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

[User] [DC Comics] What makes Aquaman seemingly more powerful than a "normal" Atlantean?

[Assistant]
There could be several reasons for his Outrageous abilities

One is where Aquaman is a hybrid, and has hybrid vigor like a mule. He is the child of an Atlantean and a human, and that mix made him stronger.

Another is his blonde hair. Not the hair as a cause, but as a marker that something about him is different and dangerously so. Considering Atlantis culture dealt with blonde children with infanticide on mercy reef, this may happen on occasion.

Finally, his ability to speak and even command sea life marks him as unique. It might be he channels the life of the oceans or something.


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

[User]
[W40K] Is it possible for the Imperium to re-enact the sacrifice of the ancient Shamans which caused the Emperor to be born?

I would assume that M41 Psykers would be far more powerful, blindly loyal and numerous to a crazy degree as compared to the shamans.

[Assistant] From memory, the shamans took that action because the warp was beginning to become too chaotic for them to reincarnate. So presumably the warp is now too chaotic for them to navigate their way to form a single being.


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

[User] ELI5: What does it mean to be a New York Times Bestselling author? Why does it seem like every book uses this title?

[Assistant]
There are about a dozen different categories, and a new list is created every week.  That means it is possible for there to be over 500 unique bestsellers each year.  In addition, there are six or seven categories with monthly lists for 70ish more possibilities.

Also, publishers design their marketing strategies around making bestsellers.  If they have two books in the same category, they might adjust the release dates so they get two one-week bestsellers instead of one two-week bestseller.


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

[User] [Avatar: The Last Airbender] Is it possible for anyone else to learn more than one element?

[Assistant] Nope. Each person can only hold one elemental bending energy. The only reason the avatar can bend more than one element is because the spirit Raava is fused with them and can hold the energies for them.


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

[User]
ELI5: In Thermodynamics why is there no upper limit to how hot matter can become?

It seems as though as the particles vibration reaches closer to the speed of light that it would require an infinite amount of heat to increase its temperature.

[Assistant]
Universe has finite energy, so there is a hard theoretical upper bound.

Another upper bound is the Planck Temperature, past that point we have no tools to model the scenario. Much like Newtonian physics can't handle black holes or subatomic particles, the current way we model matter "breaks down" at extreme temperatures.


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

[User] ELI5: Why rent a house when you can buy one and pay for it every month, when you move out just sell it and get profits?

[Assistant]
Buying a house requires one of two things: enough capital to buy it outright, or sufficient credit to get a mortgage.  Not everyone *has* either of these things, especially when one considers that in the latter case it's only worthwhile if the interest rate is sufficiently low to make it a better option than renting.  What improves credit and therefore interest rates?  Having money and/or a high income is a *big* factor.

Then there's the fact that while house prices generally increase overall, they can't be 100% relied upon to do so, and needing to move during a slump could potentially be utterly ruinous in this situation.

TL;DR: if it's viable that often *is* a better option, but it's not accessible to everyone who needs housing.


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

[User]
Need help turning down a PhD offer, but keeping potential future options with PI open

Hi All,

I have made a final decision on the PhD program I will be matriculating in; however, I now need to tell another program, which recruited me hard, that I will be declining their offer. The thing is: I loved their program and research focus, but it was strictly a matter of funding (the two offers did not even compare). As such, I would like to attempt to keep future opportunities with this PI open (a potential post-doc perhaps). Basically, I do not want to burn any bridges.

Any advice on how to word this email?

Thanks in advance.

[Assistant]
Don't email, just call. Be honest and straightforward.

The reason you want to call is that it helps build a relationship that will allow working together in the future and avoids any mis-reading as might happen with an email.


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

[User]
ELI5:Why don't those with authority (such as police officers) face the same penalties as ordinary citizens for crimes?

I'm just curious because everyday I hear about injustices to citizens from police offers, however they only get measly penalties such as being fired, whereas a normal person would be jailed, fined heavily, etc.

[Assistant] Officers are put into legally problematic positions as part of their jobs. For example it is the duty of an officer to use their service weapon to stop an armed criminal before they can injure or kill others. But if the officer makes a mistake the officer could injure or kill innocent bystanders. A regular person could avoid the whole issue by not firing at all, but an officer has a duty to fire; the reduced punishment in the event of a mistake is acknowledgment of the dissimilar circumstances.


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

[User]
I believe that the crucifix is a form of idolatry. CMV.

**OP will no longer be responding to comments in this thread.**

First things first

Idolatry: immoderate attachment or devotion to something.

And since Idolatry is synonymous with Idolization

Idolization: To love or admire to excess.

In my (admittedly limited) ventures into mainstream churches, it seems to be a common practice for some people to kneel before a crucifix before they pray, some of these crucifix contain an image of Jesus, others do not.

I feel that offering prayer before such an image in order to gain a special dispensation (indulgence) is directly in contrast to God's commandment in Exodus 20:4-5 **You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath**, or that is in the water under the earth. **You shall not bow down to them** or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.

Similar gripes with crucifix necklaces.

Please, change my view.

**EDIT:** First off I'd like to thank everyone for contributing, so thanks guys!

Secondly, this CMV has opened my eyes to why people use a crucifix and why they believe it is acceptable.

I still think that prayer via crucifix is a bit to idol-y for myself, however it isn't really my place to tell anyone else that they're loving God the wrong way.

Once again, thanks for the discussion.

OP out!

[Assistant]
>Idolatry: immoderate attachment or devotion to something.

There are two definitions of idolatry, one is the one you mentioned, the other is "the worship of a physical object as a god" or "worship of idols".

The crucifix isn't worshiped as a physical object, nor is it viewed as a god, there may be immoderate attachment, but that is more personal opinion as to what is moderate and what isn't.

>2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Catechism 2132 states that veneration of images passes onto whoever the image or item portrays. The crucifix portrays Jesus, so venerating the crucifix simply passes onto Jesus, instead of worshiping the crucifix. It isn't idolatry, it is simply venerating an image of Jesus.


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

[User]
ELI5: why are good shows like firefly and futurama cancelled, while there are tons bad shows running on so many networks ?

I mean even if they got cancelled from the original network ,  Why not go to some other network and replace one of the crappy shows.

Edit: thanks for the reply guys. Many of you have pointed out that good and bad are relative, which is probably true for most things, I guess. As for a network, a good show is one which is cheap to produce, while makes a lot of money; a show makes money by appealing to a lot of people. Sci-fi shows do not appeal to a lot of people, whereas reality-tv/game shows appeal to a lot of people, and are relatively cheap to make. Also as Prof Farnsworth said, "I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

[Assistant] Both Firefly and Futurama are good shows with a cult following but not good ratings in the average population. Most of the bad shows have a lot of viewers because their content hits a much broader market. The production cost of these shows also plays a big part. Most bad shows can be mass produced for almost nothing. Hire a bunch of bad writers and bad actors and give them a TV set bought on the cheap and a film crew under training and you have a cheap soap opera watched by millions. Or rent a concert hall, sell tickets to be in the audience and on stage, hire a few hired judges and use the remote camera crew that currently have no other events to cover and you have many hours of a cheap talent show. On the other hand Firefly had 9 highly paid main actors and two star script writers and directors. They required a lot of different props to be made, performed stunts, pyrotechnics and utilized CGI in every episode. For the cost of making another season of Firefly to entertain the browncoats they instead made ten seasons of a silly game show that were watched by bored people who could not find anything better to watch which is a larger group.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is there no large animal with more than 2 eyes but spiders have a lot of eyes?

[Assistant]
The last common ancestor of all vertebrates had two eyes and that's worked well enough. No mutation that gives more than two eyes has given a significant survival or reproductive advantage, so we've stuck with what works.

The arthropod body plan is a bit more flexible when it comes to numbers of things. You can have anywhere from 6 to 100 legs, plus 0 to 4 wings, 2 simple eyes, compound eyes, or 8 or whatever.


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

[User] Are all planet's cores made out of iron?

[Assistant]
No, not even Earth's. It's primarily iron, but has enough "not iron" to qualify as "not really iron". Most of the "not iron" is nickel, but also the huge majority of Earth's complement every metal heavier than iron is in the core. The core could be as much as 25% nickel, but is probably less, maybe 8-10%. This is expected to be similar to the composition of iron meteorites, as these likely formed in the same way.

Most of early Earth's heavier stuff sank, as the planet was an emulsion of different materials, which then sorted itself out by weight (this stratification is known as "differentiation" in astronomy). The least dense material, silicate and light metal oxides (lithium, sodium, magnesium, aluminium), were forced upwards while the denser metals sank. The silicates formed the crust and outer mantle. Olivine and pyroxene are the two main components of the outer mantle and are both silicates.

We think all the inner planets, have substantial quantities of iron in their cores. Jupiter and outward likely do not have iron based cores, due to how different elements fractionate in a protoplanetary disc. They'll have some iron, of course, because it's hard to be iron-free. Smaller objects, like Pluto, Eris, etc. will have rocky cores. New Horizons was equipped to detect any significant iron or other metallic component to Pluto's core, and found nothing.


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

[User]
[Small Soldiers] How is the X1000 chip able to give the toys sentience?

What sort of properties would the chip need to have to be able to do that?

[Assistant]
I always imagined they were magic with a lovecraftian origin.  They were in a shared universe with the reanimator.

The medium the chips were printed on was a custom formula derived from several translations of translations of stuff from the Necronomicron.  The chip's weren't that smart, but they summoned sentient spirits appropriate to whatever body they were put in. bodies.  Either the chip's materials ate their inside to make something that could be move or the spirits were able to animate them psychokinetically.

If not, I'd imagine some kind of nanotech would be used.  You'd think they'd have mentioned it if they were using that, and it ought to take a good span of time before they animated.


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

[User]
Which comes first: logic or metaphysics?

Does one have primacy over the other? Does one serve as the determining ground and framework of the other? What are your thoughts? This isn't a request for homework help; I'm hoping to learn about competing theories and arguments.

[Assistant] That might depend on what perspective you've adopted in asking the question. If you mean, which must we conceive first in order to make sense of either, then the answer will probably be logic, at least to the extent that we expect metaphysics to be a reasonable inquiry into the underlying nature of *physis*. If, on the other hand, you mean to ask which is prior in terms of the relations that actually sustain them, then it is at least possible that metaphysics underwrites the possibility of logicthat logic, in other words, is a reflection of structures that are metaphysical in origin.


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

[User]
[The Office] Who funded 10 years of production for the documentary?

40 hours a week for 10 years. That's not even counting after hours stuff (parties and Dundies and etc). Would require multiple people just for filming. Not even counting editing and marketing and what not after that was complete.

Who would make an investment like that? How could they ever make that money back with a documentary?

[Assistant]
At first, it was going to be a fairly niche documentary about office working.

Once they realized the sheer amount of drama and wacky shenanigans in this office, then they realized they could make a lot of money from it on that, and thus got increased funding.

You'll notice near the end, they stop even the pretense of doing a documentary on paper work and just straight up start filming the love triangles and chaos and so forth.

People are, in universe, funding a reality show. That's what they're getting their money back from.


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

[User]
CMV: At least one third party candidate should be allowed in the national debates regardless of their polling percentage.

Right now the rule is a candidate needs to poll at 15% to be in the national debate. A lot of people including myself think this is terribly unfair and prevents any real chance of a third party candidate being taken seriously.
I think they should take the candidate from a third party that polls the highest among all the third party candidates and let them in the debate regardless of their numbers.
Ex.
Party A Candidate: 3%
Party B Candidate: 5%
Party C Candidate: 4%

Party B candidate should be allowed to debate even though they havent hit the 15% threshold.
Having a third party candidate thats taken seriously will help ensure that the two main parties are sending up the best person for the job rather than somebody that can simply beat the candidate from the other party. Plus it will give people a viable third option.  Rather than feeling g trapped into voting one or the other or throwing your vote away
And finally it gives more versatility as far as people aligning with the appropriate party. AOC said herself that Bernie Sanders does not belong in the same party as Joe Biden. I think this is absolutely true, however the only shot Bernie had at becoming president was to run as a Democrat. If third parties were more recognized he could run as an independent or a different more progressive party and thus more followers identify as that and a new party rises. This is essentially how the Republican Party was originally formed.
Just to be clear, my case isnt that Bernie isnt a Democrat or something like that, its the third party debate part.

Thank you.

[Assistant]
What if the third party candidate with the highest polling (e.g. 5% in your example) is a complete lunatic like Joe Exotic? Majority of Americans are uninformed enough that it is very possible for a complete batshit crazy candidate to poll as high as 5% or even more (see current occupant of the White House). Then you will have a debate that's basically going to be a circus, with one candidate just saying stupid ridiculous things without any substance on national TV.

Also, 15% threshold is not that high at all. By removing this limit just for the sake of including another person, you're basically encouraging a "participation trophy" system. Plus, if this third party candidate can't even poll above 15%, then most likely that s/he is not a viable candidate and most Americans don't take him/her seriously.

***EDIT1***: *To everybody saying that Trump is a lunatic or both Biden and Trump are senile/lunatics or previous presidents were lunatics, those are just your PERSONAL OPINION, not poll numbers. Biden and Trump each poll above 40% so far. Almost all previous presidents polled >40% going into the debate. They might be shit-tier demented lunatics in your eyes, but not in the eyes of majority of American voters. And what should be shown on national TV debate is what the majority wants, as is the norm of democracy.*

*The 15% threshold is basically the TV networks criteria to filter out a candidate that >85% of the voters think is a lunatic, shit-tier, a joke, dumb, etc. (pick your word).*


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

[User] ELI5: why is milk available in skim, 1%, 2%, and whole but not any other fat percentage like 5% or 10%?

[Assistant]
Whole milk is about 3.3% so to get higher percentages you have to remove water, and surprise surprise they do this already:

Half and Half:10.5% - 18%

Whipping Cream: 30% - 36%

Heavy Cream: 36%

Butter: 80%


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

[User]
[Spongebob Square pants] If Mr.Krabs had to face the music for his business conduct, what kind of time would he be facing if any, and for what?

Got to thinking about this in this episode when he offered a brochure to a cruise as a prize for some ridiculous contest, with the brochure clearly being fraud attempt at making them think they'd be winning an actual cruise. That's gotta be illegal.

[Assistant]
Well

* he doesn't pay his employees on top of paying them well below a living wage (sponges don't need to eat, clearly Squidward earns money from his art)

* no benefits at all for his full-time employees

* attempted-murder of a health inspector

* seriously lacking health standards if any

Basically if mr krabs saves money by doing it the illegal way, he does it the illegal way. (Toss a bunch of piracy charges in there)

So given mr krabs blatant disregard for the law, safety, life, and even basic decent for the sake of a few pennies..  mr krabs would of course get off with a warning thanks to his generous donation of krabby patties to the police and judicial workers of bikini bottom, supplied for free by Sponge bob.

He's the richest guy in Bikini Bottom, he's untouchable.


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

[User]
[MCU] Does the "Earth" system work differently in the MCU? Wasn't it said the MCU Earth was Earth-199999?

Minor Far From Home spoilers, from an Ellen clip.

Mysterio says that the MCU Earth/Dimension was Earth-616, which is most commonly known as the Main Comic Universe. It's been in my head for years that the MCU was confirmed as Earth-199999.

Is this actually true? Is the MCU Earth-616 completely disconnected from all other Marvel media (as we've seen cross-Earth leaps many times before, so all the others are connected), or is Mysterio bullshitting us?

[Assistant]
We're not gonna know the answer until the movie comes out.

Two possible theories:

* Someone goofed when it came to the continuity. Or "616" is just being used as a placeholder term for the most familiar Earth by Marvel now, in the same way that Peter B. Parker comes from E-616 in *Into The Spider-Verse.*
* The Multiverse stuff is bullshit and Mysterio's running a con, but he slipped up here.


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

[User] ELI5 why 'tire graveyards' are a thing and not just recycled or broke down and reused?

[Assistant]
Because theyre really hard to recycle. The whole point of a tire is to be *really* durable. Theyre full of fibers and steel so theyre very hard to cut up. The rubber is molded around the fibers so theyre almost impossible to separate. And the base components (rubber, steel, carbon) are incredibly cheap so theres almost no market value to the materials youd recover.

The cheapest option is to just leave them in a pile.

Very large tires (trucks) can be retreaded several times and are reused.


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

[User] How much more of a threat would Xenomorphs be if they also inherited the average intelligence level of their hosts?

[Assistant] Who's saying they don't? Its shown clearly that Ripley's hybrid had the language capacity of ourselves as an infant without being taught.  The ones spawned from humans do have intelligence equal to ourselves, if not greater. But they won't communicate with us because that is not their mission.


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

[User]
[LotR] What was the purpose of the Endless Stair in Moria?

As far as we know, there's nothing down there except darkness, a flooded underground cavern, and nameless ancient monsters that gnaw at the roots of the earth. Why would the Dwarves shift tens of thousands of tons of rock and dig straight down to reach *that*?

[Assistant]
Moria was the best source of *Moria silver*, *true silver*, or as the elves call it, *mithril*.

You need to keep going deeper to find more true silver. It's a little different than other fine metals, and it's veins tend to be far deeper than wide. We all learn this in Mining 101 and the topic is fleshed out in Minerals 305, check your textbooks or ask a masterminer.


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

[User]
In Marxism, why can only humans create value?

I understand that capital is supposedly stored labor, and this is the explanation, but in Marx's mechanistic, materialist metaphysics, what separates a robot (no matter how human-like in its productive capacity) from a human? Why, then, is a human not also simply stored labor, if a robot is? What separates a man from a machine? It's not a soul, so I have absolutely no idea what it could be.

[Assistant]
I apologize if this isn't sufficiently clear but, in brief:

Value for Marx has to boil down to human labor because for capitalism, value has to have a *measure*, and that measure is quantified labor time. You *could* propose to quantify other things relative to each other as an alternative form of measure (e.g. *use-value* might itself refer to certain social necessities), but one of the central questions of *Capital* is how surplus value is possible; how it is that someone who, say, owns a factory is able to get value out of a commodity *above* what it costs to produce--the whole M-C-M' (money-->commodity-->money prime, or money *above* what you put in) issue. Another way to put this to make it relevant to your question: what determines the value of a commodity such that it's possible for the commodity to cost more than the cost to buy and maintain the collection of robots used to produce it? Somehow value is added in the process of production, and that's evidenced by the fact that the capitalist is able to skim some of it as surplus value. So the question is where that's coming from: it can't be the value of machinery or other stuff goods tied up in the production process, because otherwise you'd never leave the C-M-C cycle (where equivalences are traded for equivalences, without value added). There's be no reason the commodity cost more than the cumulative cost of robots+materials+maintenance. The only thing that's truly variable, i.e., exploitable, in the M-C-M' circuit is the labour that's put in, measured as units of time. Obviously not all time is equally valued, to say the least (hence the social necessity) but it's only in terms of relative valuations of labor time that Marx thinks you can explain price variability and the possibility of exploitation and surplus value.


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

[User] ELI5: the difference between volume and gain.

[Assistant]
At the simplest level: gain goes in, volume comes out.

Volume is easy.  It's just how loud the sound that comes out of your speakers is.

Gain is how loud the sound that goes *into* the system is, before it's processed by anything inside (like amplifiers etc.).  Increasing gain can therefore increase volume, like how a loud noise simply is louder than a quiet noise at a given volume level.  But they're two independent things, and you could possibly turn gain way up but keep the sound output low by turning volume down.

This could be useful if, say, you have a mic and a keyboard both plugged into a speaker system.  Imagine the mic is kind of broken and isn't very sensitive, and it comes out of the speaker as very quiet.  If you just turn up the speaker volume, then the mic might be at a good volume, but now the keyboard is super loud.  So what you could do is turn up the mic gain to increase the loudness of the sound the mic provides to the speaker without affecting the sound provided by the keyboard.

Turning gain up high typically causes some distortion because you hit the limits of the system.  We know that sound travels in waves; imagine a simple voltage wave that just goes 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1.  Let's say we decide to apply a voltage gain of 5; this means everything get multiplied by 5, so now it's 5-10-15-20-25-20-15-10-5.  But if our system has a maximum voltage of 15, nothing can go above that, so it just becomes 5-10-15-15-15-15-15-10-5.  The sound is louder, yes, but we've lost some definition, and that changes how it sounds.  (That's obviously a huge simplification but conceptually it's still sound [pun not intended lol].)

This is generally used with guitar amps to manufacture distortion.  Amps typically have a gain and a volume knob.  If you turn up the volume knob only, the sound from your guitar just gets louder.  If you turn up the gain knob only, the sound gets louder but also more distorted.  Using both knobs lets you control how distorted your audio sounds *and* also how loud it is; you could turn up gain a little but volume a lot to get a loud sound with minimal distortion.

**Actual ELI5:** take your phone, start recording (whether by taking a video or using an actual audio recording app) and speak normally into it, then play the audio back.  How loud you spoke could be considered 'gain'; it's how loud the *input* is.  You can control how loud the *output* is by using the buttons on your phone; that's volume.

Now start recording again and scream the same thing you said earlier but at the top of your lungs.  Play the audio back.  Notice how it's a lot harder to make out the words you're saying?  That's because your input--the gain--was so high that you hit the limitations of the system (what your phone can process), so you lost some audio definition and got some distorted audio as a result.  You can make it less loud by adjusting the output volume with the buttons, but the high gain has already affected the sound quality.


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

[User]
Why are organic solvents usually volatile?

Most of the organic solvents that I'm familiar with also happen to be very volatile. Is this a coincidence, or is there some underlying property of volatile compounds that make them good organic solvents?

[Assistant]
Volatility is often a desirable property of a solvent. It makes it easy to remove the solvent (by distillation or just evaporation) when you want to. So we deliberately choose volatile chemicals for many applications.

In general, the more volatile chemicals in each category are more likely to be used as solvents -- acetone among the ketones, methanol and ethanol among the alcohols, pentane, hexane and heptane among the alkanes, and so on. But there's nothing intrinsically volatile about organic liquids. if you want a low-volatility solvent (and sometimes you do), you can find examples with a wide variety of chemical properties.


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

[User]
ELI5: Where does ground go in a car battery?

So just a little background information: I understand almost nothing about electricity except for the fact that it is essentially the manipulation of electrons to do work. I understand that in residential applications earth ground is used to move high potential electrons to a lower potential in the event of a appliance short or something along the lines of that and it makes sense to me since earth ground is massive and i can imagine it holding a lot of electrons, however what dose not make sense to me is how a car battery works.

I understand that electricity is generated or "introduced" into cars by the alternator which charges the battery and when any component inside the car needs energy a relay is switched and applies a ground to that component for high potential electrons to pass through the load and into the low potential battery ground post or chassis ground which also leads to battery ground.

However, I know this I might sound silly or stupid but, what the \*\*\*\* happens from there? After the electrons enter battery ground what happens?

Do they get recycled(turn into high potential)? If so how?

Do they travel to earth ground or something?

If not how can the battery hold so many low potential electrons without exploding or something?

Honestly I have no clue. Please take it easy on me with the vocabulary.

[Assistant]
The battery is the pond, the frame is ground, and the alternator is a pump. The flow runs to the sprinklers, and trickles back to the pond through the ground.

Batteries are part of a closed circuit. Cars complete the circuits using the metal body and frame.

It would be too much extra copper wire to have every circuit be fully wired, so the battery (-) is connected by a heavy gauge wire to the frame. The battery (+) is fused, and the current runs out to do whatever job it needs to do, and then is grounded to the frame and back to the battery.


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

[User]
How is the same species of moose native to both Eurasia and North America?

With the Columbian Exchange, species like horses, pigs, maize, tomatoes, potatoes and others became available on both continents. Moose are native to both continents, but are also the same species, which seems odd to have not diverged in however many millions of years.

I would be very surprised if early European explorers successfully put moose onto ships to bring them to another continent, without even beginning to discuss why they would try that. At least horses are useful and domesticated.

[Assistant] Many animals that range into cold climates were able to disperse between continents when sea levels were lower during ice ages.  A great many large mammals in the northern part of the northern hemisphere did this (including humans). although many have since gone extinct in one hemisphere or the other.


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

[User]
[Rainbow Six Siege]Why do the counter-terrorists always leave the hostages hands tied up and mouth gagged as they lead them away, and why do they physically drag them, thus forcing them to use a pistol? Wouldn't they be better off saying "Follow close behind me" and using a better weapon?

Why tie up one of their hands dragging someone along at all?

[Assistant]
If you're dragging a bound subject, that's something you can train for and the hostage is largely under your control. It's inconvenient, but it's predictable.

"Follow closely behind me" is all well and good until someone starts firing and they wig out.


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

[User] ELI5: How do credit cards physically work? How is data stored and taken from it via chip/strip?

[Assistant]
The strip is simply a band of magnetic material which has sections with the magnetic pole flipped one way or another. It is only a way to easily read the number off the front of the card into a machine rather than typing it in manually.

The chip is connected to by electrical contacts touching the large metal pads you see on the front of the card. The tiny breaks between the pads isolate the different connections. Communication with the chip allows an input (in part based on the specific time of the transaction) to be run through an algorithm on the chip and output a unique value which identifies the transaction as valid. Someone without the chip wouldn't be able to calculate the proper output to authorize a transaction, and since it is different for every input and time then simply copying a value from a previous transaction won't work either. It cuts down on fraud since you physically need the chip.

Note that information about transactions or credit allowance isn't stored on the card at all. That stuff is managed by the credit company which is why credit processing requires communication via telephone or internet to clear credit transactions.


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

[User]
CMV: Abortion is always tragic, and should be rare (but still safe and legal)

My view of abortion is that it should be safe and legal but as rare as possible, as it is always tragic to lose a baby.

I have had multiple conversations with friends and family over the years, and seen dozens of posts online, about women (and men) mourning miscarriages. Losing a pregnancy you wanted \*feels\* tragic, and both mother and father often feel a sense of grief after a miscarriage that they struggle to process.

To me, that feels out of sync with the commonly-expressed liberal view that, until shortly before due date, the fetus is "just a blob of tissue" and shouldn't be thought of as a human being. If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage?

And, given that would-be parents do often grieve after a miscarriage, and abortion is essentially a medically-induced miscarriage, isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? The mother should still absolutely have the right to terminate the pregnancy, though.

In my view, abortion is similar to shooting someone in self defense. I never \*want\* to have to hurt someone who is threatening my life and freedom, but if there is no other way to protect my autonomy,  my body, my life, then it is justifiable. But it's still tragic to take a life, and we should avoid it as much as possible.

I see the unborn baby as a human being, with a right to life, but their right to life does not entitle them to the use of my body or my care and resources after it is born. If I do not want to carry and support the child, I should not be forced to do so.

The analogous self defense situation might be: a would-be thief who has no money and is starving breaks into my house looking to rob me so that they can buy food. They have a right to life, and in a better world I or someone else might be more charitable and give them money or food so that they don't feel a need to steal, but in the moment when they break into my home and threaten me or my family their right to life does not entitle them to steal from me. I am justified in defending myself and my property with force, up to and including killing them if there is no other option. It is always tragic to take a life, but my right to be secure in my body and in my property takes priority in this situation.

Abortion is similar. The mother's rights take priority over those of the unborn child, but to deny the unborn child has any status as a human being at all, to deny that the child has rights of it's own, and to deny the natural feelings of tragedy, loss, and guilt associated with abortion, is misguided.

Marked NSFW for sensitive content.

[Assistant]
> If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage?

Parents who want to have a child will certainly grieve after a miscarriage. But people who are struggling to conceive will also "grieve" with each failed attempt at conception as well. The degree of pain is different whether it's just taken a few times, or of they've been trying to get pregnant for years, or if they've tried various (often expensive) medical interventions. But when these fail, it can be emotionally devastating. And in these cases, there's *literally* no life form by anyone's definition. The conception didn't even happen.

And once you have this very real scenario on one end of the spectrum, imagine of that same family that struggled for years to conceive at all now has a miscarriage at 3 months. It's devastating, but that devastation is on a continuum with the emotions felt while trying to conceive. Point being, the grief felt over failure to even conceive demonstrates the reality, validity, and intensity of grief does not require a realized human life (or baby, if you will) of any kind. We can grieve for the lost potential at any stage of the process without necessarily attributing any special status, rights or intrinsic value to the fetus beyond it's potential to become something that the prospective parents wanted.


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

[User] [Marvel Comics] Since Red Skull used to be an actual Nazi, does he also share their prejudice views ?

[Assistant] Not exactly. He doesn't believe that any one race is superior to others. He believes that HE, and other supersoldiers created by the Erskine formula, are superior to everyone else. He even calls the Nuremberg laws, and the eugenics they were based on, "racist superstition masquerading as junk science". He latched onto the Nazi party for his own gain.


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

[User]
[LOTR] How are Hobbits politically and Military organized?

All the societies/races we encounter in Middle Earth seem to have a form of leadership, political organization, or a least have military units ready to defend their borders.

What about Hobbits? What prevent any band of thugs to invade their lands?

[Assistant]
From Tolkien Gateway

"Initially, The Shire was a part of Arthedain. The Hobbits considered themselves as subjects of the King and only after the fall of Arnor, the Shire became an independent political unit led by the Thain from Tuckborough who was the head of the important Took clan. While nominally the Thain ruled over the four Farthings, in practice authority was so decentralised that the title was seen as more of a formality and ceremonial.

Official of the Shire was the Mayor of Michel Delving in the White Downs (by extension seen as the mayor of the Shire). The Mayor's chief duties were serving as postmaster of the Shire's Messenger Service, charging the Watch and presiding at fairs

Finally, the Master of Buckland at Bucklebury controlled Buckland.

The sole law enforcement officials in the Shire were the Shirriffs. Their job was to protect the Shire from trespassers more than anything. There were three in each Farthing, and were distinguished from "civilians" by a feather worn in their caps. The Bounders were the land's border-guard, charged with turning back unwanted people or beasts, and their number varied according to need.

The Shire was originally divided in four Farthings (Northfarthing, Southfarthing, Eastfarthing, and Westfarthing), but Buckland and later the Westmarch were added to it. Within the Farthings there are some smaller, unofficial divisions such as family lands: the Tooks nearly all live in or near Tuckborough in Tookland, for instance. In many cases a Hobbit's last name indicates where their family came from: Samwise Gamgee's last name derives from Gamwich, where the family originated. Outside the Farthings, Buckland itself was named for the Oldbucks (later Brandybucks)."


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

[User] [Comics, generally]Are there any "prominent" superheroes who do not have dead parents, have not suffered some sort of terrible personal or family tragedy and otherwise don't have some sad aspect to their tale?

[Assistant]
The new Ms. Marvel has loving parents. As does the Jaime Reyes version of the Blue Beetle.

Before Professor Zoom rewrote Barry Allen's history, his parents remained an active part of his life even after he became the Flash.


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

[User] ELI5 Why does sodium-heavy liquids like pickle juice, chicken noodle soup, or saline hydrate you better than regular water when you're dehydrated, but salt water dehydrates you?

[Assistant]
Because most of the time, when youre severely dehydrated like that youre also short on electrolytes so the salt helps. You cant drink sea water because the salt concentration of salt is so high your kidneys cant process it and just dump even more water than youre taking in drinking the salt water making you more dehydrated.

Its all about the concentration Of the salt.


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

[User] What is the physical difference between people who can sing well and those who cannot?

[Assistant]
Physically: The physiological shape of your vocal tracts can determine the quality of your voice.

Also, most singers have trained their vocal chords to create the sounds they want to produce. Anyone can become a better singer through practice and training. Not everyone will be as good or sound like a professional but everyone can get better.


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

[User]
ELI5: How do restaurants, pubs, etc. process credit/debit card "tips".

Example: I'm in a restaurant. The bill arrives. I give them my credit card. Card comes back. I calculate and include my tip and the total on the check/receipt.

But I have never noticed a debit of the tip amount on my statements. How do they actually receive the tip amount?

[Assistant]
When you give them your card, they put a temporary authorization on it to verify that the card is valid and has funds available.

After you've filled in your tip amount, they simply bill you for the total (price plus tip), which is what shows up on your statement.


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

[User] ELI5: How do brainwashing techniques work? what is happening to your brain?

[Assistant]
The theory is that everything you do is the result of Pavlovian training.  When you do something good, you get rewarded by your parents growing up and that behavior is reinforced by your brain.  Initially the reward is direct: you only help your mom with the dishes because she thanks you afterwards or because she gives you dessert.

Later the drive is self-fulfilling, doing things not for a reward but because you want to make your mom happy, though there may not necessarily be a direct reward.  The highest form of reward is doing something because it's right.  It is a type of reward that is given to yourself for following learned behavior of what is right and wrong.

Brainwashing is positive and negative reinforcement equivalent of direct reward (just in the opposite direction), but against the initial desires of the person.  While you receive the direct positive and negative reinforcement, there still remains the sense of right and wrong imprinted on you that will fight it.  Without any direct positive or negative reinforcement to reinforce old views, your mind gradually begins to incorporate a new sense of right and wrong until you no longer have conflict between the two.  The time it takes to brainwash someone is proportional to the amount of contrast of current views and how well-developed your sense of right and wrong is.

In other words, it is easy to "brainwash" someone into thinking that Frozen was a great film when he really disliked it, since it requires little contrast with existing ideas of right and wrong, but convincing a just person that it is okay to kill people would require far more effort.  Likewise, convincing a child to do something strongly contrasting their current ideas of right and wrong is far easier when their ideas of right and wrong are still developing.

Did that answer your question?


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

[User] ELI5: How did Theodore Case and Lee De Forest use a light bulb to transfer sound onto film?

[Assistant]
If you look at sound as an electrical signal you will have a voltage that changes over time.

Instead of using it to power an electromagnet to move a speaker membrane, you can use it to power a lamp, its brightness will depend on the voltage. If you then have a light-sensitive photocell that produces a current that depends on the amount of light that hits it you have to know created a way to transfer sound with light.

Photographic film is a medium that recodes the amount of light that hits it so by shining the light that is controlled by the sound on it when you move the film you can recode that pattern. When the film is developed you can shine a light through the film and the amount that hits the other side will have the shape of the initial sound wave.

There are lots of technical detail of exactly how those steps are done, and how you expose and read it from a small area of the film. There might be some non-linear effects you need to handle with amplifiers and/or filters but what is described above is the general idea of how you store sound on photographic film.


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

[User] [DC] If Nora just died, would Freeze give up on being a supervillain?

[Assistant]
I like to imagine this:

Nora dies and Fries immediately quits, goes into hiding and spends months feeling sad and depressed.

Then he opens up a bar in Fairbanks and lives out the rest of his days quietly listening to other peoples problems.


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

[User] ELI5: Why can't dogs eat chocolate?

[Assistant]
Stuff that shouldn't be in your blood is filtered out by your liver. If your liver can't do it, it might get damaged. Dogs (and cats) have livers that can't filter as many chemicals as people, so their livers get damaged, and livers are very important. In chocolate, the chemical that dogs' livers can't handle is called theobromine.

People have very good livers compared to most other animals, maybe because we have a very diverse diet (dogs nearly only eat meat normally).


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

[User]
ELI5: What does the "ion" button on fans do?

I mean, I was told that it ionizes the air (whatever that means?), but does it actually have any benefits of turning it on?

[Assistant]
The benefit is that ions help to remove dust from the air.

The air purifier releases negatively-charged ions into the air.  Dust is positively charged, so the dust and ions attract each other.  This operates on the same principle that makes CRT screens attract dust -- the screen has a negative charge from electrons hitting it.

Once enough ions attach to a dust particle, the whole thing becomes heavy enough to fall to a table or other surface.  Then you wipe the dust off the surface.


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

[User] [Avatar:2009] Why are the Navi so primitive, if they could be as old as the oldest "Modern Human" or even older?

[Assistant]
The same reason Australian Aboriginals didnt develop for 50,000 years or why theres still primitive societies in the Amazon today. There isnt a *need* to develop.

Life isnt on a tech tree, things only develop and change when theres a pressure to so obviously theres not enough pressure to develop.


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

[User] ELI5: When birds tear into the dirt looking for worms, are they just blindly excavating, or do they have some reason to believe a worm is right there?

[Assistant]
Aviary expert here. Birds can tell the sensation of creatures moving beneath their feet. Earth is one of the best conduits of movement, so the vibrations of animals such as worms can be felt through their claws and talons, travelling through their legs and into their bones, eventually vibrating into their skulls. This sensation allows them to pinpoint the movement of any animal, so they can then aim their beaks to strike at the exact moment any creature comes closest to the surface.

TLDR: Yes birds know what they're doing, it's not down to chance.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] How did the average imperial solider/officer deal with the destruction of Alderaan?

I'm not an expert on Star Wars but it seems like a bit of a dick move since Alderaan supposedly didn't have any weapons. Was knowledge of the incident suppressed in the empire, or did most soldiers just shrug and figure the Alderaanians deserved it somehow?

[Assistant]
In Legends the destruction of Alderaan was passed off as a Rebel attack, but because of the reputation of Alderaan at the time only the Empire's staunchest or most subjugated allies believed the rebels did such an act.

A significant amount of people in the Imperial military would immediately defect, mostly junior officers and lower ranks. Some of the more higher ranks would also defect or resign, usually in protest of existing politics at play, with many such officers being from more independent systems like Corellia or a family history of being in the Republic Armed Forces.

Most Alderaanians defected immediately, the few who stayed as Imperials usually already having cut ties with their home planet.

More planets also started throwing more support to the various Rebel organisations, although most did not formally declare support until the major turning point that was the destruction of the Death Star.


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

[User]
[LoTR] What are the best canonical feats of magic used by Gandalf, Saruman and the other Istari/wizards? And other Middle Earth Magic questions

In both the movies and the books. I'm just trying to compile a list of observable feats of magic in the Tolkienverse, it's hard considering how vague Tolkien's own image of magic was at times.

When the wizards did see fit to use their power, what could they actually *do*?

For that matter, what magic was available for the elves to use? Why couldn't humans do such things, to any similar extent?

[Assistant]
Gandalf (the Grey) was able to battle Durin's Bane for 10 continuous days, the first eight spent in falling to the bottom of a chasm that had never been measured, and climbing a staircase that led to the very peak of a mountain. The next two days were a constant battle between Maiar. Gandalf described what it would have looked like to outside observers (most likely *very* different from what it actually was) as
> the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire.

Now, that's fun and all, but not particularly concrete. We can however now scale Gandalf = Balrog which gives us much more solid evidence of power.  This particular Balrog was able to solo the entire dwarven kingdom of Moria. So 1 Balrog>Thousands of dwarves, although, most likely in small groups. That's not even beginning to cover all the ridiculous things other Balrogs have done in the past. The 3-7 of them, were able to drive off the demon spider-thing Ungoliant, with
> a tempest of flame.

This same spider had recently devoured the light of the trees of Valinor(the fruit of which later became the sun and moon of Middle Earth), and had swelled to such a size that Morgoth himself(Sauron's master), was actually terrified. This is all still Gandalf the Grey, mind you.

The next example comes from Gandalf's next (physical) appearance in the Two Towers. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas all attack him believing him to be Saruman, cause, ya know. He was wearing white. Gandalf responds, by ripping Gimli's axe from his hands, forcing Aragorn to drop his sword, by making it burst into flame, and as Legolas shoots at him, disintegrating the arrow mid-flight with fire.

The next viable showing come from his extremely brief clashes with the Ringwraiths. He was able to drive them back with
> a shaft of white light.

Going further into detail let's talk about the Witch-King of Angmar. His main weapon was fear, such immense fear that he was described as

> A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway no enemy had ever yet passed, and all fled before his face. All save one.

That one being, obviously Gandalf. Now, this does demonstrate great courage, but who cares? It's just fear. But the Nazgul wield greater weapons (at least 1-v-1. Against an army fear is pretty effective). For example he shattered Frodo's sword from about thirty feet away, by *screeching* at him. Then we have something that is debatable as being his power, but I'll still use it.

> Then the Black Captain rose in his stirrups and cried aloud in a dreadful voice, speaking in some forgotten tongue words of power and terror to rend both heart and stone. Thrice he cried. Thrice the great ram boomed. And suddenly upon the last stroke the Gate of Gondor broke. As if stricken by some blasting spell it burst asunder: there was a flash of searing lightning, and the doors tumbled in riven fragments to the ground.

And Gandalf was fairly confident he could fight this thing, on even terms. Other things Gandalf can do: Read minds and memories, bless a particularly pudgy pony, so that it could safely make it back to the town of Bree, despite all the hungry goblins and trolls in the way, knock Wormtongue to the floor/unconscious, and generates fire on plenty of occasions.


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

[User] What is it exactly that energy boosting substances like caffeine and ginseng do to our body in order to provide an alert/energized state?

[Assistant] Well, for caffeine, it doesn't actually give you energy. Caffeine is an adenosine receptor antagonist. It prevents adenosine from binding to sites in the CNS. Over time as you are awake, adenosine builds up and begins binding to these receptors which induces drowsiness, but with caffeine in your system, this is blocked and you feel less tired and more alert.


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

[User] ELI5: How do we "store" electricity?

[Assistant]
There are various ways to store electricity, they generally take the form of converting it into chemical energy as in a battery or physical energy as in a flywheel.

One of the more popular techniques to save energy for the national power grid is to use it to pump water from a lake to the top of a mountain while the grid requirement is low. When there is high demand the energy company dumps the water back into the lake via a generation plant and feeds that energy back to the grid.


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

[User]
[Injustice] Was the Suicide Squad ever deployed?

We know from Injustice: Ground Zero that Harley had once been in the Suicide Squad, as had Captain Boomerang. So, did the government ever consider deploying the Suicide Squad against the Justice League before the official takeover? If not, was it too risky, or just considered too far out of the league even the "impossible missions" team?

[Assistant]
Sort of; we know that shortly after Superman began overreaching himself, the US government covertly deployed Mirror Master to abduct the Kents in an attempt to get some leverage on him.

Not only did it not work (FUCKING DUH), but even Batman thought it was such a stupid idea that he broke into the White House and beat up the Secret Service just so he could tell the president how stupid it was in person.


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

[User]
If the Moon is moving away from Earth, will it eventually escape Earth gravity?

I read that the Moon is moving 3.8cm away from Earth each year. If that is true, will the Moon eventually escape Earth's gravitational pull? Or will the Sun have died before that happens?

[Assistant]
Warning! Back of the envelope calculations below.

Every billion years, the moon will be 1x10^9 * 3.8x10^-5 = 38,000 km farther away from us. When the sun turns into a red giant and engulfs the inner solar system, the moon will be 4 x 38000 = 152,000 km farther away. Currently it's 384,400 km out so when the sun asplodes it will be approx 536,400 km away, which is still within earth's gravity's influence.


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

[User]
CMV: People have a moral obligation to debunk mediums because they take advantage of vulnerable people

Mediums are not legitimate and simply make vague guesses and have a skill for reading people. They use this to deceive people into believing they actually possess the supernatural power to speak to the dead.

Many people want to believe that there is a way for them to communicate with their deceased relatives and this will cause them to focus mostly on the hits and ignore the misses when listening to the medium. This is predatory because they are deceiving those who are vulnerable as a result of losing important people in their lives into giving them money in exchange for lies. I also believe it is immoral to put words into a dead person's mouth since they are not there to confirm or deny the message.

Exposing these con artists is important to help those who are vulnerable not fall into a scam.

[Assistant]
I take it you saw the John Oliver on this topic. If not, you should.

That said, people trade off between short term comfort and long term pain all the time. This is essentially alcohol, Oreos, and tobacco's entire business model. In general we allow this.

Mediums have no such long term penalty. They don't cause cancer or diabetes or anything like that. As such, they are less harmful than Oreos, and Oreos are fine, thus mediums are fine.

That said, this argument is contingent on mediums being benign. Once people start taking the advice to heart, and start changing their wills, or suing people, or arresting people for murderers - based on what the medium said, that is a whole other ball game. That must be opposed with the full vigor one can muster.


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

[User]
[Bruce Almighty] How might it have been possible to rise to God's challenge or fulfill it successfully?

God challenges Bruce to do a better job than He is doing, and so endows Bruce with all His power and (almost) limitless freedom. So let's say that Bruce immediately eradicates AIDS, cancer and birth defects from possibly showing up in human beings for the rest of time. He then renders the entire surface of the earth fertile, eliminates all traces of harmful chemical from the air and water, cures people of all addictions and psychopathy and reverses all damage that's been done to the environment. He then creates a tailor-made, personal message to every human being on Earth, in their own language, explicitly and undeniably informing them of the existence of God and His boundless love for them, and imploring them to treat everybody with respect and love and to work with others to ensure the survival of the future and the welfare of other people and animals.

Would this be enough to convince God that a human could do a better job, or was the point for Bruce (or anybody) to simply fail? Bruce doesn't even take the challenge seriously. He just immediately uses it to have good sex and boost his public profile. It's actually surprising how uncommonly unintelligent and myopic Bruce's time with the power is.

[Assistant]
From God's perspective here it seems he's concluded that doing nothing is the best job a God can do. Either his obvious presence or answering prayers would land everybody into trouble.

Though Bruce is an idiot at utilizing infinite power, he does end up doing both of the above with disastrous results. Illustrating that an active God would be a nightmare for humanity.

Solving all of our woes intelligently would cause us to be much better off for a while. But what happens when you remove the conflict from our existence? Does that make us stronger as a species? This could be argued to be a fail in the long run as it sets us up for another catastrophe when God takes a break.

I don't think you can win God's challenge, first off he's infallible and has already decided what the best course of action is. Proving him wrong is impossible since his existence is based on him always being right.

Doing the same thing he did, the "correct" course of action doesn't prove him wrong and is a fail.
Anything other than what he's decided is correct is a fail. It's fails all the way down.

We are better off without a God and he knows it.


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

[User]
[Yu-Gi-Oh] Was It Ever Explained How Bakura Got His Millennium Ring Back?

(I'm using dub names, because that's what I'm most familiar with)

Towards the end of Season 1 when Tristan and Bakura rescued Mokuba from Pegasus's clutches (or at least his empty body bereft of a soul). When they were almost caught by Pegasus's guards, Bakura pulled out his millennium ring and used it's shadow realm magic to scare/possibly kill the guards (not in the 4kids dub though). Tristan, doing something smart for once KTFO Bakura and then threw the ring into the ocean.

But then in season 2, Bakura returns with the ring. While Tristan does remember that he threw it into ocean, to my knowledge the show never explains how Bakura got the ring out of the ocean. Did it explain it in the manga or any other sources?

[Assistant] You can't just steal/toss someone's Millennium Item.  Ownership has to be transferred via a duel, otherwise it will simply return to it's rightful owner.  It's why Bakura went through the trouble of "dueling with ancient Egyptian laser beams" before plucking out Pegasus's eye.


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

[User] ELI5: How do music streaming services pay artists? How much are artists paid? What is payment based on (number of plays, etc)?

[Assistant]
They know what people are playing and they compile costs based on play count and cut checks to the labels on a pre-determined basis.  Sometimes rates are different based on quantity and such.  It all differs, but most services pay standard rates that are set by law.

Sometimes companies pay different rates depending on if they have a contract that gives the artist greater control of the streaming rights and sometimes they pay different rates for specific artists for things like exclusives.

It depends on the situation, the song, and what agreements have been struck.


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

[User] ELI5: How did people in the middle ages keep their swords from rusting in the rain? Did people just not fight if it was wet out?

[Assistant] Simple, regular maintenance, after using the sword they didn't just throw it back in the scabbard and hang on the wall at home until the next time. It would be wiped dry, re-sharpened and oiled before storing it. A sword is not going to fall apart immediately after getting wet, seriously rusting would take weeks of neglect.


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

[User]
CMV: All gossip is bad and no one is trustworthy

I hate gossip with a passion. I immediately dislike people when I hear them gossiping and I choose to distance myself from and keep my interactions with them to a minimal. It's wrong to make assumptions about people's life and run with them without talking to or consulting with the person of the discussion.

That being said, men and women both gossip equally, so nothing you say can be trusted with anyone. People are fake.

No, I don't gossip. I don't discuss other people's lives when they're not around. I hate having that done to me, so I am not going to do that to others.

Even "good gossip" is bad, because why do you have to wait until I'm not around to talk about me?

So, CMV: Gossiping shows that there a lack of willingness to be transparent with another person and, because of that, everyone who gossips is untrustworthy.

Edit: I define gossiping as talking about someone with other people with the intentions of hurting their reputation and simply just being an ass to feel connected to a group.

[Assistant] You're clearly basing this post on personal experiences you've had with people you consider to be "gossips"; people you brand as "fake". Does this post itself count as 'gossip'? If not: why not? Because you didn't name them? Because you typed it rather than spoke it?


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

[User] ELI5: What are mirages?

[Assistant]
It's quite simple, the mirage is where light is refracted through air at different temperatures (Cold to Hot).

Cold air is denser than warm air, and the bigger the difference the greater the refractive index. As light passes down from cool to hot air, it gets refracted (bent) upwards towards the denser air and away from the ground.

Your eyes will see distorted rays coming from the ground and you essentially see a refracted image of the sky.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it that when a couple gets divorced the guy is usualy the one who gets screwed over the most?

[Assistant]
Households that had a traditional gender role split then have a traditional gender role split in divorce.

If a married couple choose to have children, and decide to divide the labour of raising the family such that one person sacrifices a career, while the other maintains their's with minimal interruption to provide the financial needs of the household, it makes sense that, were the household to split, the one who had historically been the caregiver would continue to be the caregiver, and the one who had been the financial giver would continue to be the financial giver.

This heads off problems where the one who gave up career nurturing would not be up shits creek because they had no resume to show for the time that they committed to the nurturing of the children in the household. It also heads off the (less complained about) problem wherein the one who had traditionally been available and dependable in their career, suddenly might have to take off way more time, and become way less dependable, in service of nurturing and raising children.

Finally, its head off the consequent, were the two less-desirable outcomes to happen (wherein the one who sacrificed resume-building must find a shit job, and the one who has a job requires more time off) in which the first cannot actually find a job (and can therefore no longer provide well enough for the children) and the second DOESN'T sacrifice time from their job, therefore not providing well enough for the children.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do we use Degrees to measure both angles and temperature?

[Assistant]
A degree is a given fraction of a given scale. When talking about angles, a degree is a given fraction of a full cirle (360), when talking about temperature, a degree is a given ammount of a scale. ( This however makes more sense looking at the Celsius scale, because as 100 means water boiling, 21 could also mean "21% of the water's boiling temperature, so 21 means here the 21st fracture of a scale 0-100 ).

EDIT: Another user mentioned the latin origin. "De Gradus" literally means "In steps of...." so you get the idea. A 45 degree angle is "45 steps on a ( 360 step ) circle.

If you call someone "stupid to a certain degree" you are expressing something similar. The person is not fully retardet, you know there is headroom left, but hell, he is dumb.


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

[User]
Why do babies shove everything they get their hands on into their mouths?

Even in modern times, a lot of babies choke or get poisoned by sticking the wrong thing into their mouth.  Wouldn't this have happened a whole lot more when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers?

You would think the babies that didn't do this would have had a higher survival rate, and eventually the habit would have been weeded out.

[Assistant]
Highest number of nerve endings per unit area is on the lips and tongue.

Babies do not have fine motor control or developed tactile senses in their hands, whereas their sense of smell and taste is excellent (being one of the first to develop), and they have the best tactile ability located on their lips and tongue.

Therefore their mouth is both how they taste and feel things.


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

[User]
Are there any materials that can exist in two or more different states at certain pressures/temperatures?

To expand on this: can these materials exist in these two different states stably? If not, why isn't this possible?

[Assistant] Yes materials can stably exist in more than one state at the same temperature and pressure. Some examples include vapor-liquid equilibrium where a liquid and vapor phase coexist, solid-liquid equilibrium where a solid coexists with a liquid, and solid-liquid-vapor equilibrium (aka the triple point) where all three phases coexist.


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

[User]
ELI5: What causes the "had a hard life" facial features?

I see people that aren't underweight, and in fact quite fat, but there is a pattern to people who have had a history of heavy alcohol and drug abuse where their faces all sort of look the same, sort of hard to describe.  what's going on here?

[Assistant] To me the "hard life" type of appearance is related to droopy skin and wrinkles leading someone to appear older than they are. A lot of drugs out there dehydrate you and when you are dehydrated your skin becomes more dry and more likely to wrinkle, Vitamin A is important for your cells to turnover and alcohol prevents your body from using the vitamin A it receives. Hair might also be part of the "hard life" look you are talking about, the hair reacts to drugs in a very similar way in terms of hydration, hair that isn't hydrated it becomes weaker and more brittle.


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

[User]
ELI5: What makes all of these 'end of the world' campaigns worth it? How do these benefit the people running them?

A while ago I saw a youtube ad paid for by some guy's secretary stating that her boss supposedly ran off to the Himalayan mountains because he discovered that some catastrophic event is happening in a very short amount of time.  I just barely saw another ad from a guy who discovered some other way in which the United States is about to collapse.  The thing that I don't get is that these don't seem to be scams, when you go to their websites there isn't a big orange paypal button, but they're clearly insane.  So, how is this worth it?  How do the people running these campaigns recoup the losses from running mass advertising campaigns?  Do these people legitimately believe that there's going to be some extreme end-of-the-world event that's going to happen any day now?

[Assistant]
The common theme is that since we all go to heaven naked then you might as well give up your worldly goods to Ravi-Joe-Schmoe so that he can continue "educating" people on whatever the tragedy-Du-jour is.

The reason there isn't a PayPal button on their website is because they are known scams that can't get a PayPal account because they are illegal in most countries -that's why you have to go to Timbuktu to participate in the cult, they got thrown out of everywhere else.

If you're sucker enough to talk to them at all you will give them your worldly possessions, sign no contract, and your world of abject materialism will be handily exchanged for a world of abject poverty.

If you're Ravi-Joe-Schmoe it only takes a couple of idiots to make your annual salary and its off to Vegas.


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

[User] [Harry Potter] Why do all the building have regular Muggle plumbing?

[Assistant]
Or is Muggle plumbing actually Wizard plumbing?

But wizards need pipes to carry their water and waste as muggles do. We also need chairs, stairs, windows, and doors when we could just magic other solutions in or out of existence!


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

[User] When light strikes a metal, a photon can excite an electron to leave. Does the metal ever run out of electrons?

[Assistant]
No. While releasing more and more electrons, the Fermi level will become lower and lower, because the electrons with largest kientic energy will be ejected. This increases the work function of the metal until the energy of one photon is not sufficient to excite another electron to the vacuum level. At this point you have changed the potential of the metal significantly. So you could call the photoelectric effect self-inhibiting if the metal is not connect to an electron source.

edit: additions due to many questions going in very similar directions:

*Q: Does a solar cell become less efficient due to depletion of electrons?*

A: No. First, a solar cell usually doesn't operate using the photoelectric effect but using an interface between two different doped semiconductors (p-n junction). But that difference is not really relevant. The thing is that after leaving the photoelectric electrode (or the electron donor phase in the semiconductor) they travel towards an electron acceptor electrode. This creates a potential between these electrodes. If both electrodes are floating (i.e. not connected to any mass or ground which can neutralize potential, this potential will then counteract any further charge separation. However, in a solar cell powered circuit, the to electrodes are connected to each other by a load (for example a lamp). The electrons travel through that load, lose their potential energy and travel back to the donor electrode where they replenish the electron reservoir and more electrons can be excited. This is a continuous process and electrons are not "lost" somewhere in between.

*Q: How does solar cells work in a spacecraft when there is no connection to ground?*

A: A circuit as described above can also contain the ground as electrical conductor. This does not change the efficiency of a circuit or lead to changes in potential. The only importance is that the two opposite poles of the load and the two opposite electrodes of the photoelectric element or solar cell are connect to the same potential each. You can do that directly, or can put the ground in between ONE leg. Not both, because then you would short the solar cell and not be able to power the load.

*Q: Does the metal become oxidized when electrons are released or does it degrade chemically?*

A: No. Even though the loss of electrons is formally an oxidation, the metal does not become oxidized because it will regain the electrons on one way or the other before that many electrons are lost so that a chemical process would set in. The removed electrons do not belong to a specific atom within the metal, but are rather shared between all atoms in an electron "sea" where they can freely move (hence the electric conductivity of metals).

But you can make chemical reactions more or less likely by applying a potential (voltage) to the metal. This is what is used in electrolysis or active passivation of metals. In principle you can tune the reactivity by lowering or increasing the energy of the most energetic electrons in the electron "sea", making it harder or easier, respectively, for oxidizing agents (e.g. O2, H^+ ) to remove electrons from the metal.


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

[User] ELI5: How do STDs infect human patient zero?

[Assistant]
The diseases we describe as "STDs" generally aren't transmitted *only* through sex, but also through other sorts of contact with infected fluids and/or tissue.

Most of them probably entered the human population as a result of humans trying to eat an infected animal.  All it would take to catch something like HIV from an infected chimpanzee would be to have a cut on your hand (maybe because the chimpanzee is fighting back) and then splash the cut with some of its blood.


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

[User] Do low interest rates cause asset bubbles? If not, why do so many people in finance appear to believe that low interest rates cause assets to become mispriced?

[Assistant]
When interest rates are low the investment money that would normally go into US treasury and other low risk bonds, CDs, and other interest bearing assets, instead needs to move into riskier assets such as equities, real estate, or commodities in order to earn a return.

This increases the demand for those assets, and if the supply is constrained, the price may rise higher than is warranted by the underlying value of the asset. Often speculators might then come in, seeing rapidly increasing prices, and push things even higher.

As interest rates increase, or speculators get spooked, money can then quickly flow back out of those riskier assets, causing the price to collapse.


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

[User]
[Spongebob squarepants] How old was Spongebob at the beginning of the show?

* The first Spongebob episode premiered on May 1st, 1999
* An early episode had him show his drivers license, which listed his birthday as being July 14, 1986
* This would mean he is 13 years old at the start of the series.
* However, he is seemingly old enough to be living on his own and works a full-time job.

[Assistant]
He's 30.
During the 14th episode of season one he travels exactly 2000 years into the future to the year 4017, meaning season 1 takes place in the march of 2017, making him 30  years old during season 1.


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

[User]
[Snowpiercer] Why even have poor people on the train anyway?

I don't get why they have all these carriages filled with poor people when they don't seem to do anything useful at all. They don't work. They don't produce any benefit for the people at the front. They are just trouble waiting to happen.

Also, if they have to have the poor people on there for whatever reason, why don't they pretend that everyone is equally poor? Dress in rags when you go and steal their children or whatever?I guess it'd still be kinda obvious because you'd still need guards. But they could at least pretend not to be sooo rich and talk about how they are hats and whatever.

[Assistant]
Even if most poor people don't produce anything for the people at the front, they aren't a drain on the people at the front either. They have their own independent food supply and (if what Tilda Swinton's character said was true) a separate supply. It only takes two armed guards to keep them docile during inspections or whatever. The cost of having them there is far outweighed by the potential advantages of having a ready supply of free labour for when/if anything breaks down.

Plus, the plan presumably isn't for humanity to live on the train forever and - if the world thaws out and people can build permanent settlements - the rich people aren't going to want to build their own houses and dig their own wells, are they? If the world never thaws, they'll be useful for a bit of genetic diversity as the generations go on. They can be used as egg/sperm donors when a couple of front-ender first-cousins want to have a baby together.

I think it never occurred to the rich people to pretend to be poor because they *enjoyed* lording it over the tail-enders. It sounds like they were basically conspiracy nuts before the end of the world (they say Wilford was one of the only people who knew the world would be frozen, and that people bought tickets for the train, so presumably they believed the same as him else they wouldn't have bothered). Letting them know that things were better down the front is kind of an extended "Ha! We were right all along!" statement, rubbing it in for those who didn't belive them.


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

[User]
ELI5: What happened in Major League Baseball on September 28, 2011?

Apparently something crazy happened and I'm not sure what. It may have involved multiple games that were happening concurrently? I'm not a baseball fan, so I'm not familiar with who the important figures are or what the big turns were...

[Assistant]
Your family dog has given you approximately 15 puppies and you've had them for 5 months. You've decided to foster these puppies for 6 months and then after that they go to the SPCA. One puppy started out as the smallest, but grew to be bigger and eventually became your favorite because he was the best at playing. Then, at the beginning of September, he started pooping on everything you love. Including your favorite stuffed animal, Mr. Wubsy. On the very last day before you have to decide which of the puppies to get rid of, your favorite decides to eat your family photo album and you have it put down for sucking so hard.

That puppy is the 2011 Red Sox (and to a lesser extent, the Braves).


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

[User] Could the large hadron collider accelerate a Bucky ball?

[Assistant]
**tl;dr:** No, because if you try to give a Buckyball a net electric charge, it will stop being a Buckyball

The LHC does accelerate heavy atoms like lead, which has an atomic weight of about 207au.  The C-60 Buckyball has an atomic weight somewhere around 720au, which is three to four times heavier.  So mass-wise, it's at least in the neighborhood of what the LHC can accelerate, if a bit large.

The real problem is electric charge, which a particle must have in order to be accelerated.  To make beams of lead atoms, for example, the bulk of the electrons must be stripped off prior to injection to leave a highly-charged nucleus that responds to electric and magnetic fields.  In a Buckyball, though, the electrons are what form the bonds between carbon atoms that keep them in the famous soccer-ball shape.  If you try to strip away electrons from the molecule, all you'll end up doing is breaking the atomic bonds, so that you don't have a Buckyball anymore - just 60 carbon ions.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] Why didn't Voyager ever develop/buy a cloaking device for themselves/the Delta Flyer

Given that Janeway tended to play it fast and loose with regulations and that they were unlikely to provoke a war with the Romulans from the Delta quadrant (see: Treaty of Algeron) why didn't Voyager every devise a cloak for themselves?

[Assistant]
It does seem like arming the Federation with future technology would be a far greater act of war than installing a cloaking device on a Federation ship.  Yet, we can see in Captain Janeway a desire that goes beyond safely getting her crew home.  She cherished the journey for a time and strategically chose, from a future perspective, an opportune time to end her journey that was not only convenient but also fit with the time frame during which the U.S.S. Voyager was truly a ship of exploration.

Her motivations for the seven years spent in the Delta Quadrant, then, seem to have been ones involving discovery and diplomacy.  A ship under cloak has few opportunities for interaction.  What's more, new species that see a ship come out of cloak will have a far different initial demeanor towards that ship.  A cloaking device, by it's very existence, says that the Captain has something to hide and/or prefers to ambush targets as needed.  This is far from the attitude that Captain Janeway tried to put forth in her dealings, and while there were times when a cloaking device would have been useful on the whole the crew benefited most from the honest demeanor they consistently presented to the new cultures they encountered.


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

[User] ELI5 What is exactly stamina? What happens when it gets trained? Do your lungs get better and more efficient at pumping air?

[Assistant]
There is some truth to what the other comments claim. However, the most important limiting factor for your body's ability to use oxygen (VO2 max) is your heart and its ability to pump blood. This is true for everyone except those with lung conditions and elite athletes. On average, we only use 60% of our lungs' maximum capacity when our heart is maxed out. So, to increase our stamina, we exercise our heart.

When we exercise our heart, it can pump more blood per contraction. Your heart can pump more blood > more oxygenated blood is pumped into the body > your muscles have access to more oxygen > your muscles can maintain a force over a longer time period before producing lactic acid.

It is true that the muscles also get better at using the oxygen (more blood vessels are created, more mitochondria, et cetera), but this is not as significant.

This is a heavily simplified explanation and also has to do with lactic acid and proton clearance by the liver, to name an example.


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

[User]
[Skyrim] As a bard I tend to wander from place to place. When I was recently in skyrim to make cash off singing the same song with slight variations I noticed no one sleeps under the covers of their bed. Instead they all just lay on top of their beds. Would anyone know why this is?

No matter the temperature they just lay on top of the sheets or on the furs. This seems to be a truth from jarl to peasant and  for the life of me I can't figure it out especially in places like Winterhold. And oddly enough all foreign travelers do this as well. Any help would be much appreciated.

[Assistant]
1. Many bedchambers have fires in them so they're actually quite warm.

2. Nords aren't bothered by cold.  Even when they're asleep.  Sleeping under covers is for those pansy Imperials and those uppity Mers and those guys from Hammerfell with their *curved swords*.  Real Nords don't feel cold.  This mentality has resulted in foreign travelers not wanting to appear weak, so they follow this custom too.

3. Skyrim's a dangerous place, so sometimes it's necessary to jump out of bed and immediately fight an enemy.  Covers get in the way of that.  Did you notice how a lot of people go to sleep still wearing their weapons?  Same idea.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is a music conductor necessary?

I know this may be a dumb question, but I'm curious. Obviously the band/orchestra has practiced the song a million times prior to a live performance. Do the musicians still follow the conductor's lead, or do they just play from memory?

Edit: Wow! I've had no idea this would get such a huge response. Thank you for the answers guys, I've learned a lot of interesting things today!!

[Assistant]
From where you sit in an orchestra, you do not hear every other instrument clearly. This impacts some more than others, but there are people (from experience - the pianist) who can't hear most of the other players - for them the conductor is absolutely essential. Also, a lot of classical repertoire, especially music from the 19th century onward, requires constant speeding up and slowing down, either in the form of tempo changes or as rubato (bending the rhythm for a few notes for dramatic effect) which is hard to do without a conductor.

Also, the conductor is the only person to hear every instrument roughly like an audience member. Thus, they are the only person in an orchestra (assuming a large ensemble) who can hear which sections are too loud and which are too soft, and a large part of the conductor's job is telling individual instruments to change their volume.

That said, there are many smaller ensembles and orchestras, particularly those playing baroque and pre-baroque music, that don't play with conductors.


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

[User]
I believe that everyone is selfish and there is no true kindness in people. CMV

This could be stemmed from my poor social experiences or from what i learnt in my psychology diploma, and soon recently came to the conclusion that there is no true kindness/altruism whatever you call it.

For a behavior to happen, there needs to be some sort of motivation. Intrinsic or extrinsic, there is a need for people to behave a certain way. Extrinsic motivation is plain and simple. The most common is money. People work for money, people steal for money, people who do charity gain acceptance of society, which in turn lets them earn more from their enterprises since the company they represent is more accepted. That's what i believe.

Even if there is an intrinsic motivation, the person definitely have to do it for his or her own cause. For example, a generous person who makes self-sacrifices for others could gain satisfaction in his own mind that he's done something "good" and the social acceptance which he gets would motivate him to do more kind deeds, since society as a whole promotes pro-social behaviors.

Or someone sees an injustice and steps in for the victim. The person seeing the injustice could just be annoyed at the situation and in order to resolve the annoyance he steps in to help the weak. I would also think that that's just a method for the person to deal with some internal unsolved issues to make himself/herself feel better. For example, a man who was a bully victim steps in to fight off some bullies because he did not have the courage to stand up to them when he was younger. Because of that, he may feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in himself. Thus, since there is a personal gain, I do not see pure kindness.

So basically even when someone does something good or kind, i would attribute it to his or her need to be socially accepted or the self-satisfaction, and when there's personal gain from displaying pro-social behaviors, I do not believe that people can have pure kindness. But hey, that's just my opinion man.

Edit: ok basically, I believe that there will always be personal benefits when someone does some kind deed that is beneficial to others. Without the personal benefit, nobody will do anything solely for the benefit of others.

No matter how I looked at things, I can always attribute acts if kindness with some form of personal gains.

I may not have phrased it correctly saying that everyone is selfish. I just tend to be quite avoidant at times and think the worst of people. Lol

Edit2: so many people talked about positive and negative values. So my question is: how do you determine the TRUE values of one's motivations for an action?

[Assistant]
What about the economic principle of marginal utility?

In short, the idea goes: you buy an item -- lets say it's an ebook reader, and you have a large marginal utility (you love to read), say it has a number value of 100.  What if you bought another ebook reader of the same type?  Would that value still be 100?  What if you bought 20 of them?  Would the 20th kindle or nook be still worth 100?  Probably not, right?

Well, if you do charity work for intrinsic value, at some point the marginal utility could be bordering on zero right?  At some point you'd have been recognized as a very kind person in the community and everyone recognizes that -- what if you keep doing charity work at  near zero marginal values?  Why would you keep doing that?  You have next to nothing to gain (you've already gained what you could) but you keep doing charity work.  Is that not an example of selflessness?


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

[User]
[MCU Endgame] Why didn't Thanos just "rain fire" on Cap and the assembled forces before they engaged in close combat?

Could've softened them up, at least.

[Assistant]
Thanos is all about his ego. He needs to be right, and he needs people to tell him he's right; he needs to win, and he needs his enemies to acknowledge that they are beaten.

So when Thor, Iron Man, and Cap came to fight him, he met them face to face, because he takes pride in his combat skills; when Cap persisted in his defiance, he called in his entire army in order to crush him utterly. He didn't just want to beat Cap; he wanted him to *know* he was beaten. Hence bringing an army to what had been a single combat.

Then Cap produced an army of his own. But by that time Thanos had committed to the display. He'd put his army out there, and he couldn't hold them back to allow time for a bombardment without admitting that he might have misjudged the situation. Remember, his entire character arc is about being unable to admit that he might be wrong about something. So he orders his army to attack.

Of course, later he gives the "rain fire" order, because while admitting he's underestimated his enemy is a bruise to his ego, actually *losing* to this same enemy would be far more serious a blow.


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

[User]
ELI5:When playing video games, why do I feel like I'm falling when my game character is falling from a tall height?

Say in a video game, my character climbs up a very tall building, but then he falls off. Why do I get that feeling in my stomach like I'm the one falling, when its just my character on a TV screen?

[Assistant] Depending on how immersive the game is, you will start to empathize and identify with the character. Some games encourage this link by not giving the playable character a voice and allowing you to customize his/her appearance, enabling the character to act as a fitting avatar/portrayal of yourself. As you play a game, your mind subconsciously becomes more and more connected with the character and begins to think of it as part of yourself. Thus, when something bad happens to your avatar you may feel as if it actually is happening to you. This feeling could be intensified if you identify more with the character or have a strong fear of the event (i.e. fear of heights in this case).


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

[User] ELI5:What are Tesla cars, and why are states trying to ban them?

[Assistant]
Tesla is a company that makes really nice electric cars. They've been getting more popular in the last few years.

But states aren't trying to ban them. States don't really care what kind of car you buy, but they do care about companies trying to sell cars to consumers (you and me) at unfair prices or in other bad ways. So in many states, there's a law that says when you buy a new car, it has to be from a *dealership*, such as Big Mike's Car Emporium, and not from a car *company*, such as Ford.

This system is old and entrenched in the automobile market, but it worked pretty well. But then Tesla came along, and tried to start selling cars. There are no Tesla dealerships, so what they were doing was technically not allowed in some states. Some people want to remove the dealership laws so that normal people can buy Tesla cars.