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

[User]
Kierkegaard writes, "Anxiety about sin is sin." Wow, I know exactly what that means... (?)

I am not a huge fan of the book because it is very dense, laden with technical and sometimes Hegelian language. I am likely to be misinterpreting key points in Kierkegaard's argument but I shall press on anyway and try my best to formulate my exact concern. At the outset, Kierkegaard lays out the groundwork for the phenomenological sense of anxiety, which, in itself, is evidence of free will. He uses the story of Adam and Eve as his launching point, and posits that the feeling of anxiety comes about right before a decision. Kierkegaard talks about different kinds of anxiety. For instance, there is anxiety about "fate," which affects a forward thinking "genius" who is fixated on the consequences of his actions. Anxiety about sin-- he seems to argue-- causes more doctrinaire, religious types to ruminate on things they have done wrong (i.e. commandments we fail to obey, etc.) These people are so paralyzed by the fear of their past missteps, specifically by the prospect that what they did was irredeemable, to the point that they end up paralyzed. They never look forward to future, redemptive acts because they are too convicted by their own impiety. Kierkegaard, during the exposition of this sort of anxiety, writes that anxiety about sin is sin.

How is that? Does the underlying anxiety that comes with flagellating oneself about the past to a debilitating degree force the kind of paralysis that is within itself sin? In other words, is Kierkegaard, like Sartre, posing a radical freedom that requires us to move forward and choose fearlessly? Is the failure to do that a sin, even if the failure is a paradoxical result of the fear of sin? Perhaps, that's the role of faith in Kierkegaard's framework too. The belief that a sincerely honest attempt to choose "rightly" is all that's required, and we must have faith in our capacity to do it. If we fall short one time, Kierkegaard might say, our faith becomes all the more important the next time.

[Assistant] Sin being an ancient term that means to miss the mark, Id posit that worrying about the spectre of ones past and future failures or misdeeds is a form of pre-emptive failure against the selfs ability to live with true purpose, and is thusly, itself, missing the mark.


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

[User] ELI5:Where does the "heat" come from in our body?

[Assistant] From exothermic (heat-producing) chemical reactions in all of our cells.  Those chemical reactions are what allow the cells to stay alive.  They involve "burning" sugars such as glucose.  The reaction really is the exact same reaction you get from literally setting sugar on fire, but it's much more controlled.  The end result is that the sugar is combined with oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide.  This is why the air we breath out has less oxygen and more carbon dioxide than the air we breathe in.


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

[User]
[Avatar] Jet fighters vs. Banshees

So how effective would it be if humans forces used jet fighters to fight off Banshees? How useful would they be?

[Assistant] Instruments would be worthless on Pandora so you'd be forced to fly manually which isn't a good idea for dog fighting.  The VTOLs used in the film are slow enough to handle any rapid gravity or magnetic anomalies while carrying enough firepower to be effective.  The flaw in the battle was not using any artillery fire and engaging from under the ceiling a banshee can safely fly at.


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

[User]
CMV: Protesting by blocking streets/transit ways doesnt help whatever point youre trying to get across and only hurts whatever cause there is.

People who protest by standing in front of traffic, blocking train tracks, etc only gets the general public to dislike them because it can affect peoples lives on a grand scale in a negative way. There are many ways to protest and by all means Im in full support of it but in almost all cases Ive seen, its never an issue with regular people but usually lawmakers and such. Blocking transit only hurts the general public who have no control over anything. Can someone tell me how people think this an effective way of getting their way? How do they not realize making a majority of people angry will most definitely hurt whatever point theyre trying to make?

[Assistant]
How do you feel about labor strikes? There was a public transit strike during the Civil Rights Movement. Was that bad too?

Interfering with the everyday routine of the public is probably one of the best ways to protest.


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

[User]
CMV The "inclusion" program for special needs student is a poor idea

My school and many other schools have what's known as the inclusion program.  This essentially means those with special needs are not with the rest of the special needs students, and are instead put in class with other mentally fit students.  The requirement for being in this program is a parent recommendation and nothing medically related.

This is a poor program because this not only opens the waygates for bullying but also holds back the other students who are in a regular class trying to learn. There are teachers who are specialized In teaching special ed students and they should be the ones who are having the hands on experience with them.

[Assistant]
"Special needs" is a hugely ambiguous catch-all term. Somebody with severe brain damage is going to be a lot harder to integrate into a regular class than somebody with mild to severe autism.

So whether the program is a "poor idea" largely relies upon the specifics of how it's implemented.


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

[User]
CMV: Human expression in the form of art and culture has declined as technology has increased, and this trend will most likely continue

Now this is not an uncommon opinion , but basically musc, and really most forms of art have declined in quality over many many years.

 The music of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart (can throw in Handel and Chopin for good measure) are lightyears beyond in expression, purity of sound, complexity, genius, elegance, outwardly emotions and beyond that comparing them to almost all music today is a humongous insult. Likewise music decades ago actually had people that could sing naturally without autotune. Europe meanwhile tends to not build major cities because modern architecture comprably looks like a joke and is mostly plain and uninspired. Cinema seems to be on the decline as well; don't belive me ask Scorsese considered one of the greatest directors of all time. Scorses doesn't think it's declining, he actually thinks it's straight dying. Cinema is heavily political now, low risk, and focuses on producing what is predicted to capture the most screen time based on algorithms and decisions of big money mega-companies, rather than what's artistic, thoughtful, and novel.

So I would say that humanity is progressing in a way forward but is degressing in other ways and ultimately losing its soul in the process.

Now I know that there is "subjectivity" to all this, but in my opinion this idea of all-powerful pluralism and "everything is subjective" is actually just a contributor and also smyptom of this decline. After all, being able to differentiate between primitive art and more complex meaningful art takes some level of  progress in humans. Is insane clown posse the pinnacle of human art and culture? I don't think so.

[Assistant]
The popular music of their time was simpler then ours. And modern orchestra pieces are on average more complicated now (You can hear them as the sound track for films) then in the past.

Having a keyboard that can act as every instrument in the world with a computer to take notation makes it easier.

You just are looking at the past with survivor bias. Only the best survived the rest was forgotten decades to centuries ago.


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

[User] [Marvel] What are the pros and cons of these powers: Gamma Radiation, Chaos Magic, Power Cosmic, Phoenix Force?

[Assistant]
From what i know:
Gamma-comes with a big increase to strength and healing. The exact details of your power come from your own psyche. There is a chance of just becoming a big tumour tho. Oh. and if you do get the power, you may become an immortal pestered by marvels true Satan. Its very much raw power, and less versatile than others on this list. Hell, standard users might not match the other powers even in raw power.

Chaos magic- tons of power granted by a dickish elder god. Will definitely try to use you as a vessel to enter/conquer your native reality. Can leave you a glass cannon, with "normal" durability for all that power. Also, you probably do need a book or teacher to use all that power properly.

Power cosmic-Really good balance of power and trade offs. You get control over the natural forces of the universe, and a way stronger body that can manage space travel. All you have to do is stay in the good graces of a large hungry purple guy and find him new food spots to try. Hell, hes been known to leave your food spot untouched in exchange for your service. Also this has the least odds of you going insane.

Phoenix force - This one enhances any preexisting power you have, and gives you fire wings and some telekinesis. Also very good at ressurecting you. Users have a VERY string tendency to go mad though. Like almost all of them lose it at some point. But you get galaxy/universe destroying power in the deal.


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

[User] [STAR TREK] Is a Bat'leth superior to a sword? If Genghis Khan had designed them could he have taken over the ancient world?

[Assistant]
Sometimes, and no. The Bat'leth is a bit more like a warhammer or axe than a sword. The Bat'leth is a very heavy weapon, so much so that it's difficult to wield even with both hands. That alone makes it inferior to most swords, as they could be used alongside a shield. It's too short to make up where polearms could reach, but too heavy and clunky to be used one-on-one against any properly armed soldier in Earth's history, which is generally what swords were used for. A very strong, fast man *might* be able to use the Bat'leth quite well, but even that would only make him about as efficient as any other solider on the field.

In the case of the Mongols, they would have no need for such a weapon. Primarily, they had two main weapons: Scimitars and bows. These weapons were very useful because they were designed to be used from horseback (Of course, they seemed to have had polearms as well, but that's beyond the point). They were especially well-known for their skill in archery, and over half of the army was made up of archers. They certainly used all of this to their advantage, their primary tactics involving flanking or circling the enemy. The Mongols would simply have found no use for the Bat'leth.

There have always been misconceptions about ancient warfare, and the primary one is that swords were the primary weapon of soldiers. Whether or not it's true of Klingons, for humans, swords were mostly sidearms and dueling weapons, and sometimes exclusively for show. Even if the Bat'leth *was* superior to any human sword, it still would not have conquered any empires.


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

[User] ELI5: How do artists make so much money when today there are so many streaming services and we pay a very small amount to have access to a huge amount of songs?

[Assistant]
Touring

Today, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, and more, Music artists made their money the same way they do now: Touring.

Selling music and radio plays (and now streaming plays) were and are really only ever a good source of income for the absolute top top artists. Everyone else, except the ultra top, never really made much money except by touring. Thats your profit source.

Music labels make plenty of money selling music and streaming, but not the artist.


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

[User]
ELI5: If standing tall is the best way to get oxygen into the lungs, why does my body desperately want to bend over after running?

After doing wind sprints or going for a run it seems like most people end up in the position of bent at the waist with hands on the knees or thighs. If this isn't the most efficient way to recover, why does my body love this position so much?

[Assistant] There is actually a medical term for that. The position is called tripoding. When you are bent over like that, your chin is thrust forward opening your airways and allowing other muscles in your body to assit with your breathing (acessory muscles). Using the exrta muscle power your body can pull in more air with more force. This is a common position that someone with chronic breating issue ( COPD, severe asthma, ect ) will adopt when they are in crisis. Hope that helps! :)


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

[User]
CMV: America has a violence problem. Gun control won't fix this.

i use to always believe that gun violence was a problem that would easily be fixed with gun control, but i realized that the west is far too different from other counterpart countries for an idea like that to efficiently work here. we have a violence problem in the west and there's no denying that.
i think drugs should be legal and guns should be legal and moderately regulated.  overregulation or illegalization just leads to black markets which typically originate in other nations (ex. raw opium from middle east, cocaine from south america, guns & arms from russia china germany etc... and the us for other developing countries).  our gun problem is due to our dominance in the global culture market and, as i said before, our people are utterly stupid because of our culture.

there is inherent violence gun crimes come from what? gang wars, cold blood murder, school shootings, police officers....... what else? idk. point is illegalization or regulation wont fix those problems. no problem is ever resolved by overregulation or illegalization.  never has never will.  just to further my point that regulation doesnt work, look at industrual regulation.  they work for a little bit and then clever greedy people find new ways to fuck over people.

back to my main point, people who want to resolve these issues by conventional legal methods will make no progress.  the answer lies within changing the people, not the laws.
the only way to stop the problem is to identify the problem as people and change them. no amount of regulations will stop greedy or violent people from being greedy or violent. that's not something you can easily fix, though. the violence is inherent in the way every aspect of western society is crafted. people say it's human nature, but it's not. violence is taught. unfortunately, our predecessors in thought, in all cultures, fucked us on that one but we can build better systems to deal with it in time.

[Assistant]
If america has a violence problem why would increased gun ownership help? if there is a pyromaniac you don't give him a lighter and gasoline.

Of course the pyromaniac could get his hands on a lighter eventually, but you are arguing nothing should be done to even try to stop him or take his lighter away.

Why should a groups wit a violence problem have guns?


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

[User]
[DC] Is Superman strong enough to hurt himself?

Can he snap his own bones if he pushes hard enough or can he dislocate his joints if he pulls hard enough?

What's his durability like compared to his strength?

[Assistant]
Imagine his ratio of strength to durability is set roughly in the same proportion as an average humans'.

You can break your own fingers, but you can't break your own femur. He probably has that same range of ability.

Why? because it's the best balance of access to strength and maintenance of bodily structure. His body was evolved, like ours, to last for at least a century under a red sun. Bodies don't do that if they can tear themselves apart when the going gets tough.


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

[User]
CMV: The COVID lotteries in the US are a disgusting misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Really, the title says it all. Multiple US states (Ohio, Colorado, California, etc) are giving away multiple millions of dollars in a lottery format to people who have gotten vaccinated against COVID. This money comes from the states (aka, taxes). I feel that this is a gross misuse of funds and that this money could be better spent in 100s of ways.

I understand the desire to incentivize getting a vax, but this totally missed the mark given the fact that there are still millions of people without a job or insurance, and that the 15 or so months of a shutdown economy has depleted the saving accounts of so many US citizens.

[Assistant]
Lotteries are a great and *cheap* incentive though. Ohio has vaccinated 5 million people... a 1 million dollar lottery is the equivelent of paying them each 20 cents, but is FAR more motivating.  People actually respond to a million dollar lottery.

Not to mention that each dose is already costing the government something like $40.  So this raises the cost from $40 per dose to $40.20 per dose.

It really isn't a significant amount of money on the scale of millions of people, but it is absolutely working and having the intended effect.  Getting covid under control faster will save lives and ultimately allow things to start back up faster probably more than paying for itself.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Why did Luke go on the mission to Endor instead of attacking the Death Star?

By all accounts Luke was one of, if not the best, pilots the Rebellion had. Wouldn't his talents have been better used in the assault on the Death Star?

The only reason I see him going is that he thinks he'll be necessary to get the shield down, however, he then turns himself in, leaving Han and his team to do it on their own, anyway. I understand that he ultimately wants (needs?) to face Vader, but isn't that selfish?

I'm asking because I was watching it last night and thought about it when Luke knew Vader was on the command ship and said, "I'm endangering the mission I shouldn't have come."

[Assistant]
I think Luke says he shouldn't have come when they're approaching Endor because his alternative to going with Han's ground team was go to Endor by himself to face Vader.

It just happens that the people closest to him are going to the same place he's going.  He knows he has to leave them at some point, probably because he knows there's a good chance he'll die while facing Vader.  He wants to help them as much as he can before that.


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

[User] ELI5: What physically ARE radio waves and what keeps different frequencies from interfering with one another?

[Assistant]
Radio waves are light. You can see many different colors of light, right? That's because light comes in a lot of different categories called *frequencies* which correspond to their colors.

Now, there's a lot of light out there you can't see with your eyes! BUT, a radio receiver can still "see" this light. Just like you can see that a red flower is red even if it's really bright outside, radio receivers can see the color (frequency) of the light they're receiving even with some background noise!

If you were looking exclusively for a pattern of blue text, you would be able to see it even on a page full of pink text, right? Radio waves are the same thing.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] What's the age of consent in the Star Wars universe?

Some species live much longer/shorter than others, would this have any bearing on the age of consent? Also, there are many different planets and societies in the Galaxy- would each planet manage their own rules involving when their multi-colored citizens were allowed to start having sex?

[Assistant]
Average Star Wars person from the Inner Worlds: If its a human, around 18ish.

From the Middile Rim: Somewhat the same basically.

Outer Rim: Age of consent? What's that?

In the slums of Courecant: RAAAAAAAGH! (*translation from the weird zombies underneath Courecant*) EAT FOOOOOD!


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

[User]
[General] To what degree of relative sentience would eating a sentient organism be considered "wrong"?

Let's say you have Organism A, who is a human with 21st century intellect and intelligence at a genius-level. Meanwhile, Organism B is an alien with intellect and intelligence so beyond comprehension that it dwarfs most species in the Universe.

If B decided to eat A, why would this be considered any different from a human eating an animal? "Wrong" can be an objective and/or subjective term, depending on which angle you approach it. Would it be wrong for B to mercifully end A's life, prepare him/her into a meal, eat said meal? Why, or why not?

[Assistant] This is kind of a broad problem that we address in real life as well. Not sure if this is the right place considering we could also just use the example Human V. Apes/Dolphins. Animals that can and do communicate with semi-complex concepts. We eat animals that understand life and death.


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

[User]
[Mass Effect] Are Garrus, Wrex, Tali, and Liara speaking English once they're on the crew of the Normandy, or do they still use translators?

The translators in mass effect seem *really* good. Like... *impossibly* good. Not only are they near instantaneous, they block out the ambient sound of the original speaker while matching their cadence and pitch, even so far as to essentially match each person's original voice. They pick up the intent of the speaker when they seem to want an idiom translated or left in its original language. This technology is insane, and no one seems to notice.

Can Turians speak English? Their mouths don't seem to have the right shape or structure to make a lot of human English sounds, like m or p.

Liara seems like someone who might actually learn it to help her in her research and so she won't have to rely on a translator.

What about Tali and Wrex?

[Assistant] It's pretty much hand waved away as the translators being supernaturally good at their job.  But liara and garrus seem to speak English fluently tali uses a type of quarian translator to speak English and wrex knows English but seems to stumble over certain sounds due to his biology.  I'd wager that they all utilize a translator for communicating but wrex being the only one either incapable of or unwilling to speak anything but his own language.  As for your question about turians it was described in one novel that saren speaks English with a heavy accent caused by his biology and a later comic showing explosive consonants being more of a hiss from turians than their intended sounds.  The metaphors and idioms used by races aren't always understood by translators as they use the most common language of the species and most common cultural idioms that are updated infrequently by the citadel and various governments.


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

[User] ELI5: Why are deserts so hot in the daytime but freezing cold at night?

[Assistant] Largely due to low humidity in the dessert. Humid air tends to hold heat for a longer time than try air. Combine that with the sand heating up but not storing heat, and the heat of the sun during the day gets lost quickly resulting in cold.


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

[User]
CMV: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution defines a citizen, then states that all citizens have equal rights under the law. This means that all "age" laws are unconstitutional.

Here's the actual text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It has long been my contention that this constitutional provision specifically outlaws "age" laws - including driving age, age to purchase alcohol or tobacco products, etc.

If a citizen is a citizen at birth (or naturalization), then their rights and privileges under the law cannot be curtailed without "due process".

The only argument I have heard against this idea is related to "due process" and the government's compelling state interest to  not have 3 year olds driving around the city streets.  I'm fine with that, but I do think that depriving 18 year olds, for example, from purchasing alcohol amounts to 'collective punishment' for the acts of a few 18 year olds who couldn't handle it.

Perhaps a better approach would be to have people demonstrate, at any age, their ability to drive a car or handle alcohol - then license them for legality.

Lastly, I get that this is a super controversial position, but it's one I have held for the last 40+ years, and has continued well past the age where these laws affect me directly.

I'm willing to be persuaded!

[Assistant]
>Perhaps a better approach would be to have people demonstrate, at any age, their ability to drive a car or handle alcohol - then license them for legality.

Would you do this for *every* instance of age laws then? Working, pornography, signing contracts, making medical decisions... there's tons of things we could probably scrounge up here. That's a *lot* of tests, and a lot of money going into said tests.


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

[User]
Two of the same type of metals will bond together in space?

Just got a interesting Snapple fact! Says that if two of the same type of metals touch in space they will bond together permanently! Why does this happen? And when it does how fast does it occur?

[Assistant]
It is called cold welding or vacuum welding.  Richard Feynman explains it as such:
"The reason for this unexpected behavior is that when the atoms in contact are all of the same kind, there is no way for the atoms to know that they are in different pieces of copper. When there are other atoms, in the oxides and greases and more complicated thin surface layers of contaminants in between, the atoms know when they are not on the same part."


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

[User]
Is AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia always caused by Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome?

Every time I try to search for the causes of AVNRT, they always just say it's the "presence of an extra or abnormal pathway," but isn't that the definition of WPW, or is there something else that that could be?

[Assistant]
I work in the electrophysiology field and can answer this. The short answer is no; those are two different conditions. AVNRT is the presence of dual pathways through the AV node itself and the ability of those pathways to conduct a re-entrant tachycardia. WPW is the presence of a pathway between the atria and the ventricles that is outside of the AV node, thus creating a small channel in which signals can pass from the atrium to the ventricle without going through the AV node.

To your original question, how does AVNRT start, the two pathways through the AV node conduct at different velocities. One pathway is fast and one is slow. Typical AVNRT is when the atrial signal is conducted down the slow pathway from the atrium to the ventricle, and then when it reaches the ventricular side of the pathway, it then conducts back up the fast pathway from the ventricular side of the AV node to the atrial side. By the time it gets back up to the atrial side, the slower pathway is now able to be depolarized again, and the signal again travels down the slow pathway. This re-entrant loop is now capable of sustaining tachycardia. The most common way that this whole process starts is by a premature atrial beat which reaches the fast pathway when that pathway is refractory, and thus it conducts down the slow pathway instead. From there, it goes back up the fast pathway, which is no longer refractory, and it's off to the races. Let me know if that helps!


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

[User]
ELI5: Why 2 cars of equal mass crashing into each other at 50 mph each is the same as 1 car crashing into a stationary wall at 50 mph, not 100mph.

I would have thought that the cars give 50mph worth of newtons to the other and 50 mph worth of newtons back on itself due to Newton's 3rd law. But I saw the mythbusters  prove that wrong.

[Assistant]
It's all about how quickly the cars in question slow down from 50 mph to 0. This is determined by how much of the impact can be absorbed by the body of the car. A concrete wall absorbs none of it, so a car crashing into one has to do all the absorbing.

Two cars crashing straight into each other (at the same speed) each absorb the force associated with their own momentum, making it equivalent to a single car crashing into a non-impact-absorbing wall.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do we need to consume fat if excess carbohydrates are ultimately stored as fat?

My understanding is that any carbs that aren't used for energy are converted and stored as fat. Hypothetically, could a human just survive off of protein and a lot of carbs?

[Assistant]
Fat has two basic uses for the body: energy storage and ingredient for  stuff, like hormones. The second use can't be fulfilled by stored fat, it must be dietary (eaten) fat.

And no, you can't live without fat, there's even a thing caused "rabbit starvation", which is literally people starving to death because they only ate rabbit meat, which is VERY lean, for a long period of time.


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

[User]
Universe expanding. Everything is?

So the universe is expanding.  The galaxies, stars, and space itself is expanding (hence red-shifting).

Does that mean that in a minuscule way, our own planet, city, house and body is expanding?
If it is (and assuming we could live long enough for the difference to be more than nominal), would we actually be able to observe the change, or is our observation limited by our position relative to the change?

tl;dr Are humans expanding as the universe expands?

[Assistant]
No.

Imagine a very stretchy sheet of fabric, like lycra or something. You get a bunch of friends to stand in a circle, holding the fabric taut. You put a dinner plate in the center of the sheet.

Now you get your friends to very carefully step backwards, stretching the sheet uniformly in all directions.

Does the plate get bigger? No. Because the plate isn't *stuck* to the sheet. It's just resting on top of it. While there is friction pulling on the plate, it's not nearly strong enough to overcome the intermolecular bonds that hold the plate together in the first place.

Now put two plates on the sheet, some distance apart. As you stretch the sheet, you'll see the two plates move away from each other, "pulled" by the expansion of the sheet. But they don't change size, again because the "pulling" isn't nearly strong enough to overcome the intermolecular forces.

TLDR: The universe is expanding. You are not. (Unless you eat too many ho-hos. In that case, you're on your own.)


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

[User]
[Star Wars] In The Clone Wars, when The Son showed Anakin his future, did he omit certain details? If not, why did Anakin still turn to the Dark Side immediately after that, if he saw himself returning to the Light with his son's help?

Bonus question: How did Anakin plan to 'end' the Clone War if he got off Mortis like he said to Obi-Wan? Was he going to kill Palpatine? Make himself Emperor? Divorce Padme?

[Assistant] The Son, as we know him, thinks only of himself.  He's the dark side incarnate, and all that implies; selfish, malevolent, furious, and deceitful.  The Son had full control over the vision in the pit, and *absolutely* would have kept certain details (such as the exact nature of his turn and eventual redemption) to himself.  To show Skywalker the entire picture would be to give him a blueprint as to what was to happen, which the young Jedi would then be able to use as a map to avoid just such a fate.  But with little snippets, devoid of context and yet not untrue in themselves, the Son had the Chosen One dancing like a marionette.


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

[User] ELI5: What is happening in my brain when I "zone out" and I am quite literally thinking of nothing?

[Assistant]
Your brain is actually working normally and you probably thought of many things, but due to not being focused on anything you immediately forgot as soon as your mind stopped wandering.

Happens a lot if you're really tired, and have micro sleep.

That being said, studies have shown a modified brain activity during meditation or hypnosis, no idea if this is comparable.


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

[User]
[Superman] Isnt it a journalistic conflict of interests for Clark Kent to write articles about Superman?

He seems like he might be a biased news source.

*(Sorry to break the fourth wall, but answering the question Im actually trying to ask necessitates knowledge that Clark Kent is Superman.)*

[Assistant]
* Batman is either embezzling stockholder money or getting really, really close to it.
* Martian Manhunter constantly risks imposing his alien morality on terrestrial affairs.
* Green Lantern spends too much time on Earth when he has an entire space beat to patrol.
* The Flash endangers everyone's lives by not disarming all the bad guys in the first second of battle.
* Wonder Woman, as a divine creation, is constantly messing with the free will of mortals. To say nothing of the lasso.

Compared to that, and Superman still looks pretty good.


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

[User] If a concave lens and mirror are kept under water, the focal length of the mirror stays same but changes for the lens. Why is this so? Isn't the physical length the same no matter the medium?

[Assistant]
Focal length isn't a physical length, though. For a lens, it is a function of the change in the index of refraction between media, because a lens works by refracting light. If the index of refraction is the same, then there's no refraction at all and the lens doesn't function. Which you can see if you put a glass lens in water and try to look through it.

A mirror does not function by refraction, so the index of refraction of surrounding media doesn't change anything about it.


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

[User] [Lovecraft] Cthulhu is a priest of Azathoth. Why does the "blind idiot god", who isn't even conscious of the world, need priests?

[Assistant]
There are two portions to this answer:  the first part is that azathoth's worshippers are largely interested in keeping him asleep/placated.  If disturbed, he can pretty much just destroy the universe in a fit of rage and confusion.

The second part is that we just don't know what other motivations the gods may have.  The great old ones, and even more so the outer gods, are totally unknowable to humanity.  They are so far beyond our minds that just seeing them drives people insane.  We could never understand their logic or their motivations.


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

[User] If friction is based on electrostatic force, then shouldnt it be conservative (electrostatic force is conservative)? What property of it makes it non-conservative?

[Assistant] It's an artefact of the model. The actual system is made of atoms, and if we kept track of every single atom, we would find that energy is conserved. However, much of this energy is going to get locked up as heat - random thermal motions which we can statistically average out and don't impact the bulk motion of the macroscopic objects.


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

[User]
ELI5: Do tiny animals (like flies) have comparably complex digestive systems as humans?

Like I cant imagine a fly having a small intestine and liver or whatever in such a small body?

[Assistant]
You're right, they don't. It really depends on what  the animal eats and how they've evolved to eat that food.

When you say a human's digestive system is "complex" another way to put it is that we are adapted to eating a wide variety of foods. We have different types of teeth suited for biting flesh, but also for grinding plants. We have a jaw that is fairly strong but not as strong as a gorilla or other apes. We have complex digestive chemicals for breaking down complicated foods like starches but lack the ability digest bones or plant cell walls.

(many) Birds for example don't have the ability grind the seeds they eat, so they have special organs that they fill with rocks that *grind* the seeds into a paste.

Cats and dogs for example, that eat meat, don't have the proper digestive systems to handle lots of sugars.

But, back to your point, most animals, from flies and ants, up to humans and whales, have a basic "mouth (where food is broken down mechanically) - stomach (where food is broken down chemically) - intestine (where nutrients are absorbed into the body) - butt (where waste is removed)" type system. Those specific terms might be human specific but the general steps are the same.

Each animal does some steps differently though, for example humans excrete dead blood cells with our foodwaste which gives our feces that brown color. Birds combine their poop and pee into a whitish paste. Bulls and cows, that eat lots of grasses and other plant matter, remove their waste in the form of political campaigns.


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

[User]
[DCEU] In Batman V Superman, why Bats was so focused on Superman possibly being evil, but totally accepted Wonder Woman?

I mean why didn't he try to kill her also? This bugs me to no end. Because I'm sure Batman has enough resources to investigate WW1 claims of a lady who was kicking ass in Belgium. Even more with photographic evidence.

As far as we know all the metahuman files could also be Kryptonians. Am I missing something here?

[Assistant]
Wonder Woman never destroyed a city.

One battler between Kryptonians and Metropolis, which in this universe is right across the river from Gotham, was a smoldering ruin. Entire skyscrapers fell into dust because Superman *looked* the wrong way.

Diana Prince is a threat, but she isn't an extinction-level threat. Bruce's math says that any potential threat from a man who can trivially end the world is an unacceptable risk. Wonder Woman has never displayed that level of raw destructive power.

Bruce might be wrong about this. Wonder Woman is smarter than Kal El, and a better tactician. It's possible that she would actually be more dangerous than Superman, because she would use her powers to their greatest extent. It's also possible that her God Blast can be powered up to Kryptonian levels of damage output.

But Bruce hasn't seen that. What he saw was Superman knock down a building on top of a little girl's mother, and Bruce has a really big hangup about little kids watching their parents die.


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

[User]
ELI5: Can someone explain Stock Options and how they work?

I'm curious to see an example about how stock options work.  Calls, puts, strike prices... but how does it work and fit together.

Thanks.

[Assistant]
An option is a contract that allows (but does not obligate) you to make a transaction at a fixed price at a future time. There are two kinds, call options (which let you buy something) and put options (which let you sell something).

That's pretty much all there is to it. If you buy an August 19, 2016 $160 call option for IBM, that means that you have the ability to purchase a share of IBM stock for $160 at any point between now and August 19, 2016 (when the option expires), though you're not required to go through with it. Currently, such an option costs about $1.30, so if you exercise the option when the stock is at least $161.30, you'll make a profit, and if you don't, you'll lose $1.30.

Options can be bought and sold on exchanges just like shares of stock. They can be used in a lot of ways, but the most common are as insurance against a significant drop in price (by buying put options) or as a way to speculate that a stock will go up (by buying call options).


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

[User]
[MCU]Why didn't Ultron go after Wakanda, the vibranium goldmine?

Was he unable to sense it out? He had all the information in the world (quite literally), surely he would have came across something, urban legends or even sensing out the technology...

[Assistant] He *did* get all vibranium from Wakanda. It's just that when you have access to all **available** information, that doesn't necessarily mean you actually have all of it, so he thought that he really did drain the world's supply with maybe a few artifacts here and there he would get later.


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

[User] [X-Men] Does Wolverine ever have to sharpen his claws?

[Assistant]
There's two things that make a blade not cut.  One, the edge rolls over or bends, so it's not exposed to the surface being cut.  Honing fixes this by bending it back.  Two, the edge wears down via the removal of material and becomes flatter or more rounded.  Sharpening fixes this by removing more material to restore the edge.
The properties of adamantium are such that it is not susceptible to either method of dulling, and is also not amenable to either method of restoring the edge.  The edge it has when it is forged is the one it will always have.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why is the Mona Lisa such a famous painting?

Not sure if this is the right subreddit to ask this, but I'd like to know why without hearing words like "impressionistic". Is it overrated?

[Assistant]
It was painted by the Florentine renaissance master Da Vinci. He used a special technique with oils to create thin glazes of color. Her face insinuates an emotion, like there is something going on off the canvas. This was one of the first well-known representations in Western art that acquires the sense of self. Art was very often used religiously so previous painters like Fra Filippo Lippi and Ghiberti were known for painting religious images. Though it is believed to be a rich person: Lisa Del Giocondo, it is not a god or someone in worship.

The sense of self and humanity is what makes this painting famous. It involves no Greek gods or anything involving the Cult of Christ like his predecessors.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do I sometimes get this weird sensation like I'm falling through space when sleeping?

[Assistant]
Looks like there are a few ideas about this. It's part of a Hypnic or Hypnogogic jerk which happens in non-REM sleep and is often accompanied by a falling sensation. And people think it could be caused by anything from anxiety to caffeine. It happens more often in young people and people with irregular sleep schedules.

Beyond that we really don't know much about it. But there are at least a couple theories about why it has evolved.

One idea is that it's just a natural part of your body shutting down for the night and nerves misfire a bit in the process.
This idea makes sense.

Another idea is that has to do with a primate ancestry. The idea is that the brain thinks it is falling out of a tree.
This idea makes no sense.


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

[User]
Public Lectures: What are some basic dos and don'ts?

I'm giving my first public talk in a couple of months, but I'm nervous and want to start thinking about it now. Given my credentials (or lack, really, since I'm still in undergrad) I don't feel super confident about it all, and I want this to go really well. My supervisor/mentor is letting me have a very long rein on this one, so that I can get some practice in for organising/planning talks. How this is all received by the public matters a great deal to me, for various personal reasons that are not really relevant. The subject will be on radio astronomy in general, with a little bit on the work I have done in galaxy evolution and AGN jets. The location will be the town I grew up in (in Australia), where few people graduate high school and many more dropped out of primary school.

So far, I've gathered that I should avoid all equations unless they're exceptionally simple. Given the location of the talk, even (what appear to me as) simple equations could be too confusing. I'm also acutely aware that the audience will likely span all ages and levels of education though, and I want everyone to be able to get something out of it without feeling like I spoke down to them or simplified things too much. I want people to leave feeling as though they learnt some cool stuff; maybe the kind of things they might briefly mention to a mate at work the next day or something.

Do you have any other, perhaps blindingly obvious, tips for a public talk? I'm thinking that some general physics-y demonstrations could be useful as well, although I haven't made any decisions about what those would be.

Apologies for the really simple question, but I suppose I have to start somewhere.

[Assistant]
>the audience will likely span all ages and levels of education

This is key. Keep it simple. Describe the history of how the discipline developed, where it is today, and how your work fits into it.  Tell a human story... not just formulas, but who developed them, how they were developed, what they allow us to understand (in simple terms).  Show pictures. Do not put too much text on a slide.

**Practice your talk in front of an audience that will be brutally honest with you.** It will help you pace your timing and curb bad public speaking habits. Have someone that knows nothing about what you're doing listen and ask questions, it will help you see your work from an outside perspective and anticipate the types of questions you might receive during the actual talk.

Good luck, you will do great.


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

[User] ELI5:What happens if you turn off your computer midway through its update?

[Assistant]
Most likely nothing. Microsoft makes a backup of the state before an update. When an update finishes and Windows starts in a stable state, it marks it as 'done'.  If your computer crashes during an update, the next time it restarts it detects the update didn't finish and rolls back to the backed up state.

Obviously this doesn't work if files critical to Windows starting are changed, but updates to these are very rare. 99% of the updates you get are for auxiliary systems.

Source: It's happened to me several times (power outages during updates). Never an issue.


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

[User]
CMV: private gun ownership is useless against government tyranny

I will freely admit to being a liberal in favor of gun control. But my fianc is a single issue voter about gun rights. Gun rights outrank every other issue to him and his friends, and I'd like to understand where they come from before we marry.

I asked them why private gun ownership ranks so highly in importance to them, and they all said it's because an armed population will be able to overthrow a tyrannical government if it becomes necessary. They also cared about self-defense, but overthrowing a tyrannical government was the main reason. They cite the Revolutionary War as an example.

In my view, a modern armed population will never be able to win against the current US military. Civilians don't have Apache helicopters. Almost everyone I know can't run 5 miles straight. At best, it'd be years of bloody civil war like Syria's and they still wouldn't win.

As the years go by, military technology will only continue to outpace the tech available to civilians and this rationale will become more and more far-fetched. I just don't see how private gun ownership would allow us to overthrow the government at any point in the future.

The whole argument seems like a theoretical exercise that shouldn't be the foremost political issue to anyone. I hope to understand opposing viewpoints.

EDIT: Alright everyone I'm disabling inbox replies and taking off. My mind was changed on some possibilities of successfully overthrowing government using the military itself, but not without it. Enjoy the rest of the discussion!

[Assistant]
>I just don't see how private gun ownership would allow us to overthrow the government at any point in the future.

Why didn't we win in Iraq and Afghanistan, then?

A tyrannical government is one that does not operate under the consent of the governed, and must do so by force. The only way to do so is continuous occupation of the territory to maintain control over the local governmental institutions (otherwise, it's not really in control).

Armed citizens are going to avoid going toe to toe with the actual military in the same way that insurgents in the middle east currently do. You don't engage them in battle, you hide among the populace and take pot shots at them, then disappear into the crowd.

The victory condition for an insurgency against a tyrannical government is not defeating the government in battle, it wins by causing the tyrannical government to expend so many resources dealing with the insurgency that it either gives up for lack of will, collapses in debt, or a military coup decides that they'd rather stop being shot at by their countrymen and turns on the formal leadership.


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

[User] ELI5:Why is the speed of light 299 792 458 m / s? Would our universe sill exist as we know it if the speed of light was instant?

[Assistant]
The universe would breakdown instantly if the speed of light was infinite. Alot of the laws of the universe derive from the speed of light
Take Einstein's famous equation E = MC^2 . C is the speed of light. So a star would produce uncountably infinite amounts of energy. Matter would never congeal out of the big bang, because it would take uncountably infinite amounts of energy to produce a single gram of hydrogen.


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

[User]
ELI5: If weight gain/loss is just a matter of calories in and out, why is it so hard to keep weight off?

I keep hearing that when it comes to losing weight, the most important thing to remember is that calories in must be less than calories out. That makes sense.

I am overweight, but I'm also holding steady. I haven't significantly gained or lost weight in 5 years, so presumably my calories in equal my calories out. That makes sense.

I recently decided to get in better shape, so I spent a few months eating less (reduce calories in) and exercising more (increase calories out). It worked, and I lost weight. That makes sense.

But then I went back to the same diet and lifestyle I had before. Which was (presumably) equal calories in and out. But rather than staying steady, I gained the weigh back. That doesn't make sense.

So why can't I just lose a bunch of weight, then go back to my balanced calories in-out lifestyle to keep it off?

[Assistant] When you lose weight, the amount of energy your body needs also decreases, as you have a smaller body. A person weighing 300lb/150kg needs more energy to maintain basic body functions than a person weighing 150lb/75kg. So you have to adjust your basic caloric intake to your smaller energy need.


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

[User]
I believe that people who are offended by "bad" words are the people who give the words the power to be "bad" CMV

The worst of words are used to offend because they work. If people looked at "Faggot" and "Nigger" as the unimaginative word choices that they are people would laugh at the people saying it as much as "poop head"

I completely understand being offended when someone is spewing hate. I don't understand why people allow certain words,  Sounds we make with our mouth just the right way, to have such power.

My best friend is black. My roomate is gay. Most days I am pretty stupid. Call me retarded. Call me faggot. It won't hurt my feeling if your poking fun or even just being dumb.

The only time speach should be offencive is when its goal is to hurt. Yes these days people use these words with perpose to hurt. Only because we let these words have power. Why can't we stop making them "bad" change their meaning. Take the word back. Instead of running and hiding from it?

[Assistant]
"Watch your thoughts; they become words.

Watch your words; they become actions.

Watch your actions; they become habit.

Watch your habits; they become character.

Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. - Lao Tzu

People aren't offended at the words. Every word you say is a representation of your character. People hear you say those words, and are offended by *you*.


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

[User] [Star Trek] What kind of hours do you work on a Federation starship? I know there are three eight-hour shifts, but do you have a standard 40-hour work week? More/less?

[Assistant]
Some ships run 4 shifts, especially when training or maintaining a high state of readiness. Deep Space Nine also switched to four shifts.

Most crew would work six or seven days per week, and anywhere from 12 to 24 hours per day.

Most people would also have some other job that they do around their station watches. Like Troi sees patients when she's not on the bridge, Crusher is an administrator (and occasional bridge officer) as well as a physician, Wesley was in school, and so on.

A lot of "free time" is going to be spent on training and testing, and a lot of "recreation time" is going to be spent on exercising and bodily maintenance.

Researchers may keep bankers' hours, but most of them are usually eager to do more work too. It's a luxury just to be on a starship.

Instead of time off, what most crew really look to achieve is a relatively stable schedule that lets them develop a routine. Of course, if they come upon a planet or starbase then they can usually find time to take some leave.


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

[User] [Half-Life] Can Head Crabs successfully control other species? Is their ability to control hosts an evolved ability or something tailored specifically for humans?

[Assistant]
Yes.

It's an evolved ability (or rather, a bioengineered one- remember the Gonarch?) but not one necessarily unique to humans.

As to the inevitable follow-up question: Some creatures do not have the proper anatomy, and others have abilities that make control unlikely at best (such as the ability to generate massive energy surges around one's body).


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

[User] ELI5: Why does cheese make you constipated?

[Assistant]
So at least one study actually suggests that it doesnt.

Mykkanen et al in The Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology (1993) found that  the results of the present study do not support the practice that cheese should be avoided as a means of preventing constipation.

Go figure.


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

[User] [ELI5] Why have some languages like Spanish kept the pronunciation of the written language so that it can still be read phonetically, while spoken English deviated so much from the original spelling?

[Assistant] English did not originally have fixed spelling.  People would spell words however they thought it sounded.  This means that spelling varied from person to person and region to region.  Also, due to being made of bits of several languages all smushed together often retaining parts of the original language's rules, there's no consistency as to how words are pronounced or where you even get the spelling from.  A man named Samuel Johnson  eventually wrote a dictionary in which he spelled the words however he wanted to and because of how popular it became, that became the fixed spelling. Johson liked stuffy fancy spellings rather than simple phonetic ones and he set the idea of telling people the "correct" way to write instead of telling them how words were normally used. Webster eventually did something similar for American English, although he preferred simplified spellings, hence some of the differences between American and British spelling.


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

[User] What happens at molecular level when water douses fire?

[Assistant]
Fire requires three things to continue.

1. Access to Oxygen
2. Temperatures above the combustion temperature of the fuel
3. Fuel

Water can remove two of these, but when it is generally used it just lowers temperature.

Water has an incredible thermal capacity, and a huge energy is required to evaporate it.  So when water is added the temperature of everything in contact with liquid water drops to ~100C until all the water has boiled.  This is below the combustion temperature, and the fire stops.

At a molecular level the air molecules are hitting the liquid water and transferring kinetic energy to it.  This Kenetic energy is consumed in breaking apart the van der wall force binding the H20 into liquid water.  Fast Gas comes in->Heats the water-> Gas leaves at much lower speed.


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

[User] We all know that if a massive asteroid struck earth it would be catastrophic for the species, but what if one hit the moon, or Mars? Could an impact there be so large that it would make earth less inhabitable?

[Assistant]
If something was large enough to shift the moon out of its orbit or break it up, that could have consequences for all sorts of life on earth that rely on the moon for both tidal patterns and light etc.

Unless the thing that hits mats is the size of a planet and manages to yeet it out of the solar system, or into earths orbit, theres basically no chance of it affecting earth.


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

[User]
Coolest dressed, or oddest dressed, Philosophers.

I'm starting University in a week. Curious on what you guys would advice to dress up as for the 'philosophy' dress up. What would stand out? I imagine most people will dress up in the Toga/Beard. I want to stand out!

[Assistant] Do one of those half-man, half-woman costumes of Beauvoir and Sartre. Or maybe Nietzsche in a superman costume or make a bed sheet toga and grab a lantern and a rubber chicken and go as Diogenes of Sinope. Or dress like a Hobbit, put a swastika on your arm and go as Heidegger.


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

[User]
[MCU] So what exactly is this "power of Thor"?

Mjolnir is a powerful artifact, and it lets Thor fly and control the weather and bash through pretty much anything. Right. Gotcha. Odin also did *something* so that "whosoever holds this hammer, if they be worthy..."

But ... when Thor was stripped of his powers by Odin, he seemed physically equivalent to a human. Azgardians seem to be innately much stronger and tougher than humans, even without wielding magical hammers.

And in *Age of Ultron*, Thor is covered in lightning while seeing visions in the Well of Sight. Is that the magic water, Mjolnir (which I don't think he was *holding*), or some kind of innate ability he has? [This is further complicated by the fact that this scene wasn't shown in some countries, IIRC. Is it still canon, then?]

And *then*, again in *Age of Ultron*, the Vision is successfully judged Worthy and wields the hammer. Does he get Azgardian superstrength and toughness? Can he control lightning now?

What is the Hammer *doing* once it judges you "worthy"?

[Assistant]
Asgardians are much stronger and have different biology compared to humans.

Part of what Odin did in sending Thor to earth was make him mortal- to give him the body of someone from Midgard.

Why?  To break him from the cycle of Ragnorok.  The cycle of death and rebirth of Asgard from those who stand above.

In a way, Odin made Thor into Neo.  He wanted Thor to escape Asgard's fate.  How did Odin do this?  He traded his eye for infinite wisdom.  Odin doesn't make mistakes, he's been planning for Ragnorok, the last battle, this whole time.

Thor without his mljonjioirjir powers but as a normal asgardian sometimes goes by Odinson.  He could take a normal human in a fight easily, but a mutant, inhuman, super soldier or highly trained shield agent could still take him in the right circumstance.

Anyway, the fit is about to hit the shan in Asgard.  Even the celestials and those who stand above are gods compared to anything on Yggdrasil.  Ragnorok is both prophecy and history.


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

[User] [Halo 2] During the changing of the guard why do the Brutes have caches of human shotguns?

[Assistant] The Brutes appreciated the simple effectiveness of the shotgun, and it reminded them of the Maulers.  Though Tartarus was a fanatic and inspired many other fanatics, the Brutes were also not as honorbound as the Elites, and so they weren't above using human weapons in a pinch.  They still didn't like them as much but hey, gotta do what you gotta do.


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

[User]
Writing to a community college to say thanks

Hi Ask Academia,

I recently was admitted to and am now attending a pretty great graduate program and I have been feeling really thankful for everything community college did for me. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to send an email to the department head (I went there a while ago so all of the professors I had no longer work there) and  let them know what a big impact it made and provide a short alumni update. What do you all think?  Is this reasonable/normal or a little weird?

[Assistant]
This makes people's day. Send them a note!

If there is a professor that was particularly influential, use theose sharpened research skills, and without genuinely stalking them,  find them on google (address? email? new job?) and send them a note too!


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

[User]
If a drunk guy and a drunk girl have sex, the girl is not inherently getting raped CMV

Basically I'm picturing your standard scenario where a guy and a girl have both been drinking, they end up doing stuff, and later is determined that the girl couldn't have consented due to inebriation.  I don't think she was necessarily being raped, if the guy was also drinking.

I would divide rape into two types:

Type A) Consent may be given, but we do not consider the consenter capable of actually consenting.  Minors, people with impaired judgement, etc.

Type B) No type of consent is given, one party forces the other through physical force, blackmail, etc.

Now, I'm talking specifically about Type A.  If two people are both past the point where we would consider them capable of consenting, I don't think it can be rape based on the "incapable of informed consent" thought process.  Either no one was raped or they raped each other.

So, say a girl drinks a lot or does something else that impairs her judgement, has sex with a guy with similarly impaired judgement, wakes up and realizes she couldn't have possibly consented to it and feels violated and so forth.  If she wants to believe she was raped she must also consider herself a rapist.  That or accept that neither party was raped, because there was no one in a superior position taking advantage of the other.

[Assistant]
Why do some people on this site continue to insist on arguing about this when it isn't even an issue? The ONLY time being inebriated is a factor in a rape case is when someone deliberately gets another person inebriated for the purposes of taking advantage of them, whether that inebriation results from alcohol or drugs...or when a sober person takes advantage of an obviously inebriated person for the same purposes, whether or not they gave them the substance that brought them to their inebriated state, as long as there would be a *reasonable expectation* that they would recognize that person is, in fact, inebriated. Two drunk people fucking is not something that ends up in court being prosecuted as a rape...so WHY continue to dilute a very serious issue with unnecessary arguments?

Take 5 minutes to actually read the statutes pertaining to this. They state, pretty explicitly, that the offending party has to not only be less or not impaired, but also, be reasonably expected to KNOW the other person is impaired beyond their ability to give consent (in other words, essentially black out drunk). If you're sober and having sex with someone who isn't, then you're fucked up. If you need to drug someone or get them drunk to get them to have sex with you, you're fucked up. It's a pretty simple concept really: HAVE SEX ONLY WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU. How hard is that, really?


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

[User]
[40K] What exactly is a genestealer cult?

I have heard this phrase used, but what exactly is a genestealer cult?

Are there people who somehow worship or serve genestealers?  If there is a genestealer cult in my community, what does that mean for me?  What roles do genestealer cults play in the greater scope of a Tyranid hive fleet invasion?

[Assistant]
A tyranid hive fleet survives by feeding on worlds rich in biomass. Basically worlds like earth with lots of life and other valuable elements. Since most of the worlds in the universe are barren rocks, a hive fleet could wander until it starves if it just forages randomly.

This is where genestealers come in. Pure bred genestealers are left behind in ship wrecks, space hulks, on wandering comets, abandoned space stations. Anywhere where they might be found. The genestealers just hide in these places in a dormant state. Sometimes for decades or even longer.

When these places come into contact with other life. For instance because the comet crashed or a salvage crew finds the shipwreck, the genestealers awaken. They don't go on a killing spree, instead they hide. They want to hitch a ride to major population centres like inhabited planets.

Once there the genestealers hide. Abandoned buildings, sewers it doesn't matter. They need a save place to nest. And that's when the abductions start. Nothing high profile or obvious, they simple take local sentients and infect them. Initially the results are monstrous hybrids of pure bred genestealer and whatever the local species is. Some victims are infected but never affected, released back into the population.

The later generations start to look like passable copies of the locals though, albeit slightly disturbing ones in an undefinable way. This corrupted family of successive generations of genestealer hybrids is called a cult. It's purpose is two fold.

Firstly, all genestealers have a psychic signature to some degree. The cult patriarch has an extremely strong one. This means that on a barren planet or tiny colony, the cult will never grow large and it's psychic signature will remain weak. But on a large planet, rich in life, the cult will grow big and so will it's psychic signature. Acting as a beacon to the hive fleet, letting it know that a planet worth consuming has been found.

The second purpose of the genestealer cult is more insidious. The late generation hybrids attempt to integrate into society. Preferably infiltrating positions of power. Political, military, law enforcement, emergency services.

When the hive fleet arrives to assault the planet, the genestealer cult and it's embedded infiltrators will do whatever they can to cause chaos and anarchy. Weakening the planet's defences against the invading hive fleet. Sometimes a cleverly placed hybrid can subvert entire regiments of planetary defence forces. Making them think they're fighting the cult while really they've just been duped in turning on their own people during their hour of need.


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

[User]
[Star Wars EU] How would the Yuuzhan Vong war have gone had Palpatine still had power?

Basically if the Vong had arrived when Palpatine was at the peak of his political power and hold over the galaxy's resources how differently would the conflict have gone?

Secondary qquestion - Would his have affected the Galacctic Civil War in any way?

[Assistant]
The Vong wouldn't of made it very far. Palpatine had a shit load of super weapons and by the time the Vong showed up he would have had even more. Two or more death stars combined with the rest of the imperial fleet would have wiped out the whole threat.

Now Palpatine would want to show how powerful his military was, but at the same time if he killed the threat too quickly no one would have thought they were that tough. He would have likely let quite a few outer rim systems fall to show they were a threat and then as they came closer he would have used a huge propaganda campaign and then crushed them making him look like the savior of the empire.


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

[User] [X-Men] How does Wolverine breath properly with a ribcage made of adamantium?

[Assistant]
I assume that the adamantium injection process affected only bone tissue, so the cartilaginous tissue of the rib cage would remain unaffected and it would preserve its mobility.

Of course, adamantium is said to be heavier than bone tissue, so probably at first it was very difficult for Wolverine to breath. Probably over time his thoracic musculature grew in response to that extra effort, following what happened to the rest of the body.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why does orange juice from Tropicana taste different from Simply Orange if they're both 100% Orange Juice?

I've taste tested both of these. They taste different, despite both saying 100% Orange Juice with no preservatives or additives.

Neither has pulp, and both bottles were bought on the same day.

[Assistant] Back in the day--maybe pre-1990s?--year-round fresh (not frozen, not concentrate) OJ was not as common and was more expensive. Then, some great new process was devised and it became more common and cheaper. With the new process, it's squeezed, then stored in vats for months at a time. This process caused it to lose flavor. So flavor is added before it is sold. Different brands have slightly different flavor processes so taste different. And these have a different flavor and consistency than genuine fresh-squeezed OJ. Go get some genuine fresh squeezed from Whole Foods or similar and you'll taste the difference.


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

[User] Eli5: Why is light both particle/wave? Could we be getting wrong results due to the method of measurement?

[Assistant]
Light is a particle because it appears to be a discrete, countable thing with a certain amount of energy. We've measured with with the photoelectric effect (Einstein won a Nobel prize for this) where a photon hits an electron, giving it a jolt of energy and we can use this to produce electricity. Measurements and more tests suggest that light is a whole bunch of discrete things.

But they are also waves. They have a frequency and can interact with each other in ways that cancel each other out, like how sound cancelling headphones use frequency shenanigans to block sound. You know how an oil slick on the ground has a rainbow effect? That's wave interference in the light. You can also do it at larger scales with lasers.

The effects gets even weirder with electrons, which are easier to measure, and where you can generate a different interference pattern (wave style, or particle style) on demand with relatively minor changes to your test setup.


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

[User]
What is the big light at the center of galaxies such as the Milky Way or Andromeda?

Is it one huge star? A huge amount of stars all close together? Something completely different?

**edit: It says there are 4 comments in this post so far, yet I can only see one. Is something wrong with my post or are those invisible comments posted by shadowbanned people?**

[Assistant] The density of starts increases near the center of these galaxies. So its a huge number of starts that are close together. At the very center of galaxies are supermassive black holes, which don't themselves emit light.


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

[User] [Star Wars] What would've happened to any surviving Death Troopers after the destruction of the Empire?

[Assistant] They might have gone into hiding either by themselves or, depending on their loyalties, with the Imperial holdouts that may or may not later become the First Order. Some might have gone into the private sector as security guards, mercs, bounty hunters, etc.  Some might even have been folded into the New Republic's military. Some might have retired and settled down on a nice little moon somewhere.


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

[User]
Most people don't think the economy is getting better. Are they misinformed, or do they have a different idea of good, or what?

"Thirty-two percent (32%) of American adults believe the U.S. economy is getting better while 26% say it is getting worse. The rest arent seeing much change in either direction."

Most people don't think the economy is getting better.

Are they misinformed, or do they have a different idea of good, or what?

Is the economy really getting better?

What different ways are there of evaluating it?

[Assistant]
It all boils down to the fact that different people have different meaning for good. For some, it means that they net worth increased (maybe because the house they own is worth more now than it was when they bought it), other people measure the economy by their wage and bonuses, other people measure the economy by how many clients their business get, other people measure the economy by tracking the stock market, other people measure the economy by numbers published by central bank and/or the government.

As you see, it all depends on who you ask. There is no absolute answer to "is the economy getting better" because the  terms "better" and "worse" are very subjective.


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

[User]
[Star Wars: The Clone Wars] Why is Count Dooku so evil?

In Attack of the Clones he explains his reasoning for becoming a Separatist. And while he's morally questionable, his actions are understandable.

But by the time of Clone Wars he's a loathsome, despicable human being that's irredeemable.

Why the sudden contrast?

[Assistant]
A brilliant debater who can give you a hundred convincing reasons why it's OK to smoke crack is still going to get addicted if he actually does it.

You could have let the dark side get inside you for the best reasons in the galaxy, but then it sets up shop in your heart and soul and remodels them to suit itself. Once Dooku went beyond political idealism to actually choosing the quick and easy path... having convincing arguments at his command just made him the most persuasive junkie in the crack house.

Just say no to the dark side of the Force.


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

[User]
Does dx "really mean" something in formal mathematics? or is it just a form of heurism for "rapid integration".

The book I am currently studying says that dx=dy for example is meaningless, but we still do it for fast calculation and for the sake of programming, but at the end of the day, it's still the same as doing the rigorous way, for example, manipulating so that you can apply quotient rule. The prior is way taxing however. Am I understanding it correctly? Also, I want to know your opinion on this kind of pedagogy; Is it harmful, all this "simple tricks"?

[Assistant]
Yes. No. Maybe.

Yes: when Liebniz invented the notation, they represented infinitesimals.

No: when others like Cauchy developed real analysis without the need for infinitesimals, the dx was no longer meaningful as in Liebniz's notation, but the notation is still used for historical reasons. And as we know it's okay to manipulate in this way.

Maybe: more recently, dx makes a comeback as a "differential form" (a 1-form, in fact). But this is more advanced that the average calculus user needs to know.


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

[User]
What, if anything, could replace binary based computing?

Additionally, are there any signs that it does need to be eventually replaced?

[Assistant]
Binary is used for many good reasons.

One is it's very easy to represent two values with two voltage levels, and the more values you want to represent, the more difficult it is to keep "noise" from making them look like each other.

Another is that even if you built a ternary computer (and they have existed) you're not really gaining expressivity. We can build programs for binary computers that do the same things that you could do in another numeric base. We already do.

Finally, newer computing paradigms - quantum computing, for example - are also easier to represent if they're treated as extensions of binary. Quantum computing represents computing as sets of states that can be "superimposed" - multiple states simultaneously. This uses a model of computing where the "quantum bit," or "qubit" is the analog component that corresponds to the bit in digital, traditional computing.

Numerically, though, this is not the same as choosing a different base to work in (like substituting three-state computing or base-10 for binary) - it's actually modelling computing in terms of probabilities and all the other strange behaviors quantum mechanics give rise to. *Importantly, a binary, traditional computer can do everything a quantum computer can,* just not necessarily as efficiently.


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

[User]
I think Republicans' focus on the Benghazi attack is nothing more than a two-fer attempt to tar Obama and Hillary Clinton with a "scandal." CMV

I'm a pretty "high-information" voter and, though I lean left, I'm no Obama shill, and not a Hillary fan at all. Yet I've been reading about Benghazi for more than a year now, and I still don't even understand what it is that conservatives are alleging.

I've read a few variations of the following:

a) **Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack/blamed it on a video when he knew it was an al-Qaida plot all along.** Because...why? Admitting terrorists were behind it (as opposed to random assholes) would hurt his re-election chances? This isn't a plausible motive to me. How many people would've really changed their votes over something that happened in Libya? In an election that was all about the economy? And considering that Obama/Hillary helped topple Gadaffi and liberate Libya six months earlier without a single American dying? What's the point of lying and obfuscating about it? Isn't it more likely they were simply reacting to bad information in real time?

b) **Obama and Hillary are hiding the facts about their prior knowledge/incompetent response that resulted in unnecessary and preventable deaths.** I would agree that this would be a scandal if proven, but many inquiries have been conducted by Congress, the media and the State Dept., and none have found any evidence that this is true. In fact, "60 Minutes" had to take the highly unusual and embarrassing step of retracting a story that alleged this. Yet conservatives remain *absolutely convinced* that there's something being hidden from the public. What is being hidden, and why? I'd really like to know what the point of this so-called conspiracy is.

c) **Obama wanted Americans to die because he's a secret Muslim and al-Qaida supporter.** This is what I think about 33% of Benghazi obsessives actually believe, and this is what scummy right-wing pundits and politicians are darkly hinting at on talk radio and beyond. (You honestly can't CMV on this one)

I think Benghazi was a tragic fuck-up and I'm glad people got fired and publicly shamed for it. However, it's not a scandal, and conservatives need to move on. CMV.

[Assistant]
C is absolutely ridiculous and no conservative actually argues that.

Going on the rest, though, it is fair to argue that Obama's administration did know about the incident before it happened. There was unrest going on at the time and the ambassadors had asked for help. Hillary gave none and that caused the needless deaths that happened.

Since Obama was so close to the election and his strongest asset was his foreign policy, he had to do everything to protect that image. If people know what had really happened, that is to say that the Obama administration had spread the military too thin and was unable to give the help to the ambassadors that they had specifically requested for, then he would pretty much have very little to show for his first term.

He had to be that guy that fought a successful war in Libya, killed Bin Laden, and pulled us out of Iraq. The scandal in Benghazi would have destroyed that image completely and he would have likely lost the election if he could not minimize the damage and cover it up in time, so that is what he did and there is plenty of evidence to suggest so, particularly in the emails that were sent to Obama asking for help that he did get, but ignored for whatever reason.

The problem is that you are looking towards the government to exonerate itself from its own wrong doing. The government has never once taken accountability when they have been caught doing something wrong. Not during NSA, Watergate, and definitely not during Benghazi. They have always masked the facts and even made up fake reports to justify themselves, so looking to the government investigating itself as "evidence" that the Obama administration did nothing wrong doesn't hold up.


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

[User]
Why do some countries become more secular while other countries become more religious in the same period?

For example, Iran is becoming more secular, as exemplified by its headscarf protests, while Indonesia is becoming more religious, as shown by its recently passed law against extramarital sex. This is interesting since both are occurring simultaneously - factors that might be attributed to one (e.g., influence of Western social media in Iran, religious indoctrination among youths in Indonesia) cannot be attributed to the other (i.e., it does not seem to be working that way in Indonesia / Iran).

[Assistant]
Follow up questions:

1) Why do you think the level of religiosity in Iran and Indonesia would move in the same way?
2) Do you think the examples you listed are a reflection of the general religiosity of the countries in question, or are they maybe tied to other factors?


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

[User]
[Seinfeld] How does Kramer have so much influence over people?

Kramer is commonly accepted as a mentally unstable guy with a rather eccentric lifestyle. While himself not a terrible person with his own traumas, there are many episodes where he acts as the devil on the other characters shoulders, either causing a problem for the main crew, or escalating problems past their initial point. To such an extent that's a miracle anyone listens to him...and yet they do. In fact, he seems to be able to enthrall most people under his spell. Is it pure charisma? Is he a supernaturally inclined? How does he do it?

[Assistant]
Kramer put the bulk of his points into charisma and none into wisdom.  To follow his advice is to tag along on the path to self destruction.  Unfortunately the path to self destruction is the fun path.  Taking Kramers advice will keep the dopamine percolating in peoples thoughtmeats throughout the entire catastrophe.  Afterwards, after everything has collapsed, people go back to Kramer because they want another hit of hipster doofus mojo.

Kramer isnt just charismatic, hes highly addictive.


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

[User]
[MCU] How was HYDRA's plan going to work in winter soldier?

When hydra planned to kill millions of people with the three helicarriers how would that work. I ask because when they shot themselves down they all fired with huge missiles and other not so accurate weapons like just a bullet, so would they have blown up building just to kill a dozen or so people.

[Assistant]
If you shoot people with missiles, they die

To elaborate, HYDRA are dicks and don't really care about collateral damage. If anything as a blatant show of force (there's no real way they could pass themselves off as the Good Guys after this), massive damage helps cow the survivors and delay the organisation of a resistance.

So yeah. Bomb the shit out of people who were a threat to HYDRA, and then bomb the shit out of anyone nearby just to get the point across. We're a nazi cult who worship an undead space-demon. Hail Hydra!


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

[User] [Hydra/Cerberus/Orthros/etc.] In cases of beadts with multiple heads, does each head control the body or is there an "alpha" head that controls most or all of the body?

[Assistant]
We actually have a very good real life example to compare this to! Octopodes (love that word) have a brain plus neural synapses that act as mini brains in each of their tentacles. All the arms together produce about 2/3rds of all brain activity; each arm can be lost and regenerated, as there's still a lot of backup brainpower left.

Those aren't *heads*, they're toothy tentacles belonging to a single creature!


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

[User] ELI5: Why do people say that the "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the US constitution?

[Assistant]
In part because that text "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution.

The reason it's a discussion at all is because some people say the phrase (in the 1st amendment) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" implies the government cannot interact with religion.  Others interpret that to mean the government can interact with religion as long as it doesn't "establish" one, like how how england established the church of england.

You can interpret supreme court decisions to vary on exactly where the line of "establishment" goes.  They have ruled that schools cannot require students participate in prayer, but normally when free speech (the other major part of the first amendment) might be violated, they have allowed government and religion to interact.  They also do not require religious institutions to pay taxes (as they are legally non-profit charitable organizations).

Tried to do that without any bias, let me know if you have any other questions.


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

[User]
Would a female with a healing factor be forever a virgin?

If a female got a healing factor with her hymen intact would it heal after intercourse? I was thinking along the lines of wolverines healing factor but I didn't want to mark it as X-Men because I am interested in how it would work with healing powers from other shows, comics, etc.

[Assistant] "Virginity" is more of a social construct than an actual physical thing. Hymens more often break before a girl ever has sex, especially if she's physically active.  Even then Hymens will often stay intact after sex.  They are very flexible, so they'll usually just stretch around the penis.  So there's your answer.


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

[User]
ELI5 why do we build rectangular houses and not round houses?

I mean houses in Europe and America have 4 corners (or more) whereas in Africa Natives build round houses (also in Asia afaik).
Do they have any advantages or disadvantages? Or is one solution cheaper, ...?

[Assistant] They fit together more efficiently. Humans switched from round houses to rectangular ones around about the time the first cities started forming. It was purely for efficiency but it caught on over millennia.


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

[User]
How to get better at thinking for myself?

I still have a year left of my undergrad before I go on to honours and PhD, but I feel like I don't have the creativity and initiative necessary to come up with my own projects and be self-guided in any future research. As far as I'm aware this isn't a taught skill, and I'm worried that I could complete all of my graduate studies and then fail miserably at being an actual researcher.

Is this something that's taught in postgrad work?
Is there anything I can do now to improve my skill in this area?
Is it a serious problem a lot of people face?

[Assistant]
It's a learned skill. Working under relatively close direction by a advisor at first, and then becoming more independent over time, is a pretty normal progression. You can always see a big difference between new grad students and veteran grad students this way.

You're fine.


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

[User]
ELI5: On what do our eyes focus in pitch dark?

Like if it is pitch dark, do the eyes focus on the dark "wall" directly in front of them? Or are they just indefinitely trying to focus on something? Or are they idling because it is dark? :) Thanks!

[Assistant]
Optometry student here. Your eyes have several stages of accommodation including tonic and proximal accommodation.

When your eyes have nothing to focus on they will relax to tonic accommodation which is the point where muscles rest with minimal nervous innervation.

If you suddenly hit a wall, your eyes will accommodate to the proximal distance of that wall based on previous life experience.

Edit: Accommodation is where the lens in your eye (imagine a magnifying glass) changes power to help bring a near image into focus.

Edit2: A few of you are curious about relaxing your eyes and accommodation to relieve eye strain. You can use the 20/20/20 rule: every 20 minutes stare at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds.

Edit3: Accommodation is fully relaxed at 20 feet (6 meters) which is why you're tested at this distance when at the optometrist's office.


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

[User]
Could you trap light inside a spherical, perfectly mirrored ball of sorts?

Imagine you have a perfectly spherical hollow ball, the inside of which is a perfect mirror. If one was somehow able to get light inside, would it decay, or just travel inside the mirrored ball forever and ever?

Note: there is no practical application to this question (that I'm aware of), I've just been curious about it for a bit and just found this subreddit.

[Assistant] No, because there's no such thing as either a perfect sphere or a perfect mirror. The intensity of reflected light is always less than the intensity of incident light, and the difference is made up by the fact that the mirror grows slightly warmer from the interaction.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is it that when someone suffers from amnesia, they forget specific things or completely who they are but not how to act as a human and complete basic tasks like eating and talking?

[Assistant]
Different memories are stored in differing parts of the brain, with differing degrees of permanence.

If the amnesia affects only one part of the brain, then memories stored elsewhere are unaffected. In fact, when trauma happens to the language centers of the brain, a person can "forget" how to speak and understand speech properly, yet be fully cognizant of how to cook meals or what house they live in.

For obvious reasons, the brain stores its most essential memories - like how to eat, what is edible, what causes pain - in the most protected sections of the brain. Both short-term memory (what card did you just pick?) and medium-term memory (What year is it?) are more volatile.


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

[User]
CMV: Spider-Man No Way Home, though fun to watch, is a bad film with weak plot points and is a money-grab capitalizing on nostalgia.

SPOILERS

>!Will preface this by saying yes I had fun watching it and seeing all the past heroes and villains I grew up watching over the years made me jump in joy as I watched the film - not to mention the terrific acting on Willem Dafoes part. But I cant help but feel like they try to cover up poor writing and weak plot points by slapping us with good old nostalgia. I had fun but I do not think it was necessarily the good movie the reviews make it seem to be. What am I missing? Am I right or am I just knit picking here!<

1. >!For one, the ENTIRE conflict hinged on the idea that two heroes, who can and have LITERALLY saved the world from countless threats even going so far as reviving half the universe, couldnt find it in them to communicate and discuss implications of casting a spell BEFORE starting it. Thats it. So much drama, all cos Peter didnt think of making it clear whom he wanted to forget he was Spider-Man, and Dr strange didnt think of clarifying before actually beginning.!<
2. >!Two, tobey getting stabbed - what was the point of that? It had no bearing on the story as a whole other than to get you to think he was gonna die, kind of like a cheap jump scare. (Was this is call back that I missed? Perhaps Goblin getting his revenge?)!<
3. >!Three, the recycled footage of Lizard and sandman - just think about it, something the scale of Spider-Man or Disney studios and they still had to recycle footage? all the budget in the world and they couldnt fly out/convince to fly out Rhys Ifans and Thomas Church to shoot actual scenes.!<
4. >!Four, the Filipino-baiting was cheap too. Im Filipino so I know of the phenomenon that Filipinos seek global validation as a result of hundreds of years of colonialism. The extended scenes of Neds grandma speaking Filipino was nothing more to get Pinoys riled up and share with their friends that theres a scene, so they all end up watching it later. Western Shows and YouTubers do this a lot where they focus on some aspect Of filipino culture Cos they know that we get a kick out of it. Compare how much more time Neds grandma speaks tagalog than Katys grandma speaks Chinese in Shang chi.!<
5. >!Five, Tom alone as Spider-Man is already loved. I feel like then injecting dr strange and all the other villains is just too much of the whole crossover idea. The past Marvel films recently have all been about crossovers that make me feel like were eventually gonna get sick of it at some point. Why cant we focus on 1 hero at a time anymore?!<

>!I may just be knit picking on points 2-5 but you cant deny that point 1 is a valid argument to why i think this film is bad if you can look past Fanboying over seeing your old Heroes and villains come back to the big screen. So please CMV!<

[Assistant]
1 - Peter is young and immature, he didnt even think about calling mit. Doctor strange thought Peter had already thought it through, which he hadnt

2 - it was to drive home the idea that tom holland was being reckless, and it scares the audience

3 - they had scheduling issues so they couldnt reshoot anything, but they did do the voices.

4 - they certainly werent thinking Hey if Neds grandma is Filipino more people will watch the movie

5 - the 3 marvel movies before this were all about singular characters or groups, almost fully seperate from the already built up cast.


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

[User] As we age, do our organs lose transplant value? If they do, are there any with more longevity? Like, a 70 year old heart might not be desirable, but maybe kidneys or something else retain some value despite age?

[Assistant]
Short answer yes, they basically retain their age.

That is why there is a large shortage of donated organs even though old people die all the time. You can not transplant a 80 year old kidney in a 20 year old. If we could do that, organs would be a dime a dozen.

You can of course transplant a young organ in an old body, but that would be a waste of usable life span for the organ. So organ donation list systems matches people both on age as well as compatability and need.

As a result, if you go to the transplant ward anywhere you will see older people getting transplanted rather quickly. While younger patients has to wait longer.

In general, both organ and recipient should be within 10 years of each other.

On the other hand, tissues for transplant are not as restricted as organs. So it wouldnt matter if you get old skin (which will be processed to become acellular dermal matrix) or an older cornea.