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

[User] What exactly goes on inside of rice or pasta when you boil it?

[Assistant]
It is a really cool phenomena.  It is a really good example of starch gelatinization.  Pasta and dough in general are really interesting.  There are two major components in pasta: Starch and Protein.  They each contribute to the texture and flavor of pasta.

So what is happening when you boil pasta?  Water is uptaken into the pasta, the starch is gelatinizing, it is held in a network of protein cross links.  You can think of unboiled pasta as a long mesh snake that hold a bunch of un-inflated balloons.  Now as we put the pasta in the water, the balloons begin inflating, the starch takes up water.  Once we reach a certain point the balloons pop, but the mesh does not shrink back.

This is what happens when you cook pasta, the heat and water begin the process of starch gelatinization.  Heat and water begin entering the starch granule and it begins to swell, water is absorbed into the starch.  Water molecules add heat to starch granules until bonds within the starch molecule being to break, boom our balloons pop.  They begin to leach out amylose, long mostly linear chains of starch they get caught in the protein mesh as you continue cooking you get further breakdown of the starch granule.

The texture of pasta is given by the length of cooking, how much starch is gelatinized and the rate that water diffuses through the pasta.  Pasta made from higher quality flour will have a tighter mesh of protein and yields a better pasta overall.

Hope this helped.


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

[User] ELI5: What exactly is happening when turning the tuner knob on an analog radio. How does it 'grab' the specific station out of the air?

[Assistant]
* The antenna on your radio is picking all broadcasts in your area at the same time.
* The radio works by filtering everything out except the station you want to hear.
* Turning the knob changes the resistance on the filter circuit inside your radio.
* Changing the ~~resistance~~  capacitance  in the circuit changes the center frequency of the filter.
* When the ~~resistance~~ capacitance  is *just right* the filter works best and the audio is clear.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does Apple keep changing their ports?

There doesn't seem to be a specific, clear reason. Why should they change it?

[Assistant]
If you're referring to the new Macbook, that port is a USB type-C port, it's an international standard, and you're going to start seeing that port on pretty much everything. Google has already announced that the new Chromebook Pixel is using it.

The port is reversible (which is always nice), is faster, and lets you draw more power (useful for charging) than other ports.


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

[User]
Could a Song be described as a single Wave function ?

Ok so i study CS myself but i am still at the beginning. Thus i recently took a look into Audio and FLAC. I got a Software that showed me the Wavefunction of the currently playing song and couldnt help but ask, can you create a single Function that discribes the entire song ?

From what i understand, the  oscilloscope dosnt show any Function at all. It just shows you the current power levels which just look like sin Waves. And behaive like them.

My guess is that you could do that, so having a single sin Function that is just the song, but it would be way to complex to actually use.

[Assistant] Yes. You could take the Taylor expansion of the amplitude as a function of time, `a(t)` describing the song and put it into Fourier space, and discretize that Fourier function `A(,)` as a series of sinusoidal functions that can be summed together to return `a(t)` in real space. You now have that song as a single sinusoidal function. It will take a crap-ton of terms to get any kind of accurate approximation, more than the information in the song, and youll get a ton of loss but it is in principle possible. Its just going to be the worlds worst compression algorithm.


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

[User]
CMV: Teachers should have a degree in the subject they teach not education.

What surprised me to learn after graduating high school was the fact that my teachers did not have a degree in what they taught.  What did my history, physics, health, and civics teacher have in common?
They all had the same degree.  This leaves the vast majority of teachers at best dabblers in the subject they are in charge of instructing.

I am aware that they had to take more courses related to their topic but often times they take the education version.  However, you can't major in the actual topic and take the education version.  That should signal warning bells.  I even know of programs that will hand out lower degrees in a subject with a PhD or Masters in education without the graduate fulfilling requirements for even an undergrad in that subject.

What is the result of this?
I had a biology teacher who taught alternatives to evolution,
math teachers who had no idea what the point of math was,
and I don't really understand the use of a comma and I have suspicions neither did my teachers.  I think we can all agree that these three things are not desirable outcomes of public education.

I'm also familiar with  education curriculum and have serious skepticism it is a four year program.
What I would propose is that educators should be required a degree in the subject they want to teach.  The curriculum should not be watered down to achieve this (i.e. a science education or math education degree).  This would end the problem of students being taught about a subject from someone who can't motivate the topic, and in some cases is very uncomfortable with the material themselves.

What I would be interested to hear is someone who wants to explain why a four year degree in education to be, say a math teacher, is preferable to getting a four year degree in math and having an educational mentor like most other jobs.

What I'm not really interested in is hearing about how we have a shortage of teachers and making it harder to become one will cause even worse shortages.  That isn't the point of the CMV.

EDIT:  As some people have pointed out grade school teachers have to teach everything.  I wasn't really including teachers who don't have a subject when I wrote this.  I'd really like to be more focused teachers who have to teach a specific subject.

EDIT:
Hey everyone, thanks for your comments.  I tried to respond to everyone as a way of showing appriciation that you took time two write an answer.
Unfortunatly due to time I can't continue to do this.
I did award a delta for the consideration of special education students.  It didn't fully change my veiw that in most casess the subject is better, but it did make me realize there are some groups of students a subject major leaves you unprepaired to engage with.

[Assistant]
Education degrees are a hybrid degree. Half the courses that they take are in a focus on the specific subject they are going to teach, half are classes that teach you how to teach. And that is important. Being an expert on a subject in no way qualifies you to communicate that subject to another person, yet alone teach that subject to a complete novice such as a child in school. Those classes that teach you how to teach are as important if not more important to the subject courses.

Additionally half of standard education is done with a single teacher teaching every subject (in the US). This is grades k-5th. Such teachers have to have special education for dealing with young children and having a subject specialty is basically useless for them.


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

[User] Is dark energy/matter created by the expansion of the universe? Does this violate conservation of energy if it does?

[Assistant]
Dark energy has a constant energy density. If the volume of a region gets larger by expansion, the total dark energy inside obviously increases. This clearly violates conservation of energy, but energy is not conserved in cosmology, so no problem.

Dark matter is actually much more down to earth and acts like normal baryonic matter. The mass of dark matter in a region is conserved. As a region of space expands, since the total amount must stay the same, dark matter gets diluted, just like normal matter does.


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

[User] ELI5: How do blind people learn to read Braille?

[Assistant]
Pretty much the same way that people learn to read printed letters/words.  The Braille alphabet is pretty much identical to the one that you are using to read this very passage right now, but represented by a grid of six dots that can be felt rather than just seen.

Once you learn which series of dots represents which letter - bam, you can read braille.


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

[User] [Star Trek]when Riker possessed the power of the Q it seemed like his abilities were limited to just their physical powers, but not their supposed super intelligence/knowledge. Did it just not occur to him to make himself omniscient or did the continuum deliberately deny him that ability?

[Assistant]
It was probably denied to him. Omnipotence is a pretty big change to your life's outlook, and someone's post-all-knowing personality has a pretty good chance to be totally divorced from whatever was there before.

If there was interest in seeing *Riker* with Q's power, granting him the mental end of it would have blown the game.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] What would've happened if Obi-Wan went with Mace Windu to confront Palpatine?

Windu wasn't able to convince Anakin that Palpatine needed to be executed, resulting in Windu's death. Could Obi-Wan have stopped both Mace Windu from getting killed and Anakin from turning? What if Yoda had been present in this specific scenario?

Sorry if this needs a spoiler, I doubt the Showdown on Coruscant is new enough to be spoiled by a grand majority of people.

[Assistant]
Obi-Wan is the only person who could have helped Anakin at this point. Even after fully committing himself to the dark side and becoming Darth Vader Anakin says to Obi-Wan "Don't make me kill you".

Sheev wasn't stupid. He recommended Anakin for the Utapau mission because he knows it would guarantee his exclusion. He knows Obi-Wan would be sent because of prior encounters with Grievous, and he knows he'll be sent alone because Grievous has been escaping for 3 years now.

He deliberately separated them. If Obi-Wan was on Coruscant, he'd be brought to confront Sidious. His words to Anakin would reassure him more than Mace. He'd last in a fight against Sidious because of his fighting style. Anakin would still come to the Chancellor's office, but seeing Obi-Wan being blasted with lightning would have a very different effect than Mace Windu.

If Obi-Wan were there, Anakin would have fulfilled his destiny 23 years earlier.


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

[User] ELI5: The human body uses electricity to operate. Does the initial "charge" come from your parent or is it something we produce independently from the start?

[Assistant] It's not electricity in the same sense as what we use for electronics.  Rather, our cells use electric action potentials gained by moving charged ions around.  Your cells produce these ions via cellular respiration.  There is no "initial charge".  Rather, it's an ongoing process.


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

[User] [Harry Potter] Do sentient fantastic creatures like centaurs or goblins also have their version of 'Muggles' or can they all use magic?

[Assistant]
They are inherently magical creatures--magic is what makes their bodies work, in many cases.

You could consider *Homo sapiens* to be only a quasi-magical species by comparison, as only a very small minority of our species has magical potential.


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

[User]
[DC (New 52 and Old] How public is Batman's "no killing" stance?

Wouldn't fighters on the level of Deathstroke be able to take advantage of that by... say... making moves that would be risky because the enemy could land a lethal blow, but are considerably less so (or not at all) if the enemy is both skilled and 100% unwilling to kill?

I'm fairly certain this sort of thing was implied in at least one battle between the two, but how common is this?

[Assistant] Depends where and when you are in the multiverse. There are a lot of stories involving low level thugs who are totally terrified of being killed by Batman and others where the Joker and other villains specifically exploit his no-kill policy. The criminals who have repeated run ins with Batman and never die all eventually catch onto it.


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

[User] ELI5: where does left/right handedness come from, and what evolutionary imperative made most people right handed?

[Assistant]
It's not so much that there's a benefit to most people being right handed, as it is that there's a benefit to some people being left handed.

I think the going theory is it's to do with fighting. You're at an advantage as a left fighting someone who's use to always fighting righties.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it that it takes few seconds for our body to decide that it's had enough water not to be thirsty, but several minutes to recognize that no more food is needed cuz it's not hungry?

[Assistant]
Sensors in your mouth, back of the throat and oesophagus can detect how much water has been consumed and report this information to the brain. Fairly shortly after drinking water, the bode will start to behave as if that water is already in the bloodstream, even if it is still somewhere in the digestive tract.

Food is a completely different story. The brain relies on stretch receptors in  the stomach, hormones produced by the process of digestion, and sometimes chemicals generated by the bacteria living in the intestines. This is a much more complicated process that takes longer, which leads to a lag between actually being full, and the feeling of fullness.


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

[User]
If we were on one of the Kepler planets and were using our current tech to find distant planets, would we be able to find Earth?

To clarify, lets say we are on a hospitable planet surrounding one of the stars that Kepler (or similar) is watching.  With our current planet hunting technologies and processes, if we monitored the Sun, would we be able to find earth (or only Jupiter/Saturn, etc)?

Would we even consider looking at the Sun (or is it the wrong type of star?)

If we could find Earth, would we be able to tell its atmosphere and other properties?

Would we be able to identify signatures of intelligent life?

[Assistant] We definitely couldn't find Earth with the transit method Kepler uses. The area Kepler ~~is~~ was pointed at is more or less perpendicular to the plane that the planets orbit in, so from the point of view a planet discovered by Kepler, none of the planets in our system would ever transit Sol.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is trauma inflicted on your temples more serious than anywhere else on your head? Your brain is still protected by your skull in that area, so what specifically makes it so much worse?

[Assistant]
None of the answers so far are quite right.

Firstly, as you quite rightly say the it is still protected by the skull. The skull is not a solid structure though, it's made up of many boned that fuse together as we age. The temple is one place where the bones join together. Because of this they are a bit of a weak point.

The issue is that theres a load of important stuff below two of the joining bones - the parietal bone and the temporal bone.

There are major blood vessels under there. Blood vessels in the skull are not all veins/arteries but cavities called sinuses. Most of them run just under the skull and when the skull breaks it can stab through into them causing a serious bleed. The skull is really bad at regulating blood pressure, and loss of blood can lead to certian areas of the brain been starved of oxygen and dying.

A lot of our more obvious functions are associated with brain areas on the side of the head too. When the bone breaks around the temple it can (and often does) crack horizontally. This can cause damage to areas of the brain associated with language, movement and sensory information. Most of these are near the temple, rather than under it. The extent of damage depends on the degree of skull trauma.

In summary, it is a weak spot and there are some important things going on nearby.


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

[User]
ELI5: Seeing as penises are viewed as the bigger the better, why do muscular sculptors of gods have ridiculously small wangers?

Title is pretty much the question.

[Assistant]
Actually, "bigger is better" wasn't always the case.

In ancient Greece/Rome, large penises were seen as barbaric and uncultured; the smaller penis was seen as far more civilized.  Hence the classical sculptures and paintings having smaller genitals.

Since the Renaissance copied many of the classic techniques, they continued the style.


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

[User]
Has there ever been an attempt to create a SI unit of time?

I know seconds, minutes, milliseconds, etc. are SI units now, but has there ever been an attempt to create one more like grams and liters? That is, grounded in some naturalistic value and scaled only by powers of ten?

[Assistant]
The second is based on something physical - it's defined as "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 caesium-133 atom".

It may seem somewhat arbitrary, because it isn't based on anything fundamental to the universe, but it's no more so than, for example, the kilogram - which is the mass of a cylinder of platinum and iridium held in a vault in Paris.  The meter is actually defined in terms of the second, and doesn't have it's own reference point.


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

[User] Eli5 why do 4x400m sprinting teams always puts their fastest runner as the first or last runner?

[Assistant]
If you're in the second or third runner you'll have two transition points where you have to pass the baton. You aren't at 100% for both the start and the end of your 100m sprint. But if you're the first or last runner you only have one transition.

This translates to a longer segment of the race being ran at 100% for the first and last runners.

A team with their best runners running with less transitions will be faster because those faster runners can be utilized to their strength - running fast.


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

[User] ELI5: how can a massless particle (like light) carry momentum and pass it to other massive particles?

[Assistant]
Momentum does not equal mass times velocity. It's very close to p = mv at low speeds and for particles with rest mass, but - like most classical mechanics equations - this is just an approximation to the correct formula from relativity. This formula is: E^2 = (mc^(2))^2 + (pc)^(2), where *E* is the total [mass-]energy of the particle, *m* is the rest mass of the particle, *c* is the speed of light, and *p* is the momentum.

For a photon, m = 0, so the first term goes away, and we get E^2 = (pc)^2 or more simply E = pc.


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

[User] If you're standing on Jupiter's moon and jump, do you jump noticeably higher on the side closest to Jupiter than on the side furthest from it?

[Assistant]
The astronaut jumping on Io should be visualized as being similar to the ocean on Earth affected by tides.  Your weight is lowest on Io where Jupiter is directly overhead AND on the opposite side of Io, where Jupiter is directly under foot.  Your weight will be highest on Io on the circle 90 degrees from those two points.

Remember that tidal forces reduce weight on the close and far side, because only the center of Io is in freefall relative to Jupiter's gravity.  On the near side, Jupiter's gravity is higher than your orbital acceleration.  On the far side of Io, the orbital acceleration is higher than Jupiter's gravity at that point.


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

[User]
[Adventure Time] Why don't they just kill Ice King?

I mean as arseholes go he's one of the biggest and as for the tragic backstory BS, so what.

[Assistant]
Have you noticed how Finn never calls him Ice King anymore?
He always calls him Simon.
Hell, in the magic eyes episode, he physically reverts him into Simon.

And how he doesn't really kidnap princesses anymore?
He's not a villain anymore, just a mad and sad old man.

I think everyone is just waiting for Magic Woman to come fix him.


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

[User] ELI5: Why are humans most comfortable at room temperature (~22C) but not at body temperature (37C)?

[Assistant] Our ideal body temp is 37 degrees. Our bodies are essentially like engines that convert food into energy we can use, and the use of this energy whether it be for muscle contraction or to produce bio molecules in our body produces heat. To prevent our bodies from exceeding our natural body temp radiate this heat into the environment. So at 37 degrees our bodies are still generating heat but cannot release it without sweating etc. Plus we wear clothes which prevent additional heat loss (by trapping the heat we are trying to radiate).


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

[User]
How does the air in a tunnel behave when a train passes through?

I ride the subway to work every day and I've been wondering about this. How does air in a tunnel behave when a train goes through it? Does it get pushed forward or backward compared to the direction the train is moving? Compared to the train's velocity, how far does the displaced air mass get pushed?

[Assistant]
Cannot speak to the full science of this.  However:

In the Eurotunnel, the size of the tunnels (there are 3 - one big one each way and one service tunnel in the center) was expanded multiple times in the design phase.  The size of the trains was always expanded to basically completely fill the new tunnels.  So the trains were pushing huge columns of air in front of them.  This would obviously slow them down significantly.

To fix it, they dug vents between the two main tunnels.  When a train is running through the tunnel, the vents are dumping some of that air into the other tunnel.

Of course, this means that if two trains pass each other, in different tunnels, with the vents open, they could derail each other because of the force of air coming out of those vents.  So they had to design a system that shuts the vents between the tunnels when the trains are nearing each other, then opens them again for efficiency when the danger has passed.

So, not an answer to the question (sorry!) but just to show that it is a real concern and design and engineering steps have to be taken.


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

[User]
Have any philosophers talked about turning human weakness into strength?

Nietzsche is the obvious one of course, turning suffering into strength. Or more accurately maybe strength is born of suffering in his view

But as somebody who has mostly read Schopenhauer, Pascal, and Buddhist thought, I think they make pretty strong cases about how the myriad imperfections in human existence makes it pretty damn miserable. We never stop desiring, we never stop fearing, we're hounded all our lives by the endless changes in ourselves and the world.

But I know at least from just popular culture and media that some people interpret this as a positive. Man's restlessness drives us to great things and without desire or fear, we might have done nothing great at all. I would assume much smarter people have written on it though and was curious if anyone here could suggest some?

Thank you in advance.

[Assistant] Judith Butler writes a lot about turning vulnerability and precarity into power by using them as a means of identifying with other vulnerable and precarious people to create mass movements. The argument is set out in her book, Precarious Life, and explored in practice in her edited volume, Vulnerability in Resistance.


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

[User] [Harry Potter] How are the muggle's World War 2 and Grindelwald linked?

[Assistant] Most connections were coincidental, but it is known that Adolf Hitler and Grindewald did have at least some contact before and during WWII. Grindewald wanted an army of Infiri, and what better person to get an army of dead bodies from than Adolf Hitler?


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

[User]
[Sci-Fi] Would suicide bombers be able to light speed warp right into cities and explode?

If so what defense do we have?

[Assistant]
Big gravity wells like planets will rip any ship out of FTL if it gets too close, before it hits the planet. One of the limitations of current tech, "luckily".

(OOC: This varies by an absurd amount from universe to universe. Not exactly the best general question)


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

[User]
ELI5: Does all the dust and dirt we breathe in during our lives just build up in our lungs?

My furniture is constantly collecting dust so I assume since I breathe the same air that deposits the dust on my furniture I must be inhaling that stuff too.  Where does it all go? Does it somehow make it to our digestive systems to be purged out of our bodies that way, or does it just build up over our lives, or something else?

[Assistant]
The purpose of the mucous in our nose and throat is to trap particulate matter.  Most of the dust and dirt gets trapped there.  From there it can be coughed up, swallowed, or blown into a tissue.

Some dirt and dust invariably still makes it to your lungs, but any time you cough, you'll eject a bit of it as well.


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

[User]
Why do medical professionals use Saline Solution as opposed to Distilled Water?

Saline seems to be the most universally used liquid in medicine. I've seen it used in IV drips, to clean out wounds, and to clean needles between stitches. Why is Saline used as opposed to simple water? Is it more sterile? Easier to make/cheaper? When did it become commonly used?

[Assistant]
Saline solution is used is to maintain a balance of osmotic pressure between the body's cells and fluids.  Cell membranes are selectively permeable which, in this case, means that water can enter and leave the cell freely but most species in solution cannot.  Two systems separated by a selectively permeable membrane like this will seek an equilibrium, with water moving however it has to in order to make both systems roughly equally concentrated.

Using pure distilled water (hypotonic) would cause water to rush into the cells to dilute the contents and reach equilibrium, resulting in popped cells.  Using more concentrated solutions (hypertonic) would draw water out from the cells and result in them being dessicated.


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

[User] ELI5:How is radiation both a cause and a treatment for cancer?

[Assistant]
Radiation can damage a cell by breaking and forming chemical bonds. This can include damage to DNA which can lead to mutations which cause cancer.

However, enough radiation will just do so much damage to the cell's structures that it dies.

Targeting a tumor with large bursts of radiation can kill those cancerous cells. The use of radiation as a cancer treatment is just very precise so as to not damage healthy cells.


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

[User]
I believe the pharmaceutical industry has strong incentives to avoid curing diseases CMV

> Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime

In the logic of the quote above, I believe the pharmaceutical industry has a stronger incentive to 'give a man a fish' - i.e, to develop drugs that will manage diseases and their related symptoms. I do not believe that it is in their mandated profit-seeking interests to develop drugs that would turn a theoretically chronic disease needing constant drugs into a cure which would only need one cycle of treatment.

[Assistant] One thing you have to keep in mind is that while this may be true about the companies in isolation, things like medical research hospitals and universities are also researching these things as well.  These are direct competitors to the pharmaceutical companies in this sense.  If a university publishes a cure for cancer, the pharmaceutical company has been beaten to the punch, and they can't patent this cure and sell it, while also losing the demand for their non-curative treatments, so they have an incentive to find it themselves.


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

[User]
ELI5: The Chinese concept of Face

In particular, why does it cause loss of Face to point out that a person is behaving badly or inappropriately, but the person doesn't automatically lose Face simply by acting badly.

[Assistant]
Face is just another word for ego.

When you are able to pay the bill for the whole table after dinner, that's face.  If you are unable to pay for your meal (maybe you forgot your wallet) you lose face because it's almost as if you're trying to get out of paying because you are so poor. You're not, of course, you forgot your wallet but it FEELS that way because everyone will think you're poor, symbolically.
Assuming again you are the one picking up the check-- it shows you have money and are able to pay for everyone else. It puts you in a position of power. Additionally, these people you paid for? They owe you an unspoken debt because you were nice to them.
TLDR, face is like Chinese bling.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does the American election campaign process take so long?

I'm Canadian, and in general, in Canada, an election is called and a month or so later, there is a vote.  The whole process -- campaign included takes about 2 months maybe... Actually, it's usually only one month.  I'm also living in South Korea right now where they impeached one president, and elected a new one yesterday... and that took about 2 months total.  But in the US, it goes on for 2 years.  Why is it so long?  From the outside, it seems so pointless.

[Assistant]
From the inside it seems pointless too, to a large extent. But to answer your question, it's important to look at the schedule from the back to the front.

1) Election Day is the first Tuesday after November 1 (meaning between Nov 2-8) every four years, like clockwork. The US does not have snap elections for the Presidency, so all campaign tradition, media, consultants, and expectations are premised on a calendar that is predictable and intentionally slow.

2) To realistically be a candidate on Election Day, a person must be the nominee of either the Republican or Democratic parties. These nominees are officially chosen at that party's National Convention a few months prior to November. Since 1952 these have been held between early July and the first week of September. So, one can think of the *actual* Presidential Election as not officially starting until each Convention has selected their nominee.

3) However, to become the nominee for their party, a person must receive the majority of votes from the attending delegates during their party's Convention. These delegates are sent by the party's apparatus in each state. These delegates are bound to vote at the Convention as dictated by the state-level party apparatus.

4) However, for a person to get the state party apparatus on their side (meaning, to get the delegates to vote for them instead of another candidate at the Convention) they must first demonstrate that the state party *should* get on their side through a show of strength and legitimacy. This is done one of two ways - by a direct vote of the party members across the state (a "Primary Election") or by localized arguments / debates / cajoling all across the state simultaneously one night on a precinct-by-precinct basis (a "Caucus"). Winning the Primary/Caucus for a state translates into delegates at the Convention.

5) It didn't take long for some state apparatuses to realize that if they scheduled their primaries earlier than other states, they could receive disproportionate attention from candidates desperate to build momentum. States like Iowa and New Hampshire are notorious for going first so that every person who even thinks about running for President has to attend their state fairs and local barbecues, kiss the ass of every town mayor and PTA president, etc. This stereotypically results in promises to the Iowa farmer to protect their farm subsidy, etc., all because the candidates desperately want to show strength by winning or placing well in an early Primary. A poor showing in both Iowa and New Hampshire dooms many campaigns. Because of this disproportionate attention, other states started leapfrogging over Iowa and New Hampshire to make *their* Primaries more important. So Iowa and New Hampshire leapfrogged *them*, and this continued for some time until in recent years the National-level party organizations started imposing sanctions if states moved any earlier in the calendar. This became an issue in the 2008 Democratic Nomination race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton because Michigan and Florida moved their primaries too early in violation of Democratic rules. Because of all this leapfrogging, the first votes cast for the Presidential cycle are the Iowa caucuses held in January of the election year (so the next ones will be January 2020).

6) Of course, those are the votes. Campaigning to win those early votes requires personnel, which requires money and expertise, both of which are in limited supply. So before the Primary campaigns even start there's also what's called the "invisible Primary", in which the candidates go around courting influential political figures, donors, etc building infrastructural and "insider" support to either get resources or send signals to rivals that entering the race will not be successful. Moving quickly to secure that support has advantages, even if it's done privately and not in media view. This can take a while, particularly for candidates who are not consensus strong candidates. As an example, Hillary Clinton's expected entry into the 2016 race absolutely stifled Democratic rivals in 2014 such that literally no registered Democrats with national standing ran against her in the entire race until Bernie Sanders, seeing no internal rival to Clinton, changed his party registration to run against her in an attempt to shape the party position. By contrast, the Republicans were completely fractious and factionalized through the entire Primary process because even though Donald Trump was repeatedly and consistently mauled by the opposition in early Primary after Primary, that opposition was split between a half-dozen legitimate contenders, none of whom could beat his 35/40% showing and they ate each other to death, each thinking they would be the last one standing to easily defeat him. By the time the rivals diminished, it was too late to overcome his delegate lead. Had the Republican Party been better managed and had better early candidates during the "invisible primary", the candidate pool would have been less fractious and Trump less likely to win.


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

[User] Does the air inside of a moving car tire rotate or stand still?

[Assistant]
Yes. Viscous fluids (which includes air) will generally satisfy a no slip condition at obstacle boundaries. This means that the air wants to stick to any surface it is touching.

Suppose the air is initially stationary and the tire begins to spin. The air in immediate contact with the inside of the tire will begin to spin as well to maintain contact. This is essentially a form of static friction. This creates a thin boundary layer around the inside the tire in which the air is spinning. Just outside this boundary layer, the air is still stationary. Over time, as long as the tire keeps spinning, the remaining air begins to spin, and this is due to the viscosity of the air, which causes air near the boundary layer to start spinning, and the air beyond that, and the air beyond that.

All of the air will eventually reach the same rotation speed as the tire (let's assume the tire rotates at a constant rate). If the tire stops spinning, the bulk of the air will continue to rotate, but the air in direct contact with the tire will become stationary. Then starts another cascade effect, and the air eventually becomes stationary as well.

This is just as if you considered a very large vat of syrup which was then set to rotate. The syrup does not initially move, but instead a thin layer of syrup in contact with the walls rotates. Eventually the entire volume of syrup rotates.


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

[User] ELI5: Why kettles make a "roaring" noise while they're heating up but then get quieter once they actually start boiling?

[Assistant]
This is about cavitation. When the kettle is on the way to boiling the water touching the heating element at the bottom boils and turns into steam bubbles, which rise and cool as they go because the water around them is cooler. When they get below a certain temperature they collapse and the water rushing in is what makes the noise.

Just before boiling the water isn't cool enough to collapse the bubbles before they get to the surface so they collapse *at* the surface, and air rushing in makes much less noise.

This also makes the air in the kettle get hotter very quickly, which triggers the thermal cutout and switches the kettle off.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is Neutralization an Exothermic Reaction?

From what I know and read, bonding atoms release energy in the form of heat. Can someone explain it in details? Using HCl + NaOH reaction as an example will be helpful as well.

\-Thanks in Advance!

[Assistant]
First let's keep in mind that the rule is as follows:

Breaking a given bond is always endothermic

Forming a given bond is always exothermic

When we talk about whether a ***reaction*** is exothermic or endothermic, we are talking about the summation of the individuals bonds broken and formed and the net energy release or absorbed.

 For example, dissociating Na from OH is endothermic. Same for H and Cl. But the bonding of Na and Cl, and that of H and OH, is exothermic. To know whether the neutralization reaction releases or absorbs energy, you need to know whether the energy needed for the endothermic part is less or more than the energy released by the exothermic part.

If you look at how much energy it takes to break Na from OH and H from Cl, then how much energy you get for bonding Na and Cl and bonding H and OH (you can do that by looking at heat of formation tables and such), you sum those and realize you at the end of the reaction, there is net release of energy, which is why it's exothermic.


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

[User] [Lego Star Wars: the video game] Yoda is shorter than Kid Boba, so why can't he crawl through midget holes?

[Assistant]
Lego Yoda may be small, but his huge plastic head with gigantic inflexible plastic ears makes it impossible for him to fit inside small holes.

Yes, if he pops his head off and pushes it through first, he could fit through, but that legendary technique is said to be a Sith one.


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

[User] [star trek] Could the Borg assimilate enough individuals to make the collective consensus be in favor of non forceful assimilation?

[Assistant]
Reporting back from 2381. The answer there is no, and... yes, they already have.

The Borg Collective has a Queen, it was discovered at the end of the Borg Invasion in 2381, that the Borg Collective was powered and driven by the psychic presence of an extraplanar entity. When that entity was expelled, the Collective remained, but the impetus toward assimilation stopped being their driving force. They were adopted by the extraplanar civilization that the entity came from and left 'for parts unknown'.

Until that entity driving the Borg Collective was expelled, they would all be subject to his superior will. Once removed, they regained their individuality and asserted no inclination toward continuing in that vein.


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

[User] ELI5: After the mating session, the female black widow spider eats the male. How is this an evolutionary advantage?

[Assistant] After mating, the male is superfluous to that particular female in ensuring that its offspring are made. So by eating the male, the female steals his calories, thus helping her survive long enough to produce the eggs. But it's been shown that males prefer female black widows that look fat, and thus full from a meal, so they can go after multiple females.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Why do sith "bleed" their crystals?

So apparently in the Disney canon Sith get their lightsabers by stealing them from Jedi and sorta "bending" the crystal to their will. This is why their blades are red.

But... what's the point? I mean, we've seen light side and dark side users use lightsabers of "opposite" colour before, so clearly they work fine regardless. And from what the Darth Vader comic shows us, "bleeding" the crystal seems to be a pretty tough ordeal. So why do it? What's the practical purpose? Is it just because sith like the colour red?

[Assistant] You'd have to pour dark side energy into the crystals to bleed it. This would further immerse the person into the dark side which we know is like falling into a chasm, easy to go in hard to climb out. So it's probably done to solidify someone in the dark side of the force and then it also doubles as a show of becoming a true sith and the red blade is a symbol of hatred/anger etc which is where sith gain their power. The sith order is very old so most of the reasoning probably went from practicality to ceremonial in purpose.


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

[User]
Why does removing a battery and replacing the same battery (in a wireless mouse for example) work?

Basically as stated above. When my mouse's battery is presumably dead, I just take it out and put it right back in. Why does this work?

[Assistant] The contacts on the battery and your device can develop a layer of corrosion as they're exposed to oxygen. This layer does not conduct well. By replacing it you're scraping the contacts clean allowing better conductivity. When the batteries get low, this can make the difference between a usable amount of current and not.


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

[User]
[Batman] Why does Batman get children to be his sidekicks?

In universe wouldnt it make sense to get a young adult to be your sidekick? At least one 18 and over. In the Arrowverse shows the sidekicks are 21 and that make sense. Why doesnt Batman at least get people who are legal adults to be his sidekicks?

[Assistant]
Batman doesn't seek out sidekicks.

The backstory of each of the robins is some variant on batman finds a kid, the kid starts fighting crime, and Batman feels obligated to take them in and train them rather then letting them go it alone.

Batman *wants* to work alone, but the universe keeps throwing 12 year olds adamant on fighting crime at him. It's not his fault the universe doesn't also give him 21 year olds.


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

[User]
[Lotr] What was Melkor/Morgoth/Saurons Post-Victory Plan? What were they gonna do if they had defeated the free ppl and/or the Valor?

if they murder everyone then they just sit there in an empty world until the end of time?

enslave the free ppls?  to do what?  build pyramids?

[Assistant]
>if they murder everyone then they just sit there in an empty world until the end of time?

Morgoth hated everything that wasn't  himself.  Tolkien  says he would grind everything to dust if he had the chance - and still  be unhappy. Sauron  wasn't  that far gone - he just wanted to rule.

That's a terrible  thing in Tolkien's world - the desire to rule for its  own sake.


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

[User]
ELI5: The Perks of an EU Membership

Being from the States, I've never really known why the EU is a huge thing for the citizens residing in it (I understand the diplomatic and economic benefits of countries).  Does an EU passport/membership get you anything special as a citizen?

[Assistant]
Being from the US you take for granted your "US membership." Having trouble finding work in georgia, move to Colorado. Need a sunny vacation? Fly to California without needing a passport or visa. Have a farm in Indiana and want to sell to farmers markets in Chicago (without having to figure out exchange rates or tarrifs), no big deal. Born in Alaska but hate the cold? Move to Arizona.

EU membership gives Citizens of (participating) Europe the same freedom to move about and work about in an area about the size of the US that the US takes for granted.


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

[User]
[DC] Has Catwoman ever eaten a mouse?

Or anything else a cat would eat. I know she put a bird in her mouth in Batman Returns but in the end she didn't eat it at the Penguin's behest.

[Assistant] The cat persona is a costume thing and a play on the phrase cat burglar. She's not actually feline in actions or thinking. Just a costumed identity like most everyone else. Batman isn't flying around screeching and eating bugs or fruit like a bat so why would catwoman.


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

[User]
ELI5: What's happening when my eyes keep moving through text on a page even when I'm distracted and thinking about something else?

Are the "eyes moving" and "paying attention to the words I'm seeing" processes separate?

[Assistant] This has to do with your memory. There's three basic types of memory: sensory, short term and long term. Sensory memory only lasts for a few seconds and if you're giving attention to what you're looking at, it's sent to your short term memory. A good example of sensory memory is how you see a flipbook as a moving image instead of many single choppy images. This is why you see the words but they just seem to disappear, they're not being sent to your short term memory and are lost.


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

[User]
CMV: Political "flip-flopping" on important issues between past and present campaigns is not only necessary, but admirable.

For simplicity's sake, I'm going to discuss this issue as it pertains to the U.S. presidential elections.

Thousands of people review the past voting records and public positions taken by presidential candidates during their campaigns. Citizens who oppose one candidate or the other will point out the different positions these candidates had before and after they ran for president. We see these on YouTube a lot: one president making two contradictory statements at different points in time over and over again. It's often argued that this makes the candidate weak, a liar, disingenuous, etc.

I believe that, so long as a presidential candidate doesn't make contradictory statements **within their presidential campaign**, flip-flopping is a non-issue. For instance, Obama running on a staunch pro-gun control campaign as an IL senator shouldn't be later criticized for taking a much more neutral position during his past two presidential campaigns.

SIDE NOTE: I'm NOT speaking of Romney-esque flip-flopping where a presidential candidate changes his stance within the same presidential campaign.

The foundation for my reasoning is this: candidates of any position have a mandate to represent and govern with their constituents in mind. A presidential candidate with a political background is transitioning from a micro level of politics to possibly the highest of macro levels. Therefore, in order to represent and govern all 50 states, a presidential candidate can and should alter his platform to better represent the United States as a whole.

I will use Scott Walker as an example because the extremity of his campaign and multiple elections makes the discussion simpler. He was elected after running on a very right-wing balanced-budget campaign, and went to great lengths to balance Wisconsin's budget following his appointment. His methods were seen as so extreme (Google "Scott Walker collective bargaining" and do your research) that a recall election was eventually held. He won this election by *more* than he did in his previous election.

Scott Walker is a clear cut example of a politician who is responsible for following through with promises to one's constituents. He won two elections, one being the first victorious recall election in US history, by relatively large margins.

Now, if Scott Walker ran for president on a much more economically moderate campaign, we would see this as a "contradiction" and he would be slammed for being disingenuous. I don't understand this. His aggressive balanced budget plan was mandated by the people of Wisconsin twice by a relatively large margin. Such an extreme balanced budget plan would probably *not* be mandated by the American people.

Sticking to one's past public positions isn't just bad politics, it's bad governance. Adapting to a wider audience and following through with a modified campaign that reaches 50 rather than 1 state is necessary and admirable.

CMV.

[Assistant]
The problem isn't flip-flopping for valid reasons.  Valid reasons could include the serving different constituencies as you discussed.  It could also result from a candidate getting more information about a particular topic causing them to change their view on that topic.

The problem is pandering - which many people confuse (intentionally or unintentionally) with flip-flopping and refer to it as flip-flopping to discredit the pandering candidate.  Pandering is when you tell the audience you are currently addressing what you think they want to hear so you can get them to vote for you.  Romney didn't flip-flop.  Romney pandered.  Pandering works because people are morons.


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

[User]
[Sandman]What would have happened to the world if Roderick Burgess actually managed to capture Death instead of Dream?

So when Dream was captured, life went as usual, save for a few sensitive people who got negatively affected in various ways. We know that Burgess was looking for immortality for himself... So if Death would not give him what he wanted like Dream, and remained his prisoner, what would have happened to the world/universe?

[Assistant]
Much the same, but the difference is "negatively effected" is far bigger here.

There are enough death gods and psychopomps to take up the slack so it won't end with no-one ever dying, but as with Dream, the domain isn't *managed* anymore. So things start going wrong. People die for no reason, or don't die even when their bodies should no longer function, or come back from the grave in varying levels of decay. And the longer it is, the more such horrifying anomalies happen.

As you said, a few people would be negatively effected. But falling through the wheels of death is a far worse thing then falling through the wheels of dream.


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

[User]
[WK40] Why not just destroy the tomb world while all the necrons are sleeping?

I mean ... they are sleeping there so why not glass them to the core while the necrons are in dreamland?

[Assistant]
There's a lot of tomb worlds, and many times it's not known that a tomb world is a tomb world until we dig deep enough to find the tombs. Sometimes longer, because there usually aren't survivors when people find Necron tombs. Thus, by the time we're sure Necrons are present we also have several bustling cities and industries.

Secondly, because of the depth and strength of Necron architecture a standard planetary bombardment is not guaranteed to destroy the Necrons. But it will probably wake them up.

And lastly, it's expensive to glass planets, especially planets that already have major population centers. We can't just do it willy-nilly.


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

[User]
CMV: Piracy should be made legal

Consider the following situations:

1. A man buys a copy of some movie X. He invites 10 friends over to his house to watch it with him.

2. A teacher knows a slow day is approaching so she buys a copy of movie X. She then shows it to her class of 10 students.

3. A man buys a book Y. When he is done reading it, he donates it to a library, where 10 more people read it for free.

4. A man buys a copy of movie X. He converts it to mp4 and shares it with 10 people online.

In all situations, only a single copy is sold and the number of viewers is the same. The creators gain and "lose" the same amount of money in every one, yet only one is illegal. They all have the same effect, so either piracy should be legal or none of them should.

[Assistant]
In situation 4, the 10 friends now have the ability to further distribute the movie.

That's not the case in cases 1-3.    Making copies can expose way more people to your work than sharing that original copy ever can.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it sometimes when we drive we zone out, and not remember anything, but still manage to drive normal.

[Assistant]
You brain will tend to 'zone out' on certain tasks that are done over and over again.  Basically it tries to minimize sensory over stimulation.

That's why you can remember an event (Omg a car just ran the stop sign and almost hit me), but you might not remember the make/model/LP unless you are trained or conditioned to force yourself to remember these details.

For someone who has been driving a lot, most of what you are doing is basic motor functions; scan the road, move the steering wheel left/right to keep inside the line, follow the speed of the car in front of you.   This is also why non aggressive driving people tend to run red lights.


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

[User] ELI5: Serotonin is the hormone what makes us happy, so why aren't we just injecting it into our body/taking it as tablets to get out of misery on command?

[Assistant]
Hormones like serotonin are like ingredients in a recipe. You need them to be in the right balance for a dish to work.

Imagine serotonin as sugar, if used sparingly, you would enjoy it as a glaze or sauce in your entrees and finish your meal with a sweeter dessert. If you dumped a container of sugar on every dish of your meal, none of it would be enjoyable.

People's bodies, like their tastes, differ as well. Some people like their dishes sweeter while others do not. Therefore a set sweetness for one person would not be enjoyable for others. This is why it is difficult to find the right medicine to treat neurological diseases like depression because every person is different.

The body also has limited tools to communicate with other organs. Serotonin affects mood in the brain but also appetite and digestion in your digestive system. Some of the side effects from drugs increasing or decreasing one hormone is due to the body reusing the hormone for many functions.

Lastly, the body is naturally ~~lazy~~ efficient. If it's getting a hormone from an injection or pill, it is less likely to make it. Therefore, when a person stops taking the injections or pills the body goes into withdrawal because it stopped making that hormone, causing other symptoms. This can cause a dependence on the substance, otherwise known as an addiction.


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

[User]
ELI5: How is it that people don't get caught when using stolen credit card information that they buy off the black market?

People attain the information and then buy whatever it is they buy. If they create a fake card with that info they are going out in person and show their face, and for when try order it online they have to ship it somewhere. Don't the distributors link the stolen CC number to the address? If it's a PO box then they can see who picks it up.

[Assistant]
They often are but many times the credit cards are stolen in one place and used in another, often in another country.  The US isn't going to spend too much time or energy to track down a guy in Estonia who charges a few hundred to your card before you notice.  It is more cost effective for the credit card company to simply reverse the charges on your card.

The larger the theft the more likely it is that someone like the FBI will get involved and work with other local police around the country or around the world.


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

[User]
Does higher octane/premium gas actually cost more to produce? What makes it so much more expensive?

I've always been told the "premium" label on higher octane gas is a bit disingenuous. There's nothing really "premium" about it beyond the higher octane rating.

But why does that make it so much more expensive? Because less of it is produced? Is there some additive or chemical that costs more? Why is it sometimes >35% more expensive? That seems pretty crazy.

[Assistant]
The higher octane is a premium though. It is actually less combustible allowing it to be compressed further before ignition so it can be used in higher compression engines.

It does cost more to refine, but not as much more as the higher price tag.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is a wet cloth more effective at removing stubborn dirt than a dry cloth?

[Assistant]
Water is a really good solvent.  It can dissolve things and soften things.

With a dry cloth, you're just using friction and force alone.  The water in a wet cloth will get between the dirt particles (and also the fabric you're scrubbing) and loosen the bonds the dirt has with the surface you're cleaning.


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

[User]
[Incredibly Huge No Way Home Spoilers]

Would MJ and/or Ned remember going to the sanctum/meeting Dr. Strange with Spider-Man, or would they completely forget that event since it only happened because of Peter? They don't seem to remember anything about what happened, although it's hard to tell. Does Ned remember he made portals? Does MJ remember swinging when Peter had his mask on?

[Assistant]
Honestly until there is more to go off of we don't know the full extent of the changes. Did photos get erased? Yearbooks changed? Flash's book erased?

If Flash made money off book sales, did those sales get reversed? Or does he have tens of thousands of dollars in his bank account he can't explain now?

If Peter had a credit card, is his balance erased?

Does Peter have a social security number?

Does Strange remember casting a global forgetting spell, even if he doesn't remember why?

We don't know.


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

[User]
[Stephen King's IT] Why doesn't Pennywise go after adults the way he goes after kids?

Pennywise's deal is that he strikes fear into the hearts of others before devouring them, as essentially fattening them up before he feasts. However, he doesn't seem to target adults like he does kids, which is odd, seeing as how, as many will agree, adults have just as many fears, worries, phobias, anxieties, and insecurities as any child, maybe more since they've lived longer and thus had more time to develop more things to be afraid of. The only time Pennywise has targeted grown ups is in taking on the grownup Losers Club, but that was more for revenge, and even then they had to personally seek him out. So what's with Pennywise and his diet being solely minors?

[Assistant]
Kids' fears are primal, and easy to manifest. Killer clowns, werewolves, creatures lurking in the shadow.

What's Pennywise going to do to Bob from accounting? Manifest as a year-end self-evaluation? How does he become the looming dread that his career has peaked? What does the personification that his wife is banging the gardener look like?

Children feel *fear*; adults know that those fears aren't real. What adults feel is *despair*, and that doesn't taste as good.


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

[User]
[D&D] If I had a Lawful Good, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good trio of royal siblings, who would be the best Ruler? How would they differ?

I am an old king and I am going to die soon. I have three granddaughters who all stand to inherit the throne. My choice will decide who will be Queen after I go.

Arabella is the oldest, and she is Lawful Good.

Elisamarie is the middle, and she is Neutral Good.

Noelle is the youngest, and she is Chaotic Good.

You, my loyal Royal Adviser, are an expert on these mystical "Alignment Systems". Tell me, which one would make the best Queen? How would their manners of ruling be different?

[Assistant]
I think the answer to this question hinges on the challenges that they will face.

If your kingdom will need an unflinching crusader, then Arabella is the right choice.  She would be a bulwark against the enemies of your land and a stable, reliable hand at the wheel for your people.  However, her steadfastness could become a problem if your kingdom ends up needing a more flexible leader who can shake things up.

If you kingdom will need a reformer, Elisamarie would be a good choice.  She has the right mindset to appreciate the good things that your kingdom already has but also to see room for improvement.  She would not feel beholden to the status quo and would make the changes that do the most good.  However, her desire to please and help everyone might stymie forward progress and could even be a problem in times when quick decisions are required.

If your kingdom will need a fresh start, Noelle is the daughter to choose.  She would ignore law, religion, and custom in order to do what is right.  She would likely be unpopular with the nobles and the clergy, but perhaps some upheaval of the status quo is what your country needs.  However, if your land is fine as is then maybe one of your more orderly daughters would be a better choice.


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

[User] ELI5: Could the next (assumingly) Republican president undo the Affordable Healthcare Act?

[Assistant] If they could get the House and Senate to go along with it, sure. What the Democrats are hoping for is that by that time, repealing it will also be unpopular. This would be similar to how Republicans originally opposed Social Security and vowed to repeal it, but by the time they had an opportunity, the program was ingrained and no one wanted it taken away.


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

[User]
[Witcher] How is receiving a child through Law of Surprise any different from slavery?

Does the child have any agency in their own life, even when an adult? What about the right of the other parent to not have their child involuntarily taken from them?

[Assistant] It's not exactly slavery so much as you're now the kid's parent. You raise them how you see fit until they run away or are old enough to make their own decisions. So it's slavery but in it's lightest form and not much different from just adoption. There's no obligation for a person to even keep a child of surprise so it's not too radical of an idea to just dump them off at an orphanage or with a village to care for them rather than bother raising them yourself.


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

[User]
Why do some countries have extreme population concentration in a single city?

To give examples of what I mean Greece has about eleven million people, three million of whom are in Athens. The next largest city is Thessaloniki, with about 800,00, then Patras with 200,000. Hungary has about ten million people, 1.5 million of whom live in Budapest, and 200,000 live in the next largest city, Debrecen. The Scandinavian countries have similar patterns, to use a different region.

I thought this might be a small country thing, but the UK's population rank goes London (10 million) Manchester (2.5 million) Birmingham (2.5) in terms of built up areas while Italy goes 2.6/1.2/1 by urban area or 4.3/3.2/3.1 by metropolitan for Rome, Milan and Naples, respectively. And Australia and Canada have very smooth population slopes.

I know that Athens exploded in size due to refugees pouring in from the Aegean region, but the patterns seems to hold even without these specific historical events. I'm assuming this has to do with respective histories of political centralization, but I'm curious what the precise mechanism is.

[Assistant]
It's actually a really fun topic in urbanism! There's something called Zipf's law or rank power law that accurately models it. In most countries the biggest city is bigger than the second biggest by double and so on and so forth.

Essentially bigger cities are preferred because they are more productive, and since they are more productive they can offer larger salaries so they grow. However either due to bad supply of housing and other goods, or too much demand, or both,  living standards become more expensive as well. Thus therest reaches a point where this largest city is no longer worth living there, so people allocate into the second largest city and so on. Obviously this is a very simplistic explanation but it gives you the general gist.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do plastic containers become orange-stained when they come in contact with hot tomato sauce?

[Assistant] Tomatoes contain a lot of lycopene, a bright orange substance that stains. The lycopene sticks very well to the plastic, causing it to stain. A little bleach and water can help oxidise and remove the stain.


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

[User]
Asking for authorship as an undergraduate

Hello, looking to get some feedback from people who have a lot of experience with academia.

This would be my first publication as an undergraduate.

A few years ago, I worked on a project during the summer, primarily under the supervision of a post-doc there. I helped carry out experiments on his workflow and helped troubleshoot some problems. I found some novel targets for his project. I also helped kickstart analysis of the data due to familiarity with a few programming languages that he had not had experience with. When I left to go to school (at a different institution), I wasn't involved much with research at all as I was primarily focused on my schoolwork.

I met with him briefly over the holidays and his project has been completed. We faced many problems because of a core issue; once this issue was fixed, the workflow worked on the order of magnitudes better than previous methods. He and I had been the only ones that done experiments: **however, the experiments I did were not directly part of the final data (due to the core issue I mentioned earlier)**. The general workflow I worked on was. Some of my targets (basically, proof-of-concept that the workflow works) is included. I asked him and he is willing to add my name as coauthor. If it is relevant, there would likely be two others maximum, excluding the post-doc and professor, included on that paper, for intellectual contributions.

I wanted to know if it is likely that the professor would approve of coauthorship or how much hold the professor has on this decision. During my time at the university the professor's wife had just had a baby so I was not able to develop a close relationship with him.

[Assistant] It sounds like you're in a bit of a gray area. Just explain to your professor that you'd like to be an author but only if he feels it is scientifically and ethically appropriate. He might say "no" if he's a hard-ass, but he'll probably say "sure".


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

[User]
Why do electrical clocks drift and why are atomic clocks more accurate and don't drift as much?

I know some use vibrating quartz. Are the vibrations just not measured accurately or is it something to do with the quartz? Any other thing you can think about this subject would be cool, or if you know of a good lecture/talk about it. Anyways thanks for taking the time to read.

[Assistant]
"Electrical Clocks" drift as the frequency of the used oscillator is only known to some precision. Even a drift of a few ppm will cause a noticable drift over time, as most oscillators for clocks have frequencys of 32kHz and above. Of course one can measure the actuall frequency to a very good precision, but then you have to look out for problem with temperature stability, vibration and other sources of errors. Basically with changing temperature the frequency changes.

Atomic clocks don't use some physical structure that osciallates in some manner, but count the osciallation of atoms, which don't depend on the surroundings and are therefore several magnitudes more precise.


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

[User]
If photons travel at the speed at light, much faster than the speed of sound, can they in theory create a "sonic boom" when traveling through a medium?

As an undergraduate, this question really has me thinking. There's probably a simple explanation to this, sorry in advance for my ignorance.

[Assistant]
What happens during a sonic boom is a more dense object is moving through air faster than sound can be transmitted though it.

Photons are mass less and therefore have zero density. If they do come into contact with a particle they are either absorbed by it or reflected

Don't aplogize for asking a question, it only shows you're thinking. If no one ever questioned anything science wouldn't exist in the first place.


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

[User]
ELI5: All the madness that you always see on the Wall Street trading floor, what is going on here? Why is everybody yelling?

Always wondered.

[Assistant]
So first of all, this doesn't really happen anymore.  Now computers do most of the trading.  What you see on TV is planted to make it look busy.  The floor is usually pretty empty.

Next, when people were on the floor, you can think of it like organized chaos.  There were hundreds of people crammed into the space and they are all buying and selling stocks based off of what the stock market is doing at that moment.  It was so hectic because the stock can change faster than you can blink.


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

[User] ELI5: why do people eat their steak bloody, but freak out when a burger still has red meat inside?

[Assistant] Most bacteria grow on the outside of steak and usually don't get in the center of the meat. With ground beef (burger) the surface area and places that bacteria can grow are very high. Additionally, ground beef is usually mixed up which allows for mixing off bacteria within the meat.


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

[User]
What would happen if a person stayed underwater continuously without drying off? Like.. for a day, a week, a year, whatever.

Would their skin dissolve? How would salinity of the water affect this?

Edit: Words.

[Assistant]
Well, David Blaine was in a tank of water for a week.  From Wikipedia:

>On May 17, 2006, Blaine was submerged in an 8 feet (2.4 m) diameter, water-filled sphere (isotonic saline, 0.9% salt) in front of the Lincoln Center in New York City for a planned seven days and seven nights, using tubes for air and nutrition. During the stunt, doctors witnessed skin breakdown at the hands and feet, and liver failure.


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

[User] ELI5: Why are "Not Responding" programs unable to close immediately when pressing "End Now", but do so when ending from Task Manager?

[Assistant]
End now essentially means the following

Os:  program, please close now. finish what you're doing and stop.

program: <ignores the OS being unresponsive and stuck and all>

Os: program, please stop.

program: <ignores the OS>

**repeat ad infinitum**

.

terminate means

Os: program, please close now.

Program: <ignores>

Os: <takes out a digital gun and kills the process>

program: <gives out a small wheeze, and then stops>


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

[User]
Could you see a nebula at night if you lived on planet inside it?

If you lived on a planet that was orbiting a star that formed inside a nebula, would you still see black space at night like here on earth, or are nebulae dense enough to be illuminated by a star inside them?

[Assistant]
Faintly, if there was no light pollution.

The surface brightness of an object doesn't change with distance. From our view on Earth the Orion Nebula is a faint grey smudge, easily washed out by urban light pollution. If we were closer, it would just be a *larger* faint grey smudge. Inside it, there'd be this vague background glow across the whole sky, brighter in some spots and fainter in others. No colour visible to the human eye.


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

[User]
CMV: Poachers don't deserve to die

After the frontpage glorification of the 'poacher hunter' recently - and a few other posts I've seen on reddit - I've realised that it's a commonly held belief that poachers deserve to die for their poaching.

It's always seemed to me, though, that poachers are pushed to do what they do by a series of factors which mean they are fulfilling demand from developed countries , or trying to make a buck in poverty-ridden countries where a livelihood is extremely hard to come by.

As much as I love animals and hate the way endangered species are being treated, I can't see why the animal's life is valued more than the poacher in these cases, especially when the large scale eradication of species - driven by demand from ordinary consumers - is happening all over the world every day.

Even without context, I struggle to see how anyone can value the life of an animal over that of a human - but it's something I have encountered often.

edit: I can't respond to all the replies here - thanks for the debate, some great points have been raised. A lot have said that the majority don't believe that poachers deserve to die, and that I've made a mistake in thinking that's widely-held belief. I hope this is true, but there are still people in the comments suggesting that at least some people do think that poachers are fair game.

Many of the most upvoted comments are to do with the fact that poachers present a threat to law enforcement - other humans. Poachers who kill rangers is a *separate issue*. My original CMV was supposed to be about whether poachers deserve to die *for their poaching*, not for killing/threatening rangers - so the argument is about human/animal lives. I think on this count the vast majority of posters here agree that for the very act of killing an animal, nobody deserves to die. Some replies have claimed that the fact an animal is endangered means their lives are worth more than humans, which I'll unfortunately have to disagree with on a fundamental level.

The other main argument is that in upholding any laws, force is necessary. This is more fraught, and a deeper philosophical issue, but I think in the posting exchanges I have had, it's been agreed upon that this force should really be *applied higher up the chain of demand*. Killing poachers will not stop species from becoming endangered. The effort should be towards removing the environment that makes poaching profitable and attractive so that people would not turn to it in poverty-stricken environments as a way to make money.

As a result, my V hasn't quite been C'd - YET - , but I've considered more thoroughly the implications of violent poachers and the futility of trying to change the forces of global capitalism.

[Assistant] Poachers do deserve to be arrested and punished for their crimes to the fullest extent of the law. The problem is that arresting them is difficult because they are usually heavily armed and dangerous. When they resist arrest then the use of deadly force is quite possibly the only realistic option to stop them.


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

[User]
I made a huge mistake in my thesis. What should I do in my oral defense?

Im a university student majoring in economics. Only after summited my thesis that I found out I misread a number in the last step of data analysis, then made a wrong conclusion based on that. I have 3 weeks left until my oral defense, how should I present my mistake?
P/s: I emailed my advisor but he didnt reply (he also not being helpful and get involved much in my writing process)

[Assistant] Present it like you just did. One thing about the scientific method is its ability to re-interpret data and admit that. Just explain what happened, and most importantly how you know the prior interpretation is wrong. Knowing why something is wrong is sometimes as powerful as knowing why something is correct.


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

[User]
CMV: If you know someone is cheating, the morally right thing to do is to tell their SO

Sometimes to catch wind that a friend, relative, coworker, whoever is cheating on their partner. The dilemma of telling them comes up. Obviously no one wants to get cheated on. Most people would want to know if their partner was cheating on them. But sometimes people feel like it isn't their place to say, or that you would be a homewrecker just for sharing the information. Particularly if a person is closer to the cheater than the cheatee.

But cheating is wrong. It's an activity we want less of in our society. By letting cheaters get off free, we are helping remove the repercussions of their actions by making it less likely they would be caught. If we tattle on them we do the opposite. We punish those who deserve it, and openly shame and discourage it which should deter others.

 The other argument is that the person getting cheated on would want to know. We tell ourselves that staying silent helps the couple, but it only helps the cheater. They are the only one who wants it to remain a secret. The cheatee would want it known.

Maybe you don't want the kids, if they are present, to grow up in a broken home. I'm not sure if I agree that the kids benefit should outweigh the parents wants. I think it should be up to the parents to decide if they want to try to make it work for the kid's sake, not yours. But this is only applicable some of the time.

There's also practical issues. Maybe the cheater has some authority over you or you have to work with them (boss or coworker). Maybe it is a friend you don't want to lose. Maybe you don't think they'd believe you, or you don't know how to say it. These are all fair points, but they don't change the morality of it. You can only be expected to do so much and put yourself in so much trouble. But that just means you can't be blamed for not doing the right thing, not that you did the right thing.

Edit: I should add that I don't think you should necessarily by the one to tell. Getting the cheater to confess is a good first choice in the situation. I just think that getting the information to the cheatee is the right thing to do.

[Assistant]
There might be a lot of things you do not understand about their relationship. Maybe it is open? Maybe there is a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement? Maybe there is a medical reason? Maybe there are problems in their relationship that is none of your business?

There are too many unknowns for you to make an informed decision. If you had all of that information then maybe it would be ok to rat them out. But without all of the details you are stabbing in the dark.


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

[User] If I leave a mouthful of water in my mouth for a long period of time, will my mouth soak it up?

[Assistant]
Yes, it will.

The pure water will cause the ions in your cells and extracellular fluid to diffuse into your oral cavity (where the pure water is) until the two concentrations equilibrate. Simultaneously, the water will move into your cells/extracellular space via osmosis. Eventually, the water will be absorbed by your tissues and the extra fluid will be pumped into the veins and redistributed about your body.


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

[User]
Eli5 - How does earths inner core stay hot?

Today I was reading about how it is cooling and its anticipated rate.   And that it should still stay hot for millions of years or more.    My question, if oxygen is one of the things needed for heat/fire.   How does the inner core stay hot, since it seems like it should be deprived of oxygen, for the most part?

[Assistant] The Earths core is hot, but its not on fire. It doesnt need oxygen to stay hot. The earths crust and mantle are like a celestial thermos flask, which is doing a very good job of keeping the core of the planet from losing the heat which was generated when the planet was formed.


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

[User] Why do viruses have such complex antigen structures which follow distinct geometrical patterns?

[Assistant]
There are many ways to answer your question.  Here are a few of them:

1. Viruses that don't evade the immune system do not produce more of themselves, so their genetic line dies off.

2. Some viruses do indeed have very complex antigen structures.  This is especially true of enveloped viruses, like HIV, where the key proteins are covered in sugars (glycoproteins).  These sugars don't adopt one specific structure, so there isn't one antigen for the immune system to recognize.

3. Some viruses have antigenic sites that don't vary much, which is why we have vaccines.  Sometimes these sites can't change because their structure is required for a specific function (receptor recognition, pore formation, etc)

4. Not all viruses have capsids that adopt distinct geometrical patterns.  HIV, for instance, can assemble in many different ways, although it does follow some rules of assembly.  Capsids enclose and protect the genome of the virus until conditions are met for genome delivery and replication.

But there's a problem.  The virus has to encode the information for a shell that will enclose it.  This becomes a surface area/volume issue. The genome requires 3 bases to encode 1 amino acid, so you can easily guess that it would be excessive for a virus to encode one giant protein to encase the whole virus, since it would inflate the amount of genetic material.  The solution (a handful of proteins that snap together, usually by self-assembly, into a defined shape) allows the virus to encode a small number of proteins, let the cell produce them in large number so that there is a sufficient amount to enclose the genetic information and form another infectious virus.

So, to summarize:
- geometrical shapes because you need to enclose the genome that encodes the things making the shapes.
- complex antigens propagate because the simple ones are, as a rule, more easily recognized and terminated by the immune system.


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

[User] ELI5: How do we hear the voice inside our head with no physical sound?

[Assistant] When you talk and others talk to you, your brain lights up in places that process language. When you have an inner monologue, those same places (and some new ones) in your brain light up. Because the same part of your brain that listens to others is also listening to you, you process it as hearing a voice in your head.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is beef jerky so expensive?

[Assistant] Beef jerky has two major inputs, steak and energy.  Which combine to reduce the size and weight of the steak.  A pound of steak becomes a few ounces of beef jerky, and the few ounces of jerky need to cover the cost of the steak and energy required to evaporate all the water and add the tasty smoke.


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

[User]
Why does looking through a tiny hole make things focus?

When I forget my reading glasses and need to read small print I can curl up my forefinger (like making a fist, but only my forefinger) tight enough to leave only a tiny pinhole in the center of my curled finger. If I look through that tiny hole by putting the finger very close to my eye this makes the print come into focus.

Why? How does this work?

[Assistant]
Focusing just means taking light rays that have slightly different directions and making them all meet at the same point.

When you look through a tiny hole, only the light rays that were already going to meet at the same point get through. The light is already focused.


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

[User]
CMV: Religion has absolutely no place in a modern society.

Religion has had some good in the past, when people where absolutely ignorant about the world. It used to be a great tool to answer unsolvable mysteries and guide people who had no idea what the fuck life was about.

However, it has also ALWAYS been about controlling the masses and brainwashing. These poor people constantly living in fear of chastisement by some infinitely powerful being. You better act nice now, or (insert your divinity here) will fuck you up for eternity!

Oh what's that? You guys believe in a different god than us? Looks like it's time for a god damn blood bath! But sure, religions are about peace and kindness, unless you don't believe in the right one.

Also I already see you guys coming with the "oh but don't put all the apples in the same basket, there's some bad religious people, but there are some good ones too!!"

Fuck that bro. The actions of those bad apples far outweigh the positive aspects of the good ones. Yes some religious people contribute to charity and stuff, but do you really need religion for that? Can't you just be a good person without it?

Also, how is no one calling them cults? It's the same fucking thing. If some nutjob claims to be the son of a god today, everyone laughs at him and calls him crazy, cause he is, but sometimes he gets a following and we're all like "well clearly this is a cult. These people are fucking stupid to believe that this guy is any kind of divinity whatsoever". How many of the ones who laugh at cults are actually religious? I'd bet it's a fuckton of'em, but sure, fuck introspection and let's all be hypocrites.

My final point now, some of you may argue that religion is also about spirituality and trying to better yourself as a person, it's a moral compass. Again, fuck that shit! You don't need a fucking cult leader who's been dead for thousands of years to tell you how to act. We have social norms and things that are acceptable and things that aren't. Just be a fucking adult and reflect on your actions and thoughts and better yourself that way. Most religious people, as I said earlier, only follow that "moral compass" to escape an imminent doom when they die, not to actually be good people. They do it out of fear, and I don't think that makes you a good person, that makes you a coward who's scared of something nonexistent.

Religion should and needs to be abolished, but of course that'll never happen. Oh well.

Tl/Dr : Religions are about controlling people, have been and always will be a source of violence and hatred. They are cults and need to be abolished.

Edit: Just to clarify, I do not wish any harm or hatred towards any religious people and I am for letting people belive what they want to, live and let live. However I just think religion shouldn't be a part of our society ANYMORE. I am against religion as a CONCEPT in a MODERN society. Not against religious PEOPLE. I know religion was a pillar of humanity IN THE PAST. I do not think it is still required TODAY.

Thank you for your time everyone, there are some insghtful comments that made me reflect and I did soften my view on the subject. "Abolishing" religion was a poor choice of words, it should just die out slowly while only keeping the positive morals of it, through education. However, my view is not changed.

Edit 2: Guys, I stopped carring about the post after 100 comments, stop private messaging me, I'm not going to answer lmao.

[Assistant] Atheist or religious, people just need to mind their own fucking business. Im tired of ignorant religious people and condescending atheists. Seriously worry about yourself and be respectful of other peoples beliefs.


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

[User]
[Tron] What would happen if the digitizing laser zapped the computer itself?

We see in Tron and Tron Legacy that there is a special laser that can zap physical objects, erasing them from the real world and creating an exact digital copy in the computer (and can perform the reverse action as well).  What would happen if this laser were pointed at the computer that it uses to store these digital copies?

[Assistant] The Grid only exists inside the computer - it has no physical existence beyond data in a computer system.  If the computer system is not available to run the Grid, the Grid vanishes.  'Moving' the computer to the Grid would shut the Grid down as the computer moved, just like turning off the computer system would shut down the Grid (and for the exact same reasons).


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

[User]
Would businesses benefit by raising wages so that workers can afford to spend more money on their products?

I heard that Henry Ford paid his employees relatively high wages for this reason.

[Assistant]
Firms that pay businesses wages higher than the equilibrium rate is known as **efficiency wages**. Studies have shown that workers are motivated to work harder if they receive a wage higher than the equilibrium rate.

- By paying a wage above the market wage, the firm raises the costs of workers of losing their jobs because alternative jobs may pay only the market wage (think opportunity cost here).

- The increase in productivity that results from paying the high wage can more than offset the cost of the wage, thereby lowering the firm's cost of production.


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

[User] [General Sci Fi] Energy weapons seem fairly common, so why when someone is hit with one does that person die and not the entire planet? Wouldn't destroying something the size of a person release gigatons of energy?

[Assistant]
Assuming you're talking about energy weapons that incinerate their target, no.

A person does not have that much stored energy. If we did, every single one of us would be incredibly dense and liable to explode or combust spontaenously. With messy results. And yes the planet would die.

If the gigatons you mention are explosive power, consider that real life nukes operate in the megaton range.


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

[User]
[DC] Does anything different happen when you get a red lantern ring?

I've heard stuff before like once you receive a red lantern ring, you spit up blood and go into a blind blood-lust and it only stops when you go the the home planet of the red lantern core. Is this true? Also, is there any way to take it off? I've also heard if you try to take it off it'll kill you.

[Assistant] Yes to everything you said. Once on a red ring cannot be removed typically, barring some bs, because the ring replaces the heart of the user while still sitting on their hand. Blood becomes magical napalm and you are a murder machine who can't even make constructs, the blood ocean helps with the first part and the second... that involves drinking a specific fellow red lanterns blood.


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

[User]
You have a magic rune that will answer any yes/no question you give it. What's the fewest amount of questions needed to 1:1 a future Powerball?

The Powerball: 5 numbers in the 1-69 range (no repeats), and 1 bonus number in the 1-26 range (this one can repeat). A win = 5+1 Jackpot. You can use *any* tactic to get the ticket.

My answer: 35 questions

My method:
>!divide 1-69 into two groups (A:1-34, B:35-69) ask if the first ball is in group A. A yes or no will eliminate a group. Take the remaining group and divide and ask (e.g: A:1-17, B:18-34). repeat until you get the number, then move on to ball 2-5 and the powerball. Buy the winning ticket.!<

workings:
>!6 questions per ball = 30 questions
5 questions for the powerball!<

[Assistant]
Your answer has a flaw, in that 6 questions are only sufficient to identify one of 64 possibilities, not one of 69.  So a naive approach asking about one ball at a time might require 7x5 + 5 = 40 questions.

It can, however, be done with 29 questions, if you are willing to ask more complicated questions.

There are 69C5 x 26 = 292,201,338 possible Powerball tickets. This is more than 2^(28) = 268,435,456 but less than 2^(29) = 536,870,912.

You would still use essentially your method of breaking the list in half at each question -- just by making a master list of all the powerball tickets, rather than asking about each ball in turn.


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

[User]
[LOTR] When Sauron was Annatar, the Lord of Gifts, why weren't the elves suspicious that some guy no one has ever heard of is giving away things for free?

How does he make money to pay for living expenses and get equipment and material to make gifts? Is his only purpose in life to pull gifts out of his ass and give them away? Does he ever get anything in return?

[Assistant]
They *were* suspicious, make no mistake about it. Especially the oldest and most powerful of elves who had been around since the first age. But Sauron was originally created as a servant of Aule, and is a builder of things beyond any living ken. He just needed to sway a few elf-smiths toward the idea of making powerful things the likes of which they had never seen. And he had the skills to back up his words, which made the wary elves trust him just enough to learn the craft of ring making.

Also, his "gifts" really were just knowledge on ring-lore and smithing, which were of course a trap to further his plans of making powerful rings that would be enslaved to his One Ring. As a non-corporeal entity living among immortals, he didn't really need to deal with petty issues like room and board while he deceived the elves.


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

[User] ELI5: What actually happens when someone 'accepts all cookies'?

[Assistant]
Accepting all cookies means that you are declaring (perhaps falsely) that you understand that from now on, when your browser fetches anything needed for that server's web pages, your browser quite possibly will allow the servers to track you with "cookies".

The use of cookies and tracking you *a little bit* is normal and necessary functionality for any "stateful" operations like being "logged in to your account" on a website that you're only sporadically connecting to.

But cookies are also very heavily exploited for advertising, surreptitious data collection, precisely identifying you, and sharing of your personal information among companies you maybe weren't expecting to know about your activity on this website.

Even if you do declare that you accept all cookies, you may in fact have configured your browser *not to* accept all cookies (e.g. it's common to block 3rd-party cookies). Saying you accept all cookies in this situation does not actually make you actually accept all cookies.

But if the website uses cookies at all, it has to ask if you accept them (due to European laws about this), and if you don't accept them, the website may refuse to let you proceed, because the people running it are unwilling or unable to disable all but the bare minimum of cookies needed for the site to work for you, even though it's well within their ability to do so.