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

[User]
Was Aristotle an advocate for the welfare state?

I heard this claim from Chomsky.
He writes: "Aristotle also made the point that if you have, in a perfect democracy, a small number of very rich people and a large number of very poor people, the poor will use their democratic rights to take property away from the rich. Aristotle regarded that as unjust, and proposed two possible solutions: reducing poverty (which is what he recommended) or reducing democracy."

However, I have recently read Aristoteles Politics. While it seems to me that he does advocate for a  similar thing or rather hints at it, with his mixture of oligarchy and democracy, whoever, I seemed to have missed him advocating for wealth redistribution.

Maybe I was just inattentive, because I found the text somewhat less interesting than Plato.

Can someone help me out with a quote maybe?

Thanks.

[Assistant]
Take a look at Aristotle's comments in Book VII when he discusses ways of minimizing crime within the state as well as wars with neighbors.  This book begins with a question about the equalization of property and the positions of Phaleas and Plato.  What Aristotle is doing in this passage is both affirming Phaleas' general worry and then critiquing Phaeleas' application.  He goes on to worry that Phaleas' process works best on small cities, but will create problems with larger ones.

This is not the whole bit, but a part which goes directly to the point:

> **There are crimes of which the motive is want; and for these Phaleas
expects to find a cure in the equalization of property, which will
take away from a man the temptation to be a highwayman, because he
is hungry or cold.** But want is not the sole incentive to crime; men
also wish to enjoy themselves and not to be in a state of desire-
they wish to cure some desire, going beyond the necessities of life,
which preys upon them; nay, this is not the only reason- they may
desire superfluities in order to enjoy pleasures unaccompanied with
pain, and therefore they commit crimes.

> **Now what is the cure of these three disorders? Of the first, moderate
possessions and occupation**; of the second, habits of temperance; as
to the third, if any desire pleasures which depend on themselves,
they will find the satisfaction of their desires nowhere but in philosophy;
for all other pleasures we are dependent on others. The fact is that
the greatest crimes are caused by excess and not by necessity. Men
do not become tyrants in order that they may not suffer cold; and
hence great is the honor bestowed, not on him who kills a thief, but
on him who kills a tyrant. Thus we see that the institutions of Phaleas
avail only against petty crimes.

> **The equalization of property is one of the things that tend to prevent
the citizens from quarrelling.** Not that the gain in this direction
is very great. For the nobles will be dissatisfied because they think
themselves worthy of more than an equal share of honors; and this
is often found to be a cause of sedition and revolution. And the avarice
of mankind is insatiable; at one time two obols was pay enough; but
now, when this sum has become customary, men always want more and
more without end; for it is of the nature of desire not to be satisfied,
and most men live only for the gratification of it. The beginning
of reform is not so much to equalize property as to train the nobler
sort of natures not to desire more, and to prevent the lower from
getting more; that is to say, they must be kept down, but not ill-treated.
**Besides, the equalization proposed by Phaleas is imperfect; for he
only equalizes land, whereas a man may be rich also in slaves, and
cattle, and money, and in the abundance of what are called his movables.
Now either all these things must be equalized, or some limit must
be imposed on them, or they must an be let alone.** It would appear
that Phaleas is legislating for a small city only, if, as he supposes,
all the artisans are to be public slaves and not to form a supplementary
part of the body of citizens. But if there is a law that artisans
are to be public slaves, it should only apply to those engaged on
public works, as at Epidamnus, or at Athens on the plan which Diophantus
once introduced.


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

[User]
[Borderlands series] is the borderlands universe cursed?

When i say cursed i dont necessarily mean paranornal cursed. I mostly mean every person and character is going to suffer until their death and perhaps beyond. People come to pandora for good things and stay as monsters and worse. People work me for the coperations and end up becoming monsters. No one seems to be good in this universe. Everyone is mostlt in the chaotic section.

[Assistant]
It's momentum. At some point in the past, something broke. Capitalism became the number one imperative. Corporations became governments, and the only rule that mattered was the bottom line. Moral obligations went out the window. The people who got ahead the fastest were those who were willing to chew up anyone who got in their way. After several generations, this becomes the new normal. The Bandits of Pandora (and throughout the universe) were abused, broken, and abandoned. So you have three choices. Fit in to the corporate world of backstabbing and power struggles. Become a bandit, embrace the chaos and do whatever it takes to survive. Most people are neither of those; They're just trying to survive in an insane universe. But eventually, those people meet someone from one of the first two groups.

TL:DR; You don't survive in this universe if you're a good person.


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

[User]
If the sun converts hydrogen to helium where does it get the neutrons to do so?

I'm a pretty sciency guy but my 12 year old daughter has stumped me with a few question.

If the sun starts out as a dense ball of hydrogen (one proton and one electron) and uses nuclear fusion to convert it into helium (2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons), where does it get the neutrons?

Also if the atoms in the sun are a plasma (stripped of their electrons) where do the electrons go? Does that mean the sun is a giant positively charged object if it has no electrons?

Daddy doesn't know everything.

[Assistant]
Two atoms of hydrogen are combined to create helium-4 and energy in several steps:

1.    Two protons combine to form a deuterium atom (hydrogen atom with one neutron and one proton), a positron (similar to electron, but with a positive charge) and a neutrino.
2.    A proton and a deuterium atom combine to form a helium-3 atom (two protons with one neutron) and a gamma ray.
3.    Two helium-3 atoms combine to form a helium-4 atom (two protons and two neutrons) and two protons.

These reactions account for 85 percent of the sun's energy. The remaining 15 percent comes from the following reactions:

1.    A helium-3 atom and a helium-4 atom combine to form a beryllium-7 (four protons and three neutrons) and a gamma ray.
2.    A beryllium-7 atom captures an electron to become lithium-7 atom (three protons and four neutrons) and a neutrino.
3.    The lithium-7 combines with a proton to form two helium-4 atoms.


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

[User]
[SCP] Where did SCP-682 come from?

I've been reading the files on SCP-682, and I have yet to see an explanation of where he comes from.  Does anyone know his origin?

SCP-343, an SCP who claims to be God, says that 682 is not one of his creations.  What does this mean?  How can there be a creature who was not made by the creator of everything?

[Assistant] It is *very* heavily implied that 682 is at least partially extradimensional, and that the reason it is impossible to kill is that some portion of it still resides in another dimension which we cannot damage.


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

[User]
Why do dogs and cats with socks on walk so stupidly?

I'm sure the answer is obvious but I find it weird how all of them walk the exact same way with socks or shoes on.

[Assistant] They are used to walk bare paws, and they can feel the ground that way.  When they have socks or shoes on, they are feeling that instead of the ground.  And unlike with the ground, the feeling doesn't stop when they lift their paws.  So they keep lifting, in an attempt to get away from the thing that they can feel.  This is why they have a funny walk where they lift their paws very high.


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

[User]
ELI5: What is the real world significance/ benefit of calculus?

 I stink at math and would like to understand!

[Assistant]
The most unhelpful, but most true answer: Basically everything.

Almost everything runs on, is modeled by, understood using calculus to some extent. Newton's second law, which is the basis of any kind of physical motion, and so used in all forms of engineering, mechanics, fluids, etc, etc, etc, is an equation in Calculus. The equations that allow us to discuss how electricity will flow, what magnetic fields will do, how light will propagate, are Calculus equations. Even many things in something that may seem like it has nothing to do with Calculus benefit from it, or discrete versions of it, particularly in Computer Science.

Your whole world runs on Calculus. If you take advantage of anything invented after 1700, then you're more than likely directly benefiting from Calculus. Calculus is an infection. We are in symbiosis with Calculus.

Calculus tells us how things change, and everything changes, so we need Calculus for everything.


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

[User] ELI5: why do the Wizards in The Hobbit/LOTR rarely use their powers in combat, preferring to use swords?

[Assistant]
Because they're not allowed to except in worst case scenarios. The movies do not explain it since it's not pertinent to the LOTR or Hobbit stories, but another Tolkien book called The Silmarillion explains that the wizards are essentially angels sent in human form to advise and counsel, not fight.

In the Tolkien-verse, there are various levels of supernatural beings. Eru Iluvatar is essentially God. He sent 12(13 at first) lesser beings called the Valar to Middle Earth at its creation to manage things. They would be like the archangels in Christianity, though more like Greek or Roman gods in that they can take human form sometimes, each is in charge of some various aspect of nature, etc.

Underneath the Valar are the Maiar. Basic angels, servants of the Valar. Sauron was Maiar, as was the Balrog, and all of the wizards. Sauron, being evil, chooses to use his power however he wants. The wizards on the other hand, being good and still choosing to obey the Valar, are prohibited from using their full power by the Valar and were instead instructed to take human form. Again, their primary mission was to instruct and give advice. The War of the Ring was deemed by the Valar to be a problem created by the inhabitants of Middle Earth, and thus theirs to solve. The Valar refuse to take an active role in fighting the wars of Middle Earth, as they had in the past. But they still care for Elves, Men, and Dwarves, so their answer was to send the wizards. Not to solve the problem, but to help others solve it.

Not that you asked, but this is also the reason to the often asked "why don't the eagles just take the Ring to Mordor?" question. The giant eagles in LOTR are explained in The Silmarillion as essentially being the pets of Manwe (head of the Valar). They follow his command, bring him news, and are his favorite of the animals. It is likely that they were not allowed to solve the Ring problem on their own either.


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

[User] ELI5: How do medical examiners know that a victim was still alive when cuts/bruises etc occured?

[Assistant] Because cuts and bruises will look different depending on whether or not blood was flowing to them. If you're dead than your heart has stopped beating which means blood is no longer being pumped around your body which means any cuts or blows will look very different.


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

[User] What is the current state of String Theory?

[Assistant]
It's doing great.

More in detail:

1) as a theory of quantum gravity: it is the only known one that works, and has been for a few decades. Since the last 20 years, we also now understand much more about how quantum gravity works in string theory.

2) as a phenomenological model (i.e. theory of everything): string theory by itself is only a framework, or an area of theoretical physics. It is not a unique theory about our Universe, though it allows you to build countless such theories by a variety of mechanisms. Most of these (not all) however do not make sufficiently precise and distinguishable predictions unless you reach up to very high energies near roughly the Planck scale. This is due to a series of factors: first of all the complexity of the problem itself - anything can happen in such a wide range of energies and you should be able to account for all of that while moving in the blind. Another is that there is still a massive number of viable ways to get phenomenological theories from string theory and many of them are difficult to treat mathematically and still have poorly-understood features.

There's been recent discussion that failure to find supersymmetry at the LHC "killed" string theory. String theory needs supersymmetry, but at the string scale, not down here. Low-energy supersymmetry, which is what there is no evidence for, is cool, but it is not necessary for string theory. It's just that it is such a good thing that everyone assumed it had to be true.

3) as an area of research in theoretical physics: it's doing really great. It's grown a lot, and it's gotten wide and deep. There has been a great deal of development in AdS/CFT in the last 10 yrs for example. Most recent string theory discoveries however are too specialized and technical to be explained to the general public (most of the time, even to the average physicist) and so you don't hear about it and it looks like it's dead. It's far from it.


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

[User]
CMV: Society is not as cautious with weed as it should be.

At least in America, I feel like the average person believes marijuana is completely harmless but I feel like the science doesnt totally back that... and from my own experiences and anecdotal accounts, marijuana can be really damaging to people psychologically. Ive had very bad trips from edibles that were stronger than Ive thought, and Ive seen friends become addicted to smoking marijuana. I really think it needs to be studied more before we open up more dispensaries throughout the US and treat it like a candy store. Just my opinion but would love to hear what you guys think.

[Assistant]
This isn't a question of whether or not weed is "safe".  It's a question of relativity.

Flying in a plane is not "safe".  But flying in a plane is incredibly safe *compared* to driving a car or even riding a bike.

Tens of thousands of people die every year as a result of alcohol use.  And tens of thousands more die every year as a result of overdosing on other drugs.

Weed, by comparison, is extremely safe.  It's almost impossible to OD on weed.  Yes, there can be side effects that are harmful, and yes  you could get high and crash your car, etc.

But compared to alcohol and other drugs, weed is an extremely safe substance.

It's not safe compared to abstaining.  And it's not safe compared to say ... doing nothing at all.  But compared to other substances people imbibe for recreational highs and buzzes, weed is about as safe as it gets. Alcohol and drugs are the correct things to compare weed use to.


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

[User] In sword making, is it possible to fold the blade too many times ?

[Assistant]
MSE here, definitely no. Folding doesn't weaken steel, but does enhance it's mechanical properties by increasing it's homogeneity.

Folding carbonized iron into steel, such as before forming it into a blade, was a technique used by smiths that did not have the technology to properly smelt iron. To be clear, it's not strictly a sword-making technique, either.

One doesn't fold the steel into the shape of a blade, folding is just the process of refining the steel. It's by far the crudest and most difficult way to make steel, and what you get is not a molecularly uniform alloy, even after folding the steel thousands of times. Every "fold" starts and ends with a roughly rectangular hunk of iron riddled with carbon impurities. By hammering it out and folding it on itself, these impurities are very slowly blended together to form an alloy that approaches the characteristics of a perfectly homogenous steel alloy, the goal of the folding process.

You can observe that even genuine Japanese Katanas, which are folded "thousands and thousands of times", are still visibly impure on a microscopic level. The reason behind the incredibly complex and even ritualistic techniques behind the katana's construction, maintenance, and use as a weapon stem from the fact that Japan had very little iron and created their raw steel in literally the most difficult, time-consuming way possible.

If, however, you decided to fold the steel millions or billions of times, you would theoretically have perfect homogeneity and therefore the best mechanical properties possible with that composition.


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

[User]
[Doctor Strange 2] Why does America Chavez's multiversal portal powers keeps taking her to New York?

Is about to be killed by a demon in the space between dimensions after just surviving an attempted murder by Doctor Strange = summons a portal (albeit she's not in control) that takes her straight to MCU New York right where another Strange lives.

Is in Nepal about to be killed by the Scarlet Witch = summons another portal that takes her through multiple universes where most appears to be another version of a New York avenue in the Multiverse (including pre-historical dinosaur NY, goth skeleton NY, futuristic underwater robotic NY, paint NY, cartoon NY, old black and white film NY, etc), until they land in... Eco-futuristic NY.

[Assistant]
>(albeit she's not in control)

If you paid attention to the climactic conversation with "zombie" Strange (being controlled by actual Strange)  and America, he tells her that she WAS in control...

In that moment, she tells him that she can't control her power but Strange replies: "Yes, you can. You have been all along. Every time you opened a portal you sent us EXACTLY where we needed to go."

He even goes on to say that she was in control even the first time she used her power, as it led her to this moment.

So basically, on some subconscious level, she always chose where to go because it was where she NEEDED to be... ie: to find another version of Doctor Strange to help her... which (ultimately) means, going to New York.    Her pattern is wired to go to NY more frequently than any other place, so the slipping through multiple universes in one trip would suggest that NY is probably her "safe" place as she's most familiar with it.


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

[User]
What is the "holy grail" of your field, what is needed to obtain it, and how will this impact the world?

I am interested to see what kind of research people do here, and for what reasons. I find that most researchers I've had the opportunity to speak with usually work on something really cool. You can also talk about your specific research as well, it does not have to be particularly broad.

For example, I am a graduate student studying in the field of Tissue Engineering/Regenerative medicine.

The holy grail of our field is to be able to either grow or repair an organ to restore complete functionality (for example, to grow a liver in the lab for transplantation, or to add the right growth factors, cells, and/or scaffolds to a damaged liver to repair it.)

There are many steps required to obtain this, and there are many approaches, but one important step required is to grow a vascular system with the organ so that we can deliver oxygen and nutrients to the tissue. As a result of this challenge, most cells are currently grown in sheets on petri dishes, and we cannot grow "organs" that are thicker than 2mm. (other students, researchers, and/or professors are welcome to correct me)

The impact of being able to grow an organ will help save lives who are on the organ transplant list, but will also be able to improve the lives of those who get permanent damage from injuries (for example, replacing the knee after a major tear, or replacing a long bone that has been shattered, or even replacing an entire arm...)

[Assistant] An unambiguous and universally-applicable site index for tree quality. In Urban Forestry, the national standard for trees (ANSI) specifically does not ensure quality, and only serves to standardize tree nursery practices. The vast difference between planting sites and tree quality results in huge monetary losses in maintenance, tree death, and growth stunting. Currently, no objective and broad-spectrum criterion exists in order to optimize possible tree growth and obtain the most ecosystem services per tree for the money spent on it. If we do come up with such a site index for trees, we can ensure that urban forests develop as predicted with minimal losses, maintenance, and a more stable ecosystem for a longer time period.


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

[User] What determines how long a rumble of thunder will last?

[Assistant]
It's mostly effected by humidity. Temperature and pressure also play a very small part.

Lightning is what causes thunder. Like how static makes a snap when it shocks you, or the sound of a stun gun, or the flash of a camera, just a lot more energy in lightning.

That acoustic energy gets used up this sound wave travels through the air.

Humid air is less dense than dry air, and high humidity causes more attenuation because the water absorbs the sound and heats up a bit.

So the thunder in a storm over a tropical jungle won't travel as far as the thunder in a storm over a desert.

Temperature attenuation really only happens at higher frequencies, but temperature inversions where a layer of hot air floats over a cold ground layer can cause sound to refract and bounce off the boundaries between the layers, making sounds travel further, making something sound closer than it actually is.


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

[User] ELI5: How does an atomic bomb permanently burn the shadow of it's victims into stone?

[Assistant]
There are a couple of things that happen when a nearby atomic blast occurs. The intense heat and pressure from the blast would rapidly vaporize the body and accelerate its remnants at any nearby object, embedding lots of carbon char into the surface of nearby solid objects capable of withstanding more heat than the human body.

Furthermore, the intense heat would also bleach the surface of those more resilient materials. A stone wall might have had dirt or soot on it but after a blast anything loose on its surface exposed to the heat would have been vaporized leaving the underlying stone bare.

Of course, these effects are exaggerated in media which depict atomic aftermath for dramatic effect. Seeing all that is left of a person as a shadow blasted into a wall is intensely powerful as an image from the past 70 years. So take this explanation with a bit of salt, as what is more likely to happen is everything getting blown to pieces, not leaving a stone un-glassed. Aside from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare aside from a particularly rattle-y saber, and they pale in comparison to the yield of later weapons.


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

[User]
[Journey to the West] The Jade Emperor was alive for 200 million years before the events of the novel. How did he survive the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs?

When Sun Wukong meets Buddha. Buddha tells him that he's been around for 1750 eons each of them lasting 129,600years.

The novel takes place during the time of Li Shi min. 7th century China.

[Assistant] He's a god. In fact he's one of the "first" gods, which probably gives him more god powers or whatever. Surviving a few extinction level events should be as easy as it is for you to hold your breath underwater every so often.


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

[User] [Superheroes] Actually, how often do superheroes need to wash their suits? Or do they really clean them or something? Because I think they sweat a lot.

[Assistant]
Depends on the hero. Some work up a sweat every time they fight crime (Batman or Captain America for example rely on their physical bodies a lot), while others generally don't sweat at all (Iceman, for example). Then they have all sorts of other problems, like bloodstains (both their blood and their opponent's), grass stains, general filth, etc.

Many more "mundane" superheroes have several easily-washable costumes so that they are never caught without, and most have a way to get more easily in case of damage or pit stains.

The richer/luckier ones can afford much more luxurious costumes and repair services from upscale providers (such as the Incredibles), so they have less to worry about.

Finally, some costumes are protected in similar ways to the user. Superman occasionally has a costume that is as indestructible as he is, the Flash has a costume made of the same force that powers him, and many shifters actually generate their costumes from their own bodies. Dry cleaning not advised!

**TL;DR: Cheap replacements, expensive luxury models that are stain-resistant, and Super Clothes! (tm)**


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

[User]
[Raimi Spider-Man] Why kick out Norman?

When Oscorp is bought by Quest, they want to avoid power struggles, and so they force Norman Osborn out. What were they thinking? Norman is maybe in his mid-forties, and he personally created a company and raised it to the USA's #1 defense contractor in the intervening years. He is not just a brilliant scientist, but possibly the most successful executive in America. They should be scrambling to bring him on board and take charge, not kicking him out! At a certain level of competence, he should be able to demand practically any price to keep their company on its current trajectory.

[Assistant]
Norman Osborn WAS brilliant. Was. But in recent years, his obsession with the super human program for the US Military has been a vast blackhole that's been sucking up all the money in the company with no results. One of their head scientists even suggested to their contract holder that they needed to redo the whole project. Oscorp lucked out in that a terrorist attacked wiped out a bunch of Quest Aerospace staff and prototypes but the fact of the matter is that Quest is making machines and they have backup blueprints. Oscorp's head scientist disappeared and Norman Osborn is using up even more money for his pet white whale of a project.

Why rely on an increasingly shrinking chance of a jackpot and a company quickly losing value when Quest guarantees you a payday? All that talk about Oscorp being the best with its highest historical stock value is smoke and mirrors reliant on its principal competition reeling from a sucker punch. In a year or two, Oscorp will be falling again and Quest on the rise, so it's time to cash out.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do children cry when they experience physical pain but adults rarely do.

For example, when I was maybe 6, I remember I tripped on the play ground and skinned my knee and cried a lot because of it.  When I was 28 I suffered a disfiguring multiple fracture hand break which was extremely painful, but I wasn't compelled to cry.  When and why did that change?

[Assistant] Crying is a response to helplessness, not pain.  A small child has a poor understanding of how to respond to the pain and needs the total care of a responsible adult.  An adult is typically able to self-assess the situation and determine what the necessary next steps are.  In this case, the responsible adult and the injured person are the same person.


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

[User] ELI5: Why can we see certain stars in our peripheral vision, but then when we look directly at them we can no longer see them?

[Assistant]
You have two different cells in your retina of your eye that can sense light.
-cones, that can see color, but only when there is much light
-rods, that cannot see color, but can see better with little light

the cones, which works best during the day, are in the center of you vision.
the rods are everywhere else.

So when you see a star at your peripheral vision( very precise words by the way), you use your rods, which are better during the night.
When you you look directly at a star, the light falls on the cones, which are not very light sensitive, so the star seems to disappear.


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

[User] [Mummies] are mummies just wrapped up zombies?

[Assistant]
Nope. They are both undead, but the similarities stop there.

Mummies are usually much more powerful than zombies. They're smarter, can still retain some of their old personality, are physically stronger, much tougher and harder to kill, and in some cases can even perform magic.

Zombies, on the other hand, are rarely any stronger than normal humans (and sometimes weaker), not very tough, operate on instinct, and have no magical abilities.


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

[User]
[Cinnamon Toast Crunch] How have the Cinnamon Toast Crunches survived as a species when they are so prone to cannibalism?

Every commercial, they eat each other to near extinction. How is this a sustainable evolutionary strategy? Is there a selection process underlying this strange habit?

[Assistant] The cannibalism is an abherrent behavior from being exposed to milk. They try to break each other down to crumbs so as to survive by clinging to the sides of the bowl until the milk is drunk or dries up. Then they can regrow and seed a new population of squares. The orgy of destruction is actually how they share genes in order to reproduce. What like looks like the tongue is actually genetalia.


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

[User]
[Deadpool 1] how do wade and Vanessa have that amazing apartment?

 that apt in nyc has got to cost a fortune.  She's a bartender and he is a small time mercenary/hitman, Maybe with an army pension.

[Assistant]
I don't know if we can assume that he is a small time all the time - For all, we know he was paid big bucks for a while.

Apparently, he may also have a secondary source of income if his message to Blind Al about the cocaine is truthful.


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

[User]
How does keratin in human differ from keratin in other animals?

I know that keratin is what makes up skin cells and hair cells, and that animals with shells and tougher skin are also made of keratin. My question is, how are they different? Is it to do with the thickness? Are there other proteins involved that makes it stronger/weaker? What determines it's color and texture?

[Assistant]
Keratins in animals are not fundamentally different that keratins in humans.
The hardness of keratins is mainly determined by the sulfur content. Harder keratins, like hooves, have a higher sulfur content. The reason why is somewhat complicated, but basically the sulfur allows parts of the protein to stick to other parts of the protein, making it more rigid.


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

[User]
Are the steps one can take to get good at continental philosophy different than those one would take to get better at analytic philosophy?

If one wanted to "get good" at, or "improve" at philosophy (I put those words in scare quotes b/c im not entirely sure what it means to be "good" at philosophy, generally), would doing so look different if one wanted to become better at, say, continental philosophy, in particular?

What might one do to become better at continental philosophy?

[Assistant]
Well, they're different in the sense that to get good at continental philosophy you should study continental philosophy and to get good at analytic philosophy you should study analytic philosophy. General competence at philosophy, in terms of understanding its problems, having strong reading and note-taking skills, having a competence in critical thinking, etc., would be helpful foundations in both cases.

So this is like "Are the steps one would take to get good at Aristotle different from the steps one would take to get good at Kant?" Well, to get good at Aristotle you should study Aristotle, while to get good at Kant you should study Kant, but general competence in philosophy... etc.


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

[User] [MCU] What did the Asgardians do in their birth home for work and leisure and were there any transferable skills in terms of employability?

[Assistant]
Lots of time at the tavern.

Presumably some form of recreational farming/fishing experience or local home brewing. Sort of like Portland.

They had extremely advanced technology in Asguard, so it's possible they lived in a post scarcity society with no real employment out side of scientific pursuits or recreational activity.


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

[User]
Is the kindest thing you can do for your child to not have one in the first place

So ive been reading about this philosophy that no matter what if you live youll suffer because its human nature to look toward the bad things in life instead of the good. So having children is creating unneccessary suffering and is evil in that way. Thats the general thought proccess. What id like to ask you all is some opinions on people looking towards the bad aspects of life more than the good. Im 18 and big into philosophy and would love any suggestions for books or anything like that.

[Assistant]
Well this position sounds a lot like David Benatars anti-natalism. His moral system places much more emphasis on reducing pain than promoting pleasure and from that he argues its always better to not create new life and that we always harm those we create by creating them.

If you want to read more about it then a good place to start would be his book: *Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence*


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

[User]
[Marvel] Can there ever be more Infinity Stones?

I remember reading in a book somewhere - I completely forget which book though :( - the thought that if there can be one of something, why can't there be more than one of it. That was relating to Gods, and the fact that a lot of religions insist that there is exactly one God, but what's stopping there being more than one.

Following that through, what's stopping there from being more than 6 Infinity Stones? Or, indeed, multiples of any "unique" artifact.

[Assistant]
Iirc in the Ultimate universe there are more than 6 infinity stones, and they originate from entirely different circumstances.

For example: Tony Stark has an infinity stone growing inside his head, causing hallucinations that are capable of interfacing with technology (reminds me a bit of the sentient cosmic cube in the more recent hydra cap stories).


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

[User] ELI5: What is the nuclear proliferation treaty and why do India, Pakistan and a few others refuse to sign it?

[Assistant]
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty says two important things:

1. All countries have a right to research and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and the more-developed countries should help them.

2. The goal for the entire world is global nuclear disarmament, the permanent abolition of nuclear weapons. Until then only China, Russia, the US, the UK, and France may possess nuclear weapons and they must make gradual efforts toward dismantling their arsenals.

India thinks this is unfair, because China has them, and China acts fairly aggressively towards India sometimes, meaning India wants nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Pakistan also has disputes with India and felt threatened that India had them, so they created their own. Signing the treaty means they can't have them anymore, so they refuse.


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

[User]
If you use a power tool in a vacuum, where does the extra energy that would usually be expelled as sound go?

I don't know if I have worded that correctly. In a vacuum there would be no air for the sound to make waves in so there would be no sound. But where does that energy go? It can't just disappear so it must go somewhere.

This could also be a very stupid and obvious question. Thanks.

[Assistant]
Heat, mostly. Although even loud noises don't usually correspond to a lot of thermal energy.

Power tools also tend to have fan bits to cool them, plus ordinary conduction/natural convection to the air. In a vacuum, where they can only lose heat through radiation, they'd be likely to overheat. (Which is an issue with satellites and such)


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

[User]
Why don't CPU companies like Intel print Ram next to the CPU on the same chip?

It seems a bit odd to me that in a PC you have a CPU and then you need RAM and then you need to connect them together as separate modules etc.

Why do companies not just print the Ram right next to the CPU on the same chip? Wouldn't that make it much faster and cheaper and also allow Intel to capture a lot of the Ram market? This feels like an obvious move?

I get that you lose the ability to custom choose the CPU and Ram that you want separately but that feels like quite a small deal? Doesn't feel like you really want 4x more or less than the optimal for amount of Ram.

[Assistant]
They do, and it is much faster, just as you say.  It's just that when it's on the chip, we refer to it as cache.

Also, the optimal amount of RAM varies by workload, so you probably do want some ability to choose to have more or less of it.  You need much more than the typical amount of RAM if you're doing virtualization, for example.


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

[User] ELI5:If you go small enough, even a line drawn on a paper has depth. Does true 2d actually exist on our world?

[Assistant]
If we're arguing semantics then from a pure math perspective 2D doesn't technically exist.

However it starts to reach a point where something gets so flat or narrow that it might as well be considered 2D for all intents and purposes. Graphene is a common example of this - a material which is one atom thick and is about as flat as it's possible to get in the real world.


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

[User]
[Ghostbusters] Why don't they just make their guns function like their trap?

It seems counterintuitive to have to wrangle a ghost when you could focus on a technology that sucks them in directly.  In the show, the beam of light emanating from the traps have been shown to have quite the reach and pull.  And the ghostbusters have to let go of their proton streams anyway to trap the thing.

If they made a t-shirt cannon sized device that just mimic'd the traps properties, wouldn't they have skipped an unnecessary step and not damaged property at the same time?

[Assistant]
> In the show, the beam of light emanating from the traps have been shown to have quite the reach and pull.

Not really. Ghosts in mid-trap tend to pull themselves off every time a proton pack breaks. The trap simply cannot suck hard enough to satisfy the Ghostbusters. Only after tugging a ghost close to its mouth can Egon be certain that the trap will finish the job.

Also, a trap cannot be used again unless it first dumps its load, preferably inside of a waiting containment unit. Ray often warms up several traps for this reason but this can be cumbersome and usually isn't necessary. By carefully aiming the streams a single trap can easily swallow multiple servings of ectoplasm.


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

[User]
[Avatar] How is it Katara is the only bender in her tribe?

It seems even the other water tribe had only but a few benders, while other tribes, Earth, Fire and the extinct Air. Every Earth tribe and Fire tribe member I have seen could bend their element. So why can't every water tribe member bend water?

[Assistant] The southern water tribe used to be very large and full of talented waterbenders. But decades of fire nation raids whittled their strength down until the tribe was helpless, and almost every surviving waterbender was arrested and taken away. The reason Katara and Sokka's mother died was because the fire nation had heard rumors of Katara, a brand new southern bender, and they raided the tribe once again. Their mother sacrificed herself so the fire nation believed that they had killed their target.


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

[User] [MCU/Marvel] What exactly are the cultural and religious differences that make the Nova and Kree societies hate each other?

[Assistant]
The Kree live for military conquest and value violence, to the point that they despise their medical workers as an unavoidable necessity.  In contrast, the Xandarians who founded the Nova Corps live for peace and knowledge, to the point that they created the greatest library/computer the known universe has ever known: the Worldmind.

The Kree measure their worth as a people by the success at conquest;  in contrast, the Xandarians have been the victims of numerous attempts at conquest, in particular those attempts by Zorr of Luphmor and later by the Skrull Empire.   Eventually, the planet along with its culture was destroyed in the Annihilation War.

The Kree put together all their greatest intelligences into the Supreme Intelligence for the express purpose of increasing their effectiveness at conquest.   In contrast, the Xandarians put together all their greatest intelligences into the Worldmind both from a love of knowledge and from a desire to protect the rest of the galaxy from conquest through the Nova Corps.

The Kree prize brutality and a joyless hierarchy in which the stronger rule the weaker and individuality matters for nothing since all individual worth is derived from one's place within the (military) hierarchy.   In contrast, the Xandarians and therefore the Nova Corps prize thoughtfulness, cleverness, insight, and compassion for others, and despite the need for order in a policing organizations such as the Nova Corps, they still respect and cherish individuality rather than the Kree notion of ownership by the state.

They are almost exist as mirror opposites of one another.


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

[User] When pain killers stop pain, do they stop pain from being sent, or block pain receptors so we just don't feel it?

[Assistant]
High school answer, since no others here:

Pain is largely a product of prostaglandins which are released near the injury or inflammation. Prostaglandins create the classic red, hot, swollen, painful look, and pain sensors send signals up through the brain stem.

Anti-inflammatory medications reduce pain by blocking the production of prostaglandins.

Painkillers like opiates act on receptor sites in the brain stem and brain to suppress the perception of pain, with little effect on the local inflammation.

Local anesthetics work by overwhelming or suppressing the transmission of pain signals from the site of injury. Spinal block during childbirth is a similar process applied to the lower spinal cord.


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

[User]
Are the protons and neutrons in a specific isotope always arranged in the same/similar way?

My understanding is that neutrons help glue the protons together via the residual strong force, while also helping to spread the protons out to reduce coulomb repulsion by physically separating them.  This makes a bit of sense, but from this interpretation then, it would seem to me that its not just the number of protons/neutrons in the nucleus that matter, but also (to an extent) the physical placement of the neutrons and protons with respect to one another.  It would seem that an atom with ALL of its protons clumped together in a ball that is wrapped in a shell of neutrons wouldn't be stable, despite having the correct number of protons/neutrons.  I know this is a rather extreme example, but the reason for giving it is that it makes me believe that just having the right number of protons and neutrons isn't enough.  And it also raises a bunch of other questions for me such as:

\- How many stable configurations are there for a given atom?

\- Are protons/neutrons organized "rigidly" into a nearly spherical nucleus?  Or can the shape of the nucleus change/deform (either with time, or maybe just being statically asymmetrical)?

\- If the distribution of protons/neutrons is even slightly asymmetrical, wouldn't this give the nucleus some kind of dipole moment?

\- Is the arrangement of the protons/neutrons always the same/similar for a given isotope?

\- For extremely heavy elements that are already unstable to begin with, does variations in the distribution of protons/neutrons help to increase or decrease stability from atom to atom?

\- Do protons and neutrons move around while in the nucleus, or are they more or less fixed in place?

Am I barking up the complete wrong tree here, and trying to push my classical views on a quantum system in a way that doesn't work?

Any kind of info would be greatly appreciated!

[Assistant]
Yes, the arrangement matters. Just like atoms have discrete energy levels corresponding to arrangements of electrons, nuclei do as well.

>How many stable configurations are there for a given atom?

For a given nuclide, at most one (the ground state). However many nuclei are unstable even in the ground state.

>Are protons/neutrons organized "rigidly" into a nearly spherical nucleus? Or can the shape of the nucleus change/deform (either with time, or maybe just being statically asymmetrical)?

Protons and neutrons occupy quantum-mechanical orbitals. Most nuclei are not spherical. They can have both static or dynamical deformations.

>If the distribution of protons/neutrons is even slightly asymmetrical, wouldn't this give the nucleus some kind of dipole moment?

Not a dipole moment, because that would violate parity and time reversal, but the next leading order deviation from a spherical charge distribution is an electric quadrupole moment. Non-spherical nuclei (so most nuclei) have nonzero quadrupole moments.

>Is the arrangement of the protons/neutrons always the same/similar for a given isotope?

If theyre both in the ground state, or the same excited state, yes.

>For extremely heavy elements that are already unstable to begin with, does variations in the distribution of protons/neutrons help to increase or decrease stability from atom to atom?

In any nucleus, the arrangement of protons and neutrons plays a role in their stability.

>Do protons and neutrons move around while in the nucleus, or are they more or less fixed in place?

They move quantum-mechanically, just like electrons in atoms.


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

[User]
How can I explain to my new employer that their spaghetti architecture needs to be changed?

So going into a new job, they said that they used to have a monolith, but have since split it up into several micro-services.  But now that I've actually gotten a look at it, I see that they keep all the data-access and mediator code in one shared library, then include that in every single one of their services; ui and device back-ends included.  So every service that wants to do something will directly contact the databases or external integrations of the other services.  It seems like all they did was pull the business logic out into services so that they can scale those appropriately.

I know this is wrong; it's a big ball of spaghetti.  From all my years of learning about micro-services, I know that services should communicate with each other using their API or events, and not directly connecting with the internals of other services.  My boss says he's open to change, but only if I can explain to him how the aforementioned architecture is better.  How can I do that?  Blog posts, conference videos, or written explanations would all be helpful.  Thanks.

[Assistant]
Identify the biggest risks and timesinks, and improve this. Whether it be by setting up a testing environment, automated testing, automated deployment, etc.

Don't fall into the trap of wanting to 'do it the right way' and try to redo the whole thing. Inertia will catch up with you and you will end up with a different kind of spaghetti.


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

[User]
ELI5: If two identical balls are connected to the same very long rope, and one of the balls are floating in space and the other one is hanging above earth's surface. What would happen?

So my 7-year old asked me this and as much as I would love to be able to give him a proper answer, I couldn't.

Does ball A (in space) float away, taking ball B (above earth's surface) with it? Will the balls stay somewhat fixed or will ball B force ball A down?

[Assistant]
All of these outcomes are possible, depending on the exact location and speed of the balls. It is possible to set up the balls above the equator in such a way that theyll just stay there - the lower ball hovering near the ground and the upper ball circling in orbit around Earth. You can then go up and down the rope to get into orbit and back at a fraction of the cost compared to rockets. This is the basis behind the concept of Space elevator. You can look it up and tell your seven-year old theyve come up with a great idea independently. Technically the only setback is that we dont yet have material strong enough for the rope, but we are kinda close to it, so its not unrealistic to hope that we will have it eventually.

Edit: somewhat expanded.


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

[User]
[Video games] Why do I keep finding food in the unlikeliest places and why's it still edible?

See Shovel Knight or Castlevania where finding random turkeys in candles or *god damn walls* is common and no one seems to bat an eye.

Why would you hide food in the first place, and if you're gonna hide food, why scatter it around your place like that? And isn't that a bit unsanitary ?

[Assistant]
This is generally the result of two facts:

1) The magic to preserve foods is fairly simple, though unknown to most hero/adventurer types. (Why bother learning it when you're finding food left and right?) Simply turn the food into an innocuous item like a candle or brick, and when 'broken' it reverts to its state from the moment it was enchanted.

2)  These are dangerous places, but they were inhabited by people before being taken over by monsters.  Sometimes people get trapped in a now-monster-filled area, and have to hide what rations they have.  Sadly, they don't always make it back to retrieve this hidden bounty.  But good news for Mr. Belmont!


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

[User] [DC] How does Lex Luthor managed to be elected President of the United States when he's a convicted felon who have on multiple counts killed thousands in his attempts to discredit Superman and on occasion world domination?

[Assistant]
Immediately prior to his campaign, Lex freely turned himself over to the police and went to trial for his various crimes. He argued successfully that said crimes were carried out by an evil clone created by Cadmus. He was cleared of all charges, not least of all because he had just traded his soul for health and vitality, so he was no longer a withered husk of a man dying of Kryptonite poisoning and contained in a suit of power armor. He was a healthy, non-Kryptonite-wielding man.

The public saw him as a wealthy industrialist who knew first-hand the dangers of the superhero community. He had the public's sympathy for being supposedly kidnapped and tortured while watching a monster with his face attacking innocent people. And also he created energy sources that completely removed America's dependency on fossil fuels, promising even more technological wonders if he had the backing of the US Government.


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

[User]
Why don't substances like hydrogen occasionally combust at 'low' temperatures due to the long tail of fast moving molecules?

If hydrogen starts to combust immediately at 900K why doesn't it eventually start to combust at lower temperatures, say 300K.

Is it just incredibly unlikely that any molecule would be moving fast enough, or is there some other factor that determines when molecules react other than the kinetic energy with which they approach each other?

[Assistant] Chemical reactions have a minimum activation energy, i.e. the energy needed to result in a reaction. You may or may not have molecules which reach the kinetic energy required but it quickly gets redistributed - it's not a case where one molecule reaches the required energy and triggers a chain reaction. You need an appreciable number of molecules with energies equal to or higher than the activation energy for the reaction to occur.


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

[User] When I transfer data to my external hard drive using a USB cord why does the rate of the transfer constantly change (60mb/s to 90mb/s) throughout the transfer when my computer is doing nothing else?

[Assistant]
There's a couple factors that can influence this.

1. Are you transferring one big file, or a whole folder full of different sized files? There's overhead to create and finalize each file written to a file system, so lots of small files will slow down the overall transfer speed.

2. How populated is the hard drive? Disk fragmentation can happen when a disk has handled lots of writes/deletes over its lifetime, and its especially bad with plug and play drives that are formatted as FAT32. If there's a large uninterrupted block on your drive to write to, the speeds will stay high, but once it has to start searching for random places to store files, the speed goes down.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do ginger ale and root beer have beer references to their names but taste nothing like beer?

[Assistant]
In the traditional recipes, these drinks are brewed/fermented just like beer is. If beer is what you get when you malt grain and let it ferment, and wine is what you get when you let grape juice ferment, there are all sorts of recipes for taking some blend of herbs and spices and letting it ferment to make a drink. Often those herbs don't have a high enough sugar content on their own, so you add (a lot, usually) of extra sugar and that's what's feeding most of the fermentation but the herbs add flavor.

So, if you ferment dandelion flowers (along with other ingredients and lots of sugar) you get dandelion wine, if you ferment ginger (plus stuff) you get ginger ale, if you ferment birch sapwhich has less sugar than maple sap, but still has its own sugarsyou get birch beer, and if you ferment sassafras roots (plus stuff) you get root beer.

The fermentation isn't usually very strong, and people would get more carbon dioxide than alcohol, but that's ok too because it made a pleasantly fizzy drink. These recipes became very popular in the early-to-mid 1700's and were the origin of what would eventually become modern soda pop.


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

[User]
CMV: As a conservative/libertarian, The GOP needs to adopt more newer values socially in order to gain a following with younger audiences.

Stuff like gay marriage, maybe some lower restrictions on abortions, helping fix Healthcare issues, trans rights, helping out minority communities, etc. I feel the reason the GOP is suffering is because it keeps having Bible thumping boomers in charge that put the Bible before the people. I don't like identity politics but when you have a bunch of Christian boomers that keep being counterproductive with their views in liberty and freedom it causes for the younger generations to devalue your party more. Heck I think if more just became pro choice (or at least just didn't express their hatred for abortions as much and were more open minded) and pro lgbtq then a ton more people would like the party.

Another thing and this goes for all parties, They need to denounce politicians and people on their side that do dumb stuff instead of being silent. People like MTG who  have shown they are 9/11 and school shooting deniers need to be kicked off parts of government that have the impact they do.

These are just some hot take statements I've made, I bet if people suggested more in the comments there'd be more, Its just something I've seen in my party/parties that are why they are having troubles getting approval ratings and fail to gain larger attractions with younger audiences. One thing I've noticed however is more young conservatives have been showing acceptance for lgbtq people and are being less tied to the church so maybe it'll just eventually become what I've stated, who knows.

Edit: I'm more directing this towards the people in office of the GOP and not the average conservative or GOP member.

Edit 2: I've seen a lot of comments that have been making other suggestions and comments and they've been a lot better at giving good things the GOP could do to improve themselves.

[Assistant]
So you just need to be liberals light.

It's almost like the system pushes its plans through the left, making you guys look thoroughly uncool, so you just adopt what they were on two years ago, and compromise whatever you once believed.


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

[User]
If the universe has been around for 13.7 billion years, why does anything still have radioactivity?

We often use radio active dating to predict the age of objects, how can things get "recharged" with radio activity why hasn't it all decayed over the billions of years?

Thanks.

[Assistant]
Radioactive elements are constantly being produced in stars or 'exploding' stars. In fact, the big bang produced almost only hydrogen and helium, all the rest of the elements have been created in stars through fusion since and still are being created. But not all radioactive elements have to originate in stars.

Carbon dating for example can be used to determine the age of once living objects for about 50,000 years into the past. It determines the ratio of inactive Carbon ( C^12 ) to radioactive Carbon ( C^14 ). C^14 is constantly being created in the upper atmosphere, as cosmic radiation produces neutrons, which hit Nitrogen atoms ( N^14 ) and create C^14 atoms. C^14 to C^12 ratio in the atmosphere has been almost constant for most of recent history because of this. Now, a living plant organism uses C from the atmosphere to grow, depositing it in its tissue, and animals will either directly eat plants or eat animals that have eaten plants. This keeps their C^12 to C^14 ratio in their tissues at a level that corresponds to the current concentration in the atmosphere. When they die, no more C enters their body and the concentration stays fixed. C^14 will decay though, half the atoms of C^14 will revert back to N^14 in about 5700 years. So the longer an organism has been dead, the less C^14 it will have. By measuring the concentration of C^14 and C^12, you can determine its age.


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

[User] ELI5: how does bismuth form those precise beautiful crystals?

[Assistant]
Metals and salts are 'crystalline' which means that their tiny smallest parts like to arrange in very organized ways. Different crystals like to arrange their pieces in different shapes and can only form THAT shape.

Think of bismuth atoms as lego blocks. When bismuth starts to collect near itself, it doesn't like to jumble up, but rather attach all together like lego. BUT! Lego can't just attach any way they like. They can only attach up-down-left or right. And you can't attach two top ends together. Bismuth is the same way.

When you let enough bismuth settle around itself, the atoms drop into these lego spaces until they make nice, long straight lines and sharp corners.

What's even cooler is that other crystals don't work like lego, and they like to connect in triangles or hexagons, which makes different crystal shapes like diamond, garnet and quartz.


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

[User] ELI5: How laughing is different from normal speech. Also, why it hurts after laughing too hard.

[Assistant]
Laughing is not talking. Talking is just pushing air through your throat, it's a soft and controlled thing.

Laughing means that you are contracting your abdomen a lot to produce bursts of laugh. It hurts because it's the equivalent of doing a lot of crunches. Contracting your muscles in that way, in rapid, erratic succession, will hurt.


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

[User] ELI5 Why does a death sentence cost more than life in prison?

[Assistant]
A lot of judicial process has to go through to execute someone. There's appeals and trials and whatnot. It clogs up the courts and uses the time of lawyers, judges, etc.

I assume these professionals cost more than the sustenance food they give prisoners.


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

[User]
ELI5:Can someone explain what it is about music theory that allows pretty much every song to be mashed with eachother in a way that fits?

I know nothing about music theory or how songs are constructed, beats, bars whatever. But for the last few years mashing every song with all star or we are number one has shown that songs with completely different genres and energies can be mixed together pretty well with just a few tweaks, what is it about the process making songs that allows that to be true?

[Assistant]
Songwriters are unimaginative. They use the same stupid chord progressions and scales and rhythms over and over and over and over again.

The energy of a song is largely independent of the scale/harmony, so that's no barrier. Key doesn't matter because you just shift one song or the other up or down until the two songs match. And because we all use the same stupid scales, the chords often barely matter as well. The melody from All Star is mostly pentatonic which means it works with *virtually any* typical Western chord progression.

There's a reason this is done with mostly pop songs and not, say, King of Limbs-era Radiohead.


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

[User]
[DC] Where was krypton's Green Lantern when it was destroyed?

I'm just genuinely curious if the Lantern Corps are supposed to protect planets why didn't the Green Lanterns protect Krypton from getting destroyed? Has there ever been answer to this in the comics?

[Assistant]
Tomar-Re is the Green Lantern who tries to save Krypton, but he's briefly blinded by a solar flare during the act, and sees the planet explode when his vision returns.

He's basically devastated by this and considers it his greatest failure, but still carries out his duties as a Lantern Corp anyway.


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

[User] ELI5: I'm short sighted and have a Mirror next to my PC so I can watch the TV behind me. Why is it when I look in the mirror, the TV behind me is just as blurry as if I was looking at it? Even though I'm actually looking in a Mirror only 1ft away from me?

[Assistant]
Light rays need to be focused on the back of your eye in order to produce a clear image. When we are looking at an object, we're actually looking at the light being reflected off that object that's penetrating our lens and being focused on our retinas. If the light from the object is being distorted by the lens, we get a blurry image.

Your TV is blurry because you are still trying to focus the light coming from the TV behind you. The rays are being reflected off the mirror, but they are still originating from the TV. The mirror is not the source of the light.


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

[User] If a person eats 0 vegetables for a long enough time will they lose the digestive enzymes for vegetables? If not then why?

[Assistant]
Well we don't really have many digestive enzymes for vegetables. Vegetables which get broken down to cellulose which are  -linked D glucose chains contain a lot of "potential" energy. We do not have the enzymes necessary to break those bonds and extract any glucose.
Your body, however, will generally produce less of an enzyme if it is not being utilized as it exhibits and unnecessary metabolic cost.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Was there a point where their tech was like ours?

Is it ever explained in either canon or maus canon whether the humans or anyone else used technology similar to ours?

[Assistant] Probably, way *way* in the past. On old canon galactic history already had interstellar empires 25k years Before Battle of Yavin, and some artifacts, like Xim Despot war robots still surviving to present day in mostly operational condition. So if we define "our" tech as "unable to reach other stars", it was very long time ago.


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

[User]
ELI5: Hypnotism.

I saw a old post on this without any satisfactory answers.

[Assistant] When a person becomes really comfortable and safe feeling they enter a state that is a precursor to sleep. This state is called the hypnagogic state. As certain parts of their brain that criticize input begin to enter a resting state they become more susceptible to suggestion because their brains are doing less fact checking.


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

[User]
Question by my 8yr old - Could all the lights on earth ever be as bright as the sun?

If we turned them all on together. How would we work this out?
Edit: thanks so much for your generous responses, I guess I knew the answer but not how to help him think about it more deeply. Hes a curious kid and I want to help him stay that way!

[Assistant]
The other answers here have done a good job of considering other factors that make this great question a more interesting comparison.

But in terms of total output: No, just based on size.

Surface area of sun = 6 x 10\^18 m^(2)

Surface area of Earth = 5 x 10\^8 m^(2)

So the sun has 12,000,000,000 (12 billion) times more surface than Earth does. And every bit of that surface is shining with the light of a flaming nuclear fireball.

Put another way: Never mind lightbulbs, even if *the entire Earth* was covered in an exploding fireball, we'd *still* be 12 billion times less luminous.


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

[User] Do we have a way to measure size other than relative to other objects? In other words, if everything in the universe was growing at the same rate, down to the subatomic level, would we know?

[Assistant]
The meter is based off a rate x time. That doesnt depend on the size of objects around it. So, by that definition, things would be measurably growing.

We would also notice other properties changing at the same time - if nuclei (and electrons, etc) were growing in size but the forces holding them together remained the same, we would notice a change the properties of molecules and materials.

Im assuming here that the speed of light remains.


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

[User]
How did sea mammals evolve to have a blow hole in the top of their heads?

I understand the loss of legs or the development of fins in place of feet, but I dont understand how a new physical feature can manifest itself without an example to evolve out of.

[Assistant]
The other posts are correct, and blow holes are absolutely nostrils moved to a new location that aids survival in the sea.

But I'd like to address your other statement - how can a new feature develop if it never existed before?

Eyes are a prime example of this.

Cells react to light because light causes chemical reactions. They can't NOT react to light. Following or avoiding light is very useful - to find food or to avoid predators, to get to where things are better or away from things that are dangerous.

Over time, some cells do better than others, or are in the right place, and if that is useful for survival, mutations favor creatures with more useful light-reacting cells. This is the beginning of a retina.

Funny trick of physics: a pit is a great way to gather light, it is also a great way to determine the direction of light - like a light compass. Very useful. Mutations that make a pit around such  light-sensitive, proto-retinal cells give a survival advantage.

Deeper pits are even better, and if they get so deep that they leave just a tiny pinhole, well, you have what amounts to a 'pinhole camera' going on, and that allows imaging. Very, very useful, and even more survival advantage.

But pits can get stuff trapped in them. The animals who have transparent membranes over the pits - bits of skin that let light through - do better, so now you have a ball with a lens. The beginning of an eye.

Keep following this basic concept and, given hundreds of millions of years, you have eyes. From nothing more than skin cells.

That is how new features can develop 'from nothing'.


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

[User] [General Fantasy] What's the difference between a Mage and a Wizard?

[Assistant]
A wizard studies the arcane arts, and learns to use magic through rigorous study, practice, and discipline.

A mage is a general term used to refer to a spellcaster who uses the traditional arcane magics. For example - a warlock, sorcerer, and wizard are all mages.

TL;DR: all wizards are mages, but not all mages are wizards.


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

[User]
[Aliens] Are there different xenomorph species?

In the 1979 film, the alien is a silver headed creature with a normal-ish tail and can apparently use humans to create eggs(in the extended cut at least).
But, in the 1986 movie, the alien warriors are rigged headed and have large spear-head like tail ends. These aliens also have a queen which apparently lays all the eggs.
Are these examples of different xenomorph sub-species? If so, how do they react with each other and are there any others?

[Assistant]
Well, there are different sub species in the sense that each warrior or drone "born" of different host species will express a phenotype based on the host species, suggesting that they incorporate dna from the host. Consider the human spawned xenos in 1,2 vs the dog/ox Xeno in 3 and the predalien in the movie that should not be named.

Iirc, the differences between Kane's baby and the xenos on lv426 have been stated to be attributable to the maturity of the critters. The ones on lv426 had been alive much longer, and perhaps their carapaces continue to harden.


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

[User]
[Stranger Things] How do buildings and other structures appear in the upside down world?

Spoilers

The upside down world is a decayed version of our own universe.  Buildings in our world manifest in the upside down world, though they are always in a dilapidated state.

How long does it take for structures to appear in the upside down world?  If I make a tree fort, will that fort immediately appear in the upside down world?  Do all structures appear there?  What about cars?  If I pour myself a bowl of Cheerios, will a bowl of Cheerios appear there?

In the show, the upside down version of the missing boy's forest fort was knocked down by the monster.  But, it wasn't knocked down in our world.  So, will the upside down fort rebuild itself?  If I burn down a house in the upside down world, will it come back if its not also burned down in our world?

I'm just trying to get a grasp on the rules governing how things manifest in the upside down world.

[Assistant] The Upside Down may not be an actual world which existed before 11 made the bridge.  Maybe the entire place was made by her tortured, grief filled and tremendously powerful psyche?  It is a clone of our world because it didn't come into existence until 11 made it.


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

[User] If children develop habits before the age of reason how can they be culpable of these habits after?

[Assistant]
They **won't** be culpable for the fact of having-initially-developed-the-habit-when-too-young-to-know-better.

But they can be culpable for not working to change their behavior and that habit, once they *do* know better.


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

[User] ELI5:Why do hotels provide little bottles of shampoo and shower gel or soap, but no toothpaste?

[Assistant] I work in a hotel. We literally have an entire room full of amenities you wouldn't even think of asking for. Shaving cream, razors, toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss, mini sewing packs, hairspray, deodorant, combs, shower caps, q-tips, shoe polish, slippers, mouthwash, body wash, mini packs of aspirin, the list goes on. We don't supply rooms with all of it because it would cost way too much money. It's there if you need it, all you need to do is ask. So many times our guests luggage dont arrive and we provide them with an emergency amenity pack, which has all the toiletries and then some.


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

[User]
Are there naturally occurring straight lines?

My friend asked "If light travels in straight lines then does the sun define angles"... "Light is the only thing I can think of that creates a naturally occurring straight line". I don't believe he is completely correct in saying this as I can think of things such as crystals or certain rock formations like slate, or even a taut strand of spider web which produce straight edges/lines. Is this incorrect or are there instances of naturally occurring straight lines besides a beam of light that "define angles"?

[Assistant]
At the molecular level, are these rock formation or spider web strands truly straight?

Additionally, even photons must obey gravity; we can detect massive gravitational sources by watching light bend around them, so do photons following the curvature of space still count as travelling a straight line?


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

[User] ELI5: when credit card fraud happens, how are banks able to give me back the money that was stolen from me so quickly?

[Assistant]
They just pay you from their operating accounts, regardless of whether or not they actually recover the money from the thief (which almost never happens).

Fraud, and compensating the victims of said fraud, is just one of the costs of doing business.  It is expected that the bank will take some losses on credit card fraud and it's built into the budget.


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

[User] [Star Wars] Did the probe droid on Hoth detect the rebel base while in space and intentionally land close to it, or just get massively lucky?

[Assistant] A space probe searching a supposedly uninhabited planet will aim for the biggest source of Electromagnetic energy. Radio, thermal, active power generators. It deliberately landed close to the most likely target.


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

[User] ELI5: Why do stone and marble counters feel cold to the touch? They have been in the same temperature as the rest of our house for hours, and yet they are significantly colder.

[Assistant] The marble has a higher thermal conductivity than the other objects at the same temperature. This means when youre in contact with the marble you lose your heat at a faster rate than you would if you were in contact with a material with a lower thermal conductivity.


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

[User] What happens to your muscles after you warm up? Why does it result in a reduced chance of injury?

[Assistant]
The primary thing that affects your muscles with a warm up is blood flow.

At rest, most of your skeletal muscles receive very little blood flow, because they aren't doing anything, they just kind of sit there.  When you do a *proper* warm up, those muscles start to need more substrates (oxygen, triglycerides, glycogen/glucose, proteins, all kinds of stuff).  In order to deliver those substrates, your body pumps more blood to those muscles.  That's the major thing that happens to your muscles during/after a *proper* warm up.

As for the injury, think of your muscles as being like a sponge.  Before a *proper* warm up, your muscles are like a dried out sponge.  They are stiff, rigid, and prone to do things like crack and break, just like a really dry sponge.  When you warm up your muscles "soak up" that blood, and like a sponge that soaks up a bunch of water, they get soft and flexible, and instead of cracking or breaking under strain, they bend and flex.


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

[User]
How long is too long to wait to get into your degree field?

So I graduated from college 3 years ago now with a bachelors degree In Biology. I had high hopes of getting into the environmental field as a starting job. After 6 months of applications to over 80 positions I heard nothing back and needed to get a job so I work at a ski resort In the winter and kept trying to find jobs. Summer came around again and still not reply from any jobs in the past year so I went back to my summer job because they paid well. So I continued this process for the past three years now I feel like my degree is worthless and I'm basically  not a good option for employers To hire as I have zero job experience which pretty much every jobs requires. Should I just look for a different career path now?

[Assistant]
There are options. Heres one: volunteer at a university research laboratory 15-20 hours per week while maintaining your other employment if possible. Make that work for 8 months or so and then start applying for lab tech jobs at research universities/hospitals. Those jobs are usually something like $17/hr starting out and after two years often people become salaried in the $40k-50k range.

Depends if you like lab work.


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

[User]
[Jurassic Park] Why did Robert Muldoon decide to hunt Velociraptors with a 12ga shotgun?

Muldoon is a serious hunter that's "hunted most things that can hunt you," and he deeply respects/fears the velociraptors. So why does he  use a shotgun instead of a rifle? Even if he was loaded with 12ga slugs, wouldn't a rifle with a high capacity be better suited to taking on prehistoric megapredators?

I know in the book he uses rockets, and that would make for a rather anticlimactic end to the movies raptors, but surely there must be a middle ground.

[Assistant]
Shotguns are good, that's why. Shotguns shoot more than one projectile with a lot of power at reasonably good accuracy. You can switch ammo and shoot one large projectile with accuracy very close to that of a rifle. Or you can switch to a shitton of shot with very little power but great spread (though this one is better for small game, not exactly velociraptors).

Rifles, even with high capacity magazines, require much more pinpoint accuracy, which isn't the best thing to use when you are being hunted back, especially when you know they hunt in a pack.


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

[User]
CMV: Ignoring nuclear energy is a big middle finger for the planet and experts on the field, while making climate change not look like a crisis at all.

The  fight against Green House Emissions is focused on one big  transformation: the Energy sector, whose trending solution of the  present is to use renewable energy to eletrify everything we can, and to  produce hydrogen with everything we can't eletrify. (Biofuels for  extreme scenarios).

While trying  to achieve such goals, our natural gas consumption is rising, since it's  a perfect fit for the variability of Renewable Energy.

Meanwhile,  most countries ditch on nuclear energy, which is the perfect  replacement for coal power plants. Discussions surrounding it tend to  compare it with Variable Renewable Energy (VRE), and tend to be biased.

Statements  of "solar and wind are cheaper than gas at the moment!" are common, and  unfair, since they do not account with long-term storage any time, and  makes a bad comparison against any type of established energy.

This  further increased when nuclear's main problem are costs, which is a  very respected argument. Yes, while gas is truly cheaper than nuclear,  and, although it emits GHG, it can provide everything nuclear can  (energy-wise), but VRE alone cannot. On top of this, the decomission of  solar and wind is rarely put into consideration. These include  unrecyclable blades and foundations of concrete that are not removed  from the environment, and solar's toxic electronics that can be more  dangerous than nuclear waste. They also come with big, ignored costs,  while nuclear energy takes it into account.

The  worst is the hype surrounding hydrogen. If it ever comes to reality, it  doesn't become only a storage solution: it becomes a necessity for  transport and / or heat. As such, this necessity cannot be based only on  the excess of VRE. So, again, we will be dependant on the most  available process: steam reforming Natural Gas. The funny thing is that  even here nuclear can help, as itsresidual heat is a free source of  energy to produce hydrogen, which usually is dissipated into the water,  going to waste.

I am not saying  nuclear is asolution of everything, but it's a damn good, proven help.  Economics constraints should not be a reason alone to not adopt it. This  energy density would allow us to further evolve ourselves, and there  are tons of things humans put money on for the betterment of humankind,  such as space exploration.

People  mention Chernobyl, but this was one in a kind accident, almost half a  century ago, and experts did tons of work for the betterment of the  technology. Meanwhile, a Banqiao dam breaks in China, kills several  hundred thousand on people, while putting MILLIONS without home and  eletricity, but no-one is scared of them. Because they do not fear it.  They can't even imagine it happening to them.

Every  technology has problems that can be improved and bettered, and plenty of motivated people are working on making it better, cheaper, safer. But it seems that we live in a moment where supporting Renewable Energy and ditching  everything else is the "good thing" to do, even if that is actually  making our progress slower in the fight against climate change.

People  fear the complexity of nuclear energy, such as they fear more airplanes  than cars, although everyone knows that cars kill way more persons than  airplanes ever did. Nuclear is the "Shrek" that the city is afraid of,  even if he does save the princess at the end.

As long as this fear of a clean, dense and well-established technology,  and disregard of decades of hard-work done from highly inteligent  people, are we really allowed to say that we are facing a climate-change  **crisis?**

----------

EDIT: I usually don't edit posts, but I had to add this: wow! Never expected so many responses. I appreciate every point of view, and will try my best to give my opinion to everyone!

[Assistant]
The point about nuclear costs isn't that it's not as economically good as gas.

It's that it's not as economically good as **renewables**. Governments should have invested heavily in nuclear plants around 1990-2000. But they didn't, and in the meantime renewables got cheaper to operate, more efficient in output, and have always been much cheaper to build and faster to get to breakeven generation.

Now with renewables the state they are, nuclear just doesn't make sense.  Yes, its better and safer than coal and gas, but for every million bucks you put into a nuclear plant you could get more out of putting that million bucks into renewables.

This only applies to nuclear generation, mind. The reason renewables got cheaper and better in the last 20-30 years is because there was continuing research in them. The same should go for nuclear, and with time nuclear may become a sensible option again.


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

[User]
How do we know the "stable" isotopes don't just have absurdly long half-lives (as in several magnitutes times the age of the universe)?

I know bismuth was formely considered stable until it was discovered it just had an extremely long half-life.

[Assistant] We don't really, it is theorized that protons even in stable atoms may decay over long enough timescales, in this case no atom would truly be stable. There are also the tiny probabilities that collections of stable atoms may slowly undergo spontaneous fusion events which isn't radioactive decay but would mean that no sample of atoms would remain stable over unlimited periods of time.


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

[User]
(Marvel) How strong is movie-verse Captain America?

Where does he rank on the strength scale?

[Assistant] In Agents of Shield (which is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe), there is a soldier who was enhanced by CENTIPEDE who defects and works for SHIELD for a time. During one training exercise, he pushes a bulldozer down the length of a football field. Pushing a treaded vehicle weighing several tons is definitely superhuman, and the guy goes several tens of yards in a few seconds. At the end, he asks if he broke Captain America's record, and is told he's not even close. Cap definitely has some superstrength going on, though unfortunately we only have rough minimums to go on.


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

[User]
ELI5: Can someone explain this quote to me?

"If you did something right, people won't be quite sure you did anything at all."

[Assistant]
So let's say that you're a hotel concierge. If everything goes perfectly, the guests will never talk to you.

It's like that. When everything goes perfectly, we never realize that it almost didn't. If we realize that it almost didn't, it's because someone messed up.


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

[User]
[SW] What if you used a shotgun against a Jedi?

The Jedi cannot block all of the shot with his lightsaber. Why would a shotgun (or laser equivalent of a shotgun) not easily take down a Jedi?

[Assistant]
A Jedi is much more than just someone that wields a lightsaber. They have supernatural reflexes and speed, can sense the future, have telekinesis, and even more.

So sure, they won't be able to block a blast from a shotgun with their lightsaber, but that doesn't mean they are defenseless against them, either. They can dodge faster than the eye can see, rip the gun from your hands before you get a shot off, throw the lightsaber to cut the gun (or you) in half before you shoot, throw you through the air, grab something with the force to block the shot, and possibly even push the cloud of shot right back at you.


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

[User]
[LOTR] Is extreme addiction to the One Ring an intentional feature?

Doesn't lust for the ring result in stashing it away for long periods of time (Gollum and Bilbo style), preventing it from coming back to Sauron? How does other people's lust for the Ring benefit Sauron?

[Assistant] It wasn't intentional, because Sauron never intended for anyone to wear the ring except for him.  It's an accidental side effect of having that much of Sauron's power and personality contained within the ring.  The longer you have it, the more Sauron-y you become.


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

[User]
CMV. First person shooter games like call of duty and battlefield are boring and have lost any and all charm by having no actual original ideas.

Let me make this clear. I do not dislike ALL first person shooters. Borderlands? Love it. Cool art style with fun characters and dialogue that had me holding my chest laughing.
Bioshock? Incredible.  Immersive world with deep lore and life lessons to be taught.
Farcry? Lacking now but great nonetheless. Awesome open world gameplay with once again very funny dialogue, while knowing when its time to get real.
Doom 2016? Omfg i love it. Loud metal music, ripping demons heads off with fast paced and gory combat is awesome. Halo? Fucking space spartans with laser guns whats not to love.

But still: cod and battlefield are generic and lazy.

[Assistant]
They are generic because they are genre defining. They are the first thing people picture when they hear the term, so everything else exists in contrast to these prototipical games.

Other games have more appeal that target specific audience, but are at the same time more off-putting to other people. The cartoonish aesthetic of Borderlands makes it something special and will be very popular with people who like that, but can also be a complete deal breaker for others.

CoD is simply the vanilla flavour of shooters.


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

[User] [Gotham City] While dark and rundown, a lot of buildings were clearly once new and beautiful. When was Gotham's Golden Age of growth and success? How quickly did it all go to hell?

[Assistant] Assuming DC Gotham developed along lines of our universe USA, 1920-1930 would be the Golden Age. A lot of the architecture in Gotham is Art Deco style, which had its heyday in major building construction during and around that 1920-1930 period.


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

[User]
[The Princess Bride] How did Westley become a better swordfighter than Inigo?

Inigo had been raised by a master sword maker, then spent his entire life studying under various teachers, honing his skills, and questing for revenge. Westley was a farm boy five years ago, and I doubt that the instant he joined Roberts' crew he was immediately plunged into an intensive sword training course; he would have had to also spend some time gaining the trust of the crew, and then his time would also have been split between learning seamanship, being Roberts' valet, and building up an immunity to iocaine powder.

So how was Westley able to surpass Inigo?

[Assistant] Westley is basically a once-in-a-century prodigy-- a perfect physical specimen and a legendary genius with a titanium will and a vitally important (to him, at least) purpose. He wasn't necessarily better, but he was good enough and wanted to win more.


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

[User]
[Princess Bride] What's so bad about being unemployed in Greenland?

I mean, sure, being unemployed is bad enough, but Vizzini makes it sound so much worse when he qualifies it with "...in Greenland." What's up with that?

[Assistant]
Before being found by Vizzini, Fezzik had been working as a strongman for a circus, where he would fight groups of toughs, etc. for sport.  But he was so good that it became boring for audiences, who began to boo him.  When the circus finally fired him it was traveling through Greenland, so that's where he ended up: sitting on a rock in the middle of Greenland, the most lonely place in the world.

Vizzini found him there and made him an offer: work with me, and no one will ever boo you again.  Vizzini needed a strong man, but even more than that Fezzik needed companionship.  So with that Fezzik began working for Vizzini.


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

[User] If the major event that triggered the extinction of the dinosaurs never happened, could they have evolved to our level of intelligence?

[Assistant]
That is in fact one of the biggest puzzles in the speculation about extraterrestial life. For us humans, being intelligent seems to be a pretty neat trick in the survival of the fittest. So why is everything else so dumb? As far as we know, we are the only intelligent civilized species in the history of life on earth. Which is *long*: 3.8 billion years is the best guess now.

There are  three possible answers to this:

a) We only find intelligence important because *we* have it. Elephants (if they were intelligent) would probably wondering why there are no other land creatures with trunks, despite trunks obviously being useful and beautiful.

b) It *did* evolve, but geological time just bulldozered over it. A dinosaur civilization with agriculture, oral traditions and the habit of burying its members with flowers would be pretty darn intelligent by our standards. But our chances of finding those dinos are small, let alone our chances of finding out about their intelligence.

c) This one actually borders on (a): intelligence is not that big a deal. Every other animal on the planet seems to cope just fine without it. Dinos had already existed for millions of years without big brains, why would they suddenly start making them now?


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do we vocalize our thought process by saying, "um"?

Is there an actual reason behind this, or is it simply considered some form of a crutch for the way we communicate?

[Assistant]
It's a mechanism for holding on to the conversation ball. By using discourse markers and vocalised pauses ('like' and 'y'know' vs 'er' etc) we indicate that we're still speaking and please would the other person wait until we're done. Essentially it's a way to indicate whose turn it is to talk, without losing our place.

It's noticeable that if we intentionally don't use them, unless our conversation partners are good at reading nonverbal cues we'll probably be interrupted more often in pauses.

One of the reasons people who don't use discourse markers sound 'smart' is because the only way to achieve that without constantly being interrupted is to think fast and keep talking. Refer to the BBC programme 'Just A Minute' for examples of that skill being demonstrated with punishment for failure.


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

[User]
[Predator] The Predators are hunters but only do so with every possible advantage over their prey, what honour is there in any so called victory under these ridiculously unfair conditions?

Gun cannons, infrared vision, hell invisibility, not exactly a fair fight is it. Strip all that away and the Pred's wouldn't last a round with anyone.

[Assistant]
The Yatuja have a very strict honor code that will merit the death penalty if broken.

The predator picks a target in which he has to face in fair combat.  The cloaking field and shoulder caster are for evading and removing non targets.  If the predator shot its target and claimed its skull, that predator will be sentenced to death by its clan if discovered.  The predator first eliminates the non-targets as needed, using its cloak field and ballistics.  But against his target it MUST be a fair fight.

The predator must face its target on equal footing.  If the target is unarmed the predator must fight it in hand to hand combat.  If the target has a knife then the predator will use its wrist blades, if the target as a larger weapon then the predator can use its combi-stick.  If the target is wounded the predator will inflict a similar wound on itself.

Note:  That the super predators that hunted on the alien planet were of a deviant clan of killers that did not use the honor code.  Thats why the normal predators were trying to kill them.  Disregarding the honor code made them heretics.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] I'm a civilian archeologist who stumbled upon the Rebel base when going to Yavin for work. They captured me. What is going to happen to me?

I'm not an Imperial agent and want nothing to do with the Galactic Civil War. Will they let me go home or am I too much of a security risk?

[Assistant]
You do realize that even if we let you go, the Empire isn't going to leave you alone.

Your entire itinerary is suspicious. What are you doing in an obscure moon in the Outer Rim Territories far away the protection and reach of the Empire? And if you say studying the Temple, you do realize that it's a Force religion temple and academic study of that by a civilian is banned in the Empire. If that is what you're actually studying and not a terrible excuse, you're going to find yourself vanished by the ISB or COMPNOR if you actually publish any information.

Either you're a really shit spy with a terrible alibi or a really clueless archeologist (how did you even get funding for this?) or a pawn of Vader or something.