants, then everything he has done under that name suddenly falls upon his shoulders and he has no answer to it.

Sometimes it is easier to keep being the monster than to try to be anything else.


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

[User]
CMV: Emotional Regulation should be a required course that goes from Preschool to College.

As someone in his 30s currently going through emotional regulation. Mindfulness. And the idea that *you don't have to trust every thought you have*. I've lived inside my own head for a long time, and I've found that it had an overly detrimental effect on my ability to deal with my emotions, with my traumas, or even noticing how I actually felt. Even though I felt like someone who was very capable emotionally, the truth is emotions ran amok in me.

Raising my kid now, and seeing television shows talking more about how you need to acknowledge all your emotions, and let them sink in until you feel better is new to me. Having gone through several therapists, I've learned that accepting an emotion, and not acting on the urges they push is the best way to deal with them.

Breathing techniques, mindfulness as a given, and acceptance of your thoughts are all things that are extremely beneficial. I feel as though these are skills that should be taught to young children continuously so that they can utilize them.

It is unfortunate that Media tends to glamorize and loves people that lash out with their emotional trauma, and act on those emotional urges (the negative kind). Real strength is learning to accept those emotions and not acting on them. Beyond just children's parents teaching them this, and TV shows, I would love if this was a part of the overall school syllabus.

**Edit**: For anyone curious about why it would need to be taught for so long when the reference material is just a few short pages. Here's why -

A big part of emotional regulation is mindfulness. The requirement for mindfulness is slowing things down, learning to accept thoughts, and being aware of your emotions/body. A part of getting there is through meditation and breathing. This can be guided, or not. People meditate for years since it's a skill that takes practice, and it takes a lot of practice to do it well. I would assume that would be a part of the daily learning as much as PE is.

[Assistant]
Everyone who suggests things that should be learned in school neglects to say what it is replacing. Having a topic from pre K to graduation is an especially large emphasis on the topic. So what are you getting rid of? History? Mathematics?

The bad news is Johnny doesn't know what photosynthesis is; but the good news is he's very calm about it!


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

[User]
[Spider-Man] Would he be able to heal back to normal from an injury that would kill or disable a normal person?

In the ps4 game, he mentioned that after a bad run in with one of his villains, he had to change the material his visor was made of, because the broken glass could have blinded him. I guess I'm asking specifically, would that really have blinded him? In addition to more durable eyes, he has a more rapid healing factor. I'd think he'd just be majorly inconvenienced, and maybe with a bit of surgery back to normal.

[Assistant]
I think that in comics, he was once blinded by acid(?) in his eyes and healed from it.

Pieces of visor would still be a problem, because  even though he can heal from it, he would have been blinded in a fight.


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

[User]
What would the discovery of the Higgs boson mean in terms of practical application?

The media is apt to compare the work going on at the LHC to the space race in the 60s, an endeavor that produced discoveries that changed the face of modern technology. If the experiments at CERN really do reveal the Higgs boson, what exactly does that mean in real world terms? What new technology might we expect from such a discovery?

[Assistant] Much like the 60s space race, actually being on the moon wasn't practical. It was the technologies that *got* us to the moon that were. The same is largely true of particle physics. Knowing that a Higgs boson exists is nice and it tells us about the universe we live in, and maybe there's some unforeseen technology out there using it. But the "practicality" comes from designing new superconducting equipment, software to search through mountains of data for rare signals, and other associated technology used to *find* the paricles.


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

[User]
Why don't steel bridges e.g. the Sydney Harbour Bridge, suffer metal fatigue?

Millions of tons of moving, vibrating trains, trucks, busses and cars every day. Forces of wind and rain. Fierce heat and cold yet no-one ever talks about fatigue in the steel. Especially in cables like Brooklyn bridge or the Golden Gate Bridge?

[Assistant] If you keep the stress below a certain limit, you can go an infinite number of cycles (N) below a certain stress (S) for steel. A materials S-N curve describes how many cycles to failure at a given stress. The curve for steel levels off and stays flat at a certain S, heading to infinite N (horizontal  axis). Most materials are not like this, e.g. aluminum always has a finite fatigue life, so you have retire or refurbish your airframe eventually. Note that even if you design to stay in infinite regime for steel, you still have to maintain and inspect, because of corrosion, trauma, etc. Its important to keep a bridge well painted.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do cats like to sit/sleep in boxes, even when its clearly not very comfortable?

[Assistant]
Its actually comfortable to them.

Cats value having walls around them and a place to hide.  A box gives them walls on all sides and is concealed.  Not really different from a cave or den if you think about it.


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

[User]
Are people who had bronchitis more likely to die from COVID-19?

I'm curious if scarring on your lungs from past illnesses like bronchitis makes you more vulnerable to COVID-19, as I heard the virus also causes damage to the lungs. Thanks in advanced :)

[Assistant] Yes. Covid19 is a respiratory infection so any damage or weakness in the lungs puts you at a greater risk. Asthma and obesity would also increase risk. Ultimately it seems that age is the largest risk factor though.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] The World is at the brink of Thermonuclear War, do the Wizards intervene?

Save the Muggles or ignore them?

[Assistant]
Despite having a significant muggle born population most of the ruling class of the Wizarding World seems oblivious to the human world.  Under most cases they would probably not be paying enough attention to intervene in an official capacity.  It may only be after the bombs have fallen that someone would take notice.

On the other hand it wouldn't take many wizards to prevent an nuclear war if it was caught early.  A few Obliviates would remove any memory of an intention to launch.  And they could probably remove a missile launch so that to the enemy it would just look false alarm  ...  And there were a few false alarms during the Cold War.


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

[User]
ELI5: If Time 'Stops' at the Speed of Light, How Does Anything Happen To Light Itself?

As you get faster and faster time "slows down".

Photons have no mass and travel at this 'top speed', so how does anything happen (bounce off surfaces, being detected by your eye, travelling through space etc.) when it is not affected by time?

[Assistant]
Nothing does happen to light. The only "things" that can "happen" to light (and that's using the terms loosely) is that it can come into existence, and it can stop existing  and in the frame of reference of light, those two events happen at both the same instant and the same point in space.

Say you have an atom. That atom has electrons. One of those electrons, we'll say, gets excited. We don't care how; it just does. Sooner or later, that electron is going to drop back to its lowest possible energy state. But the energy it has to shed to do this doesn't just disappear; it can't, because energy has to be conserved in this situation. So the energy radiates off as light. Like kpew. Specifically, a *quantum* of light, which we call a photon.

Sometime later (in the frame of reference of an observer) that quantum of light interacts with some other charged particle, almost certainly another electron in some other atom. A variety of things can happen at this point, but they all involve that quantum of light ceasing to exist. For example, it can be absorbed by the electron, knocking it up into a higher energy state. At this point, the quantum of light stops existing; it just goes away. The momentum it carried becomes part of the electron.

If you imagine what that experience was like for the light quantum  which you really can't do, strictly speaking, because the math doesn't let you, but we can *imagine* it qualitatively just for fun you find it went like this: At some time which we'll arbitrarily call t1 and point in space we'll arbitrarily label x1, the light quantum came into existence. At another time t2 and point x2, the light quantum stopped existing. In the imaginary, not-real frame of reference we've concocted for the light quantum, t1=t2 and x1=x2. That is, the photon is emitted and absorbed at the same instant and in the same place.

To a distant observer, however, t1 does not equal t2; some time elapses between the emission and absorption events. Also x1 does not equal x2; the events happen at different places. However and this is really basically key to understanding all of modern physics t2-t1 = x2-x1. Always. For every observer, no matter what. In other words the amount of time it takes for a quantum of light to cross between two points is always exactly equal to the distance between those two points. All observers everywhere will always agree on this. Even the photon itself would "agree" about this, in our imaginations, because if t1=t2 and x1=x2, then t2-t1 = 0 and x2-x1 = 0, which means t2-t1 = x2-x1.

That's what makes light special. It always propagates between two points in the time equal to the distance between the two points. This is universally true for all observers, no matter what, no exceptions ever.


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

[User]
New Horizons or the Voyager probes?

How long until the New Horizons probe is further away from Earth than the Voyager probes? Are they still gaining speed?

Also, any idea how long we will be able to receive information from them?

[Assistant]
They are all just coasting and losing speed as the Sun is pulling them back. New Horizons might do some small manoeuvres at the Pluto flyby but it won't affect its trajectory too much. The Voyagers however will not be doing any manoeuvres whatsoever any more. Despite constantly losing speed, they will never stop completely as they are all above escape velocity from the Sun.

New Horizons will never be further away than either Voyager. New Horizons was launched at a greater speed from Earth but the Voyagers were able to better use gravity assists of the outer planets along the way. So they ended up with a greater orbital energy which means that New Horizons simply will never overtake them.

If you're willing to consider really long time spans, as in billions of years, New Horizons might at some point be further away from Earth than the Voyagers as galactic orbital mechanics become relevant.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does wetting your hands make it easier to open a plastic bag, when having wet hands usually makes it difficult to handle other things?

Title pretty much says it.  I searched and couldn't find an answer. But having wet fingers seems counter intuitive, but makes opening trash bags and such way easier. How?

[Assistant]
Your dry fingers have difficulty adhering to the smooth plastic. When you wet your finger, the water fills the spaces between your skin and the plastic bag. Water molecules are slightly bent, which means that they act a little bit like small magnets, with a small attractive force between them. This small attractive force (Van der Waals forces) causes the water to bond to both your fingers and to the bag, allowing you to grip it better. The forces in this case are small and the bag is light, so the force your hand apply is lower than the Van der Waals force.

When opening a jar, the Van der Waals force is still there, but you are applying a much larger force to try to open the jar. In this case, you grip the jar much harder, which increases the surface area contact and allows you to transmit the force from your hand to the jar and lid, hence opening it. When the jar and lid is wet, the water gets between your hand and the jar. Water is a fluid and cannot transmit shear force (the force of objects moving alongside one another), so your hand slips as soon as you apply a force greater than the Van Der Waals force.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does a fruit "bruise" when dropped. What actually happens that causes the change?

[Assistant] When the cells within the fruit are damaged, it allows oxygen in.  When oxygen gets in to the cells, it reacts with the chemicals in the fruit in that area.  The result of this reaction is a darkened color to the affected areas of the fruit.


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

[User]
How does a spider sling its web over large distances?

Just sittin in my garden and saw an impressive spiders web.

How do spiders get the first / top bit of their web across two things? Right now this web is between two rose bushes that are over 2 metres apart, how did the spider sling it across that gap without getting tangled in either bush?

[Assistant] A spider relies on the wind to carry the filaments across wide intervals. Spiders that build the familiar orb-shaped web usually start with a single superstrength strand called a bridge thread or bridge line. The spider then lets gravity the strand blow in the prevailing wind, a process called kiting or ballooning. If the strand does not make contact with something and attach to it, the spider may gobble up the strand and recycle its proteins, then try again. If the gap is bridged, the spider reinforces the strand and uses it to start the web.


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

[User]
CMV: Soldiers who commit atrocities in war should not get to return to civilian life and complain about their PTSD.

I have been reading a book on PTSD for college where an American soldier who had participated in the Vietnam war described his experience. He lost half of his platoon during an ambush while they were tracking fighters through the jungle. The next day, he led soldiers to a nearby civilian village and killed every single person there -- men, women, and children. The soldier personally killed several toddlers and babies and he described brutally raping the women before killing them too.

The soldier returned to his home town after the war and continued his life. The focus of the book was on the anger issues and trauma the soldier had. Apparently, he had nightmares of the cries of the women he raped and he sometimes saw the faces of the children he murdered when he looked at his own kids. After some years, the soldier started meeting a therapist and the book then discusses how he started to heal.

My issue is that I don't think he deserves to heal from this trauma. He should be haunted by the horror of what he has done. He has not paid for his crimes. He is not worthy of the help and resources spent on him.

The therapist and the author of the book clearly disagree with my assessment. Tell me why I should think otherwise.

Edit: I will be back in a few hours to continue the discussion and reply to the other comments.

[Assistant]
I personally would argue that he should pay for his crimes. Anyone who commits atrocities like that should pay for their crimes but rehabilitation and reintroduction into society is critical for the betterment of society. People with PTSD often times lash out and cause more violence and pain to their loved ones and others.

Rehabilitation allows them to become productive citizens who treat others well and make a positive contribution to society. If he doesnt seek help, then while he continues to hurt, he will hurt others in various ways.


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

[User] Eli5: what causes a side stitchs or a sharp pain in your side, when you walk or run?

[Assistant]
There are two theories why you can get sidestitches, and both involve the diaphragm.

a. Your diaphragm is just not used to breathing that hard, so it starts to cramp.

b. When you're running and breathing hard the lining that separates the abdomen (where all your guts are) rubs against the diaphragm and causes nerve irritation.

Either of these reasons irritate a nerve that's attached to the diaphragm (phrenic nerve. We have two, one is attached on each side of the diaphragm) which we interprete as pain in the side.

How to not get a stitch. Warm up more, breathe deeper, strengthen your core muscles.


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

[User]
CMV: Plane food is not horrible

The meal has to be suitable for all. Children, the elderly, those who don't like hot spices, etc. Even a vegetarian option will most likely be vegan, to cater to both groups at once. It also has to be non-offensive to those choosing the other option. eg.smell, allergens. It must be able to be pre-made, and heated and cold portions assembled in flight. 200+ meals for the flight. It can't be too liquidy like a soup that could easily spill. You won't get hot apple pie with ice cream  the logistics of serving correct temperature food to 200 people are just impossible.

Often high altitude decreases your level of taste. The tests revealed that the cabin atmospherepressurized at 8,000 feetcombined with the cool, dry cabin air "makes your taste buds go numb, almost as if you had a cold. In fact, our perception of saltiness and sweetness drops by around 30 percent at high altitude. It also doesn't help that the decreased humidity in the cabin dries out your nose and dulls the olfactory sensors essential for tasting the flavor of an ingredient or dish. What you love at ground level might become bland at 30,000 feet.

Once you take into account the immense variety of dietary restrictions that airplanes have to cater to: vegetarians, vegans, pescatarians, allergies of all different varieties, spice-haters, lactose intolerance, pregnant women, people with suppressed immune systems, etc and you start to realize just what type of situation these airlines are in: being something for everyone. Ultimately, you have to hit the lowest common denominator. Finally, if there is any food-borne illness, there is going to be a serious problem (can you imagine a run on the restrooms over the Pacific). So safety first and if compromises in taste are necessary, so be it.

Often I find the ones criticizing plane food are less seasoned travelers: either they are expecting a much higher level meal or are trying to fit in with the "PlAnE fOoD sUcKs" movement. People are 7 times more likely to tell a bad experience than a good experience. Add in that people are usually in a foul mood from the whole security and boarding procedure and there's little hope for unanimous praise.

Is it gourmet, 5 star Michelin, mind-blowingly good? No. But it is definitely not bad at all. In all my years of flying, I have not had a single instance when I hated the food that was served, and actually enjoyed the vast majority of it. Judging by how many completely empty plates were collected by flight attendants at the end of each meal service it is safe to say that most people feel the same way I do.

[Assistant]
>	Is it gourmet, 5 star Michelin, mind-blowingly good?

The maximum number of Michelin stars a restaurant can get is three.

Regarding your view, most of your arguments explain why the food cant be better within the constraints of air travel, not that the food is good.

Maybe your view should be that the food is, in general, as good as it can be under the circumstances, not that it is actually good.


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

[User]
I believe that adopting a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens is a good thing, CMV.

I think having a minimum income that guarantees all citizens enough money for rent, clothes and food would result in a better society. Ambitious people who are interested in more money would still get jobs if they so choose and would be able to enjoy more luxury. I understand employed people would be taxed more to account for this which may not exactly be fair but it would close the gap of inequality. I understand if one country were to do this it would create problems, but adopting this on a global scale would be beneficial. I'm sure there are lots of good arguments against this so let's hear em, CMV.

Edit: Sorry guys, apparently what I am describing is basic income and not a minimum income.

Edit 2: I'd like to add that higher taxes do not indicate a lower quality of life as seen in many of the more socialist European countries. I also do not agree that a basic income will be enough for a significant amount of the work force to decide not to work anymore as a basic income will only provide for the basic needs an individual has, nothing more.

[Assistant]
A lot has been said by A_soporific about how it woult discourage people from working, not only because people would be paid when they are not working, but also, and that second part is seldom adressed by basic income enthousiast, because the remaining worker would be higly taxed.

This would have two effects :

* Clandestine jobs would be more profitable than official ones. That would mean more drugs, more prostitution, more unlicenced constructions ... and even less revenue for the state, and then even more taxes.

* The cost of a new worker would be high. With the combined effect of basic income and high taxes, beginner salaries would be especially high, and if most experiment show that current workers dont quit overnight, you can be sure that less productive unexperienced worker would not be recruited as their work would not pay far their salary and taxes.


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

[User]
[The Walking Dead] How did so many people get infected with a virus that, ultimately, is slow moving and ineffective?

There are hordes of zombies in the walking dead- invariably, there is a cloud of zombies out and about. Where do they all come from if the only realistic way to make more of them is for someone to get bitten and then escape until they can turn, barring aside the odd starvation or shooting. The zombie virus isn't very effective at spreading, in and of itself, as the zombies will eat the corpse given the opportunity, leaving only a gasping head.

All in all, I would choose a couple police officers aiming for the head over a small hoarse of zombies any day. Why was society so quick to fall against such an ultimately slow moving disease?

[Assistant]
Confusion, emotion, panic travel, and some airborne vector.

The virus itself seems to be airborne, but not lethal. Its like a passive disease, sitting dormant until you die (possibly from a zombie bite, but doesn't need to be).   So, in that way, the virus spreads airborne quickly, worldwide.

The visible symptom of the disease are the zombies, of course.  These do not need to spread from a single source, since death from any cause creates them.

The zombies in one area would be devastating initially.  Residents would report 'home invasions', and be killed.  Police and other first responders would be confused and also turned into zombies.  Military bases would deploy, but without training or protocols.  Many military might get bitten, return to base, and cause chaos there.  Others in the military might go AWOL to protect their families near the base.  This would happen simultaneously in many areas.

People would begin to hear news reports, and would be confused.  It does not even take a panic - even calm reasoned action would just add to the chaos.  Massive traffic jams would lock people in the cities.  In the country, people live in homes with lots of windows, etc.

A few people who survive the zombies then are unaware that any death brings more zombies inside your walls.  Bitten survivors turn, or people die from infighting or just from the risks of living on the run.  Even the moment of contact with such zombies would be emotionally shocking - seeing your resurrected but insane child or other loved one - and thus people would die that way.

What remained of the military might try to set up safe zones, but beyond safety, there would be food distribution and other issues, and eventually they might just pull out to look to saving themselves. Even that might not work, since there is no real safety where any death leads to zombies.

In the end, its not until there are aware survivors, living in secure areas, that the plague might be stopped.  Places like historic forts, islands, moutain areas, walled prisons, walled military facilities, or other areas that could be protected easily would become bastions of survivors.

What should happen though is a massive decline in the number of wild zombies at some point thereafter.   While we do see some decay, it appears that even after years, most of the initial zombies still seem to be actively walking.


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

[User]
How did we know about human reproduction before modern medical science?

Today we think it is "obvious" that sex leads to the *possibility* of pregnancy. But how did for example people in the middle age knew that sex led to pregnancy? How did people even know that there is such a concept as fatherhood? I mean they could have believe that staying in the same room for a long time or that marriage leads to pregnancy how did the connection between sex and pregnancy happen before science? Because it's only a *possibility* to get pregnant it must have been much harder "to know".

[Assistant]
If they weren't able to glean that information from observing themselves they could certainly observe it through the maintenance of livestock populations.

We know that they were able to make the association because antiquity is filled with virgin birth stories.


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

[User]
ELI5: What prevents planetary orbits from degrading?

I understand that the elliptical shape of the orbit helps keep planets and natural satellites from falling into their parent or fling off into space. But IIRC the International Space Station is constantly making small corrections to its orbit to prevent crashing down to Earth.

Without these kinds of corrections, how to planets and moons maintain stable orbits around their parent body?

[Assistant]
Others have pointed out that the ISS experiences drag where other bodies mostly don't. However, there *are* forces that cause celestial body orbits to degrade. They experience tidal drag forces: for example, when our Moon tugs on our oceans it causes a drag that causes Earth to slow down, which in turn speeds the Moon up and causes it to go further out in its orbit, away from the Earth.

Other planets and moons experience tidal drag that can pull them closer to the body they orbit.

They are all also radiating energy away as gravitational waves.

As to what prevents their orbits from decaying due to these forces? Nothing. It's just such an incredibly slow process, and the distances are so vast, that it takes millions or even billions of years for the effect to become noticeable.


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

[User] How does a keygen generator actually come up with a valid registration key?

[Assistant] The CD key must match some pattern in order to be recognized as valid by the application, like "*every odd character must be a letter, while every even character must be a number, e.g. A1B2C3...*" as a very simple example. The keygen produces random keys that follow that pattern, after the developer has managed to find out what the pattern is through reverse engineering of the application.


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

[User]
CMV: Minimum Wage Should Be Set On A Local Basis- The Federal Minimum is Fine.

Quite often, I'll see liberals advocating for a $15/hour federal minimum wage. Now, I understand these demands. There are many people struggling to support themselves on minimum wage, and they feel this is what's needed at a bare minimum.

However, the cost of living varies heavily by location. For example, the cost of living in New York City is significantly higher than living in some rural town in Kentucky.

While someone may need to earn $15 an hour to support themselves in certain areas, in other areas it's practically overkill.

**Cons of A $15 Federal Minimum Wage:**

-**Discourages businesses from spreading out.** if minimum wage is roughly the same everywhere, then business have little reason to locate themselves in less crowded areas. In fact, they're more likely to want to locate in the city, as that reduces the cost of travel for things like consulting, contract workers, etc.

However, if minimum wage was $10 in some rural town, but $15 in a crowded city, they may choose to base operations in the rural town, because it cuts overhead costs. This creates more jobs and opportunities in the rural town, and helps fight congestion in the crowded city.

-**It's not feasible for small businesses**

A convenience store/fast food restaurant in a crowded city is likely to see more activity than one in the middle of nowhere. Therefore, it's easier to pay $15 an hour to employees working in Chicago than one working in some small town, because of more money coming in.

-**Discourages people from pursuing further education**

College education is expensive, and it often requires loans. At $15 an hour, many people might be making almost as much as a college graduate in some fields. From a purely objective standpoint, it may become a bad decision to pursue a college education, because of opportunity cost reasons:

-By going to college, 4(or more) years that could be spent working are spent learning.

-You accrue a lot of debt in student loans if you can't afford it upfront, and have to pay it off later.

Assuming college costs $30,000 a year for 4 years, that's $120,000. Lost. Working at $15/hour 40 days a week, that's ~$30,000 a year. So by going to college for 4 years, you're down $240,000.

However, it gets worse due to the *time value of money*. Those loans generate interest, and grow even bigger. Additionally, with the money you could have made working, you could invest a portion, making even more.

As a result of an increased federal minimum wage, we would see a reduced amount of people pursuing further education, which isn't good for our economy that is increasingly moving away from basic labor(thanks to automation), and requiring more and more creativity and design.

By raising the minimum wage at the federal level, it will likely have severe effects on the economy by restricting the free market, damage the job market by causing certain locations to be overcrowded with businesses, and have a severe impact on the incentive to pursue skilled careers. Setting the minimum wage at a local level is far more effective, as it's much better tuned to the cost of living, and helps create jobs in areas that aren't as crowded, better spreading the population.

[Assistant]
The federal minimum wage should be set at the average livable wage level for the country (which would be around $10). From there each State, County, and City should set minimum wages in their jurisdictions that meet the livable wage level for that region (which they currently have the authority to do and often do use that authority).

To paraphrase FDR when he first established the minimum wage, "If a business is unable to pay a living wage it does not deserve to exist in this country". So if raising the minimum wage hurts some businesses and the free market, good. They are bad businesses that should not have existed in the first place if they cannot pay their employees well.


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

[User]
ELI5: Does flexing my muscles without resistance or weights improve muscle strength?

If I am sitting at my desk and I flex my abs multiple times a day, does it increase strength or definition of the muscles?

[Assistant] No, just flexing doesn't work. But you can create your own resistance at your desk if you like. Pressing your knees up against the underside of your desk, or pressing your hands together. There are loads of isometric exercises.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do old scratchy towels dry better than soft fluffy ones?

[Assistant]
Because of fabric softener.

Fabric softener is what makes those towels so soft and fluffy. The way it works is by coating the towel in a thin layer of a special chemical. This chemical conducts electricity, so it prevents static electricity from making fibers from clinging to each other. That makes it fluffy. The chemical is also slippery, so it makes the cloth slide smoothly against your skin. That makes it soft.

The problem is that that chemical doesn't mix with water. That means that when you try to soak up something with the towel, some of it gets blocked. So the very same thing that makes the towels *look* like they'd be more absorbent actually makes them *less* absorbent!


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

[User] Is Ludwig von Mises well respected in the field of economis?

[Assistant]
Ludwig von Mises was respected as a teacher in his lifetime and he famously advanced the critique of socialism known as the socialist calculation problem. His critique, though not always cited explicitly, has been generally accepted by economists.\*

Furthermore, he generally put together the theory of the Austrian business cycle, although he was certainly inspired by Wicksell.

That said, more generally, the Austrian position in terms of theoretical foundation - e.g., praxeology - and their general theory of the business cycle is not widely accepted.

Therefore, one can say that some of his contributions are respected and that some of his other contributions, while not accepted, are viewed as notable contributions within overall literature of "history of economic thought."

**It is best to say that his contribution regarding the socialist calculation problem is "respected" but the rest of his work, not so much.**

\* An example of its uncited impact is the second half of Schumpeter's book *Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy*, which is, in effect, a barely concealed attack on socialism which basically is making the same point as Mises (though sarcastically). This book is widely viewed as one of the most important works of economics.


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

[User]
ELI5 What does 'orthogonal' mean in a statistics context?

I have tried many times to understand this and thus far failed every time. What does it mean to say that data is orthogonal? Can you provide an example of data that would be orthogonal versus data that would not be orthogonal?

[Assistant] Simply put, orthogonality means uncorrelated. An orthogonal model means that all independent variables in that model are uncorrelated. If one or more independent variables are correlated, then that model is non-orthogonal.


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

[User]
Responsibility of reviewer to include grammar corrections?

Hello!

I have a question regarding peer reviewing for journals.  I find when I am reviewing that I want to comment on every minor grammar/sentence structure infraction, but obviously this is time consuming and I'm honestly not sure if it is a responsibility of the reviewer.  In addition to comments on the science/experiments/etc., is it appropriate to include blanket statements regarding grammar/sentence structure?  For example, "There is a general over- and mis-use of the word 'the', as well as instances of tense disagreement throughout the manuscript which should be addressed for increased clarity and readability."  Is a blanket statement better than pointing out specific instances, if there are many?  Or visa versa?  Or are those comments more of an editorial responsibility than reviewer responsibility?

TIA for your insight!

[Assistant] Your job is to review the clarity and 'correctness' with which the authors have expressed their work. That to some extent - includes language. Where theres a few scattered errors, I'll pick them up. Where its systematic I'll note the first one or two and add a comment like you suggested.


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

[User]
Does a nearby person have more gravitational effect on me than the nearest star?

This is probably completely wrong, but can someone steer me in the right direction? (this isn't an exam question, just curious:))

Gravitational force is given by F = G x m1 x m2 / r^2. A girl is standing 2m away from me.

- Given me (m1) = 77kg, girl (m2) = 50kg, distance (r) = 2m
- F = 6.67x10^-11 x 77 x 50 / 2^2
- F = 0.000000064 N
- Proxima Centauri (4 light-years away, 0.123 solar-mass):
- F = 6.67x10^-11 x 77 x 2.4x10^29 / (4.0x10^16)^2
- F = 0.00000000000077 N

This seems to indicate the nearby girl is attracting me more than the closest star.

I hope I'm right, as it's kind of romantic. :)

[Assistant]
You are correct, but it's even more extreme when you consider the tidal effects, which decay as 1/r^3 instead of 1/r^2.

Proxima Centauri though is sometimes considered part of a triple star system with Alpha Centauri, with twice the total mass of the sun.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Was Darth Vader pro-Death Star?

We may never know, but I am curious what strategic/tactical doctrines Darth Vader subscribed to. Clearly the Death Star, although secret, was a big, fat target with no bulls-eye but packed a punch - especially against conventional forces. [What is conventional vs gorilla warfare in Star Wars?]

So did Darth Vader agree or disagree with the objective of the Death Star?

He seemed to spend a lot of time on it, perhaps even protecting it by order of the emperor? What did Darth Vader *do* during his "free-time" on the Death Star? Certainly he could've been more effective waging his own asymmetrical warfare against the rebels?

[Assistant]
> The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Vader saw the Death Star as unnecessary. He believed control of the Force was the best path to power. The Death Star was largely Tarkin's brain-child as he was the one who pushed on Palpatine the concept of using fear to control the galaxy. This is primarily from the novel *Tarkin*.


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

[User]
How do tetanus vaccines (boosters) work?

A vaccine causes an active immune response, which leaves behind memory cells and results in immunity. I understand the concept of getting a "booster"  some time after to keep the immunity, but why do people need tetanus shots after getting a puncture wound. If the antigens are already in the body, is a response to the vaccine really going to help deal with a pathogen that has already breached the external defense? Or does the tetanus booster contain antibodies to help fight the infection?

[Assistant]
For Tetanus specifically, it's not the bacterium that causes the damage. It's the toxins that the bacterium produces that do.
*Clostridium tetani* produces an extremely powerful neurotoxin that causes Lockjaw. Basically, the toxin permanently paralyzes muscles, by blocking the shutdown signal. When/if this paralysis reaches the muscles responsible for breathing, the subject stops breathing.

The Tetanus vaccines specifically target the toxin, not the bacterium. Without the toxin, the bacterium is rather harmless and can be cleaned up by the natural response.

Boosters after a wound are given in the case of the patient being unsure if they got a booster in the last 10 years (or if they know they didn't). If the patient hasn't received the full 3 lifetime vaccination shots yet (3 is needed for maximum immunity), then active antibodies can be added to ensure immediate cleanup of toxins.

Giving a booster shortly after potential infection can kickstart the production of antibodies by the immune system, before the infection has had a chance to build up to lethal dosage, and help the immune system notice the infection quicker (basically, you kick someone to alert them to the killer across the street)


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

[User] Why/when did someone decide it was indecent for genitals/boobies to be exposed?

[Assistant]
Cultural attitudes towards "decency" vary greatly by place and time, but assuming you are talking about the United States: it can be traced to the Puritan settlers, who had a huge influence on the colonies and the country they would become.

Over time attitudes have changed, but law changes much more slowly. Note that simple nudity is not considered indecent (by law) in every jurisdiction. In California, for example, public nudity is not technically illegal, as a result of a California Supreme Court ruling.

European countries tend to be much more relaxed about nudity. They don't walk around naked, but they also don't freak out over naked bodies in appropriate situations. There is nudity in advertising and on television, and in public in places like the beach.


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

[User] ELI5 Why do we humans get gassier as we age?

[Assistant]
Yeah...not sure that's a fact.  If anything older people may lose muscle tonus in the sphincter and be less able to control when they let one out.  Plus, as others have said, they just don't care.  So they may release more often, but in still approximately the same volume.

If you eat fiber, you'll fart, period.  If you suddenly eat a lot more fiber than usual, you'll fart more than usual, then go back to average.  Pregnancy can put pressure on the lower intestinal tract, and cause them to slip out more often, but the volume of gas is roughly the same even then.

Fart.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do rechargeable batteries deteriorate over time?

[Assistant]
When using a battery, bits of one end dissolve and travel to the other end (or in most household batteries, from the inside to the outside). Recharging forces them back using an electric current, but theyll never go back as cleanly as they first started.

Over time the electrodes continue to deteriorate, and the battery becomes less effective.

If something goes wrong (e.g. you try to recharge a non-rechargeable battery, or the control for a lithium battery breaks) its possible for the material being deposited to form a thin connection to the other side. This shorts out the battery, creating a lot of heat, and probably causing it to explode.


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

[User]
ELI5: How does using car AC waste gas if it doesnt affect RPM?

I know that when you turn on AC another pulley in the engine needs to be powered so there is more load on the engine, but the engine doesn't have to go faster to accommodate that as far as I know? So how is more gas being burned?

[Assistant] You're applying an extra load on your engine. If you want to feel what an extra load does, go outside, turn on your engine and let it idle. Without touching your gas turn your wheel all the way to the right, your engine should stutter. This is because you're adding an extra load. Now it'll shutter for just a second and the rpm should drop about 50-100 rpm (not a lot) but then t evens out. That evening out is a reaction of the ecu (engine control unit) to your action. You don't feel like you're adding extra load but you are. Same with the AC. When you turn it on, you're adding an extra load however your engine wants to normalize everything and in this case it's giving it more gas and air to maintain the ideal idle.


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

[User] ELI5 Why do people start to vibrate when planking?

[Assistant]
The muscles of the core become fatigued with prolonged contraction, and when they do they relax.

However, your brain is still trying to keep them contracted, so they flex again and relax again once they  fatigue. As a result, you experience oscillating muscle contractions as your brain fights against your muscles.


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

[User] Why do we get so much mucus build up when we cry?

[Assistant]
What is happening is that tears drain from the outside top of your eye into the middle corner into your "nasolacrimal duct." This ducts is basically a straight tube into your nose where the tears mix with mucus secretions and come out your nose.

If you are crying for a long time it is possible for your nose to become irritated and as a result it swells and you can become congested.


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

[User] [papers please] If Arstotzka is so bad, why are people flocking to live in it?

[Assistant]
Because everywhere else is worst.

Antegria is stated to be a tyrannical government.

Kolechia is stated to be "ten times worst".

Republia is in the middle of a rebellion or something similar.

Arstotzka is a terrible place but apparently they've got it better than most still. The only place that seems to be doing better would be Orbistan. But there are no stated reasons why people aren't fleeing there instead of Arstotzka.


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

[User] What is the most heinous magical crime ever to have been committed?

[Assistant] If we're including deities (as theirs is the only real "magic" in the setting) then Melkor's corruption of Arda counts. He poured out his essence so that evil will remain until something from outside Time itself intercedes to end it.