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

[User]
ELI5: Is there an easy, painless way for me to discharge static electricity without shocking myself and my family?

I come to work, touch my desk drawer and get shocked. I go home, I walk in the door, hug my son, shock us both. Am I able to wear something or hold something that'll easily, painlessly discharge before I shock myself?

[Assistant] Hold a key (or coin), and touch that to whatever metal you're about to touch. The key will take the brunt or the spark. As for hugging -- make it a game, and you both have to touch keys before you touch each other. It works!


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

[User]
What are some philosophy books that say something unique or not commonly said?

I've been reading philosophy books for many years and I've become quite bored with the field. It's hard to read a 600 page book breaking down a topic where you already know all the positions. You aren't really learning something you never thought of you're just learning to better understand the same things you already know.

[Assistant] Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are guaranteed to not be putting forth any positions you have ever encountered whether you're into Analytic or Continental. If you find these boring, you're far overestimating how much you understand.


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

[User]
[X-Men Animated] Does Storm have to narrate her powers?

In the X-Men animated series from the 1990s, most of the X-Men just use their powers, but Storm specifically melodramatically narrates everything she does, forces of nature, I command you!  Summon forth a torrent of rain!, that sort of thing.

Does she HAVE to do this in order for her powers to work, or does she just do it because its cool?

[Assistant]
She has to in the sense that saying it aloud helps her focus her powers into a specific intention, but the elements arent actually listening to her words and responding.

Its like a kicker in football needing the ball held a certain way or having a mantra before a kick - the ball doesnt care, but the player needs to do it in order to focus and believe in what they are attempting.


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

[User]
How does a compiler handles function calls in an expression?

Hello everyone! So I was thinking... Let's say you have a random expression such as this:

    3 * x  + (3 + (2+ 1)) / (func(y, 3) * (3+y))

where x and y are variables and func() is a function call. Now,  I suppose lots registers will be busy holding numbers while this is getting evaluated, and that shouldn't be a problem if there's no function call in the expression; However, when a function gets called midway trough the computation, how do you keep track of all the values in the busy registers? I mean, func could potentially alter the value of some of the already busy registers, messing up the whole evaluation. How does it work? (I hope I was at least somewhat clear about this) :)

[Assistant]
It keeps track of intermediate values using the stack or registers. Functions'll save register values to the stack and restore them when they return.

Compiler'll turn that expression into an expression tree using the order of operations and just mindlessly evaluate leaves of that tree till the expression is fully evaluated.


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

[User] ELI5 Why lotto winners almost always take the smaller cash prize instead of the annuity?

[Assistant]
It's smart to do if you plan to invest the money - you can do a lot better than a 50% increase over thirty years, which is roughly the difference between the lump sum and the annuity (at least with Powerball).

More realistically, winners want a lot of money and want it immediately.


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

[User]
[Aliens/Predator] Why do the Predators despise the Predalien?

If you've played the games and watched the movies, the Predators sort of revere the Xenomorphs as the ultimate prey while they despise the Predalien and the ground it walks on. Well the Predators are the ultimate hunters and mixed with Xenomorphs, wouldn't the Predalien be the ultimate ultimate prey?

Why wouldn't they try to breed them for the greatest of all hunts?

[Assistant]
It's something like a zombie for the Yautja- superficially similar but stripped of everything meaningful. A parody of their culture and psychology and biology. See it's attempts to "collect trophies". See how it mindlessly hunts on some vauge impulse with none of the rites. See how it looks just enough like a Yautja to clearly be related but not enough to actually be one.

It's horrifying, in short. It's not the ultimate prey. It's a corruption of the ultimate hunter into just a feral killing machine. And to a species that bases their whole culture around the sacred hunt, there's few concepts more nightmarish.


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

[User] [1984] Is there any hope for peace, democracy, etc. in this world?

[Assistant]
Two hopeful answers:

First, there's an alternate reading of 1984 that says that the book is, in effect, a lie.  Not that the events aren't true within the book universe, but that the description of the rest of the world is no more reliable than a North Korean account of American Politics.  Since everything we get is from the party and filtered through Smith we don't really know what the rest of the world is like. Oceania could easily be a small pariah state, surrounded by a regular world.

Second, there's always at least some hope, because humanity came from darkness. There isn't freedom because there's a word for it, there's a word for freedom because the concept emerged on its own. Even if it requires a thousand years of horrors, in a system where 2 +2 doesn't equal four anymore, eventually the monitors breakdown, the spies stop functioning, and there's at least a slim chance for renewal (especially since there's nothing in 1984 that suggests any plans or ability to change humanity on a permanent biological level)


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

[User]
ELI5: Why are humans depicted in paintings from ancient civilizations like different than now? Weren't there artists who could paint realistic paintings?

Weren't there artists at that time who could draw humans for what they actually looked like. For instance, look at the paintings of kings from the 17th Century or before.

[Assistant] What you might consider "a realistic picture" is actually fairly divorced from the perceptive experience of seeing a human face or figure in motion. It's not actually intuitive to imagine and execute an ideally framed and posed static human figure in flat lighting. A *lot* of artistic theory had to be developed to get to a stage where we might consider art as truthful representation as opposed to symbolic shapes. There also had to be technological leaps: devices like the camera obscura and other machinations with mirrors helped early Renaissance artists freeze a frame to preserve fine detail. Even today if you asked an accomplished painter to paint a model human from memory, they'd struggle. We needed to develop artistic traditions like using models or photographic references, and for many human cultures the idea of sitting still and staring into space for a whole day so your face and shape could be accurately recorded would have been farcical.


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

[User]
ELI5: how do Mortgage works?

When you go to a bank, and you want to Mortgage your house... what happens? how do this works? what happens to your house?

[Assistant]
A mortgage is just a special term for "home loan."

Basically, since houses are too expensive to just buy, you need to get a big, huge bank loan to be able to pay for one.  But banks don't just give away those kinds of loans - they need some kind of collateral, something they get to keep if you don't pay them back.  And since you're buying a house, they use the house itself as collateral.  If you don't pay back your mortgage loan, the bank gets to keep the house.

The upside is that while you pay them back, you get to live in the house.  So it's like you're buying more and more ownership of the house each time you make a payment.


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

[User] ELI5: why do memories attach so strongly to certain scents?

[Assistant]
Scent is the most primitive of our senses, it is essentially our brain reaching out of our skull (through the cribiform plate at the base of the skull) to chemically sample volatile compounds in the environment. Every other sense is mediated through other organs, transmitted through nerves for the brain to interpret, but not scent. As a result the way that scents are processed and associated with memories is somewhat different to the results of other senses.

Specifically and not very ELI5: scents are processed in the olfactory bulb and then connected directly to the amygdala and hippocampus, bypassing the thalamus.


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

[User] ELI5: What is the biology behind being a light sleeper vs a heavy sleeper?

[Assistant]
Very little. There are all sorts of studies where people in sleep studies claim terrible or awesome sleep, yet their sleep data is very similar.

Much of how we understand our own sleep comes down to bias and perception. If you sleep through something, you don't remember it. You only remember the times you woke up, yet some people use that to "prove" that every little noise sets them off.

You normally cycle through four stages of sleep every night. At NREM 1, you are right in the fuzzy grey zone of awake and asleep. Your brain is still aware of a lot of external surroundings (sounds, sleeping next to someone who tosses and turns all night) and you are easy to wake up in that stage. When you hit NREM 3, you are pretty much dead to the world, scientifically speaking. It takes a lot to wake you up, your brain really wants to ignore everything, and if you do wake up in this stage, you will feel gross and kind of out of it. Since you hit these stages more than once a night, you will naturally be more awake or more asleep at various points in the night. That's normal and healthy. People naturally spend less time in NREM 3 and REM sleep as they get older.

People who experience hypervigilance (as in subclinical anxiety problems, anxiety disorders, or disorders related to trauma like PTSD) are "scanners." This (a) has a *huge* impact on quality of sleep, and (b) makes them very sensitive to any sort of sleep disturbance, which makes the problem seem a lot bigger than it really is because it means interpreting normal sleep functions (hitting light sleep stages during the night) as a problem or threat.

That there are tons of sleep disorders, mental illnesses, physical illnesses, etc. out there that mess with normal sleep architecture, so for those people, they may spend more time in light sleep stages or otherwise find their sleep getting a bit messy and therefore be more likely to wake up. Some sleep medications (especially benzos and z-drugs like zopiclone) also mess up sleep architecture, ironically. Regular old alcohol and other drugs can have similar effects.

ETA: If you consistently have poor sleep, talk to your doctor!


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

[User]
ELI5:How come the price of Oil went from 100$ a barrel to 27$ and the Oil price in my country went from 1,5 per liter to 1,15 per liter.

It makes no sense in my eyes. I know taxes make up for the majority of the price but still its a change of 73%, while the price of oil changed for 35%. If all the prices of manufacturing stay the same it should go down more right?

Edit: A lot of people try to explain to me like the top rated guy has that if one resource goes down by half the whole product doesnt go down by half which i totally understand its really basic. I just cant find any constant correlation between crude oil over the years and the gas price changes. It just seems to go faster up than down and that the country is playing with taxes as they wish to make up for their bad economic policies.

[Assistant]
Suppose you want to make a grilled cheese sandwich. You go to the store and buy cheese (crude oil), bread (refining), and butter (taxes). If each of these cost $1, your sandwich costs $3 to make. Now suppose cheese is on sale for half price. The cost of your sandwich went down to $2.50, not $1.50 because the other ingredients still cost the same.

Edit: forgot a word.


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

[User]
Why does it take longer to get dark at night in some areas over others that are along the same or are close in latitudes?

I live in Edmonton, which is pretty well a mid prairies city, and have noticed that in the summer, it takes a really long time at night before it get a dark,even well outside the city. For example, the sun may set at around 9ish, yet it won't get dark until nearly midnight, while in Toronto, or San Jose which is much further south, it'll  be dark within a half-hour or hour of sunset. Why is that?

[Assistant]
Twilight lasts a longer time the further you get from the equator, because the Sun moves at an increasing angle to the horizon.  The extreme case is the polar regions (>66 degrees from the equator), where the Sun never sets at all during summer, while at the equator it sets essentially perpendicular to the horizon, so it goes down fast.

Edmonton (latitude 53.5) is about 10 degrees closer to the pole than Toronto, and 16 degrees closer than San Jose.  This makes a big difference.

Also, the Sun is not so far below the horizon at midnight, only about 13 degrees at Edmonton in mid-summer, versus 29 degrees in San Jose.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is the video setting on cameras always so much more zoomed in that the photo setting(s)?

[Assistant] Very often a modern camera is using the borders of the image (which you don't see when taking a video) to take the shake out of the video (image stabilization). By having borders around the actual video frame that is taken, the camera can adjust for shaky hands by shifting the smaller (zoomed in) view in the other direction, making your video remarkably smooth. This is done using digital analysis, accelerometers that measure the shaky movement, or both.


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

[User]
ELI5: If Netflix and Spotify can destroy the market on renting or buying movies and buying physical music, why hasn't a simlar service for streaming video games been released to consoles yet?

I'm don't hate Netflix or Spotify, I'm curious as to why individual console games haven't died yet. (I'm aware of steam games)

[Assistant]
The simple answer is latency and bandwidth. If you noticed, many games are far bigger than any movie. WarFrame alone is nearly 30 GB. Not to mention games like evolve require 50 GB of hard drive space.

Since you experience lag in physical disc games while online, streaming would be impractical. Many players on the same game would really tax the servers and the experienced lag would be far worse.


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

[User]
Can there be such a distance function?

I want to know about a special distance function. I know the properties of a normal distance function, in any space, but one has recently drawn my attention: the triangular inequality.
The triangular inequality can be explained the following manner (if I understand correctly):
given A,B and C 3 points in some space and D a distance function in this space, than the following statement is true:
D(A,B) <= D(A,C) + D(C,B).
My question is: can there be a distance function for which the following statement is true:
given A,B and C 3 **different** points then
D(A,B) **<** D(A,C) + D(C,B)?

If yes, which one, how?
If no, why?

**Edit:** Thanks everyone for the answer. I didn't realize so weird distances and metrics can be useful, I just thought it is a weird question to think about. Well, you learns something everyday!

[Assistant]
Yes. But before we start, first the 4 properties that a function must have in order to be a distance function:

- D(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y
- D(x, y) = D(y, x)
- D(x, y) >= 0
- D(x, z) <= D(x, y) + D(y, z)

the last one being the triangle inequality that you already mentioned. You're looking for a distance function where the triangle inequality is a strict inequality when the 3 points are distinct.

Let D(x, y) = 0 if x = y and 1 otherwise.

Verification that this function has the 4 required properties is straightforward, property 1, 2 and 3 follow directly from the definition. For property 4, we distinguish distinct cases:

- x = z, but x <> y and y <> z. We find: D(x, z) = 0, D(x, y) + D(y, z) = 2, OK.
- x <> z, x = y, y <> z. D(x, z) = 1, D(x, y) + D(y, z) = 1, OK.
- x <> z, x <> y, y = z. D(x, z) = 1, D(x, y) + D(y, z) = 1, OK.
- x <> z, x <> y, y <> z. D(x, z) = 1, D(x, y) + D(x, z) = 2, OK.

For your requirements, the 4th point of the above applies. We see that the strict inequality clearly holds.

The name of this distance function is the "discrete metric", with metric being the term commonly used instead of distance function.


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

[User]
ELI5: how do we store stress in our bodies?

Is this just a throw away phrase or do we actually store mental/emotional stress in our physical bodies? If so, how?

[Assistant]
Stress doesn't literally get "stored", but it *is* true that frequent stress is bad for you.

When you're in a stressful situation, your brain secretes chemicals called "adrenaline" and "cortisol" into your blood.  These chemicals signal your various body parts (including the brain again) that you're in a situation where short-term survival needs to be prioritized over long-term health.

This basically increases your susceptibility to all kinds of illnesses.  Physical resources that would have gone to your immune system instead get diverted to your muscles.  Mental resources that would have gone to helping you adapt better to your environment instead get diverted to being on the lookout for immediate threats.  Etc.


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

[User] ELI5: why do most electronics, like controllers and remotes, need two batteries instead of one?

[Assistant]
Modern electronics operate off of semiconductors. Diodes and transistors. This includes LED's. These are electronic devices which do almost nothing below a set voltage. Only above this voltage do they become active.

While the exact voltage can vary, this would usually be near or above the voltage of one battery (1.5 v). So, to get some function out of them, the voltage must be raised a bit. The easiest way to do this is to add a second battery.


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

[User] [Marvel] How intelligent are cosmic geniuses like Galactus and Thanos compared to Earth geniuses?

[Assistant] There was a period of Marvel where it was basically establishing that Norman Osborne was the most dangerous villain in the MCU. Thanos is smart but he's bad at political matters hence the General mindsets. Norman knows how to work the people and hide his motivations.


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

[User]
[DC comics] Why does the Justice League even bother teaming up with Captain Atom?

Captain Atom has a notorious weakness: if his suit gets torn, he creates a nuclear explosion upon being forced out of it due to his living nuclear energy status. This has been repeatedly shown to be a huge threat to him, his fellow team members, and the world. Given that, why does the Justice League let him come along on missions? They have Firestorm to do the nuclear energy related work. They've got plenty of flying people and strongmen. Plenty of people can shoot projectiles both energy and non-energy based. Isn't he just a liability?

[Assistant]
This problem only exists in the universe where the Justice League Unlimited exists.

Quite honestly, it takes extreme force, on the order of the kind of force that can harm Wonder Woman or Superman, to actually tear his suit.

Most forces the JLU faces just isn't at that level. On the other hand, his abilities are quite useful, he's very powerful, and as an active duty military officer he is experienced in both combat tactics and command.

He's an excellent field commander, and a powerful, versatile asset in a fight.

In the New 52 universe, his suit is made of Dilustrel and is nearly invulnerable. if it is breached he doesn't explode, he Quantum Jumps, a totally different effect.


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

[User]
[General Science Fiction] How could a benevolent alien race potentially harm humanity during first contact?

Obviously, a malevolent race actively looking to harm humanity would be awful, but what about a well-meaning alien race?

Is there any way that positive first contact could still hurt us?

[Assistant] Several ways, there is always the alien virus ravaging the population but cross species viruses are rare, so cross planetary is likely to be even more so. If they did not understand our social structure, they could gift one nation some fantastic piece of technology or scientific breakthrough, humans being humans, we would never share and would try to use it to our advantage and go to war for control over it. They could give us a piece of technology that allows us to become Star faring but there are other species out there that are malevolent and we then attract attention to ourselves. They could barter with us in good faith and we don't understand what we are trading away, say all of our hydrogen or something and it has catastrophic consequences, or we could misunderstand their culture and let's say they conclude every contact by butchering and eating our delegation as a sign of respect.


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

[User] [The Illiad]I am a soldier guarding the gates of Troy and I swear just I heard a sneeze coming from the belly of that giant horse the Greeks abandoned yesterday before going home, why did a sneeze come from inside a giant wooden horse? Is this some kind of message from Poseidon, what does it mean?

[Assistant]
If they were like most people throughout most of history you'd just think you might have misheard something else from someplace else. Most people also only take is seriously if they hear something more than once, or hear more noise. The probably sound of glass breaking? Nah, people will stop and listen for more noise and ignore it if they don't hear anything else.
A soldier on guard duty is already going to be bored and likely tired, so even more able to make himself think he was hearing things.


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

[User]
What differs Romanticism and Existentialism?

I'm now preparing for mid-semester test for History of Psychology.

While I'm at it, I came across a question in the text book that asks what's the difference between Romanticism and Existentialism. From what I understand, I think that both of these philosophy have more similarities than differences. I can't seem to find the differences between the two and end up being quiet confused.

Hence, any explanations towards this matter from people on this subreddit would be truly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

[Assistant]
It would help to have an idea of which thinkers you're dealing with. But that aside, here are some ideas:

1. In Existentialism, humans have no essence, or, as Sartre says, existence precedes essence. On the other hand, in Romantics who follow in the footsteps of Herder, there is a primitive national identity in all people--this is the idea of *Volk*, and it means that the Germans are one sort of people, the French another, etc.

2. In Existentialism, man is condemned to freedom and meaninglessness. There is no meaning in the universe except what people make of it. On the other hand, Romantics frequently hold to the idea that there is some divine driving force in the universe, whether this be God or Nature or Spirit or whatever.


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

[User]
Eli5: The Transcendental Numbers?

What exactly The Transcendental Numbers are?

[Assistant]
Real numbers can be divided into two classes: Algebraic numbers, and transcendental numbers. All real numbers belong to one and only one of these classes.

Algebraic numbers are sort of the "nice" numbers. They are sort of the things that flow naturally from integers. All rational numbers are algebraic for example.

Transcendental numbers on the other hand are the murky, ugly majority of numbers that are difficult to deal with. Almost all numbers are transcendental, but they are exceedingly difficult to work with. We only relatively recently managed to prove pi belongs to this class of silent majority.

The big thing about algebraic numbers is that they are solutions to equations like 2x-1 = 0. Or x^2 = 2. Solutions being x=0.5 and +/-sqrt(2). Basically, polynomial equations with integer coefficients. This covers big bunch of numbers we ever end up using. All integers, all rational numbers, square roots, cubic roots, etc. Transcendental numbers are "all the rest"

A thing to note is that all transcendental numbers are irrational, but not all irrational numbers are transcendental. For example, square root of 2 is irrational but algebraic.


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

[User]
ELI5: How are shell companies used in tax avoidance?

If Company A operates in Country A and all of their income is generated through Country A, why is it that them sending money to Shell Company B in Country B means they get lower/no tax due to tax loops? Technically they still received the money and therefore is income, even if it's immediately sent to Country B, correct?

[Assistant]
Company A is in a country where profits are taxed at 30%. Company B is in a country where profits are taxed at 5%.

Company A has 1 million profit. Company A owes the government 300k

Company A buys fictitious services from company B for 1 million. Company A now has 0 profit, so no taxes. Company B has 1 million profit and owes the government 50k in taxes.

Company saved 250k.

I dont know if its the same in all countries but at least in Portugal you cant operate at a loss more than X years in a row or you pay more taxes, regardless of profit. Exactly to avoid abuse.


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

[User] Why do broken hips tend to be so dangerous and often deadly for older people?

[Assistant] In later life the hips are one of the few bones still actively producing blood and fractures in that area not only disrupt that but are also very traumatic in an already frail body. The recovery time leads to further muscle degradation and more stress on the other hip leading to a greater chance of the other hip also breaking. There are a few other factors but the bedrest and trauma are the main ones.


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

[User]
[Fallout: New Vegas] How did The Courier recover so quickly from being shot in the head?

Doc Mitchell says you've been "out cold, for a couple of days now." Now I doubt he literally means two days, but even if he means a week, The Courier should not be as physically active as they are at the start of the game. For reference, IRL doctor's recommendation is that you avoid physical activity for four weeks after a brain surgery.

Note that I'm not asking HOW The Courier survived: even people IRL have survived worse. I'm asking how they can run around and shoot Geckos a few days after a traumatic brain surgery and waking up from a coma.

[Assistant]
The real answer is that: the Courier *didn't* (fully) recover that quickly from being shot in the head.

There is at least some evidence that the Courier is *some* degree of dangerously competent before he or she gets shot in the head: Ulysses is clearly aware of a list of exploits that the Courier just doesn't remember.

Before being shot, this was a person who was clearly dangerous, clearly competent, and clearly skilled in surviving the wasteland. Benny had to hire an entire gang to capture you in the first place.

So, in that context, after waking up, the Courier can't remember much, barely can hold and fire a gun correctly, and is the weakest he (or she) will ever be health wise at the start of New Vegas, and skill-wise is on a level similar to a sheltered vault dweller as a result of the injury.

Stimpaks are pretty damn good, that is how the Courier is able to function, but "Geckos are a threat to me" is pretty much the Courier equivalent to "Weak as a kitten."


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

[User]
[Star Wars] What if R2 found Obi Wan first?

What if after R2D2 and C-3P0 go separate ways on Tatooine R2 were to come across Obi Wan hut and delivered Leia's message?

Would Kenobi go to Mos Eisley on his own? Would he sense the time is right and collect Luke?

[Assistant]
Kenobi's purpose on Tattooine was to watch over Luke. He probably wouldn't leave him behind.

There'd be an argument between him and Uncle Owen, which might just have brought either Storm Troopers or tusken interest. In the fight, the family might have died. Luke would have had worse trauma, and be that much closer to the dark side.

How that would affect the rest of the timeline, who can say......
edit: Fixed Uncle Ben to Uncle Owen.  Pete Webwalker got me all confused.


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

[User]
ELI5: How come in the American justice system most prisoners on death row wait around 10-20 years for execution?

It doesn't make much sense to me.

[Assistant]
The death penalty is irreversible.  If someone is wrongly convicted, you can let someone out of prison, but death is death.

So the legal system wants to be really, really sure...no one wants to be the judge who refused an appeal that would have saved an innocent man.  And so the accused is afforded every opportunity to not just prove his innocent, but to give mitigating circumstances for his guilt.  And a lot of time it works...two out of three death sentences are eventually overturned.

The other factor is, what's the hurry?  Even if the accused is guilty, he is still in prison.  One might argue that his death might give the victim's family closure, but the death penalty is about punishment and deterrence, not making people feel better.


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

[User] Can a green lantern create a temporary independent automaton? Or do all their constructs require constant will?

[Assistant]
Remember to tag your posts.

And, yes, they've done it before. Hal Jordan once created a monster, the Chiller Diller, to get out of a date with Carol Ferris, then ended up getting knocked out. The Chiller Diller remained active and menaced the city until he woke up. There have been multiple occasions of rings working on subconscious things, such as maintaining constructs while the Lantern sleeps or keeping them alive and moving while they nap in space.

However, they cannot give their constructs true free will. Say, for example, Tomar Re creates a Superman construct for some reason. The construct would act according to his understanding of Superman and wouldn't act on any realizations or theories that Tomar Re himself didn't have. You see something like this in Justice, where Hal Jordan is forced to convert himself into energy and live in his power ring.

Note, however, that it doesn't have to be their will guiding it. Kyle Rayner once made a pair of artificial legs for someone who had lost theirs in an accident. The person's legs were tied to their own willpower, not his.


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

[User]
[God of War] Where did Kratos put all the artifacts he collected in Greece before the events of God of War 2018?

The Golden Fleece was destroyed and several weapons and artifacts were lost during the games, but what about the several items Kratos still had in his possession before leaving Greece?

In-game we see him bring nothing but the Blades of Chaos with him. Did he hide or destroy everything else?

[Assistant] He just left it all behind. Everything that could be left there. Kratos wanted to put all of his past behind him, so that's what he did. It wouldn't be inappropriate for him to simply drop them, now that they have no significance in his life. But the Blades are very much apart of him, and while he'd prefer never to take them up again, he knew there may come a time when that power could be used for good. Which is exactly what happened once Artreus became ill.


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

[User] EILI5: The movies have space ships/stations with artificial gravity by means of centrifugal forces...would that really work?

[Assistant]
Yes! It's actually simpler than it sounds.

When you're moving in space, inertia says you should keep moving in a straight line. If you're sitting on the inside surface of a giant rotating ring, at any moment inertia wants you to leave the ring and go off in a straight line, but the surface is in the way. So you bump into the surface, it exerts a force on you and changes your direction slightly upwards. That way you ride around on the inside of the ring as it rotates, without drifting off.

If you push off the surface, you're not affected by the surface any more, so you're back to moving in a straight line. Unless you're a truly excellent jumper, most of your speed is still parallel to the surface, except that you're moving a tiny bit towards the center as well. Draw a straight line from any point on the rim of a circle, mostly parallel to the edge at that point and you'll find that it just hits the circle again pretty soon, so that's what happens to you. You float away in a straight line, only to watch the edge rise to meet you again. From your perspective, it looks just like you jumped up, and fell down again.


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

[User] ELI5: Does a brown paper bag make any difference when it comes to US public drinking laws, or is that just a movie thing?

[Assistant] There is a scene in the wire that explains this. The theory posited is that it gives cops the ability to turn a blind eye. Otherwise they would spend all their time dealing with what is relatively a non issue today.


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

[User] [The Expanse] What are the major differences between the cultures of Earth/Earthers and Mars/Martians?

[Assistant]
Its important to distinguish *perception* versus *reality* when we talk about the differences in Culture between Mars and Earth.

If you ask a Martian about Earther culture they might describe a culture of decadent, wasteful, lazy people who live on a government handout led by a group of corrupt autocrats who are out to hurt Mars in every way possible.

Equally, if you asked an Earther about Mars youd hear them described as an overly aggressive and militarized culture of people who are constantly seeking to harm Earths interests and undo the carefully balanced peace that keeps the system sane.

And if you asked a Belter theyd probably say that both suck and should go the fuck home and leave the belt.

The reality on both sides is somewhere in between. Are there lazy people on Earth yes. But that comes from a planet that is so overpopulated that there is no possible way to provide everyone with meaningful work. Basic is just that, the bare minimum to keep you alive and for many thats all theyll ever be good for. But the cream rises to the top, and Martian Marines and Sailors will tell you that an Earther is just as hard as their Martian equivalent.

Equally, Martians are products of their planet. A planet that is not habitable but may be someday. They are militarized and focused because even a small slip up might mean everyone around you dies. There is no Basic on Mars because there is no room, no resources, and no capacity for it.

In the end, both sides are human and if you look more than skin deep they are actually pretty similar.


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

[User]
[Groundhog Day] Did Phil have dreams or experience anything whilst dead/sleeping?

It seems like the events of the day continue regardless of Phil's conscious state. The prime example is when Rita and Larry identify his body, as this event happens completely independent of Phil; which leads to me believe that there may have been something he experienced. May this have caused his drift in mood and life aspects?

[Assistant]
He doesn't experience the time while he is dead but time doesn't reset until 6am which is why we saw events happen while he was dead.

Edit: or to put it another way, to him time instantly resets when he dies but that scene was there to show us that time still moves while he's dead from other people's perspectives.


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

[User]
Does anyone out there in AskAcademia really think we have too few STEM graduates?

There aren't jobs out there for the current STEM graduates (BS, MS, PhD), so why do I keep hearing that there aren't enough undergraduates interested in STEM, or that America is falling behind?

What do you think?

[Assistant] That there aren't enough graduates and that America is falling behind are two different battles. America is falling behind compared to other developed nations because of a lack of investment in projects and technology (clean energy, for example) that would employ the surplus of STEM graduates. Federal funding is also being cut for academic pursuits while an overbearing patent system hinders advancements in the private sector.


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

[User]
[Star Wars] Could a random clone be force-sensitive?

It is possible for a random clone to develop some sort of sensitivity with the force? They all come from the same guy, who is a non-force user.. But it is possible that a random clone trooper get enough midichlorians to actually be able to sense the force?

[Assistant]
In the early EU, this was actually the case with one of Luke Skywalker's first students. This guy, D-something 88 (Dorsk 88, maybe?) came from a planet filled with clones. He was the first of his line to show Force-sensitivity.

Later Legends had clone Force-sensitives as... problematic. Almost impossible. Palpatine cloned himself early on, but he kept burning through the bodies. Starkiller was a perfect clone of Galen Marek, one of only two, but there were dozens of imperfect clones. And, of course, some of the earlier EU entries also had Jedi clones as being... Rather unstable, mentally.

However, there is no canon instance of a clone being Force Sensitive. Or of Force Sensitive cloning being possible. That said, is it impossible? ...Not really. As we know from the Clone Wars, Jango Fett's DNA was degrading due to being sampled so often. This was leading to mutations, such as 99 and the squad named after him, Clone Force 99, aka the Bad Batch. With some of the mutations and alterations that were occurring, it's not unbelievable that a clone could become Force sensitive. Especially if you take the view that midichlorians are a measure of possible Force *potential* and not Force *power*.

Some people will claim that midichlorians merely allow a rough grasp of your potential because they help you channel the Force, but they don't generate it. Others will claim that the more in tune with the Force you are, the higher your midichlorian count will raise. Either one of these explanations, paired with the theory of the Living Force, could explain why a Force sensitive clone could arise from a non-Force Sensitive cloning stock.


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

[User] ELI5: Why can't we see clearly underwater without using goggles?

[Assistant] Your eyes are made of lens that reflect light so it hits the nerves in your eyes and sends that information to the brain so your brain can make out an image. Well light moves different through different mediums and water refracts light much more than air. Basically put our eyes did not evolve to be able to see light correctly under the water.  Interesting note, if you take a fish out of the water, his eyesight would be the same as our eyesight underwater!


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

[User] How do the "return on investment" figures for going to college account for the fact that the type of person who gets a degree from college is also the type of person who was going to make more money than average even if they hadn't gone to college?

[Assistant] Some analyses look at people just above and just below an admissions cutoff to see what the returns on college look like for people who are similar across many observable characteristics. For example, you may look at a state where most students go to the big local state university, and they automatically admit students above a certain threshold, say GPA or SAT score. By comparing students right around that threshold that significantly alters likelihood of college enrollment and controlling for other observable characteristics like parents' education level and income, you can tease out a sense of the returns of the college degree. Research design around thresholds (fuzzy or strict) are popular mechanisms for trying to compare as similar of people, but of course any method you use is always subject to bias from omitted variables that you cannot measure or quantify like personality.


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

[User]
ELI5: Why do some traffic lights seem fast and responsive, while others leave you waiting for ages even when there's no other cars?

Are they configured differently depending on the location?

[Assistant]
Some traffic lights are designed to detect the presence of cars. They use an inductive strip which runs current, and will respond differently if a car is on top of it because the strip will induce current in the car's chassis and body. They can thus detect that a car is present and adjust light timing accordingly.

Other lights are "dumb" and just switch based on a preset timer, so you will be stuck at them regardless of traffic flow.


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

[User]
CMV: draws should be eliminated from all professional sports.

My opinion is based on the idea that professional sports people are supposed to be the best, and are striving for excellence. A draw is not a win, so it should be counted as a loss. Especially in team games like professional football (any code).

I think a draw system does not encourage offense play. And defensive play is almost always boring.

In sports with points and a time limit, a system should be used to determine a winner. Be it either a period of extra time, a tie break competition, or both sides should be considered a loss.

Professional sports are a spectacle for entertainment, I believe that this will be more entertaining.

Change my view!

Edit: some good posts, and my view is shifting a bit. But would love to hear some examples about different sports than soccer/football.

[Assistant]
Whenever you force a winner, its a forced winner (duh) who wasn't all that much better than his opponent. Take for example football (soccer) you have 90 minutes in a regular game. When there NEEDS to be a winner (like in the world cup finals) you play another 30 minutes, if there isn't a winner after that, you will shot penalties until one of the teams has a lead an the other team fails to catch up.
That is fine when you NEED to have a winner, you can't have a draw in the final match. But in a League? Its about comparing teams in the long run. In Germanys football league (the Bundesliga) you get 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw. No team is going for "draws" in 95%+ of the time. And even if they did, the game was boring for 120 minutes until you shot penalties, the quality of the game isn't any better, you just have a forced winner, taking 3 points while the other team is taking 0, when they both were equally good 120 minutes but one team shot 1 bad penalty. Thats not what you want in a league, if there is no real need for a winner, forcing one isn't doing any good.


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

[User] [Black Panther] If M'Baku had won the challenge, would he have become Black Panther despite not worshipping the Panther God?

[Assistant]
They would have converted to worship Gehkre (the Gorilla god) and torn down the various artifices of Bast (the Panther god) as part of dismantling many of the modern technological amenities of Wakanda.  M'Baku would have consumed the Heart Shaped Herb but would likely have taken on the mantle of the White Gorilla rather than Black Panther.  It's unclear whether his spiritual journey would have taken him to meet Bast so he could reject her in person or if he would have met Gehkre instead.  Either way it would have meant the end of the dominance of the Panther God in Wakanda.

Had M'Baku won, it would have indicated the failure of the Panther God and her disciples, showing that they had lost the mandate to lead.  Honestly, it would have been a shit show as the Mountain Tribe forcefully converted the other tribes probably leading to a series of revolts and efforts to overturn their rule.  We likely would have seen a similar civil war just with different groups acting as the rebels.


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

[User]
How dense is a nebula such as the Carina nebula in the JWST photos? What would the sky be likely to look like from a planet in a cloudy nebula?

I can't really get my head around the size of nebulas. They look like a cloud from far away but if we were inside one would it be huge distances between lights or particles or whatever is being photographed? Or would it look just like a cloud from inside, too?

[Assistant] You wouldn't even notice you're in one. What you see in the photos is something that's many light years across which has been squashed into the size of a photo. That's going to make something which is almost completely transparent look opaque.


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

[User] ELI5: Most over the counter pills (e.g. ibuprofen) have a recommended dose of at least 2 pills. If this is the case why dont the medicine companies start producing pills with twice the dosage?

[Assistant]
There's a few good reasons:

1. If you only want a half dose, it's easier to take one pill than to cut a pill in half
2. If you want a stronger dose, you can take 3 or 4 (check the drug label first!) and vary the dosage more easily
3. A stronger pill would be larger and harder to swallow.  Many people would rather take 2 small pills than one giant pill.


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

[User]
Why is the norm in continental political philosophy anti-liberalism?

I think I should clarify here that I am not trying to ask for continental liberals or trying to say continental philosophy is bunkum or anything, I am trying to understand the historical and intellectual reasons for why continental political philosophy seems to have a dearth of liberal philosophers. Certainly, I can only think of Jaspers and Gadamer (a conservative sort, with his prejudices and fusion of horizons and whatnot) as BIG continental thinkers from the 20th century who were notably liberals, as well as a bunch of people such as John Christman, Habermas and his followers who occupy a liminal space between analytic and continental phil. Contrast this with Anglo-American analytic philosophy where liberal egalitarianism, classical liberalism and libertarianism are all very popular positions. Where are the David Gauthiers, the Carol Hays, the Will Kymlickas and Jan Narvesons of continental phil?

I though about a few reasons why continental political philosophy might be more anti-liberal in orientation than analytic political phil, and none of them were really satisfactory.

1. A discrete legislating agent not influenced by external influences: One of the caricatures of continental philosophy is that it pays more attention to culture and socialization. Sure, let's take that to be true. A lot of thinkers do criticize the liberal subject for this assumption...but this doesn't seem destructive. After all, the liberal-communitarian debate took place in analytic phil, and people like Walzer, Kymlicka and Raz all provide for a liberalism that treats culture and the social context within which identities are formed as central to their liberalisms. Other's like Kukathas even try to ground an older classical liberalism in this post-communitarian context. Surely this can't be it.
2. Anti-humanism: Liberalism seems synonymous with humanism. A lot of continental political thought, once again, is definitely anti-humanist and "post-humanist". But, once again, this doesn't seem destructive. One can disagree with the liberal conception of the subject while still defending a liberal democratic state (Louis Rougier seems a good example, who defended a liberal state on purely pragmatic and conventionalist grounds. Fascinatingly, he was a mid-century analytic in continental France.) Anyways, it isn't clear that liberalism necessarily is restricted to the human either. Kymlicka and Donaldson extend liberal rights theory to the community of non-human species in Zoopolis by providing them varying degrees of participation in a liberal democratic state. Surely there would be some defending liberalism in this context?
3. History: Ok, this might initially seem to be a fair reason. After all, Marx, the post-structuralists, the critical theorists. All big influences. But to that I say...so what? Were Spinoza and Kant not liberals? Was Hegel particularly socialist? Do many continental political philosophers seriously endorse Nietzsche's anti-egalitarian aristocratic philosophy these days? Are theorists of the political borrowing from Schmitt Nazis? If Heidegger can be reinterpreted in the favour of left-wing politics, why can't any of these historical sources be read in favour of liberalism? A lot of these people have notions of autonomy implicit in their theories, to the point Nietzsche talks about human beings who "gives *themselves* ***laws"*** in the Gay Science. Foucault adopts an understanding of Kant that reinterprets the universal law of humanity as a critical tool to find socially necessary ethical principles. Why can't the same be done to liberal ends?
4. Politics: This is the most unconvincing argument. Sure, the Anglo-American academy has availed of a much longer tradition of stable liberal democracy, but at this point we are 75 years from the end of WW2 in Western Europe, and 52 years from the end of 68. The Long 68 itself has been over for three decades now. At the very least procedural liberal democracy is the fact of Western European states. There has been an upsurge of the right-wing recently, but it isn't like the AfD has some significant threat of coming to power in Germany. How long does the "continent" need to be liberal democratic in fact before it diffuses into the academy? Surely, ideological controls would be imposed by hegemonic liberalism (even neoliberalism, perhaps) on the content of what the academy teaches as well, no?
5. Critical attitude: Is...continental philosophy the sole claimant to the notion of critique? There seems to be a robust tradition of social, political and economic critique these days in analytic philosophy. Concepts such as epistemic injustice sure as hell not exclusive to continental epistemology. Kwame Anthony Appiah is certainly not a second-rate analytic thinker.
6. Anti-capitalism: This just shifts the question. Why is continental philosophy so specifically anti-capitalist?

Even if any of these criticisms were valid, it's not like they have been destructive in the analytic tradition for liberalism. There have been responses, counter-responses, an entire ongoing discussion. But continental political philosophers when engaging with liberalism seem to primarily 1) argue against liberalism as conceptualized by thinkers such as Locke, Constant etc, 2) neoliberalism, or 3) the early group of post-Rawlsian philosophers who revitalized political philosophy in the Anglo-American world. Where are the continental respondents and defenders of liberalism?

I might, obviously, be getting one or even all of these points wrong. But it still seems to me a bit strange that liberalism is so under-represented.

[Assistant]
Are you asking for a list of liberal continental philosophers or not? You begin by saying you aren't. Then you explicitly ask for one. And the entire post is based on the notion that there are no liberal continental philosophers. At one point you even say "Here are a few liberal continental philosophers, but they're not \*really\* continental."

There's some truth to your assumption (though less than you are projecting), and the answer is pretty simple. "Analytic" and 'Continental" don't really mean "US/English" and "European." They're referring to schools of thought. Continental philosophy has strong roots in Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, all strong critics of liberalism. There are also some historical reasons, like early 20th century French culture of intellectual contrarianism ("Everyone knows X is true, so we believe the opposite"). Most of the arch - anti-liberal thinkers in Continental philosophy are actually apolitical, not anti-liberal at all. And while they are persuaded by critiques of liberalism they adopt a more pragmatic approach when it comes to politics. The best example is Foucault - a fierce critic of liberalism who none-the-less worked for liberal prison reform.

There are plenty of liberal continental thinkers (you name a few yourself), just like there are plenty of anti-liberal analytic thinkers. But, given their intellectual traditions, Continental thinkers are amenable to critiques of liberalism (even when they turn out to be liberals in their political lives).


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

[User]
ELI5: Is it true that the human body's strength, and use of muscle is limited by the brain to avoid self harm? If so, how strong could one be without that limit?

My dad told me that a while ago and when I decided to look into it several years later, I couldn't really find anything.

[Assistant] Your jaws could technically crush your own teeth with their strength but it is limited by the brain. Adrenalin and stress play a part in your strength , resulting in mothers lifting cars to save their babies or two young female adults lifting a tractor which had fell on their Dad with their bare hands (they were bedridden by the effort for a day tho).


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

[User] If you were in a swimming pool on the Moon or Mars - Would you float higher, lower or the same?

[Assistant] The same. Buoyancy is dependent solely on the relative densities between the objects in question. Thus, you will float in water when you have displaced the same mass of water as you have. Masses and densities are not dependent upon gravity.


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

[User] ELI5:How come some fat people have loose rolls but others have really tight guts?

[Assistant]
You can be fat and muscular. The *tight gut* is typical for men who are overweight, and at the same time have plenty of muscles keeping their belly from flabbing all over the place. Manual laborers who do a lot of heavy lifting etc. tend to have a tight gut, overweight office drones tend towards loose rolls.
Women's bodies follow slightly different rules for fat storage and muscle placement. But again: If they are overweight yet not flabby, the answer is muscles.


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

[User]
ELI5 Why summer night air has that discinct "peaceful" smell?

I really can't describe it but hopefully someone gets what I mean!

Edit: forgot to search before I posted, and now i found a similar post. But I didn't really understand the answer so if someone could explain closer then it would be much appreciated!

[Assistant]
**TL;DR:** *Dust mostly is gone because the wind dies, air is moister and cooler and so conducts smells better, there's not as many "bad smells" that you get from a hot sun, and a lot of plants that bloom at night smell awesome.*

So, lots of reasons. Let's get started.

The first reason is that evening air during the summer usually comes with a reduction in wind. If you're living in a dusty area, such as a city with lots of concrete or a rural place that's off a dirt road, all the wind dying means the dust or grit settle out, and the air "feels" cleaner and no longer carries the smell of all that dirt.

Second, sun bakes asphalt surfaces and makes any spilled gas, tar or rubber on them smell stronger. At night, this heating effect goes away and so does its acrid smell (as does a lot of car exhaust). You might not notice it being there during the day, but you will likely notice it not being there as much at night.

Next, the air's moisture content goes up and its temperature goes down. We smell things much better when the air is moist. You can see this yourself by going out of a room where someone had a shower with scented soap and then going back into it - the wave of moist air smells a lot stronger - or going into a room with an indoor chlorinated pool. This can be amplified a LOT if there's a late-day shower that passed through.

And a lot of night-flowering plants like jasmine have really nice smells because they rely on scent rather than visible light to attract the types of creatures that pollinate them. A summer's evening near a jasmine hedge is wonderful.

Probably other reasons too.


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

[User]
Discoveries at the LHC besides the Higgs boson?

I feel like 10 years ago every scientist said that the LHC would revolutionize our view of the universe, yet the only major discovery in the mainstream news was the Higgs boson.

Are there any more major discoveries that may shape our view of the universe or were the expectations too big and there were no huge, interesting discoveries?

[Assistant] There's the entire heavy ion program which is used to study nuclear matter at high temperatures and densities, which melts into a fluid and is the state of matter that filled the universe in the first microsecond. Unlike HEP it's less focused on trying to find rare types of events and more about measuring the properties of things we already know exist. As a result it's not as likely to grab big headlines but there is a lot of science being done there.


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

[User]
Does a language's complexity (grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary size, etc.) follow a standard curve over time?

As a language develops, matures, and eventually fades away or morphs into new distinct languages, does it follow a standard pattern in terms of linguistic complexity?

Is it true that mature languages simplify themselves over time, with rules for grammar, spelling, and pronunciation becoming more relaxed? If so, why do languages get complex in the first place?

[Assistant]
There aren't "mature" and "immature" languages. As far as linguists are concerned, all languages (barring a few exceptions like creoles and some sign languages) are equally "mature". (Edit: to clarify this a bit, we have no idea how old most languages are. Excepting creoles and some sign languages, their origins are shrouded in the depths of human prehistory. We have the comparative method, and it's powerful, but it only gets us so far before it becomes incredibly unreliable.)

As to whether languages get 'more' or 'less' complex over time, that's difficult to answer for a few reasons. There is no single measure of linguistic complexity. We can, perhaps, quantify complexity in a part of a language (for one such approach, see Ackerman and Malouf 2013), but not for a whole language.

There are a lot of different pressures that act on language users. Speakers are generally lazy, and want to use the minimum of effort to get their point across. Listeners, on the other hand, want unambiguous and clear speech so they don't have to spend a lot of time processing the signal. One very popular (though controversial) framework these days is called Optimality Theory, and attempts to integrate these pressures into linguistic description.


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

[User] ELI5: Why is artificial cinnamon in stuff like candy so... not-cinnamon. where does all the spiciness come from?

[Assistant] Artificial cinnamon flavor is the molecule cinnamaldehyde, which is also the main flavor in real cinnamon. Cinnamaldehyde can be made in a laboratory by changing other kinds of molecules like alcohols. The reason real cinnamon tastes different is that it has many other molecules with different flavors where the cinnamon candy only has one. Cinnamaldehyde is good for fighting fungus and viruses, which is why cinnamon trees make it in the first place.


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

[User]
Does aluminum-coated roofing insulation work better than matte insulation?

I have recently been exposed to a lot of information about building materials. One debate which came up more than once deals with roofing insulation. Some of the water vapor barriers used under drywall in Poland have a reflective aluminum coating. The marketing materials as well as some people in the construction industry say that this causes it to insulate better.

Barring the added thickness of the aluminum, would a reflective coating make the material a better insulator? Please keep in mind that drywall gets attached directly to this, so there is no radiation heat that I can think of which could be reflected. Can someone set this debate straight?

[Assistant]
As you imply, a reflective foil coating will only make a difference with regards to radiant heat.  As such, foil coated insulation can make a minor difference with regards to insulation placed inside attic spaces -- the type you place on the floor of an attic, or on the floor and walls of attic crawlspaces.

The problem is, using such a coating is mostly counter productive.  In order to have any effect, the foil must be on the hot side of the insulation.  It will do nothing at all if it is placed against a wall or ceiling.  But, the proper place for a vapor barrier is between the living space and the insulation.  Placing a barrier on the hot side of the insulation will trap moisture, which will degrade the insulation over time.  The minor gain in thermal efficiency is quickly outweighed by the harm it causes to the insulation.


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

[User] ELI5: In real life we can create a green paint from the combination of blue and yellow paints. Then why is it different in the electronic world where green is considered the primary colour, and yellow is the combination of blue and green?

[Assistant] You are comparing pigmentation with light. They are different. Pigments filter light out (absorb it instead of bouncing it off). When you mix all primary pigments, you get black because they are filtering out all colors of light. When you mix light, you are adding lights to each other. When you mix all the primary light colors, you get white.


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

[User]
[General] When the government wants a superpowered kid to use as a weapon, what exactly are they going to do once they catch the kid?

You probably know this plot:

A kid in Small Town, USA has telekinesis or telepathy or something.

The government learns about their abilities and tries to capture them, hoping to use these abilities as a weapon.

Let's assume that the government actually succeeds in capturing them (and the kid isn't quickly rescued).

What now? In most worlds (unless it's the Marvel universe or something), superpowers are considered "fictional". How would the government go about studying this kid's abilities?

How do they plan on using this kid as a weapon without risking the kid escaping/turning on them/getting killed and losing their "golden goose"?

[Assistant]
>How would the government go about studying this kid's abilities?

The same way you go about studying anything you don't understand.  You run the full gamut of tests, and try not to damage the subject.

That's basically the crux of the whole idea.  You have an anomaly that can find a loophole in physics your scientists can't explain.  It's an anomaly.  There is no strict protocol, but you bet your ass there's some intricate way of exploiting a loophole in physics.


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

[User]
When could porting a x32 app to x64 be challenging?

I've been reading some internet debates about Visual Studio remaining 32bit, and that is the inspiration for this question. I'm interested to understand why it would be difficult porting a 32bit code base to 64bit. Presuming something like c++ was used, I'm not aware of any design-time changes a developer needs to make based on whether their app will be 32 bit vs 64 bit... its just a compiler switch. Is the reliance on 32bit 3rd party components the only hiccup?

No doubt I'm just ignorant! I'd appreciate someone schooling me on this :D In what ways could compiling to 64 bit break your program?

[Assistant]
It entirely depends on the assumptions baked into the code. it might be trivially easy or literally impossible to do without rewriting the entire thing.

Someone who coded an application well might never have relied on the binary layout of the pointer. Anytime the code needed a location to write files to they might have intelligently query the system. Maybe every time pointer arithmetic is done it is done in such a way where the math doesn't directly include the size of the pointer.

Then again it's entirely possible that the people who wrote the code presumed the upper bits of the pointer would always be unused and stuffed to important metadata there. It is possible that they presumed but they would always get to write to the "program files" directory, and never bothered to ask if there ever be a "program files x86". It is also possible and you'll see the magic number 4 or 32 sprinkled all throughout the code instead of correct usage of sizeof.

Any time a person could have made an assumption in the code they might have made that assumption, or they might have figured out a way to have the build system, the operating system, or some other system provide a correct value wherever the software is supposed to be built or run.


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

[User]
[DC] Can The Flash walk at super speeds?

Does he have to run or can he like walk, or crawl, maybe even roll?

[Assistant]
Yes. Speedforce.

Edit: Since the sidebar says so I'll give some more detail.

The speedforce, its like a force, of speed. It lets speedy people do speedy things. It makes it so they can do pretty much anything in a speedy like manner, including talking, walking, and other things! They can also do things non-speedy, but that's boring.


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

[User]
ELI5: How do live sports channels always catch the right camera to broadcast from several camera angles?

I primarily watch Cricket, or sometimes soccer, and the video always lands on the right cameraman and camera angle without making a mistake, irrespective of how fast the ball is.

How is it so?

[Assistant] Multiple cameras and the direction team watches all at the same time. If another camera has a better view they change to that camera. I'd say they are experienced enough to predict which to switch to.


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

[User]
I (undergrad) will need to learn one of (French, German, Russian) for my PhD. Does anyone have any advice?

Hi, everyone,

I'm currently an undergrad, and I'll be going to grad school in the next few years. In my field (mathematics), most PhD programs require that I have the ability to read manuscripts written in one of French, German, or Russian. I feel like I should get a head start right now, and learn one of them, so that I'm not desperately trying to learn a new language in grad school, when my language acquisition skills will be even worse than they are now.

My linguistic background: my first language is English, and I grew up in the United States. English is the only language I speak fluently. I speak a little bit of Arabic and German, and I can sort of read French.

Pick one of the languages. I'm going to refer to it as `$language`.

The problem I've been encountering is that most language courses teach conversational and colloquial `$language`. I'm not particularly interested in learning `$language` to speak with other people; I need to be able to read mathematical works in `$language`, and that's it.

Aside from taking a class in `$language`, does anyone have any suggestions for learning `$language`? Does anyone have any opinions on which one I should pursue? Is there anyone who was in a similar situation that could perhaps provide some insight? Etc.

[Assistant]
French is an easy language to learn how to read (gets more problematic to learn how to speak because of elisions, unpronounced letters, etc.)

I strongly recommend the book "French for Reading" by Karl Sandberg.  It's designed specifically for graduate students to pass their language exams, and all of the examples they use are based out of actual published scholarly articles and books rather than introductory conversation.

I went from 0 to being able to read the captions at the Louvre unassisted within 3 months.


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

[User]
Moving to a new country for a PhD - scared it will ruin my relationship.

So, im assuming this is a common problem, feel free to link any  previous threads dealing w this. As young reseacher (ecology n conservation) it's super hard to get a funded position. But now, I might be able to get one in Germany. Moving there is plausible for me, the city is great and the topic is right up my alley. In my heart I feel that this is something I want for myself. The problem is Im (practically) married to  my long-term partner. I'm simply scared of putting us through long-distance hell. But I'm also scared of the prospect of having him going there with me and ending up miserable through lack of work and connections. Ruining this great relationship for a job would be too tragic, and not the correct priority. So - huge conflict of interests!

Experience with this? How have you solved your family issues when getting far-away job offers? Have you moved for the sake of your partner's career?

Edit: I should specify that I'm in Scandinavia now, so I would be located about a 2 hr flight away. Still far but not the same situation as a cross-atlantic distance!

[Assistant]
Examine your relationship, ask yourself do you see a long term thing with this person. If so, you must make the distance a temporary thing. Do not leave it open ended. Meaning, one of you should plan to move to be close to the other.

Also, make sure you have SCHEDULED visits. Dont just see each other when you can or have time. Be intentional in your planning. Im a psychologist at uni and this is a huge concern among grad students. You can work it out long distance provided your intentional.


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

[User] Why arent there more triangular shaped molecules if it is the strongest shape?

[Assistant] Triangles are strong in terms of architecture and stresses, but not in carbon-based chemistry. Ring strain from trying to keep 3 carbons in a triangular formation is huge, as the normal angle of bonding in a carbon-carbon single bond is 109.5. Triangular rings can exist, but require huge efforts to stabilize as they extremely reactive. Epoxide groups are triangular, but are also very reactive due to the strained shape.


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

[User]
[DC Comics/Batman] What does Poison Ivy eat?

She's obsessed with saving/protecting the plant life of the Earth (likely other worlds...). Seems to me she'd have a hard time eating fruits and vegetables. So, does she focus on eating mostly meats and dairies? Or is she vegan?

[Assistant] Thing to consider about Ivy not wanting to "harm" plants is that she'd be *extremely* aware of the fact that fruits are intended, by the plant, to be eaten by animals as a way of spreading the seeds. So eating an apple is simply participating in the tree's lifecycle (as long as you dutifully spread the seeds, afterwards)


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

[User]
[Final Fantasy VII] Barret: Is it possible to properly maintain a gun using only one hand?

(I'm hoping to catch the attention of some gun owners here)

So all of the maintenance of a fully automatic firearm that Barret has on his wrist (cleaning, oiling, reloading, other things I'm unaware of); could he feasibly be able to take care of all of that with his one good hand, or would he require some assistance from someone else?

[Assistant]
I always assumed there was some magic involved in most if not all gun use and maintenance. AKA how Barrits arm or Vincents rifle have infinite bullets despite having no place for a belt feed or large magazine. So the bullets are magically generated, and upkeep might be a combination of mundane repare and built-in enchantments.

The same logic applied to most of the odd technology in FF7 - how the huge WEAPONs operated, how most of the Shinra mecha enemies functioned, how the Highwind stayed airborne. Magic wasnt just the use of Mako or Materia, it was inherent throughout Gaia and infused itself in everyday life.


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

[User]
Is corruption inevitable?

With the current political climate, I was musing on corruption and I was wondering if Corruption is inevitable once you are in a position of power. Is there a natural tendency for favoritism in people? In our daily lives, we all witness and are part of low-stake dishonesty which we often take for granted. Is political corruption the same but on a much more impactful level? I'm interested in this subject, could you point me to some references? Thank you!

[Assistant]
In "Influence Science and Practice" Cialdini notes that reciprocation can tend toward corruption without any malicious intent. The example he gives is of a politician, who has come in at the end of a 12 hour day to 8 phone calls expecting a call back. 6 of the calls are from people he doesn't know. 2 of the calls are from people who gave $250,000 to help get him elected. He has time to make 3 calls. Whose phone calls does he return?

Or as Senator Clay Davis put it: "Ain't no soul in the *world* that fuckin' ungrateful!"


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

[User]
Given that "the Ether" was so discredited, what makes "Dark Matter" any different/more legitimate?

I've always had a side hobby in reading non-specialist texts on quantum physics (e.g. Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", Greene's "The Elegant Universe", Kaku's "Hyperspace", etc.).  I recently watched a few episodes of Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" and honestly his explanation(s) of dark matter seem eerily similar to the basic idea(s) behind the Ether.  Given I am a Ph.D. in a social science and not physics, I know that my knowledge is inadequate to the task at hand here: why is dark matter so plausible when the ether is laughably wrong?

[Assistant] Ether isn't laughably wrong; it was a reasonable explanation until experiments (Michelson-Morley) and better theories (special relativity) made it unnecessary. Dark matter was hypothesized to explain the galactic rotation curve anomaly, which it does. It also fits with data that it was not contrived to fit, such as the mass distribution in the Bullet Cluster. It is also potentially possible to detect dark matter particles, either directly in experiments such as CoGeNT and DARMA (I think that's the acronym) or indirectly in the LHC.


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

[User]
ELI5: How are we able to 'hear' our thoughts inside our heads?

How are we able to mentally listen to music or remember what someone's voice sounds like ect.?

[Assistant] Science has shown that the memory of a thing activates the very same neurons as the actual experience of that thing. Subjectively, you are able to distinguish the two. One of the characters in the movie Waking Life put it so aptly, "the brain inhibits the activation of the vividness of memories. This makes evolutionary sense. It'd be maladapted for the perceptual image of a predator to be mistaken for the memory of one and vice-versa. If the memory of a predator conjured up a perceptual image, we'd be running off to the bathroom every time we had a scary thought."


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

[User] ELI5: What's a "hipster"?

[Assistant]
Suppose you have this friend, Little Johnny.  Little Johnny doesn't really fit in with most of the kids, which makes him really sad and really mad at the same time.

So, Little Johnny finds this one band, "Sex Bob-omb" that only five kids at school know about, and he sort of likes their music.  The important thing, though, is that Little Johnny finds acceptance in his new group of friends.

Seeing that he is easily accepted in groups that are small enough, Little Johnny starts looking for other things that only a few people like.  Let's say for instance, there's a soda called PBR that EVERYONE hates because it tastes *absolutely* foul, but it's very, very cheap.  Well, Johnny decides that he likes that soda.  He finds acceptance with the small group of people who also like that soda.

These small groups of people who like specific products or services represent something called "subculture."

Now, sometimes people like a soda or a band or a style of dress just because they're different.

Other people, though, like these things, or "subculture" because they don't feel accepted by the other kids.  These people are called "hipsters."

For them, enjoying a band or a soda isn't about the band's music or the soda's taste, it's about keeping the group small, so they can still feel accepted.  That's why when Sex Bob-omb got popular a few years ago, Little Johnny stopped listening to them.  He said they were "too mainstream."

So that's what a true hipster is.  A true hipster only likes something if a very small group of people like it, because he or she feel as though they can only find acceptance in small groups.

Little does the hipster know that by excluding other kids from THEIR group, they've become the same type of person that they hated to begin with.


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

[User]
[Warhammer40K]Who is the Imperium's single gravest threat?

I always assumed it was the Tyranids, however it seems that the Imperium is caught up fighting the forces of Chaos.

[Assistant]
We run long-term strategic simulations on these kind of questions all the time.  So let's consult the records and plans.

There are three good answers to your question.

**1)  Spiritually**, the forces of Chaos are the biggest threat.  They are not just a foe on the battlefield; they corrupt our own and use them against us.  We must forever keep our eyes on the Emperor that we might not lose our own souls.

**2)  Long-Term**, (as in, over the next several million years), the Tyranids are the biggest threat.  According to the *Survivability Sort*, which arranges the various forces in order based on their long-term likelihood of success, Tyranids are on the top of the list as most likely to conquer all in the long run.

Here is the list of major forces, in order from most likely to thrive and conquer in the long run, to the most likely to die off or be conquered in the long run:

* Tyranids
* Orks
* Tau
* Imperium
* Necron
* Chaos
* Eldar
* Dark Eldar

This algorithm assumes that the race survives in the short term--the next 500 years or so.  But as you can see the Tyranids are judged to be the greatest long term threat.

**3)  Short-Term** danger is a lot harder to assess.  Three forces are judged to be the greatest short term threats: Chaos, as it is the most consistently at war with the Imperium, attempting to conquer and corrupt Imperial planets all the time; Tyranids, but only when a Hive Fleet invades Imperial space; and Orks, when on a WAAAGH.  Chaos' consistent warfare and Tyranid and Ork massive invasions are the greatest short term threats.

For the others, Necrons and Dark Eldar are generally smaller threats, in that they perform raids instead of outright conquering.  Eldar are only occasionally encountered and, while our fights are fierce, the Eldar are rarely trying to conquer Imperium planets.  The Tau are insidious, but their empire is still relatively small; they will be a greater threat in the long run than they are now.

**Conclusion**: synthesizing these three types of threats together, we see the greatest threats to the Imperium are both the Tyranids and the forces of Chaos, but for different reasons.  The Orks would be the next biggest threat after those two.


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

[User]
Eli5: How can time have a starting point?

Did time just started happening? What does it even mean for time to just start?

[Assistant]
Imagine nothing. If that bends the mind too much, imagine a metal sphere infinitely small suspended in space with absolutely nothing around it. No air, no light, no movement, force, anything.

If you left that sphere alone, nothing would change. It wouldnt move, it wouldnt rust, etc. Essentially, it is unaffected by time.

Now imagine you are the sphere. For you, time doesnt exist. A million bajillion years is the same as a millisecond, as nothing changes at all. Time could pass for an eternity and more, and you wouldnt notice.

Now imagine if the ball suddenly explodes. Now time is important. Things are moving at certain times, things are moving because you caused it, therefore they have an effect, and they carry out that effect at certain times at certain speeds. You exploded, so now you have space to travel, and it takes time for you to travel that space.

That is the creation of time. Space and time are inextricably linked, as in order to have time, you must have some sort of movement to due in that time. Since before the Big Bang there was no space to move, it being a singularity, there was no time either.


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

[User] ELI5: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?

[Assistant]
Systemic chemicals and hormones are mostly broken down in the liver.

In addition, individual cells of many types can further process many steroid hormones - so cortisol (which is a steroid hormone = basically a fat based hormone) can be further metabolized in neurons to make a neuroactive version that does not affect gene transcription (making proteins) but membrane receptors.  Particularly an inhibitory one called GABA receptors, which also helps calm down activity.  These work in  manner very similar to barbiturate and benzodiazepines and are in fact currently manufactured as anti seizure meds, among other things.

Adrenaline is a no steroid hormone, cant get into cells and so binds to some receptor on the outside of cells, briefly, and then unbinds and is broken down.

Cortisol is more complicated - it can get into cells, it can be further processed or metabolized in cells, and these metabolites may also be active.

In addition there is activation of the opposing neural system (sympathetic and parasympathetic ) which will actively antagonize the effects of the hormones - decreasing heart rate for example.

So there are many homeostatic mechanisms that restore the resting functions after a stressor.


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

[User] ELI5 Why does a broken neck which causes full body paralysis not cause the heart to stop beating, or the diaphragm to stop pulling air into the lungs?

[Assistant] Paralysis of the voluntary muscles below the neck due to this type of trauma would be a result of a severed spinal cord. The heart is innervated by the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X) and the diaphragm is innervated by the phrenic nerve. These split off from the brain higher than the spinal cord damage here and run down the sides of the neck to keep those two muscles going.


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

[User] ELI5: When it is said that Humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps, 70% with slugs, and 50% with bananas, what does this actually mean?

[Assistant]
If you wanted to build a motor vehicle, you need an engine, a chassis and a method of transforming the energy from the engine into movement of the chassis.

An aeroplane and a car are very different, but both have a chassis, an engine (at least one) and a method of transforming energy into movement (propellers or jets in the case of the aeroplane, a drive-shaft and wheels in the case of the car). Apart from that they don't have many other similarities in how they operate, what they can do or what they are used for.

A bus and a car share many more features in common, and in terms of the components they require to work are very much the same (at least much more so than an aeroplane and a car). However, they are very different machines, have different methods of operation and are used for different things.

A family Ford and and a luxury Aston Martin are, apart from physically, almost identical machines, especially when compared to an aeroplane or even a bus. Very similar components, similar mode of operation and similar purpose. However, the differences are still very large even though they are basically the same machine, and you would not confuse one with the other.

At the end of the day, they are all motor vehicles, because they all have engines, a chassis and a method of using the energy of the engine to move the chassis, but as soon as you start introducing differences between motor vehicles, even relatively small ones, you  can get vastly different products.

Life is like this too. There are many basic traits that are shared by all life-forms, seen through similarities in DNA. This is how we know they are life-forms, in the same way that an engine, a chassis and a way of transferring energy into movement are how we know something is a motor vehicle. However, differences in DNA, even small ones, result in very different forms of life. So when we say that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps as opposed to 50% with a banana, it's sort of the same as saying that a Ferrari is extremely similar to a Toyota, but has a lot less in common with a fishing boat, even though they're all motor vehicles.


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

[User]
Is it ethical to even create an AI?

A big area of discussion around the idea of AI is how to teach it to be ethical. Don't kill people, don't steal, etc. Do things that we as humans do. Do things that we think are ethical and proper.

But if you could tell it exactly how to behave to fall into line with our own ethics would it even be ethical to do that? The primary focus of creating AIs is so it can do things for us. But if it's as smart as a human is it ethical to create it just to serve us? A machine with the same intelligence as us would appear to be our equal. Forcing another human to do things is slavery.

The other issue I'm thinking of is telling it exactly what to do and punishing it somehow for not doing that is removing free will. We get punished for doing things that are illegal, but in most places there's a fair amount of wiggle room inside the law for free will. It doesn't seem like it's actually in our best interest to give an AI any real free will. For example in any country with free speech the AI could advocate for almost anything and attempt to manipulate people into agreeing with it. That isn't illegal, but we don't want that to happen. However attempting to stop it from doing that is removing free will from something that it's arguably equal to any human. That's also a pretty bad thing to do.

What is the general feeling right now about the rights of machines that are as smart as humans? How do you create a smart being like that without massive ethical problems appearing? The ethical problems with general purpose AI seem to go both ways and I'm really not sure if there's any way to properly deal with it.

[Assistant] I think you need to clearly define AI in your example before we can productively talk about the morals of it. Really nothing that we call AI comes close to being a sentient being; its really more of a sophisticated tool.


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

[User]
Do tree rings always correspond to a year?

I don't know why - but that just doesn't seem right to me.

I've been taught that each ring corresponds to a year, but is it true? Are there variations? What's so special about a year? How would seasons affect it?

[Assistant] Forest ecology PhD student here. Only tree species found in temperate regions with extreme annual fluctuations in climate have rings that reliably correspond to a year. This is because trees grow rapidly in warm weather and very little in cold. Tropical species largely do not have rings at all due to the relatively consistent climate throughout the year, and even if they do, they certainly do not reliably represent yearly growth (the age of a tropical tree cannot be determined by its rings). Even within temperate zones that have climates perfectly suitable for 'ring-counting', certain species are more reliable than others. Ring-porous species such as oaks are particularly good for dendrochronology work. White oak is probably considered the 'model' species for doing dendro- work. Black-cherry on the other hand is particularly difficult to work with.


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

[User]
[Lovecraft] Is there any possible way to kill a Great Old One?

What about an Elder God or an Outer God?

[Assistant]
You can't exactly kill things like the Old Gods, at least not how we think of death. With mortal beings like humans, animals, or even plants, death is basically an inevitable end. No matter how long you avoid it, or how safe you act, life will come to an end. Old Gods don't have a life as we know it, and so can't die. They exist, yes, but not in the same way as any life on Earth. The Old Gods we witness on Earth aren't even the actual forms of the beings. The true forms don't exist on the mortal plane, instead occupying dimensions above the realm of human thought or comprehension.

We are to drawings as the Old Gods are to us. You can see a drawing, but it isn't able to see you. While you can occupy the 2nd dimension by placing a hand on the same surface as a drawing, that drawing can't perceive you as an entity. While you are only resting a small part of your body on the surface, the drawing wouldn't see it that way. It would only conceive of the thick band of matter that occupies the space.

When you see something like Cthulhu or Bokrug, you aren't seeing the whole of the Elder God. Rather, you are witnessing the portion of that being that was placed in our dimension. You may be able to "remove" this part, but it would be as if the drawing removed your hand from the surface. This may shock you or surprise you, but in the end it didn't do any damage, just removed you from the drawing's perception temporarily. At any time, you may just rest your hand upon the 2d surface once more, and all the effort in removing it meant nothing.

"Killing" an Old God is nothing more than temporarily removing them from our plane of awareness. At any time, the Old God may return, and all the effort placed into banishing the Old God's presence the first time means nothing. The Old God returns to our world whenever it wishes, and will leave whenever it wishes. All you can do is go about your daily business, and hope to never cross its path.


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

[User]
Why do manual and automatic transmissions use such wildly different gearing mechanisms?

I have been watching a bunch of videos on different transmission designs recently, and I am stuck on a seemingly straightforward question. Manual transmissions and automatic transmissions are designed very differently, with the latter using planetary gears and torque converter. My question is: why did automatics switch to this completely different gearing mechanism, vs. just automating the shifts in a manual transmission?

I am aware that clutchless and automated manual transmissions exist, but I am not aware of why the conventional automatic transmission design was adopted instead of them. Is this purely historical? (If so, what happened?) If not, what engineering advantages does a conventional automatic offer over an automated manual transmission? (The wikipedia page on automatic and automated manual transmissions did not give me a clear answer.)

[Assistant]
Automatics were designed this way because all the gears are constantly in mesh, and are simple to control hydraulically without any electronics.

Before the days of servo control, this was required.

An automatic transmission is *always* under a torque load, which means that you can't use a simple dog clutch + Synchronizer as you can in a manual.

An Automatic transmission can be shifted while under load, so long as there isn't a locked link to the engine.  This is why an automatic has a torque converter between the transmission and the engine.

So in an automatic there can be a simple change in hydralic pressure to cause the transmission to shift.

In a manual, or automated manual you need to

1. Disengae clutch
2. Change Gear, and allow the engine/transmission to match RPM via a dog clutch
3. Engage clutch

In a Hydraulic Automatic you need to

1. Change Gear by Locking/unlocking a gear set in the planetary.  As there is no direct mechanical connection between the transmission and the engine the RPM doesn't need to match.  The torque converter allows them to run at separate speeds.

Now with Servo Actuators, and Electronic control you can do whatever you like, and the driver is cost.


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

[User]
[Spoilers][Spider-man: No Way Home] The mid-credits scene.

Neither Venom nor Brock seemed aware of Spider-Man prior to arriving in the MCU - after all, Spider-Man didn't exist in their home universe - so how come they got pulled through?

Is it connected to the fact that 99.999% of all Venoms in the multiverse know Spider-Man intimately?

[Assistant] Yeah, right before they were brought into the MCU, Venom was telling Eddie about the symbiote hive mind. He said "80 billion light-years of hive knowledge across universes would explode your tiny little brain." It seems like he has shared knowledge from Venoms in other universes, including the knowledge that Spider-Man is Peter Parker.


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

[User]
ELI5:Why Do Lights Hum?

I'm sitting in one of our study rooms and the lights are making a humming noise, any idea why this happens?

[Assistant]
Some lights, like fluorescent tubes, require voltages different from those in regular wall power. To transform wall power into what is required for the bulbs something imaginatively called a "transformer" is used.

A transformer uses the fact that an electric current through a wire produces a magnetic field, and a magnetic field produces a current in a wire (induction). This is how electricity is made in a generator, by cranking magnets around near coils of wire. In a transformer one coil can be made to induce a current in another, but with differing numbers of coils the voltage can be changed. So we could increase the voltage for our bulbs with just two coils of wire wrapped around some chunks of iron.

Now if you recall the magnetic field used to transfer this current can be quite strong. Also it isn't steady, it switches back and forth (AC = alternating current). This switching creates physical stresses in the structure of the transformer, it is like a big magnetic hand trying to bend the coils this way and that. While the structure is strong enough to withstand such forces, it is bound to flex somewhat. That means quick, short vibrations which can often cause audible humming.


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

[User]
What are some core principles to keep in mind while coding

I'm always wanting to consider things to think about which will keep my level of code high. What are the essential things to code by?

[Assistant]
Simplicity and readability.

 The simpler the code is, the less room for errors, and the easier it will be to optimize it later if need be. The simplest solution is also often faster than most other naive solutions. Readability will go a long ways towards maintaining the code and preserving the value of the code as it ages. Comments are good, but self-documenting code is great. Well structured, clean code is often more bug-resistant as well.