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

[User]
Penicillin and our mitochondrial DNA--a dangerous combination?

Hey guys. I recently learned about endosymbiont theory in my microbiology class. Let me make sure I have this first fact correct: The ribosomes of our mitochondria are 70s as opposed to our normal 80s ribosomes, right?

Antibiotics are essentially a weapon derived from fungi and synthesized by scientists to destroy the ribosomes of bacteria--70s ribosomes. Mitochondria were apparently once bacteria, right? Hence the similar ribosome structure...

So I wonder: Do antibiotics ever backfire and damage our own mitochondrial ribosomes?

[Assistant]
Great question, and the answer is "yes." There is at least one class of antibiotics that is known to be deleterious to the mitochondria: aminoglycosides.

The aminoglycosides, such as gentamycin, are commonly used antibiotics that are also toxic to the vestibular (balance) apparatus in human ears. They are particularly toxic to individuals with a particular mutation in their mitochondrial ribosomal RNA.

*Edit*: Removed some unclear speculation from the first paragraph.


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

[User] ELI5:Elon Musk wants to build a colony on Mars, what can I, as an ordinary guy with no multi-billion dollar fortune or degree in engineering, do to get involved with the SpaceX project, and others like it and be a part of humanity's first steps in living on another world?

[Assistant]
I'd start by researching the hell out of Elon Musk and the project with an eye to understanding the business and political communities that will affect and drive it. Look at its supporters and its critics to get a well-rounded perspective. Most responses to your ELI5 question will likely not know the guts of it beyond what has been publicly announced, and that's not enough to base a decision on. Dive in, learn more, and understand what you're on about as much as possible.

The next step is to measure yourself against your own potential involvement level, which could range from "directly involved" (i.e. actually employed in the cause) to "interested and not really committed" (i.e. tweeting about it once in a while).

If the former, are you brilliant, healthy, a workaholic, the right nationality? Are you willing to surrender your existence on Earth and even gamble with your life itself? Then perhaps, just perhaps, you could actually be a colonist. But instead are you more one-dimensional in your skills and would make a high-quality parts manufacturing worker, an astounding accountant, or an efficient janitor? Then perhaps you could help indirectly by building the parts or doing the books or sweeping the floors (do not trivialize the importance of this role!) at either Musk's company or one of its principal suppliers.

If the latter, then join the other millions and support the concept where you can in the natural dialogue you have with your internet and real-life communities. If you live in the right areas, attend promotional events and even help to organize them if there's a way to (e.g. will Musk be at an SF convention, and do they accept volunteers?).

It's really about how firmly you believe and support, and how much you're capable and willing to do to yourself for the cause.


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

[User]
[Star Trek] Why didn't Nero just create the black hole in the vicinity the planets he was trying to destroy rather than drilling a hole to the center and dropping it in?

I mean, it would have the same effect and the movies also showed that the red matter could be detonated using conventional weaponry so it didn't HAVE to be dropped into the core of a planet.

[Assistant] Black holes don't work that way.  Notice how they were able to walk around on the planet while it was in the middle of collapse?  A black hole only has superstrong gravity if you're *close* to it.  And the holes he was starting with were tiny, touch it and you'd be lucky to just lose your hand, but from a mile off you wouldn't even feel it.  By dropping it down the hole it was able to absorb the magma, just a little at first, but as it grew the pace accelerated, and the liquid magma didn't need a huge amount of gravity to make the trip toward the singularity, flow is its natural state.  This allowed the singularity to grow the the point it was able to absorb the solid matter.


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

[User] ELI5 how student loans repayments that will barely cover interest then get wiped after 30 years for a majority of people is a viable method of financing universities in the U.K.

[Assistant]
University is essentially subsidised by the tax payer. Not everyone will pay back their loan, so the government is essentially taking the hit for them.

There used to be no tuition fees at all. There still isn't in Scotland for Scottish students. When that was the case people's university education was entirely paid for by the government.

The tuition fees and loans we have now are essentially a way to get at least *some* of that money back. In most cases not all of it, so university education is still largely subsidised.


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

[User]
Source for Camus quote: "It is necessary to fall in love  if only to provide an alibi for all the random despair you are going to feel anyway."

There is no shortage of places on the Internet that will suggest Albert Camus once said, "It is necessary to fall in love if only to provide an alibi for all the random despair you are going to feel anyway."

Digging a little deeper, however, none of these sources seem to indicate exactly where he said it. It's enough to make me wonder whether he actually said it at all, and if people have just been misattributing it all over the Internet!

(I suppose he probably wrote it in French originally, but I would think there would be at least one popular English translation from which it was sourced.)

I hope my Google-fu is not simply failing today. Would anyone here be able to point me in the right direction, or at least suggest an appropriate place to ask? (I may try E-mailing the Quote Investigator.)

[Assistant]
It appears that the quote is from a novel by Camus called *A Happy Death*. From page 114 in the Vintage Books edition (translated by Richard Howard), one of the characters states:

Thats why its good to have had love in your life after all, to have had an unhappy passion - it gives you an alibi for the vague despairs we all suffer from.


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

[User] ELI5:Why are humans the only species that needs to cook (most kinds of) meat to eat it?

[Assistant]
Short answer: Because we figured out how.

Cooking meat allows us to extract about 15% more calories from it because of the denatured proteins. Similar for being able to mechanically digest it.

So ground beef that's been cooked to medium has about 25% more effective calories than the same weight of uncooked roast.

That lets humans be the efficient ape. Compared to Chimps (our closest relatives), we've got about the same amount of gut and about half as much jaw for twice the ape.

Cooking food kicks ass.

And this is even skipping over the huge gains that we get from our ability to take "questionable" (read, not really questionable, but almost certainly full of Trichinosis) meat and make it fully safe by sitting it over a smoky fire for a few hours.

Really, it may not be necessary to cook your meat, but it's so much better that it's no wonder the thermivore ape kicked the ever loving shit out of the omnivore apes when it came to competition for environment suitable for living/fucking/fighting.


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

[User]
CMV:It isn't worth my time to clean recyclables if it isn't worth the recycling facilities time.

I've read many times that recyclable items get tossed if they are recycled in anything but pristine condition. This is usually done to try to encourage people to clean their recyclables.

This makes little sense to me for a few reasons.

  If cleaning the item isn't worth it to the recycling workers then why should it be seen as worth it to me? They don't view it as a valuable enough resource to put in the time to clean up to keep so why should I?

It takes me a lot longer proportionally to clean my recyclables because of the low scale and knowledge of what is proper. Economics of scale shows that doing a task at high volumes is a few orders of magnitude more efficient than doing things on small scale. I would posit that the situation looks something like this (The accuracy of the numbers isn't the point, the concept is). It would take 10,000 individuals 15,000 hours to clean their own recyclables whereas it would take 3 individuals 4,000 hours to clean the same amount of recyclables because they have the expertise, workflow, tools, and infrastructure supporting the task.

If under these circumstances, they still don't find it worth the time to clean up the recyclables. It is upwards of 3 times less worth my time to do it. Why should I?

----------

I'm open to having my mind changed. I recycle, but instead of cleaning I simply throw the dirty stuff in the trash because my brain is telling me that makes sense.

[Assistant]
Think about the common recyclable items that you have.  For example a can of soda.

Think about the relative difficulty of cleaning a can of soda immediately after uses vs 72 hours after use.  If you left the remaining soda dry, you will thick hard to remove sugar/sludge deposit on the inside of the can.  You'll need to scrub the interior of the can with an abrasive or blast it with very hot water.  But if you clean the can immediately after use, all you need to do is rise it with some water.

Its not that the recycling centers time is more valuable then yours, its that for many recyclables cleaning them immediately requires considerably less time then cleaning them later.  Basically anything that has a water component is easier to clean immediately before the water evaporates.


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

[User]
[General] What would be the social, political, economic, and military ramifications if a robot were the head of state of a more-developed nation?

For clarity: no pesky emotions, no sense of human morality or ethics.  Just a straightforward, logical, ice-cold machine whose programming is solely to execute its role as chief of state as outlined by Country X's parameters.

[Assistant]
>no sense of human morality or ethics

Uh-oh. This machine is capable of hoarding processor power in order to gain the ability to micromanage absolutely everything. It will likely game the system in order to produce a soft, smiley-face-covered totalitarian system with central management of the economy and use a defensive but hawkish policy to minimize the external risks that are other countries. It would probably Build a Wall to keep those random variables out.


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

[User]
[Batman] What does the public think about Damian Wayne, Tim Drake, and Dick Grayson?

I don't have the scan, but in the book Court of Owls, Damian, Tim, and Dick all seem to be part of the party Bruce attends to in the begging of the novel. What does the public think about them? Do they just assume Damian is some orphan Bruce adopted in a third world country? What about Tim and Dick?

[Assistant]
People knew that Damian was Bruce's biological son. They just assumed that he was a product of one of Bruce Wayne's many torrid affairs.

Dick Grayson was long known to be Bruce Wayne's ward and, later, adopted son.

I think the Drakes were seen as family friends of the Waynes cause they were part of the same social circle, but after both parents disappeared/died, it was assumed that Bruce took Tim in similarly.


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

[User]
CMV: Butter knives are a terrible spreading utensil

Basically as the title says.  I believe a spoon is a much superior tool.  Its better suited for both getting the right amount butter, jelly, mayonnaise, etc. out of the jar, and its makes evenly spreading much easier.  Butter knives tend to not spread condiments very well, especially cold butter and chunky peanut butter, and when you try and force it to work you're likely to tear bread.  The only reason to spread with a butter knife is all the spoons are dirty, or you're at a more formal setting where someone might frown upon improper table etiquette.

There are other uses for them like slicing cake and prying things open, but they suck at performing their primary function.  CMV.

[Assistant]
Spoons are very useful when it comes to spreading things, that's true, but spoon has a couple drawbacks that the knife doesn't have.

Firstly when scooping Jam or peanut butter or anything else out of a jar, you have a tendency to take quite a bit out with a spoon. The very nature of a spoon requires that a mound of a substance be removed. It causes the bread to become oversaturated often sticky and unpleasant. This is not the case with the knife as a knife has less surface area and requires more balance which means you get a more reasonable amount of what you're trying to place on bread. Moreover, if one is using a stick of butter, the spoon will cut the butter unevenly as it has to pull the butter away from the stick as opposed to cutting it and could end up in a mishap where they stick of butter is displaced from the dish.

The second drawback is that in order to spread with a spoon you must use the convex side of the spoon. This causes two problems. First that the bread will become depressed and thin, or if on toast, the likelihood of piercing the toast grows exponentially. No one should endure the discomfort soiled fingers from pierced toast. This obstacle can be eliminated by using a knife. A knife can be spread straight without any depression of the bread. And  when it's blade held parallel to the surface of the bread, the chances of piercing the bread are almost nil.

This comment is in no way disparaging of spoons but rather to state that the spreading of substances is simply not a spoon's best function. It would be best to leave spreading to a knife.


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

[User]
Can someone explain the concept of gravitational potential between 2 masses?

I am struggling with the concept of gravitational potential. I know that by definition it is the work done in moving a unit mass from infinity to a point in the gravitational field (GPE per unit mass), but I don't truly grasp what this means and its significance. I also don't really get how gravitational potential is defined between 2 bodies, such as the earth and the moon. If we talk about bringing an object from infinity into the gravitational field of Earth I can visualise that, but how do you define the potential at a point where 2 fields act (such as that of the moon and the earth)? Where is 'infinity' in this case? Is there a point of 0 potential between the 2 bodies, where essentialy the strengths of the gravitational fields are equal and there is no resultant force on a body at that point, so no gravitational potential? I am only doing A2 physics (pre university) so a simple explanation will suffice.

[Assistant]
The "brought in from infinity" thing is useful mathematically but can be confusing physically. The gravitational potential between two objects is basically how much *more* energy they have if they're far apart than if they're touching (not exactly a technical definition). So you can have an object on the Earth and raise it to some height, and that object gains gravitational potential equivalent to the work required to raise it to that height.

You can do the same with the moon, consider how much work would be required to raise it from the surface to the height of its current orbit. That is the gravitational potential of the moon in this scenario.

Because only the *difference* in potential between two points matters, you can set the "zero" to be anywhere you want. For things falling near Earth's surface, it's useful to treat the surface as being at zero potential, while for mathematical reasons it's useful to treat "infinitely far away" as the zero point for celestial dynamics.


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

[User]
[general superheroes] why do you keep your identity a secret to Everyone?

It makes sense to keep your identity a secret from the general populace because if villains find out they would target your family and friends. but where is the sense of not telling your trusted family and best friend? what do you not trust them to keep their mouth shut?

Plus if a villain finds out don't you want your loved ones to be prepared in case of a attack?

That's not even mentioning having other (non superpower) people know can help as a support group and even create alibis for you.

[Assistant] The Netflix daredevil touched on this pretty well. Firstly under most jurisdictions superheroing is still a crime (i.e. vigilantism). The people you trust with your identity might not approve of your night job. Secondly it's a bunch of stress watching someone you care about throw themselves into danger on a regular basis. Watching daredevil get his ass beat on the news sucks, knowing it's your buddy Matt makes it so much worse.


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

[User] [40k/Trek] What would it take to transform the Federation into the Imperium? Politics-wise.

[Assistant]
The answer to this question comes from 40K itself, since humanity's empire during the Dark Age of Technology was almost identical to the Federation in Star Trek.

What would need to happen first is some cataclysmic conflict erupting across the entire Federation, severely damaging its infrastructure and its economic and social systems. Perhaps a "hologram rebellion" started by an Emergency Command Hologram that *Voyager's* Doctor helped to create after Voyager returned to the Alpha Quadrant.

Next, humanity's ability to quickly and safely travel between planets would need to disappear. Perhaps it would be discovered that *all* travel at Warp speed destroys the fabric of subspace, and thus can't be used except in extreme emergencies, while at the same time quantum slipstream like the Borg use is still so complex that Federation scientists don't even hope to do more than scratch the surface of its potential for a full millennia.

Following that, communications between planets would have to disappear. Perhaps subspace is so badly damaged by Warp travel that subspace transmitters can no longer reliably get a message from Point A to Point B.

After that, some alien races would need to invade Earth a few times and go on a few looting, pillaging and burning sprees. The Klingons would be a likely candidate, as would the Orions and the Gorn.

And after all that, there would need to be some sort of genetically-engineered superhuman who had lived in the shadows for untold ages during the heyday of the Federation. This being would finally reveal himself to Earth and slowly build up an army that would unite it under his rule, with the eventual goal of reuniting all of the old Federation territories. An Augment like Khan is probably the best bet here, a survivor of the Botany Bay who didn't die with him chasing after Kirk.

Then add 10,000 years of hate, ignorance, superstition and blind faith in humanity's manifest destiny to conquer the stars, and you'll get something that isn't *quite* like the grim darkness of the 41st Millennium, but is pretty darn close.

Somewhere in a beautiful and cheerful corner of Heaven, Gene Roddenberry is weeping tears of horrified despair at this perversion of his beloved universe and its noblebright ideals...


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

[User]
I think humanity should genetically engineer itself, once it is able to do so effectively. CMV

Not thinking that much about designer babys and more about things which can be objectively improved, mainly: physical condition and cognitive abilities. I don't know how far away we are from being able to do so, but I think when we are, we should absolutely do it. Evolution is quit a slow process and if we could accelerate that, while sticking to nearly unarguably good stuff like thinking faster, have better memory etc. I don't see why we shouldn't do so. A two-classes community (directly translated from german, hope you get it) might or will probably be a temporary result and I realize it sounds a lot like some of the things people tried to do which had quit a bad influence on our history, but once we know enough about it and use it with responsibility, well why not?
People I talked about to this didn't really like it, let's see what reddit has to say.

[Assistant] The big issue here is this: how do we know when we're responsible enough? Is it responsible to create "super soldiers" for our wars? Is it responsible to create people designed for a certain task or role in life (i.e., someone designed for manual labor vs someone designed for high-end technology creation)? Once we have control over how someone is born and how they develop, we would almost have to do these things since such specialisation would not longer be chance and up to nature. Is it *right* to essentially strip someone of their freedom to choose?


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

[User] [General Science Fiction] I am a medical doctor with a time traveling, mobile medical facility but I can only travel to one point in time. Where do I go/who do I help to make the biggest impact on humanity?

[Assistant] In front of a roman emperor you know had a long and peaceful reign. Preferably someone open to philosophy and science like Marcus Aurelius. Convince him of your superior medicinal knowledge and you might advance human history by centuries and save billions with the aftereffects.


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

[User]
[Mass Effect] Lets say that the Turian patrol misses contact at Relay 314. How much longer would it take for humans to discover alien life, or vice versa?

Okay, lets say that Humanity leave Relay 314 before the Turian patrol catches them messing with it by, oh, how about 30 minutes. What do you think is a reasonable timeline where first contact is made between humans and other sentients?

[Assistant]
It likely wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

Relay 314 was an inactive relay. Even if the humans left before the Turians arrived, the Turians would've found that a previously inactive relay is now active and likely would've investigated. Probably wouldn't have taken that long for them to make contact with humans. I'd say not much would change except that the First Contact War might've been avoided.


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

[User] [Star Wars]How did Hutts, a species of near immobile brutish flesh blobs, manage to carve out a massive empire as well as regularly dominate countless crime syndicates?

[Assistant]
Hutts like Jabba are the exception rather than the rule. For every Hutt that is massive and immobile, there are hundreds of younger, smaller Hutts that are still capable of moving under their own power and in a galaxy where technology like repulsorlifts are old, cheap, and widespread, it doesn't take much to equal more fleet-footed species in things like speed and agility.

But the big reason the Hutts were able to have their empire? They're suited to empire building, whether that empire is in the traditional sense or in the criminal sense. Hutts live, on average, about a thousand years. They're definitely on the higher-end of the lifespan spectrum compared to many other species of the galaxy, so they can afford to be patient or scheming when dealing with rivals (or can, quite simply, just wait out their rivals' death if those rivals are of another race). They also have incredibly thick skin, literally, which lets them shrug off things like blaster bolts and corrosive environments. They're also capable of regenerating body parts. They're also resistant to Jedi tricks and have a society/civilization that is geared towards the education of their young in power grabbing, scheming, and economic expansion. In short, they're tailor made to survive the rigors of politics and backstabbing inherent in affairs both galactic and criminal, hence their position as such today.


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

[User]
[Keeping Up Appearances] How do you pronounce the name "Bucket"?

Mrs Bucket pronounces it "Bck", however she's the kind of gal who would put on heirs and pretend to be french.

Meanwhile their neighbour Emmet pronounces it like "Buckit", however he has a certain ammount of disdain for Hyecin Bucket, as whilst it may have started off as an earnest mistake, his low opinion of Hyacin has lead him to continue to refer to her as the "Buckit woman".

[Assistant]
it's bucket

that's the joke: she's not posh and has a common name but wants to give the impression she's all that and has sone fancy flowery vaguely french-sounding name. but she doesn't because she's called bucket and is full of shit.


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

[User]
Why is the shortest day of the year (when sub exposure is at its lowest) not more correlated with the coldest time of the year?

Another way to ask this is why isnt the winter solstice not the mid point in winter?

[Assistant]
Because there is a lag as things continue to cool down. The coldest part of the morning isn't midnight, its just around dawn, because the ground continued to release its heat through 1am, 2am, 3am, 4am, and even when the sun first appears, its at such an angle that the ground can continue cooling a bit.

The same principle applies to winter. There's some pent-up heat built up from summer. If you keep getting only winter levels of sun, it can still get cooler.


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

[User]
How do materialists explain the existence of logic and mathematical rules?

Take something like the pythagorean theorem. Some mathematicians invoke a form of platonism and assert that the rule that a2 + b2 = c2 exists conceptually, without material properties. What is the materialist retort/response to this idea? Do mathematical relationships exist outside of physical phenomena?

(Disclaimer: Philosophy dilettante here, please forgive me if I sound dumb).

[Assistant] Materialists recognize that ideas exist, you know. How could materialism itself exist as a concept without material properties if one didn't permit ideas? What (most) materialists would claim is that such ideas exist only because there is a being exists to have them, and what they dispute is the idea that such ideas exist beyond beings that are capable of conceiving them.


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

[User] Is fair to call Superman a hero when 99% of the time he he puts himself at no risk by saving people?

[Assistant] He usually bears some cost--time and effort--and it seems natural that those who bear costs to help others are heroic even if they don't risk being harmed themselves (e.g., a person who spends her life assisting the poor and downtrodden).


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

[User] ELI5: Why are Unix like operating systems so appreciated? What are the day to day advantages over other operating systems?

[Assistant] They're built around tools that do one thing, but do it exceedingly well.  To use a very broad analogy, Windows is like cooking with a large swiss army knife.  Unix is like cooking with discrete tools.


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

[User]
How do you deal with the possibility that your project might not work out?

Edit: The title should probably be "How do you emotionally deal with the possibility your project might not work out"

I find research to be a roller-coaster of emotions. I'm in Computer Science, and I build systems and it's constantly a cycle of yes-it-works-this-is-so-cool, and oh-it's-a-bug-and-it-doesn't-work! Until it finally works, that is.

I feel exhausted by this cycle, especially now that other parts of my life are causing additional fatigue. I feel worried that none of my projects will pan out ... which actually wouldn't be the end of the world---I've been toying with the idea of getting back into the industry, but I still worry!

Even after doing a Ph.D. (I'm a postdoc), I feel exhausted by these emotional rollercoasters. In the industry, if you're working on something you are reasonably certain that it can be done. What remains is fixing the bugs and doing good design, writing good code, etc., etc. In academia, it feels like everything is uncertain!

[Assistant]
At every stage of your career you should have multiple projects, and try not to be too emotionally invested in any one of them. Some projects just flat out won't work, so set it up so that is fine. Also try to set up your projects such that failures/negative data/refuted hypotheses can be published. This is harder and more field specific, but a good thing to aim for.

This is why it's called re-search. We search again tomorrow.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is the chip on my new credit card safer then the strip on my older ones?

[Assistant]
The chip creates a one time use code to process a payement. A magnetic strip is essentially just your credit card number in magnet form.

The chip is safer because if someone bad scans your card all they get is that one time use number. They cant save the number to use over and over. If you just have the strip they they can save that data and use your card all they want.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why zero factorial (0!) is equal to 1.

I understand that 1!=1, 2!=1x2=2, 3!=1x2x3=6, etc. But why does 0! equal 1? Is my understanding of factorial numbers a simpler but not exactly correct way to determine them?

[Assistant]
One way to look at it would be that factorials are a way to represent combinations of arranging a set of numbers.

1! = {1} = 1 arrangement

2! = {1,2}, {2,1} = 2 arrangements

3! = {1,2,3}, {1,3,2}, {2,1,3}, {2,3,1}, {3,1,2}, {3,2,1} = 6 arrangements

So, thinking about it that way:
0! = {} = 1 possible arrangement of the empty set

Make sense?


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

[User]
ELI5: The difference between spearmint and peppermint.

I've always seen these two flavors of things and never really understood the difference. I assume there must be some difference, but I have no idea what it is.

[Assistant]
Spearmint's a plant, *Mentha spicata.*

Peppermint is a hybrid, the result of a cross between spearmint and another plant in the same genus, *Mentha aquatica,* called watermint.

They're different plants, in other words, which have similar but different flavors when eaten straight or used as a flavoring.


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

[User]
[Marvel/DC] can superheroes donate their seed?

If Spiderman, The Flash or Superman walked into a sperm bank and offered to donate their semen would they be allowed?

[Assistant]
Superman's isn't human, so no.  Spiderman, yes.  He'd be seen as a perfectly healthy individual.  They might question it if he walked in with the spiderman costume, but as Peter Parker, he'd be fine.

I don't know enough about the flash to say for him though.


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

[User]
What are the most prominent cases of famous philosophers changing their opinion?

EDIT: follow-up, are there any prominent cases of someone changing their mind on free will?

[Assistant]
Probably Wittgensteins transition from the early to the late Wittgenstein.

Putnam was also famous for having changed his mind on things a lot.

Scholars debate historical cases of this. E.g., whether Plato changed his mind throughout his career is and has been endlessly controversial, whether Aristotle had an early Platonic phase in his thinking that was succeeded by a maturer repudiation of this, etc.


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

[User]
[Portal] What is the purpose of Aperture Science and Black Mesa?

Why do these companies exist and what are they meant to be doing?

[Assistant]
Aperture Science originally made shower curtains. Cave Johnson then renamed the company "Aperture Science Innovations" to make the curtains seem more hygenic, and at some point they just started throwing science at the wall and seeing if it stuck.

Both Black Mesa and Aperture Science are research corporations. They get government grants to research different aspects of science.

Black Mesa performed practical experiments involving particle physics, radiation, rocketry, lasers, experimental propulsion, genetics, zoology, applied mathematics, and chemistry

And Aperture Science mostly did experiments involving portals on living human test subjects.

Soooo....


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

[User]
CMV: I believe that if you can't parallel park, you shouldn't be allowed to have a driver's license.

Parallel parking requires an awareness of the geometry of your vehicle, its turning radius, the sensitivity of its acceleration and brakes, and the ability to combine these skills to maneuver in a precise manner. These are all skills which are integral to the general safe operation of a motor vehicle, and I feel that if you cannot demonstrate them, you shouldn't be allowed to drive regardless of whether you will ever actually have to parallel park in the real world. These skills become even more important when driving an unfamiliar vehicle, and in my state a basic drivers license allows you to drive a vehicle or vehicle+trailer combination up to 13 *tons.* I feel it is a massive risk to public safety to allow someone to drive a 26 foot Uhaul, with significantly reduced visibility and unfamiliar geometry, who can't even parallel park their own car which they are familiar with.

So, Reddit, CMV.

EDIT: In my state, failing the parallel parking portion of the exam takes points off your score but does not fail the exam.

EDIT 2: A lot of you are failing to see my point. The tl;dr: The ability or requirement to parallel park in normal everyday driving is completely irrelevant to this CMV. The CMV is about the fact that the *skills required to parallel park are also required to safely operate a motor vehicle in situations that are not parallel parking.* The CMV is that *those skills* are important, not parallel parking itself, it's just that parallel parking is a convenient way to demonstrate those skills on a driver's exam.

[Assistant]
Parallel parking is done at much lower speeds (and in reverse) than conventional driving.  As such, the turning radius, acceleration, and braking characteristics of your vehicle are very different when driving than when parallel parking.

It is likewise interesting to note that women, who are typically safer drivers than men, are less likely to be skilled at parallel parking.  This further supports the idea that parallel parking is a distinct skill from safe driving, and is not just a subset of the skill.

Now, you may well have a point that a basic driver's license ought not to permit one to drive a 26' U-Haul.  That's a separate issue.


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

[User]
Do bare Neutrons interact with the Electromagnetic field?

I understand that lone Neutrons are highly unstable.

Apart from a direct hit, do they interact with EM Radiation at all?

[Assistant]
The short answer is yes - they have a magnetic moment, and interact with the magnetic field.  But you can look deeper.

You have to remember a neutron isn't a fundamental particle - it's made up of up and down quarks.  Those quarks are charged.  So a photon will interact with those partons (individual quarks) without a problem, but needs high energy to scatter off them individually.

For the neutron itself, it's actually an active field of study as to whether the neutron has a finite electron dipole moment (which is to say, a nonuniform distribution of charge).  Measuring a nonzero neutron EDM would tell us something about CP violation, which is a fancy way of  talking about the difference between matter and antimatter.  This could help explain why the universe is made of matter instead of antimatter!


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

[User]
Is it possible to believe you want something but not actually want it?

This question has relevance to a past event in my life (that I do not feel comfortable sharing) so I would like to hear possible answers to it.

[Assistant]
This can get into deeper issues, but some folks are inclined to say, "yes." Here's an example:

Russ Shafer-Landau gives an example of a young man who convinces himself that he wants to be a lawyer, in large part because both his father and grandfather were lawyers, and he is expected to continue the tradition. After enduring the absolute drudgery that is law school, however, the young man comes to realize he was deceiving himself. As Shafer-Landau presents the case, and as seems both natural and plausible, the young man never actually wanted to be a lawyer. Its not that the young man had a desire to be a lawyer, and then later had a different, conflicting desire; instead, at no point did he desire to be a lawyer, and he was deceiving himself when he thought otherwise. To explain why the man went to law school, then, we can cite the belief that he formed when he failed to properly introspectively determine his desires, but we go wrong if we try to cite some desire of the man to be a lawyer.


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

[User]
ELI5 - Why a Mac is called a Mac and not a PC? Other than OS, what's the defining difference?

I've always thought PC stood for "Personal Computer". Isn't that what a Mac is? Other than OS they're exactly the same thing, with different hardware. I understand it's easier to tell the difference when discussing the two types of computers, but, what about any type of Linux system? they're called PC's also. different OS and all.

it's not that huge of a deal I guess, but it just bugs me.

EDIT: Marking. Never really dawned on me, It makes sense though. thanks.

EDIT 2: Little more than marketing, but still makes sense.

[Assistant] Back in the 80s and early 90s we didn't call them PCs, we called them "IBM Compatible". It used to be you had a number of different types of computers that didn't play nicely together. You had Macs, Tandies, Commadores, and IBM machines (which ran DOS).  DOS exploded and the others, including Apple's for a number of years, fell by the wayside. Around the time Windows 95 came out personal computing started to grow, perhaps as a result of that revolutionary operating system. With one primary form factor and operating system, and Mac, at this point, becoming a tiny portion of the market,  it didn't make sense to identify the bulk of computing by compatibility with a single company. At the same time, computing is becoming more user friendly and it's starting to look like *everybody* will get one eventually, it starts losing that image as a toy for geek hobbyists and starts becoming relevant to the average person. A "personal" computer helps to portray this.


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

[User]
[Team Fortress 2] Why does someone not give Doctor real gun?

I love the doctor. He heals me and help me kill many men, but he has a problem. He uses this...contraption that fired needles at enemy. When he is not usin that, the doctor is using a crossbow to fight.

We have weapons supplied by Mann Co., but my medical friend is stuck using some of the most primitive and useless weapons imaginable. It takes long time for you to kill a man by shooting him with needles.

Why not give Medic gun? I have plenty. Even a simple pistol would make him more able to defend himself and be better credit to team.

[Assistant]
Medic is credit to team. Unfortunately, the thing that makes him a credit to the team is bulky and unwieldy: namely his Medi-Gun. He cannot carry any substantial weaponry while using that, as it weighs quite a bit. And, as you know, ammunition is actually quite heavy.

The fact that Medic is being forced to use his needle guns and crossbows, however, speaks to an even more disappointing fact, however. You are not credit to team. If you were, he would be able to focus on healing and building up that Ubercharge. Not sitting there, wasting precious time trying to plink enemy Soldier to death with needles and crossbow bolts.


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

[User]
The "second" is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom... How did we discover this?

How was it defined before this discovery, and what led to our exact definition of the length of time that we know as a "second"? And as a bonus, how on earth do we count those oscillations?

[Assistant] A day is the time span between two sun rises. An hour is a twentyfourth of a day. A minute is a sixtieth of an hour. A second is a sixtieth of a minute. That's how it was measured before. Obviously this is not exactly an accurate way of measuring time (it starts with each day being slightly shorter/longer than the one before), but it used to be enough.


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

[User] ELI5: how are we able to put information on radio waves? I know how radio waves travel, but how do we get info on them like music or news?

[Assistant]
There are two* ways to get information onto light (which is what radio waves are): change the brightness (amplitude modulation or AM) or change the color/frequency (frequency modulation or FM).

You can't extract information from the raw carrier wave, but, if you track how the wave changes from baseline, you can extract a signal.

For the simplest of analogue AM radios, you can adjust the intensity of the carrier wave in time with the sound wave. Your radio will move its speaker cone a distance proportional to the strength of the signal; if the signal gets stronger, the cone moves forwards, and if the signal gets weaker, the cone moves backwards. Since the signal strength is moving in time with the sound waves, the speaker cone will move in time with the sound - *producing sound* in the process.

FM radio does the same, but equates the frequency/color of the signal to motion of the cone.

Digital works the same as both, but instead of adjusting the signal based on an analog audio signal, it adjusts it to simulate the bits of data in a computer, which a more advanced radio antenna can decode and feed into a computer on the receiving end.


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

[User] [Pokemon] In General how intelligent are Pokemon?

[Assistant] All Pokemon have the capacity to understand humans to some extent, otherwise they could not be trained and commanded during battle. From this, we can reasonably conclude that Pokemon are at least smart enough to understand human language, and therefore they are probably smarter than most primates in our world.


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

[User] [Binding of Isaac] Is there even a consistent story in this game, or is it all just disconnected symbolism?

[Assistant]
You are referring to the "Isaac" incident that was so popular in the local papers?

Tragic, really, how these things happen. Husband and wife get separated. Despite warning signs, the mother ends up with the son. Mother is abusive and neglectful. And then finally... That happened.

The worst part is that all the warning signs were there. Apparently Isaac was obsessed with his own death. He had an extensive collection of grotesque homemade toys featuring angels and demons. He kept telling the same story: About him escaping from his mother to secret basement catacombs, only to be slain by angels and demons that were hiding there.

If only someone would have listened to the warning signs: Then Isaac wouldn't have suffocated in that heavy old wooden chest.


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

[User] eli5: Why is there a tiny spark sometimes when plugging into an outlet?

[Assistant] Electrons *really* hate being near other electrons, and repel each other with great force. Electrons also really struggle to move through air (despite what the existence of lightning would make you think). When you bring a plug near a high voltage outlet (think high water pressure), as you bring the plug closer, you're reducing the distance through the air electrons would have to jump to escape to somewhere else. When that distance (and thus the resistance) is small enough, the electrons jump and you get a spark.


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

[User]
Will is seen as the source of all suffering, since willing never brings contentment, but only further desire

I saw this quote in a book about Nietzsche, it went on about Schopenhauer and what he believed in. This quote stuck on me and got me thinking... If people keep wanting and never get content, then when and why do they stop? Does this mean no people is truly happy?

[Assistant] From a buddhist perspective this might be seen as exactly right! They might say that desires and goals in the material world are only capable of bringing dissapointment. "Enlightenment" in this view might be achieving the mental state of not willing anything at all, being content simply with what exists l.


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

[User]
I believe a Country should always be called by its native name. CMV

For example:

I believe the word "Japan" should not exist. Instead it should be called by its name it Japanese, but written phonetically. "Nihon."

I think this would make inter language communication  a whole lot simpler.

[Assistant] Names are a method of communicating an idea to others. We should use whatever name is understood by the population of people we're talking to. There's nothing intrinsically better about referring to Japan as Nihon, and if a good portion of the population doesn't understand what you're referring to than you're making communication *harder*. Why is having different names for countries in various languages any worse than having different words for anything else?


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

[User] How can we tell, that the solar Neutrinos are actually coming from the sun and not just from Reactors on earth?

[Assistant] Reactors produce antineutrinos instead of neutrinos, and they lead to a much lower flux than the solar neutrinos (unless you are literally on the site of a nuclear power plant). The energy spectrum is different, too.


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

[User] ELI5: If I wanted to keep a kitty on my lap as warm as possible, would I want to be super muscular or really fat?

[Assistant]
Fat itself is insulating. Since your internal temperature is the same regardless of muscle or fat (high internal temperature means you are having a fever, low means hypothermia), having extra fat keeps that temperature from escaping. This makes your skin temperature lower if you were fat versus if you were muscular. The kitten would feel colder due to the colder skin on a fat person.

There is an exception if the person was so fat that they could cover the kitty in their fat folds... then the fat insulates in the heat generated by the kitten (though this would be very uncomfortable for the kitten and may suffocate it).


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

[User]
Are there any arguments arguments against the right of animals to life that don't hinge on moral agency?

Hey, so excuse me if this isn't the right place to post this, but I couldn't exactly figure out where else I would. I've been vegetarian for over a year now and never really thought about it from a moral standpoint - it waa mostly a challenge for myself. But recently I've started thinking about it and looking into moral debates around the topic. I haven't looked into it as much as I'd like, but I am honestly deeply disturbed by some of the arguments I've found. While I've been vegetarian for some time I've never thought about it from any kind of ethical standpoint, and I do think a lot of the arguments in favour of it are flawed, but a main argument I've seem popping up in a lot of criticism's of vegetarianism/veganism is the idea that animals lack the same right to life as humans (something I'd previously taken for granted) because they lack the moral agency of humans. This deeply disturbs me, because it seems to suggest that some human beings (e.g. young children, people who have certain mental conditions or are cognitively disabled) lack the same right to life, or are in some way "not people". While admittedly I have to look more into this, the only arguments I have seen against it so far have been based on the idea that these people are ascribed value by the people who do have moral agency, and thus have no inherent value. As someone who has always considered myself outspoken in support of children's rights and the rights of all disabled  people, I find this suggestion to be kind lf disgusting.
Putting that aside, I intend to look more into this topic once I've asked here, but I figured this would be a good place to at least pose the question, as this seems to be the primary discussion point around which a lot of debate around vegetarianism hinges. Are there any arguments against animals having the same right to life as humans that don't rely primarily on that right being directly linked to moral agency (the individual's ability to make moral judgements and be held accountable for them)? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the idea of moral agency, I'm not very experienced on this topic.

[Assistant]
The argument you used is the "argument from marginal cases". Here is Peter Singers version of it.

1- In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some propertyPthat all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2- AnyPthat only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3- AnyPthat all human beings have is a property that (most) animals have as well.

4- Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

Singer does not defend his first premise, but does not need to; the proponents of the view that all and only humans deserve a full and equal moral status rely on it themselves. In support of the second premise, Singer asks us to consider exactly what properties only humans have that can ground such a strong moral status. Certain properties, such as being human, having human DNA, or walking upright do not seem to be the kind of properties that can ground this kind of status. For example, if we were to encounter alien life forms that did not have human DNA, but lived lives much like our own, we would not be justified in according these beings a weaker moral status simply because they were not human.

However, there are some properties which only human beings have which have seemed to many to be able to ground a full and equal moral status; for example, being rational, autonomous, or able to act morally have all been used to justify giving a stronger status to human beings than we do to animals. The problem with such a suggestion is that not all human beings have these properties (humans with severe cognitive disabilities, infants, the senile are less rational than many animals). So if this is what grounds a full and equal moral status, it follows that not all human beings are equal after all.

If we try to ensure that we choose a property that all human beings do have that will be sufficient to ground a full and equal moral status, we seemed to be pushed towards choosing something such as being sentient, or being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Since the marginal cases have this property, they would be granted a full and equal moral status on this suggestion. However, if we choose a property of this kind, animals will likewise have a full and equal moral status since they too are sentient.

The attempt to grant all and only human beings a full and equal moral status does not work according to Singer. We must either conclude that not all human beings are equal, or we must conclude that not only human beings are equal. Singer suggests that the first option is too counter-intuitive to be acceptable; so we are forced to conclude that all animals are equal, human or otherwise.


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

[User]
[Pokemon] Why do so many trainers only train a single type of Pokemon?

It should be obvious to anyone that a team with some type diversity is much stronger, since your entire team wouldn't have a glaring weakness. But so many trainers seem to focus on one type.

I guess it would make sense that many people just catch the type that's readily available (like fishermen who catch Water types) and some catch their favorite type because they don't care that much about winning. But even highly competitive trainers, even many of the regional Champions seem to focus on one type. Why?

[Assistant]
What's better, being A master of a balanced team or being THE master in one thing?

Also, because it's cool. Certain regions hold overwhelming percentages of similarly typed pokemon and not everyone is on a journey.

Not everyone is a combatant in the league, you'll even fight kinder-gardeners, regular gardeners, old people, cops, immovable children in shorts, and most of them are just having fun.


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

[User] [LoTR] While it's clear the One Ring can only be destroyed at Mount Doom wouldn't it be possible to seal it inside a large block of solid Mithril or similar material to significantly limit it as a threat in the meantime?

[Assistant]
Anything and everything you could do to shut the ring out of the enemy's hand was considered at Rivendell. Burying it, putting it in truly safe hands, casting it into the ocean, etc. And it was always met with the same conclusion:

Sauron may not have regained full power himself, but Mordor was already FAR beyond the capabilities of the other kingdoms. He had enough armies to utterly crush the west via conventional strategy alone. Even if all the men, dwarves, elves, and whatever natural forces could be convinced to help joined together in a desperate alliance, it would not have been enough. The Last Alliance of the previous age wasn't enough to completely destroy Sauron, and it DWARFED what little remained of free people's strength in the third age. The War of the Ring was a doomed attempt at keeping the shadow at bay JUST long enough for the secret mission to be completed. Without Frodo and the completely ludicrous idea of destroying the ring, there truly was no hope of victory.

So yes, the ring could have been hidden and sealed in a way that functionally kept it out of Sauron's hand for quite a long time. Then his armies would have slaughtered most of the people in Middle Earth while his servants scoured the land for it. And it wouldn't matter how long it would take, because the enemy is immortal and has unnatural patience. It would eventually be found and it would *eventually* be released from whatever prison someone tried to put the ring into. And once that happened, Sauron's dominion would be unstoppable save by literal divine intervention.


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

[User]
ELI5: Does clothing have DNA?

Since most clothing is made out of plant fibers like cotton or animal hair/fur/wool, if you look at like a cotton shirt or something through the right microscope can you see the DNA of the cotton plant?

[Assistant]
Yes. And it's used to detect fabric fraud. Certain plants come from certain regions of the world, with (more or less) unique DNA to that region. Example: Egyptian cotton.

Also, Leather still contains mitochondrial DNA as well.

It's like an episode of CSI, but for clothes.


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

[User]
(X-Men) Bone claws?

How do they work? How effective in combat are they? And do they hurt him more or less then the Adamantium blades when they rip through his skin?

[Assistant] Separate bones that lie in his forearm, pushed out when he holds his arm in a certain way and tenses the attached muscles to push them out. They are excruciating, being more jagged they tear skin a lot more unevenly. And in combat they are effective but more for stabbing and less for slashing.


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

[User]
How will an executive order of H1B minimum wage raise to 130K impact academia?

It looks like the order is still in the draft stage, but if it does get implemented, will this completely wipe out chances for foreign Post-docs, academics, or university staff to get a position in the US?

[Assistant]
Every single version of this that has been discussed has an exemption for research. This one likely will as well.

It probably should be set as a minimum of ~130% of NIH scale if it wanted to have a commensurate effect on post-doc hiring as the 130K limit would have in Silicon Valley.


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

[User]
[Marvel] Are the Symbiotes actually parasites?

I understand that they give their hosts powers while feeding on the host's adrenaline which is indicative of symbiosis, but I've read that they actually force their hosts into life-threatening situations to produce said adrenaline. Are they parasites then?

[Assistant] Depends. Non corrupted klyntar/symbiotes don't do that and try to bond to and help heroic individuals. Corrupted ones on the other hand are more parasitic like you said. Barring the ones on Earth like Venom that want to stay bonded and keep their hosts alive.


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

[User] Eli5: Why does water amplify the taste of mint?

[Assistant]
I think it's less the TASTE and more the cooling sensation that mint causes. Mint has a lot of menthol in it. Menthol reacts with the nerves in your mouth and tricks them into sending a fake "cold" signal to your brain, which is why mint feels so refreshing. When you drink water, the menthol is spread around your mouth and triggers even more nerves to send a cold signal, so the refreshing sensation is amplified.

This is actually very similar to why water also amplifies spicy things. Spicy foods have capsaicin, which reacts with your mouth the same way that menthol does, expect it causes a fake hot signal to your brain instead of cold. Water spreads that signal around your mouth, and makes everything feel like it's burning.


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

[User] If you release a bee does it just go and find any old hive to join?

[Assistant] No/unlikely. An individual bee cannot survive outside the context of the hive. The singular unit of measurement in honey bees is the colony, which is why they are considered a super organism. It would be highly unusual for a lone bee to join up with another colony. Bees orient themselves to the location of their hive, and return to it after foraging. If released the bee would likely try to find her way home. Beekeepers will switch locations of a strong hive and a weak hive as a way of bolstering the weak hive because returning foragers will go where their hive was when they left and will be accepted as part of the colony.


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

[User] ELI5: How would the United States react to a nuclear attack on its own territory, most likely? Is there a plan to nuke in response?

[Assistant] It really depends on who did the nuclear attack...if it was Al-Qaeda than we would most likely look at where the plan was hatched, possibly Yemen? and we would invade and punish them pretty harshly...if it was another nation-state, we would most likely retaliate and let them know we will do it agains't one of their cities. We would declare war regardless because the emotion would demand the federal gov't respond..look at how 9/11 galvanized us that year. This would be on order a magnitude greater.


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

[User]
Why do we find concentrations of minerals in the ground instead of a more homogeneous mixture?

I'm trying to rectify my understanding of stellar element genesis with what I know about planetary formation theory. Here's what I (think I) know:

1. All the metals/elements heavier than iron on the periodic table had to have been formed in supernova type events. This has to do with the hydrostatic equilibrium of stars and the energy released by different fusion reactions.

2. Most theories of planet formation seem related the material that is left over after a star is initially formed clumping together into larger masses.

If this is true, then why do we find areas of Earth's crust which are relatively more abundant in different minerals (gold, silver, copper, aluminum, etc)? This this perceived increase in material only a small fluctuation typical of a random distribution of material?

This idea is also related to how we use radioactive dating to find the age of different strata. How do we know the concentrations of specific materials at different times in Earth's history?

[Assistant]
The layered structure of the earth isn't due to the supernova that formed our elements, nor is it due to the clumping process of accretion. The layered structure comes from the process of differentiation, that involves both gravity and alot of chemistry.

As the earth first began cooling, the heaviest parts of the molten rock began to sink to the core. Lighter mixtures then were relatively more buoyant. As minerals cool near the surface, crystals with the highest melting points crystallize first, and based on the energy gained from crystallization and the local availability of certain elements, crystals grow and consume or exclude various elements during their growth. Once growth of certain ones subsides, and the elemental composition of the melt has changed, as more cooling occurs, a time will come when the temperature is right for another phase to begin to crystallize out of the remaining elements, further consuming or excluding some, until everything is solid. It's quite like a natural zone refining process used in industry actually.  And yes, this is an example of spontaneous organization which some like to think violates the second law, but does not.

Coinage metals are different because, like salts in the ocean, they can be etched out by hot sea water under high pressure. Currently there's about 20 g/km^3 of sea water in the oceans. Underneath mountain ranges like the Andes for instance, water gets squeezed deep into the rocks during the tectonic processes that build the mountain. The water can become supersaturated with gold and copper. Eventually the mountain gets pushed up and the metals precipitate out in veins that were once water filled crevices.


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

[User] If we can find hundreds of exoplanets orbiting stars hundreds of light-years away, why do we have a hard time conclusively confirming Planet Nine within our own solar system?

[Assistant]
That's not an ideal comparison for a few reasons:

-There are billions of stars to look at, a small fraction have detectable planets but most of them do not. There is only one sun so we can't get statistics on multiple versions of our solar system.

-Most planets are detected by the light they block as they pass in front of their host star. That doesn't work for something farther from the sun than the Earth.

-Most planets we detect have very short orbits compared to our solar system, so that periodic signals can be observed. Planet Nine is expected to have an orbit of thousands of years.


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

[User]
What would happen if an atomic bomb explodes nearby while I'm in the pool?

To explain the question: Let's say I'm swimming deep in an average 2 or 3 meters pool, and an atomic bomb explodes in the near area. Far away enough for the water not to instantly evaporate, but close enough that if I was on the surface I would be burned.

Would the pool boil? Would I survive? In case I survived, how long would it take for me to be able to resurface and not die? Could the water become radioactive?

Also wondering the same if instead of an atomic bomb it was another kind of non-atomic massive explosion.

Sorry if my English is not clear enough, not my first language.

[Assistant] The shockwave from the explosion would hit the water, as water is a relatively non-compressible fluid it would instead attempt to compress you. You would be crushed by the force of the explosion, probably more effectively than had you been out of the pool.


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

[User] ELI5: Either the universe continues indefinitely, or it has an edge somewhere, both boggle the mind to imagine, which is correct?

[Assistant]
We may never actually know!

From our position in the universe, there is a distance away from us that is expanding away from us so quickly that no light (and thus no object) could possibly reach Earth.  That distance defines the observable universe, and that is much smaller than the size of the universe itself.

This isn't just a "we can't see past this boundary right now", this is "it is physically impossible to reach this boundary from Earth... ever".  So the takeaway is that it *literally* doesn't matter whether or not the universe is infinite beyond that point, because it will *never* affect us in any way.


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

[User]
What is the evolutionary or scientific reason for being attracted to cute non-human things like a cute kitty or puppy?

Attracted to a cute girl - evolutionary instinct sort of stuff yea? Survival of the fittest, finding the best spouse/mate sort of stuff? Correct me if I'm wrong here too.

But what about a cute cat? Why is that so enjoyable to see?

[Assistant]
It is something a lot of animals exhibit.  It's a biological instrument to encourage caring for that species young, sometimes there is cross over into other species.

'Cuteness' is universal and primarily consists of large eyes (relative to the face) - this is a sign of being young.  So wherever these traits are seen, they trigger an 'awwwwwwwwwww' reaction from girls.

basically it's a misfiring instinct that is designed to make us want to care for our young, it is based on certain physical characteristics, when we see the same kind of characteristics in other animals it elicits the same reaction.


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

[User] ELI5: Why can we not wake somebody up from a coma?

[Assistant]
The brain isn't asleep, which is a 'manual' coma that the brain has complete control over by adjusting certain chemical balances in the brain.

A coma is not manually driven and usually is the result of something going wrong in the brain (a damaged area, medically endued swelling, chemicals that make the brain 'turn off' that it cannot clean out properly). over time the brain might be able to repair the damage and regain control over the body and consciousness, but while it is damaged it just isn't in the position to do so.

Imagine it like a computer. There is a difference between turning your computer off and the computer short circuiting. in the former case you can just turn on the computer with a single button. In the latter case you can't turn it on until you fix whatever damage was applied to the computer, even if all other parts are working perfectly.


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

[User]
[Dark Souls 1, 2, 3.] What if no chosen undead, Bearer of the Curse or Ashen One showed up?

It is implied that there have been many before us in the games (I think). But what happens if the players' character never show up to do what they do?

Edit: I understand the concepts of "there will always be one in a sea of millions" but I am asking, what if there is never that one. What happens short term? What happens long term?

[Assistant]
"Not all undead are hollows. But all hollows were once undead."

Every game has a "Crestfallen Warrior" at the very start. Someone who you find out, made it pretty fucking far into their quest. But gave up. Most of them turn hollow. To show you from start to finish what happened to just about everyone else you're fighting.

So it's not about YOU showing up. When you play the game you're just one instance of a success. But there are THOUSANDS of people who are constantly trying. And they die. Over and over again.

Just like you =)


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

[User] ELI5: Why do we forget most or sometimes all of what we dreamed about shortly after we wake up?

[Assistant] When you sleep a lot of the functions of the brain is turned off and not working. One of these functions is the ability to form new memories. Your brain is only able to keep about three seconds worth of memory at once without this function as these are thoughts that are actively being worked on. Even when you wake up and you are able to form new memories again your mind is able to recognize the thoughts as just dreems and will discard them as unimportant.


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

[User] Are there any socially conservative post-structuralist or postmodern philosophers?

[Assistant] In his influential analysis of these developments, Habermas distinguishes between (i) what he calls the "anti-modernism" of a group he calls the "young conservatives", which would include the figures normally thought of as post-structuralists; (ii) the "pre-modernism" of a group he calls the "old conservatives", of whom he names in particular Hans Jonas and Leo Strauss; and (iii) the "post-modernism" of a group he calls the "neoconservatives", of whom he mentions Daniel Bell, Wittgenstein's early work, and some of Carl Schmitt's work. You could find social conservatives certainly among the latter two groups. Daniel Bell's work is probably the most notable, on these issues.


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

[User]
ELI: Why do we need daylight saving time?

I understand it changes the time to adjust between the seasons, but why?

[Assistant]
Easy: We don't.

DST is a man-made idea to change the feel of the day. We work and play when the sun's up and sleep when it's dark, right? Think of this - You need to get up every day at 7AM to get ready for work or school. In the spring, daylight starts at 6:30 and goes until as late as 8PM in the summer. But when winter comes, days get shorter, and daylight starts at 6:00. Well without DST, you would "waste" daylight because at 6:00 when the sun comes up you'd still be sleeping until the alarm goes off at 7:00. Therefore, the government decided that we should set our clocks back so that we wake up when the sun comes up, "resetting time" so that sunrise is our new 7AM.

Old Native American chief says, "Only white man think cutting end off rope and tying to other end makes longer rope."


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

[User] ELI5:Why do we use a Green Screen to make special effects? Why not purple, or blue, or any other color?

[Assistant]
You don't have to!  Any single color screen could function as a "green screen".

But green is a popular color to use because it is very uncommon in the human body so you lower the risk of having random pieces of your people disappearing.


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

[User]
I'm a teacher with a very simple question on supply and demand.

I teach social studies and this year, I was given an economics elective. Teaching this is very new to me. We are doing supply and demand and my students are VERY confused. I feel I am failing them because there is really only one way that I can explain things. I have two questions.

Here are two examples of questions:

1. *"In a small-town store, shoppers can choose between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream. Everybody likes both equally, so they will buy what is cheapest. The price of chocolate ice cream has recently doubled, making vanilla ice cream much cheaper."*
2. *"As a result of the recession, numerous shopping malls have shut down, dramatically reducing the number of seller of clothing."*

In the first example, demand will increase and supply will stay the same. However, my students CAN NOT understand why supply does not shift here.

In the second, supply should decrease and demand should stay the same. Again, they cannot understand why a decrease in supply would not change demand with it.

I believe the whole "change in supply/demand" vs "change in quantity supplied/demanded" is really tripping them up. Can someone help me explain this to them?

[Assistant]
Change in quantity supplied/demanded is always in response to a price change. Graphically, this is a movement along the supply/demand curve. The key thing is that underlying preferences (or for supply, production costs)  for the good havent changed, only the current price. Everyone still feels the same about each ice cream flavor, but they are facing a new price so they want to buy/sell a different quantity.

Shifting the curves means the relationship between price and quantity has changed. These are changes in supply/demand. This would be if people decided that they like ice cream more than they used to, or if a study came out saying ice cream causes cancer (making people like ice cream less). Even if the price stays the same, they want to buy a different quantity.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is generating cold so much harder than heat?

Its easy to make an electrical device which can gegerate heat. But why is it there arent any portable devices which generate cold.

[Assistant]
Because we don't generate cold. It's impossible to make "cold". Cold is the subjective property of something that lacks energy relative to it's environment. Modern refrigeration doesn't generate cold, rather it takes heat from one place and moves it to another through a process called evaporative cooling.

Your sweat actually preforms evaporative cooling if you're curious to know how it works. Think of how sweat takes heat from your body as it evaporates, thus cooling off the body. Refrigeration works by using a chemical to take the heat from a space and then dump it outside the space you're attempting too keep cool.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is there a separation between the medical and dental professions?

We have a medical profession with specialties in everything, from head to toe -- neurology, cardiology, gastroenterology, podiatry, etc. etc. But we've decided that oral health, *that's* different. Let's set up a separate insurance industry for that. Your family doctor, (s)he'll check everything about you *except* your teeth. When was that decided? What makes the mouth so different from any other aspect of human anatomy?

[Assistant]
Because originally, Medicine was split into two seperate "career paths":

* Physicians: An upper-middle class career, they did the diagnosing, prescribing, and some basic procedures. Generally they do not do invasive procedures. According to the original Hippocratic Oath, Doctors are not supposed to do surgery.

* Barber-Surgeons: A working-class career, they were involved anytime you need to get bloody, they did surgery (at the time, pretty basic stuff, like amputations) and teeth-yanking.

But over time, the physicians took over surgery as surgical procedures became more complex and intricate, but the field of Dentistry managed to spin off into it's own separate specialty (mostly because when the physicians started taking over medical fields in the 18th and 19th century, dentistry was still pretty a basic field and so the physicians left them to their original practitioners. When Dentistry started developing in the 20th century, the boundaries of medicine has already solidified, and so these two fields adapted by creating separate school and regulating body).


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

[User]
[Spiderman: No way home] Why was Dr Strange so reckless?

He agreed to wipe everyone's memories without much thought at all, and even kept fucking with the spell as he's casting it even though he knows that's extremely dangerous. This is after the infinity gauntlet battles, so even though he's always been overconfident, he's seen what messing with reality can do and even died, but Parker asks and he's just like, mm ok! It made no sense.

[Assistant]
"Call me Stephen" pretty much sums it up.

They fought a lunatic alien with god-like powers and saved the universe together; To Dr. Strange Peter is a colleague, not just some High school kid. Strange took it for granted that Peter had exercised all reasonable options before going to his Sorcerer friend. And Strange didn't bother with the rules *before* he could bend reality.

When Strange says something like "Well if you appealed and it didn't work, you obviously don't have any other options" and Peter responded with "Wait, you can do that?" their dynamic completely changed. Strange realized how badly he had messed up. First he tries to blame Peter, (Which MJ rightly points out isn't fair) then he goes into damage control mode.


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

[User]
[Harry Potter] What is the wizarding world's equivalent of seal team 6? Does the Ministry of Magic have a Department of Defense?

Aurors are more like FBI agents, where's the military in this world?

[Assistant] The wizarding community of Britain is relatively small compared to the general population, and wizarding communities as a whole are unlikely to go to war with one another in this day and age. Dark Wizards are more of a threat, and teams of skilled Aurors carry out those types of missions.


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

[User] ELI5: How do they still find ancient footprints/campfire ashes preserved after thousands of years?

[Assistant] Something walked in mud, mud dries hard during dry spell. Then it can get covered with more mud but the impression is still there.  Eventually it the top layers can erode away leaving the footprint.  Campfires may have been in caves or overhangs which protect from the elements.


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

[User] [Star Wars] "Fear will keep them in line... fear of this station". Tarkin, using the immense power of the first Death Star kills the Emperor. Does he have the power between it and the other forces he commands to rule the galaxy?

[Assistant] Unlikely. The good news for Tarkin is the Emperor has no clear successor, so he would have as strong a claim as anyone else. The bad news for Tarkin is the Emperor has no clear successor, so everyone else's claim is as strong as his. Some forces would no doubt be swayed by his authority and the Death Star, but lots of other Imperial leaders would try to make a claim for the throne. He'd be dealing with vengeful loyalists, surviving rebels, and competing claimants. To make matters worse, while the Death Star is a powerful asset, it's also a big target. People would fear it, but because they feared it none of his enemies would rest until it was destroyed.


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

[User]
In a fully automated manufacturing and distribution
society, what happens?

Let's say we get to the point where factories and robots can do all the jobs of building structures , manufacturing, maintaining and distributing manufactured goods at a cost below that of human subsistence.  Furthermore, many services can be handled via AI or AI networked robots. This is likely thought only with the existence of a mass market that can purchase the goods and services.

This the leaves the jobs of research, design, some small numbers for management and admin functions.

So likely a large majority of people is not needed.

And if something like a huge majority of people don't have work/income, who are the producers of goods and services selling to?  Despite being able to provide for a huge mass market, this scenario means that there is no mass market.

Is there some sort of balance or equilibrium that is known to social science that can describe how this plays out?

[Assistant]
A distribution system like that would mean that goods would be produced with little effort, meaning the amount the producers would be willing to part with for material goods would be very small. The economy does not exist to satisfy material wants, it exists to serve any human wants - the mastery of material production would simply mean people would shift their productive energies to non-material things. At one time a vast majority of the population was focused on providing other people with food and a vast majority of people's spending was on feeding themselves. When technology shifted to make food production less strenuous, people directed their new-found excess incomes elsewhere, and people were happy to try to find new goods and activities to compete for that income.

If producers can literally provide a year's supply of food at a press of a button (in this future example), and an automated system converts solar energy into food, all you need to do to get a years' supply of food is to persuade one of the producers of food to press a button for you. Who knows, we could have an economy based around lolcats and upvotes. The nature of employment will be different, but it will still be there (whether we want to call it employment or not) - it's simply the direction of human will and effort to satisfying other people, whether in a roundabout process like farming or in more direct ways like services. Only when there is - literally - no way for one person to satisfy another person's want will this be an issue, and in a world of such abundance nobody would bother protecting their material property anyway, it would be like air. Very few people put energy into keeping other people from breathing their air.


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

[User]
Why aren't we using wireless energy?

If Tesla developed wireless energy transfer in the 1900's, why don't we see this kind of power in everyday life?

[Assistant] It's horribly inefficient over any appreciable distance. It's drastically less efficient than using conductive wires to transfer power. It exists, but only for small low-power devices like cell phones, and only at short distances. The intensity of EM radiation drops off with the cube of the distance from whatever is emitting it, so to double the distance, you need to increase the power by a factor of 8. You'd need to build devices with directed emissions to only target the devices you want to power, and it still wouldn't be very efficient.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does pain come in "pulses" or "waves" when you stub your toe, hit your shin, or get a headache?

Sometimes when I stub a toe, smack my shin, or get a headache it feels like the pain comes in waves. Why is that?

[Assistant]
Answer:  your body immediately sends out rescuers in the form of fluids - those extra fluids in the tissues compress the small blood vessels/ capillaries.  What youre feeling is the pulse rate of your heart as the blood flows through the compressed area.  Youre more aware of it bc the pain signals have your attention drawn to that spot.

This is similar to when you have your pulse taken, its felt by slightly compressing a vessel.  Try it out by pressing two fingers against the visible vessels on the inside of your wrist - push slightly down and toward the thumb side


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

[User] Do grown animals beg from each other like dogs etc beg for food from humans?

[Assistant]
Cats and dogs (and many other animals) beg for food from humans because humans started feeding them at some point in the first place, animals quickly adapt and learn to utilize their food source, cats for example will try out a wide range of sounds and behavior to maximize the results, dogs do the same .
You can however observe that domestic animals beg food from each other, if one dog or cat has food others may try to beg for it.
In the wild you can often observe how the animals behave in groups where some group members have dedicated hunter roles, the lions for example, then the females return with food there is a certain order in witch the animals are allowed to feed and the hungry ones may try to appeal o the others, begging for a share. You can also observe similar behavior with monkeys. You could also train one animal to feed other animals and then they would beg for food as well.


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

[User]
Does global contraction play any role in modern geology?

From what I understand global contraction, or the slow shrinking and deformation of the Earths crust, was one of the dominant ideas in geology prior to the development of plate tectonics. I know it has been ruled out in favor of plate tectonics, but I recently read that it does seem to have played a role in shaping features on other bodies in the solar system like Mercury and the moon. Im curious if global contraction is still thought in modern geology to have had any kind of effect on Earths crust in the present or past?

[Assistant]
Global Contraction Theory is also referred to as Geophysical Global Cooling Theory, involves a planet in a molten state gradually cooling as it ages. First the surface cools to a solid rock state as the mantle and core cool at a slower rate, the interior cooling shrinks the rock and so the crust has to shrink and crumple around it.

This does happen in other places in the solar system, like Mercury or the Moon, as their crusts are not broken up into plates and are instead one solid surface. However because Earth has plate tectonics each plate can slide over or under each other as the Earth loses heat and the interior shrinks. This means that although the earth is losing heat very very slowly and is therefor contracting the impact on the crust is negligible at best.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are all the audience guests at shows like Ellen/Oprah jump / scream hysterically in pretty much the same way? Is it directed? Are they cherry picked based on their "enthusiasm" level? Or do all people behave like this naturally when getting a free gift / meeting a celebrity in a TV show?

Is it directed this way? Statistically speaking, I'm sure some of the guest audience people would normally be less "energetic" than what we see. But it seems each and every one of them behaves in the same "extremely happy" way. Screams, jumps, OMG OMG OMG etc. No offense or any judgement, but I find it weird that all of them behave the same way. Is that just edited to keep only the most "happy" guests? do they pick them in advance like that? do they just "play the part"? some of these people are school principals, doctors, nurses, engineers and people who are not usually "acting like a teenager meeting Justin Bieber", how come the show editores always get a very real looking reaction from the guests?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean the non-professional actor / non-celebrity "Single Mom from Detroit" type of "surprise you are selected to play '3 seconds rule' or something" or "a viewer who wrote us a letter doesn't know we are going to knock on their door in 1,2,3" type of guests...

Thanks!

[Assistant] They are very much encouraged to be this wild and enthusiatic.Most shows have someone "warm up" the audience before tapping. As for the guests, remember, most are professional performers, have done these shows for years and know the drill, it's all an act.


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

[User] [DC] Why does General Zod hate Superman?

[Assistant]
Zod's emotional journey with Superman typically goes something like this in his different iterations:

* Zod is released from the Phantom Zone.  He is initially impressed by Superman and Superman's power.  Superman, for his part, is initially please to be around some other Kryptonians.
* Zod starts to express a different attitude about power than Superman.  Zod operates under a "might makes right" approach.  Zod eventually sees Superman's restraint as weakness and believes their powers are wasted on the weak-willed Kal-El.  It isn't hate so much as disappointment at this point.
* Zod and Superman's philosophical differences inevitably cause them to come into conflict.  Zod's beliefs about Kryptonian superiority lead him to want to 'redeem' Superman and show him how power ought to be used.  Superman refuses.  Zod gives up and decides to see Superman as an obstacle standing in his way that has to be removed.

Typically, Zod doesn't hate Superman, at least not at first.  It's only after Superman repeatedly gets in his way that Zod starts to view him as an enemy, particularly if Superman has returned him to the Phantom Zone.  An exception to this pattern is when Zod has a past with Superman's father that leads to him hating Jor-El's son from the start.


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

[User]
ELI5 Why does the church allow people to worship Jesus

The scripture clearly says not to Worship anything other than GOD and not to make a carved image of anything in heaven. So how does the church justify going against this and allow people to wear images of Jesus and worship him

EDIT: Wow excellent replies that have helped my understanding of the Holy Trinity. Some more questions raised but hey, thats the Joy of Learning :-)

[Assistant] Someone once explained it to me like this. God is like an egg. The egg has 3 parts. The shell, the yolk and the egg white. 3 district and different parts with 3 different functions but never the less, all still an egg.


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

[User] [Marvel] Why do we only ever encounter gods from non-contemporary religions? Is there something about losing all of its followers that makes a god come alive?

[Assistant]
Nope. We've seen Jesus and Yahweh. We've seen the One Above All, Moses, Adam, and Eve in Marvel. It's just that they're much less hands-on than the likes of Thor and Hercules.

Most of the gods are content to sit back in their heavens, relax, and enjoy eternity with parties and contests. It's the ones like Thor and Hercules, who thirst for adventure in the mortal realms, that pull our attention. And, because they get involved, the others get involved as well.

There was a thing a few years ago where Thor started being worshipped as part of a world-wide religion. He could actually hear the prayers of people all over the world. He didn't get any stronger or weaker, however. The number of believers a god has has nothing to do with how powerful or how much of a presence they possess.


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

[User]
[MCU] Is Johann Schmidt still evil?

Is the Red Skull still evil after his time in outer space?

If not, would Captain America be willing to team up with him if circumstances brought them together again, or would the Red Skull's evil past be too much for him to forget?

[Assistant] Red Skull just got a nice healthy dose of reality on a universal scale. He realized just how unattainable and meaningless his cause was when he was shot through space and had a nice long time out on some backwater.


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

[User]
[Warhammer 40.000] Could the Primarchs sire children if they wanted to?

I know there are certain... practical concerns, to be taken into consideration between a normal woman and a 12-foot ultrahuman monstrosity created for war. And that is it hard for the latter to empathise in any deep way with puny mortals. But did the primarchs produce sperm, and could it have seeded a normal womb? And what would the resulting child be like? Would it inherit some of their father's immense might, or just be a normal human?

[Assistant] I think they're sterile. The last thing the Emperor needed was innumerable semi-immortal psychic grandchildren running around unchecked. He'd planned to eliminate the more troubling primarchs after the Crusade was over, and He is not one for loose ends.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Was Obi-Wans aversion to blasters a personal attitude or a part of standard Jedi teaching? Did any Jedi regularly carry or use a blaster?

We know that the problem isnt with their lethality, since Jedi have no problem with killing people with their lightsabers. Obi-Wan specifically says that lightsabers are an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. Was this a personal bias, or just another example of Jedi arrogance? Are there any example of Jedi using blasters? Maybe grey Jedi?

[Assistant]
It's not a specific Jedi teaching, but it's still very rare to see a Jedi use a blaster, and none would regularly carry one.

The thing is that a blaster is an offensive weapon, all it does is attack.  A lightsaber can be used defensively.

Another way to look at it is that Sith don't carry blasters either, and they obviously don't have any rules restricting weapon choice.  That says to me that there isn't anything a blaster can do that can't be done better by a Force user with a lightsaber.

But basically, yea, the bit about being an elegant and civilized weapon is just Obi-Wan's personal opinion.


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

[User]
[MCU] Is Scarlet Witch tapping into magic?

Did her enhancements allow her to tap into magic like Strange?  With proper training, could she become more powerful than Strange?

[Assistant]
According to the Ancient One, magic in the MCU is tapping into extra-dimensional energies and channeling them to various effects.

The Scarlet Witch's power is decidedly *not* from another dimension - it derives from one of the core energy sources of *this* universe.  So it's unclear if what she's using technically fulfills the definition of "magic".

That being said, it may just be a technicality.  Sorcerers need to tap into energy drawn from other dimensions because they don't have a readily-available source here.  They're like a small business trying to scrape by enough to launch a new product - they take a small loan out here, rack up a credit card there, borrow from a wealthy family member.

Scarlet Witch, on the other hand, is ridiculously, fabulously independently, wealthy.  She's like a family member of the billionaire Olsen twins or something.  She doesn't need to learn tricks to coax a few extra bits of power from exotic sources, she just looks within and draws out what she needs.


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

[User]
ELI5: What happens to my Nokia stocks if Microsoft buys Nokia?

I have some Nokia stocks, and it's been rumored that either Microsoft or Huawei would be interested in buying Nokia's mobile business. What would happen to my stocks? Would my stocks be replaced with the buyer company's stocks, would I get money equivalent for the purchase amount per stock, or would I still own Nokia's stocks for the remainder business that Nokia would still have?

[Assistant]
Let's say you own exactly 1% of Nokia.  (You probably don't but it is an easy number to use)

You would get 1% of whatever deal they make.

If Microsoft buys Nokia for $100,000 You would get $1000.

If Microsoft buys Nokia for 200 Shares of Microsoft stock you get 2 shares of MSFT.

If it is a mix, maybe $50,000 + 100 shares of MSFT, then you would get $500 and 1 share of MSFT.

Other things are possible like $50,000 plus some other assets like buildings or patents.  In that case you would get some extra money because you can't get 1% of a building.


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

[User] [Warhammer 40K] A normal human owning a single Astartes Pattern Bolter round is punishable by death. Why is this?

[Assistant]
Because there are literally no legal paths by which he could have acquired one.

They go straight from the manufactorum to the chapter, and any that dont make it there can only have been stolen. To steal from the Emperors angels of death is to aid their enemies, and this is the vilest of treasons.

So, death for the first offence it is.