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

[User] [X-Men] Could Quicksilver fly by strapping wings to his arms and flapping at superspeed, like a hummingbird?

[Assistant]
I think it's a bit more than a matter of speed - he'd have to be wearing wings of some pretty incredible material to handle that.  They'd need to be the perfect balance of strong enough to not rip apart from the thrust they're providing (likely to be huge shear stresses considering human body weight ratios), but light enough to not hinder his range of motion or his speeds.  This being Marvel, we can say that maybe hank Pym or Reed Richards has made something like that, and that Quicksilver has access to it.

The next problem is wingspan and weight ratios.  The wings would have to be proportionally larger to handle the weight of a human - no matter how thin, a person won't be able to compete with hollow bones.

He'd also have to specialize his flapping - birds don't just haphazardly flap their wings up and down, especially hummingbirds (they have unique figure-eight wing movements - look up some vids on youtube to check them out).  This would be very tricky at first, but also lends some problems with the fact that as a speedster, most of his powerful muscles are in his legs, not his arms and back.

And even if he got a good set of wings, mastered the technique, and went on a crash diet, there's the issue of controlling his movements in the air.  Without a tail, his control over his position would take a lot more effort.

So *could* he fly?  Yea, probably, if given the right conditions and materials.  Would it be practical?  Not really.  For most situations, his super speed would handle it better, and if he *really* needed to fly, a hang glider would probably work better for him.


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

[User]
[Doctor Who] Why do all of the side characters experience the Doctor in chronological order?

It's always kind of bugged me that when he regenerates, everyone else on Earth is surprised by his "new" face. How come the Doctor only pops in and out of a person's life in chronological order? Like why aren't people hanging out with 10 and then 9 later on and then maybe 11?

[Assistant]
As a matter of fact,  there are plenty of beings who don't experience the Doctor in chronological order. The most recent example is River Song, who from her point of view met the eleventh Doctor before meeting the eighth, tenth and (possibly exempting the War Doctor) the rest of them in some order or another.

The Seventh Doctor met a group of interdimensional beings who had met either a future or alternate reality version of the Doctor.

The Fourth Doctor met the Daleks at the point of their creation, having encountered them at later points from their perspective in his previous incarnations.

Sarah Jane Smith, having parted company with the Fourth Doctor, found herself on Gallifrey with the Third.

Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart encountered the Second through Fourth Doctors in order, mostly due to the Third being exiled on Earth, but was visited by the Second on the eve of his retirement, meeting the first five incarnations on that particular occasion.

The Sixth Doctor met two companions, Melanie Bush and Charlotte Pollard for the first time after they had already travelled with him later in his timeline.

Tl;dr: It happens, just not incredibly often.


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

[User] ELI5: Besides looking ridiculous, why is it that cars with a lot of horsepower can't tow while trucks with less horsepower can?

[Assistant]
All the responses so far miss perhaps the most important thing: brakes.  With the right gear ratio, even a weak vehicle can get a heavy load rolling, but trucks that are designed to tow have braking capacity that greatly exceeds that of the vehicle alone.  A Corvette has big vented brakes to produce impressive stopping specs from high speed, but its not going to stop safely with four times its own weight.

The Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) has a standard for this.  SAE J2807 is defined as Performance requirements for determining tow-vehicle gross combination weight rating and trailer weight rating, the standard measures a vehicles ability to safely tow by measuring braking distances, acceleration times, passing ability, grade-climbing ability, and physical load-carrying capability.


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

[User]
[GoT] What exactly are Stone Men?

I know it's the final stage of Greyscale. But what does it do to the victims exactly? Turn them into lumbering men of rock? Do they hold anything from their former selves?

[Assistant]
They're not rock, it's just the physical affliction that makes their skin look scaly and dead. Like how other infections make the skin pale or bruised, greyscale creates... grey scales on the outer layer of flesh.

And just like the skin is corrupted, the insides of the infected are changed as well. We know if it gets into the eyes, afflicted are blinded. And other external organs are similarly impaired or ruined. The worst symptoms are most likely caused by a heavy infection of the brain matter itself, destroying or altering functions in the brain like how the infection ruins the rest of the body.

Like with other brain-altering maladies, the ultimate severity probably varies from person to person. Perhaps some remember flashes or even retain certain higher functions. But for the most part, the loss of personality and other human-like behaviors are lost.


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

[User]
Why does an accretion disc fall into a black hole instead of orbiting like saturn's rings?

Is it something go do with Saturn's moons keeping the rings stable? Or maybe because the discs are made of mostly gas rather than bits of rock and ice?

[Assistant]
Imagine two rings of dust or gas, orbiting completely circulars round a black hole, and very close to each other. Because the gravity of the black hole is so strong, the rings will be orbiting at very high speeds, but the inner ring significantly faster. If any particles (solid, liquid or gas) in the two separate rings come too close, they will experience friction. They will both heat up and the one closer to the black hole slows down as it is faster. Suddenly the closer particle is going too slow to orbit and falls in, whereas the outer particle is going to fast and flies out into another particle, causing more friction. Now imagine thousands upon thousands of tiny rings, which basically is a giant accretion disk, formed from a ripped up star or gas cloud. This disk is constantly creating friction with itself and so most of it falls in. A few particles of it however gain speed from it and fly out, though these are marginally small, and are normally pulled back in. The friction also heats up the disk to make it glow about as bright as a star.

Now the difference with Saturn is that it has much less gravity, so inner parts of the rings don't have to orbit much faster than the outer bits, thus friction is kept to a minimum and the disks are stable.

**TL;DR: Friction**


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

[User]
[X-Men] What was the point of giving Wolverine an adamantium skeleton?

The more I think about it the more ridiculous it seems. What could Stryker have gained from it?

[Assistant]
Stryker wanted to weaponize it for a group of mutants who had a healing factor high enough to survive it. He did it on Wolverine first to make sure the process worked and to see if they can modify it initially to make the process a little easier to survive for mutants with a slower healing factor.

In 616, Sabertooth has always been pissed at Wolverine because he was going to be the second person to get a skeleton... then Logan trashed the place.


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

[User]
[MCU] Is nobody on Asgard old enough to remember Hela?

Or did Odin somehow mind wipe the population?

[Assistant]
Odin is significantly older than the average Asgardian. The average Asgardian only lives for about 5000 years, but Odin has been said to have defeated Surtur half a million years ago. Hela might have been banished two hundred thousand years ago for all we know.

Then again Odin probably could wipe the minds of the population if he wanted to, and he might have did that too.


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

[User]
CMV: There is no rational argument for the significant downscaling of Nuclear Energy

This post is about the trend in countries like Germany and France, which see them shutting down their nuclear plants in favor of wind, solar, hydroelectric and god forbid natural gases/carbon fuels. The reason I think this is happening is over safety concerns and a bad rep that nuclear energy has because of a handful of nuclear crises like Chernobyl and in Japan. However the breakup as I see it is as follows:

1. Safety concerns
This is an irrational fear because nuclear radiation sounds scary, but statistically nuclear energy has caused less deaths per kilo Watt hour than wind, hydro and waaay less than carbon fuels. Additionally crises like Chernobyl and Fukushima have been shown to be a result of govt negligence and building on disaster prone land, which while not fully avoidable is manageable. Also it's not like France and Germany are doing this for disaster prone areas they doin it all over.

2. Environmental concerns
Nuclear produces a waste that is scary and hard to treat yes. But it is exceptionally well contained and can be stored until we find a way to reliably treat it in the future. Compare this to the hundreds and thousands of deaths minimum caused directly due to carbon emissions or even the significant environmental damage causes by hydro dams or the significant damage to aviary life caused by wind power. I'm not saying nuclear is better, but it is certainly not worse than the alternatives. The UN confirms that nuke energy accounts for a quarter of the worlds clean energy.

3. Economics and Cost
Nuclear Energy is more costly to build, true. But it is much more sustainable and profitable in the long term. A newly built plant is estimated to outperform even natural gas electricity in cost after 20 years. 20 years seems long but we are talking about grids and sources that will last for a very very long time. Even if you don't buy this, closing down plants that have already been built just doesn't seem to make sense.

4. Usability for all
Solar, hydro and wind require you to have access to the space and sun, water flow and open windy areas to harvest it. This is not always possible, nuclear plants are much smaller

The key context here is that you could make some pretty intricate points on why in a perfect world we'd rather have other renewable energy than nuclear. But we live in a world at climate crisis, we should not be actively shutting down a tool that keeps away fossil fuel energy.

[Assistant]
>Economics and Cost Nuclear Energy is more costly to build, true. But it is much more sustainable and profitable in the long term. A newly built plant is estimated to outperform even natural gas electricity in cost after 20 years. 20 years seems long but we are talking about grids and sources that will last for a very very long time. Even if you don't buy this, closing down plants that have already been built just doesn't seem to make sense.

It's not. That's why plants in the USA are shutting down (or threatening to do so), as renewables and natural gas (at an all-time low due to fracking) are pushing nuclear and coal out of the marketplace.

RIGHT NOW, with nuclear plants paid off, they can't outperform natural gas plants on economics.


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

[User] Is it possible to apply conventional physics to 4D space? If so, is there anything particularly interesting or different about them?

[Assistant]
First of all, generally 4D is meant to be 3+1 dimensions, with one of them time, which is our current spacetime's dimensionality. So you'd mean 5D, or 4+1.

A lot of physical theories are susceptible to being generalized to different dimension. Most field theories readily are.

EM can be formulated in any dimension; however the properties of magnetism can become a bit alien. In 5D for example, the electrically charged objects are still point particles, but the magnetically charged objects (which in our Universe should be monopoles, so 0-dimensional) would be 1-branes, or 1-dimensional strings. Also, EM waves have 2 polarizations in 4D, in 5D they would have 3. This is part of a class of very important generalizations of EM that appear in supergravity and string theory.

Gravity (general relativity) is funny. In higher dimension, it does essentially what you expect it to do. There is an attractive force between masses, but it falls off faster with distance; in 5D it's an r^-3 force. This makes all orbits unstable, and it's impossible to have planetary systems (actually the same is true for the Coulomb potential in EM, so also atoms are impossible!). There's black holes, but there's also a plethora of extended "black brane" things that have higher dimensionality. Gravitons (or gravitational waves) have 2 polarizations in 4D, in 5D they would have 5.

This pattern works for D>=4 but everything fails for D=3. In 3D general relativity spacetime is always flat and there is no gravitational force. Also, no gravitational waves. It's a really weird thing and has a huge theoretical relevance.

Now these were field theories. Another important class is statistical mechanics systems, where in thermal equilibrium time is not really important. Only the spatial dimensions really matter. So when a statmech person says 3D, he just mean 3 spatial dimensions. Then:

Many famous statistical systems (Ising, Landau-Ginzburg...) are hard in 3D, easy in 4D, and somewhat doable in 2D. Weird pattern.


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

[User] ELI5: Soap kills 99.9% of germs, why doesn't it work when ingested to kill the germs inside you?

[Assistant]
Soap doesn't kill germs at all. Soap is what's called a *surfactant,* which is a chemical that makes it easier for things to dissolve in water. When you wash your hands with soap, it's actually the action of rubbing your hands together and running water over them that removes stuff, including bacteria and viruses.

*Disinfectants* kill germs. We can broadly divide them into two categories: Ones that would make you sick if you consumed them, and ones that wouldn't. We use disinfectants that *don't* make you sick all over the place, particularly in drinking water.

*Antibiotics,* on the other hand, are chemicals which are specifically used to kill harmful microorganisms in your body. What's the difference between an antibiotic and a disinfectant? An antibiotic can be absorbed by the body and transported into your *lymphatic system.* Your lymphatic system is that part of your body that's responsible for moving infection-fighting agents to areas of infection. In order for an antibiotic to reach the infection that's making you sick, it has to "hitch a ride" on your lymphatic system to get there. Antibiotics are chemicals that can do that, while disinfectants aren't.


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

[User]
Question about the perfect symmetry of the just after the Big Bang

Please correct me if i am wrong.

The early universe  (within a second of the big bang) is stated to have perfect symmetry with matter but with the slightest imperfection will cause a series of events that would make matter distquishable from one another.

My question is why and how was that imperfection created?

[Assistant]
What we know for a fact is that the early universe *wasn't* perfectly symmetric in every way. If it had been, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. There were definitely asymmetries in the early universe. We just don't know *exactly* when and how they happened.

The more general answer to your question involves a phenomenon called *spontaneous symmetry breaking.* Imagine a ball perched atop a perfectly symmetrical hill. The ball "wants" to roll down the hill, because gravity makes it so. But because the ball's sitting *exactly* on the top of the hill, and because the hill is *perfectly* symmetrical, it just sits there. It doesn't roll anywhere.

But sooner or later, something's going to happen. If the ball's made of plastic, then it's got a heck of a lot of carbon atoms in it. Some of those carbon atoms are carbon 14, an unstable isotope that will eventually decay. That happens, and the result is that the ball gets just the *tiniest* nudge, just a little thermal blip that should be way too small to do anything  except it does, because the ball was perched *exactly* on the center of a *perfectly* symmetrical hill. Even the tiniest nudge is enough to break symmetry and make the ball roll down the hill in one specific direction and not any of the others.

The principle here is that perfect symmetry can be very unstable. It doesn't take much to break a perfect symmetry. The tiniest even can be enough to push a system out of symmetry and into a lower energy state.

So the *technically correct* answer is that nobody knows, nor can anybody ever know, what causes a spontaneous symmetry breaking. But the *truthful* answer is it could be literally anything. A system in which spontaneous symmetry breaking *can* happen is one in which it *will* happen at the slightest provocation.


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

[User]
[Terminator] How much does a terminator weigh?

They're big, made of metal, how much do they weigh?

Also, how much would a T1000 weigh? I mean, it looks like it's made out of mercury, and mercury is pretty heavy stuff.

[Assistant]
T-800s are surprisingly light, at least 20% lighter than the T-600.

They probably aren't much heavier than you'd expect a human man of the T-800's height and build to be. Since they're meant to primarily be infiltration units, having T-800s massively outweigh the normal human population would be an immediate red flag to the resistance. Also when we see T-800s in action, their bodies react to the environment as if they had an equivalent mass to a normal human.

The T-1000 is probably the same. It was built for much the same purpose, and when it does things like drive a truck, it doesn't crush the seat or cause a conspicuous depression. And although it looks like it's made of mercury, it's not. Whatever the memetic polyalloy is actually made of, it just happens to share a superficial look.


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

[User] What is Gdels incompleteness theorem and why is it important? How did it change math/physics ?

[Assistant]
The incompleteness theorem is about axiomatic systems. Around the turn of the last century, there was hope that we would be able to find some kind of ultimate logical foundation that could prove everything in math. This is kind of a perennial hope, and even Gottfried Leibniz (co-inventor of calculus) hoped that we could have such a system.

The incompleteness theorem says that, no consistent axiomatic system is powerful enough to prove EVERYTHING. This is bad news..!

What Incompleteness says exactly is that if you have a system of axioms that is strong enough to prove everything in (Peano) arithmetic, then there is a TRUE statement that CANNOT be proven within that system. That's what 'incompleteness' refers to; the collection of true things that you can actually prove is incomplete. There's definitely something out there that's true, that you can't prove JUST using your axiomatic system.

Gdel's original proof uses a contradiction to show that an unprovable statement has to exist. So, in a sense, it's ALSO a proof that mathematicians are cleverer than axioms :)


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

[User]
CMV: I describe everything distastefully feminine as "gay"

I've come around on my view of gay people. They're not the irritating stereotypes paraded around in the media. I quit using the word fag to describe somebody as irrationally sensitive, since "Bitch" or "Pussy" works just as well.

But I haven't found a good replacement for gay, as in "MTV is gay" or "That Honda Leaf looks fucking gay" to describe an aesthetic.

It's not strictly an aesthetic problem either. There's also the every day rule crazy soccer mom fascism. Shit like seat belt/helmet laws and public drinking/smoking bans are pretty fucking "gay". Somebody being charged as a sex offender for pissing on a bush is awful gay. Some times I have to say "I can't go to that town because it's too fucking gay". The mandatory 500 character rule around here is mighty gay as well.

I can't say ugly or dumb, because it wouldn't be the correct or intuitive description.

If there is a better word to match the description I'm open to changing my view.

[Assistant]
Well, sure you can use "gay" to describe everything you don't like. Or you could practice exercising the vast English lexicon at your disposal and in the process end up sounding refined and intelligent.

For example, what is it you dislike about MTV? Trashy, shallow, repetitive, dull, and base come to mind, but perhaps the reasons you find it distasteful are different.

You might describe seat belt and helmet laws as "coddling" or "demeaning". Drinking and smoking bans, if you disagree with them, can be refereed to as "pushy" or perhaps "overbearing". Charging someone as a sex offender for peeing on a bush is "ridiculous" "indiscriminate" and "counterproductive" to the benefit of society.

There's lots of words in English. You might try using them. Unless you think being intelligent and precise in your verbal interactions is aristocratic and overly cerebral, in which case, well....you're fucking gay.


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

[User] ELI5: Why after 30+ years of life do I still randomly choke on my own spit at random?

[Assistant] I've read that as we were evolving to allow for complex speech, the larynx dropped lower in our throats. This makes it a lot easier for us to choke, though. So it's just an annoying trade-off for being able to speak.


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

[User] Do people experience an increase in pain tolerance or an increase in pain sensitivity when repeatedly exposed to painful stimuli?

[Assistant]
Yes - there are two mechanisms for this.

Primary hyperalgesia is a process where increased excitation of the nociceptive sensory neurone (going from the site of tissue damage to the spinal cord) releases chemicals "Substance P" and "CGRP" at the site of injury. These induce a more inflammatory state and lower the threshold of the Polymodal Nociceptors (some pain receptors), causing greater firing in the neurones to the spinal cord.

It is actually this effect of increased Polymodal Nociceptor activity that causes that dull throbbing pain after a short amount of time, and the stimulus is relayed by C-fibre neurones.

Secondary, or Central Hyperalgesia occurs in the spinal cord at the synapse between the primary neurone (from the site of injury) and the secondary neurone (going to the brain). Normally this synapse is high fidelity, and has a very accurate transmission of information with no amplification. Glutamate is released by the primary neurone, which acts on AMPA-receptors on the secondary neurone.

However increased firing of the primary neurone causes release of Substance P as well as glutamate. This acts (via NK1-receptors) to increase the amount of another type of glutamate receptor, the NMDA-receptor, on the secondary neurone. The 2 receptors working together turns the synapse into a signal amplifier, by a process of "facilitated synaptic transmission".

So, greater sensitivity to stimulus in the injury, and greater synaptic amplification, increase the ascending pain sensation after painful stimulus.


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

[User]
[Last Air Bender] Did Aang ruin everything by returning to the water tribe to help?

Prince Zuko had been wrong many times about finding the Avatar. If Aang had not gone back wouldn't have Zuko's crew figured it was another mistake and stop persuing Aang, at least until Aang did something to make his presence known to all? We all know the water tribe would have denied having seen the Avatar. Aang could have continued his journey for a while with no troubles.

[Assistant]
Yes but they were probably going to wreck havoc on the village. Zuko was already getting exasperated by Sokka and could have hurt Katara if he learned she was a waterbender. Remember that at that time the fire nation were highly supremacists and weren't above exterminating villages of "inferior races" like the Water Tribe.

Aang just couldn't stand by and let that happen. Its in his nature and he was particularly naive at that point, still having the mind of a 12 years old. Notice that Sokka is the one that makes the plans most of the time while Aang and the rest are mostly good at fighting.


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

[User] ELI5: What do Classical Studies scholars mean when they say that you "don't speak" Latin, it's only read? Can't you speak it out loud?

[Assistant] You can say the words out loud, but you can't really "speak" it, because it's not a living language with real speakers. You can only study it. Even if you do speak to other Latin scholars, since there aren't any native Latin speakers you won't know if you're pronouncing it like it would have been in ancient Rome.


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

[User]
ELI5: What does E = MC[squared] mean?

I have always heard this but have absolutely no idea what it means.

[Assistant]
Basically, it's a simplified form of a slightly more complicated equation that shows that mass is actually a highly concentrated form of energy. If you have a certain amount of mass, it's theoretically possible to convert it into a certain amount of energy. How much energy that would be is represented by the equation E=mc -- the energy (E) is calculated by taking the mass (m), multiplying it by the speed of light (c), and then multiplying it by the speed of light *again*.

From even a tiny amount of mass you can get a huge amount of energy: if you had 1 kg (a little over 2 pounds) of mass, and managed to convert all of it into energy, it would be like exploding 40 *million* tons of TNT.

We can't actually convert all of the mass into energy. In a nuclear bomb, only a tiny fraction of the mass is actually converted into energy, but even so a single missile can release enough energy to destroy an entire city.


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

[User] Could I have a bag of neutrons? And if so, what would it look like, would they be reactive?

[Assistant]
Depends on the density of the neutrons in question. If you're thinking standard every day densities regularly encountered in everyday life, then the answer is no.

Neutrons cannot exist by themselves for extended periods of time. Outside the extreme gravity fields of a neutron star (we'll get to that in a minute), your average neutron will beta decay with a half life of about 10 minutes, spitting out an electron and a proton, with the leftover mass energy being released as an electron antineutrino. In somewhat rare cases, the decay event will also spit out a gamma ray. In extremely rare cases, the electron does not gain enough energy to escape the proton, and the decay event forms a hydrogen atom, with the antineutrino taking away much more energy than it normally would.

In short, you'd have a fiercely radioactive (and potentially flammable due to the forming hydrogen) and glowing bag of neutrons in your possession.

When a high mass star dies, depending on its composition and how much mass ends up in the core at T-0, it can form a stellar remnant known as a neutron star during the ensuing supernova. The inward force of gravity is no longer balanced by the outward force of thermonuclear fusion (fusion above nickel/iron consumes instead of produces energy), and the core is made of what is known as degenerate matter, where for each atom no 2 electrons can share an identical state (See: Pauli Exclusion Principle). Eventually, the weight of the iron "ash" as well as the rest of the star builds up to the point where electron degeneracy pressure can no longer withstand the pressure, and the electrons take the only way out left to them: by merging with the protons in the core.

In the space of about a second, all of the electrons and protons in the core are consumed, and the resulting lump of matter screams inwards at a very significant fraction of the speed of light. Neutron stars run into another degenerate "barrier" and bounce off, rebounding outwards... right into the collapsing upper layers of star plasma crashing in. Unstoppable force (collapsing upper layers of star) meets immovable object (neutron star core), and you get a supernova as everything above the ball of neutrons goes boom.

After the star has died and supernova faded, we have ourselves a neutron star, a couple-solar mass ball of neutrons and more exotic matter crammed into a space roughly the size of Manhattan Island. This ball of neutrons is *extremely* hot (600,000 kelvin is the typical surface temperature), very highly magnetized (many many millions of times stronger than Earth's field), is rotating at several hundred revolutions per second (with linear surface velocities pushing up to .24c), and dense enough to where a teaspoon of the stuff weighs more than Mt Everest. The star itself is so dense it generates its own gravitational lensing effect, allowing a viewer to potentially see more than half of the surface at any given time. But the neutrons would be stable.

You still wouldn't want it though. A thimble-full of the stuff would still kill you, whether it be from the heat and radiation cooking you alive, the magnetism ripping all of the iron out of your blood, the attempt at extracting it, the tidal forces it would exert on you, or it exploding when it realizes its no longer being crushed together by several billion Gs of gravity.

**tl;dr**: Free neutrons can and likely will kill you and will leave an expensive mess for the rest of us to clean up.

Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind stranger!


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

[User]
Aristotle's metaphysics vs Heidegger's being

How exactly is Heidegger's question of being related to Aristotle's quest in the Metaphysics? Aristotle argues that all beings are related to substance (once he expands his notion of a genus to a pros hen way) and that all beings are related in so far as they have an essential nature; a form, actuality etc. He then links all these substances to their cause, the highest cause of all, the unmoved mover. What does Heidegger think about this approach? Does he think Aristotle is wrong?

[Assistant]
Well, this is a very difficult question, and heavily depends upon how we interpret each of these thinkers. Heidegger writes volumes and volumes on Aristotle, who is perhaps one of his biggest influences. So this cannot be more than a rough sketch.

But to give you a basic picture, Heidegger thinks that philosophy has basically had the same theory of time since Aristotle's *Physics*. Although he spends some time considering this issue, there's no difference (for Heidegger) between Aristotelian and Augustinian time (the so-called "A-Theory" and "B-Theory"). Both understand Being in terms of *presence,* and interpret time in terms of this interpretation, understanding time as a series of "containers," a stretch of infinitely divisible moments.

So whether we think of time as an eternal present, or the future and past as really existing, Heidegger thinks that we only interpret them in terms of the "present."

For Heidegger, time is *tensed*. So he doesn't understand the *past* as a "present that no longer is" or the future as "a present that is not yet," but understands the future as something "futural" and the past as something "historical." For Heidegger, the three ecstasies of time (past, present, and future) form a unified manifold, where each ecstasy involves a relation to the other two modes. In *Being and Time*, he stresses the primordiality of the *future*, arguing that (at least for Dasein), the past and present should be understood in terms of the futurality of the future. That's the point of the whole "being-toward-death" stuff; Heidegger's trying to show that Dasein can relate itself to a future event that cannot be experienced in the present, but dramatically transforms its entire existence.

Heidegger interprets *ousia* (usually translated as "substance," although this translation is problematic) as "self-enclosed presence." This has some etymological support. So Aristotle, in Heidegger's reading, understands Being as the self-enclosed presence of an *eidos*. Such presence is, Heidegger thinks, implicitly understood in terms of present-moment time, as something that persists throughout a series of nows.

This involves interpreting Being according to only one mode of time, understanding them as self-enclosed presence in the present. This covers over, Heidegger thinks, the ecstatic temporality of beings, as well as the play of concealment/unconcealment that makes their presence possible.

So Heidegger doesn't think that Aristotle is "wrong," because Heidegger falls among a list of thinkers who thinks that every philosopher is basically right. However, he thinks that this interpretation of Being remains *incomplete*, specifically because it has certain presuppositions about time and presence. In early writings, Heidegger also raises the problem of the difference between a "who" and a "what," although this might be dropped in his post-war writings.

>He then links all these substances to their cause, the highest cause of all, the unmoved mover.

Heidegger sees this move as "ontotheology," which means that it grounds the Being of beings in general in a certain kind of Being (in Aristotle's case, the Being of motion) and then grounds beings as a whole in a highest being, namely the "unmoved mover," the source of all motion. Heidegger thinks that this approach covers over the difference between Being and beings, what he calls the "ontological difference." To put it very briefly, it's basically the idea that if "God *is* the cause of all beings," the "is" still remains unexplained. We cannot explain Being by tracing beings back to some highest being, because this highest being *is* also a being, and must be explained in terms of its Being. So insofar as the unmoved mover *exists* as a being among other beings, it cannot clarify the *meaning* (*Sinn*) of Being.

At the same time, Heidegger sees ontotheology as an attempt to make beings as a whole "constantly present," insofar as they are held into place by an eternal being (thus continually secured as possible objects of our knowledge), rather than understood as occurring in time.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why can't we get salt out of seawater efficiently enought to irrigate with?

it just seems like there'd have to be a way.

[Assistant]
Two reasons:

1)  It costs a lot of money to desalinate water, it's a very energy intensive process.

2) There's no good way to get rid of the leftover salt.  Desalination plants generate millions of gallons of toxic brine that can't be discharged back into the ocean.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does water, even at room temperature, always feel colder?

[Assistant]
Water has a very high specific heat. This is a fancy way of saying it takes a lot of energy to increase water's temperature.

So when your 98.6 degree hand comes into contact with 70 degree water, it feels cold because your body heat cannot warm up the water surrounding your hand nearly as much as it can for air or other substances, which have lower specific heats. This is why 70 degree air feels warmer by comparison.


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

[User]
[SW] Why does the Clone Army stop using the ball turrets on their gunships?

Throughout the clone wars (at least the tv show) they seem to have stopped using them, except for when they return to Geonosis.

[Assistant]
Later variants of the LAAT dropped the ball turrets in favor of a larger pressurized door that enabled the craft to operate in space as well as atmosphere.
They lost some firepower, but gained the ability to deploy from orbit rather than needing to be ferried down to the surface by a transport craft.


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

[User]
[MCU] How does the general human population deal with the knowledge that they are not alone in the universe?

In Avengers the world saw a hole open above New York City and an army of aliens flooded in. In Infinity War they saw these strange circular ships. What do they make of all this? How has humanity moved on since learning that? Are scientists looking for the origin of that life? Has it changed their perception of organizations like NASA or SETI? Does it have any bearing on culture?

How come the people we see interact the most with aliens treat it like it's no big deal? Bucky barely registered that he was talking to a sentient racoon, Cap kind of just nodded at a talking tree...no one seems to react. Why?

[Assistant]
To address the first point, The films seem to imply that people in general seem to be taking it well (are neutral to the implications). We see from Homecoming and others that it's not like the presence of aliens changed the way most people acted (In stark contrast to the DCEU where the world is actively debating the nature of aliens and exist a whole spectrum of responses). It seems to be like "Everything is normal, panic during attacks, go back to normal".

Also, that brings up a good idea, I'd love to see the MCU make a film looks at how society, culture, economics, religion, education has been impacted by the existence of Superheros, Gods and Aliens for 10 years.

2, Well Cap and Bucky know that Thor and Norse Gods and aliens and like the Chutari exist so a talking tree and raccoon aren't that much of a stretch at this point.


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

[User] ELI5: We can recreate a 3-dimensional picture on a 2-dimensional surface. Why cant we visualize a 4-dimensional world in a 3-dimensional area?

[Assistant]
The only reason we can properly understand the 2D representation of a 3D object is because we live in a 3D world, so we have a reference point. Weve never experienced 4D.

That doesnt stop us from trying though. If you google tesseract youll find 3D representations of a 4D object (or, rather 2D representations of the 3D representations, since youre looking at a 2D screen).


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

[User]
CMV: FDR was a terrible president, and it's hypocritical for democrats to use him as a role model while condemning George Bush (41) and other presidents like him.

I'm not saying FDR did no good whatsoever, but look at the facts.

\-He interned Japanese-American citizens for reasons that basically amount pure racism, and did so via an executive order that was clearly unconstitutional, despite the results of Korematsu v. U.S.

\-Numerous of his "New Deal" legislature was ruled unconstitutional and expanded federal power beyond its intended dimensions (Note: I'm saying the unconstitutional ones expanded federal power too far. I have no desire to debate the constitutional merit of the ones that weren't ruled unconstitutional, as that's not gonna get us anywhere.)

\-He attempted to pack the supreme court because of this, which was a clear attack.

\-And lastly, he broke the two term tradition, which doesn't seem like much, but it's a step toward authoritarianism that resulted in the 22nd amendment.

If FDR had been a republican or a modern president, he would be regarded as a tyrant by the left. This is demonstrated by the Democrat's attacking Trump for the internment of illegal immigrants, which is not nearly as bad as the Japanese internment was. And yet, despite issuing the order to do so, FDR is not condemned for his actions, but instead is used as a role model by many democrats, including Bernie Sanders and AOC, which are quite popular on reddit.

[Assistant]
The two-term thing is misunderstood. Several presidents before FDR tried to run for a 3rd term. Most of the ones who choose not to did so because they didn't think they would win.

Jackson didn't run in 1836 for health reasons.

Then we have Van Buren 1 term, Harrison died, Tyler 1 term, Polk 1 term, Taylor died, Fillmore 1 term, Pierce 1 term, Buchanan 1 term, Lincoln died, Johnson 1 term.

Grant wanted a 3rd term in 1876, but reluctantly chose not to run since his advisors talked him out of it.

Then we have Hayes 1 term, Garfield died, Arthur 1 term, Harrison 1 term.

In 1896 Grover Cleveland's enemies took over his party so couldn't win his own nomination. He was offered the nomination of a 3rd party, but turned it down since he didn't think he would win.

Then McKinley died. After Teddy, Taft was another 1 term president.

Teddy Roosevelt ran for a third term in 1912 but lost, and was going to do so again in 1920 but then died.

Wilson tried for a third term in 1920, but couldn't get his party's nomination.

Between 1824 and FDR, only 6 people even had the opportunity to run for a 3rd term. And 3 of them did. And 2 more of them would have done it.


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

[User] [Marvel] What would happen if a teleporter tried to teleport while holding on to Thor's hammer?

[Assistant] Mjolnir has been shown going through portals (though being held or thrown by Thor at the time) so it's entirely possible that it could be done.  Depending on the method of teleportation though, those like Nightcrawler definitely don't want to try.


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

[User]
Are gas giant planets perfectly round?

At some given radius, does Jupiter have the same density all the way around or does the density of gas vary throughout? If not, what causes the density variance?

[Assistant]
Jupiter, like all other planets, is not perfectly spherical, but instead is ellipsoid in shape, with a bulge around the equator. This is caused by the rotation of the planet around its axis pushing matter more outwards the closer to the equator it is.

If you measure the radius at the pole you'll find a figure roughly 7% lower than if you perform the same measurement at the equator (for reference, for Earth this difference is about 0.3%).

However, even if you ignore this effect, then the density is still not constant all around. Jupiter, like other planets with an atmosphere, has weather. Areas of higher density and of lower density develop in the gas, just like they do in Earths atmosphere. The famous "great red spot" on Jupiter is actually a very large storm in Jupiters atmosphere.


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

[User]
[WalkingDead] WHY are there STILL ZOMBIES after so much time

After X time has passed (Weeks? Months? Years?) why have not all the zombies simply rotted away or eventually been defeated? This show and its spinoffs have had like eleven or more seasons now.

Thank you.

[Assistant]
Big comic spoilers:

Eventually, in the comics, they do eventually get to the point where zombies start running low.

They manage to clear out all the *really* big herds nearby (including one truly enormous horde that some zombie-lovers had intentionally cultivated as basically a doomsday weapon) using a system of horseback riders luring them into the ocean; that clears out a good chunk the Washington DC area. They start learning how to thin the groups out quietly, before they can attract enough to serve as an existential threat.

Then, they get to a point where so long as they remain organised and aren't at each other's throats, they can pretty reliably keep their territories safe enough with the occasional patrol that you can travel along the roads between settlements and not get attacked.

Then, by the epilogue, they've reclaimed a good chunk of the East Coast, and so long as you don't go out to the "frontier", it's *incredibly* rare to see a zombie. Rare enough that some people make a small fortune off driving around a paddy wagon full of them as a sideshow attraction, and that some people are worried their kids won't understand how dangerous a zombie is because they've never seen one.


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

[User] What exactly is 'shock', and how does one die of it?

[Assistant]
"Shock" is medically known as Hypoperfusion, which is inadequate perfusion of oxygen to the body systems.

There are a number of different ways that hypoperfusion can occur, such as a sudden, massive loss of blood (known as hypovolemic shock). Edit: removed some incorrect information here. See the clarifying comment below.

In simplest terms, shock is when oxygen doesn't get to the vital body systems necessary to support life. Without oxygen, cells (especially brain cells) will die very quickly.


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

[User] If we can already make hydrogen fuel cells that produce water as waste, would that have the potential to solve a future crisis over lack of fresh water?

[Assistant] There are a number of ways in which energy can be used to produce fresh water (desalinization, for one example). Whether or not this can solve a future fresh water crisis depends on whether or not we have enough available energy.


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

[User] [Dracula] I just slept with one of Draculas wives. Should I be scared? Should I continue the relationship?

[Assistant]
Bram Stoker Dracula didn't seem to care much about what his wives did, so long as they didn't disobey his orders. The only reason he didn't let them go through with eating John Harker was that he needed him at the time.

On a darker note, **don't trust this woman.** She's no less of a vampire than Dracula is, and she's no less sadistic or ruthless. Those comics where our main man Johnny is briefly entranced by super hot vampire ladies before they terrify him with their forward-thinking views on feminism conveniently forget that OG Dracula's brides were unrepentant child-eaters who saw human beings only as things to devour. Book Dracula is the least of your worries at this point.

If you're involved with the wife of a more modern, re-interpreted Dracula, like the Netflix!Castlevania or the Coppola Dracula, you maybe have less of a reason to worry about the wife. However you also have more of a reason to worry about Dracula, because those versions take the dalliances of mortals far more seriously. Coppola-Dracula in particular would take really grave offense if the wife in question is Mina Harker.


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

[User]
[Game Of Thrones] How do growing seasons work in Westeros?

Considering that seasons are long, especially with the most previous summer lasting over a decade and the upcoming winter expecting to be much longer, how do the growinf seasons for crops work?

[Assistant]
At some point they mention that the north has 'Summer Snows'. Now, since we see at one point that it is not snowing in the north, there must be localized versions of the seasons as well.

It's probable that the southern states have tropical or subtropical climates, where it never really snows, but it's rainy some times of the year and dry in others. It's also probably that the North is more temperate.

They just use the terms 'Winter' and 'Summer' to refer to the mini ice ages they get.


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

[User] [The Culture] Does The Culture have a flag or something that they use as a symbol?

[Assistant] Nope. In one of the books they had to come up with an anthem for a foreign power to play to welcome them as an ambassador, and the Culturite started humming an incredibly raunchy song and everyone just went along with it, so a flag is equally unlikely.


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

[User] Why is it illegal to make moonshine, but not wine or beer?

[Assistant]
Taxes.  All production of spirits requires you to pay the appropriate taxes.  The taxation department requires you to have a certified still & won't sign off unless you're a business.

It's also fairly rare for people to go through the time and expense of producing 'shine *without* the intent to sell it.

More practically, it's pretty hard to fuck up beer & wine.  If it's drinkable, it's probably not going to kill you.  A still can explode if not designed/operated correctly.  Moonshine has the potential to be poisonous.

...not to mention that homemade beer can actually be good while moonshine is just going to be booze.


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

[User] ELI5 How do EnChroma glasses work? What does it look like if someone who isn't colour blind puts then on?

[Assistant]
Color Blindness (one of many kinds) is overlap of the visible colors in the eyes of the color blind person. So the person can't distinguish between certain colors.

Enchroma Glasses cut off a certain part of the visible spectrum, that cause the major overlap in the eyes. Which should help eyes to separate certain colors. Which should emulate, at least to a degree a vision of people without color blindeness.

If you put them on, you should see everything a little bit more brightly than usual. Maybe little bit more green or purple.


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

[User]
ELI5: The science behind a classroom of commotion randomly going silent at the same time.

Really curious about this one.

[Assistant]
Mathematically this is bound to happen. No one person is talking constantly but the noise level stays up because voices are constantly overlapping. All that needs to happen for a weird silence to occur would be for all the breaks in conversation to happen simultaneously. We can estimate some values to see how often this would happen in a class of average size. Say 20 students are all having conversions in which they are only actively talking about 30% of the time (groups of about 3 with a little transition time between speakers). And let's also say that it would take about a half second of pure silence to be noticeable. So given any half second interval there is a 0.7^20 or 0.08% chance that no one is talking. So now to figure out how long it would take before there is a 50% chance that an awkward silence has occurred we need to do 0.9992^x=0.5 or log (0.5)/log (0.9992)=x. So x is equal to 866 or 866 half second increments. So after about 7 and a half minutes we would expect about 1 random silence to have occurred.
These are very rough estimates and a computer simulation could give a much more accurate answer.


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

[User] [General Fantasy] Do dragons vomit cooked meat?

[Assistant] I'd say no, unless they had eaten cooked meat. If they ate raw meat then their vomit would contain partially digested raw meat. In most cases dragons aren't breathing fire from their stomach it's coming from other, separate, organs.


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

[User] ELI5: Why does only one side of my nose get stuffy when I'm sick?

[Assistant] during our daily lives, we always breathe more through one nostril than the other. that's due to a tissue in the nose that swells more towards either side, apparently in cycles of about 4 hours. when you're ill, the soft tissues in your nose get more swollen and clogged up with mucus. so instead of breathing more through one and less through the other, it's less through the first and none through the other.


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

[User]
How could I motivate myself to study philosophy without taking a class?

I find that I am much more motivated to study philosophy when I am taking a class for it and have a paper due or have to prepare for a debate. I will give a couple of examples.

When I was working on a final paper for my moral psychology class, I found that I learned a lot more than when I was merely reading the philosophers to understand them. I think the reason was that I had to respond to their arguments in detail given the tools I had at hand rather than just think about whether they were ultimately correct. The process was one of the most enjoyable parts of my college experience.

Again, when I was preparing for a debate over whether or not we have free will for another class, I found myself going into more depth in the arguments than I otherwise would. I worked out a systematic defense of free will drawing on a variety of authors, rather than simply contemplating whether or not the initial arguments were good in the abstract. Again, this was very enjoyable.

So, I'm wondering if there is some way to have these sorts of experiences without taking a philosophy class. I think the problem is that normally, when I study philosophy by myself, I get stuck on flaws that the initial arguments seem to have rather than simply taking the problems for granted and going into more detail on the arguments, because I'm trying to figure out what is ultimately true rather than simply make a plausible argument that I can defend against criticisms. If I had some kind of motivation that was external to the issue itself, like I had when there was a paper or a debate to prepare for, then I think I would learn a lot more philosophy.

[Assistant] Get a syllabus for a class and follow it. That way you can still get the material without the responsibility that a class will have. Write a couple papers over some of the material in the class, and ask one of the professors in the department if they would mind taking a look at it to see if you understood the material.


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

[User]
ELIF: Why do humans appreciate views?

Why do humans appreciate views / images when there is no biological benefit to them?

[Assistant]
Don't know the answer, but something that could aid our survival is traveling, finding new lands, fresh resources. Gives us more physical room to populate and diversify. I've read before that other humanoids may have died off because of their lack of exploration/diversity.

Appreciating views could help this along. And being curious about the next view. What's over the next hill top, mountain range, valley, lake, ocean.


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

[User] ELI5: What are the main differences between Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy?

[Assistant]
As the church got more organized differences in how churches were organized and how they practiced the rituals of their faith grew. Eventually these differences grew large enough that a church split, in church history the most important splits are called schisms.

The first major schism occurred between the now Orthodox and now Catholic churches and involved the major issue of would Rome be sole head of the faith or would each nation have its own head of the faith.  The Catholic church follows Rome, while the Orthodox churches have national heads.

The next major schism occurred after Gutenberg greatly reduced the cost of printing books.  Prior to then, only the church and very wealthy individuals could afford to pay people to hand copy books (so the church was the only interpreter of the bible because they were nearly the only owners of bibles).  As a result of cheap books, a difference grew between soon to be Protestants who preferred decentralized interpretation of the bible (right down to individual believers owning a copy of the bible and reading and interpreting it themselves) and Catholics who prefer a single interpretation of the bible.  While the seeds were planted by the printing press, Protestantism got started when Martin Luther nailed 95 theses (or protests) of Church practices to a church door (hence the name Protestants).


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

[User]
How long does it take NASA to design its spacecraft?

How many years go into the planing and building of a space craft like the Mars Rover, or Curiosity?

[Assistant]
RFPs for Curiosity went out in April 2004, and MSL launched in November 2011, so that particular design took about 7 years.  The space craft itself took a little longer, and the Atlas V that launched it took much longer to develop, but it sounds like you're asking about only the rovers.

You should also note that NASA outsources almost all of the specific design work for tasks like these, so various organizations and universities will be awarded money to design subsystems, like each science payload, and then the payloads are integrated onto the vehicle.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Were the clone troopers considered citizens of the republic? Was there a plan in place to integrate them into civilian society once the war was won?

Whatever their plan it must have been a daunting task. They had a huge population of genetically identical individuals who had been born and trained for war their whole lives. Large numbers of these men had been adopted into the clans of their Mandalorian trainers and identified as part of the Mandalorian warrior culture. (historically very bad for the republic) Many didn't have names aside from their serial numbers assigned at birth and nicknames given by others. It would have been a logistical nightmare finding something to do with these millions of men who suddenly found themselves without a purpose.

[Assistant]
We can only speculate as to what happens to these clones after they reach an age of maturity in which they can no longer perform combat roles. It is entirely possible that they were specifically designed to never be capable of reaching an age that would require them to stop fighting. If it IS possible, then it is very likely that those most trusted and gifted would be placed in intelligence, teaching and/or tactics roles, given their experience. Those that did not qualify for those roles might just be allowed to leave and do what they wish for the last few years of their lives. On the other hand, they might be placed in "maintenance" or "janitorial" positions to continue to assist their "brothers" in whatever way possible.

It is also possible, however dark, that upon reaching an age in which they were no longer "useful" they would simply be "disposed" of in one way or another.


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

[User] Why does most trees have dark bark, but trees like Birch have "white" bark? What's the benefit for the Birch tree? Does it effect the tree differently?

[Assistant]
In Aspens the bark is white because it has chloroplasts embedded in it (sometimes you can see a green or brownish tinge if you look at it up close), and photosynthesis occurs in the bark during winter, helping it survive. In most trees the outer layer of bark is dead tissue called rhytidome which helps protects the trees from herbivorous animals, but is  less suitable for gas exchange, and allowing in light.

source: Berveiller, D. & Damesin, D. Interspecific variability of stem photosynthesis among tree species. Tree Physiology 27, 53-61 (2007)


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

[User]
I can switch between breathing from my mouth, my nose, or both, even with both of my mouth and nose open. Anatomically and physiologically, how does this happen? Also, how does the body switch between the right and left nostrils?

Edit: Thank you for those who made helpful, scientific replies! There are too many of you for me to thank individually, so, thanks to all of you!

[Assistant]
There's a flap of tissue near the end of the nasal passage that at least some people can voluntarily close. This helps, among other things, to prevent the water and food you swallow from ending up in your nasal passage. You can actually see it in a mirror with your mouth open: it's at the back and top of your throat.

Your respiratory and digestive systems actually have a few of these: another is what allows you to use the same hole to both breath and eat without letting the food in your lungs (usually).


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

[User] I'm an identical twin: my brother and I both have daughters. Can they be considered half-sisters?

[Assistant] In the scenario you describe, the two daughters would (on average) appear to have the same degree of genetic similarity as half siblings. Extending this idea, if two sets of identical twins had children, then the children of the two couples would exhibit the same degree of genetic similarity as full siblings, rather than cousins.


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

[User]
ELI5: The Planned Parenthood video

When I watch it, it makes me uneasy, but then when I read the rebuttal articles it seems like it's nothing out of the ordinary. What are the rules around this and what will the consequences of this video be?

[Assistant]
"Planned Parenthood sells dead babies!" is a very snappy headline, but the reality of it is closer to "Planned Parenthood is one of many organizations that donates otherwise useless tissue to medical research, in accordance with federal law". Would you rather that they just throw it away?

The video was put out by a political group that's specifically seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood. The whole thing is carefully framed and heavily edited to maximize that effect. They seem to have been sitting on this information for months until the timing was right, which isn't what you'd normally do if you earnestly thought people were committing heinous federal crimes.

The whole thing plays up to the mindset of people who already think PP is evil, basically.

It's true that doctors discussing medical procedures can sometimes use very stark language. That's because these procedures are inherently invasive. Think about heart surgeons who literally cut people open for a living. If they were traumatized by that, they wouldn't be very good at their job.


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

[User]
[Grand Theft Auto V] How am I able to call in Merryweather to help me fight Merryweather over a Titan? Isn't that counterproductive for their business?

So here I am undertaking a mission for Lester to steal a Titan from Merryweather at LSX. I get pinned down, figure I need air support and call Merryweather to see if they'll do anything. Whadd'ya know, they arrive and start shooting the crap out of their own guys. Like I know this way they're being paid to both protect the Titan *and* help steal it, but how does their business work if they're constantly open to betraying themselves? How much are their mercenaries being paid to risk some of their allies turning on them because some fixer pays for backup against Merryweather?

Does Merryweather have some extreme in-fighting problem? Are the terms of employment rather loose and competitive? How does this work?

[Assistant]
Merryweather is a US-based multinational conglomerate defense contractor. The Merryweather that contracts out to you is a completely different division from the Merryweather that contracts out to defending Titans.

Besides, they have a pretty robust insurance policy.


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

[User]
When an airlock is breached in outer space, what happens to the air that gets sucked into the vacuum?

Let's say that a spaceship has a compromised airlock. The air is sucked out through the breach, and everyone onboard dies. What happens to the air that gets sucked out of the spaceship and into the vacuum? Does it disperse like dust? Does it stay in one place? Does it drift in one direction forever?

[Assistant]
Suction is a macroscopic effect. Particles in an area are constantly moving in all directions, and this motion averages out under static conditions. When containment in space is lost, there is an unbalancing of particle motion at the barrier between the pressurized area and the unpressurized space. More particles are moving outward into space, and no particles are moving into the ship from space.

On that level, it is easy to see what happens to the air particles - they continue on the trajectory they had when they left the ship. Remember Newton's law: a particle in motion stays in motion until acted on by a force. Once the particle leaves the ship, it continues on its trajectory until affected by another force.


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

[User] ELI5 - Why does water need to be boiled for a period of time before it is considered potable but we say meat is free from dangerous bacteria once the internal temperature reaches 165-170 degrees?

[Assistant]
You don't _technicall_ need to boil water to kill the stuff that lives in it.  Most of the stuff will die well below boiling - usually in that 165-175 degree range that we use for meat.

The difference is that boiling is a **super** obvious reference point to use and it does zero damage to the water in the process.  You need no tools and no skill to boil water - just throw it in a pot over a fire and watch is for a few minutes.  Rather than ask people to carefully watch the temperature, we just tell them to boil it.  It is overkill, but no harm is done.

We could do the same thing to meats, but the meat would be damaged in the process.  You need to balance time and temperature with damage done for meats, which is why we offer more specific guidance.


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

[User] ELI5: How do modern socialist states deal with the 'free rider' problem?

[Assistant]
There isn't really any measurable instance of the 'free rider' problem in any modern socialist state. The problem is purely theoretical. Really, there are only two types of people on welfare.

Rational and capable people will try to get a job, because the minimum wage is kept above the welfare rate. People like to have things and money, and will generally work to get it, even if they're able to survive on welfare.

People who are either not rational or are not capable of working don't get a job if you take away their benefits. They become homeless or criminals. Homeless people and criminals are actually more expensive to society than people on welfare. If you want to send two police officers to shuffle a homeless person from your storefront, society has to pay them both, say $20 each for an hour of work. You have to pay for their car and paperwork too, coming out to maybe $50 per shuffle off. By the time you realize that the homeless person sleeps every night, they're getting shuffled off a few times a week, and it comes out to more money than a one bedroom somewhere that they're allowed to sleep in.

Modern socialist states seek to minimize the cost of individuals who are not capable of getting and keeping a job in modern society while also providing a safety net that allows everyone else to move forward.


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

[User]
ELI5: In weightlifting, why is it, that the relation weight/repetitions is not even close to proportional?

So I have been doing semi-competitive weightlifting since I was 16, but it just now occured to me, that the relation between the weight on the bar and the amount of reps, that one can do with that weight is neither linear nor proportional.
Say I can do 440lb for 2 repetitions, that means I will probably be able to do 470lb for 1 rep at best, which is not even close to 880lb (440*2).

Furthermore, if someone benches 225lb for 1 and I can bench 450lb for 1 I am factually twice as strong as that person. However, if a person benches 225lb for 5 repetitions and I could bench 225lb for 15 reps I wouldn't even be close to being twice as strong.
Why is this? Given that physically W = m*g*h, with both g and h not changing, I need the same amount of force to lift a weight twice than I would to lift a weight that is twice as heavy once.

[Assistant]
You're confusing "force" (N, Newtons) and work/"energy" (J, Joules).  The force required to bench 225 for one rep is the same as the force required to bench 225 for a hundred reps: the weight is exerting 225lbf=1001N on you so you need to push with slightly more than 1001N to start it moving up on the concentric part of the lift, and then slightly less than 1001N to gently bring it back down on the eccentric part of the lift.  It doesn't matter if you repeat this process for endless reps, the forces required are the same for each rep.

In your example above, if the max force you can exert is 470lbf, it doesn't matter how many reps you can do at that weight... The 880lb bar will be pushing down with 880lbf and you'll be pushing up with 470lbf and nothing will move.  Even if you could magically summon up 881lbf, you would still probably fail the lift because human muscles get tired quickly and peak force production quickly drops.  That's why bar speed is important.

Energy does scale linearly as you suggest: two reps moves the weight through twice the distance of one rep, so the number of calories burned is double, but this isn't really a concern for strength lifts.

(Btw, you used the formula for "work done on an object", which is technically always 0, since the weight ends up in the same position it started from.  But that's not what we're interested in here.)


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are tears shed when crying?

Why is it that when enthralled with emotion, water comes out of my eyes? I get tears needing to lubricant and moisten eyeballs but why the excess when someone is sad or upset? Is there an evolutionary advantage?

EDIT: Spelling.

[Assistant]
"Is there and evolutionary advantage"

Well it's a lot easier to indicate that you are sad/need attention (as a child) if you're crying. When mothers see their young cry they get triggered by hormones and gives the child attention, and a caring mother means a higher chance of survival.

It's basically a signal to other people around you that something is wrong.


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

[User] ELI5: How scratch-n-sniff paper can hold scents for months?

[Assistant]
I work for an ink manufacturer and we also produce these kinds of inks.
The base used for these is usually a water based lacquer, which means polymers with additives in water.
The additives are usually adjusted to make the lacquer a little softer when dried so the surface is a little more tacky.
To this base mixture we add different perfume premixes, the lacquer is then printed as the last layer on whatever design the customer requested from the printing company.

When you now rub the lacquer you partially damage the surface which will release more perfume in return, also the rubbing creates heat which again releases more perfume.

As the perfume is trapped in the lacquer which is a relatively thick layer it lasts for a very long time.

It is also possible to make textured lacquers with perfumes to create a tactile feedback on the perfumed surfaces.


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

[User] How bright would Andromeda be if it were a quasar?

[Assistant]
A quasar is maybe 1,000 times the brightness of Andromeda or the Milky Way, and all the brightness is concentrated in the centre around the supermassive black hole.

Currently, Andromeda as a whole has an apparent magnitude of 3.44, which means that the total brightness of the whole thing is about as bright as a fairly moderate star in the night sky. If there was a central point that was 1,000 times brighter, that point would have an apparent magnitude of about -4.

Apparent magnitude is a backwards scale where lower numbers are brighter. The brightest star in the sky has an apparent magnitude of -1.46. Venus goes up to -5 at its brightest, and down to about -3 at its dimmest. Mars and Jupiter are about -3 at their brightest. The International Space Station goes up to -5.9, because it's so close. A full Moon is about -13, and the Sun is -27.

So what we would see is a bright point of light, about the brightness of Venus, in the middle of the Andromeda galaxy. This would be bright enough to see even when the sun is up, at least during sunrise and sunset.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter HBP] Is Snape a good defence against the dark arts teacher?

The narrator presents Snape as a terrible teacher, presumably because he really wants the Defence against the dark arts (dada) job. Yet most his students seem to do well in Potions, taking O.W.Ls and gaining skills like polyjuice brewing (Crab and Goyle are even making it in the final book).

In spite of hating Harry, he still passes him to advanced potions and with the Princes (Snape) old potion book Harry learns more in that year than ever before. But we dont see much of what is happening in DADA besides essay writing.

Is Snape doing anything in DADA to prepare Harry to fight the dark Lord or go after horcruxes? Is he giving the DA any skills to fight death eaters?

[Assistant]
Snape is a good teacher in the sense that he's a very smart person who can deliver information clearly and answer any questions that come up.  He's a terrible teacher in the sense that he's a bitter bully who will not hesitate to berate students that he doesn't like.  So he creates an environment that's hostile - look at Neville Longbottom.  He's a good enough study with a lot of self-confidence problems.  Over the course of the books he starts to excel in most other subjects as he grows more self-assured, but he's never able to get that chance in Potions because Snape can't actually help someone with personal challenges, he can just tell them they're dumb for forgetting the order of a recipe.  He seems to take a more theory-focused and less hands-on approach to DADA (at least at the level that we see), so he'd presumably be a fine teacher in that sense, though with less ability to inspire struggling students.

Also just a minor note - Snape isn't actually the one who passes Harry's OWL in Potions - those are administered by a separate Ministry-run group who test the students and grade the results.  That being said, he *did* teach well enough that even Harry, who had almost no personal interest in the subject itself, was able to get an excellent grade.


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

[User] [ELI5] How do meteorologists objectively quantify the "feels like" temperature when it's humid - is there a "default" humidity level?

[Assistant]
Your body does not feel temperature at all. What it feels is how quickly it is gaining or losing heat.

How much humidity is in the air affects how quickly we gain or lose heat, and it does so in predictable ways that you can just punch into an equation and get a result. If it is a particularly wet and hot day and you are gaining heat as quickly as you would if it was 10 hotter and dry, then they say it feels like it is 10 hotter.


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

[User]
[LOTR] Do elves grow weary of life if they live in Valinor?

Given even the Valar will eventually envy the Gift of Men and that Elves go to Aman/Valinor to escape the weariness they feel in Middle Earth, will the effects against weariness in Aman/Valinor for the elves eventually wear off? Are the Elves doomed to eventually live in constant depression until the end of the world?

[Assistant]
This is why its referred to as the Gift of Men. Every being bound to Arda will eventually come to envy the mortality of Men because of how weary they will be of the world. Even by the Third Age, most Elves are giving up on Middle Earth because of how much it weighs on them. Even the Valar, who entered Ea by choice, will eventually wish to move on before the end.

A perfect example of an Elf feeling the effects of weariness is Mriel, who chose to die before the First Age out of weariness.


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

[User]
[Alien/AVP-R] why do the xenomorphs in Alien vs Predator Requiem have basic blood when all other xenomorphs have acidic blood?

As seen in the movie Alien and Aliens, xenomorphs have acidic blood, as it eats through metal and burns organic tissue, but in Alien vs Predator Requiem, their blood dissolves organic tissue like strong bases such as lye does, why are these xenomorphs blood on the exact opposite end of the PH scale?

[Assistant] The xenomorphs in requiem didnt not come from a queen, they came from the predalien, who lacks the acidic blood comepletly. Its possible that it took some traits from the predalien, and it changed the composition of their blood.


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

[User]
[DBZ] Is Goku a celebrity?

Even though he didn't defeat Cell and is nowhere near as strong as Hercule (The World Champion and Defender of Earth) he has had strong showings at the World Tournament in the past. Is he well-known and respected among Earthlings? It seemed like no one knows him.

[Assistant]
The World Tournament didn't really become as popular as it is until Hercule became the World Champion. He's really what turned it from a rinky-dink local Fight Club to a global sensation, and by then, Goku wasn't competing anymore.

What's more, most people basically considered the whole Saiyan attack thing to be some kind of bizarre fluke, since the Z Fighters were represented to the world by Yajirobe.

Then he was dead at Cell's hands, like a lot of other people. Sad, but not particularly interesting.

Basically, Goku has been just out of frame every time the camera has come near his exploits. Important figures in ki-based martial arts recognize his accomplishments, but your average Joe has never heard of him. If he ever wanted fame, it could be his, but he'd rather go train.


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

[User] ELI5: How do chip design engineers make sure that there is no interference between different circuit modules due to electromagnetic fields, given that every circuit component is very close to each other?

[Assistant] Specialized design, simulation, modeling, testing, and careful material design.  They make sure that the traces are the right shape and length so as to not act like antennas, using ground layers and traces to shield, and more design requirements.  Things like the encapsulation materials are specially designed to restrict the propagation of fields.


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

[User]
ELI5:why won't any country grant Snowden asylum?

why is he getting rejected over and over again? I read the stupid excuses, but what's the real reason?
also why did the ecuadurian reject him while accepting assange, aren't they both on the same "team"?

[Assistant]
Assange went to Ecuadorian territory (an embassy is their territory, ~~technically~~ basically), so he followed their rules on granting Diplomatic Asylum.  For Snowden he's probably be granted the same if he went to Ecuador's embassy, but he'd have to go into Moscow for that, which wouldn't happen.

Regarding "what is the **real** reason" the best we can tell you is what those countries say, everything else is just useless speculation.


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

[User] ELI5: California specifically seems to always be in a drought, but surrounding states don't seem to have the same issues with fires. Why is that?

[Assistant]
The surrounding states do have bad fires. But they get less press coverage because they are usually in more rural areas with less population density than the LA foothills.

Look up Arizona Rodeo-Chedeski fire, Wallow Fire, Willow Fire, Cave Creek Complex fire, Warm fire. All devastating and huge (some absolutely enormous).  But little national press because it's just not as big of a news story when a few hundred thousand acres of national forest burns vs literal suburbs burning.

Edit: and can't forget the Yarnell Hill fire, many young men died tragically fighting that fire.


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

[User]
C in all reference frames?

I'm aware that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, but, what would a passing photon look like to another photon travelling in the opposite direction?

[Assistant]
Sadly, special relativity does not define reference frames for photons or anything else propagating at ~~zero~~ c. So we cannot answer what a photon sees. This manifests in the mathematics of a spacetime interval,

> ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dr^2

which for light, the null interval has ds=0,

> 0 = (cdt)^2 - dr^2

which reveals,

> dr/dt = c

Here we can interpret ds=0 as d=0 or the proper time of the trajectory. We we directly see that time is not defined for light. We can describe the motion of light in relativity, but we cannot describe the motion of the universe while sitting on a light beam.


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

[User] Seems like some joint injuries are the hardest to come back healthy from, like knees and ankles. Is it the complexity of the body part or the fact that its used the most in the body system?

[Assistant]
Joint injuries being the hardest to come back from is subjective, as is rating it as one of the most complex or used parts of the body.  One could argue that brain or heart injuries are the hardest to come back from, and also suggest that it has something to do with their complexity or amount of use.
Instead, how much can be repaired (and how well) could actually be said to determine how easy an injury is to come back from.  Now, lets talk about joints. Joints are basically the ends of bones that move against each other, but friction and wearing down is prevented by them being covered by cartilage and lubricated by fluid. Without the cartilage and fluid, the bones of the joints would simply grind against each other in a very noisy and painful way.
When a joint is injured, any cartilage that is damaged cannot be repaired.  The body simply doesn't make new cartilage.  Instead, bone is commonly created instead, resulting in bone being where cartilage used to be. In addition, the amount of fluid there used to be is permanently affected.  On top of all of this, scar tissue can be made that just grows to cover anything that was injured, kind of like making a spiderweb out of duct tape to stick everything together. All these factors can result in a joint that doesn't move as much as it used to, is much more painful to use, or is weaker than it was before the injury.


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

[User]
[X-Men] Why does everyone keep trying to kill Wolverine even if they know he can't be killed by conventional methods?

In the movies, people shoot him, realize he can't take bullets, and often keep shooting. What gives?

[Assistant]
Most of the time they are hired thugs who are paid to shoot and NOT run away. Like, they only have one job.

If it wasn't for that, they would still likely shoot until they got stabbed, shooting works on everything else, why change what's been working?

Lastly, i'm not sure everyone does know he cant be killed. You hear stories to be sure, some have survived previous encounters with Logan.... but when a guy with hand knives is running at you, you're going to go with what you know.


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

[User]
CMV: Transgender activists obscure language

There are many issues that as a (hopefully) unbiased third-party observer I have in relation to many of the argumentative points in relation to the transgender issues, that arise as obfuscation of language. If the obscured terms are stated in a clear manner, most of the points disappear.

I want to make it clear that I am approaching this in a pure rational fashion. I feel no hatred or disgust towards transgender folk and I have defended their rights in personal ways. Yet, I don't think it's transphobic to disagree with the views presented. I would not consider, for example, an atheist to have a form of religious phobia by disagreeing with theology. Someone may be a very fervient theist and identify with their religion in a very close manner, yet it would not be phobic to discuss religion in a rational manner and disagree with their position. In the same way I think it's a bad use of language to refer to all disagreement in relation to transgenderism with the umbrella term of transphobia. Yes, some points may be done because of transphobia, but the arguments may be valid anyways, or one could make different points without being transphobic.

In terms of language, one of the biggest examples of what I mean is with the point "transgender women are women". This seems crucial to the discussion, and yet no proper definition is done. If one is seeking to re-define a concept it's because the concept is incorrect or the term is impractical(inorganic). Yet, it would seem that on those standards the traditional concept wins as it is quite organic, practical, functional and correct. There is no proper reason why a change in language and more importantly, the concepts they reflect, should be done. I don't disagree with questioning the concept or the term, but I firmly believe that a change needs to be an improvement.

So, the question needs to be done: "if what has been considered a woman is not a woman, then what is?" When faced with a request to define properly the concept, most activists don't and state: "a woman is what a woman claims to be", which kind of begs the question. It is an empty definition as it is not truly defining the concept and merely referencing itself in order to define itself. It creates an infinite chain of referencing something that lacks substance. It's like when asked "this is a bagwhowee", I say "a bagwhowee is a bagwhowee". Well, ok, but what exactly is a bagwhowee? To say a bagwhowee is a bagwhowee is unhelpful and resolves nothing. In the same way, saying a woman is a woman who identifies as a woman does not resolve the question as to what a woman is.
And I think what the issue is. Definitions create limits and hence exclude. This is the very nature of concepts and in language definitions. You know what a chair is by comparing it to similar things, by also contrasting differences and by referencing a substantive object. You say "a chair is not water, it is a solid object, it is something people sit on" and so on.

Yet, many transgender activists don't like to exclude members from the term as exclusion is seen as discriminatory. However, not all forms of discrimination are incorrect. Only unjustified discrimination is bad. For example, by choosing a romantic partner you are discriminating and excluding the rest; people who have not passed the entry exam don't go into Harvard; people without a certification cannot medically operate on people; dogs aren't rocks. All of these phrases are discriminatory but all are justified. So, while saying "women are X and hence non-X are not women" is neutrally discriminatory, it is also necessary and proper.

The definition of men/women in terms to the natural part on the reproductive process seems to me to be the best definition available. It explains the operative differences(men have penises, women have wombs) and relative differences(men are stronger because of a higher bath of testosterone). A good definition needs to be the best tension between being as fluid and as rigid as it can be. It needs to exclude as much as it can while also including as much as it can. An example I've given is the concept of "human being". If it's too fluid that it includes rocks, then it's a bad concept; yet if it's too rigid that it excludes Jews, it is also a bad concept. The proper mental concept, then, adequates the most to a given abstract order which is intelligible understood and that is reflected in language. Taxonomical categorization and linguistic families reflect this internal order that reflects a natural order.

If one disagree with my definition, I have no problem. But a better definition needs to be presented, and whenever I honestly ask transgender activists, they are unable to give a better definition(in my view).

[Assistant]
>(men have penises, women have wombs)

Does someone born a man who then has his penis torn off in a workplace accident no longer have a gender?

Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy no longer a woman?

What is the gender of someone who has both testicles and ovarian tissue, with an XXY chromosome? These people do exist.


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

[User]
[Lord of the Rings] What if, when Isildur refused to destroy the Ring, Elrond had straight up thrown him into the volcano?

Im sure there would be repercussions, assuming Elrond couldnt lie his way out of it, but would those repercussions really be worse than all the war and darkness that came of allowing Sauron to endure for millennia longer?

[Assistant]
Human and Elves would go to war, no question about it. Tens of thousands would die, the elves either killed off or driven West, and Man would forever despise the Valar and their servants.

Perhaps the world would be a better place, but then again perhaps hundreds of years later some foolish King would try to sail west for vengeance again.


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

[User] ELI5: How does dust manage to settle on a constantly moving fan without being pushed off?

[Assistant] A fan moves air by pushing it over the angled blades. As the air moves over the blades it gets pushed faster and faster until it's moving as fast as the blades. At the trailing edge of the blade, the air and fan blade are moving at almost the same speed. The air is moving fast, and the blade is moving fast in the same direction so the relative speed is near zero. If you were an ant at that point, you feel as if there was almost no wind. The dust particles in the air at this point would settle just as they would on a desk. That's why dust collects on the trailing edge of each blade, because the relative wind speed is zero just like it is above a desk.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Do Jedi that are expelled or leave the order get to keep their lightsabers?

[Assistant] Yes.  Sabers aren't an integral part of the order and are treated as personal property.  Most expelled jedi are allowed to keep them so long as they aren't expelled for dark side tendencies.  Some willingly surrender them as a show of rejecting the jedi but that's rare as most see the saber as a tool not a symbol of the jedi.  It's common people that confuse sabers as being only available to Jedi.


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

[User] How do we have such precision for pi?

[Assistant]
We have iterative formulae that approximate pi more and more precisely, for example the Leibnitz formula: pi=4 x (1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-1/11...) and computers that can iterate a formula for as long as we want. So, that's what people do: get computers to spend a long time calculating pi.

(in reality, the Leibnitz formula isn't used because it's slow)


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

[User] [Marvel] If Xavier tracked down the Sorcerer Supreme, could he learn to walk again like Dr. Strange was able regain the use of his hands?

[Assistant]
Possibly. Then, immediately afterwards, some other bullshit would happen to paralyze him yet again.

The man ha had his ability to walk restored by multiple mutants who can magically heal all wounds, and every time, something else comes along and paralyzes him yet again. So he could definitely be healed, but there is absolutely no chance that he wouldn't get paralyzed yet again when another alien tries to throw a rock at him.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] It's allegedly a Jedi *Council*, but was Yoda ever overruled?

It seems like things usually go Yoda's way in the Jedi Council.  Is he waiting for debates to end and then coming down on the side that he senses is more popular every time?  Or is this more like a primus inter pares situation where it appears to be a democratic system but really, it's just Yoda making all the decisions and everyone goes along with him?  Has he ever had a Jedi Council vote go totally against him?

[Assistant]
He got overruled on training Anakin according to his talk with Obi-Wan in TPM, or at least he decided it wasnt worth fighting over but kept his doubts.

In ROTS when the other members of the council are getting increasingly concerned about Palpatines growing power and the potential Sith Lord in his circle and words of a coup began to pop up, Yoda started to shut that shit down but couldnt stop it either, which led to the group of council members who went to arrest Palpatine knowing for sure he was a bad guy who needed to be stopped rather than informing him of Grievouss death and *strongly insisting* he gave up emergency powers. Yoda could get overruled plenty of times.


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

[User]
CMV: We should not ban fur and leather production, the use of synthetic products in clothes harms everyone.

For the sake of environment, I don't see how banning fur and leather is good.
I come from North Europe where weather can be rough, we are closing our fur farms and promoting to use synthetic. My family always tried to have products that are natural. (talking about clothes)
Leather products always lasted me the longest and were more durable. For example shoes, I have 2 pairs of leather shoes that cost 3x more than synthetic ones, they were warmer and sturdier than synthetic shoes that I needed to change with each season.
Even if producing  of leather  needs chemicals to process it, it will last you longer than synthetic ones that need constant replacement and are harder to recycle. Also leather keeps the warmth better.
I have a fur coat from my grandmother. Nothing fancy but it lasted us already generations. We also keep pieces of furs that we apply on the hood of the coats and sleeves.
If I purchase a fake fur it will barely last 1 season.
Wool is better and environmentally healthier than synthetic counterpart. Cotton is better to make your skin breath and is more recyclable than synthetic.

We end up killing animals in both ways, the synthetic and plastic production is still damaging the planet and killing more life in a long run, especially if we need to constantly replace it and the items that end up in nature don't decompose.

I will agree that there are few synthetic coats of very good quality that can last you years. But they are too few in comparison of commercial mass production that is meant to least only 1 season.

I feel like it's promotion from big commercial companies that want us to keep purchasing their products and really don't care of the environment.

(To be clear I'm against using fur for luxury purpose, also fur is useless in warm countries)

[Assistant]
How much environmental damage do you think one synthetic jacket causes?  Do you have any sources on this?

Also, IMO, it's worth drawing a distinction between leather and furs.  The amount of animal suffering involved is going to be substantially higher in the case of furs, since the animals are smaller and probably living in much worse conditions (cows are relatively well-treated as far as commercial farming goes).


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

[User] [Harry Potter] What classifies a creature as being 'magical', and why does the Ministry of Magic bother to hide harmless creatures like flobberworms from Muggles?

[Assistant]
Magic is something that can be detected, a creature is magical if it has magic, which is known because it either exhibits clearly magical traits or is otherwise detected as having magic.

Magical creatures are kept apart because of the statute of secrecy primarily, and protection of muggles somewhat.

Imagine what would happen if they weren't kept separate and a magical disease made the leap across from one to muggle creatures and due to them not being kept separate or monitored at all it went widespread? It'd be havoc, the statute would be screwed pretty much due to the whole you need magic to counter magic thing that is so prevalent within the setting.


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

[User]
ELI5 Why Liquid Glue Doesn't Stick to The Inside of The Bottle

What's the science behind this? If there is any...

[Assistant]
It's because liquid glue doesn't stick to anything. It isn't until the water (in white glue) evaporates that it actually adheres to anything. In a bottle, The water cannot evaporate, so the glue can't stick to the bottle. If you leave the lid off, it can evaporate and the glue will get stuck inside the bottle.

Edit: Super Glue (cyanoacrylate) hardens when it comes into contact with water. The CA molecules start to line up and stiffen. When it is solid, it has fully lined up and has cured. With the cap on the bottle, water in the air cannot get to the glue and it can't cure. If you leave the cap off, it will get into contact with water vapor and garden inside the bottle.