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

[User] How do doctors get the blood pressure of patients with amputated limbs?

[Assistant]
We can measure BP with an automatic cuff on either arm or either leg, so long as there isnt significant peripheral vascular disease which may skew the readings. Ive taken care of plenty of amputees but never a quadruple one, even then you can measure on the thigh. Alternatively, we can also measure BP directly by placing an arterial line. This is a catheter typically placed in the radial artery (in the wrist) and allows for direct, real time BP monitoring.

We can also use clinical markers and our physical exam to make educated guesses on BP.


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

[User]
Why does the ocean appear darker in color as the depth increases?

The shallows appear almost translucent, while the deep ocean appears dark blue to almost black... I just want to know what causes this since the ocean is made up of the same kind of atoms (H20), and light should reflect off them the same way, right?

[Assistant] Light gets absorbed by water, and the more water light passes through the more gets absorbed. It's *roughly* 50% every 150 meters (so 75% every 300 meters, etc). It gets absorbed more strongly at higher wavelengths, so red is the first to go: if you take a coke can down SCUBA diving, it will appear magenta.


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

[User]
[Jessica Jones] Could Kilgrave use a go between to relay his commands to someone under his influence?

Like if I met someone under Kilgraves control and said Kilgrave wants you to give me your wallet, would he comply?

[Assistant] Kilgrave's powers work because his skin produces psychoactive chemicals which must be absorbed by the victim via touch/smell.  So, in short, no, unless Kilgrave could find a way to get those chemicals to victim #2, via victim #1.


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

[User]
[Terminator] How did the resistance win the war against Skynet?

The resistance against skynet seems to be incredibly outclassed in nearly every engagement, and even when the resistance does win battles they usually sacrifice valuable personnel and equipment to do so. How could the resistance ever win in a drawn out war against the machines?

[Assistant]
Reese tells Sarah Connor that Skynet's "defense grid was smashed" and that the Resistance had already won when it decided to send the first Terminator back in time.

The implication was that they took it down with brute force, probably throwing everything they had at the *literal* defensive fortifications surrounding the Skynet mainframe. This was only possible because John Connor started liberating concentration camps, allowing the Resistance to build up an army of humans significant enough to eventually overwhelm Skynet's defenses. (That's why Connor was so important. If it was just some kind of virus or computer attack that allowed the Resistance to win, Connor wouldn't have been as crucial.)

If you want to take it further, it's likely that Skynet didn't actually have a very large army of Terminators, HKs, and other equipment before John Connor started ruining their shit. Why would they need it, when all they were doing was cleaning up a weakened, radiation poisoned population of survivors? Skynet probably didn't *predict* there to be a Resistance at all, and so it was taken by surprise.


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

[User] Eli5: Why is black box (from plane crash) put in a container filled with water when retrieved from the ocean?

[Assistant]
Salt really accelerates corrosion, but the corrosion will really only progress when exposed to oxygen and there's a lot more oxygen in air than water

By taking the box out of the ocean and putting it into a bucket of water they keep any innards which may have been exposed to salt water from being exposed to air which will provide the oxygen needing for the corrosion to progress.  When it gets to its final destination it will be removed from the water and then cleaned, but you don't want it to spend a few days traveling and degrading because its exposed to the air.


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

[User]
CMV: U.S. Democratic leadership is weak and needs to be replaced

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are weak leaders who lack vision and need to be removed from their positions of leadership for the good of their party.

All the evidence you need for this is wrapped up in the most recent budget deal. Democratic leadership folded like a cheap lawn chair on DACA and allowed a bill to pass anyway. They also could have demanded that the Democratic response memo to the Nunes memo be declassified and released to the public in order to avert a government shutdown down. They chose not to do so.

These people are refusing to take a real stance that would put any meaningful pressure on Republican priorities and the Democratic party should replace them.

Discuss.

[Assistant]
The Democrats stopped pushing for a shutdown because popular sentiment was turning against them - the best interpretation of the outcome has Ds and Rs coming out with equal blame, but most put it more on the Ds.  Most people want a deal on DACA, but they don't want it enough to shut down the government.  It just isn't that time-sensitive.

>They also could have demanded that the Democratic response memo to the Nunes memo be declassified and released to the public in order to avert a government shutdown down.

That's just bizarre.  The Nunes memo mostly fell flat and probably doesn't need to be rebutted at all, and it certainly isn't worth shutting down the government *again.*  Especially so considering the spending money Ds got for favored programs their constituents want and the promise that an immigration bill will be considered in the near term.

We just finished 6 years of Obama wherein the Freedom Caucus ensured almost nothing got done unless their idiosyncratic demands were met.  That was a stupid way to run a Republic, and it doesn't get smarter if Democrats do the same thing.


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

[User]
How realistic is the idea of a Star Trek-like transporter (i.e. Teleportation)?

As I understand it from the shows/movies, they work by converting matter into energy, then "reassembling" that energy back into matter.

[Assistant]
None.  As it's supposed to work, you get scanned and the location and momentum (the state) of every little part of you is recorded and sent to another platform.  Then the 'original' you is destroyed.  The other platform then takes the info it has and makes a 'new' you out of some element bank or whatever.

The thing is, that requires knowing the position and momentum of particles with precision.  And that plain can't happen.  At all.

So...don't hold your breath waiting for one.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is it when I scan an area with my eyes, they move in a jerky motion from point to point, but when following a moving object, they rotate smoothly?

Try it: Scan across your wall with your eyes, notice "jumps" from point to point. Now stare straight into your eyes in the mirror while rotating your head, or following your hand while moving it across your field of vision.

Why can my eyes not smoothly scan across an area or surface? Are my eyes actually moving smoothly but the brain only registers certain "points of interest"?

[Assistant] Because there's no point to track nothing so we haven't developed the ability to do so.  And between the "jumps" (saccades) we are technically blind.  If you look in the mirror and look at one side to the other you can't see yourself moving your eyes.  It just happens.  Your eyes are not moving smoothly, they are jumping from one fixation to another at a speed of 800 degrees a second.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Why doesn't Darth Vader stop Luke from falling on Bespin?

When Luke let's himself fall after finding out Vader is his father, there is nothing stopping Vader from just lifting his body and putting him back on the railing. It certainly isn't a hard feat for him. So why didn't he?

[Assistant]
It's important to recognize that Vader had a significant change in plans during the fight against Luke.

Initially, his plan was simply to capture Luke, bring him to Palpatine, and let the Emperor turn him to the Dark Side. He attempts this by dropping Luke in the carbonite freezing chamber and activating it, but Luke leaps out and quickly proves that Vader has underestimated him.

At this point, Vader realized that Luke was very powerful despite presumably having no training. (Vader was unaware of Obi-Wan's Force Ghost and the fact that Luke had found Yoda). Perhaps he could become powerful enough to challenge Sidious. This made him consider a new option: have Luke help him overthrow the Emperor. Vader suggests this to Luke, dropping the "I am your father" bombshell in the process.

So **Vader actually no longer intended to capture Luke at this point, but instead to recruit him**. Taking Luke by force would no longer serve his purposes. Instead, he gave Luke a good reason to join him, then allowed Luke to escape and take some time to consider Vader's proposal, as well as come to terms with the fact that Obi-Wan had lied to him. Vader hoped that Luke would, after some thought, abandon the dishonest Jedi and accept Vader's offer.

If Vader had simply taken Luke against the latter's will at that point, rather than treat Luke as an equal capable of making his own decisions, then Luke would have been much less likely to work with Vader against the Emperor. And if he had simply continued with the previous plan of freezing Luke and bringing him to Palpatine, then there would be a very good chance that Luke would reveal Vader's betrayal upon Sidious' subsequent interrogation, once he was unfrozen.

Vader's decision was actually the best option under the circumstances. Unfortunately, he underestimated Luke's faith in Obi-Wan.


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

[User]
ELI5: Guy Fawkes and Anonymous

I've been wondering this for a while, but can somebody explain the reasoning behind the Guy Fawkes masks and Anonymous? Guy Fawkes was a Catholic fundamentalist who tried blowing up the king and parliament, while Anonymous are a bunch of computer hackers.

Yes. I have seen V for Vendetta.

[Assistant]
4chan collectively identified with V, as a disfigured, anti-authority psychopath, and the mask he wears is both a practical way to remain anonymous in public and an appropriate symbol for an anonymous group of internet misfits.

Basically, Anonymous likes the mask for all the same reasons that V wore it. But usually with none of the historical awareness that V had.


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

[User] Can a geosynchronous orbit happen on every planet? Or does it need specific circumstances like certain rotation/revolution speed? And can you do it with any object?

[Assistant] If the rotation is too slow then the orbit would have to be so far away that it would be unstable (not clearly inside the Hill sphere of the object). While you can calculate the height of a stationary orbit and the radius of the Hill sphere in each case there is a surprisingly simple relation: The planet needs to rotate several times per orbit. Everything else cancels out. 13 times per orbit would give a system like Sun/Earth/Moon.


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

[User] Why do we measure decay in half-lives rather than just lives?

[Assistant] To explain in simpler terms. I've run into a misconception occasionally that OP might be falling prey to. If a certain material has a half life of 100 years that doesn't mean it'll be fully decayed in 200 years, it means about half will decay in 100 years, then half of that half in another 100, then half of that half in another 100, etc.


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

[User]
CMV: A colony on Mars would eventually declare independence.

I don't think this is a particularly strong argument against some nation establishing a colony on Mars. If Trump had come out saying, 'We're going to Mars!' rather than 'Space Force!' I would have had a very different reaction. I hope in my lifetime we see someone go there.

However . . . it seems to me like it would be difficult to maintain your nation's governmental authority on a colony 34 million miles away. Especially if that colony is established primarily to serve the needs of the colonizing nation. It's just the classic colonial problem, only replace the Atlantic and Pacific oceans with space.

Not that this a serious impending worry. A self-reliant colony on Mars asserting it's own independence from the sponsor nation is so far in the future there's no point worrying about it. However, I just can't see how a colony designed for permanent human habitation on Mars would ever tolerate foreign political domination from a parent country millions of miles away. How long can you expect a Mar's farmer to submit to Earth taxes or send valuable raw materials back to Earth?

**EDIT: What am I not considering? How is it not just that deterministic?**

[Assistant]
This is kind of tough to talk about unless we pin down some of the assumptions baked into it.  On a long enough time horizon, with enough advanced technology, maybe they would get to the point where the could reasonably be a self-sustaining, self-defending nation - but that isn't anywhere near feasible in the foreseeable future.

- Having the colony be self-sustaining is a _huge_ challenge.  You have to manufacture your own atmosphere, enrich your own soil, control your own weather, synthesize your own water, etc. in order to even have a shot at being self-sustaining.  We simply have no idea how to do that on the scale necessary to sustain a real colony; for the foreseeable future, so they will be tethered to Earth for resupplies.  Declare independence and everyone dies pretty quickly

- Even if you _can_ get to a single-generation self-sustaining colony, we don't actually know if people will be able to breed on Mars.  We know that fetuses can't gestate in space in lower order animals (like mice) because gravity turns out to be super important in that process.  Maybe Mars has enough gravity to allow for proper gestation, maybe it doesn't; if it doesn't, the colony will be dependent on new blood to keep it running, which would mean it would require tethers to Earth.  Declare independence and everyone dies in a generation.

- Even if you _can_ reproduce on Mars, can you get a large enough population to support the standing army you will need to defend yourself when you secede?  Even if we can be self-sustaining, producing those resources will be very difficult - you can't just plant a new field of crops for your growing population - you will need to build domes, hydroponics labs, create new air and water, etc.  Scaling up is very difficult, and until you hit a critical mass that allows for defensive capabilities, any attempt to declare independence will result in you quickly being brought back into the fold when the Marines show up on the next set of rockets.

Sure, maybe _eventually_ those problems can be solved, but that basically requires us to invoke hitherto unknown and unimagined technological advances, and if you allow for that the CMV has no bounds and can't really be argued.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do children get leukemia more frequently than other types of cancers?

[Assistant]
Most cancers are due in part to some external source, such as radiation (including from the sun) or carcinogenic compounds. Exposure to these carcinogens has a chance of producing mutated cells which are cancerous. Since exposure to some extent is unavoidable, it's simple mathematics that the longer you live, the more often you are exposed and the more likely you are to develop a form of cancer. Additionally, many cancers take some time before they develop into a medical problem. For the most part, it is unlikely that a child has lived long enough to develop cancer.

Leukemia is a cancer that is particularly influenced by hereditary factors, and is also fast-acting compared to certain other cancers. Hence it is both more likely to begin at a young age and to develop into a medical problem (which leads to diagnosis) while the person is still young, compared to other cancers.

But leukemia does not uniquely affect children; most cases of leukemia are in adults. It is just that children are comparatively less likely to have other cancers.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do smart phone / laptop batteries still suck after all these years, and when can we expect an improvement?

My lovely new quad core phone runs out of juice so fast it's embarassing, even with the power saver option on :(

Is money the issue? Not enough research done?

[Assistant]
We're increasing power storing abilities and efficiency, but we're also DRASTICALLY increasing power demands by increasing how useful these battery operated things are.

We're making huge progress, but computers are getting more powerful at a similar speed, which means even though batteries are better, they are powering things that require more power.

Batteries are also REALLY hard, this is why battery powered cars are only very recently becoming feasible (and with a lot of issues).  It's also why it's basically impossible to store power generated by things like power plants for any useful amount of time.


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

[User] [Indiana Jones] What would have happened if the Ark was opened by a group of devout, well meaning, good natured people? Instead of, you know, Nazis?

[Assistant]
2 Samuel, chapter 6:6-7

6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The Lords anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.

Intent is irrelevant.


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

[User]
ELI5: How are some photos from 50+ years ago amazing quality?

Saw a few pictures from around the WW2 era and the quality/resolution is on par with some top of the range cameras today.

y?

[Assistant]
Good photographers + good-quality film = good photos, basically.

However, there's also always the possibility the photos were tinkered with in Photoshop before being published in whatever magazine/web site you saw them on.


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

[User]
[Avengers]Could Thor have stopped the leviathan like Hulk did?

In the battle of New York, Iron Man brings the leviathan to the avengers where Hulk famously gets mad and stops it with his fist. But couldn't Thor just do it? Using his hammer?

[Assistant]
Probably, but only if it hit it as part of a melee attack.

If he threw the hammer, it most likely would have gone straight though. In Ragnarok, we see the hammer punch through solid rock when called.

MCU Thor's power levels vary depending on the movie and if he's holding Mjolnir or not (pre Ragnarok). Post Ragnarok, I'd argue that he's a better fighter, seeing as he's less dependent on his hammer in combat.


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

[User]
ELI5: How did Bungie spend $500M on Destiny when it literally just uses the same 4 maps for every mission and has no story?

I'm not counting the Tower and the Reef as a map because the Tower is very small and the Reef was just used for one of the very few cut scenes in the game.

I'm actually seriously curious about this... I mean... the game takes like MAYBE 10 hours to beat if you don't count the grinding fest at the end of the story.

[Assistant]
That $500M number came from Activision/Blizzard.  Bungie denied that is an accurate number.

Development time is the largest money sink.  You're paying a staff for over 2 years to create the game (on a custom engine).


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

[User] Why is it that the blood rushes to someone's head when they're upside down but the blood doesn't rush to your feet when you're standing up?

[Assistant]
The short answer is that it *does* pool in your legs when standing up. It works its way back up to hour heart because veins (as opposed to arteries) have one-way valves that prevent backflow and the contractions of our muscles squeeze it up as you use them.

Your head doesn't have the muscles that your legs do to get blood back to the heart; it relies on gravity to return blood to the heart.


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

[User]
CMV: Candidates should always be interviewed by a person in their position instead of an HR representative whenever possible

When you go into a job interview, you may be interviewed by someone from the Human Resources department, or you may be interviewed by your potential supervisor or division leader. My argument is that Human Resources should not do interviewing because they cannot know what constitutes a great candidate in the field pertaining to the position.

For clarity, I'll make the following definitions:

"A person in their position" means someone who has been trained, qualified, or employed in the same line of work that the candidate is in, whether or not their position titles are the same.

"HR representative" means a person employed in the Human Resources department of a company but has no direct knowledge or specialization in the field they are interviewing the candidate for.

My thesis:

In order to hire the most qualified employees that best fit the company's work culture, candidates should be interviewed by a professional in the same line of work that they are hiring for, whenever possible.

The reason I want my view challenged is that I know there are people who do this for a living in addition to other Human Resources responsibilities like preparing payroll and onboarding/offboarding.

[Assistant]
The simple answer, is that at least in the United States, with very few exceptions people are "At Will" employees. Meaning that if you aren't up to the task, a company can just fire you.

What this means is that it's much more efficient for an impersonal HR person to interview you for two reasons.

1.) It adds something to their job, and once you're big enough to have an HR department you can't hope to be functional without one, so you may as well utilize your investment in it.

2.) It takes time away from a person's ability to work, if they have to do interviews repeatedly. You have to consider that, on average you can't just interview a single person and call it good. You have to entertain multiple applicants, which means that over the course of a week you might pull 15 or more hours of Research and Development time away from a project so you can hire one person. That's assuming the situation is as cut and dry as I've stated. A lot of the time that isn't the case.


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

[User]
CMV: transgender people need to look the part if they want their pronouns respected

Let me start by saying that I am pro transgender, I know it's not a mental illness and that gender is not determined by sex.

That said, I was working at a ladies fitting room when a person came up who had a full, well groomed beard, big men's hoodie, men's sneakers, and women's leggings wanting to try on prom dresses. Now male customers make the mistake of thinking that the men's fitting room is on the same floor with the ladies, so it is not uncommon for me to have to send them upstairs. Its also not too uncommon for crossdressers to shop at this store. This time though the person said "oh... I have to use the mens?" When they told me they were transgender I said well that's fine and let them in. They were with two friends one cis women and another male sexed person with a short beard in full men's clothing also claimed to be a women so I let that person in not wanting to argue.

So to me, either those women (if they were women and not men trying to exploit the new laws for shits and giggles) need to understand what they look like and not be surprised when they do not get treated like women, or they need to adjust their appearance to be more feminine even if they are tomboys, even though cis tomboys do not have to do that.

Even if I am wrong and need to be more open minded, it is impossible for me to know what to call someone if little or no effort to look feminine is put forth. And I don't see how I can be faulted for making the mistake when the person is sporting a beard. It just seems unrealistic that someone would expect the world to see them as a women when they present themselves this way. I'm not saying they have to "pass" but effort with visual cues is needed for the rest of us who don't already know them personally.

It's a "help me to help you" kind of situation in my mind.

What do you think reddit, should I be more open minded or should transpeople try to look the part if they want to be referred to in a certain way? Thank you!

[Assistant]
Your anecdote doesn't seem to match your title.  You didn't know they were transgender immediately, and they didn't seem mad about that.  Then they said they were, and you respected it.

It seems like this was a perfectly civil interaction that went fine.  Why is it evidence to you that something needs to change?


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

[User] How is Venus' gravity able to retain an atmosphere that is 93 times more massive and pressurized than Earth's?

[Assistant]
Earth could hold onto an atmosphere that thick, actually much better than venus on account of ourh higher surface gravity, protective magnetosphere, and reduced solar wind intensity thanks tot he greater distance from the sun.

The real question isn't how/whether venus can retain its atmosphere, it's why venus ended up with a thick atmosphere in the first place, while earth got a comparatively thin one.

This mostly comes down to volcanism, which is the largest single sorce of atmosphere after planetary formation. Venus has been much more volcanically active than earth for msot of its life, and thus has a much thicker atmosphere.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Would laziness be a defense against falling to the Dark Side?

Let's say I'm an average Jedi who's simply curious about the Dark Side, because I think knowing how to use Force Lightning would be a neat party trick. But I don't really have much ambition in life and I highly value my free time. Would I still fall to the Dark Side?

It seems like any time someone falls to the Dark Side, they suddenly have major ambitions to take over the galaxy and/or destroy the entire Jedi Order. But to me, that seems like too much work, stress, and responsibility. On screen, we only ever see Dark Side Force users gloating about ruling over the galaxy, but off screen I can only imagine the political shitstorm they have to navigate taking on a galaxy's worth of problems, ruling over quadrillions of people, collecting taxes, managing infrastructure, implementing regulations, etc.

Look at Palpatine; being emperor is so much work, I doubt that dude ever sleeps - just look at the bags under his eyes! And Darth Vader's job is to hunt down and kill all remaining Jedi; yes, that's evil, but I'll bet it also requires waking up before noon. As a Jedi, Anakin at least had plenty of free time to carry on a secret relationship, but does any Sith ever even get free time to spend a day binge watching space Netflix?

Does falling to the Dark Side suddenly imbue a person with a work ethic? Or would I be safe studying the Dark Side out of curiosity because I have no ambition to rule?

[Assistant]
Palpatine offloaded all of the managerial aspects of the Empire to his underlings; he spends his time meditating on the dark side and only occasionally making appearances for broadcasts.

The very idea that you want to be able to throw lightning (literally hate rays) is enough to send you on the path to the dark side - it's the quick and easy path, the lazy man's path.


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

[User]
What led to British philosophy being centered around ideas of practicality, empiricism and "common sense" ideas?

From Francis Bacon's scientific method, Newton's physics, Mill's utilitarianism, the 3 influential British empiricists, to Russell and analytic philosophy, British philosophy seems historically based largely in practicality and empiricist philosophy. This seems pretty unique compared to French rationalism and German idealism. Has anyone written about why this may have come to be?

[Assistant]
Is this British philosophy, or is this a particular construction of British philosophy developed in a motivated way by deemphasizing cases that don't fit the view and emphasizing those that do?

I mean, if British philosophy is the tradition of common sense empiricism, what do we make of Cambridge Platonism, which represents the clearest and most significant extension of Renaissance Platonism into the early modern period? What do we make of the school around John Norris, which represents the clearest and most significant continuation of Malebranche's program? What do we make of the culture around Coleridge, arguably the most influential Anglophone philosopher of his generation, and function as an Anglicizing gateway for continental ideas about idealism and romanticism? What do we make of British Idealism, arguably the dominant tradition in academic British philosophy for several generations, and a the most robust continuation of a broadly Hegelian program even after Hegel had lost his hold on the continent?

Usually, these movements get presented as the losers in a process of historical development: Cambridge Platonism loses to Lockean empiricism, which then stands for us as the true spirit of British philosophy; British Hegelianism loses to Russell and Moore's logical atomism. But it's important to note that when we say things like this, we're not presenting a description of what philosophical ideas were most popular in Britain during most of the time, but rather presenting a motivated history according to which we take it that certain ideas -- though not necessarily most popular for most of the time -- count for us as the *right* ones.

On top of this, the resulting construction of a supposedly integrated tradition of British empiricism suppresses what were in their time quite different phenomena. Philosophers like Hume, Butler, and Shaftesbury, now happily recruited as paragons of British empiricism, positioned themselves as critics of Lockean empiricism. Newton, who we're happy in retrospect to reinterpret in, say, Berkeleyan-Humean terms, was himself a rather more ambivalent figure and significantly indebted to, for instance, Cambridge Platonism -- and found, in his time, his most intimate spokesman in Samuel Clarke, an emphatically "rationalist" sounding philosopher with massive influence in his time, who is himself now often suppressed in folk histories of British philosophy for not fitting with the desired stereotype.


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

[User] Why is there only one species of human?

[Assistant]
There are a variety of reasons, but here are two:

1: Due to our technology and general intellect, humans around the world have been able to live in far more similar conditions than another, equally distributed species.

2: We are a relatively young species . Since the migration from Africa and the general distribution throughout the world, we didn't have enough time to develop to many unique genetic traits in various isolated populations. Now that the world is so much smaller due to technology, that will never happen.

It should be noted that various groups did undergo independent evolution leading to changes in skin colour, sand slight changes to things like bone and muscle structure, certain desease immunities and other minor differences, some of which we were directly responsible for, such as lactose tolerance which is more prevalent among populations who historically milked cows.


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

[User]
ELI5: How did my 1980's watch maintain more accurate time than my digital clock from today?

When I was younger, I would set my watch to the shortwave time broadcasting station. The drift over months seemed minuscule. Now, I have digital clocks that seem to shift minutes in months. Other smart watches I use seem to loose seconds in a week, if not synchronized. Why are the new clocks much less accurate?

[Assistant]
The watch was *meant* to be accurate and was made with higher-quality materials, especially by the standards of the time... not only better ones but ones more suitable for keeping accurate time.

Many electronics have ring or relaxation oscillator circuits things that create a rhythmic on/off signal. These are entirely electronic, using the same type of parts already used to supply power, light up different segments of the display, etc. Theyre also used to tune in radio stations and regulate the speed of digital circuitry, so theyre cheap or *already included* inside a clock radio type device.

But theyre not too accurate. A nice watch likely uses a quartz crystal. This is like a tiny tuning fork, it actually has vibrations going on in it. And its very good at keeping time accurately.

Since this is the whole point of a good watch, and there isnt other circuitry already there for other purposes, it seems like the obvious choice for timekeeping needs. But in the bedside clock where it has an alarm, maybe radio reception, powers a digital display, etc... the temptation to cheap out or repurpose existing circuits for timekeeping purposes would be stronger.


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

[User] ELI5: How does a relatively small amount of chromium prevent steel from rusting?

[Assistant]
Because it rusts instead.

Stainless steel is about 10% chromium. And when exposed to the air the chromium reacts with the oxygen much faster.

This forms a layer of chromium oxide on the surface. And that layer of chromium oxide stops any more oxygen from reaching the steel (specifically the iron atoms). And since the oxygen cant reach the iron, it cannot rust.


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

[User] [Diary of a Wimpy Kid] Why does the book claim Greg is wimpy? To me he's just a sociopathic Bad Luck Brian.

[Assistant] Because Greg is A) the in-universe author so he named the book himself (and the author admitted that Greg is just a huge douche who is trying to elicit false sympathy) and B) he is actually considered a wimp by both his father and Rodrick who bully him for it. In fact, most of his father's storylines involve trying to toughen Greg up by a variety of ways.


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

[User]
Why doesn't the Earth build up a positive charge from cosmic rays?

We are continually bombarded with lots of cosmic rays, which are mostly bare protons. Shouldn't this mean that the Earth accumulates an excess positive charge over time?

[Assistant]
Cosmic rays are not the majority of particles striking Earth. In quantity they are greatly outnumbered by the particles of the solar wind, which are both positively and negatively charged.

If the Earth does happen to acquire a slight positive charge, it will tend to repel positively charged particles and more strongly attract negative ones. If Earth acquires a negative charge then the opposite will happen. This means that over time, the charge of a large object will tend toward neutral.


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

[User] Why is good quality vision called '20/20' vision, and not 100% vision?

[Assistant]
20/20 basically just means you can see what a 'normal person' should see at a range of 20 feet, from 20 feet away. It means you have normal eyesight.

Perfect eyesight can be a lot better than 20/20. You can have 30/20 vision, meaning you can read what a normal person sees from 20 feet away, from 30 feet away, for instance.

It's not uncommon for people who have had corrective eye surgery to come out of it with better than 20/20 vision.


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

[User] ELI5: What happens while we are asleep that makes our breath smell so bad when we wake up?

[Assistant]
You're not moving your mouth around as much, and in some cases you leave your mouth hanging open all night which dries it out.

The smell of bad breath is the smell of ~~your saliva~~ bacteria breaking down food in your mouth - called putrefaction.  During the day you talk, yawn, drink, eat, smoke, run, and salivate and swallow.  The process continually exposes and flushes (by way of swallowing) the decaying food.

When you sleep, you mostly lay there.  The saliva pools and chemically digests food, and the results stick to your tongue, teeth and gums.  This stuff stinks.

If you take a decent solo road trip, like four plus hours, and stay quiet the whole time, your breath will usually stink by the end.


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

[User]
[WM40K] Why did the Emperor allow the Mechanicum so much power?

It just seems a bit dangerous in retrospect to hand a weird Martian cult an absolute monopoly over all technology.

[Assistant] The weird martian cult was already there, and breaking it would result in more conflict and instability than the Emperor considered worth it. They were literally one of the most powerful forces of humanity at that point.


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

[User] [Spiderma]How old is (616) Spiderman?

[Assistant] He looks to be in his mid-late 20's; think 27 or 28. He graduated high school and college, married (depending on who you ask), was a teacher for a while, worked as Tony Stark's assistant for a short time, and now runs a major US technology company.


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

[User] ELI5: What's so special about air-condition air that irritates people's throats? Can it be corrected?

[Assistant]
The amount of moisture the air can hold is correlated with the air's temperature.

Warm air has the ability to hold a lot of moisture. But as that warm air cools down, it loses the ability to hold onto all that moisture. This is known as condensation.

Colder air then is dryer than warmer air. As you inhale that cold air, your body heat begins to warm it. As the air warms its moisture potential also goes up. So, now with a higher moisture potential to equalize the moisture has to come from somewhere; your body.

~~There is a component of the ac unit called a 'condenser'. This part stores the moisture the warmer air contained, but after cooling process can no longer hold onto in its less energetic (colder) state. If you've ever seen an ac unit dripping water this is because the ambient air is warm and full of moisture (called humidity)~~.

In the winter the ambient air has low humidity, when that cold, dry air is pulled into your house and warmed its moisture potential increases and you end up with dry eyes, cracked lips, nose bleeds etc becuase the air is leeching that needed moisture from every source of moisture available.

Hope that explained it well.


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

[User]
[King Kong] What would, realistically, be the consequences of the ending of King Kong?

New York just had a giant ape rampage through it, killing dozens of civilians and hundreds of National Guardsmen, before the giant ape itself was killed. What would the reaction be by the rest of the world and how would it affect history?

[Assistant]
It's a dramatic event sure, but there wouldn't be many long term consequences.  One or more of the survivors would be charged with manslaughter for their negligence in allowing Kong to escape, they would probably be convicted.  New York would ban dangerous animals from being brought into the city, and Skull Island in specific would be blockaded by the federal government until responsible safety procedures could be developed.

That's about it though.  Megafauna like Kong are already mostly extinct and contained to a single island.  There isnt much to do about it.

For perspective, he probably did about as much damage as the Great Molasses Flood, and the long term effect of that is to be the go-to example of a goofy sounding disaster.


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

[User]
Why does your saliva go watery before you vomit?

I couldn't help but notice when I feel like vomiting is imminent, my saliva goes super watery in consistency, and was wondering the function behind it ^_^

[Assistant]
It's part of the reflex. The parotid gland squirts a load of watery (serous) saliva into your mouth. This not only lubricates the vomits' path outwards, it also helps to alleviate some of the acidity of your extremely acidic stomach acid to minimise damage.
(Dentist answering here btw)


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

[User]
ELI5: What makes plastic recyclable?

What is the difference between recyclable and non-recyclable plastic (materials)? Similarly, why are some plastic bags degradable while others aren't?

[Assistant]
There are a lot of different ways to make plastic.  Even though it all sort of seems the same when we look at it or touch it, there are many different types.  These types of plastic are made of different "ingredients."  The most common two ingredients for making plastic are ethylene and propylene, which you might have learned about in science class.  These plastics are hard to recycle because when you melt them down to reuse them, they separate out into different layers.  When those layers cool, it weakens the plastic, making it much less useful.  So, if you want a plastic to be recyclable, it needs to be made of special ingredients, and/or made in a special way.  Not all plastic is, and so not all plastic is recyclable.

Similarly, for a plastic to be biodegradable, it needs to be made of special ingredients.  The most important thing about making a plastic biodegradable is that it has to be tasty to certain bacteria.  Bacteria are what "eat" biodegradable plastic and turn it into things that are safe for the environment.  Normal plastic like we talked about in the last paragraph usually isn't very tasty to bacteria.  To make biodegradable plastic, either the plastic itself needs to be made of special ingredients (again! plastic is complicated), or else it needs to have special ingredients added to it.  The first kind is better, but the second kind is popular because it lets companies use the ingredients they already have, but *also* make their plastic a little bit biodegradable.


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

[User] Eli5: If the bottom of an iceberg is surrounded by water, shouldn't the iceberg slowly melt? Isn't water warmer than ice?

[Assistant] Where icebergs form, there is no or almost no temperature gradient between the water and the iceberg, so they can last in those waters for centuries.  Once they float a bit further south (or north) from their formation point, they encounter slightly warmer water and melt.  But some icebergs are enormous - so large that it can take months or even years to melt even in (relatively speaking) toasty water.  The largest icebergs can weigh more than 10 million tons.


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

[User]
CMV: Demonstrating outside the Supreme Court is misguided (unless you're just there because the television cameras are there)

Like every other time an abortion case has been decided by the Supreme Court, yesterday we were greeted with the fundamentalist crazies of both sides protesting/demonstrating outside the court building.  These people either (1) don't understand the role of the Supreme Court or (2) are just there to be part of the news.

Holding a sign that says "protect babies" or "keep abortion legal" is going to have zero impact on the ~9~ 8 Justices deciding the case.  The Court doesn't make law, it only interprets the Constitution and laws that have been passed by congress and state legislatures.  If you want to "protect babies" or "keep abortion legal", then it is congress and state legislatures that should be the target of your demonstrations.

Demonstrating at the Supreme Court is like complaining to your credit card company because the price of the TV you bought is too high.  That wasn't the credit card company's decision, that was Best Buy's decision.

[Assistant]
Demonstrating outside the Supreme Court has a couple of things going for it besides the TV cameras:

1. Justices of the court have unusually wide discretion over the conduct of their offices as compared to other public officials.  The demonstrators may care a lot about the specific interpretation of the law and the Constitution which the court fashions, and that fashioning is almost entirely at the discretion of the justices.  While a demonstration is probably unlikely to sway the justices, it's certainly the case that swaying the justices would produce important policy outcomes.

2. Demonstrating outside the Supreme Court building is also demonstrating outside Congress.  The Supreme Court building is across the street from the US Capitol building.  Demonstrating there can show Senators that voters care about certain issues which they might inquire about with prospective judicial nominees or integrate into passing statutes.  Protesting on the corner of First Street NE and East Capitol Street NE kills two birds with one stone.


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

[User] If Palpatine orchestrated the clone wars, why did the CIS win so many battles?

[Assistant]
Because it had to look like a desperate struggle for the Republic's very survival. If the senate wasn't constantly terrified, they would have begun to squabble about petty things and concentrating less on what Palpatine wanted them to vote on, like giving him more and more emergency powers.

Not only did it keep the senate terrified, it kept the general population of the galaxy supportive of the war if they knew the clones and the massive military production were the only thing keeping them safe from the CIS. They had to see the clones lose so they could see them win now and again and feel that spark of pride for the "good guys" and a twinge of hope that the war could be won and things return to normal. That pride and hope kept people voting for the same senators, contributing to the war and keeping things going exactly as Palpatine planned.

On top of all of that, when the Republic lost a battle, it lost officers and military personnel who were either part of the Republic's tiny "military" before the war or people who would be inconvenient in the new order. Having them killed off was important so Palpatine could fill those roles with people he knew would do what he wanted.


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

[User]
Because of gravity's constant effects, is there infinite energy in the universe?

So it's been a while since i've taken a physics course, but the last one I did take was grade 11 physics. One of the major units we learned about there was energy, and a big part of that was the kinetic vs potential energy balance. Now we also learned that energy is always conserved so it cannot be created or destroyed, but this never sat quite well with me.

Say we have two apple trees. One at the top of a hill, and one at the bottom of the hill. The trees grow their apples, and when they are ripe enough they fall to the ground. Now the apples at the bottom of the hill just fall straight down to the ground and stop, but the apples at the top of the hill fall straight down, and then roll down the hill. This means that for the apples on the top of the hill, they have a greater potential energy before they fall, and greater kinetic energy during the fall and subsequent roll.

Now normally you have to lift something up against the force of gravity, for it to gain potential energy, but in this case, there is no extra energy expended to put the apples in a higher location gaining that extra potential and kinetic energy. In other words, both apple trees are expending the same amounts of energy to grow the apples, but the ones of the top of the hill will generate more energy when falling, purely because of their location.

So it seems like in this scenario, we have a situation where two of the same objects have differing levels of energy based off location in space, but no energy input was required to create that difference in location. And because energy cannot be created, my only explanation for this is because of gravity's constant force on everything with mass, there is infinite energy.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope this can be answered as it's really bugging me. Thanks.

[Assistant] No, see the potential is not to the ground, but to the center of mass of the system of the apple and the earth (with the difference of mass this is simply the center of mass of the earth.) The ground is just stable enough to oppose the force of gravity on the apple, so really the same force is being applied to both objects. Now you are correct about there being more energy required to get apple B versus apple A in the first place but what you are failing to recognize is that that energy was applied outside the confines of the system defined in the problem (i.e. the energy was applied by the trees being planted in their separate locations and growing the apples in the first place.)


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

[User]
[Avatar:TLA]Given the Avatar's long history as a force for good in the world, how was the mission to capture or kill him sold to the average fire nation citizen?

Did no one start questioning if they were the baddies once they were ordered to kill a living saint?

[Assistant]
We saw in The Headband that Fire Nation kids are forced to learn a very distorted version of history that paints them as the heroes and other nations as instigators of the 100 year war.

Its likely information they got about the Avatar and Aang specifically was similarly skewed, if they even bother to teach much of it at all.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Who was funding the rebellion during the original trilogy?

I've been a Star Wars fan my whole life, but never really dipped my toe into anything outside the films.

Unless I've missed something, I never understood how exactly the Rebellion came by its resources.  I'd imagine the personnel was largely volunteer (being a Rebellion), but food, weapons, vehicles, starships...  Who was picking up the bill on all this?

I would imagine there was probably a hand-ful of benefactors, but funding on this level would be pretty difficult to hide.  If it was public, I would think it would make them an easy target for the Empire.

Anyway, I always kind of wondered if this was ever addressed.  Kinda stumbled on to this sub by accident and saw an opportunity!

Thanks!

[Assistant] Starships were built by the Mon Calamari and remnants of Incom Corp after it was absorbed by Siener Systems. Also, the Rebels had numerous sympathizers among the former Separatist planets and the former Republic Senators of the Delegation of 2000, Senator Bail Organa being the most visible and vocal member of this Rebellion.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do you "black out" when you've had too much to drink?

[Assistant]
People have 2 different types of basic memory-- Short Term and Long Term.  Short term memories are processed and stored in the brain for only a few minutes.  However, short term memories that are deemed by your brain to be "significant" are later converted into your long-term memory storage.

In excess, alcohol somehow blocks the brain's ability to convert short term memories into long term ones.  Therefore you can still operate on a short term memory level-- you can still have conversations, interactions, and function on short term memory-- but since due to alcohol these short term memories cannot be successfully converted into long term memories, the next day you may have no recollection of the previous night.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Why did Sidious/Palpatine treat Vader like shit when he became robotic (from all the EU comics and ROTJ)?

[Assistant] Basically he was disappointed in Vader's strength. George Lucas mentioned that when Vader lost his limbs he became significantly weaker and no longer had the potential to exceed Sidious. Palpatine wanted the ultimate apprentice and Vader had the ability to be the strongest force user in history. After losing that strength, the Emperor considered Vader to be nothing more than Maul or Dooku; a pawn to be used until he found a suitable replacement (Starkiller or Luke for instance).


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

[User]
How is Operating System implemented in C and not Assembly?

From what I understand, operating systems like Linux and Windows are almost entirely written in C (with some C++ at times). Given the fact that they main function of the OS is to abstract hardware from user applications and maximize efficiency of hardware resources, how can this achieved by using a higher level language such as C?

For example,

\-Operating Systems handle processes through process control blocks, which involves saving CPU registers to context switch between processes. How can this be achieved in C and not assembly? Doesn't accessing CPU registers required that it be done in assembly?

\-Implementation of system calls such as opening, reading, writing, and closing files are within the operating system kernel. If the implementation of these require directly manipulating the hardware to access data, how is it possible that this is implemented in C?

\-Memory management

Forgive me if I am just completely uninformed about these topics. I am currently taking undergraduate operating systems for the first time, and lots of these things are still unclear to me. Detailed information is definitely welcome!

[Assistant] the compiler does the job. The C that you code into gets converted into assembly of that particualar cpu architecture. The very basic code that commands the cpu to start running and loads in the first process from hard drive to ram are all hard coded in assembly then compiled code takes over though depending on the needs assembly is used too.


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

[User] ELI5: How is it that people can easily walk many miles but standing still for 20 minutes makes you uncomfortable ?

[Assistant] To add to other answers, your calf muscles activate much more when walking than standing. Calf muscles are known as your "second heart" because they aid in delivering deoxygenated blood back up from the legs to the heart. So walking promotes better bloodflow throughout the body.


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

[User] [General] In a world where magic is real, rare or common, known or unknown, is using real magic during a stage magic performance considered cheating akin to camera tricks?

[Assistant] Not an answer from sources, but in our world, where magic may exist but it is assumed not, the fun of a "magic" show is in trying to figure out how the *trick* was done. If there actually isn't a trick, and the stage magician is "merely" using actual magic, that would be cheating according to the unwritten compact between the performer and audience.


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

[User]
ELI5: I work in an office, one of my colleagues is forever 'too cold' whereas I'm forever 'too hot' despite us being well and in the same vicinity. Why?

I work in an office, one of my colleagues (female) is always saying she's too cold and wanting windows closed and heaters on, sometimes when it's 20 degrees outside... I'm exactly the opposite and I'm too hot sometimes even in the winter. Why is it so different between people?

[Assistant]
Lots of possible reasons.

- Percentage of body fat. If you are heavier than her, you will feel warmer.

- Men tend be warmer than women in general.

- She might have poor circulation.

- You're wearing a suit with a jacket and she's only wearing a shirt.


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

[User] ELI5: Quantum physics experiments suggest that reality doesn't exist until it is measured or observed. What the heck?

[Assistant]
Observed does not mean by a sentient being. Observed simply means interaction in this context.

Here's an analogy:

Say you're measuring the temperature of water with a thermometer that starts off with a temperature, say 20C, and the water you're measuring has a temperature of 50C.

If you're measuring a pool, it doesn't matter. If you're measuring a tiny droplet of water, the heat of the thermometer will effect the temperature of the water!

It's like that for quantum particles. In order to measure them, we have to interact with them, which then collapses the waveform.

Note that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with this.


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

[User]
I think that in America, nudity should be allowed on television, CMV.

On American television, tons of horrible things can be shown. Blood, gore, inappropriate language, etc. But for some reason, seeing boobs is the worst thing in the world.
You go onto the internet - and let's be honest, it's 2013, nearly all Americans have access to the internet - and you have more access to porn than you can ever believe.
I can see how someone could be worried about nudity being on television, as their children could be exposed to it. However, there are plenty of parental controls on television, you can block certain shows, entire channels, you can certainly censor what your children see.
I would love to hear someone else's side on this, change my view if you can!

[Assistant]
Nudity *is* allowed on television. There is no governmental regulation that prohibits nudity on cable television. But most cable companies/channels have agreed to a common set of standards that effectively amount to self-censorship. You see nudity on HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. because they don't follow those standards.

I do think it's weird and slightly racist that tribal and indigenous nudity is rarely censored on the Travel Channel/National Geographic, though.


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

[User] Why can't you donate blood after receiving eye surgery?

[Assistant] You may have received something like a corneal transplant and acquired a disease from that donated tissue. Rather than delving into the specifics of the operation they may simply disqualify you out of an abundance of caution.


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

[User] [Frogger] Why don't the cars slow down or swerve when they run into a frog the size of a water buffalo?

[Assistant] While the frog might be the "length" and "width" of a Water Buffalo, it probably isn't the height. Based on the fact that hitting the frog doesn't seem to stop the cars from moving, we can infer that the mass of the Frog isn't comparable to a Water Buffalo.


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

[User] How can Olympic skiers jump the distance of a football field going 40+ mph without sustaining an injury?

[Assistant]
Because the distance doesn't really matter (for the injury part). Imagine if they were on a horizontal plane. The height of the jump would not be that high relative to that plane.

Also, the angle of the landing zone to the angle of the skier when they touch down is small because the slope of the landing zone is similar to the trajectory of the skier.


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

[User]
[Marvel] Since Magneto has been shown to be able to control blood via the iron content, could be manually circulate his own blood if his heart stopped working until he received medical attention?

In a comic in the 90s, I believe it was the Magneto limited series, Mags is shown killing a bunch of soldiers sent to kill him by manipulating their blood. So could he provide himself with artificial circulation?

I guess we can have a twofer here and ask the same question about bloodbenders in the Avatar universe.

[Assistant]
Magneto: probably. He once survived his own death as pure energy by maintaining the nerve impulses using his power without any body.

Bloodbenders: usually benders need to move to bend, but if you're really good - and you have to be good to be a bloodbender - you can do it without moving. Bloodbenders have been shown canceling out the effect of bloodbending on their bodies, so they can clearly effect themselves. They should be able to resist a heart attack no problem if they realize what's happening.


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

[User]
Would a tsunami have a pull like a normal wave?

Would it have a stronger pull or the same, and would it get stronger the bigger the wave was?

[Assistant]
The water that was carried onto the land by the tsunami retreats backwards into the open sea. This is arguably the most dangerous part of a tsunami. The force of the watermasses can carry lots of debris with it and knock loose lots of objects; Cars, boats, even houses or parts of them at least. People might survive the initial arrival of the wave. They may perhaps hide behind objects so that they are not directly hit. But when the water retreats, everything that is not firmly connected to the ground will be dragged with the water. Debris is thrown around everywhere potentially killing many.
Even if you can survive the debris you will not be able to hold on to anything so you will be simply swept away onto the open ocean.

What you should know is that tsunamis are not like "normal" waves. They are more like an extremely rapid and big tide. They are not one small wavepeak with a small wavelength, but much more long and drawn out waves. The strength of the pull depends on the amount of water it carries, the momentum and of course also the coastal bathymetry and topography.


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

[User]
[MCU] How did Stormbreaker survive a beam made of the power of all 6 stones?

Even if Thnaos was surprised its still an energy beam of a full set of stones. How did Stormbreaker even manage to overpower it?

[Assistant]
Stormreaker is the result of a lifetime's work. Etiri is the armorer of the Asgardian gods, and Stormbreaker was his magnum opus, a weapon capable of channeling the full might of the Odinforce.

The Infinity Gauntlet is the result of a few harried hours of work, performed under the watchful, threatening eye of a madman who had just murdered everyone else on the entire planet. It was a theoretical design pressed into service, without time for craftsmanship or refinement.

If Thanos had given Etiri time to study the Infinity Stones and design a weapon fully capable of harnessing their power, nothing in the universe wold have stood a chance against him. But Thanos didn't give Etiri that kind of time, and as a result, the full might of the Odinforce was able to defeat a fragment of the Infinity Stones' power.


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

[User]
What exactly makes a question philosophical?

What exactly makes a question philosophical?

What defines the bounds of "philosophy" and "not philosophy"?

[Assistant]
Typically, that it's a question that pertains to the typical concerns of philosophers.

That is, to issues of norms, the formal aspects of thought, the foundational principles of the specialized fields of culture and their objects, the relations among the specialized fields of culture and their objects, inquiries into particular ideas or practices related to the aforementioned themes, and the history of the foregoing -- or something like this.

What common feature connects these various topics? Opinions are divided. Maybe nothing, beyond the historical contingency that they're topics that have typically been left to people calling themselves philosophers. Maybe something like this: that non-philosophical fields of intellectual culture involve participating non-reflexively in a certain kind of cultural act, while philosophy involves reflexively raising into consciousness and inquiring into the grounds of the conditions of these cultural acts.


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

[User]
CMV: The World should switch to a 13 month calendar.

The Calendar is the last major measurement system that is out of wack. Here is what the calendar would look like with 13 months.

|M|T|W|T|F|S|S|
:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|01|02|03|04|05|06|07|
|08|09|10|11|12|13|14|
|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|
|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|

The new month could be called Novissime last in Latin. The last day would be New Years Eve and Leaper would be before it. They would be know as the Tristique days (Floating in Latin) as they would have no month or week they would simply be NYE and Leaper keeping the days of the month and week the same every year.

Why should be do this. Make planning easier and possable for years in advance. You won't need to check if said day is on a weekend one year.

Birthdays would also be static though people might be upset not having a weekend birthday just make ever persons birthday a paid time off day and free day off of school.

[Assistant]
>Why should be do this. Make planning easier and possable for years in advance. You won't need to check if said day is on a weekend one year.

Given the propensity of phones and computers, what do you think would be more difficult?

1. Opening up a calendar and flipping to the desired year to determine if the date is a weekend or not.
2. Getting the entire world to agree on changing their calendar system.


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

[User]
[MCU] Which Avenger had the best biological father?

Most Avengers have daddy issues to some extent, many of them clinging to a surrogate father figure as a replacement. So which one had the best upbringing from their biological father?

(For this purpose, I'm considering "avenger" as anybody with special powers, tech, or abilities who fought on the front lines alongside the team, as long as they had a name and decent screen time)

[Assistant]
Wanda Maximoffs dad seemed like a pretty nice guy, and a good dad, not his fault he died when Wanda was a kid.

I know that the comics have all sorts of intrigue regarding who Wandas ACTUAL biological father is, but so far in the MCU we have no reason to believe that guy wasnt Wandas father.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it frowned upon to shoot down enemy soldiers in a parachute?

[Assistant] It's only "frowned upon" when they're pilots/airman who have abondoned their aircraft (as opposed to airborn soldiers parachuting into a combat zone to fight). At the point they've been forced to abandon their plane, they're no longer combatants. It's considered cruel to shoot them because they're basically defenseless. Generally, pilots/crew in distress are given the opportunity to surrender when they reach ground. Basically, it's "not fair play" to shoot at pilots when they can't fight back.


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

[User]
Can we synthesize Gold in the laboratory?

One of the aims of Alchemy was the transmutation of common metals into Gold. It seems we are able to synthesize rare elements that are very high on the periodic table in the laboratory. The process described on how that is done sounds an awful lot like Alchemy to me. So my question is why don't we synthesize Gold? Is it just that the cost to do so would be more than the value of gold which is somewhat readily obtainable? Or is there something else about the lighter elements on the periodic table that make it not possible to do when it can be done with heavier elements?

[Assistant]
>  Is it just that the cost to do so would be more than the value of gold which is somewhat readily obtainable?

Yes.  However:

- Reaction rates are generally low
- The products are often radioactive

For instance, if we pass mercury through a nuclear reactor, 196-Hg can absorb a neutron, becoming 197-Hg, which decays fairly quickly to 197-Au.

The problem is that 196-Hg makes up only 0.15% of naturally occurring mercury.  The other isotopes can also absorb neutrons, which decay to unstable isotopes of gold (or other elements).

So if you were to attempt synthesizing gold this way, you would be left with a radioactive mixture containing small amounts of gold, which you would then need to process.  The costs of operating a nuclear reactor, passing large amounts of mercury through it, and processing radioactive mixtures make the whole thing not very cost-effective.


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

[User]
Where do the electrons go in a Neutron Star?

I have been reading a little bit about neutron stars and I think they are really fascinating. However, I've never understood where the electrons go when the atoms collapse into neutrons. It was explained to me that the protons in the nucleus absorb the electrons, giving the atom a neutral charge. But, neutrons are made up of 2 down quarks and an up quark without an electron in it. So what happens to the electron?

[Assistant] They combine with the protons to form neutrons (an up becomes a down), while a neutrino shoots out. So to answer the question of where the electron "goes," the electron-ness is carried away in the form of the neutrino, while the charge is cancelled out by the proton's.


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

[User]
Does having a having a larger skull/brain cavity increase your chances of suffering a cuncussion upon impact ?

Edit : apparently I can't even formulate a sentence properly. Sorry about that.

Edit 2 : thank you all very much for taking the time to reply.

[Assistant] Your brain to skull ratio could influence a coup contracoup concussion where your brain literally rattles back and forth in your skull and bruises. It also puts you at increased risk of subdural hematoma (shearing of the veins in the layer surrounding your brain) if you are elderly or have a smaller brain for other reasons. Can have small impacts, not remember and end up with a chronic bleed.


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

[User] [Futurama] What is ultra-porn? Why must you be 160 years old to watch it?

[Assistant]
It's a form of pornography where you experience the life-time sexual experiences of a single member for an entire species, from the perspective of all sexes/gender involved, in the spans of a minute.

After you've experienced it once, you get kind of bored with the idea of recreational sex itself.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do seafood meats taste so noticeably different from land-based meats?

I don't even understand enough about this situation to describe it adequately.  There's a vividly recognizable flavor to shrimp, crab, lobster, fish, etc. that just isn't there in chicken, beef, etc. - what causes it?  What does it mean?

This is probably a really terrible question, but here I am.

[Assistant] Those animals are entirely different taxa and are the products of a hugely different environment, spending their existences in salt water. They contain high amounts of iodine and other minerals compared to land animals. Their musculature evolved for environments with very low amounts of gravity.


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

[User] ELI5: Before the invention of the barcode, how did concerts and other events prevent scammers from simply printing out lookalike tickets and getting in for free?

[Assistant]
They did not have to.

The barcode was invented in the 50s and had its first commercial use in 1974.

High quality printers didn't really enter the home until the mid 90s.

There really isn't a period of time where the barcode wasn't in use but people had access to printers they could use freely.

There is also the burden of sourcing the correct card stock by weight and color.


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

[User]
[Halo] Do spartans ever get their magnetic backs, where they hold their weapons, stuck on things?

Assuming that's how they hold their spare weapons in the first place.

[Assistant]
First of all, the level of magnetic attraction needed to secure even large ordnance would be barely noticeable to the Spartan operator if he got "stuck" to something. The suit is powerful enough to effortlessly throw around its own 1/2 ton weight (to say nothing of flipping a 66-ton Scorpion like it's made of styrofoam).

However, MJOLNIR also responds to subvocalized commands, so the operator can toggle the electromagnet essentially at will.


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

[User] Do carbonated beverages such as soda help keep you hydrated? If so, how do they compare against water?

[Assistant] Carbonation is nothing more than carbon dioxide in solution. The body doesn't metabolize ingested CO2 (it tends to be released in burps), so it has no effect on the body's absorption or retention of water in the beverage.


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

[User] ELI5: I just watched the Big Short, and I still don't understand what "shorting" is. How does buying credit swaps profit you when the market collapses? Who pays that out and why?

[Assistant]
Say Bob has a bunch of stock in a business called Company, Inc.  Bob's friend Henry thinks Company, Inc.'s stock is about to drop significantly.  Henry makes a deal with Bob:  Bob will lend Henry 100 shares of Company, Inc. stock, but Henry has to give it all back exactly one year from now.  So Henry gets 100 shares and sells them at their current price of $10 each.  Henry now has $1000, but he'll have to buy back 100 shares before the end of the year in order to hold up his end of the bargain.

A year later, Company, Inc. stock isn't doing so well, selling for only $1 a share.  Henry buys up 100 shares and gives them back to Bob.  By shorting the Company, Inc. stock, Henry made a profit of $900.

In an alternate universe, Company, Inc. is doing pretty good at the end of the year.  Their stock is selling for $20 a share.  In order to get the 100 shares he needs to give back to Bob, Henry has to use the $1000 he got from selling the stock originally AND $1000 from his own pocket.  In this universe, Henry's attempt to short the Company, Inc. stock has cost him $1000.


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

[User]
ELi5 Why is population decline a problem

If we are running out of resources and increasing pollution does a smaller population not help with this? As a species we have shrunk in numbers before and clearly increased again. Really keen to understand more about this.

[Assistant] Mostly severe population decline sucks for old people. In a country with an increasing population, there are lots of young laborers to work and directly or indirectly take care of the elderly. But with a population in decline, there are too many old people and not enough workers to both keep society running and take care of grandma.


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

[User]
I think college is way too easy and the number of people graduating college should be cut in half.

College degrees are becoming more and more valueless because just about anyone with half a brain and enough money to pay 4 years worth of tuition can obtain a degree. I'm a Junior at a major University right now and I can with all honesty say that at least 2/3 of my classmates do not put in any respectable amount of work towards their classes or are just plain dumb/apathetic. The Cs get degrees attitude is rampant, but the thing is that its true. As long as the university is getting their money they can keep churning out unqualified students with increasingly worthless degrees and it will only benefit them.

Without rarity there is no value, and without competition there is no rarity. Graduating college with a degree should be an accomplishment of one's intellect and hard work, not the product of paying tuition and doing the absolute minimal for four years.

This would also help ease the student debt problem.

[Assistant]
I argue that the minimum level of work to graduate, in general, is still sufficient, and that there can still be much diversity between "A" and "C" level students.

First, a college degree, even if accomplished at the minimum level, requires more effort and yields more educational benefit than simply ending the academic life after high school. They're already distinguishing themselves from those without college experience.

Second, competition already exists - at least, for jobs. A person who puts more effort into their academic career is one who can put their knowledge into practice, minimize errors, and find experience in their field. The same could not be said for those who put in the minimum effort. An employer would likely identify and hire the former of the two, and the latter, if employed, would probably fail often.

So if you put more effort into your degree than your colleagues, good for you. It'll show when your experience and abilities beat the competition.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] We always hear about Jedi's turning to the darkside, but what if a Jedi raised/taught only the way of the Darkside wants to use their abilities for good instead of evil?

Lets say you have a Sith, taken in by a Sith Lord at the age of 18 months and raised as a Sith/under Sith Teachings.  They are now in their early 20's and want to turn their back on the Sith Ways and follow the path of the Jedi.  Their desire is honest and genuine-there's no "hidden" agenda other than they want to become a Jedi and use their abilities for good instead of bad.  How receptive would the Jedi be of this?  How easy/hard would this be to do?

We always hear about Jedi's turning to the darkside, but what if a Jedi raised/taught only the way of the Darkside wants to use their abilities for good instead of evil?

[Assistant]
You don't want to try and do this.  The dark side has an extremely strong allure, and is highly addictive.  It blinds its users to the true nature of what they are doing.  Just look at Anakin Skywalker as a prime example.  He thought all the evil acts he was committing were to save the love of his life.  The dark side is inherently corrupting.  Using it will twist your mind.

One thing that many people overlook is the fact that Jedi are *not* emotionless, nor do they strive to be.  Yoda isn't humorless.  Obi-wan doesn't lack empathy.  They try to control their impulses, to stay away from the extremes.  Why?  Because with these extremes comes the influence and temptation of the dark side.  It creeps up on you, and before you know it you're slaughtering children thinking you're doing the right thing.

Is it impossible for one to use the dark side of the force for good?  No, it's not, but the chances of such a thing are minuscule.  In the history of the galaxy there are, maybe, a handful of people who have done this, at the most.  The forces that you fight against when you are trying to use the Dark Side for good are immense.


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

[User] Why is a cooling tower in a Nuclear power plant, the shape that it is?

[Assistant]
The towers you are talking about arent exclusive to nuclear power plants. In the US, more nuclear units use once through cooling than cooling towers. You also see these with fossil plants like the Michigan city coal plant in Indiana.

The large cooling towers are called natural draft cooling towers. The shape creates a chimney effect, where the rising steam and moisture creates negative pressure as it passes through the contours of the tower. This sucks cold air into the bottom which supplies additional cooling.

If you didnt have the large hyperboloid shape, you would need to use fans to create that air draft to create the same cooling effect. Look up Columbia Generating Station which uses 6 forced draft cooling towers that use forced air fans for contrast.

The purpose of the cooling towers is to cool the water which circulated through the condenser. Recall that the condenser takes the waste steam and makes it a liquid again for re-use in the plant. If you dont use cooling towers you need to push 500,000 gallons of lake water per minute through the condenser and back to the lake. If you use cooling towers you just need to draw to make up for evaporation (10,000 gallons per minute).

Hope this helps.


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

[User] ELI5: how do solar panels work?

[Assistant]
Firstly electricity is simply the flow of electrons. Electrons are all negatively charged and particles with the same charge repel each other like when you out the wrong ends of magnets together. Therefore electrons will always flow from an area with high concentration to an area with low concentration.

All electrical power sources work by creating what's called a potential difference between two poles. That is a difference in the concentration of electrons, so that if you connect a wire between the two poles electrons will flow through it to even it out.

Solar panels work by something called the photovoltaic effect. Basically, light consists of packets of energy called photons. When photons hit atoms they can "excite" the electrons. You can think of it as the photons knocking the electrons out of their orbit, usually into a higher orbit, but sometimes they can completely dislodge an electron from it's atom. That's called ionization.

The next part simplifies a lot: A solar panel consists of two layers, one that absorbs sunlight and one that stores the electrons. The photons dislodge the electrons in the first layer so that they jump over in the second layer. It is designed so that the electrons can't jump back the way they came from so the concentration of electrons increase in the second layer.

Now, as you probably have guessed, if you connect a wire between the two layers, the electrons will want to flow through it.


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

[User] ELI5: how do babies know to start breathing as soon as they're born?

[Assistant]
Actually, they start "breathing" in utero. However, the amniotic fluid is much easier on their system. During birth, the babe "holds its breath" through the birth canal but can often still breath via the umbilical cord. Otherwise any birth lasting longer than 3 minutes would be terminal.

After birth, they spit up the amniotic fluid & take their first breaths of gaseous air. Diaphragm motion is automatic. The air stings their lungs. Some think it's just because the lungs are new while other say it's because of the temperature difference as room temp is much colder than body temp. Thus they usually cry when born & start breathing. Within a few minutes, the fluid is all expelled & the air no longer stings.

Deep sea divers can use a breathing fluid based on amniotic fluid for oxygen exchange. It warms inside & feels "heavy but comforting" once the initial fear of drowning is past. Surfacing & emptying for regular air breathing has similar discomforts & may be similar to a newborn's experience.


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

[User]
[WOLVERINE] can wolverine be killed

Can you kill wolverine?

[Assistant]
He's been killed in an alternate timeline or two.

In one alternate, there was the Egyptian version of Thor who used a solar blast that stripped all the meat from his bones, killing him.

Cyclops could probably kill him if he really cut loose.


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

[User] ELI5: Why the aging process varies between species (Humans, Dogs, Turtles etc.)

[Assistant]
Because we and they age differently and have different strategies for reproduction.

One of the things most of us are programmed to do is to have kids that carry on the species. Depending on how many and how often, once that job is done our own purpose isn't as necessary so off we go into that good night eventually. Mice have lots of kids REALLY fast, dogs have larger litters, and humans take a long time to do it in onesies and twosies. So we have to live long enough - at least ten years after giving birth - to raise enough kids to carry on the species or our species would have died out. Because it grows up so quickly, a dog can put out a lot of puppies and finish its species-propagating job well before that.

The aging process is affected by a whole lot of stuff. Part of it is how good your DNA (your basic blueprint that's found in every cell and was the instruction guide that made you you once mom and dad got busy) is protected against damage. There's some interesting research going on for Bowhead Whales that live a VERY long time - 200 years! - as they have certain genes that are good at repairing DNA.

And part of it is how rough our environments are. Many humans live WAY longer than they normally would because they're in a nursing home, for example.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Whos the worst Jedi in history?

I dont mean someone you think is bad, or someone who turned to the dark side/failed the trials. I mean, objectively, who sucked the most as a Jedi throughout the history of the entire order?

[Assistant]
In KOTOR, Jolee Bindo gives us a yarn about a jedi he knew who had a "destiny" around him. Everyone could feel it, apparently, and all the masters were seemingly all over him and doting on him. He's important! He'll do something great! Can't you feel the destiny around him?

This comes to a head when he and Jolee were sent to deal with a pirate king. They get captured on his flagship (of course), and the Destined Jedi starts making all sorts of vague Jedi-y threats and boasts.

Eventually the Pirate King got fed up with him and threw him into the ship's reactor.

Now, either our Destined Jedi hit something very delicate on the way down, or the reactor doesn't like being fed Jedis With Destiny. So, the bridge lights up with all kinds of warnings, everyone starts scrambling around, and in the chaos Jolee manages to find and escape pod and punch out before **the ship explodes, taking the Pirate King with it**, resulting in a power vacuum in the region.

I'd say that "Destined" Jedi was the worst one in history, if we're taking legends into account.


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

[User]
ELI5: Money today is worth more than money tomorrow

I get that the value of money depreciates over time hence why they tell you that the best time to invest is now. But i dont get how exactly investing now helps you in the future if the cost of living increases with time too anyway. So like lets say you invested $1000 today and then in the future thats equivalent to $4250, but then the price of things have also increased so how much richer are you really if you have to spend a lot more in the future anyway?

[Assistant]
So there are two sides to this.

The investment/value side which has already been discussed. The tl:Dr is that investing money is almost always going to give you a better return than whatever delayed payment would give you.

The other, more important, side is that money today gives you more *options*. If you get the money today you can use it today. If you have to wait for the money you can't use it today. The option to use the money whenever you want is extremely powerful.

Another example is that money later is not guaranteed. The person/organization providing the money could go bankrupt or die or all kinds of things. On top of that, you might not need or be able to use the money later. $10,000 today is much more valuable than $1,000,000,000 in 100 years. Regardless of inflation, if you're not alive to spend it it doesn't do you any good. Same with something less dramatic like other life events.


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

[User]
ELI5: If recording artists are not selling music because everybody steals it, how do they afford multi-million dollars mansions and private jets?

Just curious. We are constantly hit with this barrage of claims about how the recording industry is being wiped-out by theft. Yet, Gulfstream and Bentley seem to be selling tons of their products to these same broke-ass singers. Are they making 10's of millions per year just doing concerts and selling t-shirts?

[Assistant]
Artists have rarely made money from record sales themselves.  That money has almost always gone to the record companies.  Recording contracts are structured to give minimal money to artists.  We're talking pennies per album.  For artists, the real money is in performances, publishing rights, merchandise and synchronization rights (allowing your music to be used in TV, movies and video games).

The recorded music industry absolutely is getting their shit wrecked, but it's hurting the corporations' profits, not so much the artists.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Why are speeder bikes called bikes?

Bike is short for bicycle, and those things certainly don't have two wheels!

[Assistant] I believe the actual term for the vehicles are something like lightspeeders. Being called a speeder bike might just be due to their resemblance to an old two wheeled vehicle (that may have existed in they're universe) in both form and function. They are single passenger vehicles, with the driver riding on top in the open, they're controlled with handlebars, and are highly maneuverable.


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

[User]
[Archer]How on earth does Archer maintain such a good physique?

The guy drinks like an alcoholic horse, and yet his physique is pretty incredible regardless. What gives??

[Assistant]
Probably something Krieger is putting in the water. (Or ice, in the case of the Archers)

I mean, a lot of the employees of ISIS seem capable of physical feats of strength or endurance that they shouldn't be able to accomplish, and knowing Krieger it's not that far fetched that he's secretly (or maybe even accidentally) dosing everyone in the building with some kind of super soldier drug.


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

[User]
ELI5: What's the difference between a neuron and a neuroglial cell?

They seem to be similar and I'm having trouble figuring out the difference between the two.

[Assistant] Neuroglial cells are a few different types of support cells for the neurons. They don't transmit information, but they produce chemicals for the neurons and provide insulation so electrical information can move faster.


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

[User] [Star Wars Ep. 1] At the table with Qui-gon, Anakin says "I'm the only human that can do it" referring to Pod Racing. Do humans in general have lower reflexes and visual acuity than other races in this galaxy?

[Assistant] Its just that podracing is super fast and you need really good reflexes that Humans can only have via the Force. There are many other species that cant do it, so Humans are no worse than most of the species.


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

[User] How did the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal affect the local ecosystem in their area?

[Assistant]
Panama uses locks to go uphill to a man-made freshwater lake and then back down. It isn't as drastic effect as the Suez.

The Suez is actually making the water saltier on northern Egypt's coast and is killing native species around there and some species from the Red Sea are crossing over.


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

[User]
Why don't we experience G forces from relative motion?

I know that we are travelling an indeterminate speed through space due to Earth's rotation, it's orbit, the sun's galactic orbit, ect. My question is, since that motion constantly changes in direction due to it's circular nature, and acceleration is what causes us to feel G forces, why does changing velocity relative to our relativity cause G forces? How come changing direction in a plane causes G forces, yet while hurtling at thousands of kilometers per hour through relative space in a constantly changing direction doesn't seem to cause any G forces at all?

[Assistant]
You've just discovered the equivalence principle.

The bottom line is that a change of direction or relative velocity is *not necessarily* an acceleration  and being relatively stationary is not necessarily the absence of acceleration.


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

[User]
What is the DSGE Model?

I'm a 2nd year undergrad student at economics, and despite knowing a bit about the terminology and the history, the wikipedia page (that usually helps) couldn't really help me understand the basics of the DSGE Model, and its implications for policies and macroeconomic research. This is despite being a bit familiar with the critique of Lucas. Do you have any recommendations for me to better understand the DSGE Model?

[Assistant]
you are just a 2nd year undergrad so don't worry if you don't know it. we typically don't learn it that early (if at all, for some undergrad programs).

DSGE stands for Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium, and it's a modelling standard for macroeconomic models. more specifically, a model needs to be dynamic, in the sense that the agents make decisions taking into account all future periods, it needs to be stochastic, in the sense that some variables are determined also stochastically (random error terms in some equations which then are carried over all the way to the equilibrium solution, and are used to make predictions or to evaluate the model with impulse response functions), and general in the sense that in the model all types markets and agents will feature in the model and they will all be at equilibrium at the derived equilibrium.

take for example the simple ISLM model, i assume you are familiar with (if you aren't, all the better for you tbh). it's not a DSGE, because the model is not dynamic, the variables dont move through time, it's not stochastic since there are no stochastic terms, the variables are all exact points on graphs, and it is a "general" equilibrium model in the sense that the markets it has clear, but it's not a general equilibrium model in the sense that it is not microfounded (with households, firms, intermediate firms, banks, or what have you)


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

[User]
ELI5:Why is the sale of alcohol restricted during certain hours?

So I've always known that most counties will restrict the sale of alcohol before (noon?) on Sundays.  However, I just went into a store to buy alcohol on a Tuesday at 02:20 AM and was denied because it was after 2 AM.  I had never known that there was any limitation on alcohol sales aside from Sundays which I had come to terms with.

Why are there restrictions after 2AM?  There are plenty of people who work different schedules, and it's not like this is going to prevent many people from preparing in advance...

This just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

[Assistant]
Blue Laws. They were enacted because of religious reasons, and are very slowly being rescinded.

Sometimes they make no sense at all, for instance, allowing bars to remain open while closing stores that sell alcohol, thus leading to people going out drinking and then having to drive.